Please provide one single link where the players demanded 100% of revenues.

The owners are proposing a 54-46% split of revenues in their favor, which means they want more than half of the money. They also want to redefine the meaning of hockey revenue to make the pot smaller to begin with. They want to require a player's right to be held longer by a team, to limit his ability to earn more at an earlier age. The owners make these demands while their spokesman has touted the financial health and well being of the league, saying it's never been more profitable in it's 100+ year history

Under the old system, the players were employees, getting paid at whatever rate they could get. Now, they are limited to 57% of CBA defined "hockey revenue" A portion of their salary goes into escrow and gets held from them to ensure the split.
- Jsaquella

So what do you think the players should do?

Thats the real world. The person with the most money has the power. I agree with what your saying but the owners really have the power here. I think the players have the right to fight it but in the end its better for both parties to agree on something in the middle.
- stveshdy

It is better to agree somewhere in the middle. But at the same time, the less revenue goes to the players, the better the chance that the quality of the league drops.

Say the NHL goes to 5 year EL deals, with no UFA for ten years. That will have an effect on European talent coming over to play in the NHL, which will make the league not as good.

Kids in Sweden, Finland and Russia don't grow up dreaming of winning Stanley Cups, for the most part. They come over because they can make more money here than at home.

Danny Briere I made you a multi-millionaire because you can shoot the puck better than most people. Not because you are smart, genius, math-wiz, etc. Are you grateful?
- 2Real

This would really be a (frank)ed up Country if some neanderthal who sits in a press box had a higher salary than the man who runs the Country. Imagine if that was the case?

I disagree about the Sutter brothers comment. If a team wants the game more, they'll most likely win. Look at the Devils/Flyers in the playoffs. Flyers were much better than those piss poor Devils. Devils just wanted it more.
- 2Real

The Devils also had a healthier team with some talented players.

Please provide one single link where the players demanded 100% of revenues.

The owners are proposing a 54-46% split of revenues in their favor, which means they want more than half of the money. They also want to redefine the meaning of hockey revenue to make the pot smaller to begin with. They want to require a player's right to be held longer by a team, to limit his ability to earn more at an earlier age. The owners make these demands while their spokesman has touted the financial health and well being of the league, saying it's never been more profitable in it's 100+ year history

Under the old system, the players were employees, getting paid at whatever rate they could get. Now, they are limited to 57% of CBA defined "hockey revenue" A portion of their salary goes into escrow and gets held from them to ensure the split.
- Jsaquella

I'm just surprised they think they're entitled to any of it is all.

This would really be a (frank)ed up Country if some neanderthal who sits in a press box had a higher salary than the man who runs the Country. Imagine if that was the case?
- PLindbergh31

oh wait...

The Devils also had a healthier team with some talented players.
- Jsaquella

ug blah blah Crosby broken foot blah blah

So what do you think the players should do?
- stveshdy

I think the NHL should use a luxury tax system. Set a low threshold, say $50mm, and if teams spend over that, they get taxed, dollar for dollar. Use that tax to help the teams that struggle to make money.

That's the real issue, not how much of the pot the players make-it's the income disparity between teams like Phoenix, Nashville and Florida and the New York, Philly and Detroits who can spend freely.

The Flyers made money when the players' salaries were taking 75% of league hockey revenue.

It is better to agree somewhere in the middle. But at the same time, the less revenue goes to the players, the better the chance that the quality of the league drops.

Say the NHL goes to 5 year EL deals, with no UFA for ten years. That will have an effect on European talent coming over to play in the NHL, which will make the league not as good.

Kids in Sweden, Finland and Russia don't grow up dreaming of winning Stanley Cups, for the most part. They come over because they can make more money here than at home.
- Jsaquella

This is why people stay away from Russians, especially goalies.

I'm just surprised they think they're entitled to any of it is all.
- 2Real

I'm surprised you don't understand that the owners were the ones who demanded the revenue sharing split that's in place now.

I think the NHL should use a luxury tax system. Set a low threshold, say $50mm, and if teams spend over that, they get taxed, dollar for dollar. Use that tax to help the teams that struggle to make money.

That's the real issue, not how much of the pot the players make-it's the income disparity between teams like Phoenix, Nashville and Florida and the New York, Philly and Detroits who can spend freely.

The Flyers made money when the players' salaries were taking 75% of league hockey revenue.
- Jsaquella

then let the free market weed out the teams that don't belong quit restricting it

It is better to agree somewhere in the middle. But at the same time, the less revenue goes to the players, the better the chance that the quality of the league drops.

Say the NHL goes to 5 year EL deals, with no UFA for ten years. That will have an effect on European talent coming over to play in the NHL, which will make the league not as good.

Kids in Sweden, Finland and Russia don't grow up dreaming of winning Stanley Cups, for the most part. They come over because they can make more money here than at home.
- Jsaquella

The first proposal is going to have high demands. The players union will counter that offer with what they believe is fair. The problem is the owners still hold the power. They will decide when we play hockey. The players can sit out and those billionaires will still find other ways to make money. Owners seem to always get the better end of the deal but the real losers in this is the fans.

I'm surprised you don't understand that the owners were the ones who demanded the revenue sharing split that's in place now.
- Jsaquella

I said they were giving them a privilege and like any party it comes to and end at some point .

I said they were giving them a privilege and like any party it comes to and end at some point .
- 2Real

Without the good players, the owners don't have the privilege of charging $100 for tickets and $20 to park.

When the Phantoms played in the Spectrum, they used to hang a cloth over the upper deck seats, because they couldn't sell out the building...and they were charging about 25% of the cost of a NHL ticket.

It's a two way street. People won't pay top dollar to see Led Zeppelin with a guy from a cover band singing

I think the NHL should use a luxury tax system. Set a low threshold, say $50mm, and if teams spend over that, they get taxed, dollar for dollar. Use that tax to help the teams that struggle to make money.

That's the real issue, not how much of the pot the players make-it's the income disparity between teams like Phoenix, Nashville and Florida and the New York, Philly and Detroits who can spend freely.

The Flyers made money when the players' salaries were taking 75% of league hockey revenue.
- Jsaquella

So do you believe it will be a 50/50 split between players and owners? I don't see that happening.

Without the good players, the owners don't have the privilege of charging $100 for tickets and $20 to park.

When the Phantoms played in the Spectrum, they used to hang a cloth over the upper deck seats, because they couldn't sell out the building...and they were charging about 25% of the cost of a NHL ticket.

It's a two way street. People won't pay top dollar to see Led Zeppelin with a guy from a cover band singing
- Jsaquella

Some owners cant do that even with great players. The market determines the price.

As an expert in economics and finance, I would love to opine on this topic. However, doing so would probably have some members calling me names. If anyone is intereted, let me know.

As an expert in economics and finance, I would love to opine on this topic. However, doing so would probably have some members calling me names. If anyone is intereted, let me know.
- Daman

Lets hear it...

So do you believe it will be a 50/50 split between players and owners? I don't see that happening.
- stveshdy

I think it will be close to a 50-50 split. Let's face it, the owners opening offer was 4% less than a 50-50 split.

The key is likely to be UFA age, EL deal length and defining "hockey revenue". That last one is huge, because the owners not only want a bigger cut of the pie, they want to reduce the overall size of the pie.

Some owners cant do that even with great players. The market determines the price.
- stveshdy

That's true as well. I'd be all for moving teams that consistently can't turn a profit where they are.

I think it will be close to a 50-50 split. Let's face it, the owners opening offer was 4% less than a 50-50 split.

The key is likely to be UFA age, EL deal length and defining "hockey revenue". That last one is huge, because the owners not only want a bigger cut of the pie, they want to reduce the overall size of the pie.
- Jsaquella

I hate to say this but I think the league is headed for a lockout.

That's true as well. I'd be all for moving teams that consistently can't turn a profit where they are.
- Jsaquella

I think that would help the league. Having teams in cities that dont have any type of market and consistantly losing money makes no sense to me.

Without the good players, the owners don't have the privilege of charging $100 for tickets and $20 to park.

When the Phantoms played in the Spectrum, they used to hang a cloth over the upper deck seats, because they couldn't sell out the building...and they were charging about 25% of the cost of a NHL ticket.

It's a two way street. People won't pay top dollar to see Led Zeppelin with a guy from a cover band singing
- Jsaquella

I pay for Philadelphia Flyers hockey.

As an expert in economics and finance, I would love to opine on this topic. However, doing so would probably have some members calling me names. If anyone is intereted, let me know.
- Daman

i speak my mind and get called names all the time

just do it

I hate to say this but I think the league is headed for a lockout.
- stveshdy

It may well be. I don't think it will cost another season, though. The owners have too much guaranteed money at stake in the NBC deal and the risk of doing irreparable harm to the league.