FIRST!!!















Any Habs rumours?!?














Nuff said
- Skalapy

Goldmez will suck more the next season that is played.

Nash back with the bj's
- Skalapy

can he pitch?

Goldmez will suck more the next season that is played.
- glove_was_stuck

That is the first piece of information on here that you cannot argue with.

can he pitch?
- drexel

He's a catcher

we all know they will end up signing with a 50/50 revenue sharing agreement. The fact that the owners are willing to use the current NRR and have increased the % to the players from their previous proposal is a big step forward. Hopefully it is enough to get the players to starts negotiating on that basis and work closer to an agreement. Time to negotiate and stop whining to the media every 5min (both sides).
- Symba007

It doesn’t surprise me that they don’t want to cut it from 57% to 50% in one year, either. That would also involve cutting the amounts in contracts.

The logical solution to this, is they fix it at a certain dollar amount, the equivalent of 57% (whatever the cap is this year), and as revenues rise, it stays there until it’s 50% of revenue.

Oh my god. get a clue. Your link you posted proves me right. What I said is 100% factual. the owner didn't cut a check beyond the players contracts. FACT.
- burn

http://sports.espn.go.com...nhl/news/story?id=2596571

The NHL Players' Association informed its membership Wednesday that the league's 700-plus players will receive all of their escrowed payments plus interest as well as additional "shortfall" payments of between 3.5 to 4.5 percent.

Once the final accounting was done on the 2005-06 season it was determined players didn't take up their full share of the 54 percent of league revenues coming their way under the terms of the new collective bargaining agreement.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=252218

Anyone who played in the NHL last season can expect to receive a nice little bonus by the end of the month, as each player will be given back all of the money they paid into escrow last season.

Each NHLer had 9.5 per cent of his paycheque put into the fund in 2007-08. Teams will issue cheques to players in October with that money - plus interest - and an additional .48 per cent because the players were paid less than the 56.7 per cent share of league revenues they were due.

Where do you think that extra money comes from, heaven? The HRR Fairy? It magically gets conjured by Tim the Enchanter in a secret ceremony just outside the Cave of Caerbannog? That shortfall has to come from the owners to make up for the fact that they ended up paying the players less than they were required to pay as required under the CBA.

As you would say, "FACT."

If, after having had this explained to you multiple times, you still cannot realize that twice [2 times] the owners have had to cut a check to the players to make up for the shortfall between what the players were paid and the amount they were guaranteed to receive under the CBA, then you're either intentionally ignoring facts or you're just incapable of comprehending what someone else says.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2596571


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=252218


Where do you think that extra money comes from, heaven? The HRR Fairy? It magically gets conjured by Tim the Enchanter in a secret ceremony just outside the Cave of Caerbannog? That shortfall has to come from the owners to make up for the fact that they ended up paying the players less than they were required to pay as required under the CBA.

As you would say, "FACT."

If, after having had this explained to you multiple times, you still cannot realize that twice
- Irish Blues[2 times] the owners have had to cut a check to the players to make up for the shortfall between what the players were paid and the amount they were guaranteed to receive under the CBA, then you're either intentionally ignoring facts or you're just incapable of comprehending what someone else says.

A GRRRRAAAIIILLLL?!!!

A GRRRRAAAIIILLLL?!!!

- glove_was_stuck

I've named my GPS "Tim the Enchanter."

FACT

I'm am. No doubt about it.

Players have proposed (reported 300mil) in concessions. The owners haven't given any. So yup.

But I wouldn't expect someone who think that the owners paid extra to the player beyond the contracts to understand. This is pretty complicated stuff, don't get too down on yourself for being wrong.
- burn

It’s something I wasn’t aware of either, and it’s not really ‘spelled out’ in those articles, but from what I can see, the cap is set at 57% of revenues, the floor 20% below the cap. In between, there is this 54% number. If the contracts collectively make up only 52% of the revenue for that season, the NHLPA has it written that the owners will make up that 2%, and pay it into the escrow accounts. So, if 54% of the revenues last year was $2B, and all of the contracts in the NHL combined made up $1.9B, the owners would then write a $100M cheque to the NHLPA, as they actually spent less than what they were contractually obligated to.

I didn’t know that…..

Tick tock clock,
The clock is ticking for you,
Cause the love you said you'd give,
Came up way past due,
So dance to the clock rock,
Stay on the the floor,
Cause when the ticks,
Turn to tocks,
I'll be knocking at your door.

Darren Dreger said that one of the players had said if he has to roll back his salary again he would walk away from the game I don't think they should have to roll back thier salary but if that's a joke I am sure he would walk away from making a ton of money. If the owners want to lock them out then just do it and when they come back we won't have as many teams. Nashville, Islanders Phoenix to name a few will have to claim bankruptcy.
- ganou60

Islanders won't go bankrupt

Islanders won't go bankrupt
- JFlyers00

That's right! They have that MSG money to fall back on, for Broadcast rights. Nashville, Phoenix, Florida, Columbus, your all excused.........thanks for coming!

Fist, now to read the blog

That's right! They have that MSG money to fall back on, for Broadcast rights. Nashville, Phoenix, Florida, Columbus, your all excused.........thanks for coming!
- PrinceLH

Nashville could survive. Florida might as well, especially if they could have a couple more seasons like last year instead of being in the basement after 20-30 games like they had for much of 2001-2010. Phoenix is probably doomed no matter what because Moyes and Balsillie have irreparably poisoned the well there.

One team that would struggle to survive, however, is St. Louis - and a lot of people not familiar with what that team faces [even after new ownership] fail to realize the obstacles the Blues have in their way to have a shot at even breaking even. A terrible lease, a concessions contract that was sold off with the money pocketed under the Checketts regime, no parking revenue, a 12% tax rate on tickets, and a declining economic base [there are a lot of companies previously headquartered in STL that have taken off for other cities, not to mention other businesses that have simply thrown in the towel and left] makes breaking even incredibly difficult except in the best 5-10% of scenarios.

The owners are running around handing out 100mil deals like halloween candy, but the saying they can't work with the current system. There is a problem there. If they can't work with the current system why are they falling over themselves to give away all the money??

The owners are the biggest problem.


If they had said , we have a problem and we can't continue like this.... and then played hardcore with the players and didn't give out handfuls of contracts with length in the teens and 100mil then maybe I'd be more sympathetic. They are saying one thing, doing another and then trying to negotiate off what they said, not what they are doing. I don't feel sorry for the owners.
- burn

In my book, neither side is a problem. Just two sides in a labor dispute trying to hammer out the best deal for their people. (Some of the PR games they are playing are a problem though).

For the players, I don't think they should rollback (or give through escrow) much of the contract $ they signed in good faith. I feel the minimum salary should be increased.

For the owners, I feel they have a right to ask for "more than 43% of the revenue of the product THEY OWN"*. The industry standard is now about 50%. Why do you feel the players should continue to be entitled to 57% of the revenue? Contract length should be limited to about 6 years (to save the owners/GMs from themselves, and limit your compaints of the $100M handouts).



*(Adrian Dater, denver post. I couldn't say it any better in my own words)

In my book, neither side is a problem. Just two sides in a labor dispute trying to hammer out the best deal for their people. (Some of the PR games they are playing are a problem though).

For the players, I don't think they should rollback (or give through escrow) much of the contract $ they signed in good faith. I feel the minimum salary should be increased.

For the owners, I feel they have a right to ask for "more than 43% of the revenue of the product THEY OWN"*. The industry standard is now about 50%. Why do you feel the players should continue to be entitled to 57% of the revenue? Contract length should be limited to about 6 years (to save the owners/GMs from themselves, and limit your compaints of the $100M handouts).



*(Adrian Dater, denver post. I couldn't say it any better in my own words)
- Jacob582

I'm largely in agreement with you, except for 2 points:

1. Increase in minimum salary - I'm ambivalent here, but I'm not opposed to small changes going forward [similar to what we've seen in the 2005 CBA]. I do agree the players should not have a rollback on salaries, but I'm also more aggressive in how they should be handling escrow [the players shouldn't be bearing the full brunt of it].

2. I absolutely disagree with any fixed-year limit on contract lenghts designed to "save the owners/GMs from themselves." Such a rule would de facto say "if you want to sign a 35/36-year old guy to a 6-year deal, that's OK" and I have a problem with that - and I don't think you're going to say you'd be OK with that either. I especially don't like any limit on contract lenghts if you still have no mechanism to force teams to pay back cap savings realized early on where such contracts are front-loaded and the player quits playing in the NHL [by his choice or the team's] before the end of that contract. If owners/GMs can't exercise some self-control in handing out contracts, they should be the ones paying the price for it; quit trying to save themselves from their own stupidity.

The owners cannot be trusted, they will always find a loop hole to escalate the salary to get thier man. They may be united now but cust each others throats whenever they can. Philly screwed Nashville although Nashville should have left them sign him to the contract. Then kick him in the nuts for good measure.

- Buffalo--Sabres

DTF?

If they are locked out cany they apply for unemployment? Hate to see them struggle.