And how is the League agreeing to keep HRR as it is, a huge concession on their part? This was their CBA, that they negotiated and what they wanted. It's not working. They defined how HRR was calculated. Now 7 years later they don't like it. There is one single biggest factor in rising player costs. The lack of control by the teams in signing players. Who's agreeing to pay those contracts and offering them to the players? They made their own bed.
- MJL

You really don't seem to understand the system! The owners needed concessions last CBA, and they got them! Despite the growth of the business, teams are still losing money! So what should we do...........drop the 8 money losing teams and consequently 25% of the players jobs?? I'm ok with that actually!

On the other hand, people like Ed Schnieder of the Flyers don't give a crap about the CBA, they just want to win cups! So, he offers outrageous amounts of money to players, signs RFAs to offer sheets for outrageous amounts, and teams that can't afford to play in the same stratosphere financially have no choice but to match his offers or lose what fan base they have!

Lastly, NHL players make a bigger % of the games income, than any other league!

Des Moine
- Canada Cup

- aightwebang17

Forget fight the power, it's FIGHT THE BETTMAN!!!!!!!!

Forget fight the power, it's FIGHT THE BETTMAN!!!!!!!!
- GCHonda

(frank) it......fight whoever it is preventing us from having a season dammit!

Im with ya, brother. Someone call Vince McMahon, lets get the XHL going.
- moondawg

WOW the XFL version of hockey, with smash mouth, Hanson brothers type hockey with players wearing HE HATE ME jerseys???? I am on board, I am f*cken on board. Sounds a helluva lot more exciting than the NHL. Yes & make Vince the new commissioner so once in a while he can do his trade mark: YOURRRRRRRRR FIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder what the nhlpa would think about a tiered cut back/pay cut

<1mill no cut back
1-3mill 5%
3-5mill 7%
5+ 10%

Numbers are made up but you get the point
- dmarsden2988

How much of a pay cut are you willing to take? Oh, and ticket prices will rise, just like they have the last seven years.

Understand this. Don Fehr has played this game far longer then Bettman, and he's far better at it. He has said the players will not accept a reduction of existing contracts or a reduction in aggregate player salaries. He will not move off that position. Not ever. He is an old school union boss, and his first rule is to never give back what you've gained in collective bargaining. Seven years ago the players got crushed. Don will make sure that does not happen again, no matter what the cost.

Players aren't going to accept or agree to compliance re-negotiations. If I'm a player and the team comes to me to re-negotiate, I tell them to go pound sand.
- MJL

I couldn't get into full details here. Compliance renegotiations would have to be mutually agreed upon; compliance buyouts would not. I can easily see scenarios where players and teams agree to re-work a deal; there may not be many, but I suspect it won't be nil.

The only way is for an across the board player for player salary reduction. And that doesn't do much for parity around the League. As the richer teams will gladly pay the luxury tax and pad their rosters as much as they can. If your going to do any of this, then why have a Salary Cap?
- MJL

I'm intrigued that you poo-poo compliance renegotiations, but then suggest salary reductions - something the players won't go for either [if they were willing, it would already be in their proposal by now].

And yes, the richer team will pay the luxury tax to go over the cap - but over time, their ability to do so will decrease. The entire purpose of this is to help team get cap compliant up front while forcing them to eventually get cap compliant while including all contracts. It's safe to say that there's no way to make it happen without cutting player salaries or giving teams the ability to go over the cap; I suspect the latter is going to be more acceptable provided that small-market teams are getting something out of it and it's not a perpetual "get out of jail free" card to the high-revenue teams.

That said, this still relies on some mechanism to slow the growth in the cap to help out low-revenue teams and not screw the players and/or the high-revenue teams in the process. That ... is why this is not nearly as simple as some would love to think it is.

yup no nhl hockey this year folks AGAIN!.

so concert is were my $$ will go


Starting with the Steve Vai show!

good bye nhl hockey
- dmnted

Ya with no hockey in TO, mabie MSLE will be looking to make a BIG concert splash at the ACC. No I aint talking small potatoes like Maroon 5 or one of the latest silly boy bands. I'm talking about something beyond belief: what about a Led Zeppelin reunion with Jason Bonham as the drummer or the reuniting of Roger Watters & David Gilmour..................Pink Floyd. FUK Hockey, I want to see those 2 dream concerts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really don't seem to understand the system! The owners needed concessions last CBA, and they got them! Despite the growth of the business, teams are still losing money! So what should we do...........drop the 8 money losing teams and consequently 25% of the players jobs?? I'm ok with that actually!

On the other hand, people like Ed Schnieder of the Flyers don't give a crap about the CBA, they just want to win cups! So, he offers outrageous amounts of money to players, signs RFAs to offer sheets for outrageous amounts, and teams that can't afford to play in the same stratosphere financially have no choice but to match his offers or lose what fan base they have!

Lastly, NHL players make a bigger % of the games income, than any other league!
- Bullot

You really don't seem to understand what I've said. Because I basically said the same thing as you've said in your second paragraph. And it's Ed Snider by the way.

I couldn't get into full details here. Compliance renegotiations would have to be mutually agreed upon; compliance buyouts would not. I can easily see scenarios where players and teams agree to re-work a deal; there may not be many, but I suspect it won't be nil.


- Irish Blues

The number of players likely to agree, doesn't help the situation.

I'm intrigued that you poo-poo compliance renegotiations, but then suggest salary reductions - something the players won't go for either
- Irish Blues[if they were willing, it would already be in their proposal by now].

I'm intrigued that you don't recognize the difference of just some players having their salary reduced, versus every player having their salary reduced. It's quite different for obvious reasons. The owners are looking for salary control and a lesser player's share. You really think they're going to agree to a CBA where they then have to go and negotiate with players for a possible salary reduction? And I disagree that the players won't go for salary reductions. They're likely going to have to if there is an agreement to be had. Along with the owners agreeing to increase revenue sharing.

And yes, the richer team will pay the luxury tax to go over the cap - but over time, their ability to do so will decrease. The entire purpose of this is to help team get cap compliant up front while forcing them to eventually get cap compliant while including all contracts. It's safe to say that there's no way to make it happen without cutting player salaries or giving teams the ability to go over the cap; I suspect the latter is going to be more acceptable provided that small-market teams are getting something out of it and it's not a perpetual "get out of jail free" card to the high-revenue teams.

That said, this still relies on some mechanism to slow the growth in the cap to help out low-revenue teams and not screw the players and/or the high-revenue teams in the process. That ... is why this is not nearly as simple as some would love to think it is.
- Irish Blues

You either have a Cap or a luxury tax situation. The idea is as best at possible, even though it's never going to be 100%, is to have a level playing field. For however long it lasts, that gives another advantage to the richer teams.

A few days ago they were getting ready for marathon sessions and now they are conceding the season ??? cant make up your mind can you ???

"Really, it is more psychological, coupled with..." the fact that hockey players aren't exactly the sharpest segment of the population.

yup no nhl hockey this year folks AGAIN!.

so concert is were my $$ will go


Starting with the Steve Vai show!

good bye nhl hockey
- dmnted

Just bought tickets yesterday for Joe Bonamassa, second row centre.

How much of a pay cut are you willing to take? Oh, and ticket prices will rise, just like they have the last seven years.

Understand this. Don Fehr has played this game far longer then Bettman, and he's far better at it. He has said the players will not accept a reduction of existing contracts or a reduction in aggregate player salaries. He will not move off that position. Not ever. He is an old school union boss, and his first rule is to never give back what you've gained in collective bargaining. Seven years ago the players got crushed. Don will make sure that does not happen again, no matter what the cost.
- czxqa

Exactly. Given how the last cba went down and what the owners are asking for this time, I think you would have to be not very bright to side with the owners regardless of what the players are being paid. The owners won the PR battle last time but are having their asses handed to them this time.

This entire thing is retarded it doesn't matter who is right or wrong players will lose the fact they can't see that is absolutely stupid. Go for 50 50 let the revenue rise up and in three years you have recooped so fricken stupid. They did this last time they will not win.

no

when the leafs/rangers etc agree to increase revenue sharing instead of attempting to put it all on the players backs.

the players want to play, and they know they're going to lose something no matter what, but they're literally fighting on principle at this stage.

btw. u do know that the leafs owner vote doesnt count for more than the hurricanes owners vote, right?
..........................
- hugefemale dog77

I missed the part where this became a lockout based on some principle like saving the low franchise teams. Sure the big guys will throw a bit more into revenue sharing. The league has already proposed a bit of an increase and they can bump it up a bit.

From the owners perspective this is only about more $ for owners and so Gary can show David Stern and the others that he can get 50-50 too.

And btw, when it comes down to real money issues, Leaf, Ranger, Habs and Red Wings votes do count for more.

I think that a lot of the players may not completely dislike a lost season, or a good portion of a lost season.

Guys who have been around a fair while, have made their money, and have had their share of injuries might not regret missing some time every CBA year or so.

Count all the concussions, surgeries and physical toll of the game today, and playing elsewhere on big ice with fewer games and far less contact might be palatable. Or just train at home for a few months.

Top players like Malkin and his knee damage, Crosby with his concussions, even Giroux off double wrist surgery.....maybe they realize a couple more issues, they don't live healthy after leaving the game.

And how many players know on day 1 they have almost no shot at a Cup these days?

You grow up dreaming of a Cup, but not of leaving the game like Chris Pronger and several others to sit in a dark room and try to get you thoughts together enough to play with your kids.

You might not think like that at 20, but at 30 it might become much clearer.

Couple that with time to get wiser about their personal finances, and maybe there will be fewer physically damaged or broke guys to read about soon after they leave the game.

But, but, but you made everything sound so Positive yesterday....
Missing another year is just what the league needs to get rid of it's dead weight...
The 3rd & 4th line guys on those teams in jeopardy of being contracted should be very concerned for their NHL careers...
Gary hold fast and wait the players out. Come back with a league of 24 teams. Have a dispersal draft to plug in the top guys from the 6 MIA teams and allow unlimited one time waivers to facilitate the new players going to their new teams...
Great for the owners cause majority of teams will be finacially sound, fans get to see great hockey...To the fans of the teams that are chopped sorry but your the reason for these lockouts...Good Riddance
- tmlfan17

With all due respect, you should know what you're talking about before giving your opinion on the matter.

18 teams lost money last year. You think going down to 24 teams would magically make 12 teams earn more? I don't get your logic.

Also, by getting rid of 6 teams, teams would be spending even more money on these players, which then leads to even more debt for teams.

So how exactly does this make for a more financially sound NHL?

With all due respect, you should know what you're talking about before giving your opinion on the matter.

18 teams lost money last year. You think going down to 24 teams would magically make 12 teams earn more? I don't get your logic.

Also, by getting rid of 6 teams, teams would be spending even more money on these players, which then leads to even more debt for teams.

So how exactly does this make for a more financially sound NHL?
- StayTunedMTC

well if they keep the same revenue sharing $$$ then its divided up by 24teams compared to 30

but it wouldnt matter there is 0% chance the league contracts, the NHLPA would fight that till the end and i doubt owners are going to say ok close up shop when worst case scenario is they have to sell the team and move, the PA wouldnt want to lose ~140 players

i have heard more about expansion to 32 teams than contraction

Exactly. Given how the last cba went down and what the owners are asking for this time, I think you would have to be not very bright to side with the owners regardless of what the players are being paid. The owners won the PR battle last time but are having their asses handed to them this time.
- Bieksa#3

its not like the players didnt make out very nicely

and that was last time, times have changed, economics have changed, the way it is now teams are losing money (18, over 50% of the league) the players are getting more revenue as a % than much bigger leagues and the players have guaranteed contracts

yes the owners won big time last time, but lets not pretend the players didnt come away handsomely too

lets not compare average joe (me) to someone who is making 500k+ a year, let alone millions

well if they keep the same revenue sharing $$$ then its divided up by 24teams compared to 30

but it wouldnt matter there is 0% chance the league contracts, the NHLPA would fight that till the end and i doubt owners are going to say ok close up shop when worst case scenario is they have to sell the team and move, the PA wouldnt want to lose ~140 players

i have heard more about expansion to 32 teams than contraction
- dmarsden2988

i understand that part, but without actually looking at the numbers (and thus just being a guess), the increased salary from the additional players being added I think would offset any revenue sharing gains.

I think my solution is pretty simple.

-Grandfather the current contracts in... GM's (and thus owners) should not be able to give huge contracts, knowing that either A) in another couple years they can be reduced, and B) they won't be punished for their mismanagement of contracts (salary). This also alleviates a lot of the current players concerns. So give them the same amount monetarily, but for the cap, times it by .07 (assuming 50%) to find the adjusted cap hit.
-50%/50% revenue s plit
-an improved revenue sharing plan. The current one stinks.
-move two markets to more profitable areas.
-

Ovechkin and Nash clearly dont seem to remember what happened the last time the NHLPA missed a full season.
- Alexzanki

Tells you everything you need to know about Me. Rick Nash.

A player excited to start the season with a new team in a hockey market, maybe the biggest sports market on the planet, focuses on losing the full year and promptly signs overseas.

If I was a Rangers fan, I would have hoped he would have said. This sucks. I really hope the NHLPA and NHL get this deal done because I'm excited to play for the Rangers and bring home the stanley cup.

Sorry Rangers fans. You picked up the worst contract in the NHL and now you have proof. Paid to be a superstar and acts like one. Rick Nash and the other marque spoiled brats are the reason there will be no hockey this year.

AHL....ECHL....Jrs
- Pyzik

So glad Orlando got their team back this year. Good timing.

Go Solar Bears.

well if they keep the same revenue sharing $$$ then its divided up by 24teams compared to 30

but it wouldnt matter there is 0% chance the league contracts, the NHLPA would fight that till the end and i doubt owners are going to say ok close up shop when worst case scenario is they have to sell the team and move, the PA wouldnt want to lose ~140 players

i have heard more about expansion to 32 teams than contraction
- dmarsden2988

I don't know of any modern day sports team in any league that has contracted, but I believe the contracted team owner gets bought out by the league. So for example, looking at the Forbes list, a team like the Blue Jackets who lost almost $14 million last year could be purchased for around $150 million by the league. Like buying back their rights to having a team. For fans of all the teams that don't get contracted it would actually be a great thing. More skilled players on each team and less money bleeding teams to hurt the rest of the league in any new revenue sharing plan.