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

Exaclty first thing the Nashville owner should do is kick Schnider in the nuts, there should be no signing bonuses and if there is then pay it at the end of the contract. Imagine right now the league or owners have paid out over $180,000 000 in signing bonuses and there may not even me a season. Smart guys

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

There were 9 or 10 compliance buyouts for the last CBA. It's an available tool, just like offer sheets; they don't have to be used broadly. However, there's value in the idea - if no one uses it, fine.

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.
- MJL

The bigger point is that the players in whole aren't going to go for it. Breaking it down into "this group gets cut a little, this group gets cut a lot, this group loses nothing" is the same kind of tactic the players tried to use against the owners; you really think (A) they won't pick up on that, and (B) they'll be willing to start fighting to throw each other under the bus?

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.
- MJL

You're too willing to say "well the revenue split goes to X, so the players have to be willing to have Y lopped off the top of their salaries to make it happen." My point is that they don't have to. You're looking at this in a singularly-focused prism; I'm trying to be a little more open-minded and consider what each side wants in the end, and form a solution accordingly.

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.
- MJL

You can absolutely have both, provided that it's not an open-ended thing. My idea is clearly not. You also cannot have a "level playing field" if you don't change how the cap is calculated, because over time as the high-revenue teams push the cap higher you ensure there will once again be a point where the low-revenue teams struggle to hit the cap floor. [Yes, I have an idea for that.] You continue to miss the fact that right now, if we end up with a 50/50 split the cap floor moves down to $58 million and some teams will have to shed $6 million, $8 million, $10 million, or more to get compliant - and in the absence of a rollback, something will have to be done. You continue to assume a rollback has to happen and it's the only way possible; I think a short-term exemption and luxury tax would satisfy high-revenue teams while providing needed revenue sharing money for low-revenue teams without forcing all other teams [whether via excess centrally generated revenues, playoff funding, or the top-10 revenue team funding step] to shell out that much more.

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

Paul Kelly (former Head of the NHLPA) was on a local Buffalo radio show yesterday, and I liked his point. The standard has been set by the NFL and the NBA. The NHL players receive way too much of the pie compared to the other leagues. The owners know that, and the players know that (even though they won't admit it). However, just like any employee, making them take a 7-10% paycut, no matter how much you make, isn't going to fly. It's about pride as much as it is about the actual dollar amount. So, the solution should be to have a long term deal (8-10 years), and scale back the salaries 1-2% per year, depending on how long the deal is, until you get to the 50%. That's something I can live with, and the owners should be able to as well, if they were smart. The owners made their own bed by putting the 57% possibility on the table to begin with, so they have to eat it. However, the amounts do need to come down in order to stay viable. This accomplishes both, and gives at least another 10+ years before this shenanigans happens again.

well if they keep the same revenue sharing $$$ then its divided up by 24teams compared to 30
- dmarsden2988

Except that it won't be. By whacking 6 teams [I won't ask where the money is coming from to buy out those owners losing teams], you pull up the average revenue per team; this in turn forces up the cap above where it would be with 30 teams, and puts every remaining low-revenue team in a worse situation than it would be with 30 teams - and that means the team in question requires more revenue sharing. And again, as I continually point out, if you don't change how the cap is calculated, you ensure that high-revenue teams eventually drive the cap floor above what low-revenue teams can afford.

Then what?

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.
-
- StayTunedMTC

Your idea on contracts needs more details, it's hard to evaluate - but I can safely say that if it involves preventing owners from making stupid decisions, I'm probably going to be against it. I'm definitely in favor of enforcing all contracts slated to start in 2012-13 and 2013-14 "as is" with no exemptions or reductions of any kind.

Your idea on moving two teams relies on someone [not the owners of the teams moving] to pay out dollars for breaking the lease and any other contracts between the team and local businesses, expenses incurred in relocating [equipment, players, staff, etc.], and expenses incurred in setting up business in the new location. Who's going to pay for that?

Paul Kelly (former Head of the NHLPA) was on a local Buffalo radio show yesterday, and I liked his point. The standard has been set by the NFL and the NBA. The NHL players receive way too much of the pie compared to the other leagues. The owners know that, and the players know that (even though they won't admit it). However, just like any employee, making them take a 7-10% paycut, no matter how much you make, isn't going to fly. It's about pride as much as it is about the actual dollar amount. So, the solution should be to have a long term deal (8-10 years), and scale back the salaries 1-2% per year, depending on how long the deal is, until you get to the 50%. That's something I can live with, and the owners should be able to as well, if they were smart. The owners made their own bed by putting the 57% possibility on the table to begin with, so they have to eat it. However, the amounts do need to come down in order to stay viable. This accomplishes both, and gives at least another 10+ years before this shenanigans happens again.
- buffalofan19

Year 1: 55% [per capgeek, we're at about 53% of 2011-12's revenues already - and that's before injuries and such]
Year 2: 53%
Year 3: 51%
Year 4: 50%

At the same time, put the owners on the hook for part of any overspending; right now, they have no incentive to control spending, as anything over 57% comes directly out of the players salaries via escrow. Make the owners share half of any overpayment; if the players are supposed to get 50% and the owners contract to pay them 54%, the owners eat half of the 4% overage. If the owners underpay and only give the players 48%, they have to kick in half of the shortfall.

The owners are painting the "problem of overspending" on the players. It's not - it's just as much on the owners as well [and arguably even more so]. They should have a little skin in the game on keeping spending under control, not just continually blame the players and ask them to take salary cuts.

There were 9 or 10 compliance buyouts for the last CBA. It's an available tool, just like offer sheets; they don't have to be used broadly. However, there's value in the idea - if no one uses it, fine.


- Irish Blues

It doesn't solve any of the core issues.

The bigger point is that the players in whole aren't going to go for it. Breaking it down into "this group gets cut a little, this group gets cut a lot, this group loses nothing" is the same kind of tactic the players tried to use against the owners; you really think (A) they won't pick up on that, and (B) they'll be willing to start fighting to throw each other under the bus?


- Irish Blues

The players are going to have to accept some kind of across the board salary reduction to get an agreement done.

You're too willing to say "well the revenue split goes to X, so the players have to be willing to have Y lopped off the top of their salaries to make it happen." My point is that they don't have to. You're looking at this in a singularly-focused prism; I'm trying to be a little more open-minded and consider what each side wants in the end, and form a solution accordingly.


- Irish Blues

I'm looking at it from the prism of what solves the core issues. Your solutions offered don't do that in my opinion.

You can absolutely have both, provided that it's not an open-ended thing. My idea is clearly not. You also cannot have a "level playing field" if you don't change how the cap is calculated, because over time as the high-revenue teams push the cap higher you ensure there will once again be a point where the low-revenue teams struggle to hit the cap floor.
- Irish Blues[Yes, I have an idea for that.] You continue to miss the fact that right now, if we end up with a 50/50 split the cap floor moves down to $58 million and some teams will have to shed $6 million, $8 million, $10 million, or more to get compliant - and in the absence of a rollback, something will have to be done. You continue to assume a rollback has to happen and it's the only way possible; I think a short-term exemption and luxury tax would satisfy high-revenue teams while providing needed revenue sharing money for low-revenue teams without forcing all other teams [whether via excess centrally generated revenues, playoff funding, or the top-10 revenue team funding step] to shell out that much more.

There aren't any facts that I've missed. Your assuming things and making yourself look foolish in the process. Your ideas don't solve any of the issues. That's what your missing. A luxury tax like you propose does not meet the needs of the League. They aren't looking for short term solutions. Your suggestions will only lead to further labor strife down the road in the next CBA. And aren't real solutions.

What are the core issues in the negotiation?

Year 1: 55%
- Irish Blues[per capgeek, we're at about 53% of 2011-12's revenues already - and that's before injuries and such]
Year 2: 53%
Year 3: 51%
Year 4: 50%

At the same time, put the owners on the hook for part of any overspending; right now, they have no incentive to control spending, as anything over 57% comes directly out of the players salaries via escrow. Make the owners share half of any overpayment; if the players are supposed to get 50% and the owners contract to pay them 54%, the owners eat half of the 4% overage. If the owners underpay and only give the players 48%, they have to kick in half of the shortfall.

The owners are painting the "problem of overspending" on the players. It's not - it's just as much on the owners as well [and arguably even more so]. They should have a little skin in the game on keeping spending under control, not just continually blame the players and ask them to take salary cuts.

Now that philosophy I agree with. There needs to be some mechanism of salary control for the teams.

Why would the owners tell the PA what they really need right now? I'm sure that they see themselves as negotiating from a position of strength and there is no real reason to move off their best case proposals and talk about their bottom line positions.

I would think that the owners (led by the 4 or 5 franchises that generate the vast majority of league revenues) have given Gary a date that they want this settled by. Until they start to get close to that the League will continue to present much more aggressive positions.

I'm sure Fehr realizes this and won't engage in a process where he is negotiating against himself.

We'll know we are getting closer to a settlement or the crucial part of the negotiations when we hear that proposals and counter-proposals are moving back and forth.

Everyone who is screaming that they should be locked in a room until they get a deal is missing the point. They will get a deal when the owners decide they are losing more than they are winning by keeping this thing going. Teams like the Leafs who stand to lose $80--100M in profits and even more in broadcast activities will play a large role in determining when that point is.
- Canada Cup

Exactly.

And to Eklund, please stop defending the little big man - you know - the one's responsible for global warming, rising sea levels, extinction and other stuff. The owners, just as said here - are in control of this thing - but that said - the players can and should say whatever they want...more power to them... it won't matter one tiny little bit when the negotiation really starts. What will matter is what poison pills little Gary has thrown out, and things like how much debt Gary's Phoenix franchise (and others) piles on the rest of the owners. All the "moves" that Gary made to secure a TV deal will be material in the financial statements of the league - and that will matter. That's why his(read Bettman's) handling of the Ballsilie situation, the Atlanta to Winnipeg situation, the Phoenix situation are all material... because they have affected the bottom line. That is why undeniably Bettman, who wants desparately to seem "above it all" ... can't He will be front and center (unfortuantely we'll have to see his ugly mug over and over again) when negotiations start - as he's the front man for the owners. At the point when the owners decide they have lost enough revenue, Gary will be at his lowest ebb, hopefully Fehr will pounce, a deal gets done....

praise be

Gary gets canned. Because he hasn't gotten it done financially for the majority of the league... and the TV deal wasn't and isn't great. And during his tenure there have been how many interuptions? Yes Gary should be canned and not because he suffers from short man's disease (which he does)... but becauase he's done a bad job. Period. Perhaps as a parting gift the owners can give him a 50% stake in the Coyotes... maybe then he'd be willing to sell it to the real highest bidder.

I'm just gonna keep saying it:
FU Gary Bettman
FU Donald Fehr
FU NHL owners
FU NHPA
YOU ALL SUCK!!!!!!!!!!


The fact that you a-holes aren't even meeting makes me sick!! You are all nothing but a bunch of money grubbing spoiled jerks and if this whole season is cancelled, I will NEVER buy another ticket or ANY NHL merchandise again. GO TO HELL!!

It doesn't solve any of the core issues.
- MJL

Because you’re only willing to consider one possible way to get things done.

The players are going to have to accept some kind of across the board salary reduction to get an agreement done.
- MJL

Because you’re only willing to consider one possible way to get things done.

I'm looking at it from the prism of what solves the core issues. Your solutions offered don't do that in my opinion.
- MJL

Have you thought about how you’re going to control the growth in the cap so that in 6 years, the low-revenue teams aren’t back at the point where they’re struggling to hit the cap floor because it’s been yanked north by the high-revenue teams growing at a faster rate? Have you considered the players desire to not continually pay into escrow to make up for overspending caused by the inability of the owners to control themselves when handing out contracts? Have you thought about how the current cap system does not ensure that “$ paid to the player while playing in the NHL” isn’t forced to equal “$ incurred against the cap” and why that might be a problem? Have you thought about how players on 1-way contracts don’t count against the players share, and why that might be a problem for the owners? Have you thought about how teams who receive revenue sharing have incentives to attempt to force them to grow revenues faster than the league [and why that’s a problem, given the fundamental characteristics of each market] but there’s no incentives for them to control spending [that other piece that helps determine whether a team can make a profit or not]?

You want to ask about core issues? That’s 5 questions that go right to the heart of the problems that exist. I have solutions to all of them; do you?

There aren't any facts that I've missed. Your assuming things and making yourself look foolish in the process. Your ideas don't solve any of the issues. That's what your missing.
- MJL

Given that teams signed contracts left and right under a 57% split assumption, most of which were done under a belief that the next system would be (A) lower, and (B) have a salary rollback, I’m not inclined to reward teams who rushed out to sign contracts and/or extensions under that belief. With that in mind, I don’t see how you roll back salaries – especially since some of them have already paid out signing bonuses [are you going to require the players to write a check to reflect the amount clawed back? Good luck with that]. I certainly don’t see how you selectively roll back salaries in some way [salary, start date, or otherwise] in some way that the NHLPA says, “sure – we’re good with that.”

A luxury tax like you propose does not meet the needs of the League. They aren't looking for short term solutions. Your suggestions will only lead to further labor strife down the road in the next CBA. And aren't real solutions.
- MJL

The “short-term fix” is designed to help get teams cap-compliant. Most teams won’t need it; a few will, though – and those will probably be the ones that rushed to get 6-year, $25-32 million contracts on the books before September 15. Again, I don’t think those teams should be given a “get out of jail free” card from Cap Hell on the backs of the players. I do think every team should have the ability to get cap-compliant, but if you can’t [or won’t] do it with the options provided you should have to pay for the ability to get there.

You have a “Plan A” that puts everything on the players. If they resist, do you have a “Plan B” to get them to come over? Lots of people have “Plan A” with no backup [and often, no compromise from one side]; my idea is the “Plan B” because I don’t think telling the players “you’re taking a pay cut” in some fashion is going to fly, nor will telling the owners “suck it up and deal with the current status quo.” My plan isn’t perfect for either side, but it’s not supposed to be; it should be the “well, we can live with that” plan that fixes things short-term while bridging to the long-term solution, and eventually goes away; it pinches player salaries down over time via the lower split of revenues, but still puts owners on the hook for their past, present and future decisions. Any plan that doesn’t do both of those is a plan that’s either got huge flaws that will be exposed going forward, or is DOA before ever hitting the table.

They care about us fans so much that ever since the lockout was announced both sides have been talking virtually non-stop. Yeah, right. Marathon sessions my you know what. I wonder if forever-optimist Eklund still thinks that this is going to be a very short lockout and we will start the regular season on time.
Frank Buttman.
Frank Fehr.
Frank NHL and NHLPA.
You all suck.

It doesn't solve any of the core issues.



The players are going to have to accept some kind of across the board salary reduction to get an agreement done.



I'm looking at it from the prism of what solves the core issues. Your solutions offered don't do that in my opinion.




There aren't any facts that I've missed. Your assuming things and making yourself look foolish in the process. Your ideas don't solve any of the issues. That's what your missing. A luxury tax like you propose does not meet the needs of the League. They aren't looking for short term solutions. Your suggestions will only lead to further labor strife down the road in the next CBA. And aren't real solutions.

What are the core issues in the negotiation?
- MJL

There is only one "core" issue in these negotiations -- the owners want more and the players don't want to give as much as the owners are asking for. Players also know (and have known since the last CBA set a cap and tied salaries to revenues) that every CBA will see a few more % points chipped away so are going to try to take a bit more of a stand to slow that process down.

There are a number of secondary issues that will need to get resolved once they agree on a % - contract length, ELC's, etc but those are all about how $ is shared among players and how to reduce any leakage as GMs look for ways to get around the cap.

The larger structural issues facing the legaue -- widening gap between high and low revenue teams --- are here to stay and are ineveitbnale by-products of the cap/floor system which tries to force spending behviours of franchises with very different economic realities into the same box.

Revenue sharing can do a bit and the league has already proposed moving the gap between the cap and floor away from a fixed dollar amount to a % which would allow for a bigger gap between cap and floor.

HRR is a misleading term. It is in fact ...

A decent read:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/...ckey-related-revenue.html



So many people are confused about what 57% of HRR really is.

Players are not getting 57% of revenue.
- ULF_55

Revenue is Revenue. HRR is Hockey related revenue. The cutbacks owners take to establish them are because they deemed them not hockey related. For the PA to cry that they are only getting "51" and not 57% is jsut pathetic. If they count 100% of all revenue, hockey related or not, then the players would still be making too much.
The debate is not HRR as this article makes it seem, it's that owners want to cut prices by X amount. No matter what the HRR % split is.

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

Great ideal, makes sense with regards to where 80% of the ´union´´s members stand..
NHLPA should defend the (economic) interests of 3rd and 4th liners, and should not worry about the top100 players salaries and contracts..

I would like to see a internal NHLPA ´discussion´ between LeCavallier, Luongo and Nash on one side, and Mike Brown, Daniel Winnik and Clutterbuck on the other side. (not to speak of the likes of Daryll Boyce etc. who are without a contract and who surely will never play again in the NHL if a one year lockout will play occur..).

It´s a simple case of top salaries of over 3-4 million needed to be brought back 15%, while relative ´low´ salaries (600k-1.5m) staying at the same level..

I have been saying for half a year now that there should be a max. total contract value of around 24million to get rid of these differences; some players might still get the stability they are looking for (e.g. 6 years at 4m/per which is a great contract valuewise and $-wise), while the top50 in the league would have to play for 2y - 12per contracts.. no cap circumvention etc. and more room for younger generations to get for-value-contracts.. What younger generations (i.e. the Schenns, Couturiers of today´s NHL and players to be drafted the coming years) do not understand is that the more ridiculous cap-circumventing contracts there will be handed out (Luongo, Kovalchuk, Pronger, i would even go so far as to mention Crosby´s new contract), the less cap space there will be for them for new contracts, since all the oldies take up cap space with their NMC-contracts..
Where´s the solidarity there??

Good, will save a ton of cash. Get lots of stuff done.Watch Hitmen and Mustang games. Take a trip to Arizona to see Cardinals.

I hope they stay out for 2 years, these idiots will never make the money back, so they what, they are doing this for some 14 year old kid? F*cking losers!
I would however support replacement players!

Because you’re only willing to consider one possible way to get things done.


Because you’re only willing to consider one possible way to get things done.


- Irish Blues

Again, incorrect assumption on your part.

Have you thought about how you’re going to control the growth in the cap so that in 6 years, the low-revenue teams aren’t back at the point where they’re struggling to hit the cap floor because it’s been yanked north by the high-revenue teams growing at a faster rate? Have you considered the players desire to not continually pay into escrow to make up for overspending caused by the inability of the owners to control themselves when handing out contracts? Have you thought about how the current cap system does not ensure that “$ paid to the player while playing in the NHL” isn’t forced to equal “$ incurred against the cap” and why that might be a problem? Have you thought about how players on 1-way contracts don’t count against the players share, and why that might be a problem for the owners? Have you thought about how teams who receive revenue sharing have incentives to attempt to force them to grow revenues faster than the league
- Irish Blues[and why that’s a problem, given the fundamental characteristics of each market] but there’s no incentives for them to control spending [that other piece that helps determine whether a team can make a profit or not]?

You want to ask about core issues? That’s 5 questions that go right to the heart of the problems that exist. I have solutions to all of them; do you?

I don't claim to have all the answers like you do. You think you have solutions to all of them but you don't. You've offered temporary solutions that do little to solve the core issues which are players share of revenue and increased revenue sharing among teams. Those are the biggest issues in the negotiations.

Given that teams signed contracts left and right under a 57% split assumption, most of which were done under a belief that the next system would be (A) lower, and (B) have a salary rollback, I’m not inclined to reward teams who rushed out to sign contracts and/or extensions under that belief. With that in mind, I don’t see how you roll back salaries – especially since some of them have already paid out signing bonuses
- Irish Blues[are you going to require the players to write a check to reflect the amount clawed back? Good luck with that]. I certainly don’t see how you selectively roll back salaries in some way [salary, start date, or otherwise] in some way that the NHLPA says, “sure – we’re good with that.”

It's well established that signing bonus money wouldn't be included in any rollback in the future. I agree that there has to be some kind of spending control among the teams. Obviously, neither side at this point wants to give in to the other sides proposals. That's why we have a lockout. But this is a negotiation. And both sides are going to have to work towards the middle. Which is most likely going to include some type of salary reduction for the players. Whether that is a rollback or a future reduction in salary escalation. And the Owners are going to have to work to pay thier part of the share in the bill to help out the poorer teams.

The “short-term fix” is designed to help get teams cap-compliant. Most teams won’t need it; a few will, though – and those will probably be the ones that rushed to get 6-year, $25-32 million contracts on the books before September 15. Again, I don’t think those teams should be given a “get out of jail free” card from Cap Hell on the backs of the players. I do think every team should have the ability to get cap-compliant, but if you can’t
- Irish Blues[or won’t] do it with the options provided you should have to pay for the ability to get there.

That's putting the cart before the horse. Need to settle the real issues that are the cause of the lockout first. Your suggestions don't do that. And by the way, your ignoring that the League told every team to approach the off season normally under the current Cap. And that no team would be punished for being over the Cap if it changes.

You have a “Plan A” that puts everything on the players. If they resist, do you have a “Plan B” to get them to come over? Lots of people have “Plan A” with no backup
- Irish Blues[and often, no compromise from one side]; my idea is the “Plan B” because I don’t think telling the players “you’re taking a pay cut” in some fashion is going to fly, nor will telling the owners “suck it up and deal with the current status quo.” My plan isn’t perfect for either side, but it’s not supposed to be; it should be the “well, we can live with that” plan that fixes things short-term while bridging to the long-term solution, and eventually goes away; it pinches player salaries down over time via the lower split of revenues, but still puts owners on the hook for their past, present and future decisions. Any plan that doesn’t do both of those is a plan that’s either got huge flaws that will be exposed going forward, or is DOA before ever hitting the table.

Again, your reading things that aren't there. Your completely incorrect in saying that I have one plan. I haven't offered a plan. That's for the experts to put together. And obviously you think your one of them, so maybe you should get involved in the negotiations. All I know is that the suggestions you offered don't solve the problems. You have't come close to addressing the real issues and the real differences between the two sides. And that's the bottom line.

There is only one "core" issue in these negotiations -- the owners want more and the players don't want to give as much as the owners are asking for. Players also know (and have known since the last CBA set a cap and tied salaries to revenues) that every CBA will see a few more % points chipped away so are going to try to take a bit more of a stand to slow that process down.

There are a number of secondary issues that will need to get resolved once they agree on a % - contract length, ELC's, etc but those are all about how $ is shared among players and how to reduce any leakage as GMs look for ways to get around the cap.

The larger structural issues facing the legaue -- widening gap between high and low revenue teams --- are here to stay and are ineveitbnale by-products of the cap/floor system which tries to force spending behviours of franchises with very different economic realities into the same box.

Revenue sharing can do a bit and the league has already proposed moving the gap between the cap and floor away from a fixed dollar amount to a % which would allow for a bigger gap between cap and floor.
- Canada Cup

Well said!

If they cancel another season I want a new league
- Genev21

I agree

Looking at these posts, even the ones I don't agree with, it is a demonstration that NHL fans are smart as hell and have a real tight grasp on what is going on here.

Another thing I noticed is that all the typical fan hatred and bickering is aside. The players have thier "we're sticking together" thing, and so are we. We are more powerfull than the players. We are the ones who buy thier lettered, stiched jerseys. We need a representitive of our own!

suiciding soon if no puck
- LOLKessel

This x100
- vancity787

I am posting from 7 feet under already.

shoot Bettman, shoot Fehr, problem solved. not gonna get anywhere with 2 leaders who have no interest in negotiating. we saw the same thing in 2004-05.
- DoubleDown

Fukc you Buttman, and I am not talking about your avatar.

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

This ^

Looking at these posts, even the ones I don't agree with, it is a demonstration that NHL fans are smart as hell and have a real tight grasp on what is going on here.

Another thing I noticed is that all the typical fan hatred and bickering is aside. The players have thier "we're sticking together" thing, and so are we. We are more powerfull than the players. We are the ones who buy thier lettered, stiched jerseys. We need a representitive of our own!
- Buffalo--Sabres

Let's start NHLFA for the fans. Who are we going to elect to represent us all? This fan can't be a canucks fan or habs fan or sens fan or leafs fan or bruins fan or etc...mmm tough to find a fan of a team that's not hated. Maybe a Blues fan? I don't know... Your thoughts?

This ^
- hooligoon

Because all important issues are decided by a vote

Don't really care that much any more. This is boring to say the least.
- Old Pappy

This ^