All the cash made by these players, go to the city and the players, NONE for the NHL None for the NHLPA....

Might be a little hard to get the guy on the right.
- Atomic Wedgie

via con dios

People who actually think this is reasonable are short-sighted and ignorant to reality. Do you honestly think playing with no contract in hand is a good solution? Furthermore, the players would LOVE the current contract to stand. It’s a foregone conclusion the % of revenues they take home will decrease (and rightfully so).

So, if the owner’s were to agree to continue playing under the current contract, what, exactly, is the motivation for the PA to negotiate a new contract? Why wouldn’t they just let it keep going as long as they can? And then, if they do this, what are the owner’s going to do, cancel it a few months down the line, when half a season is played? I’m sure when the players refuse to negotiate (because they won’t want to, obviously), you’ll be fully on board with the owner’s cancelling the last half of the season (at the fault of the players)….. Right? Can you tell me you’ll fully support that?

Then what? That leaves them, next summer, exactly where they are right now.

The whole “We’ll be happy to play while we negotiate” thing is just a PR ploy, like much of what is going on, on both sides. Some people just aren’t quite bright enough to realize it’s a ridiculous suggestion…..
- prock

let me ask you, Mr. Bright Guy, before the current CBA expired, why did the teams desperately sign about 100 players so they could take advantage of the old rules if the league can't live with the conditions of said CBA?

if it was the players on strike, I think the owners would have every right to lock the players out. In this case where the owners are forcing a lockout on all of us because they need to save themselves from themselves it's a ridiculous notion.

I just can't believe how stupid people are who take the owners/Bettman's side in this.
- jimbro83

I can't believe how stupid people are to think the NHLPA are good guys in this. Make no mistake, both sides are guilty here. They both packaged going through with a lockout into their strategies. At least the NHL isn't insulting us with videos trying to emotionally appeal to the fans. Anybody who was convinced by the NHLPA's fan appeals is naive.

let me ask you, Mr. Bright Guy, before the current CBA expired, why did the teams desperately sign about 100 players so they could take advantage of the old rules if the league can't live with the conditions of said CBA?
- jimbro83

Those owners would tell you that they felt compelled to do so in order to remain competitive.

But that even they recognize that it's unsustainable, and they need a new fiscal arrangement to ensure the health of the league.

There are two sides to every story.

let me ask you, Mr. Bright Guy, before the current CBA expired, why did the teams desperately sign about 100 players so they could take advantage of the old rules if the league can't live with the conditions of said CBA?
- jimbro83

In order to get any advantage they could over the other teams in the league. Isn’t that the goal of every signing? To improve your team? I’m curious, what on earth does this have to do with the idea that playing the season with no contract would be a good idea for the owners? Explain that, piece by piece, because I see ZERO connection.

Would the beer be the same, or would it be replacement beer too?

I think that if the play on the ice is going to be horrible, they should serve Steelback beer in the stands.
- Atomic Wedgie

only if frank plays net

Those owners would tell you that they felt compelled to do so in order to remain competitive.

But that even they recognize that it's unsustainable, and they need a new fiscal arrangement to ensure the health of the league.

There are two sides to every story.
- Atomic Wedgie

let me ask you as a Leaf fan. Take the 2002-03 season. 10 years ago. Leafs payroll was about the same as last year right?

were tickets cheaper for you back in 2002 or 2012?

I can't believe how stupid people are to think the NHLPA are good guys in this. Make no mistake, both sides are guilty here. They both packaged going through with a lockout into their strategies. At least the NHL isn't insulting us with videos trying to emotionally appeal to the fans. Anybody who was convinced by the NHLPA's fan appeals is naive.
- BulliesPhan87

that video brought me to tears and compelled me send a check for $50 to the NHLPA front office..

In order to get any advantage they could over the other teams in the league. Isn’t that the goal of every signing? To improve your team? I’m curious, what on earth does this have to do with the idea that playing the season with no contract would be a good idea for the owners? Explain that, piece by piece, because I see ZERO connection.
- prock

It's kinda like this:

You catch a guy having sex with your wife.

You tell him to stop.

He says no.

So you agree that he will continue to have sex with your wife, while you negotiate with him how he will stop having sex with your wife.

Get it?

Those owners would tell you that they felt compelled to do so in order to remain competitive.

But that even they recognize that it's unsustainable, and they need a new fiscal arrangement to ensure the health of the league.

There are two sides to every story.
- Atomic Wedgie

That’s exactly it. Two sides to every story. This is a nasty labour negotiation, where the fans are caught in the middle. End of story. What some fools don’t realize is the PA are trying to use the fans, in order to gain public favour and put pressure on the owners. The owners do the same thing, but it seems to be a tactic that the players seem to be using rather extensively this time out. And some people are just too blind to see that almost every press conference (and several of these so called proposals, among other thigns) is rhetoric designed to do just that.

In order to get any advantage they could over the other teams in the league. Isn’t that the goal of every signing? To improve your team? I’m curious, what on earth does this have to do with the idea that playing the season with no contract would be a good idea for the owners? Explain that, piece by piece, because I see ZERO connection.
- prock

so, the owners are using the lockout as a tool to get the players to accept their conditions correct?

the players didn't go on strike correct?

It's kinda like this:

You catch a guy having sex with your wife.

You tell him to stop.

He says no.

So you agree that he will continue to have sex with your wife, while you negotiate with him how he will stop having sex with your wife.

Get it?
- Atomic Wedgie

Excuse me, leave me alone while I'm here with Jimbo's wife.

let me ask you, Mr. Bright Guy, before the current CBA expired, why did the teams desperately sign about 100 players so they could take advantage of the old rules if the league can't live with the conditions of said CBA?
- jimbro83

1: not all teams did

2: ever consider the possibility the owners instructed their GMs to do so because they have zero intention on signing a new CBA that doesnt include a salary rollback or notable revenue sharing decrease for the players?

that video brought me to tears and made me send a check for $50 to the NHLPA front office..
- SabresFaninIndiana

let me ask you as a Leaf fan. Take the 2002-03 season. 10 years ago. Leafs payroll was about the same as last year right?

were tickets cheaper for you back in 2002 or 2012?
- jimbro83

Oddly enough, they were pretty close.

There hasn't been a ticket raise since the last lockout.

But you know what, Jimbro?

Player salaries have absolutely nothing to do with ticket prices.

Absolutely none.

It's simply supply and demand.

Leafs' payroll last year was lower than the Sabres' payroll, yet the Leafs' average ticket price was over three times higher.

so, the owners are using the lockout as a tool to get the players to accept their conditions correct?

the players didn't go on strike correct?
- jimbro83

Obviously. That’s how lockout’s work. Employers’ have a situation that isn’t acceptable to them as employers, and therefore refuse to continue under that arrangement. It’s the same as a strike, however, the other side refusing to continue. And somehow, in your head, the solution is for the owners to just continue under the agreement which isn’t acceptable. Apparently you don’t really get the point of a lockout.

If the players were getting 5 of revenue, getting paid $20K a year, would you suggest that they should just continue playing while they negotiate for more? Does that make sense to you? Do you think that would motivate the owners to get to the negotiating table?

It's kinda like this:

You catch a guy having sex with your wife.

You tell him to stop.

He says no.

So you agree that he will continue to have sex with your wife, while you negotiate with him how he will stop having sex with your wife.

Get it?
- Atomic Wedgie

Well put!

Obviously. That’s how lockout’s work. Employers’ have a situation that isn’t acceptable to them as employers, and therefore refuse to continue under that arrangement. It’s the same as a strike, however, the other side refusing to continue. And somehow, in your head, the solution is for the owners to just continue under the agreement which isn’t acceptable. Apparently you don’t really get the point of a lockout.

If the players were getting 5 of revenue, getting paid $20K a year, would you suggest that they should just continue playing while they negotiate for more? Does that make sense to you? Do you think that would motivate the owners to get to the negotiating table?
- prock

what I don't get it the point of a lockout and considering replacement players

what I don't get it the point of a lockout and considering replacement players
- jimbro83

You don't understand the point of a lockout? Seriously?

Do you understand the point of a strike?

Here. Try this. I’ve given you a contract to mow my lawn for $1/hour, and you’ve accepted it for the next month. At the end of the month, I’d like to continue paying you $1 to mow my lawn. What are you going to do?

what I don't get it the point of a lockout and considering replacement players
- jimbro83

The point of the lockout is that either side is willing to sacrifice short term profits for better long term conditions.

The point of replacement players is... um... a crappy interim product nobody actually wants?

Oddly enough, they were pretty close.

There hasn't been a ticket raise since the last lockout.

But you know what, Jimbro?

Player salaries have absolutely nothing to do with ticket prices.

Absolutely none.

It's simply supply and demand.

Leafs' payroll last year was lower than the Sabres' payroll, yet the Leafs' average ticket price was over three times higher.
- Atomic Wedgie

I thought ticket prices were HRR?

I'm not bright though

YES


F- these primma donna overpaid sellout biatches.



Lets play some hockey!

You don't understand the point of a lockout? Seriously?

Do you understand the point of a strike?

Here. Try this. I’ve given you a contract to mow my lawn for $1/hour, and you’ve accepted it for the next month. At the end of the month, I’d like to continue paying you $1 to mow my lawn. What are you going to do?
- prock

good lord stop talking

what I don't get it the point of a lockout and considering replacement players
- jimbro83

Pretty simple:

The NHLPA maintains that their members are the product - fans and advertisers shell out big bucks in order to see them perform.

Owners maintain that the players aren't nearly as important as they think they are: the product is the NHL - watching hockey is woven into our culture, players may come and go, but fans still cheer for the team they grew up watching, the town they live in, etc.

A great way for the owners to prove their point is to put Joe Shlabotnik (bonus points for those of you who know who he is) in a Rangers or Leafs jersey, and watch the fans come out and watch him (or so the owners hope), which would prove the owners' point.