Can somebody explain to me why those greedy pigs keep discussing secondary issues that they know will NOT resolve the lockout and avoid the core economic problems?
- Aliaksandrhn

Because both sides need to do something in order to keep up the appearance that they are still negotiating, trying to find a solution.

In reality, it's a stand-off.

Both sides know exactly where the other stands. Until one side is willing to change its position, you aren't going to see any progress whatsoever.

It may be frustrating to watch, but that's how this stuff is done.

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

It's not about sides...It's collective bargaining...I think it is ridiculous that a Union has members that make more than most CEOs. They are extremely well paid employees and will continue to make exorbitant salaries no matter which way this CBA lands. 57% for labour is a ridiculous number for any business. Anyone who feels that is smart should really give it some thought.

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

This ^^^

Many try to blame the owner's with "but that was their number, the 57%".

If they'd tried fro 51%, the lockout could have been two years. At the time, they got the best deal they could, and moved on.

And that ignores that there are deals that can work for both sides at one time, and as things progress, they no longer work. We were talking about a $1.8B in revenue league at the time. Now we're talking about $3.5B or something? Revenue has doubled. Things have changed.

There is nothing wrong with expecting the CBA to change along with the times, and the progression of the league (hopefully towards an agreement that can be sustained more long-term).
- prock

The owners had the hammer at the end of the last lockout and were able to pretty well impose the deal they wanted. I agree that they may have settled for a slighty higher number in order to get the cap and knowing that they would be able to come back in subsequent negotiations and push the number lower -- which is exactly what they are doing.

I'm not saying that it has to be 57% or that the owners shouldn't try to get a better number. My point is that there is no "correct" number. The reality is simply that both sides are trying to get the best deal.

Don't expect deals to be sustained for a long time. Owners know that players will always cave and they will use that to continue to press for a bigger cut every time out.

Unlike the last negotiations which were about the cap, this is not a set of negotiations about the structure of the relationship it is simply about the share. That's why I don't expect it to result in the loss of a full year. Both sides know that at a certain point the costs of staying out outweigh whatever gains they could possibly achieve.

The Owners could do it if they so please and they'd probably make good profit doing it.
- Viktory

Yeah, im sure places struggling as it as, will have boat loads of money pouring in with a bunch of no body players playing...

Fans will be lining up to pay to watch these guys...

oh dont get me wrong, i understand the players side of the negotiation. of course the union is going to try to get the absolute best deal for their members.. thats their job.

but its also the job of a union to negotiate reasonably and to inform their members when they are asking too much (not openly of course, but behind closed doors).
- Dozzer

Who says they aren't? Key phrase is "behind closed doors". It's important for the players to show a unified stance, if they want any success in these negotiations. So what gets communicated to them, you and I have likely no idea.

for example, the company i work for had a new union agreement come up this past winter. i am not in the union myself but there are friends of mine who are. most guys came in being reasonable but others were saying to the union "we want this this this this that and this and that and some more of this". the union told the workers that they needed to get realistic in a hurry and that their demands were flat out unreasonable. ultimately, the members came to understand that their self perceived worth was unrealistic and a strike was avoided.

it is absolutely the unions job to protect the interests of its members, but that also includes ensuring there are no lengthy work stoppages, since, a work stoppage is not in the best interest of the union member.
- Dozzer

I don't think either side WANTS a lengthy strike. From what I've seen (the percentages), I'm not so sure either side is really being unrealistic either. But, as I said earlier, a 1% or 2% swing either way can make a HUGE difference. So, it may seem like a small amount to us, but they'll fight tooth and nail over it.

Bringing in replacement players......... so that means my leafs have been way ahead of the curve all these years...... I knew there was a method to their madness

It's not about sides...It's collective bargaining...I think it is ridiculous that a Union has members that make more than most CEOs. They are extremely well paid employees and will continue to make exorbitant salaries no matter which way this CBA lands. 57% for labour is a ridiculous number for any business. Anyone who feels that is smart should really give it some thought.
- FuzE_gus

57% is a number imposed by the owners in the last negotiations. Should they have given it some thought? 57% works very well for some of the franchises while others would lose money at almost any salary level.

The owners had the hammer at the end of the last lockout and were able to pretty well impose the deal they wanted. I agree that they may have settled for a slighty higher number in order to get the cap and knowing that they would be able to come back in subsequent negotiations and push the number lower -- which is exactly what they are doing.

I'm not saying that it has to be 57% or that the owners shouldn't try to get a better number. My point is that there is no "correct" number. The reality is simply that both sides are trying to get the best deal.

Don't expect deals to be sustained for a long time. Owners know that players will always cave and they will use that to continue to press for a bigger cut every time out.

Unlike the last negotiations which were about the cap, this is not a set of negotiations about the structure of the relationship it is simply about the share. That's why I don't expect it to result in the loss of a full year. Both sides know that at a certain point the costs of staying out outweigh whatever gains they could possibly achieve.
- Canada Cup

Oh, I think if they had said 47% last time out, the NHL might still be shut down 8 years later.

And again, things change. We're not talking about the same league we were 8 years ago.

That's not Keanu Reeves....thats Footsteps Falco

57% is a number imposed by the owners in the last negotiations. Should they have given it some thought? 57% works very well for some of the franchises while others would lose money at almost any salary level.
- Canada Cup

You act like they could have just said "1%, that's what you're getting, and you'll like it.... That is all".

Is that your opinion?

how do you know when its spring?

cause the leafs are out

pa rum pum!

dont lie, i know you're in stitches over that one.
- Dozzer

Look what I just found on the innerwebs!



Ha ha ha - check it out!

It's a picture of a guy wearing a funny suit, and someone has photoshopped a Leafs logo on it!

Bwa ha ha ha ha, what a sick, sick burn!

Have you ever seen this before? It's awesome!

Take that, Leafs fans!

I can't believe it, but I agree with Prock.

Who says they aren't? Key phrase is "behind closed doors". It's important for the players to show a unified stance, if they want any success in these negotiations. So what gets communicated to them, you and I have likely no idea.



I don't think either side WANTS a lengthy strike. From what I've seen (the percentages), I'm not so sure either side is really being unrealistic either. But, as I said earlier, a 1% or 2% swing either way can make a HUGE difference. So, it may seem like a small amount to us, but they'll fight tooth and nail over it.
- prock

i dont disagree with you.

now with that in mind...

do you think either side has a "fold" date in mind?

i would think the owners are in a position to sit out longer.. but how much longer? i am sure NBC might take issue if it starts to drag on into the prime months for hockey... which leads to a second question i guess. could this major network influence the owners to take a less than optimal deal to get the product they paid for on their networks?

I can't believe it, but I agree with Prock.
- braidan

Look what I just found on the innerwebs!



Ha ha ha - check it out!

It's a picture of a guy wearing a funny suit, and someone has photoshopped a Leafs logo on it!

Bwa ha ha ha ha, what a sick, sick burn!

Have you ever seen this before? It's awesome!

Take that, Leafs fans!
- Atomic Wedgie

wow.. you must of searched the depths of the internet to find this!!

i think i may of once seen someone call them the maple laffs.. the originality of it blew my mind.

the first time it was funny..

then next thousand times was amusing...

the last 10 thousand times it has been used its just simply sad.
- Dozzer

1967!

YES!

1967!

YES!
- Fountain-San

THEIR CANADA'S TEAM DAMMIT

SO MUCH SO THAT THEY ONLY WIN ON THE CENTENNIAL.

YOU JUST WAIT TIL CANADA TURNS 200!!

57% is a number imposed by the owners in the last negotiations. Should they have given it some thought? 57% works very well for some of the franchises while others would lose money at almost any salary level.
- Canada Cup

I'm not trying too hard to take the owners side but I generally believe businesses deserve the right to manage their businesses as they see fit. It sucks as fans in this case that we lose hockey while they fight over this. The owners sacrificed to get cost certainty 7 years ago and turned around a ship that needed turning. It doesn't mean the terms of 7 years ago work for business today. Business is a dynamic fluid thing. They want change just as much as the players want status quo. The players insist on a union so the owners have to act accordingly. That's life when you deal with a union. Again, it sucks for us as fans but who are we to tell a business how to run. If we don't like it we just stop buying their tickets and products. Simple.

i dont disagree with you.

now with that in mind...

do you think either side has a "fold" date in mind?

i would think the owners are in a position to sit out longer.. but how much longer? i am sure NBC might take issue if it starts to drag on into the prime months for hockey... which leads to a second question i guess. could this major network influence the owners to take a less than optimal deal to get the product they paid for on their networks?
- Dozzer

I think both sides think they can hold out until the end of time.

At least, that's what they are thinking at the moment.

Come November, doubts will be creeping in...

Believe it or not, the CBC already did something similar.

Anyone remember what that tryout show was called?
- Atomic Wedgie

Making the Cut
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...he_Cut:_Last_Man_Standing

I don't think its "anyone with an NHL contract". I recall reading you don't become a memeber of the union until young play one game.
- prock

It has nothing to do with the union.... All NHL contracts are locked out.

i dont disagree with you.

now with that in mind...

do you think either side has a "fold" date in mind?

i would think the owners are in a position to sit out longer.. but how much longer? i am sure NBC might take issue if it starts to drag on into the prime months for hockey... which leads to a second question i guess. could this major network influence the owners to take a less than optimal deal to get the product they paid for on their networks?
- Dozzer

An actual date? No. I think as days go by, each side starts looking at things in terms of "okay, I think I'm losing more by continuing with this than I am gaining by getting my way". And that's why you hear the ideas floated about replacement players... If that were to come to be, the league loses much less, doesn't need the players, and gives them more leverage.

Very Simple!
NO

I think both sides think they can hold out until the end of time.

At least, that's what they are thinking at the moment.

Come November, doubts will be creeping in...
- Atomic Wedgie

i'm curious to know what percentage of NHL players have signed contracts with other leagues?

its one thing to say "the players can just go play elsewhere" but its quite a different story if only 15% of union players are getting contracts