Again, your don't have a grasp on what it's about. By doing so the players will be giving up millions, perhaps billions of dollars in future salary. It isn't about what is good for them. It's about what is fair. Sydney Crosby playing Hockey and making 1 million a year would be great. LOL Who wouldn't want to play a sport hey love to play and make a million bucks! But when the League is generating billions of dollars in revenue. It's about what is fair.

And as far as your last comment. What do you think the players have proposed? They've proposed lowering the % going forward while honoring existing deals. So why don't we have a CBA?

Now reverting back to the 57% mark 3 years from now, or whatever it is. Is a topic for negotiation. There is room there for movement on the players part. But the League doesn't want to discuss that. They want immediate rollbacks. Nor do the richer teams seem interested in helping out the poorer teams. Nobody is really focused on that part, which is one of the biggest battles in this lockout.
- MJL

I think there is a major point that you are failing to grasp. You are stuck on revenues, revenues, revenues. Revenues at the level they are at sounds great, but means nothing if teams cant make a PROFIT! Why cant they make a profit? Too many dollars go towards player salaries. Also, Your making stuff up, I never even remotely suggested anything to the level of lower slaries being Crosby making 1 million. Your turn, although Im not sure if I will be able to get back to this.

Anyone watching the lev/dynamo game ?

Again, your don't have a grasp on what it's about. By doing so the players will be giving up millions, perhaps billions of dollars in future salary. It isn't about what is good for them. It's about what is fair. Sydney Crosby playing Hockey and making 1 million a year would be great. LOL Who wouldn't want to play a sport hey love to play and make a million bucks! But when the League is generating billions of dollars in revenue. It's about what is fair.

And as far as your last comment. What do you think the players have proposed? They've proposed lowering the % going forward while honoring existing deals. So why don't we have a CBA?

Now reverting back to the 57% mark 3 years from now, or whatever it is. Is a topic for negotiation. There is room there for movement on the players part. But the League doesn't want to discuss that. They want immediate rollbacks. Nor do the richer teams seem interested in helping out the poorer teams. Nobody is really focused on that part, which is one of the biggest battles in this lockout.
- MJL

Coincidence in timing. I am sitting in my office doing payroll for my company. Small shipping co. of about 10 people. I was thinking, if I was mandated to give 57% of my REVENUES to my employees, I would last about 2 days and just give them the keys and leave. Unsustainable. The numbers are much larger in the NHL but same concept applies. Unsustainable and that is why many teams LOSE money. PERIOD!

Your incorrect. An agreement will be reached when each side feels they have a fair agreement that they can live with.
- MJL

Did the players think the last agreement was fair before they signed it?

Yes, I agree, turns out it was, but they didn't think it was fair when they signed it.

I think there is a major point that you are failing to grasp. You are stuck on revenues, revenues, revenues. Revenues at the level they are at sounds great, but means nothing if teams cant make a PROFIT! Why cant they make a profit? Too many dollars go towards player salaries. Also, Your making stuff up, I never even remotely suggested anything to the level of lower slaries being Crosby making 1 million. Your turn, although Im not sure if I will be able to get back to this.
- Donnie27J

Seriously. Do your self a favor and go back and reread my posts. I stated numerous times that one of the biggest issues is the richer teams are unwilling to help out the poorer teams in revenue sharing. Which is one of the biggest issues in this. In that before the players are willing to take a paycut, they have to get some concessions from the League within.
Clearly I'm fully aware of what the exact issues are. You need to go back and review what I've stated, because you haven't grasped what is being said.
And also you clearly didn't get the point of the Crosby analogy I made. As you apparently took it literally.

Coincidence in timing. I am sitting in my office doing payroll for my company. Small shipping co. of about 10 people. I was thinking, if I was mandated to give 57% of my REVENUES to my employees, I would last about 2 days and just give them the keys and leave. Unsustainable. The numbers are much larger in the NHL but same concept applies. Unsustainable and that is why many teams LOSE money. PERIOD!
- Donnie27J

Comparing a business such as the one your involved with, with the NHL and a Major Sports League, is a waste of time. It's simply not the same thing.

Did the players think the last agreement was fair before they signed it?

Yes, I agree, turns out it was, but they didn't think it was fair when they signed it.
- Atomic Wedgie

I don't think anyone would think a 24% paycut was fair. The players and the League obviously didn't anticipate the growth that took place. Otherwise the League wouldn't have agreed to it. Your not dealing with a weak Goodenow this time. The guy in charge of the NHLPA truly knows what he is doing. And has a ton of experience in this arena.

I think there is a major point that you are failing to grasp. You are stuck on revenues, revenues, revenues. Revenues at the level they are at sounds great, but means nothing if teams cant make a PROFIT! Why cant they make a profit? Too many dollars go towards player salaries. Also, Your making stuff up, I never even remotely suggested anything to the level of lower slaries being Crosby making 1 million. Your turn, although Im not sure if I will be able to get back to this.
- Donnie27J

Are you really comparing the logistics of a small shipping company to the leading hockey product on the planet?

EDIT: Mistyped, but same difference

Oh great...
I'll tune in for the final two minutes of the games to see what happens...
Such a thrilling sport
- mlindsay

... you'll tune in for the final 2 minutes, which will take 20 minutes to actually play.

I don't think anyone would think a 24% paycut was fair. The players and the League obviously didn't anticipate the growth that took place. Otherwise the League wouldn't have agreed to it. Your not dealing with a weak Goodenow this time. The guy in charge of the NHLPA truly knows what he is doing. And has a ton of experience in this arena.
- MJL

And this time around, the players are not going to think that a cut in salaries is fair.

But a new CBA isn't going to be signed without salary roll-backs - the owners won't agree to any new CBA without a larger chunk of HRR.

It isn't going to be "fair."

It's going to be the best deal that both sides can get.

So quit using the word "fair."

It doesn't belong in the world of labour negotiations. It's an arbitrary, subjective notion.

No, it isn't.

Sorry, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what is fair.

These negotiations are all about what one side can extract out of the other.

Go play with unicorns if you want an agreement that is about fairness.

This is business.
- Atomic Wedgie

Can you imagine how good a unicorn would be in the room?

I bet it would also recycle its disposable utensils from the buffet.

Comparing a business such as the one your involved with, with the NHL and a Major Sports League, is a waste of time. It's simply not the same thing.
- MJL

The principles do correlate. That is proven by the very FACT that teams are losing money. Revenue sharing between the teams would really only be needed at a low level if player salaries were not so high. Teams could turn a profit and sustain themselves on their own if expenses (i.e. player salaries) were not so high. If you want the teams/owners to give their money to other teams then why dont players give their money to other players? Because it doesnt and shoudnt work that way. You spout off a lot but do not really present anything. Aren't you the same guy that others were referring to as "the know it all" the other day? I see their point. Good day!

Can you imagine how good a unicorn would be in the room?

I bet it would also recycle its disposable utensils from the buffet.


- Aetherial

The internet is a very strange place:

And this time around, the players are not going to think that a cut in salaries is fair.

But a new CBA isn't going to be signed without salary roll-backs - the owners won't agree to any new CBA without a larger chunk of HRR.

It isn't going to be "fair."

It's going to be the best deal that both sides can get.

So quit using the word "fair."

It doesn't belong in the world of labour negotiations. It's an arbitrary, subjective notion.
- Atomic Wedgie

Couldn't agree more. What if the owners say, 'ok, we aren't going to have any rollbacks, but we are lowering the cap by 20% effective immediately'.

What will happen? Buyouts galore and guys buried the AHL.

Next summer (and the next few summers), when free agency hits, teams won't be able to afford (most rich teams are at the cap and the poor ones have self-imposed caps) to pay guys what they are actually worth.

So instead of the guys who are locked up now long term (which is the minority), suffering, it will be the guys who have 1-3 year deals in place now (the majority of NHLers).

Either way, the players are going to take a hit. It just depends which players. The guys that got outrageous contracts before this CBA or the guys coming up for contract.

The players really need to wake up here. Take your damn rollback. In principal, it sucks. It's not fair. But in practice, it's either take a rollback, don't play, (or if the owners are dumb enough to continue business has it has been going) kiss 150-200 union jobs goodbye (as teams fold up).

The principles do correlate.
- Donnie27J

No, it's a bad comparison. A multi-billion dollar industry offering a professional sports product operates so differently from a small business, especially one offering a service such as shipping, that there's little to compare. Also, I imagine your business has voluntary employment rather than contracted workers, which again makes the comparison invalid.

The internet is a very strange place:


- Atomic Wedgie

OK, granted, that was a bit of a defensive lapse. But that unicorn is definitely teaching the younger kids something. It might even be suggesting a recipe for protein shakes.

Couldn't agree more. What if the owners say, 'ok, we aren't going to have any rollbacks, but we are lowering the cap by 20% effective immediately'.

What will happen? Buyouts galore and guys buried the AHL.

Next summer (and the next few summers), when free agency hits, teams won't be able to afford (most rich teams are at the cap and the poor ones have self-imposed caps) to pay guys what they are actually worth.

So instead of the guys who are locked up now long term (which is the minority), suffering, it will be the guys who have 1-3 year deals in place now (the majority of NHLers).

Either way, the players are going to take a hit. It just depends which players. The guys that got outrageous contracts before this CBA or the guys coming up for contract.

The players really need to wake up here. Take your damn rollback. In principal, it sucks. It's not fair. But in practice, it's either take a rollback, don't play, (or if the owners are dumb enough to continue business has it has been going) kiss 150-200 union jobs goodbye (as teams fold up).
- Charliebox

Asked this week if the 2004-05 lockout was worth it to him as a player, (former NHLer Jeff) O’Neill answered definitively.

“No,” O’Neill said. “I lost $3.5 million. I don’t see how that’s worth it. I’ll never get that money back.”

The hard-core unionists will pooh-pooh O’Neill’s players-can’t-win ethic. Convincing someone that he’s wrong about the cold, hard math, on the other hand, is a taller order.

http://www.thestar.com/sp...y-to-cost-players-feschuk

Couldn't agree more. What if the owners say, 'ok, we aren't going to have any rollbacks, but we are lowering the cap by 20% effective immediately'.

What will happen? Buyouts galore and guys buried the AHL.

Next summer (and the next few summers), when free agency hits, teams won't be able to afford (most rich teams are at the cap and the poor ones have self-imposed caps) to pay guys what they are actually worth.

So instead of the guys who are locked up now long term (which is the minority), suffering, it will be the guys who have 1-3 year deals in place now (the majority of NHLers).

Either way, the players are going to take a hit. It just depends which players. The guys that got outrageous contracts before this CBA or the guys coming up for contract.

The players really need to wake up here. Take your damn rollback. In principal, it sucks. It's not fair. But in practice, it's either take a rollback, don't play, (or if the owners are dumb enough to continue business has it has been going) kiss 150-200 union jobs goodbye (as teams fold up).
- Charliebox

Again, I have to agree with Wedgie. "Fair" is a subjective term and has no place, and actually no meaning whatsoever in this context.

Eklund: The NHL Believes the NHLPA Taking Way Too Long to Put Their Offer Up.
- Eklund

CBA buzz.

Can you feel it!

OK, granted, that was a bit of a defensive lapse. But that unicorn is definitely teaching the younger kids something. It might even be suggesting a recipe for protein shakes.
- Aetherial

Unicorn is good in the room.

Low cap hit.

Leadership qualities...

Unicorn is good in the room.

Low cap hit.

Leadership qualities...
- Atomic Wedgie

Helps your team get to the cap floor and doesn't steal anyone's speed stick.

Again, I have to agree with Wedgie. "Fair" is a subjective term and has no place, and actually no meaning whatsoever in this context.
- Aetherial

I just find it hilarious that our friend from the city of brotherly love actually thinks that the Snider and Jabobs are sitting around drafting a new proposal to the NHLPA, and thinking about "fairness" to the players.

does eklund look like corky from life goes on to anyone else?

[/img]

No, it's a bad comparison. A multi-billion dollar industry offering a professional sports product operates so differently from a small business, especially one offering a service such as shipping, that there's little to compare. Also, I imagine your business has voluntary employment rather than contracted workers, which again makes the comparison invalid.
- BulliesPhan87

I am referring solely to the comparison/correlation of revenues to expenses. It doesnt matter how high my revenues are if my expenses are also so high that I can't turn a profit. It doesnt matter if Im talking about a $10 a year business or a 3.3 billion dollar a year professional sports league. The principle is the same.

I just find it hilarious that our friend from the city of brotherly love actually thinks that the Snider and Jabobs are sitting around drafting a new proposal to the NHLPA, and thinking about "fairness" to the players.
- Atomic Wedgie

OK that actually made me laugh out loud. I pictured Bettman leading an ownership meeting... and a bunch of owners pushing for something that they think is fair and equitable to the players.

"Hey guys, come on. Dropping their share down to 38% isn't really fair. We should present them with an offer that SHOWS them how much we value them"

ROFL!

Yeah, just like UFA's and some RFA's love to show their former team just how much it means to play for/with them when it is their turn to cash in.