All that means to me, based upon the scenario described above, is one side is working on a compromise (the NHLPA), and the other side (the NHL) is shooting it down and telling them to come back with another, apparently better (at least for the NHL) offer.

Bravo NHL.
- wolfhounds

I think the NHLPA has decided that they HAVE to win this one or next CBA will be lather rinse repeat, or rather, lube, bend over, grunt.

The problem is that they won't win. They will end up getting what the NHL wanted all along, or close to it.

If it gets really prolonged, there will be a large number of players who realize there is no hope of them replacing the lost income and the union will start to erode from within.

They are talking a good game now... but it hasn't cost them anything yet.

A big point being left out of this for me. I am not one of these big business minds. I dont look to debate for hours on end. I could care less about %'s, and other terms the big wigs use just to make themselves feel smarter. Common sense isnt used enough these days.

What the players should realise is they are lucky to be where they are. Period. Even the scabs being paid 500,000 a year to play hockey.

Then crying about it? They took pay cuts last time? Last I saw the contracts were going up and up. They get more benefits than any average joe would dream of. They get a summer off to just work out and be healthy. They have it damn good, and at the end of the day, no matter how much salaries are rolled back, they will have it damn good.

Every CEO makes more than his employees, and I am sure there would be a huge line to take their jobs. If they think they have it so bad, then go to Russia. Entitled idiots.

If they are worried about having money after their careers are done. Hire a financial advisor and plan for retirement. Dont buy a house with 10 rooms and 4 cars.

I think the NHLPA has decided that they HAVE to win this one or next CBA will be lather rinse repeat, or rather, lube, bend over, grunt.

The problem is that they won't win. They will end up getting what the NHL wanted all along, or close to it.

If it gets really prolonged, there will be a large number of players who realize there is no hope of them replacing the lost income and the union will start to erode from within.

They are talking a good game now... but it hasn't cost them anything yet.
- Aetherial

They shouldn't be concerned with the next CBA. The average NHL career is 5.5 years. Most of the players losing money because of this lockout will be retired by the time the next CBA comes around.

A big point being left out of this for me. I am not one of these big business minds. I dont look to debate for hours on end. I could care less about %'s, and other terms the big wigs use just to make themselves feel smarter. Common sense isnt used enough these days.

What the players should realise is they are lucky to be where they are. Period. Even the scabs being paid 500,000 a year to play hockey.

Then crying about it? They took pay cuts last time? Last I saw the contracts were going up and up. They get more benefits than any average joe would dream of. They get a summer off to just work out and be healthy. They have it damn good, and at the end of the day, no matter how much salaries are rolled back, they will have it damn good.

Every CEO makes more than his employees, and I am sure there would be a huge line to take their jobs. If they think they have it so bad, then go to Russia. Entitled idiots.

If they are worried about having money after their careers are done. Hire a financial advisor and plan for retirement. Dont buy a house with 10 rooms and 4 cars.
- flyer_nutter

You act like the players are being given something. They aren't. They have earned their place in the sport. They make what they make due to the revenue that they generate in the game. When you turn on the TV, who do you tune into watch? The owners or the players? Whose jersey do the fans buy? Ever walk into a Sports memorabilia store and see a Jersey with an Owners name on the back of it? It's a 3.3 Billion dollar industry. And that revenue is generated by the players. That is why they get paid what they get paid. There is no entitlement. Comparing a CEO in a Company to this situation is a poor comparison. How are the players crying about it? They aren't lucky to be where they are. They posses a marketable skill that earns them the salaries that they do. Your characterizations of the players couldn't be more inaccurate. As far as the contracts going up and up. Are the players holding a gun to ownerships head forcing them to sign the players to those deals? Not caring about the percentages is choosing to not be informed.

I think the NHLPA has decided that they HAVE to win this one or next CBA will be lather rinse repeat, or rather, lube, bend over, grunt.

The problem is that they won't win. They will end up getting what the NHL wanted all along, or close to it.

If it gets really prolonged, there will be a large number of players who realize there is no hope of them replacing the lost income and the union will start to erode from within.

They are talking a good game now... but it hasn't cost them anything yet.
- Aetherial

The players are not going to let happen what happened the last time. Not because they didn't win, or want to win this time. But because having a salary rollback and a salary cap didn't solve the League's issues.

I think the NHLPA has decided that they HAVE to win this one or next CBA will be lather rinse repeat, or rather, lube, bend over, grunt.

The problem is that they won't win. They will end up getting what the NHL wanted all along, or close to it.

If it gets really prolonged, there will be a large number of players who realize there is no hope of them replacing the lost income and the union will start to erode from within.

They are talking a good game now... but it hasn't cost them anything yet.
- Aetherial

agreed, most owners can afford to be patient and Bettman only needs 7 teams to keep the lockout going (6 if you exclude Phx)

The players are not going to let happen what happened the last time. Not because they didn't win, or want to win this time. But because having a salary rollback and a salary cap didn't solve the League's issues.
- MJL

once the players have lost 1 year....let's see how united they are. They will never recoup that money, that are in it for the short term unlike the owners.

once the players have lost 1 year....let's see how united they are. They will never recoup that money, that are in it for the short term unlike the owners.
- Symba007

The Owners are in the same boat. They will never recoup the money they are losing also. I agree the longer it goes, the more likely that either side under whatever pressures gets desperate. But I don't believe the players came this far to crumble.

The Owners are in the same boat. They will never recoup the money they are losing also. I agree the longer it goes, the more likely that either side under whatever pressures gets desperate. But I don't believe the players came this far to crumble.
- MJL

Players are playing the card the revenues are up, owners won't want to leave all that money on the table with losing a season. Players are calling the owners bluff. What if the owners are not bluffing? We'll see after Xmas once the league has to cancel the season, we'll see who's the first one to get desperate. Neither side will make the first move until then.

More evidence that ESPN doesn't know jack sh!t when it comes to hockey...

Here is Greenberg's Top 25 Under 25 (ESPN Insider), with No. 1 Mr. Toews repeating in that spot:

1. C Jonathan Toews, Chicago Blackhawks, 24
2. C Steven Stamkos, Tampa Bay Lightning, 22
3. C Logan Couture, San Jose Sharks, 23
4. C Jordan Staal, Carolina Hurricanes, 24
5. C John Tavares, New York Islanders, 22
6. RW Patrick Kane, Chicago Blackhawks, 24
7. LW Taylor Hall, Edmonton Oilers, 21
8. D Drew Doughty, Los Angeles Kings,
9. D Erik Karlsson, Ottawa Senators, 22
10. LW Brad Marchand, Boston Bruins, 24
11. D Alex Pietrangelo, St. Louis Blues, 23
12. C Tyler Seguin, Boston Bruins, 21
13. LW Jamie Benn, Dallas Stars, 23
14. LW David Perron, St. Louis Blues, 24
15. RW Jeff Skinner, Carolina Hurricanes, 20
16. D Victor Hedman, Tampa Bay Lightning, 22
17. LW Milan Lucic, Boston Bruins, 24
18. C Sam Gagner, Edmonton Oilers, 23
19. C Evander Kane, Winnipeg Jets, 21
20. D Kevin Shattenkirk, St. Louis Blues, 24
21. C Jordan Eberle, Edmonton Oilers, 22
22. C Patrik Berglund, St. Louis Blues, 24
23. G Semyon Varlamov, Colorado Avalanche, 24
24. D Tyler Myers, Buffalo Sabres, 22
25. LW Wayne Simmonds, Philadelphia Flyers, 24

- Stamkos isn't #1?
- Couture at #3?
- J. Staal at #4?
- Marchand cracks the top 10?
- Gagner ranked higher than Eberle?
- Eberle at #21?
- Varlamov is on this list?

No: Landeskog / Henrique / Nugent-Hopkins / Pacioretty / Hodgson / Ekman-Larsson / Backstrom / Duchene / NO GIROUX!?!?!?

As I was saying last week, ESPN is a (frank)in' joke when it comes to hockey!

Case closed.

Anyone looking for another yahoo fantasy league, "extra attacker" is looking for another manager to even it up at 8.. or 10 or 12. Draft is tonight in 2 hours, 10:30. Its a public league. Includes PIM, HIT, BLK, SHO, FW etc. big rosters with a huge bench so it gives the manager more responsibility on who he thinks will play better that night, and more of an opportunity to draft his desired team/"sleepers".

Players are playing the card the revenues are up, owners won't want to leave all that money on the table with losing a season. Players are calling the owners bluff. What if the owners are not bluffing? We'll see after Xmas once the league has to cancel the season, we'll see who's the first one to get desperate. Neither side will make the first move until then.
- Symba007

I don't know how it's going to play out. Who is going to break first. We'll see. I just have an idea of what generally has to happen for an agreement to happen.

You act like the players are being given something. They aren't. They have earned their place in the sport. They make what they make due to the revenue that they generate in the game. When you turn on the TV, who do you tune into watch? The owners or the players? Whose jersey do the fans buy? Ever walk into a Sports memorabilia store and see a Jersey with an Owners name on the back of it? It's a 3.3 Billion dollar industry. And that revenue is generated by the players. That is why they get paid what they get paid. There is no entitlement. Comparing a CEO in a Company to this situation is a poor comparison. How are the players crying about it? They aren't lucky to be where they are. They posses a marketable skill that earns them the salaries that they do. Your characterizations of the players couldn't be more inaccurate. As far as the contracts going up and up. Are the players holding a gun to ownerships head forcing them to sign the players to those deals? Not caring about the percentages is choosing to not be informed.
- MJL

If EVERY SINGLE current NHL player retired tomorrow, and the NHL started a new season with non-union members,

In very short order, the revenues would be near the same. The league would have new stars. In fact, some markets may get stronger because of some new "hope".

The NHL could also pay these players a lot less, and drop the ticket prices somewhat and maybe make even MORE money. (yeah, ok, probably not)

The revenue is NOT generated by the players, it is generated by the owners paying the expenses required to generate those revenues, including salaries.

The players are easily replaced. Most of their names would be all but forgotten within a year.

You act like the players are being given something. They aren't. They have earned their place in the sport. They make what they make due to the revenue that they generate in the game. When you turn on the TV, who do you tune into watch? The owners or the players? Whose jersey do the fans buy? Ever walk into a Sports memorabilia store and see a Jersey with an Owners name on the back of it? It's a 3.3 Billion dollar industry. And that revenue is generated by the players. That is why they get paid what they get paid. There is no entitlement. Comparing a CEO in a Company to this situation is a poor comparison. How are the players crying about it? They aren't lucky to be where they are. They posses a marketable skill that earns them the salaries that they do. Your characterizations of the players couldn't be more inaccurate. As far as the contracts going up and up. Are the players holding a gun to ownerships head forcing them to sign the players to those deals? Not caring about the percentages is choosing to not be informed.
- MJL

You are right.. when most fans turn on the TV we do so to watch the players. But the fact of the matter is... and another lockout is more proof of this.... the owners own the right for players to play and fans to watch. There are very few businesses where the "employees" get 57% of all revenues while those that are paying the salaries take all the risk and pay all the bills. I think most owners would agree that they are looking for a deal the will protect them from themselves. They would never say it publicly but it is a fact. The other fact is that even with a new deal owners will look for ways around the cap, look for loopholes, continue to overpay. The do this not because they are stupid, but because they know if they don't pay the next guy will. And in order for most teams to make money, they need to see at least one round of playoff games. Team like Florida, Tampa are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You need to pay and sometime overpay to put a product on the ice that has any chance of winning. If teams like this don't over pay they will most definitely lose money. It would be great if ever team could be like Toronto and miss the playoffs for years in a row and continue to make millions. The reality is there are only 5 or 6 teams that can do that.

More evidence that ESPN doesn't know jack sh!t when it comes to hockey...

Here is Greenberg's Top 25 Under 25 (ESPN Insider), with No. 1 Mr. Toews repeating in that spot:

1. C Jonathan Toews, Chicago Blackhawks, 24
2. C Steven Stamkos, Tampa Bay Lightning, 22
3. C Logan Couture, San Jose Sharks, 23
4. C Jordan Staal, Carolina Hurricanes, 24
5. C John Tavares, New York Islanders, 22
6. RW Patrick Kane, Chicago Blackhawks, 24
7. LW Taylor Hall, Edmonton Oilers, 21
8. D Drew Doughty, Los Angeles Kings,
9. D Erik Karlsson, Ottawa Senators, 22
10. LW Brad Marchand, Boston Bruins, 24
11. D Alex Pietrangelo, St. Louis Blues, 23
12. C Tyler Seguin, Boston Bruins, 21
13. LW Jamie Benn, Dallas Stars, 23
14. LW David Perron, St. Louis Blues, 24
15. RW Jeff Skinner, Carolina Hurricanes, 20
16. D Victor Hedman, Tampa Bay Lightning, 22
17. LW Milan Lucic, Boston Bruins, 24
18. C Sam Gagner, Edmonton Oilers, 23
19. C Evander Kane, Winnipeg Jets, 21
20. D Kevin Shattenkirk, St. Louis Blues, 24
21. C Jordan Eberle, Edmonton Oilers, 22
22. C Patrik Berglund, St. Louis Blues, 24
23. G Semyon Varlamov, Colorado Avalanche, 24
24. D Tyler Myers, Buffalo Sabres, 22
25. LW Wayne Simmonds, Philadelphia Flyers, 24

- Stamkos isn't #1?
- Couture at #3?
- J. Staal at #4?
- Marchand cracks the top 10?
- Gagner ranked higher than Eberle?
- Eberle at #21?
- Varlamov is on this list?

No: Landeskog / Henrique / Nugent-Hopkins / Pacioretty / Hodgson / Ekman-Larsson / Backstrom / Duchene / NO GIROUX!?!?!?

As I was saying last week, ESPN is a (frank)in' joke when it comes to hockey!

Case closed.
- As_I_See_It

ROFL... WTF. Where is Giroux? That is some pretty sorry sh1t. They need to fire whoever decided to write that.

If EVERY SINGLE current NHL player retired tomorrow, and the NHL started a new season with non-union members,

In very short order, the revenues would be near the same. The league would have new stars. In fact, some markets may get stronger because of some new "hope".

The NHL could also pay these players a lot less, and drop the ticket prices somewhat and maybe make even MORE money. (yeah, ok, probably not)

The revenue is NOT generated by the players, it is generated by the owners paying the expenses required to generate those revenues, including salaries.

The players are easily replaced. Most of their names would be all but forgotten within a year.
- Aetherial

Pure fantasy. It would take time for future players to develop the star quality and drawing power of the current stars. But regardless, that is irrelevant. As it's not going to happen. Nor does it prove you premise that ownership generates revenue.The revenue is absolutely generated by the players. Fans pay to see the players. Fans tune into TV to see the players. Players earn the salaries they do, because of that. Fans don't tune in to see the owners paying the expenses. That's ridiculous. The Owners pay the players the salaries they do, because of what they generate. It's why Minnesota's Ownership agreed to pay out 200M to Suter and Parise. To win Hockey games, put a better more exciting product on the ice. That's what puts fans in the seats and generates income.

You are right.. when most fans turn on the TV we do so to watch the players. But the fact of the matter is... and another lockout is more proof of this.... the owners own the right for players to play and fans to watch. There are very few businesses where the "employees" get 57% of all revenues while those that are paying the salaries take all the risk and pay all the bills. I think most owners would agree that they are looking for a deal the will protect them from themselves. They would never say it publicly but it is a fact. The other fact is that even with a new deal owners will look for ways around the cap, look for loopholes, continue to overpay. The do this not because they are stupid, but because they know if they don't pay the next guy will. And in order for most teams to make money, they need to see at least one round of playoff games. Team like Florida, Tampa are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You need to pay and sometime overpay to put a product on the ice that has any chance of winning. If teams like this don't over pay they will most definitely lose money. It would be great if ever team could be like Toronto and miss the playoffs for years in a row and continue to make millions. The reality is there are only 5 or 6 teams that can do that.
- TSTER

I think you make a lot of good points. And I agree with most of it. But let's please stop comparing this to other businesses. That is foolish. This is not a normal employer/employee relationship. This is a Collective bargaining agreement between two groups. It is a completely different scenario.

Pure fantasy. It would take time for future players to develop the star quality and drawing power of the current stars. The revenue is absolutely generated by the players. Fans pay to see the players. Fans tune into TV to see the players. Players earn the salaries they do, because of that. Fans don't tune in to see the owners paying the expenses. That's ridiculous.
- MJL

Fans tune in to see the TEAM.

Do they tune out when a star retires? Do they switch allegiance when a player moves on?

Oh and the fans absolutely 100% DO tune in to see the owner's paying expenses... in the form of player/coach/trainer salaries and everything else they do to ice a team. They see the end result of those expenses.

Or do you think there is some magic Fehr-y that summons the players to its magically-created arena and *poof* a game happens and revenue just occurs out of thin air?

Revenue is a result of expenditures, including salaries, paid by the owners.

Fans tune in to see the TEAM.

Do they tune out when a star retires? Do they switch allegiance when a player moves on?

Oh and the fans absolutely 100% DO tune in to see the owner's paying expenses... in the form of player/coach/trainer salaries and everything else they do to ice a team. They see the end result of those expenses.

Or do you think there is some magic Fehr-y that summons the players to its magically-created arena and *poof* a game happens and revenue just occurs out of thin air?

Revenue is a result of expenditures, including salaries, paid by the owners.
- Aetherial

And who makes up the team? The players do. Your seriously going to argue this? Revenue is the result of the product on the ice.

Do you think that the Owners can build a fine arena, and the fans will flock, without a game and the players on the ice? LOL

The players are paid salaries because they provide a service for the team. Any business venture incurs operating costs. The operating costs don't generate revenue. The product made in the course of incurring those expenditures is what generates the revenue. The players on the ice are the product. It's what the fans buy when they purchase a ticket. The more fans at a game, the more watching on TV. The more revenue that can be generated by advertising, and such.

And who makes up the team? The players do. Your seriously going to argue this? Revenue is the result of the product on the ice.

Do you think that the Owners can build a fine arena, and the fans will flock, without a game and the players on the ice? LOL

The players are paid salaries because they provide a service for the team. Any business venture incurs operating costs. The operating costs don't generate income. The product made in the course of incurring those expenditures is what generates the income. The players on the ice are the product. It's what the fans buy when they purchase a ticket. The more fans at a game, the more watching on TV. The more revenue that can be generated by advertising.
- MJL

Not in Toronto or MTL, that's for sure.

Not in Toronto or MTL, that's for sure.
- Symba007

A team doesn't have to be a great team to generate high revenue. Hockey in Canada is a way of life. Those teams have fan bases and traditions that go back a long ways.

I think you make a lot of good points. And I agree with most of it. But let's please stop comparing this to other businesses. That is foolish. This is not a normal employer/employee relationship. This is a Collective bargaining agreement between two groups. It is a completely different scenario.
- MJL

I am not sure what else to compare it to. This is a private business which is no different than any other private business. You have owners and employees. The players are employees that get paid but don't assume any risk for the business. The players assume risk in the game the play but still have guaranteed contracts. Lets face it that's a pretty good deal. Not only do owners take risk in signing these ridiculous contract which they hope will bring fans into their rink, but at the same time assume risk that the players they sign will perform to the level that got them the big contract to start with.... And the continue to perform to that level for the duration of the contract. If they suck they still get paid, if they get hurt they still get paid that seems like a pretty good deal for the players when you really think about it.

A team doesn't have to be a great team to generate high revenue. Hockey in Canada is a way of life. Those teams have fan bases and traditions that go back a long ways.
- MJL

And great teams, like Phoenix can't generate revenues.

So... is it the quality of players that generates the revenues?

here is a hint... No.

Thank you again for helping make my point for me. That's the second time in a few hours.

I figure you are either 1) Related to an NHL player, or 2) an NHL player or aspiring player or 3) Glenn Healy.

The other explanations for your arguements are too sad to contemplate.

And great teams, like Phoenix can't generate revenues.

So... is it the quality of players that generates the revenues?

here is a hint... No.

Thank you again for helping make my point for me. That's the second time in a few hours.

I figure you are either 1) Related to an NHL player, or 2) an NHL player or aspiring player or 3) Glenn Healy.

The other explanations for your arguements are too sad to contemplate.
- Aetherial

You can figure anything you want about me. That's really a silly and irrelevant statement. I'm not surprised that your moving towards making this personal. I'll stick to the relevant subject.

Just because a product is a great product, doesn't mean it's automatically going to sell. There has to be a market for that product in the area that it's being offered in. Take a good team like Phoenix and put them in a top Hockey city. What do you think would happen? You could put the best team in the League in Phoenix. Doesn't mean it will take off and be a successful franchise. I'm puzzled in how I have to explain the simplest of things.

I am not sure what else to compare it to. This is a private business which is no different than any other private business. You have owners and employees. The players are employees that get paid but don't assume any risk for the business. The players assume risk in the game the play but still have guaranteed contracts. Lets face it that's a pretty good deal. Not only do owners take risk in signing these ridiculous contract which they hope will bring fans into their rink, but at the same time assume risk that the players they sign will perform to the level that got them the big contract to start with.... And the continue to perform to that level for the duration of the contract. If they suck they still get paid, if they get hurt they still get paid that seems like a pretty good deal for the players when you really think about it.
- TSTER

The players do have a good deal. I don't know anyone who thinks they don't. But they are getting paid due to the unique skill set they have. The players as a whole shouldn't be held responsible for bad business decisions made by the Owners in who they choose to sign to a contract and for how much.

It's not a normal employer/employee relationship.