So the team that lost 6 million last year had soooooo much money hanging around they paid 2 players 200 million dollars, makes sense, you should google the word gullible if you believe that bs...

- ShootingSemin

teams have to stay competitive. if you are not spending to the cap, fans dont take you seriously as trying to win. basically you want the NHL to be MLB. with have's and have nots. no thanks!

In any other real business environment then contraction would be the solution. Since neither side would desire that then the owners have to bear some of the responsibility, no, most of the responsibility for creating the present situation. They have continued to award ridiculous contracts to players (Suter, Parise, Weber, etc.); even as we all expected the worse in CBA talks and knew the league would cite rising salaries as a reason they needed to curb those salaries. They don't though as they prefer to insist that the NHLPA bear the bulk of the burden to rectify the finances. That is BS.
- gkmkiller

contraction is not a solution. make the NHL financially make sense for all teams is. the owners had to spend more on contracts to meet the 57% HRR mandate. thus why the cap kept going up forcing contracts to get out of hand. do you want every team to be competitive? the NHL is the least educated league out of the 4 main sports....it shows with all these lockouts. you'd think the players would catch on

Maybe but they still made a commitment and should have done so with the knowledge that their current business model was a dud; as suggested by the presumption they are losing money. If they are struggling, as the owners suggest, to be profitable isn't signing those long term deals risky? Isn't that organization making some large assumptions in this scenario?
- gkmkiller

Certainly a risk and I'm not necessarily defending the moves. My point was only that just because the Wild lost $6m last season doesn't mean they won't be able to pay the players in question. The flip side of what you said is that the increase in revenue from ticket sales, merchandise, and a (potentially) winning team may get the Wild back in the black. Not guaranteed, but sometimes big risks pay off...and sometimes they don't.

contraction is not a solution. make the NHL financially make sense for all teams is. the owners had to spend more on contracts to meet the 57% HRR mandate. thus why the cap kept going up forcing contracts to get out of hand. do you want every team to be competitive? the NHL is the least educated league out of the 4 main sports....it shows with all these lockouts. you'd think the players would catch on
- joshs

and yet another victim of the owners/Bettman PR machine

you're all sheep

and yet another victim of the owners/Bettman PR machine

you're all sheep
- jimbro83

Sheep? Haha, whatever!

So if you think that contraction *is* a solution, then the players must agree as well. I would love to see the NHLPA stars come out and say it. "We want to kill Phoenix et al, so we can make more money." Yeah that will go over well. But if they feel that way they should have the balls to say it!

Sheep? Haha, whatever!

So if you think that contraction *is* a solution, then the players must agree as well. I would love to see the NHLPA stars come out and say it. "We want to kill Phoenix et al, so we can make more money." Yeah that will go over well. But if they feel that way they should have the balls to say it!
- Senators2112

personally I don't think contraction is a *solution*

I think the owners exaggerate that there is actually a *problem*

Mostly evidenced by their ridiculous spending spree this past summer.

There is no "HRR" number that forced a small market team to spend 200 million dollars on two players or forced Ottawa to give Erik Karlsson 45 million dollars, or forced Edmonton to give Taylor Hall 42 million dollars.

Just honor the contracts you have signed, unlock the doors and lets play hockey and stop being female doges.

personally I don't think contraction is a *solution*

I think the owners exaggerate that there is actually a *problem*

Mostly evidenced by their ridiculous spending spree this past summer.

There is no "HRR" number that forced a small market team to spend 200 million dollars on two players or forced Ottawa to give Erik Karlsson 45 million dollars, or forced Edmonton to give Taylor Hall 42 million dollars.

Just honor the contracts you have signed, unlock the doors and lets play hockey and stop being female doges.
- jimbro83

And if they dont, what happens?

And if they done, what happens?
- prock

wha?

oh, well, they ruin the sport even further than they already have.

wha?

oh, well, they ruin the sport even further than they already have.
- jimbro83

You're forgetting the fact that under the current CBA, 57% of their revenues had to go to players, regardless of whether they had contracts signed to reach that 57%. So it's either sign contracts and spend that money, or waste it away putting it into escrow. Yeah, the owners went a little overboard probably this year, but in many cases the teams needed to increase their spending to not throw away money. Might as well spend it on players that might actually help the team increase their revenue.

And for those that think the solution is to fold teams. Folding teams is not free. Moving teams is not free. It's estimated that folding the coyotes would cost the league $300-$400 million. That's a lot of money out of the pockets of each of the owners, which would put many more owners in the red. And all you do then by removing the lowest revenue teams is increase the cap for all the other teams, putting 1-2 more teams in the red. Moving a team probably costs near the same, but you have a new owner taking a large portion of the costs.

There needs to be revenue sharing in this league, but a good portion, if not all, of it needs to come out of the players share. There's too many teams losing money for revenue sharing under the current % to be reasonable.

You're forgetting the fact that under the current CBA, 57% of their revenues had to go to players, regardless of whether they had contracts signed to reach that 57%. So it's either sign contracts and spend that money, or waste it away putting it into escrow. Yeah, the owners went a little overboard probably this year, but in many cases the teams needed to increase their spending to not throw away money. Might as well spend it on players that might actually help the team increase their revenue.

And for those that think the solution is to fold teams. Folding teams is not free. Moving teams is not free. It's estimated that folding the coyotes would cost the league $300-$400 million. That's a lot of money out of the pockets of each of the owners, which would put many more owners in the red. And all you do then by removing the lowest revenue teams is increase the cap for all the other teams, putting 1-2 more teams in the red. Moving a team probably costs near the same, but you have a new owner taking a large portion of the costs.

There needs to be revenue sharing in this league, but a good portion, if not all, of it needs to come out of the players share. There's too many teams losing money for revenue sharing under the current % to be reasonable.
- BleedBlueSTL

I didn't forget. Ever.

In fact, every time I watched a game this year, it irked me so very bad that the players are getting 57% of the HRR. Even in the playoffs, triple overtime, Rangers vs Capitals, Ryan McDonagh sliding his body on front of an Alex Ovechkin slapshot, I still couldn't get past the fact that the players get 57% of the HRR. OMG. We need to put an end to the players having 57% of the HRR.

I refuse to watch another game if the players are getting 57% of the HRR. I simply cannot enjoy this game knowing the players are getting 57% of the HRR.

wha?

oh, well, they ruin the sport even further than they already have.
- jimbro83

I mean, what happens if Ottawa doesn't spend that on Karlsson, Edmonton doesn't spend that on Hall?

I mean, what happens if Ottawa doesn't spend that on Karlsson, Edmonton doesn't spend that on Hall?
- prock

well, in Hall's case, he already had a contract for this season, so, absolutely nothing would have happened.

Someone explain to me, in a league supposedly going broke, the necessity for the Oilers to give 6 million a year to Taylor Hall for the following 7 years, after this coming season.

edit: and, at the same time, the league declaring it can't live with contracts more than 5 years long, but, that's another crazy argument.

well, in Hall's case, he already had a contract for this season, so, absolutely nothing would have happened.

Someone explain to me, in a league supposedly going broke, the necessity for the Oilers to give 6 million a year to Taylor Hall for the following 7 years, after this coming season.

edit: and, at the same time, the league declaring it can't live with contracts more than 5 years long, but, that's another crazy argument.
- jimbro83

Even in a league that's going "broke", you still have to protect your assets, and under the last CBA, that was the cost of doing business. You can't sit there and assume the CBA is going to change, and wait until after it does. That's a.) bad business practice, and b.) probably enough to bring up collusion accusations. I don't think they'd stick, but there would be enough there to create enough of a headache and the legal fees, etc. to fight it.

People act like the owners are the only ones responsible for these contracts, and they aren't. Sure, they ultimately agree to it, but it's not like they're just being generous to the players, who are walking into a goldmine they never expected. The players are demanding these sort of deals. Why? Because under rules of the previous CBA, which the union and the agents understand very, very well, they have the leverage to demand them. If the owners don't comply, they lose some very top-end talent, or lose out on the chance to make their team better, which, is a PR nightmare, especially in smaller markets, who need to be more than just "competitive" in order to make money.

well, in Hall's case, he already had a contract for this season, so, absolutely nothing would have happened.

Someone explain to me, in a league supposedly going broke, the necessity for the Oilers to give 6 million a year to Taylor Hall for the following 7 years, after this coming season.

edit: and, at the same time, the league declaring it can't live with contracts more than 5 years long, but, that's another crazy argument.
- jimbro83

You're avoiding the question.

Its funny how someone making comments early in the thread about the salary cap not allowing a team to sign their players shows what they truly mean is that they want the Rangers to be able to spend limitlessly so they can sign everyone else's players.

Ek, Get some new sources. I can't believe anything that you come up with.

In any other real business environment then contraction would be the solution. Since neither side would desire that then the owners have to bear some of the responsibility, no, most of the responsibility for creating the present situation. They have continued to award ridiculous contracts to players (Suter, Parise, Weber, etc.); even as we all expected the worse in CBA talks and knew the league would cite rising salaries as a reason they needed to curb those salaries. They don't though as they prefer to insist that the NHLPA bear the bulk of the burden to rectify the finances. That is BS.
- gkmkiller

The contracts offered/signed by Parise, Suter, Weber and to lesser extend Hall and Eberle etc were more or less a perform storm for these players. All of these players received these ridiculous contracts on the eve of the CBA expiring so the owners could say, "see how insane today's contracts have become? There is NO WAY that the league can sustain itself if this keeps up. We need to fix this broken system NOW before the league is forced into contraction of X number of franchises, ultimately costing the players X number of jobs!"

These contracts were handed out to prove a point and were a calculated investment towards achieving the owner's goal(s) in the big picture. In other words, a means to an end.

Eklund: Welcome To October 15th and the Negotiations FINALLY Getting Real.
- Eklund

Ek, who in your opinion should be leading them out of the malaise?

If it isn't his holy shortness... then he serves NO purpose.

I didn't forget. Ever.

In fact, every time I watched a game this year, it irked me so very bad that the players are getting 57% of the HRR. Even in the playoffs, triple overtime, Rangers vs Capitals, Ryan McDonagh sliding his body on front of an Alex Ovechkin slapshot, I still couldn't get past the fact that the players get 57% of the HRR. OMG. We need to put an end to the players having 57% of the HRR.

I refuse to watch another game if the players are getting 57% of the HRR. I simply cannot enjoy this game knowing the players are getting 57% of the HRR.
- jimbro83

So are you an actual player, or a relative of one, or are you Glenn Healy.

While accusing us of drinking the NHL/Bettman kool-aid you are spewing the players' nonsense.

McDonagh vs. Ovechkin slapshot was a particularly moving image.

Poor McDonagh, going into triple overtime... still not managing to put in the same working day as the average Canadian EVERY non-weekend day and to think that the MINIMUM any of these poor brave sould earn is abut 10X what the average Canadian earns... and they get to do what they LOVE for a living. Very few people can ever say that.

You're avoiding the question.

Its funny how someone making comments early in the thread about the salary cap not allowing a team to sign their players shows what they truly mean is that they want the Rangers to be able to spend limitlessly so they can sign everyone else's players.
- prock

I don't know if that's what I am saying, I am saying things are fine the way they are. I have never once said get rid of the cap.

So are you an actual player, or a relative of one, or are you Glenn Healy.

While accusing us of drinking the NHL/Bettman kool-aid you are spewing the players' nonsense.

McDonagh vs. Ovechkin slapshot was a particularly moving image.

Poor McDonagh, going into triple overtime... still not managing to put in the same working day as the average Canadian EVERY non-weekend day and to think that the MINIMUM any of these poor brave sould earn is abut 10X what the average Canadian earns... and they get to do what they LOVE for a living. Very few people can ever say that.
- Aetherial

Is there actually a public statement of what is in and what is out for HRR?

So are you an actual player, or a relative of one, or are you Glenn Healy.

While accusing us of drinking the NHL/Bettman kool-aid you are spewing the players' nonsense.

McDonagh vs. Ovechkin slapshot was a particularly moving image.

Poor McDonagh, going into triple overtime... still not managing to put in the same working day as the average Canadian EVERY non-weekend day and to think that the MINIMUM any of these poor brave sould earn is abut 10X what the average Canadian earns... and they get to do what they LOVE for a living. Very few people can ever say that.
- Aetherial

Speaking of players' nonsense, has the league put anything like this out?



Cut me a break, guys. I'm surprised they didn't have one of them say, "Oh, also, the owners said you guys look like dorks!" at the end.

So are you an actual player, or a relative of one, or are you Glenn Healy.

While accusing us of drinking the NHL/Bettman kool-aid you are spewing the players' nonsense.

McDonagh vs. Ovechkin slapshot was a particularly moving image.

Poor McDonagh, going into triple overtime... still not managing to put in the same working day as the average Canadian EVERY non-weekend day and to think that the MINIMUM any of these poor brave sould earn is abut 10X what the average Canadian earns... and they get to do what they LOVE for a living. Very few people can ever say that.
- Aetherial

well, McDonagh is an American and we believe in Capitalism.

Is there actually a public statement of what is in and what is out for HRR?
- BorjeFan4Ever

it's basically whatever the owners tell you it is on any given day

The contracts offered/signed by Parise, Suter, Weber and to lesser extend Hall and Eberle etc were more or less a perform storm for these players. All of these players received these ridiculous contracts on the eve of the CBA expiring so the owners could say, "see how insane today's contracts have become? There is NO WAY that the league can sustain itself if this keeps up. We need to fix this broken system NOW before the league is forced into contraction of X number of franchises, ultimately costing the players X number of jobs!"

These contracts were handed out to prove a point and were a calculated investment towards achieving the owner's goal(s) in the big picture. In other words, a means to an end.
- As_I_See_It

you guys have become experts on memorizing the owners rhetoric. I applaud you.