Source

It didn't fail miserably.

It brought in a salary cap.

It brought cost certainty to all teams.

It allowed for an incredible growth in revenues.

From a labour relations point, the salary cap is absolutely huge.

Now that the CBA has expired, a new one has to be created, that addresses the new challenges facing the league.

That's kinda how the system was supposed to work.
- Atomic Wedgie

Not to mention that the players did not exactly get hurt by the cap.

Not to mention that the players did not exactly get hurt by the cap.
- Aetherial

I remember the headlines of the day, "players destroyed by owners in new CBA"

57% of 1.5M vs 57% of 3.5B.....HUGE difference in salary cap when it comes to the small markets. Because 5-6 teams are generating over 70% of the revenues....they skew the system. Cap is now too high for most teams except a few, unsustainable system.
- Symba007

And as ervenue grows, the basket cases keep falling behind. It is a structural problem that won't be solved by moving from 57% to 50% or even 45%. I've asked before -- what is the right % that would keep the Coyotes or Islanders or Devils profitable?

I'm saying that the huge win for the owners created more problems for themselves than they had before.

They choices are:

* no cap and competitive disparity as some teams can spend more or

* cap and economic disparity as basket case franchises try to keep to the floor.

Salary roll backs help the money makers make more and give the losers a bit of breathing space as they die a bit more slowly
- Canada Cup

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that there weren't basket case franchises prior to 2005.

I'm guessing that a few teams signed guys to contracts pre-lockout, having assumed that the contracts would be rolled back 15%-20%.
- Atomic Wedgie

The fact the NHL is even asking for a salary rollback is what is breaking down talks. If teams really did sign contracts with the expectation of rollbacks then IMO that is a failure of the NHL to adequately prepare each team for this CBA negotiation. This isn't like 2004 where teams had no limits or caps. Each team spent within the cap limits, and to me to turn around and ask those players for rollbacks is nothing more than an attempt at a short term cash grab rather than negotiating for the "good of the game." IMO if the NHL was serious about helping out the failing franchises, then the only answer is increased revenue sharing. Every other major sport has revenue sharing way above the levels of the NHL (as a % and a total), yet the NHL with it's reliance on gate receipts has the greatest need. But since Bettman has aligned the NHL with the big market owners and thus given them more power than the other owners, there is no way they will approve more revenue sharing b/c it will be $ taken directly out of their pockets. Why else would Bettman and Daly be de-emphasizing revenue sharing during the negotiations?

“It’s not like a board-of-governors meeting is everyone sitting around exchanging ideas,” said one former club owner who admires Bettman. “A board-of-governors meeting is a three-hour lecture from Gary, a PowerPoint on how we’re doing, you break and that’s it. There’s never once a discussion of what’s going on.”
- jimbro83

I don't know what your point is here, which pretty much applies to all your posts. Let me break this one down for you though.

1) The NHL owners are very content to let Bettman take the heat and do the dirty work.
2) Bettman is operating with the full approval of the NHL ownership. He knows what they want from him and he is executing it. The owners don't care about the "why" or "how".

Blaming Bettman is absolutely ridiculous.

One more thing... the moment the league feels they should approach this in a significantly different way, and they are unhappy with Bettman's work... he will be fired, by a vote of 30-0.

And as ervenue grows, the basket cases keep falling behind. It is a structural problem that won't be solved by moving from 57% to 50% or even 45%. I've asked before -- what is the right % that would keep the Coyotes or Islanders or Devils profitable?
- Canada Cup

the only way to fix this is for the Leafs, Habs, Rangers and a few others to give a MUCH higher share of the profits......something like from 6% to 40%. Doubt those teams accept to do that. The only other way is to bring the % to the player MUCH lower. Because the NHL gets most of it's revenues at the gates and merchandise, unlike the NFL where the TV deal is the biggest share of the revenue, the smaller markets have little access to revenue sharing in the NHL, not enough teams are profitable.

The fact the NHL is even asking for a salary rollback is what is breaking down talks. If teams really did sign contracts with the expectation of rollbacks then IMO that is a failure of the NHL to adequately prepare each team for this CBA negotiation. This isn't like 2004 where teams had no limits or caps. Each team spent within the cap limits, and to me to turn around and ask those players for rollbacks is nothing more than an attempt at a short term cash grab rather than negotiating for the "good of the game." IMO if the NHL was serious about helping out the failing franchises, then the only answer is increased revenue sharing. Every other major sport has revenue sharing way above the levels of the NHL (as a % and a total), yet the NHL with it's reliance on gate receipts has the greatest need. But since Bettman has aligned the NHL with the big market owners and thus given them more power than the other owners, there is no way they will approve more revenue sharing b/c it will be $ taken directly out of their pockets. Why else would Bettman and Daly be de-emphasizing revenue sharing during the negotiations?
- uf1910

But that's precisely why the NHL doesn't share as much money.

For the NFL, the $ through national TV contracts is what drives the revenue sharing. Which makes sense, because it's the collective that "earns" that money.

The NHL shares their TV revenues - it's just that it isn't nearly as much as the NFL.

And as ervenue grows, the basket cases keep falling behind. It is a structural problem that won't be solved by moving from 57% to 50% or even 45%. I've asked before -- what is the right % that would keep the Coyotes or Islanders or Devils profitable?
- Canada Cup

they have a local cable deal that pays them 20 million a year, play in as large a market as any team in the NHL and still lose massive money. Don't know what percentage is going to help them.

The fact the NHL is even asking for a salary rollback is what is breaking down talks. If teams really did sign contracts with the expectation of rollbacks then IMO that is a failure of the NHL to adequately prepare each team for this CBA negotiation. This isn't like 2004 where teams had no limits or caps. Each team spent within the cap limits, and to me to turn around and ask those players for rollbacks is nothing more than an attempt at a short term cash grab rather than negotiating for the "good of the game." IMO if the NHL was serious about helping out the failing franchises, then the only answer is increased revenue sharing. Every other major sport has revenue sharing way above the levels of the NHL (as a % and a total), yet the NHL with it's reliance on gate receipts has the greatest need. But since Bettman has aligned the NHL with the big market owners and thus given them more power than the other owners, there is no way they will approve more revenue sharing b/c it will be $ taken directly out of their pockets. Why else would Bettman and Daly be de-emphasizing revenue sharing during the negotiations?
- uf1910

If I am the Leafs, habs, NYR and the few others who give money into the revenue sharing, before I agree to increase my %, I want every team that usually loses money every year to go through a review and see if we can find them a new place to play where they could be profitable.

Be careful what you wish for.

I love when somebody says "source?"

it's funny
- jimbro83

lol agreed. I stooped.

I'm just not sure is all.

Do you like brah or brahj?

Like, hey brahj, you sourcin' me or what?

Nevertheless - the Oilers aren't "crying poor"

the only way to fix this is for the Leafs, Habs, Rangers and a few others to give a MUCH higher share of the profits......something like from 6% to 40%. Doubt those teams accept to do that. The only other way is to bring the % to the player MUCH lower. Because the NHL gets most of it's revenues at the gates and merchandise, unlike the NFL where the TV deal is the biggest share of the revenue, the smaller markets have little access to revenue sharing in the NHL, not enough teams are profitable.
- Symba007

I am glad you touched on this.

What some people fail to understand is that the HUGE national TV deal makes the NFL (for example) significantly different than the NHL.

In the NFL, ALL owners have a vested interest in keep teams in all regions afloat. It keeps the TV deal and "other" monies flowing.

In the NHL, that is not the case. What benefit is there to the Leafs in paying more to keep Columbus afloat? the ACC would be just as sold out with the Omaha Buttdarts coming to town as Columbus.

The teams making money don't gain in any way from keeping non-viable markets afloat in a primarily gate-driven league.

The seriousness of the situation was amped up today when Mrs. NHLPlayer saw there was no direct deposit into her bank account.
- MartiniMan

2 true, time to cave......

If I am the Leafs, habs, NYR and the few others who give money into the revenue sharing, before I agree to increase my %, I want every team that usually loses money every year to go through a review and see if we can find them a new place to play where they could be profitable.

Be careful what you wish for.
- Symba007

Absolutely!

Like I said above, what is in it for the wealthy teams?

they have a local cable deal that pays them 20 million a year, play in as large a market as any team in the NHL and still lose massive money. Don't know what percentage is going to help them.
- jimbro83

Do they actually draw from NYC?

I was always under the impression they drew from the lower density Long Island communities (but I'm just assuming).

I was in NYC a few years ago, and phoned the Islanders, asking what the best way was to get to the arena from Manhattan.

Their answer?

There isn't a good way. No feasible way to get there by public transit.

Absolutely!

Like I said above, what is in it for the wealthy teams?
- Aetherial

If four teams folded tomorrow, as a Leafs fan, I would still get 82 games a year to watch.

Why would I care?

Do they actually draw from NYC?

I was always under the impression they drew from the lower density Long Island communities (but I'm just assuming).

I was in NYC a few years ago, and phoned the Islanders, asking what the best way was to get to the arena from Manhattan.

Their answer?

There isn't a good way. No feasible way to get there by public transit.
- Atomic Wedgie

take away NYC. Nassau county is one of the most populous areas in the country.

Does local apathy make you a small market team?

I'm saying that the huge win for the owners created more problems for themselves than they had before.

They choices are:

* no cap and competitive disparity as some teams can spend more or

* cap and economic disparity as basket case franchises try to keep to the floor.

Salary roll backs help the money makers make more and give the losers a bit of breathing space as they die a bit more slowly
- Canada Cup

I’m not sure how you figure there are more problems now than there were before.

But that's precisely why the NHL doesn't share as much money.

For the NFL, the $ through national TV contracts is what drives the revenue sharing. Which makes sense, because it's the collective that "earns" that money.

The NHL shares their TV revenues - it's just that it isn't nearly as much as the NFL.
- Atomic Wedgie

I am not sure how some people... and ESPECIALLY the NHLPA doesn't understand this.

In fact, they DO understand it. They are choosing to ignore it... add that to the fact that they would not begin negotiation until August AND that they have issued no new offer in a month and it is pretty clear that the blame for this lockout should be shifting to the NHLPA.

They refuse to acknowledge reality because they want to "win" more than they want to do what makes sense.

The thing I don't get is that their "loss" last time, really didn't end up being much of a loss. They have not suffered from it.

Oh and so far... all the tough talk from the NHLPA has been a joke. They haven't lost anything yet. Easy to talk tough until the losses start adding up, and they look at some of their "brethren" making a living elsewhere, and they are faced with the absolute reality that no deal is going to earn them back what they are losing.

Not to mention that the players did not exactly get hurt by the cap.
- Aetherial

Exactly. The players have done just fine under the cap.

If four teams folded tomorrow, as a Leafs fan, I would still get 82 games a year to watch.

Why would I care?
- Atomic Wedgie

Not only that, but I might get more Philly, or Boston, or Los Angeles, or Detroit ... or some other team I care about more than Columbus, NYI, Florida etc.

I am not sure how some people... and ESPECIALLY the NHLPA doesn't understand this.

In fact, they DO understand it. They are choosing to ignore it... add that to the fact that they would not begin negotiation until August AND that they have issued no new offer in a month and it is pretty clear that the blame for this lockout should be shifting to the NHLPA.

They refuse to acknowledge reality because they want to "win" more than they want to do what makes sense.

The thing I don't get is that their "loss" last time, really didn't end up being much of a loss. They have not suffered from it.
- Aetherial

well the owners signed an unprecedented amount of money in new contracts this summer, if I were a member of the NHLPA, probably wouldn't have taken the expiration of the CBA too seriously either.

I am not sure how some people... and ESPECIALLY the NHLPA doesn't understand this.

In fact, they DO understand it. They are choosing to ignore it... add that to the fact that they would not begin negotiation until August AND that they have issued no new offer in a month and it is pretty clear that the blame for this lockout should be shifting to the NHLPA.

They refuse to acknowledge reality because they want to "win" more than they want to do what makes sense.

The thing I don't get is that their "loss" last time, really didn't end up being much of a loss. They have not suffered from it.
- Aetherial

If there is no season...the players will end up giving a lot more than they think via escrow, 50something % of lower revenues will mean higher escrow. Fehr will cost them a full season of salary and a higher escrow % for the next few seasons.

well the owners signed an unprecedented amount of money in new contracts this summer, if I were a member of the NHLPA, probably wouldn't have taken the expiration of the CBA too seriously either.
- jimbro83

You are touching on the one part I really hate about the owners' actions.

Don't tell me things need to change and then sign 100's of millions in contracts, and a lot of big "signing bonuses" right before the CBA expiration.

Further, I find it douchbaggish that these owners sign these contracts, and then want a roll-back immediately.

So, while I despise the NHLPA at this point... I don't have any love for the owners either.

Which, is why I want the whole season to be toast. I want to be right where we are now, in 2013, with both sides terrified to give in. That will be FUN to watch.

What isn't fun about seeing idiots p*ss away billions!