Sounds like a good deal. Could we abolish the Instigator Rule?

I would NOT worry about this stuff. His words yesterday, 'excellent starting point' said it all.

Now it's just a game. A game that will be played for a week or so.

They'll be playing 82 games starting Nov 2nd.
- Charliebox

didn't he say we haven't reviewed the offer in-depth yet but we HOPE that this can be a great starting point?

so Fehr recomended the players not to take this deal yesterday

nick kypreos just tweeted that

Again, do you think Toronto is a good baseball market? They broke MLB records in the 90's for god sakes. Only the Yanks in 08 and the rockies in 93 have broken it.

Sure, they were winning at the time, but isn't that the point?

You don't truly know how good a market is for a certain sport until the team starts winning (or at the very least, competing).

I agree some teams like Phoenix and Florida shouldn't exist, but with that said, look at Columbus. They had awesome fans for the first 6-7 yrs. What happened? Fans started realizing that their management sucked and they have no chance of competing. Attendance dwindled.

Obviously the Columbus example was based on poopty management, but the same would hold true if they had no money or couldn't spend to get anyone.

No one, even in a great market (outside major Canadian cities and NY) is going to support a team that never wins. That's just the way it is.

Even Boston as 'traditional' of a hockey market as you can get, when they were bad in the early 2000's, were playing to a half full building.
- Charliebox

Believe it or not, there was serious talk in the early 90s that the Expos should move to Toronto.

A baseball-only stadium, with natural grass, and the Toronto Expos would be a success.

I'm not making that up.

I think this whole thing is all scripted. What was being discussed in the last weeks meetings between Don, Steve, Gary and Bill? They were simply reviewing the script they wrote over the summer. They know exactly what the final deal will be, and when it will happen. They are simply putting a show so neither the players or owners end up 'losing' this battle and all their huge egos will remain intact.

Then Don, Steve, Gary and Bill will grudgingly accept their fat pay cheques that are eagerly being shoved in their pockets by both the PA and owners, and go purchase private tropical islands to sit back, get drunk and have a good laugh.

Eklund: Here's to Soft Landings... here is the latest..
- Eklund

Fehr does not seem to like the deal, and rhetoric aside to minimize the impact of the NHL proposal against breaking ranks int he union, he is a 1-term and go guy. He is only here for this deal and then done. He has no long-term legacy issues or need to be political in anyway to keep his job or benefit the game, as a whole.

I really believe he will not accept anything that takes 1 penny away from current contracts, so unless the players force him into a deal, we are not even close to seeing hockey.

This thinking is part of what is ruining this league. especially when it comes to the CBA interest of few in front of all. Oh and why is Philly complaining they intentionally put all of this on the table with contract offers this summer trying to steal players before the new CBA by bullying contracts. Karma is a B Flyers your'e cursed for being a bad neighbor. Seeing as of how the Flyers make plenty off the rest of the league through their owner Comcasts TV contracts. You should be more concerned about the well fare of the league.

The NFL has revenue sharing and is the strongest and most popular pro sports league. I can't see the down side in modeling the revenue structuring this way. All this self righteous our team earns more so sharing shouldn't happen junk is bull. This league succeeds and fails together. Who would the Flyer's be without the NHL and other clubs? The answer is nothing. They wouldn't excist without the others so open you're eyes they all depend on each other.

Another thing I would like answered is this. Please explain to me how the NHL would get new investors or city's to open up to the league if every time a relocation or new investment went wrong they cut and run. It wouldn't look good. With that said Pheonix is the lone exception this was and is a bad investment. They should still be the Jets and by now at least relocated to Quebec.

P.S. Thanks for the cup Flyers fans Richards and Carter were great, happy you ran them out of town.
- onac22

Yeah, they may actually be losing money on that one...

there is a seat cushion factory in ohio.
- kicksave856

are you sure, dopples says that was outsourced to china

so Fehr recomended the players not to take this deal yesterday

nick kypreos just tweeted that
- thegodfather

I was just thinking this. Now that the NHL gave an inch Fehr is going to try and take a mile, thinking the NHL is weak for compromising.

I guess we will see.....
- Flyers_1488

NICE HANDLE YOU (frank)IN' RACIST!!!

Don't worry, folks, Eklund will be right back to put some positive spin on all this. I bet he's already thinking of the way to do it.

NICE HANDLE YOU (frank)IN' RACIST!!!
- As_I_See_It

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?
- Flyers_1488

Like hell you don't know what "1488" means!

Fehr does not seem to like the deal, and rhetoric aside to minimize the impact of the NHL proposal against breaking ranks int he union, he is a 1-term and go guy. He is only here for this deal and then done. He has no long-term legacy issues or need to be political in anyway to keep his job or benefit the game, as a whole.

I really believe he will not accept anything that takes 1 penny away from current contracts, so unless the players force him into a deal, we are not even close to seeing hockey.
- JDJ

It's not about what he wants, it's about what the players want, and if you've seen any of their responses to the offer its obvious that they're not apposed to there percentages dropping over time as long as it doesn't affect their current salaries, which is what this proposal has done

What are you talking about?
- Flyers_1488

Look it up on Urban Dictionary. I think he's just rattling your chain.

It's not about what he wants, it's about what the players want, and if you've seen any of their responses to the offer its obvious that they're not apposed to there percentages dropping over time as long as it doesn't affect their current salaries, which is what this proposal has done
- SpoiledByOil

He is framing the NHL's proposal as slightly just less bad than the original, and that will hold the majority of the player. And given that the union self-destructed last time, there is likely going to be less of a chance of that occurring this time, if only to prove a point.

If the players still feel that Fehr will get them their full contract dollars as they currently agreed, then that is what the players want.

Until it becomes obvious that the players must take a cut to their current contracts, things will not change.

It's not about what he wants, it's about what the players want, and if you've seen any of their responses to the offer its obvious that they're not apposed to there percentages dropping over time as long as it doesn't affect their current salaries, which is what this proposal has done
- SpoiledByOil

Unfortunately, Fehr does have his own agenda, and I believe is manipulating the players also. He wants to make sure no matter what the deal is, it looks like a win for him.

This could be why the NHL released a lot of details on the offer.. If the players see a conflicting message between the NHL and Fehr, they have reason to question him.. Of course, since the NHL didn't release the actual offer, only some summary information, it's all speculation which side is telling the truth.

Look it up on Urban Dictionary. I think he's just rattling your chain.
- BulliesPhan87

Now there's a reliable source

Unfortunately, Fehr does have his own agenda, and I believe is manipulating the players also. He wants to make sure no matter what the deal is, it looks like a win for him.

This could be why the NHL released a lot of details on the offer.. If the players see a conflicting message between the NHL and Fehr, they have reason to question him.. Of course, since the NHL didn't release the actual offer, only some summary information, it's all speculation which side is telling the truth.
- BleedBlueSTL

i agree. and NHL players, as stupid as most of them are, will eventually see this and revolt en masse as they did in 2004-2005. but it will take a while.

i agree. and NHL players, as stupid as most of them are, will eventually see this and revolt en masse as they did in 2004-2005. but it will take a while.
- scotch_tape

At some point, the players need to realize that they are going to take a cut. The question they need to ask themselves is how big that cut will be and negotiate the best deal they can get.

Will the players get a much better deal than the current one on the table (with some obvious tweaks, etc...)?

Don't think so, in fact, I believe it will just get worse going forward if actual games are cancelled and a full season does not occur. And then if you add in lost salary, the players are once again gonna get raped.

Time for the NHLPA to play smart here.

There seems to be this misconception out there that the NHL doesn't already have revenue sharing.

They do.

In more ways than you can imagine.

Besides directly contributing straight cash, the Leafs also lose money when more of their games are broadcast nationally than other teams (meaning less games to sell to local broadcasters).

They lose money when their jerseys outsell other clubs, yet they only get 1/30th of the total licensing fees for jerseys and other merchandise.
- Atomic Wedgie

Not a misconception at all for me, I knew there was revenue sharing. However in my mind I didn't feel there was enough given the fact the NHL is such a gate revenue driven league. Yes the Leafs lose tv revenue due to their appearances on the national broadcasts, but that is not a product of the revenue sharing model. That is a byproduct of the Leafs being the draw they are and the "competition" that is created from national tv contracts vs regional team based tv contracts. Does it basically amount to less money from the Leafs tv contract and more money to the shared national contract? Of course, but seeing as the Leafs certainly have no problems generating profits I'm not sure why you feel so strongly against.

Now there's a reliable source
- As_I_See_It

Is there something wrong with their explanation of 1488? I mean, let's be real, he's looking up an obscure racial slur, not publishing his dissertation here.

Like hell you don't know what "1488" means!
- As_I_See_It

Who the hell would actually know that?

so Fehr recomended the players not to take this deal yesterday

nick kypreos just tweeted that
- thegodfather

Not sure why anyone is shocked. McKenzie said this yesterday an hour after it came out and I don't think Bettman and Daly expected otherwise.

Players will fight for some of the smaller aspects now of the deal.

Not a misconception at all for me, I knew there was revenue sharing. However in my mind I didn't feel there was enough given the fact the NHL is such a gate revenue driven league. Yes the Leafs lose tv revenue due to their appearances on the national broadcasts, but that is not a product of the revenue sharing model. That is a byproduct of the Leafs being the draw they are and the "competition" that is created from national tv contracts vs regional team based tv contracts. Does it basically amount to less money from the Leafs tv contract and more money to the shared national contract? Of course, but seeing as the Leafs certainly have no problems generating profits I'm not sure why you feel so strongly against.
- uf1910

I couldn't care less.

I'm just pointing out that the big market teams care - a lot.