Players are the victims like we are...don't forget. Not easy to accept the average salary go from 2.4M to 2.2M (12% rollback). I feel for these guys.
- Symba007

No doubt a lot of owners are greedy bastards as many rich mogul
Types likely are, but the players are overpaid. Average salary
Is over 2 mil? To play hockey? Jeezus, they can afford a wage
Reduction, they're millionaires fer cryin out loud.

No doubt a lot of owners are greedy bastards as many rich mogul
Types likely are, but the players are overpaid. Average salary
Is over 2 mil? To play hockey? Jeezus, they can afford a wage
Reduction, they're millionaires fer cryin out loud.
- BobbySchmautz

I added the word *sarcasm* to my post

and I totally agree with you

You know that things are looking real shisty when even Eklund's Optimism meter drops to "could go either way" level.
- Aliaksandrhn

Haha that was a good one.

I would have to see some facts that says that the majority of contracts are over in a 2 year time frame. Again, what is your definition of losing in this situation?
My stance on this subject is not from the players POV. It is my POV based on what's happening. I'll be glad to discuss any part of the statements I've offered. As far as the "make whole" provision. That's what Fehr is concerned about Future players paying players now. There's a lot of people who feel they know more about this then Donald Fehr does. They would be wrong.
- MJL

My stance is simple math.

2-3 paychecks lost = greater than the reduction the NHL is proposing for all players that have less than 2 years left on their contracts - and that accounts for over 90%+ of the NHL contracts.

That money might be saved for the players, and yes, not immediately, but as revenues grow down the road working off the NHL's proposal.

I am not saying it is an ideal offer by the NHL, what I am saying is that as games are lost, the NHLPA has lost, especially if it goes beyond 2-3 paychecks.

Simple math.

As for Fehr statement that future players will be paying now... two things... 1) He has not even sat down to negotiate what they clause might or might not be moving forward to minimize any potential impact to players, and 2) if Fehr is so certain that projected revenue growth can get the NHL/NHLPA to 50/50 split down the road, why is he so unwilling to believe that those same potential revenue projections of his and the NHLPA won't impact "future players" having to pay "current players"?

Perhaps because Fehr knows that potential revenue growth is dicey at best, and it is very unlikely the NHLPA's proposals will ever get to 50/50% no matter what they claim.

Again, I don't care if the players get 5% of the revenue ot 95% of the revenue. The reality is that the players are going to take a cut - that will happen regardless of what the NHLPA/Fehr current stance is... the real question is how big is that cut going to be? And made how worse by how many games they don't play.

The players cannot win on any level.

The NHL can, at worst, not lose as bad as the players.

Was quite the concept, imagine how many people wanted a Marshall that went to 11 after that. Wonder if they made any?
- sloppyseconds2

I actually think some amp company did. I may have to go look that one up!

You know, you are actually correct here.

They also have motivations completely different from just raw numbers. Unfortunately, this may lead them down a path one day where they lose more than they would have by signing the most recent NHL offer, as-is... and THAT is not speculation.

Either the owners cave or they cave, or they compromise or that day will come.
- Aetherial

When I hear loads of players, guys who were heavily pro-union like Guerin and Modano, state it was not worth it last time... players should head those warnings and try to get a deal done before it is too late.

When I hear loads of players, guys who were heavily pro-union like Guerin and Modano, state it was not worth it last time... players should head those warnings and try to get a deal done before it is too late.
- JDJ

Actually when I read McCabe's quote, and he was not alone, from 2004 about the staying locked out for their whole career...

and then I see that they gave back 24% AND took a cap. I get a sense of Deja Vu.

I giggle.

When I hear loads of players, guys who were heavily pro-union like Guerin and Modano, state it was not worth it last time... players should head those warnings and try to get a deal done before it is too late.
- JDJ

I think the players want to and are ready to leave money on the table, they want a compromise from the league on the revenue sharing so the bottom feeders aren't in really bad shape in a near future. Can't blame them for that.

I think the players want to and are ready to leave money on the table, they want a compromise from the league on the revenue sharing so the bottom feeders aren't in really bad shape in a near future. Can't blame them for that.
- Symba007

I would like the league to contract or try to find viable markets for these teams rather than go back to the players every CBA to fund the losses.

does anybody think the players are partly not accepting this deal because they are being competitive? um maybe not.

wow the AHL is pretty fun to watch
- joshs

I honestly believe, just by the actions so far, that Fehr wants the NHL to agree to a deal he proposes - regardless if the end numbers might be the same as the NHL's - simply because he wants to present that the NHL took the NHLPA's deal, not the other way around.

Why else would the NHLPA refuse to specifically respond to any NHL proposal directly (even if it ended up with the same numbers as their own proposals), and then come with 3 different proposals last week in which "some of the numbers have not been run"?

Not saying the NHL is not being as stubborn or playing the same game, but at least they are using the same framework of the last NHL CBA so there is a basic understanding / starting point.

JDJ, I think the only proof that darth vader will be accepting is a complete spread sheet, most likely with a sign off from either Ben Bernanke, The Economist editor John Micklethwait, or any other voice that will hold strong ethos.

I think the players want to and are ready to leave money on the table, they want a compromise from the league on the revenue sharing so the bottom feeders aren't in really bad shape in a near future. Can't blame them for that.
- Symba007

I agree.

I think revenue sharing shoudl be in place.

What I would like to see is something as follows: For argument sake (and to make the convo easy), lets assume it costs, on average, a team $75M to play to the cap floor and pay all other expenses. Revenue sharing should be implemented that allows all teams to play to the cap floor and cover expenses to $75M - some teams may be over the $75M to play to cap, but too bad, that is what they get. Teams that are under, get claw-backs.

After that, if any team wishes to play beyond the floor, that is at the cost of the owner's pocketbook.

Now people state/complain the rich teams will never want/should not have to share that much cash... and my response is how much more cash flow do the rich teams now have because they are capped on salary? Much much more than they will ever give to revenue sharing.

I would like the league to contract or try to find viable markets for these teams rather than go back to the players every CBA to fund the losses.
- Aetherial

I would love to see contraction, but that will never happen.

The NHL will not move another team until after they announce expansion in Quebec and Toronto - which will being the owners $800M to $1B - as those markets can survive with expansion teams / frustrations.

Only then will we see teams move to other locations, Phoenix (for sure), Florida (likely) and, if more suitable markets can be found, then perhaps more teams.

I would love to see contraction, but that will never happen.

The NHL will not move another team until after they announce expansion in Quebec and Toronto - which will being the owners $800M to $1B - as those markets can survive with expansion teams / frustrations.

Only then will we see teams move to other locations, Phoenix (for sure), Florida (likely) and, if more suitable markets can be found, then perhaps more teams.
- JDJ

Players also want a share of those revenues....it's part of the HRR discussions.

Yes, what they had for dinner is equally related to the unity of the union as the disparity between employment status.
- Aetherial

Again - why does it hurt unity that some decide to play in Europe and others decide to stay here?

Players also want a share of those revenues....it's part of the HRR discussions.
- Symba007

Players will never get that money relocation or expansion fee money.

However, players should be happy with another 50 or so NHL jobs and a bunch of AHL players on NHL contracts. Not to mention the jump in revenue with 2 more teams in Canada and bottom feeding / money sucking franchises relocated to more revenue generating locations.

Again - why does it hurt unity that some decide to play in Europe and others decide to stay here?
- Canada Cup

I have no issue, fundamentally, with players going overseas. But the number of players who were ready to go, already there with agreements, before the lockout even started is kinda bad for the NHLPA IMO.

I have no issue, fundamentally, with players going overseas. But the number of players who were ready to go, already there with agreements, before the lockout even started is kinda bad for the NHLPA IMO.
- JDJ

How?

No sense trying to reason with Darth... He will never believe that his heroes could do any wrong.

As a matter of fact i found a video that i think he made to show his devotion

http://www.youtube.com/wa...feature=player_detailpage

So let me see...
The deadline is on Thursday and today (Monday) there's a RUMOR that they may meet on Wednesday? Wow. The meter should be at the very left side, close to zero. But Eklund's lockout blogs are as good as his rumor blogs.
Bye-bye, season.

i guess it would make too much sense to meet on monday tuesday & wednesday

My stance is simple math.

2-3 paychecks lost = greater than the reduction the NHL is proposing for all players that have less than 2 years left on their contracts - and that accounts for over 90%+ of the NHL contracts.

That money might be saved for the players, and yes, not immediately, but as revenues grow down the road working off the NHL's proposal.

I am not saying it is an ideal offer by the NHL, what I am saying is that as games are lost, the NHLPA has lost, especially if it goes beyond 2-3 paychecks.

Simple math.


- JDJ

The NHLPA is not negotiating for one Season. They're negotiating for the life of the CBA. So I disagree that losing a few paychecks means that the players have lost. Your talking about a difference of as much as over a billion dollars over the life of the deal. Ask yourself a simple question. If it was about the simple math you propose, why haven't they agreed to the NHL's deal. Is the leadership of the PA not capable of doing the same simple math and informing the players of that?

As for Fehr statement that future players will be paying now... two things... 1) He has not even sat down to negotiate what they clause might or might not be moving forward to minimize any potential impact to players, and 2) if Fehr is so certain that projected revenue growth can get the NHL/NHLPA to 50/50 split down the road, why is he so unwilling to believe that those same potential revenue projections of his and the NHLPA won't impact "future players" having to pay "current players"?


- JDJ

First of all, it is not Fehr that is unwilling to negotiate now, it is the NHL. Unless the players accept the latest deal the NHL has proposed as the basis for that. The NHL refused to even look at the players counter proposal. Whether it is affected by revenue projections or not, it is still future players footing the bill for players now.

Perhaps because Fehr knows that potential revenue growth is dicey at best, and it is very unlikely the NHLPA's proposals will ever get to 50/50% no matter what they claim.


- JDJ

The problem here is that your taking the latest counter proposal's of the PA as designed to get a deal done with one of the 3. It wasn't. What it was was, is to try and find a methodology and approach to reaching 50/50 that the League might be interested in. And then they could go from there and negotiate to get to an actual 50/50. Whether that is immediate or the so called soft landing of a gradual reduction.

Again, I don't care if the players get 5% of the revenue ot 95% of the revenue. The reality is that the players are going to take a cut - that will happen regardless of what the NHLPA/Fehr current stance is... the real question is how big is that cut going to be? And made how worse by how many games they don't play.

The players cannot win on any level.

The NHL can, at worst, not lose as bad as the players.
- JDJ

I disagree completely that the players cannot win on any level. If the players find a way to get a deal where current contracts are honored, that's a win for them. Because that is their goal. The players and Fehr have known since day 1 that there was going to be some sort of cut in future salary. That is the end game. And losing games now is not the big picture. It's small potatoes compared to the billions of dollars of future revenue that is at stake.

I honestly believe, just by the actions so far, that Fehr wants the NHL to agree to a deal he proposes - regardless if the end numbers might be the same as the NHL's - simply because he wants to present that the NHL took the NHLPA's deal, not the other way around.

Why else would the NHLPA refuse to specifically respond to any NHL proposal directly (even if it ended up with the same numbers as their own proposals), and then come with 3 different proposals last week in which "some of the numbers have not been run"?

Not saying the NHL is not being as stubborn or playing the same game, but at least they are using the same framework of the last NHL CBA so there is a basic understanding / starting point.
- JDJ

That's buying into the rhetoric. Fehr saying he hasn't run the numbers is just another way of saying he's not willing to discuss that publicly right now. You have to read between the lines. The NHLPA has responded directly to all of the League's offers. Fehr is a professional. His motivation is to get the best deal he can for the players, not to get the NHL to accept his deal. The PA came with 3 proposals as a means to get some feedback from the league is how they wanted to approach getting to 50/50. It's common negotiation tactic. The NHL isn't using the last CBA as a basic starting point. They used their initial asinine offer as their starting point. And then moved from there and said see how much were giving. They didn't give squat, they just continued to take

The NHLPA is not negotiating for one Season. They're negotiating for the life of the CBA. So I disagree that losing a few paychecks means that the players have lost. Your talking about a difference of as much as over a billion dollars over the life of the deal. Ask yourself a simple question. If it was about the simple math you propose, why haven't they agreed to the NHL's deal. Is the leadership of the PA not capable of doing the same simple math and informing the players of that?



First of all, it is not Fehr that is unwilling to negotiate now, it is the NHL. Unless the players accept the latest deal the NHL has proposed as the basis for that. The NHL refused to even look at the players counter proposal. I'm sorry, maybe it's me, but your last point doesn't make sense to me.



The problem here is that your taking the latest counter proposal's of the PA as designed to get a deal done with one of the 3. It wasn't. What it was was, is to try and find a methodology and approach to reaching 50/50 that the League might be interested in. And then they could go from there and negotiate to get to an actual 50/50. Whether that is immediate or the so called soft landing of a gradual reduction.



I disagree completely that the players cannot win on any level. If the players find a way to get a deal where current contracts are honored, that's a win for them. Because that is their goal. The players and Fehr have known since day 1 that there was going to be some sort of cut in future salary. That is the end game. And losing games now is not the big picture. It's small potatoes compared to the billions of dollars of future revenue that is at stake.
- MJL

The one problem in all your arguments is the fact that most players have a 3-4 year shelf-life... so what happens in 5...6...7.. years means jack poop to them.

Losing 2-3-4 or more paychecks in 1 season will amount to those players losing much more than if they had signed the deal today.

As for players losing 1 billion dollars... that is POTENTIALLY 1 billion dollars, if the NHLPA's calculations are correct and IF the NHL revenues continue to grow at the current pace (unlikely, no real expanded new avenues of additional revenue and the Canadian dollar is not going to be worth $1.30-$1.50 of the American dollar). Given this league is mostly ticket driven revenue, you know where that $1 Billion will come from?

So I am not sure how much is really potentially as risk, but it is certainly in the 100s of millions of POTENTIAL additional revenue growth.

Like I said, the NHL will ram this agreement down the NHLPA's throat - it is gonna happen. I am not advocating this is fair to the players or even deserved.

But it will happen.

And as soon as games start being lost, the players will lose. And will lose even more, as revenues are more likely to decline in the short term, rather than grow.

Take the best deal they can and get going.

If you want to live in the players utopia, feel free to do so... but you will be disappointing with the outcome.

That's buying into the rhetoric. Fehr saying he hasn't run the numbers is just another way of saying he's not willing to discuss that publicly right now. You have to read between the lines. The NHLPA has responded directly to all of the League's offers. Fehr is a professional. His motivation is to get the best deal he can for the players, not to get the NHL to accept his deal. The PA came with 3 proposals as a means to get some feedback from the league is how they wanted to approach getting to 50/50. It's common negotiation tactic. The NHL isn't using the last CBA as a basic starting point. They used their initial asinine offer as their starting point. And then moved from there and said see how much were giving. They didn't give squat, they just continued to take
- MJL

Stop telling people to "stop buying into the rhetoric" because you are clearly overdosed on NHLPA Kool Aid.

Step back and see things from both sides...