I think it boils down to, at the sake/probability of being to simplistic, principle. Players accepted a cap last time which is what the owners said they HAD TO HAVE in order for teams to survive (remember: in the context of the arguement, whether they benefitted or not is irrelevant), proceeded to find a variety of ways to circumvent said cap, have a commissioner working for them who, for the past two years, has been walking around gloating about the leagues financial growth (even as recently as the Cup finals), and now the owners are coming back and saying "This system is broken! We're bleeding money!", which given how the owners have allowed for their GM's to work under the cap system, is akin to saying "Save us from ourselves...AGAIN!!!" Nevermind the fact that, in one of the more puzzling moves IMO thus far, you have the owner of a club who landed the two biggest free agents this off season (Weber & Parise) in huge deals, walking out of a session after 15 minutes where a deal was proposed saying we'll accept 50% as long as you honour the contracts you've already negotiated.

Now, note my wording here: Within that context, I can understand the players being miffed.

Now within a BUSINESS context, I would like to understand how the players feel they're entitled to over half the profits of a business, although I can understand concerns around receiving ANY percentage of revenues when you don't trust the business to propoerly define what this is (not saying I buy into either sides HRR definition, just saying I can understand the animosity of you felt someone was cooking the books for lack of a better way to put it)

Now, either of these are, of course, VERY different from the context of real life where, after 16 years of university and a doctoral degree, I make only a insignificant fraction of what a first year, minimum salary player. In THIS context, the players can pound pavement for all I care!

Different contexts define different startpoints and lead you to different conclusions. Two people discussing it from different contexts will, I believe, find it hard to understand where the other is coming from...
- shawn_gates

Totally agree, can't argue any of that. Eveything you said just bolsters what I think most people know...while the players and the Bettman crew try to sell to the public that this is a money issue...it's about fairness....blah blah blah...the fact is this is about egos....both the inflated and bruised. Neither side has handled this well. Bettman sits on his high horse, and makes a mockery of things (as usual), while the players, try to play the "it's not us, it's them" game. While a good portion of this is about money...the bigger prize that both sides seem more interested in is, "we won", "we beat you"

I think it boils down to, at the sake/probability of being to simplistic, principle. Players accepted a cap last time which is what the owners said they HAD TO HAVE in order for teams to survive (remember: in the context of the arguement, whether they benefitted or not is irrelevant), proceeded to find a variety of ways to circumvent said cap, have a commissioner working for them who, for the past two years, has been walking around gloating about the leagues financial growth (even as recently as the Cup finals), and now the owners are coming back and saying "This system is broken! We're bleeding money!", which given how the owners have allowed for their GM's to work under the cap system, is akin to saying "Save us from ourselves...AGAIN!!!" Nevermind the fact that, in one of the more puzzling moves IMO thus far, you have the owner of a club who landed the two biggest free agents this off season (Weber & Parise) in huge deals, walking out of a session after 15 minutes where a deal was proposed saying we'll accept 50% as long as you honour the contracts you've already negotiated.

Now, note my wording here: Within that context, I can understand the players being miffed.

Now within a BUSINESS context, I would like to understand how the players feel they're entitled to over half the profits of a business, although I can understand concerns around receiving ANY percentage of revenues when you don't trust the business to propoerly define what this is (not saying I buy into either sides HRR definition, just saying I can understand the animosity of you felt someone was cooking the books for lack of a better way to put it)

Now, either of these are, of course, VERY different from the context of real life where, after 16 years of university and a doctoral degree, I make only a insignificant fraction of what a first year, minimum salary player. In THIS context, the players can pound pavement for all I care!

Different contexts define different startpoints and lead you to different conclusions. Two people discussing it from different contexts will, I believe, find it hard to understand where the other is coming from...
- shawn_gates

Well said Shawn. I'll just add that I think the players know that they can't continue getting the percentage of revenue that they're getting. They got to 57% over time. It makes sense to move towards 50% over time.

Some thoughts:

The other major sports leagues in the US are at 50-50 percentage or less. The NHL will be at that level also. Both sides know that and have admitted as such. The players should not be indignant that they will be "giving up" a percentage again. Average salaries have gone up every year. Nothing to complain about.

On the other side, contracts that were bargained in good faith should be honored. However, the previous CBA had an escrow clause that will almost definitely be present again. The NHL is NOT going to gross 3.3B again this year and may not for some time. I wonder how much of the increases over the past few years have been "growth" as opposed to increases in the Canadian Dollar vs the USD. Suffice it to say, the currency exchange can't be counted on that much more.

The players have stated that last time they rolled back salaries and are unwilling to give back again. Five years ago, I would have said that the players lost the deal. However, the saying goes ...which ever side wants to continue the current deal, won the last deal. The players won the last deal so it's no surprise that they will have to give up a percentage again.

Some thoughts:

The other major sports leagues in the US are at 50-50 percentage or less. The NHL will be at that level also. Both sides know that and have admitted as such. The players should not be indignant that they will be "giving up" a percentage again. Average salaries have gone up every year. Nothing to complain about.

On the other side, contracts that were bargained in good faith should be honored. However, the previous CBA had an escrow clause that will almost definitely be present again. The NHL is NOT going to gross 3.3B again this year and may not for some time. I wonder how much of the increases over the past few years have been "growth" as opposed to increases in the Canadian Dollar vs the USD. Suffice it to say, the currency exchange can't be counted on that much more.

The players have stated that last time they rolled back salaries and are unwilling to give back again. Five years ago, I would have said that the players lost the deal. However, the saying goes ...which ever side wants to continue the current deal, won the last deal. The players won the last deal so it's no surprise that they will have to give up a percentage again.
- Ron C.

The league grew by about 10% last Season in Revenue. Depending on whose side you believe. The increase in the Canadian dollar was responsible for between .9 and 1.5% of that 10% growth.

You win at Math...