Once the CBA is signed, it's a war between teams. Lots of money to be made in the playoffs....they all want a share of it.
- Symba007

Ten playoff teams lost money last year

Actually, the previous concession he crowed about was agreeing in principle to go to 50/50.

Today, he says it is significant that they moved to 55% (approx.)

So... logically, the offer today was worse
- Aetherial

You specifically said today was significant because of the PA's move towards the owners from the 57% the players earned last year.

You also just admitted that the players PREVIOUSLY agreed in principle to go to 50/50.

So what you are saying is that the players have actually moved away from the owners. After all you admitted they agreed to go to 50/50 in principle... but today, they are only moving towards 50/50 (55% I believe was the calculation).

So according to YOUR ARGUEMENTS to date, the players made a WORSE offer.

Our conversation need go no further. You are trapped in your own arguments AND simultaneously supported my assertion that today's offer was a joke.

Thanks Dude
- Aetherial

Your incorrect. You might want to go back and read what I said. If I need to, I can point out to you exactly what I said, and provide a link to it. It wasn't that hard to understand. It wasn't that long ago. I clearly stated that in year 4 of the deal the players proposed, that it get's to 50.3%. And that year 1 of the deal is 55%. And I said it is a soft landing towards 50/50. And it is. The number are indisputable. And the difference between the two sides is now defined.

So last year the players made 57%. The first year of the offer the players made today, it would be 55%. But you say the players made a worse offer? Math problem here. Check your accessories on your computer. There should be a Calculator function you can use.

And if you want to use other metrics, such as the difference between this proposal and the last proposal the PA made. It still doesn't come up as a worse offer.

So what have you offered that shows that the deal the NHLPA put on the table is a joke? You've offered zip. At least put something somewhat intelligent on the table, instead of the nonsense you offered above. Your post refutes itself.

The problem is that they aren't touching the basic business model that is causing their problems. It is easier to go after share of salaries than to sort out their internal problems driven by reality that 7 some of the franchises cannot survive in a system here revenues driven by Leafs, Habs, Rangers drive their costs.
- Canada Cup

But gassing 7 franchises doesn't help the NHLPA, either.

You can talk all you want about not giving a franchise to Columbus, but it did mean 23 more jobs.

I would love to see a soft cap like baseball, but I'm guessing the small market teams don't.

It's easy to point out the problems.

The solutions are the tough ones.

So, let me pull an MJL on you and sort of dance around this, but not nearly so bad...

How do explain the PA suggesting revenue sharing is a big part of a solution.

If the franchises can't survive, I would argue that pumping more money into them is not a viable business model for the league.
- Aetherial

PA out to lunch on this issue as well - they want to keep 700 members. They gave up on this fight when they decided not to go after the cap. Labour peace in MLB since Fehr won on the fight against the cap.

So i say again. What's changed from yesterday?
- hugefemale dog77

What changed? You didn't read what the offer was?

Ten playoff teams lost money last year
- Canada Cup

Salary cap is too high for many teams.....Leafs/Habs/NYR generate too much money for everyone else to follow. They either reduce the players share (57% to 50%) and increase the revenue sharing or change system where the rich teams will have an easier access to the playoffs via a soft cap with a luxury tax.

Ten playoff teams lost money last year
- Canada Cup

Which ones? And do you know how much each lost?

But gassing 7 franchises doesn't help the NHLPA, either.

You can talk all you want about not giving a franchise to Columbus, but it did mean 23 more jobs.

I would love to see a soft cap like baseball, but I'm guessing the small market teams don't.

It's easy to point out the problems.

The solutions are the tough ones.
- Atomic Wedgie

Agree as per below. Choice is between parity, fewer teams or lost seasons as owners try to squeeze enuf dollars out of players to keep bottom feeders alive. It is not sustainable

PA out to lunch on this issue as well - they want to keep 700 members. They gave up on this fight when they decided not to go after the cap. Labour peace in MLB since Fehr won on the fight against the cap.
- Canada Cup

You're a leafs fan, it's normal you like the baseball system. Ask the bottom 15 teams in revenues if they want that system, they will say no.

PA out to lunch on this issue as well - they want to keep 700 members. They gave up on this fight when they decided not to go after the cap. Labour peace in MLB since Fehr won on the fight against the cap.
- Canada Cup

yeah, but only because the amount of franchises losing money is not big.

AND they were legislated back to playing last time.

AND... that system is terrible from a competitive balance standpoint. Sure you get outliers every once in a while, but they are the exception to a pretty steady rule.

PA out to lunch on this issue as well - they want to keep 700 members. They gave up on this fight when they decided not to go after the cap. Labour peace in MLB since Fehr won on the fight against the cap.
- Canada Cup

The PA would not be out to lunch if the league did not insist on hanging on to these loser franchises.

I know it does not serve the PA to contract, but it does not serve the league as a whole to keep teams in markets that won't support them.

No, Gary, there is not a huge, lucrative problem solving national TV deal on the horizon.

Actually, the previous concession he crowed about was agreeing in principle to go to 50/50.

Today, he says it is significant that they moved to 55% (approx.)

So... logically, the offer today was worse
- Aetherial

Logically, if the players had offered a previous proposal that was 50/50, then offered a proposal today that was 55%, then that would be a worse offer.

But how many times have you stated that the players haven't made any real offers? Now you want to pretend, and that's what your doing is pretending. Is that the players put an actual offer on the table previously, that offered an immediate 50/50. That didn't happen. So what they hell are you talking about?

It seems as though your not getting the "in principle" part of agreeing to go to 50/50 in principle. Or your just making another one of your ridiculous arguments with zero substance to back it up.

29 guys disagree with you, Champ.
- Atomic Wedgie

sure that is fine. But I dont see a point in that. If you are trying to say that just because 29 guys agree with you, they are right and I am wrong. Then I guess that is why we are sitting in a lockout and not playing hockey right now.

What changed? You didn't read what the offer was?
- MJL

They actually dont go to 50 immediately, but eventually. Which was what u always said they had agreed to in principle anyway.

Which the owners always said they wouldnt agree to.

I did read it and In that case, nothing changed.
Just wanted to see if u were adult enough to just say it.

God ur boring to debate with.
Done

Your incorrect. You might want to go back and read what I said. If I need to, I can point out to you exactly what I said, and provide a link to it. It wasn't that hard to understand. It wasn't that long ago. I clearly stated that in year 4 of the deal the players proposed, that it get's to 50.3%. And that year 1 of the deal is 55%. And I said it is a soft landing towards 50/50. And it is. The number are indisputable. And the difference between the two sides is now defined.

So last year the players made 57%. The first year of the offer the players made today, it would be 55%. But you say the players made a worse offer? Math problem here. Check your accessories on your computer. There should be a Calculator function you can use.

And if you want to use other metrics, such as the difference between this proposal and the last proposal the PA made. It still doesn't come up as a worse offer.

So what have you offered that shows that the deal the NHLPA put on the table is a joke? You've offered zip. At least put something somewhat intelligent on the table, instead of the nonsense you offered above. Your post refutes itself.
- MJL

You're just wasting your time trying to explain it to these clowns ...it's pretty simple to understand but Leaf fans seem to struggle with numbers

So, let me pull an MJL on you and sort of dance around this, but not nearly so bad...

How do explain the PA suggesting revenue sharing is a big part of a solution.

If the franchises can't survive, I would argue that pumping more money into them is not a viable business model for the league.
- Aetherial

Revenue sharing is something that every Major Sports League uses. For one reason, it works.

You're a leafs fan, it's normal you like the baseball system. Ask the bottom 15 teams in revenues if they want that system, they will say no.
- Symba007

There is a great argument to be made though that MLB benefits from having the Yankees win once every four years. People love to hate the Yankees.

That means they care.

PA out to lunch on this issue as well - they want to keep 700 members. They gave up on this fight when they decided not to go after the cap. Labour peace in MLB since Fehr won on the fight against the cap.
- Canada Cup

Mlb type league!!??.. O, your a leafs fan. Of course.

Your incorrect. You might want to go back and read what I said. If I need to, I can point out to you exactly what I said, and provide a link to it. It wasn't that hard to understand. It wasn't that long ago. I clearly stated that in year 4 of the deal the players proposed, that it get's to 50.3%. And that year 1 of the deal is 55%. And I said it is a soft landing towards 50/50. And it is. The number are indisputable. And the difference between the two sides is now defined.

So last year the players made 57%. The first year of the offer the players made today, it would be 55%. But you say the players made a worse offer? Math problem here. Check your accessories on your computer. There should be a Calculator function you can use.

And if you want to use other metrics, such as the difference between this proposal and the last proposal the PA made. It still doesn't come up as a worse offer.

So what have you offered that shows that the deal the NHLPA put on the table is a joke? You've offered zip. At least put something somewhat intelligent on the table, instead of the nonsense you offered above. Your post refutes itself.
- MJL

So they already agreed to go to 50/50 (your words AND their words).

Today is significant because they took the first step?

How is that significant? The first step had to come sometime didn't it.

There is a great argument to be made though that MLB benefits from having the Yankees win once every four years. People love to hate the Yankees.

That means they care.
- Atomic Wedgie

I'm sure the Jays love having the Yankees and Red Sox in their division. When is the last time they made the playoffs? When did that famous CBA get signed?

Which ones? And do you know how much each lost?
- Scoob

Looks like only 9

Kings $2m
Preds $7.5
Yotes $25
Sharks $8
Blues $3
Pens $0.2
Devils $6
Panthers $7
Caps $7.5

sure that is fine. But I dont see a point in that. If you are trying to say that just because 29 guys agree with you, they are right and I am wrong. Then I guess that is why we are sitting in a lockout and not playing hockey right now.
- KOS

So it's Bettman's time to go, even though his bosses are satisfied with his performance?

They're actually dont go to 50 immediately, but eventually. Which was what u always said they had agreed to in principle anyway.

Which the owners always said they wouldnt agree to.
I did read it. In that case, nothing changed.
Just wanted to see if u were adult enough to just say it.

God ur boring to debate with.
Done
- hugefemale dog77

I'll tell you what else changed. And this is very important. The players moved from an offer that was a guaranteed share, to the Owners side which is a percentage share. That is a significant change. Because that philosophical divide is now gone. Now there is a defined number that can't be disputed on the difference between both sides. Instead of each side disagreeing on the difference. Because each side was using a different structure.

So if you read it, how do you not know that?

Looks like only 9

Kings $2m
Preds $7.5
Yotes $25
Sharks $8
Blues $3
Pens $0.2
Devils $6
Panthers $7
Caps $7.5
- Canada Cup

The Kings won the cup and lost 2mil???...Sorry there no CBA that will fix that problem...