I was done with this year after they dropped the Winter Classic.

To be honest I've giving up caring. Check in from time to time but no longer sit on the edge of my seat waiting for puck to drop. Also feel that all the people chosing the I can't feel bad for players making so much blah blah blah. Really are not putting themselves in the same scenario or just flat out can't see it's a not about the money, its pride, its not wanting to be abused whipping boys of the league.

Sure they make great money and can survive just fine by conceeding it all, but ask yourself would you? Let's say you work for a company and make a nice $80,000 a year. Your not struggling to pay bills and get along just fine. Your company has had record sales and growth. Yet come your review you are told they are decreasing your salary to $78,000 a year and are removing the dental plan from ur benefits. Now ur not going to be out on streets and will still make enough to pay your bills. Do you not protest at all? Be honest with yourself.

Now let's say u take it as it is and when you are up for your next review and the company has grown even further due to your performance. And they tell you the are going to have to move you down to $76,000 a year and they are also now removing the drug plan. Is this not when u dig in and try to fight just to prove there are consequences when the owners try to take what you don't feel is neccessary?

Bottom line is regardless of the dollars involved people are mistaken, players aren't striking to get more money. They are locked out and told they won't get back in until they agree to bend over. Its pride, no one likes to be taken advantage of. The players feel if they crumble then league will just take more next cba, rinse and repeat! Its more black mail then negotiation at this point

I've given up on this year and sadly I'm ok with that. As I feel bettman and the owners have given nothing to the players when compared to last cba. The only battle players have won is revenue sharing, basically won a battle for the smaller owners not the players at all.

Anyone who knows business, if you have a contract up for renewal, if something is taken away from one side its reasonable to expect compensation for what is loss in other ways be it contracting rights or pensions... But there has to be some pro's to signing a new deal not just cons!

People blaming players are being selfish because they want hockey they demand players suck it up and bend over for the owners. But please ask yourself would you?
- sfarrell

Just like the NHL players - you can go work somewhere else if you dont like what your boss/company is doing. The other thing is that your analogy is nowhere near the reality of the situation. In truth, my company tells me that I need to be more profitable every year - sell more and be more efficent, but I may only get a 3% raise. 50% of $4B is better than 57% of $3.3B - so the players in fact CAN make more money - unlike the scenario you painted.

some people, like Jamal, must not be as short-sighted as you. The players conceded in the last cba, they've already conceded all around in their proposals for this cba, they know the owners are just going to ask for more next cba. People who want them to just roll over and take what they get seem to hate that the players get paid what they do, but will take the side of the super-rich owners?

I'm all for players getting paid less. It's a sport. Sports are pretty much meaningless in the real world, they shouldn't be seeing that kind of profit. In no way do I believe that the players should receive less so that the owners can get more however.

I'd love for the value of the league to deflate and make ticket prices reasonable.
- Blue Clam

I don't want to get into the players vs the owners battle, so I'll just say this, the players (as overpaid as they are) have absolutely no risk, their contract is guaranteed, they have no work related expenses to worry about, they never have to worry about personal health care, fan attendance, ticket sales, merchandise or concession revenue, all they have to do is show up and play, that's it! These guys other than being away from their families pretty much live the life of Riley and are compensated extremely well for it I might add given the average player salary comes in at a whopping $2.4 million per year. That ranks them 3rd in the big 4 and keep in mind they have no where near the lucrative TV deals that the other 3 have making the NHL the least popular. And that's not even bringing to mention player endorsement revenue.

The owners have quite a bit more on their plates in the way of risk and worry and are not guranteed any reasonable profit. And as far as the value of the league deflating, not likely and even if it did, prices will never go down with the players averaging $2.4 million per year. So I guess it stands to reason that if the players get less the owners will indeed get more, that discount will never be passed on to the fans.

To put things into perspective, if you owned and ran your own business, don't you think you would want to make more than your top employees do?

More saddened than angry, really miss NHL hockey but have learned to live without it, it is evident to me that for this year at least, much like 04/05 there will be no NHL,the really sad thing is, neither side seems to realize the permanent damage that is being done to the league.
- slade67

Agree 100%

I really hope the NHL takes 2 years off so that I can see what Miller and Crosby and all the other rich guys do without some income for a while. Maybe playing for 10% less isnt such a bad deal when you have lost 10-15 Million of your earning potential FOREVER! Effing idiots - I have to go to work every (frank)ing day, and they are female doging about making 10% less?? (frank) every single one of them.
- atlsabsfan

I love it when fans compare their piss poor jobs to NHL'ers
They are the best 700 in the world. You are not.


PS: most people go to work every day, not just you.

I like Jamal, but this is a joke. As someone else wrote earlier, the players want 57% but they have no expenses. The owners want 50% and their expenses are significant. Not to mention the amount of useable cash they have tied up in their franchise, which pays a fairly low net profit to most teams.

Look Jamal, you idiot, I get that you don't like having your pay cut. Nobody does. But the business you work for has decided to sustain an expansion into markets which are not yet producing. We might agree (or not) about whether that is smart. But it is through their largesse, and willingness to risk their own money that you have a very high paying gig. Suck it up you loser. I work for a small business, and I have had my pay cut so that new initiatives can be pursued. It's part of life sometimes.

Also, do the math Jammer. The difference between 50 and 57% of revs is about 4.9mm... Guys on your side of the argument, in your locker room throughout your career get contracts like that all the time. Are they greedy jerks too? And by the by the way... your teams owner, Rockwell, isn't going to get to keep any of the 4.9, because it's going to be sent away to support new markets, which in aggregate, will ultimately benefit you and your union. or, we can can 20 players from 4 teams... guess what, that's what you deserve because you have been negotiating against yourselves this whole time. Stick it, Jammer. You are a boob.

I love it when fans compare their piss poor jobs to NHL'ers
They are the best 700 in the world. You are not.


PS: most people go to work every day, not just you.
- stuckey

bravo
+applauds+

Eklund: POLL: Do You still Care about this NHL Season? + For/Against Mayers?
- Eklund

Jamal Mayers was a cancer in the dressing room, who was run out of Toronto for his completely selfish attitude. Apparently Mr. Mayers couldn't comprehend the fact that players who put forth more effort and gave better results deserved more ice time than him.

But let's get to his point, shall we?

"1) "Owners can't give anymore? What have they given? We're conceding in every area and expected to keep giving? Share 57-50"

What have they given? How about "away their profits + some" for the past few years.

This is what players fail to grasp: there is a line in the sand that the owners can't cross, or they lose money. You can debate where that line is, but there is a line.

For the players, there is no line. It's pure profit. The can always give more.

disagree - the owners knew they were dealing with Fehr - and they are now digging in and until the NHLPA comes up with a reasonable plan to get to 50/50 - they will tell the NHLPA to pound sand until they get what they want - and here we are with players whining and moaning. I would love to see them decertify - because they would lose their asses trying to fight that battle...
- atlsabsfan

The sport, and for that matter BOTH the players and the owners lose more by not playing then either side will "gain" by digging in at their position. And that is my issue with the way the NHL has handled these negotiations. Yes, things needed to be tweaked and 50/50 needs to happen. But NONE of the issues were so large that nuclear war needed to happen...yet here we are with talks of decertification and mediators and blah blah blah.

And ask yourself honestly, if the NHL "knew" they were dealing with an experienced negotiator like Fehr in a growing sport with new tv contracts on the table and soon to be in Canada, was the best stance to take a hardline "my way or the highway"? Well, my answer lies in the fact we sit here post Thanksgiving and the "hopes" of NHL hockey this year die more with each day.

I have been a life-long fan of the game, and have just graduated and started pulling in money in the last two years. I should be the type of person the league is targeting. This season was the first time I have bought a mini-ticket pack, and chances are in a few years (once some money is built up) that would've changed into a season ticket pack. Not anymore. If an agreement isn't made to save the season by Christmas, not only will I be asking for a refund, I will never buy a ticket again. Not saying I won't be a fan, but I will be watching on the TV I bought with money not spent on tickets instead of going to the rink. I will not buy another jersey, nor will I buy any other merchandise from the NHL. For this season, I have officially crossed the line to apathetic from being angry and hopeful.

Jamal Mayers was a cancer in the dressing room, who was run out of Toronto for his completely selfish attitude. Apparently Mr. Mayers couldn't comprehend the fact that players who put forth more effort and gave better results deserved more ice time than him.

But let's get to his point, shall we?

"1) "Owners can't give anymore? What have they given? We're conceding in every area and expected to keep giving? Share 57-50"

What have they given? How about "away their profits + some" for the past few years.

This is what players fail to grasp: there is a line in the sand that the owners can't cross, or they lose money. You can debate where that line is, but there is a line.

For the players, there is no line. It's pure profit. The can always give more.
- Atomic Wedgie

Well then how about the players all just cut their salaries in half so that the great owners of Phoenix, Florida, etc can make a profit. And then do it again in 7 years. And so on, and so on, and so on. Give me a break.

who has a better chance of catching a bullet.

bettman
obama
fuhr
macguire

there ya go ek i saved you the trouble for your next pole.

Maybe the owners should have a little chit-chat with their GMs and ask them why they hand out insane contracts.

The owners' wounds are self-inflicted.
- Scoob

That's a bad argument to make when the owners are contractually bound to give up 57% of revenue.... Teams have to give out huge contracts to some players, deserving or not, simply to get to the salary floor.

It's why the cap changes every year... when more revenue comes in, more must go out in the form of player salaries or it will be a violation of the CBA. The players need to take a cut or you will see a scenario where you lose 10% of the available jobs due to contraction in floundering markets. Now the players will complain because 4 teams and 80 some roster spots are eliminated... it's a lose/lose for the players and the longer the lockout persists, the less money will be available for the players when they return.

Which is why a more quickly settled CBA will benefit everyone involved... not just one side or the other.

who has a better chance of catching a bullet.

bettman
obama
fuhr
macguire

there ya go ek i saved you the trouble for your next pole.
- big_dion

What did Grant Fuhr ever do to you?

That's a bad argument to make when the owners are contractually bound to give up 57% of revenue.... Teams have to give out huge contracts to some players, deserving or not, simply to get to the salary floor.

It's why the cap changes every year... when more revenue comes in, more must go out in the form of player salaries or it will be a violation of the CBA. The players need to take a cut or you will see a scenario where you lose 10% of the available jobs due to contraction in floundering markets. Now the players will complain because 4 teams and 80 some roster spots are eliminated... it's a lose/lose for the players and the longer the lockout persists, the less money will be available for the players when they return.
- Yonk1216

I guess thats why Philly (Weber) and Minny (Suter and Parise) had to offer those contracts eh? To get to the floor?

Cancel the season!
- whipper334

You got it bro. I dont even care anymore what their reasons are for fighting like this over tons of money. Players need to grow up and show this kind of determination on the ice, because I've been to games where they sure dont look like they give a rats ass. I cant stand Bettmans lockout style negotiating either. Thats all the man knows & its getting tiresome. Players didnt get jammed in 2004 like they have been brainwashed to think. They made a great business decision allowing a Cap that grew the business & their earnings, despite themselves. Owners need to smarten up too and run the business the way its supposed to be. Just decertify & blow this thing up so I can be entertained with all the blogs & media coverage on mass stupidity. They will need a new bumper sticker "Please God let the fans forgive us so we can make grotesque amounts of money playing hockey again"

Um, it's their own fault that they're crappy businessmen.
- Scoob

Wrong.

The owners are billionaires AND WERE billionaires before they became an owner of an NHL franchise. To call the owners "crappy businessmen" is not only baseless, but is laughable.

The owners want what is rightfully theirs, a return on their investment and ultimately a profit from the businesses THEY OWN. The players are nothing more than a commodity. They are overpaid employees (spoiled and ungrateful ones I might add).

Considering that the owners eat ALL of the expenses and take on ALL of the risk, I think they're entitled to a bigger piece of the pie to ensure that the league remains healthy and stable.

So you tell me, which is the better model:
A. Players receiving an average salary of $2.4M and a the majority of teams bleeding money, not turning a profit and at risk of relocation or worse, contraction. Which also means that player jobs could also be lost and that market losing their franchise. In short, stunted growth.

B. Players receiving an average of $2M to $2.1M and a healthier more stable league that is strong enough to grow and flourish in current markets and possibly flourish in others, ultimately... wait for it... wait... wait... GENERATING MORE MONEY FOR EVERYONE IN THE SHORT AND LONG TERM!

The players keep saying that they "took a bath" and "got hammered" in the last lockout AND YET the players are making more money than ever and average salary has increased by more than a $1M annually.

That's a bad argument to make when the owners are contractually bound to give up 57% of revenue.... Teams have to give out huge contracts to some players, deserving or not, simply to get to the salary floor.

It's why the cap changes every year... when more revenue comes in, more must go out in the form of player salaries or it will be a violation of the CBA. The players need to take a cut or you will see a scenario where you lose 10% of the available jobs due to contraction in floundering markets. Now the players will complain because 4 teams and 80 some roster spots are eliminated... it's a lose/lose for the players and the longer the lockout persists, the less money will be available for the players when they return.

Which is why a more quickly settled CBA will benefit everyone involved... not just one side or the other.
- Yonk1216

And how did it become that the Cap was linked to revenue, and the players share went to 57%?

I to will watch when they come back and like all fans angry over the lockout and cannot believe after the season they had with record profit they would come to this. I know it won't happen but Bettman needs to go. You have a team in the desert that cannot sell tickests and you have markets in Canada where they would fill 2 stadiums. That's not smart business and now they have a 3rd lockout.

To be honest I've giving up caring. Check in from time to time but no longer sit on the edge of my seat waiting for puck to drop. Also feel that all the people chosing the I can't feel bad for players making so much blah blah blah. Really are not putting themselves in the same scenario or just flat out can't see it's a not about the money, its pride, its not wanting to be abused whipping boys of the league.

Sure they make great money and can survive just fine by conceeding it all, but ask yourself would you? Let's say you work for a company and make a nice $80,000 a year. Your not struggling to pay bills and get along just fine. Your company has had record sales and growth. Yet come your review you are told they are decreasing your salary to $78,000 a year and are removing the dental plan from ur benefits. Now ur not going to be out on streets and will still make enough to pay your bills. Do you not protest at all? Be honest with yourself.

Now let's say u take it as it is and when you are up for your next review and the company has grown even further due to your performance. And they tell you the are going to have to move you down to $76,000 a year and they are also now removing the drug plan. Is this not when u dig in and try to fight just to prove there are consequences when the owners try to take what you don't feel is neccessary?

Bottom line is regardless of the dollars involved people are mistaken, players aren't striking to get more money. They are locked out and told they won't get back in until they agree to bend over. Its pride, no one likes to be taken advantage of. The players feel if they crumble then league will just take more next cba, rinse and repeat! Its more black mail then negotiation at this point

I've given up on this year and sadly I'm ok with that. As I feel bettman and the owners have given nothing to the players when compared to last cba. The only battle players have won is revenue sharing, basically won a battle for the smaller owners not the players at all.

Anyone who knows business, if you have a contract up for renewal, if something is taken away from one side its reasonable to expect compensation for what is loss in other ways be it contracting rights or pensions... But there has to be some pro's to signing a new deal not just cons!

People blaming players are being selfish because they want hockey they demand players suck it up and bend over for the owners. But please ask yourself would you?
- sfarrell

If the only other option is to go work in Europe for $7,000 - $8,000 a year, or in Russia for $70,000, but my office is a dump and my car is 40 years old and the medical system is outdated, I accept the $78,000.

Wrong.

The owners are billionaires AND WERE billionaires before they became an owner of an NHL franchise. To call the owners "crappy businessmen" is not only baseless, but is laughable.

The owners want what is rightfully theirs, a return on their investment and ultimately a profit from the businesses THEY OWN. The players are nothing more than a commodity. They are overpaid employees (spoiled and ungrateful ones I might add).


- As_I_See_It

And the players want what is rightfully theirs. Which is the contracts they signed in good faith honored. But I guess that makes them spoiled and ungrateful.

Maybe the owners should have a little chit-chat with their GMs and ask them why they hand out insane contracts.

The owners' wounds are self-inflicted.
- Scoob

This might be applicable if every team was on the same playing field financially.
Despite the salary cap, there are "have" and "have not" teams.

This is why the league/owners want to address contracting issues i.e. the length of term and the 5% variance.

If the rules aren't in place, the system WILL ALWAYS be abused. This is pretty much consistent in any scenario.

If the rules aren't in place and these owners and GM's across the league have these little "chit-chats," that's also called collusion, which is against the law.

And the players want what is rigtfully theirs. Which is the contracts they signed in good faith honored. But I guess that makes them spoiled and ungrateful.
- MJL

Hasn't the league already said that those contracts will be honored in more form or another?

This is what players fail to grasp: there is a line in the sand that the owners can't cross, or they lose money. You can debate where that line is, but there is a line.

.
- Atomic Wedgie

My problem with this statement is that the Owners Created the line. Some owners are already on the other side, and their new plan does not erase the line, it just allows them to step back for a couple years, but they will eventually cross it again.


if the owners were showing me a system that actually fixes the current problems, i would be on their side 100%. but their bandaid solution that guarantees we will see another lockout in fewer than 10 years from now, put me firmly on the side that thinks everyone is (frank)ed

I like Jamal, but this is a joke. As someone else wrote earlier, the players want 57% but they have no expenses. The owners want 50% and their expenses are significant. Not to mention the amount of useable cash they have tied up in their franchise, which pays a fairly low net profit to most teams.

Look Jamal, you idiot, I get that you don't like having your pay cut. Nobody does. But the business you work for has decided to sustain an expansion into markets which are not yet producing. We might agree (or not) about whether that is smart. But it is through their largesse, and willingness to risk their own money that you have a very high paying gig. Suck it up you loser. I work for a small business, and I have had my pay cut so that new initiatives can be pursued. It's part of life sometimes.

Also, do the math Jammer. The difference between 50 and 57% of revs is about 4.9mm... Guys on your side of the argument, in your locker room throughout your career get contracts like that all the time. Are they greedy jerks too? And by the by the way... your teams owner, Rockwell, isn't going to get to keep any of the 4.9, because it's going to be sent away to support new markets, which in aggregate, will ultimately benefit you and your union. or, we can can 20 players from 4 teams... guess what, that's what you deserve because you have been negotiating against yourselves this whole time. Stick it, Jammer. You are a boob.
- DirkGraham

Only if they lower the league minimum salary.