I still believe the football method would've been best. No rollbacks but also no guaranteed contracts (I know it won't happen and it's just wishful thinking) so that they could cut players to get into compliance. The players would be then free to sell their services to the highest bidder. To many players go through the motions in noncontract years and just kill their teams.
- Flyers_01

There's guys who go through the motions in their contract years too. While there's limited research on the topic, this paper argues there is no "contract year performance" effect in the NHL.

On "getting rid of guaranteed contracts" - good luck with that. The NFL is the only league that has that, and that's because the owners utterly broke the players to get it. I wouldn't count on the same thing happening here.

- Flyfreaky

Come on Dude

- Flyfreaky

No matter what deal he secures for the players at this point, the players as a whole will suffer monetarily. The star players signed to the 10 year contracts won't suffer (other than the missed wages this year) but the 90% of the league that will need new contracts in the next 2 -3 years will find less and less money available for them when it comes time to sign.


- Flyers_01

What would severely limit the amount of money available to the players that will need new contracts is the contract limits the League wants to impose. Which is why that is so important to the players futures.

The articles is correct in that the numbers one priority should've been how to grow the league revenues. The future is in growing the pie, not haggling over their next paycheck.

- Flyers_01

Where the article is incorrect is in stating that only Fehr should have had that as a priority. When it should have been both sides having that as priortiy #1. Hypothetically speaking, what do you think would have been the League's response, if Fehr had originally came into the negotiations with that type of approach?

Forbes valuations are tremendously flawed. Cult of Hockey tore 'em apart a few days ago -- specifically targeting the Florida Panthers, a "loser" team with a widely-available auditor report from Broward County.

http://blogs.edmontonjour...ng-teams-that-lose-money/

A lot of hidden financials. This shouldn't really surprise anyone, though.

..The bottom line is that the Panthers’ current ownership did not get into hockey to lose money, and according to the county auditor they haven’t lost money. Florida, commonly presented as one of the league’s have-not teams, and an example of the dangers of over-expansion, is nothing of the sort: it’s a healthy business, carefully presented to appear like a money-losing operation.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to know what the situation is in other NHL cities. NHL teams are private companies, and have no obligation to divulge their financial data. But the fact that the Panthers are seen as one of the poorest clubs in the league suggests that the vast majority of NHL teams are doing just fine.

- Travis Yost

Here is a link to the article and teh writer of said article actually responding to people.

http://bleacherreport.com...wsletter&utm_campaign=nhl

Go talk to him.

Here is a link to the article and teh writer of said article actually responding to people.

http://bleacherreport.com...wsletter&utm_campaign=nhl

Go talk to him.
- OilHorse

They likely calculate that 50% of HRR comes from ticket sales. Assuming that Florida is in the middle of the league for ticket sales and lower end of the league for attendance, they take that into account.
They rest is likely the average opperating costs they have gathered throughout the years.
Then add some public sponcorship figures, tv deals, etc.
Team salaries, playoff estimated revenue.

Chances are the #'s are slightly off for Florida, but to think they are plenty healthy is a joke.

They are desperate as an organization. This summer I had a head hunter solicitate me for a job as Sales Director. The big salary of 35k. The job was created because they had layed off 10 employees for salary cuts and needed someone up for the challange of replacing them.

What would severely limit the amount of money available to the players that will need new contracts is the contract limits the League wants to impose. Which is why that is so important to the players futures.




Where the article is incorrect is in stating that only Fehr should have had that as a priority. When it should have been both sides having that as priortiy #1. Hypothetically speaking, what do you think would have been the League's response, if Fehr had originally came into the negotiations with that type of approach?
- MJL

he didn't state that at all. you're twisting his words. this is an article about Fehr, not Bettman. he doesn't absolve the owners at all. he's making one point, and one point only: that no matter what deal the players sign from here on out, they are going to lose money, even if they sign a more aesthetically pleasing deal than what's on the table now.

What does the term "federal mediator" imply when there are two seperate countries involved?
- Beatle_john

It means they don't want a season.

he didn't state that at all. you're twisting his words. this is an article about Fehr, not Bettman. he doesn't absolve the owners at all. he's making one point, and one point only: that no matter what deal the players sign from here on out, they are going to lose money, even if they sign a more aesthetically pleasing deal than what's on the table now.
- scotch_tape

It's been a fundamental truth from the beginning that the players were going to lose money. I found the article to be one sided. When your talking about what approach you feel one side should have taken, you have to account for how the other side will react, and any possibilities that the other side would take advantage of that approach. The article fails to do that in my opinion.

Stanley cup win or not this is still relevant. (frank) YOU JACOBS! YOU PIECE OF (frank)ING poop!!

http://www.youtube.com/wa...er_embedded&v=_UYwBSFAr2k

It means they don't want a season.
- PuckingOpinion

Pretty sure this didn't work during the last lockout. (frank)ing losers

It's been a fundamental truth from the beginning that the players were going to lose money. I found the article to be one sided. When your talking about what approach you feel one side should have taken, you have to account for how the other side will react, and any possibilities that the other side would take advantage of that approach. The article fails to do that in my opinion.
- MJL

It might have been one sided. Most people who are bias towards the players will simply go through the motion of reading, but not take anything in. So the article itself fell to connect with the ones taking the players side.

However, what I found really interesting is how he proves that the players are losing more and more money day by day, and right now, if they think they will have it better than what the NHL offered on October 15th, they are lying to themselves.

The players should be happy with what they got. Whether it's fair or not that they will lose big, it's not the point. The point is they will continue to lose, and they need to know when to cut their loses.

The owners pockets are way deeper than the players...

stfu MJL

stfu MJL
- Le_Moderateur

stfu MJL
- Le_Moderateur

Great find. Hopefully there can be another CBA in which both sides do well.
- MJL

Are you seriously still clinging to this discredited blog?

It might have been one sided. Most people who are bias towards the players will simply go through the motion of reading, but not take anything in. So the article itself fell to connect with the ones taking the players side.

However, what I found really interesting is how he proves that the players are losing more and more money day by day, and right now, if they think they will have it better than what the NHL offered on October 15th, they are lying to themselves.

The players should be happy with what they got. Whether it's fair or not that they will lose big, it's not the point. The point is they will continue to lose, and they need to know when to cut their loses.

The owners pockets are way deeper than the players...
- l3ig_l2ecl

The fact that the players are losing money every day, doesn't need to be proven. It's a fact. It's been a fact since day 1. But what is also a fact is that the League is also losing money. 10-20M a day according to the League. If the players should be happy with what they got, then 5 years from now, or however long the deal is, we'll be right back in another lockout. Because nothing will be solved. I'm sure that there will be a point in time where the players will decide to cut their loses. But right or wrong, they apparently haven't reached that point yet.

I wonder if the leafs will make the playoffs before the next lockout?

Are you seriously still clinging to this discredited blog?
- Atomic Wedgie

Did you even read the article that was linked?

I wonder if the leafs will make the playoffs before the next lockout?
- Snagglepuss

I heard Leafs ownership is going to buy the 2 blank spaces on the Stanley cup.

It would be best if NO ONE who is a party to this, and none of the PA or NHL commented whatsoever until they either have a deal or they are cancelling the season.

I mean everything they say is rhetoric and spin and crap so just STFU and get it done, or hopefully not.
- Aetherial

Fixed

Just read about Josh Harding.....terrible news. Best of luck to him with his fight. Puts it all in perspective.

It's been a fundamental truth from the beginning that the players were going to lose money. I found the article to be one sided. When your talking about what approach you feel one side should have taken, you have to account for how the other side will react, and any possibilities that the other side would take advantage of that approach. The article fails to do that in my opinion.
- MJL

thats just the angle of the article. the article is about Fehr. he's written equally damning articles about Bettman.

and yes, the players were going to lose money because they were going to lose revenue share. but now not only are they losing revenue share, but the revenue itself is shrinking. that's why so many people (including former players) are trying to figure out what the players are fighting for, because it can't be dollars.

The fact that the players are losing money every day, doesn't need to be proven. It's a fact. It's been a fact since day 1. But what is also a fact is that the League is also losing money. 10-20M a day according to the League. If the players should be happy with what they got, then 5 years from now, or however long the deal is, we'll be right back in another lockout. Because nothing will be solved. I'm sure that there will be a point in time where the players will decide to cut their loses. But right or wrong, they apparently haven't reached that point yet.
- MJL

Owners losing money is irrelevant. They have plenty from other resources.

If the players are trying to hurt the owners to prove a point they are just stupid. You are right, they might not have reached that point yet, but my point is, they should have a long time ago.

thats just the angle of the article. the article is about Fehr. he's written equally damning articles about Bettman.

and yes, the players were going to lose money because they were going to lose revenue share. but now not only are they losing revenue share, but the revenue itself is shrinking. that's why so many people (including former players) are trying to figure out what the players are fighting for, because it can't be dollars.
- scotch_tape

My guess is they're fighting for principle.

However, I've never once heard of a fight for principle being won in modern business.