Yes, you keep saying that and I have a feeling you are missing the point. It doesn't matter who created the mess. The onus is on both sides to find a way to resolve the leagues financial woes for the betterment of the entire league, not just the teams that are struggling and not just for the teams that are doing well. The players need to agree to 50/50, not just move towards it, the owners need to take a serious look at how and where they spend their money and stop offering ridiculous contracts.

That's the whole point really, they all need to check themselves. The betterment of the entire league is what should be the focus not the betterment of either side individually.

I'm not saying the owners are little angels that have done no wrong, and you're right, they are to blame for this fiasco. But simply assigning blame gets us no where. Both sides need to endeavor to persevere or this league will crumble.
- MnGump

Yes it does matter who created the mess. And if the onus is on both sides, how come the League wants the players to pay for it all?

I agree with your overall premise. I'm not just assigning blame. I'm saying the Owners need to look within and fix their own house, instead of taking from the players to try and fix it. How did that work the last time? And it all ties in with the basic principals that I have based all of my opinions on the lockout on.

Completely understand how you feel. But you do have another choice. And that's not giving up the sport you love. I for one, am not going to punish myself futher when Hockey returns. Why should I remove something from my life that I totally enjoy. Because they can't get it together and figure it out? I refuse to let their actions cause myself to lose that enjoyment.
- MJL

Are you blue ? Or purple

Yes it does matter who created the mess. And if the onus is on both sides, how come the League wants the players to pay for it all?

I agree with your overall premise. I'm not just assigning blame. I'm saying the Owners need to look within and fix their own house, instead of taking from the players to try and fix it. How did that work the last time? And it all ties in with the basic principals that I have based all of my opinions on the lockout on.
- MJL

Are the owners asking the players to take money out of their bank or just asking them to not take as much money from the owners in the future?

Are the owners asking the players to take money out of their bank or just asking them to not take as much money from the owners in the future?
- CaptainK

- Buffalo--Sabres

Looks about right to me.

Are the owners asking the players to take money out of their bank or just asking them to not take as much money from the owners in the future?
- CaptainK

The Owners are asking the players to take less money then they negotiated for in good faith. As well as give up player contract rights which further reduces their ability to maximize their income in the future.

Yes it does matter who created the mess. And if the onus is on both sides, how come the League wants the players to pay for it all?

I agree with your overall premise. I'm not just assigning blame. I'm saying the Owners need to look within and fix their own house, instead of taking from the players to try and fix it. How did that work the last time? And it all ties in with the basic principals that I have based all of my opinions on the lockout on.
- MJL

IMO, while I agree the players don't deserve that much money, and the league won't be in good shape paying out this kind of money, the owners created it. They signed the contracts. They are the ones who created the salarly cap, then created the 25 years deals to circumvent it. They are the ones who locked the players out. They are the only ones who can fix it.

Unfortunately it will probably cost the fans more money across the board to keep this league together.

Yes it does matter who created the mess. And if the onus is on both sides, how come the League wants the players to pay for it all?

I agree with your overall premise. I'm not just assigning blame. I'm saying the Owners need to look within and fix their own house, instead of taking from the players to try and fix it. How did that work the last time? And it all ties in with the basic principals that I have based all of my opinions on the lockout on.
- MJL

Seriously, you need to stop blaming the long term contracts and excessive bonuses for this lockout.

1) Revenue determin the Salary Cap.
2) Owners approve to spend within the Salary Cap.
3) Owners hire GMs to spend within the Salary Cap
4) Gms don't care about money as long as they can still make theirs

The list goes on. Blaming owners for the rediculous contracts is just plain ignorant. Did they approve them? Sure.. However, do they still fit in the salary cap? YES!!!

So even if every contract was 20 years long, as long as it's still within the salary cap, it's irrelevant. Whether their are front loaded, or rear loaded, it's not what drives revenues up.

So what is the true problem? (frank), we've been talking about it for months. You should know by now. It's poor teams can't come up with the money to spend up to the Cap Ceiling, which they feel like they need to in order to be competitive.

According to Forbes, the major losers are not teams with "rediculous" contracts. They are the teams that simply can't afford to put tickets at a price to remain profitable enough to meet the cap.

So the solution in the NHL's eyes? Lower the cap by cutting the players share.

Will this fix the problem? Probably no, because if the league keeps inflating revenues faster than the lower team can do, They will be in the same poop again. However, if you reduce players share, the richer teams will be more open to share profits. So it needs to be implemented in this CBA.

So why do owners ask to limit contracts? Because the NHLPA (frank)ed with them too much, and now they have the leverage.

Looks about right to me.
- Aliaksandrhn

I made that well over a month ago and at the time it seemed ridiculous. Now its pretty much right on.

Seriously, you need to stop blaming the long term contracts and excessive bonuses for this lockout.

1) Revenue determin the Salary Cap.
2) Owners approve to spend within the Salary Cap.
3) Owners hire GMs to spend within the Salary Cap
4) Gms don't care about money as long as they can still make theirs

The list goes on. Blaming owners for the rediculous contracts is just plain ignorant. Did they approve them? Sure.. However, do they still fit in the salary cap? YES!!!

So even if every contract was 20 years long, as long as it's still within the salary cap, it's irrelevant. Whether their are front loaded, or rear loaded, it's not what drives revenues up.

So what is the true problem? (frank), we've been talking about it for months. You should know by now. It's poor teams can't come up with the money to spend up to the Cap Ceiling, which they feel like they need to in order to be competitive.

According to Forbes, the major losers are not teams with "rediculous" contracts. They are the teams that simply can't afford to put tickets at a price to remain profitable enough to meet the cap.
- l3ig_l2ecl

Thank you sir....... Now he will say that he doesnt trust forbes blah blah blah blah......

Thank you sir....... Now he will say that he doesnt trust forbes blah blah blah blah......
- Philly1980

It doesn't matter whether you trust Forbes.

The fact is, even though Minnissota is spending 18 million more the next season than they did last year due to 2 players, it will likely generate way above that. I know my friend has already bough his Jerseys and was lining up for season tickets.

All they would have to do is sell the tickets at a $10 more average, Sell out a bit more, and make the playoffs and they are a profitable team. On top of that, half their extra revenu would go to the players

The Owners are asking the players to take less money then they negotiated for in good faith. As well as give up player contract rights which further reduces their ability to maximize their income in the future.
- MJL

Yes the owners made mistakes and it sucks for the players, BUT the business model as is is NOT functioning, do you get that part?

The players can get what they want and have the ship sink, which by the way SUCKS for the future players which they are supposedly fighting for OR they can be partners and fix the LEAGUE so that EVERYONE keeps their job.

If it's only about the current players getting the money they signed for FINE, but don't feed my the BS of doing it for the future.
The players come off caring about THEIR careers and earnings and could care less about what the league will look like when they are done.

Yes the owners made mistakes and it sucks for the players, BUT the business model as is is NOT functioning, do you get that part?

The players can get what they want and have the ship sink, which by the way SUCKS for the future players which they are supposedly fighting for OR they can be partners and fix the LEAGUE so that EVERYONE keeps their job.

If it's only about the current players getting the money they signed for FINE, but don't feed my the BS of doing it for the future.
The players come off caring about THEIR careers and earnings and could care less about what the league will look like when they are done.
- braidan

You can almost relate it to the Student Strike in Quebec....

Thank you sir....... Now he will say that he doesnt trust forbes blah blah blah blah......
- Philly1980

Why do you have such a hate boner for MJL? You can't seem to discuss anything without somehow including him in your post. I understand the guy can be obstinate in his opinion, but I can't wrap my brain around exactly what you find so fascinating about him.

which is great if the LEafs, Habs and Rangers don't keep driving it higher. That's kind of what happens.

Why do you think teams keep losing money?
- Canada Cup

Doesn't change the fact that lowering players % lowers the cap. Does it?

As far as the high revenue teams. There is a lot of unknown lying ahead in the future.

The CDN teams could face a large loss in revenues if/when the CDN$ drops back to more historical levels. Also just because those teams have grown internal revenues to record levels. There is no guarantees that thier revenues will continue to GROW, much less maintain the arguably unsustainable levels relative to rest of teams that they sit at today. ( These are short term projections. Obviously revenue levels will always grow in the long run.)

While those teams will undoubtably always be at the forefront when it comes to revenue levels, there really is no way to be sure about what the future will bring.

Yes it does matter who created the mess. And if the onus is on both sides, how come the League wants the players to pay for it all?

I agree with your overall premise. I'm not just assigning blame. I'm saying the Owners need to look within and fix their own house, instead of taking from the players to try and fix it. How did that work the last time? And it all ties in with the basic principals that I have based all of my opinions on the lockout on.
- MJL

Well, unless you want to go back to just 6 teams I think we're beyond just fixing the owners side of things. The numbers speak for themselves. How is anything going to get done if the players don't lose money? The numbers show that the current business model is an epic fail. How can the owners fix the entire leagues financial issues divying up 250 million dollars? If the players don't lose money then the only solution is contraction of several teams. So is that worth the players getting their way? Probably not to the players who won't be NHLers anymore. And this is where I say that blame has no relevance, especially if teams or the league cease to exist. I guess if that happens we may have no league but at least we will all be able to sit around and say it was the owners fault. Fault or no fault the issues have to be resolved.

You seem to believe that the only responsibility the players have in this is to make as much money as they possibly can and forget the rest. The league cannot operate solely to appease the needs and wants of the players, and it's not like the old days when guys played for peanuts, these guys are compensated rather well in the new era. The PA has a responsibilty to more than just the "best deal" for it's players. They have a responsibility right along side the owners to help grow and preserve the game of hockey and the league they belong to.

The players need to be willing to give a little more back to the game that has treated them pretty damn good. As you and so many have pointed out this is not a real world job and shouldn't be comapared as such. Therefore they shouldn't be acting like blue collar tradesmen looking to squeeze every cent they can out of the owners. A happy medium needs to be realized on both sides.

Yes the owners made mistakes and it sucks for the players, BUT the business model as is is NOT functioning, do you get that part?

The players can get what they want and have the ship sink, which by the way SUCKS for the future players which they are supposedly fighting for OR they can be partners and fix the LEAGUE so that EVERYONE keeps their job.

If it's only about the current players getting the money they signed for FINE, but don't feed my the BS of doing it for the future.
The players come off caring about THEIR careers and earnings and could care less about what the league will look like when they are done.
- braidan

Moving the share of HRR does not fix the business model -- do you get that part? As long as we have a salary floor tied to revenue growth driven by the Leafs, Habs, Rangers, etc we will have problems. I don't know why you think the owners are pushing solutions to that problem. They got a far bigger reduction in salaries in the last CBA and the problems are no better.

Why do you have such a hate boner for MJL? You can't seem to discuss anything without somehow including him in your post. I understand the guy can be obstinate in his opinion, but I can't wrap my brain around exactly what you find so fascinating about him.
- BulliesPhan87

Why? Because I just like being a Richard...

Seriously, you need to stop blaming the long term contracts and excessive bonuses for this lockout.

1) Revenue determin the Salary Cap.
2) Owners approve to spend within the Salary Cap.
3) Owners hire GMs to spend within the Salary Cap
4) Gms don't care about money as long as they can still make theirs

The list goes on. Blaming owners for the rediculous contracts is just plain ignorant. Did they approve them? Sure.. However, do they still fit in the salary cap? YES!!!

So even if every contract was 20 years long, as long as it's still within the salary cap, it's irrelevant. Whether their are front loaded, or rear loaded, it's not what drives revenues up.

So what is the true problem? (frank), we've been talking about it for months. You should know by now. It's poor teams can't come up with the money to spend up to the Cap Ceiling, which they feel like they need to in order to be competitive.

According to Forbes, the major losers are not teams with "rediculous" contracts. They are the teams that simply can't afford to put tickets at a price to remain profitable enough to meet the cap.

So the solution in the NHL's eyes? Lower the cap by cutting the players share.

Will this fix the problem? Probably no, because if the league keeps inflating revenues faster than the lower team can do, They will be in the same poop again. However, if you reduce players share, the richer teams will be more open to share profits. So it needs to be implemented in this CBA.

So why do owners ask to limit contracts? Because the NHLPA (frank)ed with them too much, and now they have the leverage.
- l3ig_l2ecl

exactly. futhermore these players could afford to take a roll back. MJL's argument is just a vicious cycle of PA rhetoric. ex. we agree we need to be 50%....well if you agree then get there now. or the owners made this mess.....well so did the players (good free agents could have went to poor markets to try and boost fan interest yet instead they continued to go to established markets).

Doesn't change the fact that lowering players % lowers the cap. Does it?

As far as the high revenue teams. There is a lot of unknown lying ahead in the future.

The CDN teams could face a large loss in revenues if/when the CDN$ drops back to more historical levels. Also just because those teams have grown internal revenues to record levels. There is no guarantees that thier revenues will continue to GROW, much less maintain the arguably unsustainable levels relative to rest of teams that they sit at today. ( These are short term projections. Obviously revenue levels will always grow in the long run.)

While those teams will undoubtably always be at the forefront when it comes to revenue levels, there really is no way to be sure about what the future will bring.
- steveb12344

The Canadian dollar is not going to drop below the value of the US by more than 2%, if ever as long as gasoline is the primary fuel used travel in the US and Canada. Canada produces a lot of it and the US prefers buying it from Canada thanks to NAFTA and the fact that we prefer not to support rogue, terrorist supporting nations.

Why? Because I just like being a Richard...


- Philly1980

C'mon bro, you can do better than that. You could be the best poster on Hockeybuzz. Imagine the prestige!

Seriously, you need to stop blaming the long term contracts and excessive bonuses for this lockout.

1) Revenue determin the Salary Cap.
2) Owners approve to spend within the Salary Cap.
3) Owners hire GMs to spend within the Salary Cap
4) Gms don't care about money as long as they can still make theirs

The list goes on. Blaming owners for the rediculous contracts is just plain ignorant. Did they approve them? Sure.. However, do they still fit in the salary cap? YES!!!

So even if every contract was 20 years long, as long as it's still within the salary cap, it's irrelevant. Whether their are front loaded, or rear loaded, it's not what drives revenues up.

So what is the true problem? (frank), we've been talking about it for months. You should know by now. It's poor teams can't come up with the money to spend up to the Cap Ceiling, which they feel like they need to in order to be competitive.

According to Forbes, the major losers are not teams with "rediculous" contracts. They are the teams that simply can't afford to put tickets at a price to remain profitable enough to meet the cap.
- l3ig_l2ecl

Seriously, you need to be aware of what my position is and portray it accurately, before you tell me what I need to stop blaming. That's ignorant.

Whose system was it that linked the players share to revenue. Whose salary cap system was it that was put into place? The players?

The Owners are asking the players to take less money then they negotiated for in good faith. As well as give up player contract rights which further reduces their ability to maximize their income in the future.
- MJL

Yes. Back when the recession lots of companies were like, hey times are really tough. We either have to eliminate some of our divisions and fire a bunch of people or ask everyone to take a slight pay cut so we can try to turn this around.

Yes the owners made mistakes and it sucks for the players, BUT the business model as is is NOT functioning, do you get that part?


- braidan

What makes you think I don't get that part? Do you get the part that asking the players to take less money, doesn't fix the issues? And will likely just lead to another lockout down the road?

The players can get what they want and have the ship sink, which by the way SUCKS for the future players which they are supposedly fighting for OR they can be partners and fix the LEAGUE so that EVERYONE keeps their job.


- braidan

Cool, then were on the same page. So when is the League and the Owner's going to do their part in the partnership to fix the LEAGUE so that EVERYONE keeps thier job. Instread of just taking from the players?

If it's only about the current players getting the money they signed for FINE, but don't feed my the BS of doing it for the future.
The players come off caring about THEIR careers and earnings and could care less about what the league will look like when they are done.
- braidan

I think being really the only side who pushed for increased revenue sharing, as well as being concerned about contract issues, shows that they do indeed care about the future.

Seriously, you need to be aware of what my position is and portray it accurately, before you tell me what I need to stop blaming. That's ignorant.

Whose system was it that linked the players share to revenue. Whose salary cap system was it that was put into place? The players?
- MJL

Dude you're missing the big picture here. We know who is to blame. You're crusade to make sure the owners take the blame is well noted. We're beyond that now. The players have to realize the system that they've enjoyed making their generous $2.4 million a year in is broken and that both sides have to atone for that fair or unfair. That is the only way the entire league can attain solvency.