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

Are you black? Are you still mad about slavery? Or perhabs your Jewish and still can't stand the Germans?

You keep going back to the old CBA. What for? It's in the past. Players have gotten rich because of that model. Why would you go back and blame it? Why not fix it?

Here, if it was so bad, why don't we say, lets build the new CBA off of Revenue, but adjust the revenue share of the players each year to only be 2% raise which is the cost of inflation in the US.

So this year it's 57%, so 1.88bil, next year if 3.3bil becomes 3.5bil (7% increase), 57%, would be 2bil, but with 2% inflation, the new players share would be 1.9bil. So players share would now be 54%.

Hey I'm up for this model. You think the players are? 7 years from now, players share is 2.2bil, but NHL would still increase 7% a year, so the players share would now be 41%.

This is the type of model the NHL would accept. However, do you think the players would?

You say the players didn't come up with the last model. No, but they accepted it, because it was the best offer the NHL gave.

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

A one-time lowering of the cap didn't work last time and won't work this time. The changes in the Canadian dollar has had a very small impact on overall revenue growth (especially since only 3 of the top revenue teams are Canadian)

- Buffalo--Sabres

Winner.

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.
- MnGump

Two points, which by your statements here, you're forgetting about. The players have agreed to take a lesser share going forward. And you state that I seem to think that the only responsibility I think the players have is to take as much money as they possibly can. Again, that is incorrect. I have stated ad nauseum that the players can' continue to take 57% of revenue. And that 50/50 is fair.

As far as your last point. It's the opposite. The Onwer's shouldn't be looking to squeeze every cent they can out of the players. While refusing to accept responsibility for thier own mess, and take care of their own house! Instead of passing the bill onto others.

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 attain solvency.
- MnGump

players profited something like 1.8 billion last year while owners profited somehting like 250million. both are equally responsible for what the NHL is today...a 3.3 billion dollar train wreck. without either side the NHL would not be worth a nickle.

Are you black? Are you still mad about slavery? Or perhabs your Jewish and still can't stand the Germans?

You keep going back to the old CBA. What for? It's in the past. Players have gotten rich because of that model. Why would you go back and blame it? Why not fix it?

Here, if it was so bad, why don't we say, lets build the new CBA off of Revenue, but adjust the revenue share of the players each year to only be 2% raise which is the cost of inflation in the US.

So this year it's 57%, so 1.88bil, next year if 3.3bil becomes 3.5bil (7% increase), 57%, would be 2bil, but with 2% inflation, the new players share would be 1.9bil. So players share would now be 54%.

Hey I'm up for this model. You think the players are? 7 years from now, players share is 2.2bil, but NHL would still increase 7% a year, so the players share would now be 41%.

This is the type of model the NHL would accept. However, do you think the players would?

You say the players didn't come up with the last model. No, but they accepted it, because it was the best offer the NHL gave.
- l3ig_l2ecl

Aside from the racism, I can't figure out what you're trying to convey at all.

players profited something like 1.8 billion last year while owners profited somehting like 250million. both are equally responsible for what the NHL is today...a 3.3 billion dollar train wreck. without either side the NHL would not be worth a nickle.
- joshs

Here comes the "but without the fans, neither would"

Aside from the racism, I can't figure out what you're trying to convey at all.
- BulliesPhan87

The fact that he's blaming the owners for the last CBA and that they should take responsibility for it.
This is not about the past, it's about making the 30 teams healthy. How do we fix that?

Are you black? Are you still mad about slavery? Or perhabs your Jewish and still can't stand the Germans?

You keep going back to the old CBA. What for? It's in the past. Players have gotten rich because of that model. Why would you go back and blame it? Why not fix it?

Here, if it was so bad, why don't we say, lets build the new CBA off of Revenue, but adjust the revenue share of the players each year to only be 2% raise which is the cost of inflation in the US.

So this year it's 57%, so 1.88bil, next year if 3.3bil becomes 3.5bil (7% increase), 57%, would be 2bil, but with 2% inflation, the new players share would be 1.9bil. So players share would now be 54%.

Hey I'm up for this model. You think the players are? 7 years from now, players share is 2.2bil, but NHL would still increase 7% a year, so the players share would now be 41%.

This is the type of model the NHL would accept. However, do you think the players would?

You say the players didn't come up with the last model. No, but they accepted it, because it was the best offer the NHL gave.
- l3ig_l2ecl

Where did I ever say I'm against fixing it? No where! What I'm against is the players paying the entire cost to fix it, and the Owners paying none of it. It's a simple concept. What else is a simple concept is that you can pretend that past history, the last CBA doesn't exist, and ignore it. And ignore that the same solution the Owners want this time, didn't work the last time!

The fact that he's blaming the owners for the last CBA and that they should take responsibility for it.
This is not about the past, it's about making the 30 teams healthy. How do we fix that?
- l3ig_l2ecl

The team profits at the end of the season should be put into a pile and divided evenly between the 30 teams.

Are you black? Are you still mad about slavery? Or perhabs your Jewish and still can't stand the Germans?

You keep going back to the old CBA. What for? It's in the past. Players have gotten rich because of that model. Why would you go back and blame it? Why not fix it?

Here, if it was so bad, why don't we say, lets build the new CBA off of Revenue, but adjust the revenue share of the players each year to only be 2% raise which is the cost of inflation in the US.

So this year it's 57%, so 1.88bil, next year if 3.3bil becomes 3.5bil (7% increase), 57%, would be 2bil, but with 2% inflation, the new players share would be 1.9bil. So players share would now be 54%.

Hey I'm up for this model. You think the players are? 7 years from now, players share is 2.2bil, but NHL would still increase 7% a year, so the players share would now be 41%.

This is the type of model the NHL would accept. However, do you think the players would?

You say the players didn't come up with the last model. No, but they accepted it, because it was the best offer the NHL gave.
- l3ig_l2ecl

if you want to get to 50/50 then get to 50/50 now. both sides are equally to praise and to blame for what the NHL is today. without either the owners or the players the NHL would not be worth a nickle. hockey could have very well just been like soccer in north america and obviously without the players there would be no sport. no sport vs not making any money. so get to 50/50 now. yes my bleeding heart goes out to those players who make over 2.4 million a year that have to take a 12% roll back. how will they ever manage lol!!

The fact that he's blaming the owners for the last CBA and that they should take responsibility for it.
This is not about the past, it's about making the 30 teams healthy. How do we fix that?
- l3ig_l2ecl

According to the Owners, by taking everything from the players! How did that work the last time?

The fact that he's blaming the owners for the last CBA and that they should take responsibility for it.
This is not about the past, it's about making the 30 teams healthy. How do we fix that?
- l3ig_l2ecl

Well, the last lockout is relevant in that the players folded and the owners got all their terms. So, if the league is unhealthy due to the last CBA, I think we can safely conclude accepting the owners terms wholesale is by no means a guaranteed solution to making the league healthy.

The way these two sides are negotiating, though, I'm not optimistic anybody will submit creative solutions.

Where did I ever say I'm against fixing it? No where! What I'm against is the players paying the entire cost to fix it, and the Owners paying none of it. It's a simple concept. What else is a simple concept is that you can pretend that past history, the last CBA doesn't exist, and ignore it. And ignore that the same solution the Owners want this time, didn't work the last time!
- MJL

obviously when the players profited somehting like 1.8 billion and the owners profited something like 250 million, the players should be the one's who give up to fix it. i mean really!!!

Aside from the racism, I can't figure out what you're trying to convey at all.
- BulliesPhan87

i'm certain he was not intending to be racist.

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

Who Cares!!!

MJL is the guy that a answer for everything but they are blah blah blah

Im sick of reading all the crap he posts

Where did I ever say I'm against fixing it? No where! What I'm against is the players paying the entire cost to fix it, and the Owners paying none of it. It's a simple concept. What else is a simple concept is that you can pretend that past history, the last CBA doesn't exist, and ignore it. And ignore that the same solution the Owners want this time, didn't work the last time!
- MJL

Sure, I agree, it wont work, and we will be back here discussing this in 7 years.

Actually, they only good thing that could happen is that the NHLPA decertifies, and that 1 year from now they form again with a perfect model.

So the only way to fix the CBA is going to result in massive lost from the players.

Actually by reducing their share to 50% is only putting a bandaid on the situation. However, it is a better alternative than to figure out how to make 30 teams profitable.

It's a "catch 22"..

The more money the NHL makes, the more the lower end teams struggle.

i'm certain he was not intending to be racist.
- Fountain-San

Why does it always going this way??

i'm certain he was not intending to be racist.
- Fountain-San

True, it's not he's Big Red_1488

Who Cares!!!

MJL is the guy that a answer for everything but they are blah blah blah

Im sick of reading all the crap he posts
- Flyers_1488

Then (frank)ing ignore him. Why so many posters get their panties in a bundle over this one poster is so closely paid attention to. Personally, I think his posts are more than 'blah blah blah', whether or not I agree with him. But his posting in no way stops you or others from submitting your own opinions (except, of course, when these irresistible rage fits occur, which seems to be on literally every page of every thread).

I and plenty of other bumholes on here want attention too!

Well, the last lockout is relevant in that the players folded and the owners got all their terms. So, if the league is unhealthy due to the last CBA, I think we can safely conclude accepting the owners terms wholesale is by no means a guaranteed solution to making the league healthy.

The way these two sides are negotiating, though, I'm not optimistic anybody will submit creative solutions.
- BulliesPhan87

But how else can the 30 NHL teams all be profitable without reducing the players paycheck??

I mean, please give me one possible solution.

And don't say profit sharing, because the fact is, poor teams don't want help from rich ones. Owners don't invest in companies that rely on others to make them survive. On the other end, rich teams don't want to use all their profits to help the poor. Profit sharing can exist, but cannot be a common practice.

But how else can the 30 NHL teams all be profitable without reducing the players paycheck??

I mean, please give me one possible solution.

And don't say profit sharing, because the fact is, poor teams don't want help from rich ones. Owners don't invest in companies that rely on others to make them survive. On the other end, rich teams don't want to use all their profits to help the poor. Profit sharing can exist, but cannot be a common practice.
- l3ig_l2ecl

Part of it is getting to that 50/50 split, I don't think anybody feels 57% players share is sustainable. But if we really want to fix those teams, we need to look at either fixing revenue sharing (I don't care if you don't want me to say it, it's a reality AND a common practice in professional sports) to be more effective, or creating ways for those teams to make more money, or both. A big part of it is not strapping financially weaker teams to meeting a harmfully high salary floor.

Part of it is getting to that 50/50 split, I don't think anybody feels 57% players share is sustainable. But if we really want to fix those teams, we need to look at either fixing revenue sharing (I don't care if you don't want me to say it, it's a reality AND a common practice in professional sports) to be more effective, or creating ways for those teams to make more money, or both. A big part of it is not strapping financially weaker teams to meeting a harmfully high salary floor.
- BulliesPhan87

Yes, but the floor is determined by the players share. If you remove that, the players share is not respected. If you don't put a ceiling, then it becomes an MLB boring league.

But how else can the 30 NHL teams all be profitable without reducing the players paycheck??

I mean, please give me one possible solution.

And don't say profit sharing, because the fact is, poor teams don't want help from rich ones. Owners don't invest in companies that rely on others to make them survive. On the other end, rich teams don't want to use all their profits to help the poor. Profit sharing can exist, but cannot be a common practice.
- l3ig_l2ecl

They could change to a soft cap with luxury tax for starters.

According to the Owners, by taking everything from the players! How did that work the last time?
- MJL

Oh lord, now you're just being silly. Hyperbole has no place in this blog...