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!
- BulliesPhan87

So are you two friends or something? Why are you standing up for him??

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

Did they not sign off on it?

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.
- l3ig_l2ecl

So are you two friends or something? Why are you standing up for him??
- Flyers_1488

I'm not telling you to agree with him, I'm just sick of half the people who disagree with him throwing a temper tantrum when he doesn't miraculously change his opinion. You do realize you can walk away from a discussion with him without either side changing your opinion, right? You also don't have to converse with him at all!

That's the thing, it's your attention, why are you spending it on a poster you so strongly feel isn't worth reading? There's some posters I find to be chronically obnoxious and/or incorrect, but I don't talk to them more than once.

In short, I don't care if you don't agree with or like MJL, but can we drop the daily poughting over him?

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

Revenue sharing is a common practice in every major sport. And it's for a reason because it works. That is really the only solution that either side has offered that will truly help. And it's been pushed by the players.

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

There's nothing silly about it. It's factual!

Revenue sharing is a common practice in every major sport. And it's for a reason because it works. That is really the only solution that either side has offered that will truly help. And it's been pushed by the players.
- MJL

MLB - boring, would kill NHL if they had this business model
NFL - 2/3 of revenue comes from TV deals, while only 1/5 comes from gate revenue. The revenue sharing in NFL is primarely from Gate revenue. So Although big market teams like Dallas or the NY give a lot to smaller teams, it's not that much compared to overall revenue. In the NHL it would mean sharing 1/2 of the total revenue.
NBA - It's somewhat gate driven, but there is much less players, the gate revenue is very simular. They also have a better tv deal. So while players like Lakers or Miami can afford to give most of their gate revenue, they more than enough make up for it by merchandise sales.

NHL is not in the same luxury as the others yet.

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 former, by not wanting to honor existing contracts.

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

Just curious, do you feel the NHL is treating the players and for that matter these negotiations as if they were partners? Agreed and understood on all of your points, but a partnership is a two way street. Do you get that part?

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

As a business owner I know this. Profits almost never equal or are more than "costs". So to compare how much the players made to owners profits is not applicable. Is the ratio too much in the players favor...absolutely. But the owners profits are never going to equal or be greater than costs.

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!!!
- joshs

See my note above about costs vs profits

No - they would all come back and the same crazy (frank)ing owners being such hardasses right now would be falling all over each other trying to sign them. The last thing the heroic capitalists owning NHL teams want is a free market.
- Canada Cup

This

Just curious, do you feel the NHL is treating the players and for that matter these negotiations as if they were partners? Agreed and understood on all of your points, but a partnership is a two way street. Do you get that part?
- uf1910

I agree it is or should be a partnership, but then shouldn't a partner put the health of the entity above his annual compensation?
It's great to make money in the short-term but not at the cost of the long-term.
Chances are that the players will be making just as much money as they are now in a few years.
Is it fair for one partner to get 50% of revenue while the other partner has to pay all the expenses out of his share?
The players are assets and very expensive depreciating assets at that, as much as people want to call it a partnership it is not a partnership.
With fewer employers there is a lesser need for said assets, the NHL is trying to make sure that all the owners can afford the assets.

I agree 100% with Bill Meltzer's blog this morning RE: owners meeting directly with players. And that line of thinking is EXACTLY why Bettman proposed it. He knows the players, with little business acumen, would get eaten alive by the owners.

Bettman is a scumbag.
- lifexkills

Yes, they need to be VERY careful...

It is much better that they continue to let Fehr represent their interests... so they can watch this year go down the drain and maybe next.

I am hoping, against the obvious, that if you put the actual people affected by this, in the same room a lot of the BS will be cut out.

Right now, the animosity is growing between the sides and it certainly appears that we are getting further apart not closer together.

Continuing to do what they have done for the last 3+ months is clearly not working.

As a business owner I know this. Profits almost never equal or are more than "costs". So to compare how much the players made to owners profits is not applicable. Is the ratio too much in the players favor...absolutely. But the owners profits are never going to equal or be greater than costs.
- uf1910

1) Nobody is suggesting they be equal. Can you imagine if the owners wanted an equal NET ... good lord the players would be hunting the owner's families.

2) The comparison is VERY valid. the 250 is the highest estimate I have seen. There is a HUGE discrepancy between the two sides.

How is it bad for the owners to want to address that discrepancy?

I agree it is or should be a partnership, but then shouldn't a partner put the health of the entity above his annual compensation?
It's great to make money in the short-term but not at the cost of the long-term.
Chances are that the players will be making just as much money as they are now in a few years.
Is it fair for one partner to get 50% of revenue while the other partner has to pay all the expenses out of his share?
The players are assets and very expensive depreciating assets at that, as much as people want to call it a partnership it is not a partnership.
With fewer employers there is a lesser need for said assets, the NHL is trying to make sure that all the owners can afford the assets.
- braidan

way too much logic

You also need more emoticons memes, gifs and non sequiturs to post here.

The former, by not wanting to honor existing contracts.
- Scoob

Congratulation on providing an absolutely incorrect answer to a very simple question.

Revenue sharing is a common practice in every major sport. And it's for a reason because it works. That is really the only solution that either side has offered that will truly help. And it's been pushed by the players.
- MJL

NBA owners - 60 Million (most reecent number I could find)
+ increase of 140 million in last CBA = approx. 200 million.

NHL owners last offer 150 Million (current) + 33% increase to 200 million.

So, You do know that the owners offer in October included a revenue share dollar figure roughly equal to the NBA's latest CBA right... you do also know that

1) The NBA generates more revenus
2) The NBA owners have less expenses
3) The NBA has a much better TV deal giving the owners motivation to share revenue.

And yet... the NHL owners offered the same amount, from the information I could dig up in 5 minutes anyway.

So what is your point about revenue sharing?

Revenue sharing is a common practice in every major sport. And it's for a reason because it works. That is really the only solution that either side has offered that will truly help. And it's been pushed by the players.
- MJL

By the way...

Revenue sharing is LITERALLY Owner paying Owner.

It can very easily also add up to more money in the players' pockets.

Yeah... it is soooooo noble of the players to suggest that as a hope to keep the league happy and every one profitable.

How come players paying players is a taboo but owners paying owners is the ultimate solution according to the PA?

The former, by not wanting to honor existing contracts.
- Scoob

Haven't they said they will honor the contracts?

By the way...

Revenue sharing is LITERALLY Owner paying Owner.

It can very easily also add up to more money in the players' pockets.

Yeah... it is soooooo noble of the players to suggest that as a hope to keep the league happy and every one profitable.

How come players paying players is a taboo but owners paying owners is the ultimate solution according to the PA?
- Aetherial

The final solution is for Leafs to ice 6 teams and then the league would be set, 5 of the teams will play in the southern US though.

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

Why should all 30 teams be profitable? Why are we surprised that a team in a lower, middle class Mexican surburb of Phoenix doesn't attract a lot of fans? Why are the salaries of players of that team tied to salaries of players of teams that actually make money?

As a business owner I know this. Profits almost never equal or are more than "costs". So to compare how much the players made to owners profits is not applicable. Is the ratio too much in the players favor...absolutely. But the owners profits are never going to equal or be greater than costs.
- uf1910

I'm not sure this makes sense to me. If costs are always greater than profit, how do you stay in business if your constantly in the red? At some point profits would have to out weigh costs or at least break even in order to survive.

I'm not sure this makes sense to me. If costs are always greater than profit, how do you stay in business if your constantly in the red? At some point profits would have to out weigh costs or at least break even in order to survive.
- MnGump

Revenue is what's greater then costs.

Simple example

Revenue is 60M

Costs are 40M

Profit is 20M

Costs are greater then profit.

As a business owner I know this. Profits almost never equal or are more than "costs". So to compare how much the players made to owners profits is not applicable. Is the ratio too much in the players favor...absolutely. But the owners profits are never going to equal or be greater than costs.
- uf1910

As a business owner do you have to pay your employees wages based on the combined revenue of Target, Costco and Wallmart?