Dee Karl: CBA: Across the Great Divide Tavares weighs in, unexpectedly.

I saw that tweet from Biz. Makes me shake my head. but your analogy is slightly off. Your company was facing new competition that was eating away at the profit margin, the NHL is not. Also what the players decidedly "ostriched" on is the fact that there are undeniably losing money and the fact that there is no other industry that I can think of that pays its employees almost 60% of revenue. The other successful sport leagues don't do it, so why do the players think the NHL should.

Look at the NFL, the #1 sport in the USA. they don't pay the players almost 60% of revenue, nor do they have guaranteed contracts as it is in the NHL.

The league should just threaten contraction to 28 teams (to start). The loss of jobs might wake the players up.

I am not on the owners side, but I am more behind them than the players who seem more like entitled fucktards than honest adults.

I see nothing wrong with splitting the profit 50/50.

I think it's fair.

But I also blame the owners for handing out these crazy contracts. Shooting themselves in the foot.

The owners should honour the contracts in place.

Contracts should be a maximum of 7 years. No contract over 10% of the cap.

I see nothing wrong with splitting the profit 50/50.

I think it's fair.

But I also blame the owners for handing out these crazy contracts. Shooting themselves in the foot.

The owners should honour the contracts in place.

Contracts should be a maximum of 7 years. No contract over 10% of the cap.
- jimmc7722

50/50 is fair, but tell that to the players. They want to keep the money the same, if not make more. Greedy Fuckers

One thing I have realized...petitions and blogs won't work. Twitter is where the players are. TWeet them...tweet them all the time and tell them how unhappy the fans are about their position. Getting thousands of fans tweeting them everyday will get their attention.

The problem with asking the players to take a 24% salary reduction, for a second time in 10 years, is that the owners have nobody but themselves to blame for the players' salaries. Its the owners who set the markets by signing guys to these deals. The owers make offers, the players accept them. They sign a written contract. Now, the owners want what equates to a "second mulligan" for once again showing no fiscal responsibility.

It is a double edged sword. If the owners overpay, they set the market higher for every other player. If they collectively low-ball, they get sued by the union for collusion. But I understand why the players are pissed about being asked to take another paycut.

The real issue I have with the players is their reluctance to take a lower percentage of revenue. I don't understand how the employees think they are entitled to a bigger piece of the pie than the owners of the business, the guys who bear all the risk. 57% to the players is absurd. The split for the players should be no better than 50/50.

Dee Karl: CBA: Across the Great Divide
Tavares weighs in, unexpectedly.
- Dee Karl

Then I would answer to Paul Bisonette that no companie gives 57% of revenue to employees......but again the owners decided this 7 years ago.

The problem with asking the players to take a 24% salary reduction, for a second time in 10 years, is that the owners have nobody but themselves to blame for the players' salaries. Its the owners who set the markets by signing guys to these deals. The owers make offers, the players accept them. They sign a written contract. Now, the owners want what equates to a "second mulligan" for once again showing no fiscal responsibility.

It is a double edged sword. If the owners overpay, they set the market higher for every other player. If they collectively low-ball, they get sued by the union for collusion. But I understand why the players are pissed about being asked to take another paycut.

The real issue I have with the players is their reluctance to take a lower percentage of revenue. I don't understand how the employees think they are entitled to a bigger piece of the pie than the owners of the business, the guys who bear all the risk. 57% to the players is absurd. The split for the players should be no better than 50/50.
- Jethro09

I think part of the problem is the disjoint between ownership and management. While some GMs have to get the 'okay' from ownership before doling out mega-deals it seems this is either not universal, or the implications are poorly understood. Staying competitive in the marketplace is one thing, but the precedent for the ridiculous contracts issued was poorly established. Perhaps, if given enough time, it would be shown how damaging the majority of these are to their respective franchises and the system would self-correct.

I also agree that a greater than 50% share of revenue for players is problematic on the grounds that players are assuming less risk than the owners. I'm surprised that over the course of press conferences and media coverage, the cost of the infrastructure of a franchise hasn't been pointed out. Without an intimate knowledge of the economics of the game, I thought that this was one of the major costs that struggling teams failed to recoup when their ticket sales bottomed out.

Unfortunately, I doubt contraction is viable threat, though I would support it if it occurred. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would cost two of the GM's their franchises, and probably undermine the solidarity of the Board of Governors. How soon would dissension follow if two owners could be muscled out for the greater good of the negotiating process? What prospective owner would ever choose to participate in a system where something like that could take place? Seems like it would be mutually destructive.

Then I would answer to Paul Bisonette that no companie gives 57% of revenue to employees......but again the owners decided this 7 years ago.
- Alexzanki

Its actually a lot more than that. 57% goes to the players. The owners then have to pay the coachs, Training staff, office staff, arena staff, parking attendants and so on...

Players can go (frank) themselves. Take 50% and get it done.

Either way the owners hand out these contracts.. It's only the 57 43 split when they spend to the cap
The isles is probably like 43 players 57 owner

And if Martin doesn't play I'd literally cry

interesting snippets from an article i read:

"Whether developers are serious or not on sharing revenue and making plans that include the Islanders is not the issue here. What is beginning to develop is pieces of an end game. This seemed to be further solidified by Charles Wang after he was reportedly hanging out over at the Barclays Center to see its ice rink set-up testing."

"And, by the way, any deal in Brooklyn would NOT be short term. Not a chance. Brooklyn is not a way station here. The borough wants a long-term tenant and any offers will be as such."


http://newyork.cbslocal.c...for-real-run-at-brooklyn/

Its actually a lot more than that. 57% goes to the players. The owners then have to pay the coachs, Training staff, office staff, arena staff, parking attendants and so on...

Players can go (frank) themselves. Take 50% and get it done.
- Iggysbff

Two words for you. Donald Fehr

Dee Karl: CBA: Across the Great Divide
Tavares weighs in, unexpectedly.
- Dee Karl

Good blog, Dee!

I saw that tweet from Biz. Makes me shake my head. but your analogy is slightly off. Your company was facing new competition that was eating away at the profit margin, the NHL is not. Also what the players decidedly "ostriched" on is the fact that there are undeniably losing money and the fact that there is no other industry that I can think of that pays its employees almost 60% of revenue. The other successful sport leagues don't do it, so why do the players think the NHL should.

Look at the NFL, the #1 sport in the USA. they don't pay the players almost 60% of revenue, nor do they have guaranteed contracts as it is in the NHL.

The league should just threaten contraction to 28 teams (to start). The loss of jobs might wake the players up.

I am not on the owners side, but I am more behind them than the players who seem more like entitled fucktards than honest adults.
- OilHorse

Good post, OilHorse!

Good blog, Dee!
- laughs2907

Wow

Two words for you. Donald Fehr
- Cptmjl

The players just want a Fehr deal!!!

Seriously though, they're greedy pigs. 50/50 is what it should be (actually, owners should get more, as they have other expenses to pay). In the perfect world, Vince McMahon would buy the NHL, and rename it the XHL. The XHL would pay these tools no more than 100k per season, and there would be no other pro league for them to go to. That would be awesome... Where else would these Zorches get 100k per season? They can take a job at the local grocery store, and see how they feel about that! Than again, these guys are so disconnected they probably believe 2 million is the average yearly salary for a grocery store worker. It's disgusting, it's sickening, and it brings my piss to a boil.

You nitwits want to make over 100k a year? Go to the camps in Fort McMurray, and see how you like that... Or perhaps you can spend the next 10 years of your life getting an education.

The players just want a Fehr deal!!!

Seriously though, they're greedy pigs. 50/50 is what it should be (actually, owners should get more, as they have other expenses to pay). In the perfect world, Vince McMahon would buy the NHL, and rename it the XHL. The XHL would pay these tools no more than 100k per season, and there would be no other pro league for them to go to. That would be awesome... Where else would these Zorches get 100k per season? They can take a job at the local grocery store, and see how they feel about that! Than again, these guys are so disconnected they probably believe 2 million is the average yearly salary for a grocery store worker. It's disgusting, it's sickening, and it brings my piss to a boil.

You nitwits want to make over 100k a year? Go to the camps in Fort McMurray, and see how you like that... Or perhaps you can spend the next 10 years of your life getting an education.
- laughs2907

Grocers make a pretty good salary, I was only a Night Crew Chief & i was bringing in 75k a year. .... just sayin

XxNYIxX

Grocers make a pretty good salary, I was only a Night Crew Chief & i was bringing in 75k a year. .... just sayin

XxNYIxX
- XxNYIxX

Depends on your position. I meant the more common jobs like cashiers and stockers. In my province, those poor suckers make $10 an hour.

Make a lasting difference today by sponsoring an NHL Player with NHLPA Vision Canada. Help bring access to improved health care, education, nutrition, clean water, and more to players throughout the league. Join today, and help us give these players a reason to smile...

www.NHLPAVisionCanada.com

Depends on your position. I meant the more common jobs like cashiers and stockers. In my province, those poor suckers make $10 an hour.
- laughs2907

I dont know about up there.. but in NY most of the Grocery stores are Union as well.

I miss you Local 1500!!!

XxNYIxX

I dont know about up there.. but in NY most of the Grocery stores are Union as well.

I miss you Local 1500!!!

XxNYIxX
- XxNYIxX

Oh really? Nice! I've had lots of friends (frank)ed over by grocery stores in my area. I guess it's better in NY.

Chris Botta @ChrisBottaNHL
Six years ago today, Charles Wang signed Rick DiPietro to a 15-year contract.

Where's Kasper? Is he off celebrating the day?

Chris Botta @ChrisBottaNHL
Six years ago today, Charles Wang signed Rick DiPietro to a 15-year contract.

Where's Kasper? Is he off celebrating the day?
- eichiefs9

Lets celebrate!

Lets celebrate!
- Cptmjl

I'll bring the noose..you bring the punch!

interesting snippets from an article i read:

"Whether developers are serious or not on sharing revenue and making plans that include the Islanders is not the issue here. What is beginning to develop is pieces of an end game. This seemed to be further solidified by Charles Wang after he was reportedly hanging out over at the Barclays Center to see its ice rink set-up testing."

"And, by the way, any deal in Brooklyn would NOT be short term. Not a chance. Brooklyn is not a way station here. The borough wants a long-term tenant and any offers will be as such."


http://newyork.cbslocal.c...for-real-run-at-brooklyn/
- LetsGoIsles

I love this. No way Brooklyn should take a short term deal. Isles need to be all in. Get it done.

I love this. No way Brooklyn should take a short term deal. Isles need to be all in. Get it done.
- ses111

If isles went to brooklyn, wouldnt they have to pay a large relocation fee of some sort to the Rags? Or something like that?

also believe if isles moved to brooklyn, it would be a different fan base, not many longislanders can financially supports the tixx prices that will prob go up, since in new building, plus the MTA tixxs. Brooklyn has no parking, only has 5500 parking spaces for elite members, well thats the deal w/Nets.