Eklund: Welcome To October 15th and the Negotiations FINALLY Getting Real.

Real negotiations, huh? Somehow, I'm not excited.

Real negotiations, huh? Somehow, I'm not excited.
- BulliesPhan87

I understand your apprehension.

Eklund: Welcome To October 15th and the Negotiations FINALLY Getting Real.
- Eklund

Don't go home with hope

I still say the season is toast...too much greed on both side...they want to WIN the CBA...not just the money.

I still say the season is toast...too much greed on both side...they want to WIN the CBA...not just the money.
- magnateataxia

You could say the same for any work stoppage in any league. The only thing about these negotiations that points to an entire season being lost is that the NHL has done it before, but there were much bigger issues at hand than this time around. The facts and circumstances mirror the NBA's lockout last year much moreso than the NHL lockout of 2004-2005.

My contention all along was that they'd get going not long after the World series.

Fehr scares me as much as the next guy, but I can't see him being that stubborn and ego-driven, not to see what's right in front of him.

This isn't like any other lockout/strike the NHL has ever had before.

This time around, both sides LOSE, if they miss an entire season. Unless the deal is for 15 years +, even if one side got a honey deal, it still wouldn't be worth missing this season:

For the players: a full year of salary, plus the knowledge that league revenues will go down in the following years, meaning anyone up for contract in the next 2-4 years will likely get less if this season is lost, than if they sign a deal today.

For the owners: they'd lose all the momentum they just got. After three stanely cup finals in a row featuring larger markets (and the Rangers getting to the semis last yr), this would be the worst possible time to lose a season and have hockey relegated to the back of people's minds again.

I honestly think that because salaries are tied to revenues (regardless of the %), the NHL will largely be strike/lockout proof (talking full seasons here). Both sides now have an incentive to make sure the league stays healthy and continues to grow.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see egos winning out over rational thought this time around.

With all that said, the only thing that scares me a bit is that Fehr cares more about his 'legacy' than he does the good of the players and union. Right now, that's really the only thing that worries me a bit. If it wasn't Fehr at the helm, I would have no concerns whatsoever that cooler heads will prevail.

My contention all along was that they'd get going not long after the World series.

Fehr scares me as much as the next guy, but I can't see him being that stubborn and ego-driven, not to see what's right in front of him.

This isn't like any other lockout/strike the NHL has ever had before.

This time around, both sides LOSE, if they miss an entire season. Unless the deal is for 15 years +, even if one side got a honey deal, it still wouldn't be worth missing this season:

For the players: a full year of salary, plus the knowledge that league revenues will go down in the following years, meaning anyone up for contract in the next 2-4 years will likely get less if this season is lost, than if they sign a deal today.

For the owners: they'd lose all the momentum they just got. After three stanely cup finals in a row featuring larger markets (and the Rangers getting to the semis last yr), this would be the worst possible time to lose a season and have hockey relegated to the back of people's minds again.

I honestly think that because salaries are tied to revenues (regardless of the %), the NHL will largely be strike/lockout proof (talking full seasons here). Both sides now have an incentive to make sure the league stays healthy and continues to grow.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see egos winning out over rational thought this time around.

With all that said, the only thing that scares me a bit is that Fehr cares more about his 'legacy' than he does the good of the players and union. Right now, that's really the only thing that worries me a bit. If it wasn't Fehr at the helm, I would have no concerns whatsoever that cooler heads will prevail.
- Charliebox

the NHL will never ever be "lockout proof" with the love of your life Gary Bettman in charge.

there is no doubt in my mind that defenders of Gary Bettman are the same arseholes who drive 2 miles an hour in front of me when I am late for work.

My contention all along was that they'd get going not long after the World series.

Fehr scares me as much as the next guy, but I can't see him being that stubborn and ego-driven, not to see what's right in front of him.

This isn't like any other lockout/strike the NHL has ever had before.

This time around, both sides LOSE, if they miss an entire season. Unless the deal is for 15 years +, even if one side got a honey deal, it still wouldn't be worth missing this season:

For the players: a full year of salary, plus the knowledge that league revenues will go down in the following years, meaning anyone up for contract in the next 2-4 years will likely get less if this season is lost, than if they sign a deal today.

For the owners: they'd lose all the momentum they just got. After three stanely cup finals in a row featuring larger markets (and the Rangers getting to the semis last yr), this would be the worst possible time to lose a season and have hockey relegated to the back of people's minds again.

I honestly think that because salaries are tied to revenues (regardless of the %), the NHL will largely be strike/lockout proof (talking full seasons here). Both sides now have an incentive to make sure the league stays healthy and continues to grow.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see egos winning out over rational thought this time around.

With all that said, the only thing that scares me a bit is that Fehr cares more about his 'legacy' than he does the good of the players and union. Right now, that's really the only thing that worries me a bit. If it wasn't Fehr at the helm, I would have no concerns whatsoever that cooler heads will prevail.
- Charliebox

agree with you. solid points

there is no doubt in my mind that defenders of Gary Bettman are the same arseholes who drive 2 miles an hour in front of me when I am late for work.
- jimbro83

Bettman is an easy target, but he is nothing more than a frontman to keep the negativity away from the actual owners who are calling the shots

I find it difficult to believe that either side is getting more serious than they already were. I think they are both serious about playing hockey, but they're both serious about getting what they want.

Optimism should be around 2/10.

Bettman is an easy target, but he is nothing more than a frontman to keep the negativity away from the actual owners who are calling the shots
- Eklund

Oh god, stop it EK.

I had two bowls of Frosted Flakes this morning, don't make me spew them out all over my keyboard.

i will believe it when i see it. until then you can wish in one hand and poop in the other, and see which one fills up first.

I find it difficult to believe that either side is getting more serious than they already were. I think they are both serious about playing hockey, but they're both serious about getting what they want.

Optimism should be around 2/10.
- PuckingOpinion

I don't know how anyone can look at the players "trying to get what they want"

this LOCKOUT, again, I say LOCKOUT is all about the owners trying to take away as much as possible and the NHLPA trying to limit what they take away.

Bettman is an easy target, but he is nothing more than a frontman to keep the negativity away from the actual owners who are calling the shots
- Eklund

If this was true then Gary would not have changed the by-laws so that he only needs the support of 8 owners.

I don't know how anyone can look at the players "trying to get what they want"

this LOCKOUT, again, I say LOCKOUT is all about the owners trying to take away as much as possible and the NHLPA trying to limit what they take away.
- jimbro83

Oh god. For the 100th time on these forums: It's not feasable to continue on this way.

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, under the last CBA (mainly the floor and not the cap), 1/3 of the league's teams are not viable.

You can female dog and moan all you want about how the players are getting screwed. The bottom line is that if they contined on this path ad infinitum, 1/3 of the league's players wouldn't have a job in the NHL!

What do you not understand about that?

Sure, the owners will come out looking like the bad guys again (with Bettman taking the brunt of it), but these are the people who are provding jobs for the players. If they don't have a business (a team), that's 20+ less jobs for the union.

It's really not that difficult.

Eklund: Welcome To October 15th and the Negotiations FINALLY Getting Real.
- Eklund

So poop just got real?

I still say the season is toast...too much greed on both side...they want to WIN the CBA...not just the money.
- magnateataxia

Bettman is an easy target, but he is nothing more than a frontman to keep the negativity away from the actual owners who are calling the shots
- Eklund

That is so untrue. Gary is by far the most influential person in the room when the board meets. He prepares carefully and never brings forward a proposal without making sure he has enough support to get it approved.

This is a Board of 30 members - indvidual owners - all with very different interests.

Oh god. For the 100th time on these forums: It's not feasable to continue on this way.

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, under the last CBA (mainly the floor and not the cap), 1/3 of the league's teams are not viable.

You can female dog and moan all you want about how the players are getting screwed. The bottom line is that if they contined on this path ad infinitum, 1/3 of the league's players wouldn't have a job in the NHL!

What do you not understand about that?

Sure, the owners will come out looking like the bad guys again (with Bettman taking the brunt of it), but these are the people who are provding jobs for the players. If they don't have a business (a team), that's 20+ less jobs for the union.

It's really not that difficult.
- Charliebox

What you say is not untrue BUT, what the owners are trying to do is make the players absorb all the cost of the money losing teams. if they had better revenue sharing then the owners AND the players would be supporting the losing teams.

I find it difficult to believe that either side is getting more serious than they already were. I think they are both serious about playing hockey, but they're both serious about getting what they want.

Optimism should be around 2/10.
- PuckingOpinion

Both sides have done the math and know that cancelling a season costs more than what they can gain fighting over the last few percentage points.

Players really want reduced revenue split staged and owners want it upfront. There is enough room to shift the %'s and staging to fing something that works for both sides.

I've always thought they's be back by end of November

Oh god. For the 100th time on these forums: It's not feasable to continue on this way.

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, under the last CBA (mainly the floor and not the cap), 1/3 of the league's teams are not viable.

You can female dog and moan all you want about how the players are getting screwed. The bottom line is that if they contined on this path ad infinitum, 1/3 of the league's players wouldn't have a job in the NHL!

What do you not understand about that?

Sure, the owners will come out looking like the bad guys again (with Bettman taking the brunt of it), but these are the people who are provding jobs for the players. If they don't have a business (a team), that's 20+ less jobs for the union.

It's really not that difficult.
- Charliebox

listen, I know you are on expert on the NHL P.R. machine, you have made that very clear.

The Minnesota Wild are losing money and were forced into spending 200 million on players this summer by that evil NHLPA

Let's make this easy:

Last years losses:

Phoenix - 24M
NYI - 8M
Florida - 7M
Nashville - 7.5M
Winnipeg - 5.2M
Carolina - 4.4M
Tampa - 8.5M
Minnesota - 6M

These are all teams that were nowhere near the cap, so you can't blame it on spending to the cap.

Others who were closer to the cap:

Columbus - 13M
Buffalo - 5.6M
Washington - 7.5M

There are others that also lost, but not that much.

So, does anyone really think it's feasable to continue losing that much money? Can we really sit there and say the owners are the bad guys to try to cut their losses (not even trying to make more, just LOSE LESS!)

Now, from my example, Washington and Buffalo have ridiculously rich owners, so those teams aren't going anywhere.

But do you really think 7 of the 8 teams in the first group can continue on if the last CBA carried on ad infinitum?

So, if we had that deal last forever, that's basically 7 less teams in the league. And two (Washington and Buffalo) that are only in cause the owners are so stinking rich that they don't mind losing hand over fist.

Here's another fact for ya. San Jose, while selling out almost every game since they were created, has lost money every year. Sure, they've mainly been a cap team, but still. They've NEVER made money. How much longer could that carry on under the old deal?

I'll say it again. If the old CBA continued on forever, there'd eventually be 1/3 less teams in the league.

Let's make this easy:

Last years losses:

Phoenix - 24M
NYI - 8M
Florida - 7M
Nashville - 7.5M
Winnipeg - 5.2M
Carolina - 4.4M
Tampa - 8.5M
Minnesota - 6M

These are all teams that were nowhere near the cap, so you can't blame it on spending to the cap.

Others who were closer to the cap:

Columbus - 13M
Buffalo - 5.6M
Washington - 7.5M

There are others that also lost, but not that much.

So, does anyone really think it's feasable to continue losing that much money? Can we really sit there and say the owners are the bad guys to try to cut their losses (not even trying to make more, just LOSE LESS!)

Now, from my example, Washington and Buffalo have ridiculously rich owners, so those teams aren't going anywhere.

But do you really think 7 of the 8 teams in the first group can continue on if the last CBA carried on ad infinitum?

So, if we had that deal last forever, that's basically 7 less teams in the league. And two (Washington and Buffalo) that are only in cause the owners are so stinking rich that they don't mind losing hand over fist.

Here's another fact for ya. San Jose, while selling out almost every game since they were created, has lost money every year. Sure, they've mainly been a cap team, but still. They've NEVER made money. How much longer could that carry on under the old deal?

I'll say it again. If the old CBA continued on forever, there'd eventually be 1/3 less teams in the league.
- Charliebox

Since it's easy -- where do you think we need to get to in revenue share for players for the Coyotes to make money?