Eklund: EXACTLY where I see this whole mess right now. And how easy it is to fix.

Ek....no hockey until next fall, neither side will compromise. Until a full season is lost and probably the threat of a 2nd one next fall...don't expect much.

The NHL should hire you, you have the solution to all their problems.

Ek....no hockey until next fall, neither side will compromise. Until a full season is lost and probably the threat of a 2nd one next fall...don't expect much.
- Symba007

+1 this is going nowhere.

You could at least drop the optimism meter to "no progress"....

The reason your plan doesn't work is the same reason none of the others work: without proper revenue-sharing, the next CBA negotiations are going to be the NHL demanding another salary rollback because the small-market teams are still losing money hand over fist. The bigger teams have no interest in helping the smaller teams; this lockout is all about the rich getting richer.

The same thing will happen whenever the new CBA expires, too: the NHL will say they 'need' concessions from the players to make things work, and the whole thing will happen all over again. The reason the NHL keeps having to have lockouts instead of just disagreements is because they never solve the root problem of revenue-sharing.

You could at least drop the optimism meter to "no progress"....
- Symba007

Right?!

Really, Ek?

You're blaming Fehr for making the players own these negotiations and the results?

Really?

The "let Daddy do it" mentality behind your comments is sickening.

Both sides are very much to blame for this mess.
The owners got exactly what they wanted in the last CBA: A hard salary cap and a 24% rollback in salaries.
The players know that a 57/43 split is ridiculous and is hurting too many teams; they also know that when they finally settle this thing its going to be at 50/50 whether they like it or not.
The big problem is not a single player trusts Gary Bettman and not a single owner wants to deal with Donald Fehr. To actually get a deal done, both Bettman and Fehr need to remove themselves from the process, but that will never happen.

My other concern is that an owner like Jeremy Jacobs of Boston would rather go 2 years without playing, instead of compromising in any way with the NHLPA. If that is so, then expect the union to decertify and we will be lucky if NHL hockey returns before 2014-15.

Whats really the saddest is that a reasonable solution to this mess is easy to see. The players need to accept that the split is going to 50/50 and the "make whole" issue is simply not going to happen the way they want it to.
The owners need to understand that if the players are willing to accept 50/50 and a likely rollback; its imperative that they leave free agency, ELCs, and contract length and structuring as is.

Finally the league, and that means you Mr. Bettman, need to accept that hockey is never going to be big in some U.S. markets and it is time to move teams to new markets such as western Ontario, Quebec and Seattle.

The problem as I see it is that Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr, along with owners like Jacobs and players like Crosby care more about $$$ and their inflated egos than they do about getting NHL hockey back on the ice.

Thus, in conclusion, I can only repeat the following:
FU Gary Bettman
FU Donald Fehr
FU NHL owners
FU NHLPA
YOU ALL SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hay ek ur poop meter is still broken

I agree with Ek on the point that "business men" can villify each other and it's just business. Involve those with a more personal stake in the discussions and it becomes, well, personal.

The reason players have agents is the same reason that they have Donald Fehr. Funny how whenever a player is interviewed regarding personal contract negotiations, they always say "I try no to think too much about it, and just let my agent handle the business end of things. I just want to focus on my game."

Yet now, the players are spouting off left and right, and have their noses ass deep in it all. What happened to the "Just let Donald handle it" attitude that they have with their agents.

Whetehr you agree with Bettman or Fehr, this is exactly what they get hired to do. But I agree with Ek, that I don't understand why the chef is letting the kids in the kitchen.

Ek....no hockey until next fall, neither side will compromise. Until a full season is lost and probably the threat of a 2nd one next fall...don't expect much.
- Symba007

Symba007 has been one that I think is dead on during this whole thing.. Eck I love your enthusiasm and forever willing to be optomist but its over.. Both sides egos are so huge neither will "give in" at this point. It is all about stubborness and the huge ego

The reason your plan doesn't work is the same reason none of the others work: without proper revenue-sharing, the next CBA negotiations are going to be the NHL demanding another salary rollback because the small-market teams are still losing money hand over fist. The bigger teams have no interest in helping the smaller teams; this lockout is all about the rich getting richer.

The same thing will happen whenever the new CBA expires, too: the NHL will say they 'need' concessions from the players to make things work, and the whole thing will happen all over again. The reason the NHL keeps having to have lockouts instead of just disagreements is because they never solve the root problem of revenue-sharing.
- saul91

Revenue sharing is an issue, but the far bigger root problem here is Player vs Owner/Commissioner. When a business is totally focused on fighting each other rather than putting a great product into the market to sell every day, that business is dead. Get a shovel and dig its grave.

Its gone past the time the consumer is interested in who's right and who's wrong. They are moving on to a new store to buy product.

he stopped Kovalchuk from signing a huge contract...

The reason your plan doesn't work is the same reason none of the others work: without proper revenue-sharing, the next CBA negotiations are going to be the NHL demanding another salary rollback because the small-market teams are still losing money hand over fist. The bigger teams have no interest in helping the smaller teams; this lockout is all about the rich getting richer.

The same thing will happen whenever the new CBA expires, too: the NHL will say they 'need' concessions from the players to make things work, and the whole thing will happen all over again. The reason the NHL keeps having to have lockouts instead of just disagreements is because they never solve the root problem of revenue-sharing.
- saul91

Amen. The CBA will always be a mess until the owners take care of their own issues. This is as much about owner vs owner as it is about owners vs players. You cannot have a handful of teams making money and saying forget you to the other teams that are struggling. The idea should be to make as many teams as possible healthy.

This is actually one of Ek's best commentaries on the lockout so far. He nails a few things: the players are way out of their league at the negotiating table, they've taken this way too personally, and in the end the owners really don't want to fix things for good and will find every way possible to screw themselves over to the benefit of the players.

The last part is where I really don't get all the "let's save the owners from themselves" rhetoric that fans continually roll out; nothing promotes learning like failure, and by removing that element from the system the owners have no incentive to behave responsibly.

Revenue sharing is an issue, but the far bigger root problem here is Player vs Owner/Commissioner. When a business is totally focused on fighting each other rather than putting a great product into the market to sell every day, that business is dead. Get a shovel and dig its grave.

Its gone past the time the consumer is interested in who's right and who's wrong. They are moving on to a new store to buy product.
- RickJ

I do agree that the consumers have largely moved on, even in Canada. Most people I know don't even really care that the NHL is gone; it's just one less thing to blow huge amounts of money on.

What I meant with my post is that the NHL's endgame is to assure themselves of future CBA concessions the next time around by intentionally not fixing the true problem. If revenue-sharing were instated tomorrow, then in 5 or 7 years, odds are that no NHL team would be losing more than say $5 million per year. If that were the case, Bettman or the new commissioner couldn't say "Hey, media, look how badly Phoenix is doing! They're losing $35 million per year! We need concessions! Lower the salary cap! Give us non-guaranteed contracts! Let us own your first-born children!"

Just think: when the NBA (the most similar league to the NHL financially and assets-wise [30 teams, play in arenas to approximately 20,000 fans, probably overexpanded, lots of teams losing money, etc]) got their new CBA, they tripled revenue sharing. Why? Because when you have teams at the top scoring $50 million per year profits, there is an obligation for those teams to assist the other teams instead of simply asking the employees of all teams, including the most profitable ones, to take pay cuts. They still got the pay cuts, because just like the NHL, they do in fact need them, but by putting in the revenue sharing process, they assured themselves that the next round of negotiations will go much smoother.

Symba007 has been one that I think is dead on during this whole thing.. Eck I love your enthusiasm and forever willing to be optomist but its over.. Both sides egos are so huge neither will "give in" at this point. It is all about stubborness and the huge ego
- Popcorn Kid

your avatar!

Palmateer?

I do agree that the consumers have largely moved on, even in Canada. Most people I know don't even really care that the NHL is gone; it's just one less thing to blow huge amounts of money on.

What I meant with my post is that the NHL's endgame is to assure themselves of future CBA concessions the next time around by intentionally not fixing the true problem. If revenue-sharing were instated tomorrow, then in 5 or 7 years, odds are that no NHL team would be losing more than say $5 million per year. If that were the case, Bettman or the new commissioner couldn't say "Hey, media, look how badly Phoenix is doing! They're losing $35 million per year! We need concessions! Lower the salary cap! Give us non-guaranteed contracts! Let us own your first-born children!"

Just think: when the NBA (the most similar league to the NHL financially and assets-wise
- saul91[30 teams, play in arenas to approximately 20,000 fans, probably overexpanded, lots of teams losing money, etc]) got their new CBA, they tripled revenue sharing. Why? Because when you have teams at the top scoring $50 million per year profits, there is an obligation for those teams to assist the other teams instead of simply asking the employees of all teams, including the most profitable ones, to take pay cuts. They still got the pay cuts, because just like the NHL, they do in fact need them, but by putting in the revenue sharing process, they assured themselves that the next round of negotiations will go much smoother.

I said since the beginning paycuts and increased revenue sharing was needed (or even a luxury tax). The only time I remember the PA bringing up revenue sharing, however, was at the very beginning, but I could be wrong. Bettman is not going to piss of the Rangers, Leafs and Habs for no reason. .

The reason your plan doesn't work is the same reason none of the others work: without proper revenue-sharing, the next CBA negotiations are going to be the NHL demanding another salary rollback because the small-market teams are still losing money hand over fist. The bigger teams have no interest in helping the smaller teams; this lockout is all about the rich getting richer.

The same thing will happen whenever the new CBA expires, too: the NHL will say they 'need' concessions from the players to make things work, and the whole thing will happen all over again. The reason the NHL keeps having to have lockouts instead of just disagreements is because they never solve the root problem of revenue-sharing.
- saul91

Holy crap someone else figured it out!?

This is something I've been spewing on deaf ears. I try to reason with the pro-owner side in that some of their aren't necessarily wrong, but they don't fix the grand issue. At least Fehr is addressing this issue for that exact reason.

People keep talking about the PA like "you're losing money right now! A lot! you should settle! it's about right now! But you guys aren't thinking about the future! but you should settle right now!" Crazy enough I think Fehr is thinking about nothing but the future/future players. No hidden agendas, no personal vendetta's either. These lockouts have to end. This league needs to be stable and locking out players and taking their money does nothing the end this cycle.

I said since the beginning paycuts and increased revenue sharing was needed (or even a luxury tax). The only time I remember the PA bringing up revenue sharing, however, was at the very beginning, but I could be wrong. Bettman is not going to piss of the Rangers, Leafs and Habs for no reason. .
- rmdevil313

agreed! and the Bruins nor the Flyers either

This lockout situation will go down as one of the dumbest PLAYER moves of all time. Players are the employee, owners are the employer, it is called the REAL WORLD. I hope the NHL takes the offer off the table and goes back to the original offer that at the time looked like a joke.

Symba007 has been one that I think is dead on during this whole thing.. Eck I love your enthusiasm and forever willing to be optomist but its over.. Both sides egos are so huge neither will "give in" at this point. It is all about stubborness and the huge ego
- Popcorn Kid

Don't say that poop man. We'll hear about this for the next year.

The reason your plan doesn't work is the same reason none of the others work: without proper revenue-sharing, the next CBA negotiations are going to be the NHL demanding another salary rollback because the small-market teams are still losing money hand over fist. The bigger teams have no interest in helping the smaller teams; this lockout is all about the rich getting richer.

The same thing will happen whenever the new CBA expires, too: the NHL will say they 'need' concessions from the players to make things work, and the whole thing will happen all over again. The reason the NHL keeps having to have lockouts instead of just disagreements is because they never solve the root problem of revenue-sharing.
- saul91

Neither revenue sharing nor salary roll backs will move enough money to keep bottom feeders alive as long as the big boys keep driving the cap and floor higher by driving up revenues. Players also know that owners will keep coming back at the end of every CBA for another roll back. The plans developed by the law firm Proskeur Rose and used by NFL, NBA and NHL - lock out and wait will work every time.

At some point, players in one of these leagues will decertify (not just as a short term tactic) because they will conclude that unions are not the best way to protect their interests. If that happens labour relations will turn into the wild west as teams go after players with no rules. Guys like Alan Walsh, Pat Brisson, etc will go crazy playing owners off against each other. Somebody like Crosby would be making a lot more money based on how much he means financially to that franchise.

If NHL owners were smart (bit of a leap I know), they would look for a way to form a real partnership with players rather than what they are doing now.