Essentially what you're saying is you feel they are giving up money by not getting huge raises. We all know the money to give huge raises isn't there. So how are they giving up money that a) they don't have, and b) isn't really there for them to take?

I just don't get how people can look at not getting big yearly guaranteed raises in line with revenue growth from an employer that hasn't really been making more money, to the tune of 5 to 7%, as giving up big money. As far as I'm concerned, unless there is as rollback, the players as rent giving up a red cent. If the cap stays at the same dollar amount for the next five years, and that, with revenue growth, brought it down to 50%, what have they really "given up?". Its a wage freeze, from an employer that is struggling to make a profit, nothing more. And given the slice of the pie the players are taking home, that's not unreasonable at all.
- prock

It is a wage freeze. Future contracts will be less than what they would have been under the OLD CBA, but the OLD CBA is done and gone. Too f'cking bad.
The players are no longer entitled to 57% and they have not "given" anything to get to 50%. They have nothing to give.

No matter how the jocksniffers twist the facts, they can never wiggle off of that hook.

The owners can and will outlast the players. They can recover losses.


Players can't.
- robin_steele264

The Owners certainly can if they want to. And it remains to be seen if the Owners can recover losses. They risk franchises that are struggling to build a fanbase. They are getting pressure from sponsors. They are losing momentum in cities such as LA where Hockey was growing after winning the Cup. There is a lot at stake for the NHL. And it is true, the players can't recover the money they have lost.

I agree, the players probably won't get 57%. Nor should they. And the players are in agreement that they need to take a lesser share going forward. it's just a question of agreeing how to get there.
- MJL

Well judging from what former players are saying who had been through this, they are going to regret the path they are taking.

Well judging from what former players are saying who had been through this, they are going to regret the path they are taking.
- robin_steele264

Maybe they will. Time will tell.

I don't have or need a source. It is my opinion. I believe if there isn't another offer from the League. Whether that comes before or after an offer from the PA, then there isn't going to be a deal. And I believe the NHL feels it needs to have a Season. Again, so there is no misunderstanding, this is all my opinion.
- MJL

In the future, to help you clarify your arguements, please specify when you are stating a fact and when you are stating an opinion.

I ask this because you have a tendency to state things as if they were facts... and then when you were challenged say it was "confusion" or "not what I meant" or "not what I said", or "my opinion".

As an example:

Your statement was

There absolutely will be a next offer from the NHL.

Any normal person will interpret that as a statement of fact. In truth, it IS just your opinion.

Please try to be more clear.

The players aren't trying to dictate to their ownership how they should run the business. They are negotiating a CBA agreement and negotiating how to dived up League revenue.
- MJL

If they are trying to get a higher percentage of HRR than all of their comparable employees (nfl, mlb, nba) then yes in a sense they are trying to dictate how the business is run and with no basis to do so. The owners aren't just negotiating this CBA for the NHL, the other 90 odd teams in those leagues will be dealing with their next cba off of the nhl's and im sure all the owners and Gary and Co are aware of that.

I really enjoy hearing the educated insights from the players over twitter.
- robin_steele264

In the future, to help you clarify your arguements, please specify when you are stating a fact and when you are stating an opinion.

I ask this because you have a tendency to state things as if they were facts... and then when you were challenged say it was "confusion" or "not what I meant" or "not what I said", or "my opinion".

As an example:

Your statement was


Any normal person will interpret that as a statement of fact. In truth, it IS just your opinion.

Please try to be more clear.
- Aetherial

Like I said, if you need clarification to any post I make, I'll be glad to do so.

This is your latest tactic. Resorting to these "straw man" arguments. Your personal attacks didn't work, and neither will this.

In the future any replies you make that do not deal in the actual subject and only deal in the subject such as the above, will be ignored.

I'm willing and open to discuss any of the facts or any of my opinions that I offer. But I'm not interested in discussing anything like your above post.

If they are trying to get a higher percentage of HRR than all of their comparable employees (nfl, mlb, nba) then yes in a sense they are trying to dictate how the business is run and with no basis to do so. The owners aren't just negotiating this CBA for the NHL, the other 90 odd teams in those leagues will be dealing with their next cba off of the nhl's and im sure all the owners and Gary and Co are aware of that.
- tboog6

I don't agree. If were going to use the other CBA's of the other Leagues as a reference. Then maybe the NHL should pool all of the teams share of revenue into one pot, and divide it equally 30 ways. Like the NFL does.

The system where the players get 57% doesn't exist anymore and it never will.

Right now they've chosen to take 0% instead of a new system that would offer 50%
- robin_steele264

Quit making sense!!!

Dear God...

https://twitter.com/Darre...status/269594329817939968
- laughs2907

I love hockey and the Oilers...But everytime I hear a player speak it makes me want to puke. I dont think I will be supporting players going forward by paying them my money or my companies money. I'll use the 100 K per year we spend on season tickets and booze and food at the games on other things. I've already taken a group of customers fishing out on Van island and I think it was money better spent.

Players can go (frank) themselves.

I love hockey and the Oilers...But everytime I hear a player speak it makes me want to puke. I dont think I will be supporting players going forward by paying them my money or my companies money. I'll use the 100 K per year we spend on season tickets and booze and food at the games on other things. I've already taken a group of customers fishing out on Van island and I think it was money better spent.

Players can go (frank) themselves.
- Iggysbff

Definitely agree with everything you said. They make me want to puke as well, and yes, there definitely are better (more memorable) ways to spend your money.

You havent been paying attention.

Ferh's agenda is to reach a deal that CREATES A HEALTHY LEAGUE



its all right there in the NHLPA's initial proposal (which is 10 times better for the NHL in the long run than anything the NHL has proposed)


Ferh AND THE PLAYERS, want to create a system that will stop teams from losing money PERMANENTLY. And stop the owners from reaching into the players pockets every 7 years


Higher revenue sharing, de-linkage, ability to trade cap space, etc. these are all ideas that make the league healthy and SUSTAINABLE

The NHL's only agenda is to curb spending immediately, but as revenues rise again, the same problem will occur and next cba the owners are going to want to drop the players share to 40%



- conor_smythe

Oh thats one of the funniest post I've seen in a long time. What utter nonsense!

I don't agree. If were going to use the other CBA's of the other Leagues as a reference. Then maybe the NHL should pool all of the teams share of revenue into one pot, and divide it equally 30 ways. Like the NFL does.
- MJL

I truly do not understand how you think. The NHL is the least profitable, least watched and has the lowest profile of those other major sports. The players in those leagues are as close to a comparable salary wise as you can get. How is the amount of revenue those players in the 3 comparable leagues get not relevant in this discussion? Then you factor in the fact the NHL is #4 of 4 and the revenue share should probably reflect that. The fact the PA thinks they somehow deserve a bigger piece of pie than their closest employee comparison when they are in financially speaking the worst league is either ridiculous or totally ignorant, i can't tell which yet.

No it's not wrong at all. While I certainly agree that the Cap certainly did have an effect on driving up salaries. As the Cap floor forced some teams to pay more out to players. But it still doesn't account for the ridiculous spending by some teams and the overpaying for players. Certainly they could give less money to top players. It is not untrue at all. Take Parise and Suter. Neither is a 100M player in my opinion. That is a classic example of how teams bidding against one another drove up their worth. And by the way, whose system was it that linked the Cap to revenue? Another example that put's the blame for escalating salaries in the Owners corner.




No they aren't just employees in the normal employee/employer sense. They are people that possess a unique skill set that generates billions of dollars in revenue for the teams they play for. It is true that they are not partners in the truest sense. They are closer to that then they are employees in my opinion. Which is why were losing Hockey games. If they were just normal employees, we wouldn't be in this lockout this long.



This is a really poor perception. In a number of ways. They aren't lucky to be getting the sort of money they are. They've earned that money due to the skills they possess. They don't think they should earn more money then anybody. They just think they should get what you even state they have a right to. Their current contracts. The players have agreed in principal to a 50/50 revenue share. Again, under whose system was it that the players got 57%?
- MJL

You keep speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You agreed the old CBA drove up salaries. That was an agreement the employees and employers, therefore both share responsibility for it. It's not like the players threw up their hands and let the owners have whatever they wanted in the previous CBA.

You say the players are like partners. Then they are at fault for signing ridiculous contracts just because it was offered to them. If they are partners, they should be worried about the business, not just themselves. That, of course, sounds ridiculous. That's because the idea players are partners is ridiculous.

Players do not have a unique skill set. Thousands of people play hockey. One employer, the NHL, is willing to give the highest level of compensation in order to attract employees of the highest proficiency. Players are lucky that they were compensated so much better by one employer than they would at their next highest option. Well, now they aren't getting that anymore, and it's time to sack up and deal with it.

NHL made them an offer that would honor their current contracts. Players should have taken it. Yes, a certain percentage of their contract would be withheld then paid to them the next year. But that is exactly what they already agreed to when they signed their contract in the first place, it was called escrow.

Nothing has been given up by players... yet. The NHL has made offers that the players give up less and less, to the point where the latest offer of Make Whole guarenteed players full value of their contracts, plus interested, fully paid within 3 years. Thats not giving in, that`s a win for the players. Then Fehr counter offers with 62% of HRR based on revenues from last season to be paid this season. That's not negotiating, just serving the purpose of pissing people off.
- gstrandberg

This!

+1000

I truly do not understand how you think. The NHL is the least profitable, least watched and has the lowest profile of those other major sports. The players in those leagues are as close to a comparable salary wise as you can get. How is the amount of revenue those players in the 3 comparable leagues get not relevant in this discussion? Then you factor in the fact the NHL is #4 of 4 and the revenue share should probably reflect that. The fact the PA thinks they somehow deserve a bigger piece of pie than their closest employee comparison when they are in financially speaking the worst league is either ridiculous or totally ignorant, i can't tell which yet.
- tboog6

The PA has agreed in principle to a 50% share. Like I said, if were going to use the CBA's in other Leagues as a reference point, let's use all of it. Not just the parts we like. How do you think the Owners will feel about splitting up the teams revenue share equally among all 30 teams?

uhhh, its not just a 1 year deal.. 250M/year X 5 years = 1.25B


and unless revenues grows by more than 7% per year, that 250M will actually increase as the deal goes on



FYI on the way math works
- conor_smythe

25% of the season is already gone....1.8 billion was to go to the players this season. They have already lost 500 million. They will never get that back. Idiots!

You keep speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You agreed the old CBA drove up salaries. That was an agreement the employees and employers, therefore both share responsibility for it. It's not like the players threw up their hands and let the owners have whatever they wanted in the previous CBA.


- Antilles

I think your talking out of both sides of your mouth. The players in the last CBA were bullied into signing the last agreement. Had to take a 24% rollback and accept a Salary Cap, which the Owners also wanted linked to revenue. Sure seems like they had to let the Owners have whatever they wanted. I agreed that the old CBA was part of the reason why salaries went up. Not the only reason.

You say the players are like partners. Then they are at fault for signing ridiculous contracts just because it was offered to them. If they are partners, they should be worried about the business, not just themselves. That, of course, sounds ridiculous. That's because the idea players are partners is ridiculous.


- Antilles

No, I said the players are closer to being partners then they are actual employees in the normal employer/employee relationship. The players are worried about the future business. That's why they are suggesting things such as increased revenue sharing. They know that just taking another rollback won't solve the issues and will only lead to more labor strife down the road.

Players do not have a unique skill set. Thousands of people play hockey. One employer, the NHL, is willing to give the highest level of compensation in order to attract employees of the highest proficiency. Players are lucky that they were compensated so much better by one employer than they would at their next highest option. Well, now they aren't getting that anymore, and it's time to sack up and deal with it.


- Antilles

Absolutely they do. They have a unique skill set. Thousands of people do play Hockey. But they can't play it at the level that the NHL players do, that makes people want to plunk down a lot of money to go see them play. Or play it well enough to generate billions in revenue. And I don't see anyone plunking down a bunch of cash to buy a jersey for a player who plays at the local rink. That all makes the players skill set unique. Players aren't lucky they get what they get. They have earned it.

NHL made them an offer that would honor their current contracts. Players should have taken it. Yes, a certain percentage of their contract would be withheld then paid to them the next year. But that is exactly what they already agreed to when they signed their contract in the first place, it was called escrow.
- Antilles

No they didn't. They made them an offer that came close, based on future revenue. Make Whole is a lot different then Escrow. With the NHL also trying to take away contract concessions, no they should not have taken it.

Keep spouting off MJL, your lack of knowledge is starting to shine very bright.

As i mentioned, the NHL will NOT be making another proposal until the NHLPA comes forth with one of their own that isn't the same as the previous 3 proposals.

Does that make sense to you now???

The smartest thing the owners & Bettman should do is put Dec 1st as a drop-dead deadline for the players to either sign or cancel the season - end of story. Enough with the dragging out process because all it is is posturing & it's getting nowhere.

So set a date, if no deal is accomplished, call the season & then we'll see how the players react - but then i'm sure they'll blame it all on the owners because hey, the NHLPA has done nothing wrong - oh wait weren't they the side that didn't want to talk last decemeber - yeah that's right - they've done nothing wrong - sorry MJL!!

The PA has agreed in principle to a 50% share. Like I said, if were going to use the CBA's in other Leagues as a reference point, let's use all of it. Not just the parts we like. How do you think the Owners will feel about splitting up the teams revenue share equally among all 30 teams?
- MJL

The same way the players would feel about their contracts not being guaranteed.

MJL...it would probably be better if you just dug a hole, buried yourself & disappeared from this earth because you along with the rest of the players & by the sounds of it, your UNION, can shove it.

By the way, no one & i mean no one feels sorry or has any sympathy for the players, Fehr or the Union itself.

Again, greed gets you nowhere & the owners take the risk and as Chris Nilan put it, if the players want more revenue then maybe they should become owners.

OH yeah, Roenick has pretty much said the same thing.

See ya MJL!!!

Keep spouting off MJL, your lack of knowledge is starting to shine very bright.

As i mentioned, the NHL will NOT be making another proposal until the NHLPA comes forth with one of their own that isn't the same as the previous 3 proposals.

Does that make sense to you now???

The smartest thing the owners & Bettman should do is put Dec 1st as a drop-dead deadline for the players to either sign or cancel the season - end of story. Enough with the dragging out process because all it is is posturing & it's getting nowhere.

So set a date, if no deal is accomplished, call the season & then we'll see how the players react - but then i'm sure they'll blame it all on the owners because hey, the NHLPA has done nothing wrong - oh wait weren't they the side that didn't want to talk last decemeber - yeah that's right - they've done nothing wrong - sorry MJL!!
- newmy

Like I said newmy, I'm ready to discuss the facts of this lockout anytime your ready to!

The same way the players would feel about their contracts not being guaranteed.
- Antilles

Probably right.

MJL...it would probably be better if you just dug a hole, buried yourself & disappeared from this earth because you along with the rest of the players & by the sounds of it, your UNION, can shove it.

By the way, no one & i mean no one feels sorry or has any sympathy for the players, Fehr or the Union itself.

Again, greed gets you nowhere & the owners take the risk and as Chris Nilan put it, if the players want more revenue then maybe they should become owners.

OH yeah, Roenick has pretty much said the same thing.

See ya MJL!!!
- newmy

Chris Nilan should get his head out of his ass. The players don't want more revenue. They want to keep the contracts they signed.

I'm not going anywhere newmy! Ready to discuss the facts of the lockout when your ready.