Obviously a lot these guys barely have a GED (if that), but the marginal ones wouldn't go from NHL straight to flipping burgers. These guys can get scouting and coaching jobs like no one's business due to the old boys network, and if they still want to play but can't cut it in the NHL, there's always the AHL, ECHL, and various leagues in Europe.

~ Shut down the league.

~ Owners create the structure THEY want. (Current contracts will be honored).

~ Players who wish to play under that structure, can... Those who do not like it, feel free to find employment elsewhere.

~ The end.

~ Shut down the league.

~ Owners create the structure THEY want.

~ Players who wish to play under that structure, can... Those who do not like it, feel free to find employment elsewhere.

~ The end.
- laughs2907

Insert the Lawyers get involved before The end.

Insert the Lawyers get involved before The end.
- MJL

I added "honor current contracts"...

Other than that, the lawyers can suck it. The owners can do whatever they want beyond that.

I added "honor current contracts"...

Other than that, the lawyers can suck it. The owners can do whatever they want beyond that.
- laughs2907

Like I said, the Lawyers will have something to say about that. If the Owners can do whatever they want. What is stopping them from doing it right now?

MJL...no point in discussing facts when you don't have any facts.

Fact of the matter is the NHLPA has presented nothing to the NHL the last 2 months - that's a fact!!

Fact, the NHLPA has presented the same offer 3 different times, only wording it differently - that's a fact!!

Fact, the NHLPA purposedly waited until Aug to present their 1st offer & dissed the NHL last december because they had no plans to start this season on time - that's a fact.

Fact, the owners didn't win the last lockout but i can guarantee you, they won't make the same mistakes this time, that's a fact!

Fact, Bettman will shut down talks for the next 2 weeks because he's sick & tired of speaking to a brick wall, one that has no brains whatsoever - that's a fact.

Hoping, Bettman gives a drop-dead date soon so the NHLPA can either accept or decline but wait, if they decline i wonder if they'll be able to live off their huge paychecks from years gone by. I've already seen a couple of players getting fed at the shelters - poor babies, we must make sure they aren't living on the streets.

Like I said, the Lawyers will have something to say about that. If the Owners can do whatever they want. What is stopping them from doing it right now?
- MJL

It's their business... Once current obligations (current contracts) have been honored, they can implement whatever system they want. If you think otherwise, you're wrong.

Right now, it's still pretty early in the game. It's not time for a drastic move like that... Yet.

MJL...no point in discussing facts when you don't have any facts.

Fact of the matter is the NHLPA has presented nothing to the NHL the last 2 months - that's a fact!!

Fact, the NHLPA has presented the same offer 3 different times, only wording it differently - that's a fact!!

Fact, the NHLPA purposedly waited until Aug to present their 1st offer & dissed the NHL last december because they had no plans to start this season on time - that's a fact.

Fact, the owners didn't win the last lockout but i can guarantee you, they won't make the same mistakes this time, that's a fact!

Fact, Bettman will shut down talks for the next 2 weeks because he's sick & tired of speaking to a brick wall, one that has no brains whatsoever - that's a fact.

Hoping, Bettman gives a drop-dead date soon so the NHLPA can either accept or decline but wait, if they decline i wonder if they'll be able to live off their huge paychecks from years gone by. I've already seen a couple of players getting fed at the shelters - poor babies, we must make sure they aren't living on the streets.
- newmy

It's their business... Once current obligations (current contracts) have been honored, they can implement whatever system they want. If you think otherwise, you're wrong.

Right now, it's still pretty early in the game. It's not time for a drastic move like that... Yet.
- laughs2907

So why don't they just honor current contracts and implement the system they want right now? What's stopping them from doing that?

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.



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.



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.



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.
- MJL

Players were part of the old agreement. They therefore share responsibility for it.

You ignored my point and just re-iterated your opinion. But if players are close to being partners, and worried about the future of the business, then why have they been accepting massive contracts that are bad for the business? I posit it's because they aren't actually close to being partners, worried about the business; they are just individual employees trying to make as much money as possible.

Players performing at a higher level of hockey than others is exactly what I said, they are more proficient at it. Having the highest level of skill doesn't make you having that skill unique. However, for the sake of discussion, we can use your flawed definition of "unique skill set."

Because once again, you ignored half of a sentence and just reiterated your own opinion. Players are lucky that they were compensated so much better by one employer than they would at their next highest option. Players "unique skill set" doesn't have some automatic value attached to it. It's only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. Players need to sack up and realize no one is willing to pay what they think they are entitled to.

And how is Escrow different for the players than Make Whole? They have portions of their paycheck withheld, then given to them later. The player's CBA offers have all been based on future revenue, assuming growth at a higher level than the Make Whole provision does. Owners took players concept of assumed growth, used more conservative numbers, and then gave the players what they wanted.

Additionally, owners setting limits on contracts is not taking something away from the players, because players are not magically entitled to lifelong contracts. The owners could ,and probably should, just say "Ok, the commissioner will from now on reject all contracts that don't meet these criteria: 5 years or less etc." Instead they made it part of the CBA negotiations, thus giving the players a chance to make concessions in other areas in exchange for not putting those rules in place. But the players don't have an entitlement to contract lengths, etc. that they are being asked to make concessions on. Players have no legal rights in that regard, beyond their right to go work somewhere else.

So why don't they just honor current contracts and implement the system they want right now? What's stopping them from doing that?
- MJL

That's kinda what they're attempting to do... On a small scale. The only reason they're trying to negotiate is because it's early, and they don't have to blow the league up at this point. That would be a huge move, and at this point in time, there is no reason to do it. What we have right now is a minor tweak. If the players do eventually bite, there will be huge changes made... I have no doubts about that.

Players were part of the old agreement. They therefore share responsibility for it.

You ignored my point and just re-iterated your opinion. But if players are close to being partners, and worried about the future of the business, then why have they been accepting massive contracts that are bad for the business? I posit it's because they aren't actually close to being partners, worried about the business; they are just individual employees trying to make as much money as possible.


- Antilles

I disagree that players are responsible for it. Players are closer to being partners in terms of working out a CBA agreement. They are negotiating a partnership between the NHL and the players Union. To determine how to split up the revenue. That doesn't happen in a normal employer/employee relationship. Which is far different then when a player is in a negotiation for a individual player contract. In that case a player is dealing only with his situation.

Players performing at a higher level of hockey than others is exactly what I said, they are more proficient at it. Having the highest level of skill doesn't make you having that skill unique. However, for the sake of discussion, we can use your flawed definition of "unique skill set."


- Antilles

My definition isn't flawed. It is simply the case. How well they can do it makes them unique. How many people are there on the planet that can do what Sidney Crosby can do on the ice? It's why they get paid more. It's why one player get's paid more then the other. It's why some players can play in the NHL and some can't. It's why some players can be a draw that fans will pay a lot of money to come see play. All of that makes up a players skill set.

Because once again, you ignored half of a sentence and just reiterated your own opinion. Players are lucky that they were compensated so much better by one employer than they would at their next highest option. Players "unique skill set" doesn't have some automatic value attached to it. It's only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. Players need to sack up and realize no one is willing to pay what they think they are entitled to.


- Antilles

I didn't ignore anything. Players aren't lucky. Their skill at their craft commanded the salaries that they earned. It's why teams will bid against other teams for the services of a player. There nothing about luck involved in it. The only thing the players think they're entitled to are the contracts that were negotiated in good faith, agreed to by both the players and the teams. And was approved by the NHL and filed with Central Registry. Obviously those teams were willing to pay the players what they agreed to, because they agreed to the terms of the contract. Now the teams have changed their minds?

And how is Escrow different for the players than Make Whole? They have portions of their paycheck withheld, then given to them later. The player's CBA offers have all been based on future revenue, assuming growth at a higher level than the Make Whole provision does. Owners took players concept of assumed growth, used more conservative numbers, and then gave the players what they wanted.


- Antilles

Escrow was just a function to make sure that the proper percentage was met, at the end of the year. Make Whole is quite different. It is based on the players having earned 1.883B last year, using a 5% growth rate. That growth rate isn't a guarantee. The counter offer the players made on Make Whole was not based on future Revenue, but was based on a fixed 1.883 plus a compounded 1.75%. The Owners haven't given the players what they wanted. They've come close theoretically.

Additionally, owners setting limits on contracts is not taking something away from the players, because players are not magically entitled to lifelong contracts. The owners could ,and probably should, just say "Ok, the commissioner will from now on reject all contracts that don't meet these criteria: 5 years or less etc." Instead they made it part of the CBA negotiations, thus giving the players a chance to make concessions in other areas in exchange for not putting those rules in place. But the players don't have an entitlement to contract lengths, etc. that they are being asked to make concessions on. Players have no legal rights in that regard, beyond their right to go work somewhere else.
- Antilles

This is completely wrong. The Owners didn't make it part of the negotiations. It is part of the negotiations. It's what a CBA is all about. And setting limits on contracts is absolutely taking something away from the players. It affects the players ability to maximize their future earning potential. It's a huge issue in this negotiation. The Owners do not have the ability to just put those rules in place. You have an extremely misguided view of the situation.

That's kinda what they're attempting to do... On a small scale. The only reason they're trying to negotiate is because it's early, and they don't have to blow the league up at this point. That would be a huge move, and at this point in time, there is no reason to do it. What we have right now is a minor tweak. If the players do eventually bite, there will be huge changes made... I have no doubts about that.
- laughs2907

It has zero to do with it being early. It has to do it simply not being within the power of the League to do so.

2 more assists for Shultz last night. But nothing for Eberle, Nuge, or Hall.

It has zero to do with it being early. It has to do it simply not being within the power of the League to do so.
- MJL

You are 100% incorrect. The league can do whatever they want, once current obligations have been met. If they agree to honor current contracts, they can create any system they want. They're the owners...

With the NHLPA and Bettman taking a break from negotiations, we're not seeing NHL hockey until Boxing Day at the soonest.

With the NHLPA and Bettman taking a break from negotiations, we're not seeing NHL hockey until Boxing Day at the soonest.
- Thehabsfan93

The NHL/Bettman deserves a break... I'd like to see Fehr do something now.

What many people aren't taking into account here is that the NHL also wants to move back the age of free agency, limit the lenghts of contracts, make changes to entry level contracts etc. In other words, it all comes down to the players giving, and the owners taking. Im not taking sides here, but I just find it laughable that people suggest or imply that only one side is to blame for this mess any more than the other.
- systemtool

This

You are 100% incorrect. The league can do whatever they want, once current obligations have been met. If they agree to honor current contracts, they can create any system they want. They're the owners...
- laughs2907

The National Labor Relations Board will have a problem with that. I'd like to see what your basing that on? And if that was true, there would be no CBA negotiations. The League would just honor the contracts, and do whatever they want to do.

Oh my god MJL please go away.

With regards to a draft if there is a year + lock out correct me if Im wrong but
1. Each draft is done seperate and in order
2. Oilers have a very bad chance of getting first overall in a season where games arent played because of the rule of having a 1st over all in any of the past 3 seasons moves you back
so it wouldnt really be a big benefit to getting a top player for the oilers they have a better chance if hockey is played and they finnish in the bottom 5.
Correct or no?

MJL...no point in discussing facts when you don't have any facts.

Fact of the matter is the NHLPA has presented nothing to the NHL the last 2 months - that's a fact!!

Fact, the NHLPA has presented the same offer 3 different times, only wording it differently - that's a fact!!

Fact, the NHLPA purposedly waited until Aug to present their 1st offer & dissed the NHL last december because they had no plans to start this season on time - that's a fact.

Fact, the owners didn't win the last lockout but i can guarantee you, they won't make the same mistakes this time, that's a fact!

Fact, Bettman will shut down talks for the next 2 weeks because he's sick & tired of speaking to a brick wall, one that has no brains whatsoever - that's a fact.

Hoping, Bettman gives a drop-dead date soon so the NHLPA can either accept or decline but wait, if they decline i wonder if they'll be able to live off their huge paychecks from years gone by. I've already seen a couple of players getting fed at the shelters - poor babies, we must make sure they aren't living on the streets.
- newmy

Not sure there's a reason to discuss facts with personal opinions on how things went and labelling them as facts....

With regards to a draft if there is a year + lock out correct me if Im wrong but
1. Each draft is done seperate and in order
2. Oilers have a very bad chance of getting first overall in a season where games arent played because of the rule of having a 1st over all in any of the past 3 seasons moves you back
so it wouldnt really be a big benefit to getting a top player for the oilers they have a better chance if hockey is played and they finnish in the bottom 5.
Correct or no?

The National Labor Relations Board will have a problem with that. I'd like to see what your basing that on? And if that was true, there would be no CBA negotiations. The League would just honor the contracts, and do whatever they want to do.
- MJL

The owners are under no obligation to run their business in a fashion that they do not deem desirable. This is why we are having a lockout. The owners do not have to make another offer if they do not want to... That's a fact. They could say "take it or leave it"... Once a CBA is up, nobody can tell owners that they must continue on with their business. The owners are free to wait this out as long as they want to.

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

You assume too much...5 year deal, 7%...the league has it based on a moderate growth of 5%,

While you are assuming, assume a revenue drop, assume a decline in the Canadian dollar, assume a shorter agreement term.

BtW...33M times 7 is LESS THAN 250M...that is what the "<" means. FYI..on how math symbols work.