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 do whatever they want.
- laughs2907

I understand peoples opinion the the owners should dictate how the league is run, and the players should just like it. I personally don't think that's fair but I get your reasoning. Owners have no product with no players and therefore no business. Players provide world class service and owners bid against each for the best product. But these players are human, they have rights regardless if you feel they are just or not.

Not sure why people are ignoring the fact that Fehr is offering a better system to operate under, and not just concessions. The NHL has moved a lot, a lot from their original offer. It's like I'm selling my car for $10,000 and someone offers me $5000, then they come back with $7000, and then cry that I'm not being fair because I won't go lower than $9300. Fehr is actually negotiating, and where I don't necessarily agree with some of his tactics I would never be niave enough to say his is stupid or not negotiating. He wants the league to have more revenue sharing amongst itself to make the league healthier, profitable teams are not a fan of this and want the money to be taken from the players.

%40-%60 of money spent on salaries is the norm for any industry by the way.

Oh my god MJL please go away.
- robin_steele264

Thank you!!!

How then do you explain that the last Offer the Owners gave the players, was a better offer then the previous one the League gave the players?
- MJL

So the most recent offer by the league was better for the players than the last. Yet the most recent offer from the PA (when was that again) was better for the players than the last one also.

Funny how that is working.

Let me give you a little bit of information newby

There absolutely will be a next offer from the NHL. They have no choice or there won't be a deal. I'm not reading any facts from you, and certainly no real information. Only your opinions. Which you are certainly entitled to give.
- MJL

We will certainly see who gives the next deal.

As for your statement regarding giving opinions...that is all I see from you and yet you are always going on about facts from others...show some yourself...not your opinion that you consider fact.

So the most recent offer by the league was better for the players than the last. Yet the most recent offer from the PA (when was that again) was better for the players than the last one also.

Funny how that is working.
- OilHorse

A point I believe you are missing is the PA's offer is better for everybody, while the NHL's are strictly the beneficiary in their own offers.

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.



My definition isn't flawed. It is simply the case. How well they can do it makes them unique. 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.



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?



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.



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.
- MJL

You can't have it both ways. You say players aren't responsible for the CBA, then say they are partners in working it out. You say the only thing players think they are entitled to is their current contracts, but then that changing the rules on future contracts is taking something away from the players. You say something is I stated is wrong, but then don't say what you actually believe to be wrong or why, just re-iterate previous posts you've made. You're unable to grasp simple concepts that explain why players are no longer viewed in a positive light. For instance, functionally players negotiated their current contracts accepting that some of their salary would be withheld and paid to them later, so they have no leg to stand refusing that concept continuing, regardless of the reason for doing so having changed. Or that players made CBA proposals based on assumed growth, so they once again have nothing to support refusing when the NHL uses assumed growth in their proposals. Or that players are lucky to make significantly more money in their current job than their next best offer because: there is nothing requiring the NHL to continue to pay them above and beyond the next highest bidder for their services, when most players would still play in the NHL if they were only making 15% more than they would elsewhere, rather than 200% more, as they have been.

In short, it seems pretty clear you are just spouting union rhetoric regardless of clearly presented arguments to the contrary, then claiming all contrary arguments are wrong and re-stating the same rhetoric. I don't see any point in responding further until you have something of substance to say.

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

Which you present as fact as usual.

That is the Agents job. To get the best deal they can for their clients. That is why they are hired! What do you not understand about contract negotiations and Free Agency? You want to paint the players as doing something wrong by getting the best deal they can for themselves. It still doesn't change the fact that Owners can also negotiate. And aren't forced, or coerced into anything. They willingly bid against one another in driving up the market for players. Which in turn sets the market for other players. That is simple reasoning.




They can say no. The Owners are without a doubt, the most responsible for the escalation of players salaries. And where did I say that a simple no would solve the entire problem?


First of all, I'm not pro player. I'm pro for what I think is right. I could care less about convincing you of anything. But to blame the players for using the system as it is designed, is irrational. And it's a climate that has been built by Owners. My own team the Flyers has given out ridiculous contracts to players. And contributed greatly to the escalation of player salaries. Just look at the Weber Offer Sheet. But I guess that is Shea Weber's fault for signing the Offer Sheet. He should have said no thanks, I'll take less then that! LOL
- MJL

I don't think anyone would disagree that the owners are responsible for stupid contracts. I also think it is naive to believe that Agents and players are not "playing the game" in order to get these contracts. I have said since this thing started that the owners need to limit contract length and loopholes, to save themselves from themselves. Is it a players right to sign contracts for 15 years... quite simply it "was" their right in the last CBA. The players have no right now. They are unemployed millionaires. Their rights will be set out in a new CBA. if they choose to sign. If not they will continue to be unemployed or at very least underpaid to what they are used to.

A point I believe you are missing is the PA's offer is better for everybody, while the NHL's are strictly the beneficiary in their own offers.
- Boosinicka

Not even close...teams losing money have to lose more money. How is that better for everyone? It isn't.

I understand peoples opinion the the owners should dictate how the league is run, and the players should just like it. I personally don't think that's fair but I get your reasoning. Owners have no product with no players and therefore no business. Players provide world class service and owners bid against each for the best product. But these players are human, they have rights regardless if you feel they are just or not.

Not sure why people are ignoring the fact that Fehr is offering a better system to operate under, and not just concessions. The NHL has moved a lot, a lot from their original offer. It's like I'm selling my car for $10,000 and someone offers me $5000, then they come back with $7000, and then cry that I'm not being fair because I won't go lower than $9300. Fehr is actually negotiating, and where I don't necessarily agree with some of his tactics I would never be niave enough to say his is stupid or not negotiating. He wants the league to have more revenue sharing amongst itself to make the league healthier, profitable teams are not a fan of this and want the money to be taken from the players.

%40-%60 of money spent on salaries is the norm for any industry by the way.
- Boosinicka

That will not be the same for every industry. It depends on expenses within the business also. 15-30% of revenues is actually the average, but that varies greatly depending on the business you're in. With regards to the NHL, there are far too many expenses involved for the majority of teams to be profitable at 57%... 50% is good, and I'm glad both sides seem to acknowledge that to some degree... It should be 50/50 instantly though... No scaling down to get to a 50/50... 50/50 right away.

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.
- laughs2907

Your right, the Owners don't have to make another offer. They can continue to lockout the players until their hearts content. But that is quite different from saying the Owners can instill whatever they want in the CBA, and the players have no say.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the owners are responsible for stupid contracts. I also think it is naive to believe that Agents and players are not "playing the game" in order to get these contracts. I have said since this thing started that the owners need to limit contract length and loopholes, to save themselves from themselves. Is it a players right to sign contracts for 15 years... quite simply it "was" their right in the last CBA. The players have no right now. They are unemployed millionaires. Their rights will be set out in a new CBA. if they choose to sign. If not they will continue to be unemployed or at very least underpaid to what they are used to.
- TSTER

Players still have rights tho, comparing other leagues isn't always the best comparison but in this case all those players have similar rights. These negotiations are far more in depth than just "omg! we have no CBA, we have take what ever we can get right now to get paid." The future is something the players are obviously thinking about b/c if they bent over and accepted, no question Bettman would lock them out for the next one and ask for even more.

I understand peoples opinion the the owners should dictate how the league is run, and the players should just like it. I personally don't think that's fair but I get your reasoning. Owners have no product with no players and therefore no business. Players provide world class service and owners bid against each for the best product. But these players are human, they have rights regardless if you feel they are just or not.

%40-%60 of money spent on salaries is the norm for any industry by the way.
- Boosinicka

What standard human right is it the owners are trying to take away from the players in this CBA negotiation?

Also, the players are not the only employees, their percentage is not the total percentage spent on salaries. And they are well above their industry norm, see MLB, NFL, NBA.

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.
- OilHorse

Bottom line is that your math was based on 1 Season. Which clearly showed a lack of understanding of what is going on.

So the most recent offer by the league was better for the players than the last. Yet the most recent offer from the PA (when was that again) was better for the players than the last one also.

Funny how that is working.
- OilHorse

If you understand what is going on, you know why the Pa made that offer. And it has to do with the contract concession issue.

That will not be the same for every industry. It depends on expenses within the business also. 15-30% of revenues is actually the average, but that varies greatly depending on the business you're in. With regards to the NHL, there are far too many expenses involved for the majority of teams to be profitable at 57%... 50% is good, and I'm glad both sides seem to acknowledge that to some degree... It should be 50/50 instantly though... No scaling down to get to a 50/50... 50/50 right away.
- laughs2907

The issue though is keeping honoring contracts at 50/50 right away is not possible. And if you allow owners to adjust contracts post signing then there will be serious consequences. Contract is a contract.

We will certainly see who gives the next deal.

As for your statement regarding giving opinions...that is all I see from you and yet you are always going on about facts from others...show some yourself...not your opinion that you consider fact.
- OilHorse

I didn't state anything there as a fact. I was giving my opinion. Again, I'm open to talk about the issues, not this.

That will not be the same for every industry. It depends on expenses within the business also. 15-30% of revenues is actually the average, but that varies greatly depending on the business you're in. With regards to the NHL, there are far too many expenses involved for the majority of teams to be profitable at 57%... 50% is good, and I'm glad both sides seem to acknowledge that to some degree... It should be 50/50 instantly though... No scaling down to get to a 50/50... 50/50 right away.
- laughs2907

Makes sense....But oh wait you are currently in school as a Business Major. Just curious if any of these boneheads you are arguing with have any sort of education, not to mention one that is relevant to the argument such as BUSINESS???

Your right, the Owners don't have to make another offer. They can continue to lockout the players until their hearts content. But that is quite different from saying the Owners can instill whatever they want in the CBA, and the players have no say.
- MJL

Oh of course the players have a say in what happens in the CBA, because it is a collective bargaining agreement... It's in the title.

It would be interesting if the league folded and started from scratch though.

What standard human right is it the owners are trying to take away from the players in this CBA negotiation?

Also, the players are not the only employees, their percentage is not the total percentage spent on salaries. And they are well above their industry norm, see MLB, NFL, NBA.
- Antilles

Just saying to say the players have no rights is not true.

Under the NHL's offer they would make less and have the worst contractual rights among those leagues. Not saying they can't give a little, but what the league is asking for is a lot. Too much IMO.

Oh of course the players have a say in what happens in the CBA, because it is a collective bargaining agreement... It's in the title.

It would be interesting if the league folded and started from scratch though.
- laughs2907

Well now your changing your tune.

Bottom line is that your math was based on 1 Season. Which clearly showed a lack of understanding of what is going on.
- MJL

Thanks for coming out now please leave

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?
What you don't get is the terms of those contracts were only as good as the CBA that they were signed under. That CBA is over. This is where we sit now. Sure you signed a contract, but the NHL also has a right to lock the players out. What does this mean... NO PAY! Is it a poopty thing to do... sign a contract knowing that you "might" not have to pay its full value? Absolutely. But I am sure the smart cockroaches that we call agents knew that at the time as well. What NHLPA players need to understand is your contracts don't mean crap as long as your locked out. I agree with 50/50 and make whole based on a shortened season. That means you don't get your full contract, you get it based on the number of game played. What the players seem to think is because they are agreeing to this, they shouldn't have to negotiate anything else. Just plain stupide considered they have moved on any matter since the lockout started.

I didn't state anything there as a fact. I was giving my opinion. Again, I'm open to talk about the issues, not this.
- MJL

But that is all you do...state your opinion, treat it as fact, and when others do the same you call them out for not having facts.

Makes sense....But oh wait you are currently in school as a Business Major. Just curious if any of these boneheads you are arguing with have any sort of education, not to mention one that is relevant to the argument such as BUSINESS???
- ruttager17

It's all opinions from all of us, some issues are more important to others and that is where things get murky. I personally am on the players side and it's more like 65-35. People who are %100 on the owners side I don't think are looking at the whole picture. I enjoy the points people are making form the owners side as I gain more perspective, but I haven't seen anything yet to fully sway me to the other side. Partially because I do not trust a billionaire businessman compared to 650 players who are all together on this issue.