Ek, I can't decide if your optimism is admirable, ludicrous, or the result of buggy-whip rationalization. I'm leaning toward a combination of several of the three.

We are the hard-core fans. We are the ones who are supposed to care.

We don't.

End it now, NHL and NHLPA. Put this season out of its misery. And the ones after it, for that matter. This was ridiculous and petty in September, but now we're halfway through December and you have destroyed what little relevance you had. Owners, go back to whatever you did before you started losing money via ownership. Players, enjoy those menial day jobs.

What I agree with is teams being able to afford to do business.....since when do employees get to dictate how much they should be paid with out having any input from the guy writing the cheque??? And where does the money that pays the players come from? Yes it is MY MONEY along with the other season ticket holders out there and general fan that gives his money to the league....


- landros 2

This is a negotiation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. In that situation the players get to negotiate how much of the revenue pie they get. Same as the Owners do.
But it wasn't my money when we were talking about the owners of rich teams sharing revenue with poor teams? In that situation it was okay for you to state that I can say that because it's not my money? Seems to be a double standard being applied here.

THE PLAYERS WON'T LOSE SQUAT....I am fine with what the owners want, but think some concession should be made back to the players with regards to the contract issues....


- landros 2

The players taking a lesser share of revenue is going to cause the players to lose future revenue.

As far as stabilizing the league ? Owners for the most part are smart guys.....by funding losses for many of these teams is simply putting good money to bad....
Where do the players lose ? If the game continues to grow they will see salaries increase just like last time....this proposed system simply puts a drag on the inflation of salaries and allows some team to stabilize in a system that they can ALL compete in......again 30 viable teams is to the benefit of everyone.....including the 750 jobs it creates....
- landros 2

The players lose by taking a reduced share of Revenue going forward. The 24% rollback and the Salary Cap was supposed to do the same thing.

Thats false nobody was killed in that attack only injured. Thats the point. Imagine if he had a gun.
- Cheeseballin

So if they had been killed would we ban knives? It's high time people start taking responsibility for their actions, and stop blaming it on inanimate objects. We don't have a gun problem! Take away the guns and people will still find a way to kill one another.

Jeeze, sometimes you are mildly amusing, but what was the point of that?
- Aetherial

it's the weirdest thing.
he likes to come to a hockey message board and try and anger people just to get a response.

Jeeze, sometimes you are mildly amusing, but what was the point of that?
- Aetherial

He's been trolling me the past month.

its true about opinions.

but yours might be a little biased...
im not sure anyone outside buffalo takes miller over hank..even quick i doubt

just sayin
- hugefemale dog77

Not biased at all. When Miller is on his game and not fooked in the head I will take him over any goalie in the league!

Watched this sport for over 45 years and have always focuse on the goalie position.

I'd take them in the order I have laid out.

So if they had been killed would we ban knives? It's high time people start taking responsibility for their actions, and stop blaming it on inanimate objects. We don't have a gun problem! Take away the guns and people will still find a way to kill one another.
- Deadmau55

Do players in turn get to renegotiate their contracts if their play surpasses their contract?
- MJL

Extremely rare....but if it happens, then they either a) fire their agent or b) sign an extension at a higher rate than they would otherwise be entitled to.

So if they had been killed would we ban knives? It's high time people start taking responsibility for their actions, and stop blaming it on inanimate objects. We don't have a gun problem! Take away the guns and people will still find a way to kill one another.
- Deadmau55

"Private ownership of firearms is banned in China, making gun crimes rare in the country, according to the Chinese government’s official English language website. Pistols and revolvers are permitted for hunting, and only with permission.
Instead, knives have become the weapon of choice in China. While the United States combats gun violence, China has dealt with a spate of knife attacks in which the victims, while scarred, often survive."

http://abcnews.go.com/blo...tary-school-knife-attack/

Extremely rare....but if it happens, then they either a) fire their agent or b) sign an extension at a higher rate than they would otherwise be entitled to.
- Iggysbff

Well then you can't have non guaranteed contracts. Because the same thing applies. If a players is not playing up to his contract. Then fire the GM or whoever made the decision to pay the player that. And then when the player signs an extension, sign him at a lower rate then they would be otherwise entitled to.

- Symba007

I feel like the only one who sees the bigger picture? I'm not saying we don't have a problem. We do. It's just not the guns. People will always find ways to kill one another... Sadly we will place the blame on the object that kills. Not the creator.

I feel like the only one who sees the bigger picture? I'm not saying we don't have a problem. We do. It's just not the guns. People will always find ways to kill one another... Sadly we will place the blame on the object that kills. Not the creator.
- Deadmau55

agreed

I feel like the only one who sees the bigger picture? I'm not saying we don't have a problem. We do. It's just not the guns. People will always find ways to kill one another... Sadly we will place the blame on the object that kills. Not the creator.
- Deadmau55

Would you support universal healthcare in this country then even if it means higher taxes?

So if they had been killed would we ban knives? It's high time people start taking responsibility for their actions, and stop blaming it on inanimate objects. We don't have a gun problem! Take away the guns and people will still find a way to kill one another.
- Deadmau55

Knives serve a purpose other than to kill.

The US Government DOES ban switchblades and ballistic knives as these are made to use as a weapon. If they ban these sorts of knives, shouldn't they also ban assault weapons?

"Private ownership of firearms is banned in China, making gun crimes rare in the country, according to the Chinese government’s official English language website. Pistols and revolvers are permitted for hunting, and only with permission.
Instead, knives have become the weapon of choice in China. While the United States combats gun violence, China has dealt with a spate of knife attacks in which the victims, while scarred, often survive."

http://abcnews.go.com/blo...tary-school-knife-attack/
- Cheeseballin

That's proof right there. Take away the guns, people will still hurt one another. That primitive nature is still their. It's not the gun that's the issue. It's the shooter. Take away guns and no one will ever be murdered again right?

I feel like the only one who sees the bigger picture? I'm not saying we don't have a problem. We do. It's just not the guns. People will always find ways to kill one another... Sadly we will place the blame on the object that kills. Not the creator.
- Deadmau55

No one said it would completely stop people from killing each other but it's proven the less access they have to guns, the numbers of deaths dropped big time. Don't give a super powerful weapon to people who have issues. Obviously mental heath is important but there is NO need to have handguns and semi/fully automatic weapons for civilians, it only leads to one thing......DEATH.

Knives serve a purpose other than to kill.

The US Government DOES ban switchblades and ballistic knives as these are made to use as a weapon. If they ban these sorts of knives, shouldn't they also ban assault weapons?
- niedermayer27

Yes. I 100% agree they should ban assault weapons. But that's a bandaid fix.

Taking a lesser share doesn't solve any of the problems. Salaries rolled back 24% in last CBA with no real improvement. Salary floor was set to go up 9% this year with increases (before stupidity of this lockout) coming every year. How is a 7% rollback going to solve anything?

This is simply a fight between two groups each wanting more money and power. Neither side fighting for"good of the game".
- Canada Cup

There are HUGE differences in the league after the last CBA!

There has been a sharp reduction in the amount of players leaving small market teams for big salaries. The on ice product is far better, there is a large difference in league parity.

The game has come miles in the last 8 years. It would keep going forward with a few minor tweaks and improvements if the players weren't so (frank)ing stupid to realize it.

That's proof right there. Take away the guns, people will still hurt one another. That primitive nature is still their. It's not the gun that's the issue. It's the shooter. Take away guns and no one will ever be murdered again right?
- Deadmau55

Here's the point. If the shooter had walked into that school with a knife. Very possible that some would have still been killed, and or injured. But the possibility that the adults in that school could have overwhelmed him and protected the Children was very real. Not at all possible with an assault rifle with extended magazines. To say it's not the guns doesn't make sense.

No one said it would completely stop people from killing each other but it's proven the less access they have to guns, the numbers of deaths dropped big time. Don't give a super powerful weapon to people who have issues. Obviously mental heath is important but there is NO need to have handguns and semi/fully automatic weapons for civilians, it only leads to one thing......DEATH.
- Symba007

Why does it lead to death? Because we can't handle it. We aren't ready for it. We are still monkeys with a shiny new toy.

Not biased at all. When Miller is on his game and not fooked in the head I will take him over any goalie in the league!

Watched this sport for over 45 years and have always focuse on the goalie position.

I'd take them in the order I have laid out.
- BuffaloHardHat

would you take him over roy or brodeur in their prime?

That's proof right there. Take away the guns, people will still hurt one another. That primitive nature is still their. It's not the gun that's the issue. It's the shooter. Take away guns and no one will ever be murdered again right?
- Deadmau55

Crime rate will lower. Murders will lower. Look at other country's statistics that have done it.

That's proof right there. Take away the guns, people will still hurt one another. That primitive nature is still their. It's not the gun that's the issue. It's the shooter. Take away guns and no one will ever be murdered again right?
- Deadmau55

But it makes it a lot harder to kill a group of people.

You are right about human nature. People are always going to kill each other, you cannot change that. So the best option is to limit the weapons that people can get their hands on. We are never going to be able to change human nature, but we can change gun laws. Just my opinion.

Why does it lead to death? Because we can't handle it. We aren't ready for it. We are still monkeys with a shiny new toy.
- Deadmau55

Yes exactly right! so take them away!

would you take him over roy or brodeur in their prime?
- dmarsden2988

No I would not!