2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[OldTimeHockey]

Like I said in previous post if players offer 50% in real quick order then they may expect the owners to lower some of other demands.  If owners balk then screw themtoo.

So why doesn't the NHL lower their other demands in order to get to 50%? It's a two way street.

I think this is a matter of who lowers first, plus the players are already at 50% anyway.. just with a bunch of caveats the league will never agree to (and the PA knows it).. at least as they are written right now.

Exactly. So what the NHL's next move should be is to remove those conditions the PA put in and give the NHLPA a bit on the contract side of things. Then the PA could reply by saying, ok, we take your 50% NHL, but you're going to have to give us this, and this on the contract side.

Yes, sounds much easier than it actually is...

 

[hockeyfan1]

By the numbers...

From:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/mirtle-a-closer-look-at-the-nhlpas-last-offer-and-what-may-be-next/article5483375/?service=mobile

NHLPA offer

League revenues
Players share

Percentage

2011-12
$3,303.0
$1,883.0

57.0%


2012-13
$3,468.2
$1,916.0

55.2%

2013-14
$3,641.6
$1,949.5

53.5%

2014-15
$3,823.6
$1,983.6

51.9%

2015-16
$4,014.8
$2,018.3

50.3%

2016-17
$4,215.6
$2,053.6

48.7%

Total
$19,163.7

$9,921.0

51.8%

-----------

NHL

Players share
Percentage

Difference

2011-12
$1,883.0
57.0%

--

2012-13
$1,734.1
50.0%

$181.88

2013-14
$1,820.8
50.0%

$128.70

2014-15
$1,911.8
50.0%

$71.78

2015-16
$2,007.4
50.0%

$10.90

2016-17
$2,107.8
50.0%

-$54.15

Make whole
$211.0

-$211.00

Total
$9,792.9

51.1%



$128.1

 

[rdowdall]

Why would the NHL want that? Gary Bettman refuses letting teams disappear into the abyss. Therefore, he is constantly looking for new owners to replace the one's that are struggling to make ends meet.

I wasn't really offering that up as a potential solution, but more of a statement to counteract the whole "We are being treated as pieces of meat" statement.

So, in 2003, when the Senators filed for bankruptcy protection, do you feel the team was more attractive as a team with a building but no players, or a team that was doing fairly well in the standings with a team locked down with potential stars? I'd think the latter and I'd think the NHL would prefer a team have players signed to contracts to attract buyers as opposed to trying to sell a team that needs their entire warehouse staffed.

Agreed.  I am not saying that the players should actually have their contracts wiped out.  I am just saying, they assume none of the risk when they sign a contract with an NHL team, so to complain that the owners are not meeting them halfway is somewhat hollow, as they don't even come close to a halfway meeting with owners on risk assumption. 

As for the risk argument...It's been used repeatedly and it's not incorrect in the true financial sense of the word...What about the physical sense? What about if Phil Kessel loses an edge and goes crashing into the boards head first and breaks his neck? Are the players not the ones at risk of physical damage to their bodies and their lives?

But is that not why, to a degree, they are compensated so highly?  Sure one reason is that they there are very few people who can do what they do, but the other two arguments for their high salary demands are that they have short careers and that they play a pretty dangerous sport.  Shouldn't police officers and fire responders not also get paid a fairly high wage based on the amount of risk the assume in their jobs?

On the financial side of the coin, yes you are correct, the owners are the one's that take all the risk. They are also the one's that have madeand lost millions upon millions taking some of the very same risks in investments. The question is, why do the owners expect their staff to pay their bad investments for them?

That's what every company does everywhere.  Why should NHL players be treated differently?  When companies don't make money, they don't give out raises.  Why should NHL players be guaranteed them?  You can see that from their demand of "The high end of the cap can never fall below this number."  They want their guaranteed salaries no matter what happens to the NHL.

 

[Kin]

Agreed.  I am not saying that the players should actually have their contracts wiped out.  I am just saying, they assume none of the risk when they sign a contract with an NHL team, so to complain that the owners are not meeting them halfway is somewhat hollow, as they don't even come close to a halfway meeting with owners on risk assumption.

But the owners don't want that. The owners want a situation where the players have zero control over the league. They can't do that while sharing risk. Unless the owners are looking to make players equity partners in their teams it's entirely disingenuous to say that their CBA negotiating stance should take into account their assumption of risk as some sort of benevolence. 

But is that not why, to a degree, they are compensated so highly?  Sure one reason is that they there are very few people who can do what they do, but the other two arguments for their high salary demands are that they have short careers and that they play a pretty dangerous sport.  Shouldn't police officers and fire responders not also get paid a fairly high wage based on the amount of risk the assume in their jobs?

No, because the reason their salaries are high has nothing to do with scarcity, short careers and danger. It is entirely a reflection of the marketplace and what their services are actually worth to their employers. All of those things were true about the job before players won the right to negotiate their contracts as free agents. The reasons salaries sky rocketed was because players started getting their market worth.

This isn't "value" as a vague concept of societal good. It's value as in players get what they can based on what their services are worth.

That's what every company does everywhere.  Why should NHL players be treated differently?  When companies don't make money, they don't give out raises.  Why should NHL players be guaranteed them?  You can see that from their demand of "The high end of the cap can never fall below this number."  They want their guaranteed salaries no matter what happens to the NHL.

But that's something they bargained for in exchange for the right to negotiate freely. A system could easily exist where players aren't guaranteed anything but there were no restrictions on who they could bargain with and what their contracts could be. That would be like what you or I can negotiate. But it's the owners who don't want that. It's the owners who make the argument that left to their own devices the demands of the market place would swallow them whole.

The NHLPA would love a free market system where players compensation wasn't guaranteed but, rather, something each individual company could determine for themselves. It's the ridiculous argument that the NHL couldn't manage under that system that has led to players as a group earning fixed percentages of NHL revenue.

The NHL can't go to players and say "Help! We can't run our businesses you need to agree to give away some of your rights to bargain as individuals so we don't make stupid decisions" and then, when the players say "Sure, in exchange for this", respond with "Hey, hey, hey, who are you to start asking for things from US"

 

[Bates]

Thought this was a little funny.  Hope you can see it??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhnvKzA-6WY&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

 

[rdowdall]

But the owners don't want that. The owners want a situation where the players have zero control over the league. They can't do that while sharing risk. Unless the owners are looking to make players equity partners in their teams it's entirely disingenuous to say that their CBA negotiating stance should take into account their assumption of risk as some sort of benevolence. 

Then the counter stance to that is "Hey you don't want us to assume risk, and you don't want to relinquish control, so we want these items in return for those lack of options." not "You are treating us like pieces of meat."

No, because the reason their salaries are high has nothing to do with scarcity, short careers and danger. It is entirely a reflection of the marketplace and what their services are actually worth to their employers. All of those things were true about the job before players won the right to negotiate their contracts as free agents. The reasons salaries sky rocketed was because players started getting their market worth.

This isn't "value" as a vague concept of societal good. It's value as in players get what they can based on what their services are worth.

Sorry.  You are correct.  Their salaries are high because it is what the market will bear in a semi-free enterprise system with a cap.

But that's something they bargained for in exchange for the right to negotiate freely. A system could easily exist where players aren't guaranteed anything but there were no restrictions on who they could bargain with and what their contracts could be. That would be like what you or I can negotiate. But it's the owners who don't want that. It's the owners who make the argument that left to their own devices the demands of the market place would swallow them whole.

The NHLPA would love a free market system where players compensation wasn't guaranteed but, rather, something each individual company could determine for themselves. It's the ridiculous argument that the NHL couldn't manage under that system that has led to players as a group earning fixed percentages of NHL revenue.

The NHL can't go to players and say "Help! We can't run our businesses you need to agree to give away some of your rights to bargain as individuals so we don't make stupid decisions" and then, when the players say "Sure, in exchange for this", respond with "Hey, hey, hey, who are you to start asking for things from US"

I don't like the cap.  I didn't like it when the NHL forced it in to existence in 2005.  If you can't operate your business in a market place, then you deserve to go out of business.  This is what happens every where else.  Unfortunately it's the NHL that is a business and not a team.  I guess the teams could be considered a chain of the NHL.  As such I think they should be operated as chains.  If a chain in one area is struggling, you prop it up with revenue from another chain.  I think the system would be better if Florida had to explain to the other owners why it needs an extra 20 million dollars to operate it's chain.  I agree completely with the first point of your last paragraph. I don't think that the owners should have the right to go to the players and say "We can't run our businesses properly and we are going to remove some of your rights, so that we can".

So I don't like what the owners did in 2005.  I realize that ultimately, the owners have created this situation.  They are the ones running the show.  As such though, I don't like that the players are saying "We are entitled to this amount of money".  That is the angle that I don't like from the players.  I believe they are entitled to what they have currently negotiated for, and they should be paid what their contracts are currently worth.  Parise and Suter deserve their full 90 million.  What I disagree with is the statement that "We have come down to 50%, so that means that we should get these other provisions."  They are in essence saying "We should be guaranteed this much of the pie, and because we are not getting that guaranteed amount going forward, you owe us all this other stuff."  I disagree with that because it comes across being entitled to a certain amount.  If the numbers say that in order for the NHL to operate, player costs can't go above 50%, then those are the numbers.  There is nothing you can do about that.  Yes, the make whole should come out of the owners pockets because they signed the contracts, and yes I realize that it skews the numbers for the next 5 years or however long it takes to payoff the contracts going forward, but once that is done, then you are entitled nothing else.  You shouldn't be allowed to guarantee what you are owed going forward.

 

[Kin]

So I don't like what the owners did in 2005.  I realize that ultimately, the owners have created this situation.  They are the ones running the show.  As such though, I don't like that the players are saying "We are entitled to this amount of money". That is the angle that I don't like from the players.

I disagree with that reading of what they're saying. I think their position is better summed up as "We don't want the system you're proposing but in exchange for it we'll take this amount of money guaranteed.

The players have never approached this negotiation from the standpoint of what they "want" in any actual sense but always in the sense of what they can get. The players, again, would prefer a lack of guarantees or fixed percentages.  What they're bargaining for is what they can get in exchange for agreeing to those things. That's not an entitlement.

I believe they are entitled to what they have currently negotiated for, and they should be paid what their contracts are currently worth.  Parise and Suter deserve their full 90 million.  What I disagree with is the statement that "We have come down to 50%, so that means that we should get these other provisions."  They are in essence saying "We should be guaranteed this much of the pie, and because we are not getting that guaranteed amount going forward, you owe us all this other stuff."

Again, I think that's a tremendous mischaracterization for a group that if given the chance would eschew any amount of guaranteed compensation, both in absolute dollars and a fixed percentage of league revenues, in favour of each player and each team's right to negotiate their own compensation.

To me, it reads like what you're saying is that the NHL should be allowed to independently decide on their expenses with the players having no recourse or bargaining power regarding how that number is arrived at. Of course the players are going to looking for things in return for the lowering of their percentage. But to characterize that as entitlement or demand when the players are the ones being locked out doesn't strike me as being fair to the realities of the situation they're dealing with.

If the numbers say that in order for the NHL to operate, player costs can't go above 50%, then those are the numbers.  There is nothing you can do about that.

Sure there is. That number has to be collectively bargained and is far from being agreed upon as absolute fact. The NHL is not a singular entity. It's an association of 30 businesses. The fundamental flaw with their argument, and always has been, that a fixed percentage of leaguewide revenues going to players does not account for the individual realities of the various businesses. 

  Yes, the make whole should come out of the owners pockets because they signed the contracts, and yes I realize that it skews the numbers for the next 5 years or however long it takes to payoff the contracts going forward, but once that is done, then you are entitled nothing else.  You shouldn't be allowed to guarantee what you are owed going forward.

Well, except you are and should. If I sign a contract with someone I'm guaranteeing what I'm owed going forward. I don't work on percentages. You seem fine with Parise or Suter negotiating guaranteed amounts of money for themselves so why does it bother you so much collectively?

Again, this is just a bargaining position brought on by the fact that the NHL is looking to lower their percentage. The PA is operating in a world where probably 9/10ths of what they'd ideally like to see in a CBA is stuff that the NHL wouldn't even negotiate. I'd think that if you genuinely didn't like the cap, if you genuinely thought the league bore more responsibility for their situation than they're taking, than you wouldn't have so much of a problem with the PA looking to get anything in the ridiculously limited parts of the CBA the NHL will deign to negotiate with them.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

No need to go into the above part of your post as I think Nik has expressed my opinion very nicely.

That's what every company does everywhere.  Why should NHL players be treated differently?  When companies don't make money, they don't give out raises.  Why should NHL players be guaranteed them?  You can see that from their demand of "The high end of the cap can never fall below this number."  They want their guaranteed salaries no matter what happens to the NHL.

We all want our guaranteed salary. Yes, salaries are guaranteed from contract to contract, but I certainly don't want to go backwards. My bills haven't been reduced. I still need to make my cash to pay them.(here comes the millionaire argument)

I'll go back to my example of making $30 an hour. if my company came to me and said, we are slowing our raise percentages to try and recoup our losses, I'd be pissed but would ultimately not have a lot of choice in the matter(take a look at the education side of things in Ontario. My wife, as a principal, has had her salary frozen for the next few years.)

But when the company I work for says "We are slowing raises, plus we want to lower your current hourly rate of pay from $30 to $27.50 immediately", I'm definitely going to say "shove it up your a$$."  Being unionized, that's what the PA is essentially saying:"We have no problem going to the 50%, but, if we do so, we don't want to make less than the $30 an hour we currently make"(or atleast the way I take it.)

 

[rdowdall]

I disagree with that reading of what they're saying. I think their position is better summed up as "We don't want the system you're proposing but in exchange for it we'll take this amount of money guaranteed.

The players have never approached this negotiation from the standpoint of what they "want" in any actual sense but always in the sense of what they can get. The players, again, would prefer a lack of guarantees or fixed percentages.  What they're bargaining for is what they can get in exchange for agreeing to those things. That's not an entitlement.

What I was trying to say was that I will have a problem if they don't like what is being offered because they think they feel entitled to more.  After re-reading their proposal, there isn't anything in there that is really outlandish.  I was mistaken on a couple of points that I misinterpreted the first time through. 

Sure there is. That number has to be collectively bargained and is far from being agreed upon as absolute fact. The NHL is not a singular entity. It's an association of 30 businesses. The fundamental flaw with their argument, and always has been, that a fixed percentage of leaguewide revenues going to players does not account for the individual realities of the various businesses.

Sure, but the reality is that even if each team negotiated with each player on an individual basis there still would be a limit to how much they could spend on players.  How much payroll could the Leafs give out?  $250 million?  $300 million?  Could the Leafs give out 50% of their revenue just to the players and still make money and be a competitive business?  It doesn't matter what the number is though, because you could never guarantee that a specific amount of money could always go to players year in and year out because revenue would change from year to year.

(Asking if they would be a competitive hockey team would just open up a can of worms.)

Well, except you are and should. If I sign a contract with someone I'm guaranteeing what I'm owed going forward. I don't work on percentages. You seem fine with Parise or Suter negotiating guaranteed amounts of money for themselves so why does it bother you so much collectively?

Sorry, I just re-read the proposal.  I was confused about what they had asked for.  I was assuming that they were asking for a minimum to be guaranteed, which is what I saw as the entitlement.  They aren't asking for that, so I don't have a problem with their requests.  I thought they were saying that the NHL had to spend a certain number on players per year, not that the upper limit would be set at a specific number.  Having an upper limit doesn't bother me, because the teams have a choice to get their or not.  The only problem I would have is if that upper limit was the basis for the floor as well.   

So does anyone know why they don't just adjust the floor?  Because it would cause disparity?  Or implement a tiered revenue sharing program.  Spend to x amount, no revenue sharing, spend to x+5 a certain percentage of revenue sharing, and then so on and so forth up to a midpoint.

Again, this is just a bargaining position brought on by the fact that the NHL is looking to lower their percentage. The PA is operating in a world where probably 9/10ths of what they'd ideally like to see in a CBA is stuff that the NHL wouldn't even negotiate. I'd think that if you genuinely didn't like the cap, if you genuinely thought the league bore more responsibility for their situation than they're taking, than you wouldn't have so much of a problem with the PA looking to get anything in the ridiculously limited parts of the CBA the NHL will deign to negotiate with them.

I don't like the cap because of the same reason that I didn't like what I thought the players stance was.  The owners collectively feel they are entitled to a certain amount of money.  This isn't how things should work.  If you run a business poorly you should go belly up.  If you sign stupid contracts, you should pay for it.  Business is not a level playing field, so you can't conduct the business of sport as if it is one.  If the Leafs can spend more on players, then so be it.  If you want to compete with them, you will have to find ways to be better.  Draft smarter, find better personnel, increase the amount you make.  Those are the options that you have available to you.  I agreed with the players stance in 2005 that if you implement a salary cap, then teams like Toronto are just going to pocket more money.  In my mind, it would have been better to split gate receipts.  Of course the owners would never agree to that, but really, if you want to sort of level the playing field, that is probably the most logical approach. 

 

[rdowdall]

No need to go into the above part of your post as I think Nik has expressed my opinion very nicely.

That's what every company does everywhere.  Why should NHL players be treated differently?  When companies don't make money, they don't give out raises.  Why should NHL players be guaranteed them?  You can see that from their demand of "The high end of the cap can never fall below this number."  They want their guaranteed salaries no matter what happens to the NHL.

We all want our guaranteed salary. Yes, salaries are guaranteed from contract to contract, but I certainly don't want to go backwards. My bills haven't been reduced. I still need to make my cash to pay them.(here comes the millionaire argument)

I'll go back to my example of making $30 an hour. if my company came to me and said, we are slowing our raise percentages to try and recoup our losses, I'd be pissed but would ultimately not have a lot of choice in the matter(take a look at the education side of things in Ontario. My wife, as a principal, has had her salary frozen for the next few years.)

But when the company I work for says "We are slowing raises, plus we want to lower your current hourly rate of pay from $30 to $27.50 immediately", I'm definitely going to say "shove it up your a$$."  Being unionized, that's what the PA is essentially saying:"We have no problem going to the 50%, but, if we do so, we don't want to make less than the $30 an hour we currently make"(or atleast the way I take it.)

Yes, and I have no problem with that.  If that is the crux of their argument then fine.  I thought the players wanted a guaranteed minimum spent on them.  I just misread the offer.

Ultimately though, in the above scenario you give above right or wrong, if you are not unionized, you can accept the offer that the owners are giving you or you can quit.  You really don't have a recourse other than that.  Really the only thing that a union gives you is more negotiating power, but at the end of the day, if the owners want something specific, well they can wait.  They are in control.  It's their enterprise.   

Also, my wife is a teacher, and they may go on strike, so no wages.

 

[Kin]

What I was trying to say was that I will have a problem if they don't like what is being offered because they think they feel entitled to more.  After re-reading their proposal, there isn't anything in there that is really outlandish.  I was mistaken on a couple of points that I misinterpreted the first time through.

Fair enough. I suppose I'd still have an issue with the word entitlement but that's a fairly minor point. 

Sure, but the reality is that even if each team negotiated with each player on an individual basis there still would be a limit to how much they could spend on players.  How much payroll could the Leafs give out?  $250 million?  $300 million?  Could the Leafs give out 50% of their revenue just to the players and still make money and be a competitive business?  It doesn't matter what the number is though, because you could never guarantee that a specific amount of money could always go to players year in and year out because revenue would change from year to year.

Sure. But, and I think you and I largely agree on this point, the problem is still the NHL's trying to shoe-horn a one-size-fits-all policy onto the teams in terms of payroll. If the Leafs are spending 60 million bucks on payroll then according to Forbes they're paying players less than 30% of their revenues whereas Phoenix paying 60 million dollars is paying players 86% of their revenues.

The problem then becomes the very real fact that a very good hockey player is simply worth more to MLSE then he is to whoever owns the Coyotes/Panthers/whoever. If the market determines his salary, he'll always end up in Toronto. If the NHL had been smart in 2005 what they would have done is done their best to hammer out a system that gives teams with smaller payrolls a better chance to win, not try to equalize payrolls.

Sorry, I just re-read the proposal.  I was confused about what they had asked for.  I was assuming that they were asking for a minimum to be guaranteed, which is what I saw as the entitlement.  They aren't asking for that, so I don't have a problem with their requests.  I thought they were saying that the NHL had to spend a certain number on players per year, not that the upper limit would be set at a specific number.

To be fair, some of their earlier proposals did have a guaranteed amount of money for the players. That said, I still don't think I'd characterize that as an entitlement so much as I would the PA doing collectively what Parise/Suter did individually. From the PA's perspective it was a way where the owners could reap more of the benefits of growth in exchange for more risk if things went south. So, again, I have a problem looking at that as an entitlement so much as I do the PA trying to creatively address a fundamental problem the league had while at the same time getting something in return.

Having an upper limit doesn't bother me, because the teams have a choice to get their or not.  The only problem I would have is if that upper limit was the basis for the floor as well.   

So does anyone know why they don't just adjust the floor?  Because it would cause disparity?  Or implement a tiered revenue sharing program.  Spend to x amount, no revenue sharing, spend to x+5 a certain percentage of revenue sharing, and then so on and so forth up to a midpoint.

I think that the sort of "soft" cap system you're describing there is one that most think is probably a better route for the NHL to take then the one they're on. The problem is,as you mention, the league seems determined to force parity on teams by means of having the tight upper and lower range in the hard cap.

Meanwhile every other night the NHL network is showing some retrospective about the greatest dynasties of all time. Turns out people like watching great teams.

In my mind, it would have been better to split gate receipts.  Of course the owners would never agree to that, but really, if you want to sort of level the playing field, that is probably the most logical approach.

This is the NHL, my friend. Logic has been asked to step outside. 

 

[OldTimeHockey]

No need to go into the above part of your post as I think Nik has expressed my opinion very nicely.

That's what every company does everywhere.  Why should NHL players be treated differently?  When companies don't make money, they don't give out raises.  Why should NHL players be guaranteed them?  You can see that from their demand of "The high end of the cap can never fall below this number."  They want their guaranteed salaries no matter what happens to the NHL.

We all want our guaranteed salary. Yes, salaries are guaranteed from contract to contract, but I certainly don't want to go backwards. My bills haven't been reduced. I still need to make my cash to pay them.(here comes the millionaire argument)

I'll go back to my example of making $30 an hour. if my company came to me and said, we are slowing our raise percentages to try and recoup our losses, I'd be pissed but would ultimately not have a lot of choice in the matter(take a look at the education side of things in Ontario. My wife, as a principal, has had her salary frozen for the next few years.)

But when the company I work for says "We are slowing raises, plus we want to lower your current hourly rate of pay from $30 to $27.50 immediately", I'm definitely going to say "shove it up your a$$."  Being unionized, that's what the PA is essentially saying:"We have no problem going to the 50%, but, if we do so, we don't want to make less than the $30 an hour we currently make"(or atleast the way I take it.)

Yes, and I have no problem with that.  If that is the crux of their argument then fine.  I thought the players wanted a guaranteed minimum spent on them.  I just misread the offer.

Ultimately though, in the above scenario you give above right or wrong, if you are not unionized, you can accept the offer that the owners are giving you or you can quit.  You really don't have a recourse other than that.  Really the only thing that a union gives you is more negotiating power, but at the end of the day, if the owners want something specific, well they can wait.  They are in control.  It's their enterprise.   

Also, my wife is a teacher, and they may go on strike, so no wages.

Well yes, if I'm not unionized, I don't have much of a choice. Thing is, the PA is unionized. And yes a company can wait, if they can afford to.

So for how long do we suppose the NHL can wait? The PA?

 

[hockeyfan1]

Thought this was a little funny.  Hope you can see it??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhnvKzA-6WY&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

My favourite part was the red Ferrari! 

 

[hockeyfan1]

IMHO, the only person who can end this lockout, the only person repeat, -- and it's not Don Fehr, nor Steve Fehr, nor Bill Daly, nor Sidney Crosby or the NHLPA, nor the owners, -- but, only one individual who has the power to bring both sides at a table once and for all, put his foot down figuratively-speaking and tell both sides to give a little and lose a little, to negotiate until they drop from exhaustion so to speak, that person is Gary Bettman.

It's about time, for the sake of the league's fans, for the reputation of the NHL itself, for the continued lost $$ the league continues to accrue, for the already lost nearly half-season, and last but not least, for Gary Bettman's own legacy as commissioner of this league (and by what he will ultimately be judged by in the eyes of the many).

So, come on negotiators, wake it up and get going before it is too late (for the sake of the remainder of whatever season there may be to salvage)!

 

[DK2]

why don't they just do 50-50 after expenses? that would be fair wouldn't it?

 

[13th fan]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwzuAV6ynA&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[cw]

why don't they just do 50-50 after expenses? that would be fair wouldn't it?

If the players would take 50% of a smaller pie (50% of revenues - less expenses is less than 50% of revenues), the lockout would have been over long ago

 

[bustaheims]

why don't they just do 50-50 after expenses? that would be fair wouldn't it?

50% after expenses would mean there's be roughly $950M available to the players. That's a significantly bigger pay cut than the league is proposing. While that would certainly mean a healthier league in terms of finances, there's no way the players would even consider it nor would the owners offer something that insulting at this point.

 

[DK2]

why don't they just do 50-50 after expenses? that would be fair wouldn't it?

50% after expenses would mean there's be roughly $950M available to the players. That's a significantly bigger pay cut than the league is proposing. While that would certainly mean a healthier league in terms of finances, there's no way the players would even consider it nor would the owners offer something that insulting at this point.

That?s kind of the point, so far it looks like;
Players get half of the revenue straight up, no responsibly at all.
Owners get the other half, but pay for marketing, paying all the little guys managing the games, refs, heck even flying them to games, etc, etc, etc.
Where would the players play if the owners didn?t provide the venue?

Kinda reminds me of Alan Iverson from the NBA, ?I AM THE GAME?
Yeah, where are you now.

The NHLPA has the same poison flowing in their blood.

Sadly, I really hope they just cancel the whole season and just be done with it.

 

[Hampreacher]

With both sides trying to win and showing a reluctance to negotiate in good faith. To get a win- win situation maybe the winner needs to think in terms of For the Good of The Game, For The Good of The NHL, this is the best offer we will get. Other wise ego's of Bettman and Fehr will destroy the league.