Leaderboard

Yeah but analogies deal with similarities and comparable situations not exacts. We in big corp america have been compared to cattle many many times but I don't go out back and graze in the fields but I do snack all day which is a form of grazing.

Not if we don't show up when they unlock the doors this time. They give us empty arenas, let's give them empty arenas If we stopped spending our money on the NHL last time, there wouldn't be a lockout now and Bettman would probably have been fired

There is no question who is at fault regardless of who your political affiliations may be. Bettman and the owners want to renege out of contracts they signed and offered in the first place and are locking the players (and us) out to do so. It's really as simple as that. Bettman uses the lockout as a negotiating tactic

To me "right to make a profit" means that owners are entitled to it. This I do not agree with. Owners have a right to try to make a profit. But there should be no guarantees.

Uncle Gary loves to "crow" about how revenues have leaped into a new stratosphere, even after his second lockout of the players. Consider this question: Imagine what levels revenues could be , if not for his ego-based decisions, especially on franchise placement. Keep this in mind: one third of the current franchises are either relocations or new teams happening during his time on the job. The "rule of thumb" i heard the other day is still in place: ten teams make money, ten break even and ten lose money. Also, take the hockey element out of this. Any fairly negotiated collective agreement should be the best possible deal for the employees. Why should they have to settle for less?

Ok, so you think 52% would be fair. One would assume then that if the players were to propose that figure (and also agree to all the non-financial aspects proposed by the owners), and the owners refuse, you would change your stance and consider the owners to be wholly at fault for the continuing lockout. Would that mean you would then have your head up the PAs ass, or you're some mindless sycophant blindly toeing the party line? You know, the same petty insults you want to hurl at everyone with a different opinion than yours. By the way, if revenues were to grow at around 7.5%, the players proposal would work out to about 52%. And in any proposal, looked at from the perspective of where they were in the last CBA, ALL concessions are being made by the players. (Or at most, players might get a higher minimum salary, or rookie max. Their likely to give up money or rights on every other issue.) It's not really a concession just because the owners will settle for taking away less than they originally wanted to. What I don't understand is why you think is has to be both sides at fault. Or why you think someone on one side or the other is suggesting that is "has" to be either/or. Speaking for myself, I don't think one side "has" to be right, I just think that in this situation, the PA "is" right. As I stated above, there seems to be a number at which you think the PA would be right, so...what makes your opinion on what that number is any more valid than mine? Who the f*** do you think you are that you want to throw insults at me because my idea of "fair" is a few percentage points higher than yours? There is no objective "right" answer to a fair split. Personally, I believe the players are responsible for generating more of the revenue than the teams themselves. I think 4-5% is a fair profit margin for the owners, considering the team value is likely to appreciate at a similar rate (possibly higher if the team is profitable). I've looked at the numbers for recent years, and those numbers say that other expenses are around 40% or less of revenue. So I think 55-56% is a "fair" split. Under the PA proposal, it takes around 4.5% growth to realize a 5% margin (3.6 - 4.1% for 4%), which seems to be a realistic (maybe even conservative) growth estimate. (Though the longer the lockout lasts, the less realistic it is likely to be.) I believe owners should be responsible for sticking to a budget their team can afford, or if they don't, they should accept the losses. I think it is the responsibility of the owners as a group to determine revenue sharing, and then to set the upper and lower limits accordingly to accommodate the revenue disparity between teams. If $8M below the midpoint (player's share) is too high a floor for too many teams, the owners have to lower the floor and raise the cap. Let the rich teams spend more to allow the poor teams to spend less. You shouldn't just ask the players to give up even more. All that is why I am on the side of the players in this situation. If you want to disagree with my opinions, fine. But please stop insinuating that I (or others of similar opinion) are just mindless PA lickspittles. If you can't debate without resorting to childish insults, don't debate at all.

There are some bad calls happening in the NFL right now, (just like there were with the "real" refs and replay officials) but I think people are just dogpiling on the replacements at this point. The NFL media, the coaches nor the players are making it any easier for these guys that have been put in a tough spot. esteef

its funny how in the nfl you can freely rip on replacement refs in the media all you want if you are a player or coach or whatever, but if you question the integrity of the nhl or reffing in any way you get a massive fine in the nhl...

Silly fans, the owners don't "need" s***. The players "need" a league. Go to europe, play in minor leagues or pump gas. esteef

No good reason to do either. If we're talking rebuild, you have to consider moving Pav and/or Hank. Our 2nd tier is Franzen, Flip, Kronwall, maybe Jimmy...the return we'd get wouldn't make that big a difference. We'd just have more prospects and less room for potential UFAs. For Pav or Hank we could probably get a real potential stud (in addition to the top 5 pick we'd get for tanking the season). We're in a bit of a tough spot, as we have several prospects with star potential, but who could end up being busts, or somewhere in between. By the time we really know which, our current top and 2nd-tier players will have lost much of their trade value. But that doesn't mean they'll be totally worthless and we should get out while we can. Nor that doing so necessarily means we'd be any better off in the future. Better to just tough it out for now with what UFAs we can add and see what our current prospects will turn in to. Could be some players get made expendable, but we shouldn't go trading them until they are.

But the goal didn't count, so it was a missteak. Should have flanked it off his calf.

Not bad, for cattle.

The sad part is that these guys have had their insurance canceled and now Jimmy D makes these infuriating comments. Who's going to pay for their Mad Cow treatments? Yes, I'm a rural chick. I know about BSE and that it is not an emotional issue. It was a joke.

Boy, people sure don't like to be reminded of the facts. Yes, the owners are the ranchers, and the players are the cattle. The club execs are like the ranch hands. Not sure why this riled everyone up. It's kind of obvious. Unless you own your own business, you are cattle too. It's the way the world works. Get a helmet.

The same people criticizing Jimmy D would be applauding any player that gave a "color" interview vilifying Bettman and the owners. Hilarious stuff around here these days. esteef