Nightfall

When you talk about the serious concessions, it helps to understand where we came from. When clubs were spending 76% of their revenue on players, a large rollback was really the only way to keep the sport going. You say you don't need a history lesson, and its readily apparent you do. Many fans were on the side of the owners back then and for obvious reasons. So, that being said, with salaries increasing over the course of the CBA leading us up to where we are today, I would say that the players have made out very well. Back in 2011, the average salary was $2.45 million. In 2006 after the lockout, it was 1.4 million, which was at 1.8 million before the rollbacks. Looking at the contracts that have been signed in the last two years, its feasable to believe that the average salary continues to go up. The owners on the other hand have also done well for themselves but much less. Each team made about $4-$5 million per team the last couple years when you look at $120-$150 million in profit each year. These are the same owners that take the business risk. I firmly believe that the ownership is entitled to a little bit more, but not at the rate they are asking for. Still, in the end, I can make 3% on an investment by throwing all my money into a interest baring checking account. 1.5% average return on investment, and thats if there were no problems that needed to be addressed, is very small for a year. So I guess that, based on that evidence, how can you not say that the players have made out better than the owners in the last CBA? Furthermore, how can you expect the owners to continue to run their businesses with those kinds of margins? The players had no motivation to negotiate a new CBA when they have the keys to the car. They would have played under that current CBA for the next 5-10 more years. It really is a no brainer to me why there is a lockout going on right now.

I think you know where the sport was back in the lockout. Clubs were spending 76% of their gross revenues on player salaries. The history lesson is here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2%80%9305_NHL_lockout If you look at the last 6 years, the players salaries have doubled in that time. The players may have taken those concessions back in 2005, but the 57% of revenues kept the players very happy. By and far, they were making out better than the owners. Which is why its a no brainer why they wanted to keep the gravy train rolling. Not disputing those facts.

I was referencing the lockout in 1994-1995 season that wiped out 931-948 games when it was under Fehr's watch.

Very true. Between 931-948 games lost in the first MLB strike, but there has been labor peace since then. Just keep in mind that the score from the leaders of these respective sides should be 0-0. Anything more than that is a travesty. The players were the side that benefited the most from the CBA. Its a no brainer why they wanted to keep the season going.

In the meantime, Fehr was nice enough to rob MLB of a World Series in 1995. Great to see both sides with leaders who have both led efforts to lockout the other side and eliminate a championship in the sports they represented.

Personally, I thought Kelly was a great hire. He was fresh blood who was all about working with everyone. The NHLPA saw this as a problem and voted him out. The NHLPA obviously wanted a shark and they got one in Fehr.

The NHL and NHLPA are saying the same thing. They want to negotiate, but only on what each of them propose. Its PR garbage.

The NHLPA could and should give up something. How much is really up in the air. Yes, they made concessions during the last lockout. The current deal favors the players by far. So for all the concessions they made last time, they have seen great prosperity since the last lockout. The salary of the average NHL player has almost doubled since the players returned to work after the last stoppage. As I have said before I think a 52-48 split is reasonable, but 50/50 would seem to be what the market dictates being as that the NFL and NBA both negotiated successfully last year at that rate. Like it or not, the negotiations of other sports typically do dictate what the NHL is going to do. Most pro NHLPA fans don't see the timeline as an issue. I do and always will. Nothing is set in stone. No one is able to say for sure if a deal would have been reached or not. To say with all certainty one way or the other is really supposition. My point is simply this.....if more time were given to the negotiations then we may have possibly avoided the lockout. To rob the negotiations of that time doesn't excuse the NHLPA. Just the fact that you are also willing to pardon Fehr's delays while bashing Bettman's horrible first lowball proposal also shows bias. IMHO, you can't excuse one while bashing the other in good conscience. Which is why I bash them both. Sorry, but in my opinion both leaders should be canned for the reasons I gave. A new fresh start has to be initiated in order to start a new era of labor peace. Keeping one or both of these guys around will do nothing positive. I would prefer two leaders who have an interest in working together. People who favor one side or the other look at this conflict like a political party system. These aren't Republicans or Democrats we are talking about here. These are two sides that are in need of labor peace. The two sides have to work together, and that takes two uniters. There are no uniters in Fehr and Bettman. If Bettman is fired, the cycle will repeat again in another 6 years or whenever the new CBA hits. Nice of you to mention Bettman's lockouts, but not mention Fehr's tubing of the World Series. So far, the game of hockey and the MLB have one thing in common, both have lost a championship series due to the morons in command of the players and the league. Is this the type of leadership you want from your leaders in the NHL? You favor the NHLPA all the way. I am fine with that, but don't defend the actions of the NHLPA like they haven't done anything wrong over the course of the last 6 months. Their actions resulted in where we are today. Just as the NHL actions have also contributed to where we are now. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree then. Course, I disagree with most people who are proudly standing on the side of the NHL or NHLPA. My disdain for both sides has really drove me away from the NHL. Pardon my French, but both sides can go f*** themselves.

I agree. Which adds into the greed on the owners side. Give the players earlier free agency. Make the first contract 2-3 years in limit, and then the RFA period for 4-5 years after that. For stars who are 19-20 years old, then they will be UFA as early as 26, in their prime. As for why the players have to give to the owners, both sides should be at least 50/50. I could even see 52/48 in favor of the players, but I do feel the owners are entitled for more of a share just for the business risks they take. Plus, I look at it in terms of fairness. If one side was making 43% and the other side was making 57%, wouldn't you ask why? I would totally understand the players position if they were only making 43% of the share and went on strike.

The issue I have with the PA proposals are two fold. First, the NHLPA didn't negotiate in good faith by dragging their feet through this entire process. It took them until June to even come to the table, and then 3 weeks after the NHL proposal to actually propose something of their own. So Fehr dragging his feet is the first thing I blame the NHLPA for. Secondly, the NHLPA and NHL are both being greedy and not willing to compromise anything. In addition, there is no willingness to work together. If you read the deals, there is a deal to be made. Could the NHL be less greedy and not ask for so much? Yes. Could the NHLPA give up a little bit to make a deal happen? Yes. So why aren't either side willing to budge? Even worse, why are both sides just playing the media? The NHL says that they are willing to meet, but that the NHLPA doesn't want to talk their language. The same goes for the NHLPA. Lastly, there are no hard negotiation sessions happening. So its a little bit of everything. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides in these negotiations. I believe that both sides should come to the middle a little bit in order to make that happen. I also believe that both sides are in the wrong by involving the media more and getting both sides to the table and negotiating less. If anything, I am arguing that both leaders should be fired. Both sides have been a miserable failure to their sides and horrible to hockey fans. The respective leadership teams of both sides should also be fired. Its time to get a new group of leaders in these positions that are more willing to work together to achieve a goal. Finally, I do have an issue with people taking sides on this issue. The NHL and NHLPA have both sinned in these negotiations. To claim that one side is more deserving than the other is a fallacy. Both sides together have failed the sport of hockey and the fans. Bettman is just as at fault for the lockout as Fehr. Its time to kick both these guys in the ass and out of their respective positions. This is why I am not supporting the NHL anymore with anything more than my cable bill. They can get their share from Fox Sports Detroit or the NHL Network advertising. They won't get a penny out of me when it comes to merchandise, tickets, parking, gas, travel time, and so on. I encourage all fans who are furious with the NHL and NHLPA to do the same. Speak with your wallets.

Imagine how the people in Chicago feel. I say them because they were all charged for their season tickets. The blackhawks are paying it back as games are canceled. The season ticket holders are pretty pissed because they pretty much are giving the Blackhawks a interest free loan. What a bunch of crap. IMHO, you don't charge people when the league is locked out. What a bunch of crap. The hard cap and floor really does make it tough for there to be a dynasty now. Now, 16 teams that make the playoffs can win the championship. The NHL has its parity, and that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the greed and the unwillingness to compromise from both sides. Add in there that both would rather chirp about how they are getting screwed, and its really a no win scenario for everyone. I am always going to be a hockey fan and a Wings fan. I just won't be spending $2000 a year on tickets, merchandise, gas to the games, hotel, and so on. The Wings will survive without me filling their pockets, but they lost a supporting fan at the games. I will be happy to watch them on TV. That will be the extent of my support.

The estimate is done by Forbes which I consider to be very accurate. Here is another one... http://www.plunkettresearch.com/sports-recreation-leisure-market-research/industry-statistics I don't know about the other franchises in the NBA, MLB, or NFL. Where did you get the figures that you found. I thought the profit margins would be more-so in those franchises. I did a quick look on Forbes and found the NBA Valuations list but there was no input on the profit compared. This plunkett research pretty much mimics what Forbes found. So now that we have established that the number isn't "just made up"..... I feel the owners do have a right to have the ability to make more on their asset. Doesn't matter if they are billionaires or not. With a 43% cut, I feel that is not enough. Hell, I would feel it wouldn't be enough if the players made that much and I would be behind them 100% if they went on strike. A 50/50 split is the most equitable and fair. Players are risking their bodies while the owners are taking risk with the franchise. I will say that you have some good points based on the owners/players split. I choose to think that the owners will payout for the contracts, but all new contracts will be a 50/50 split. Really, that is a gradual reduction, just like the NHLPA recommended. I was thinking of it as the owners paying out of their own pockets outside of their franchises. That way is "off the books" and the owners are writing the checks directly. Are the players taking a pay cut? From their respective leagues they are, but the owners are writing a check to the players on their roster for the difference. I would prefer to see owners who have been responsible write checks for less money, but thats up for discussion. I already puked. I won't be investing in the NHL when it comes back. The limit of my investment in the NHL will be my cable bill and watching them on TV. No Center Ice, no tickets, no merchandise, and so on. Yup, I am done with these greedy screwballs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/winter-classic-on-the-chopping-block-with-no-end-in-sight-to-nhl-lockout/article4726378/ Expect the Winter Classic to be canceled by Friday. Damn.

$250 million is the average value of an NHL team. It isn't some made up number. Please read the article I posted. As for the numbers you posted, the revenues did show well, but those are not profits. The profts of $31 million per team for 6 years is very low. You are still looking at an average of 1.5%. Imagine how it is for the Red Wings who have a very successful franchise and Illitch is making less on his asset in comparison to others. The point is that the profit in comparison to the asset is very low, which is what you are finally seeing. Now if it was a straight 50/50 split for the last 6 years, it would have been a lot more fair. Now, the owners are not going to get that true split for at least 6 years, but that is their own fault. The owners can and should pay for every contract. The concept is very simple. If the split is 50-50, then the owners are responsible to pay the extra 7% out of pocket and off the salary cap to the players. i do get what you are saying though. In the salary cap era though, if the owners are shelling out the money for their decisions with a portion of it off the cap, then it can still work. All new contracts will be lower, and in future years, they will even out. Think of it as a 50/50 split from 2012-13 forward. Haha, if it were only that easy.

$250 million is the average value of a NHL franchise. Hell, last year it was $240 million. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2011/11/30/the-business-of-hockey/ It isn't some made up number. Once again, you fail to grasp the concept of profit sharing. The league as a whole made just like you said, but that profit is split between all teams. My point is that if each team is only making about 1.5% profit on the price of their actual asset, its a very small amount of profit compared to the price of their franchise. No one should be surprised that the owners are locking the players out. If the players were only making 43%, I wouldn't have been surprised if they went on strike. Oh, and paying out the players contracts outside the cap would solve that problem. You can have a straight 50/50 split on all future earnings, while at the same time the owners can pay out the contracts out of their pockets so they don't count against the cap. Just because you reduce the cap from 57 to 50 doesn't mean the players have to take a pay cut on what they are earning today. The owners just shell out the money outside the 7% to all players who are being paid on contracts today. It really is a simple concept to understand. When the automotive manufacturers cut salaries of auto workers, they didn't cut existing salaries. All new workers were getting hired at a lower rate. Existing workers kept their money.

First, I agree with you. The contracts the owners signed should be honored. At the same time, I think there should be contract limits on time. Give the players a 2 year entry level deal maximum and then a second contract of 5 years maximum and then they get to be free agents. That would mean breakout young stars today would be unrestricted free agents at 26 and in the prime of their careers. As for the owners crying poor, they are not doing that. The businesses they run do deserve to attempt to make money. When you are running at $250 million dollar business, and you make 1.5% profit on it, your margin of error is slim. I think the owners are entitled to a little more of the pie. Secondly, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Relocated those failing franchises. The owners should be more flexible. Good point. The franchises do go up, but so do the salaries of the players as well. So while he bought the preds for $80 million, the cost of the salaries and players were much cheaper. When he sold them, the costs for players were higher. So the owners would make more in 2-3 years when the team sells, but in the meantime, they are still only making a small percent and they are the ones taking all the risk.

$126.5 million divided by 30 teams is a little over 4 million per team. $250 million dollar average asset = 1.6% per owner. You are looking at the profits as a "league wide" event. When you split the profits by all teams, the return on investment is much less. Also, the thing to consider is these teams are not easily moved. The demand for a NHL franchise is very low. This is why it took 3 years to sell the Blues and Stars. The main reason why is the cost to run the franchise and the profits at the end. So while you do have a valid point on the values of the teams and the average owning length, the simple fact of the matter is that these teams are only making about 1.5% profit on average. For most business owners, 1.5% is really a drop in the bucket. One mistake can mean the difference between profitable and losing money. On the contrary, that is possible. There are many alternatives such as having all money that is paid out to the players on inflated contracts to not count against the cap to a certain percentage. Point is that there are options.

The NHL wasn't going to be able to survive in an open market like that paying players 10 million annually. Hell, we are already seeing that now. Sounds like you have a problem with Billionaires making money. Just keep in mind that these billionaires are the ones with a true investment in the game. They supply everything to the players. I believe that these investors should at least have the right to try to make a profit on their investment. A 1.5% profit is not fair in the least bit. Once again I will say that if the players were making 43% and they went on strike, many of the NHLPA fans would still be behind the players because they were not getting a fair deal. So it really is a lose/lose situation.

I really don't believe the "players were screwed" in the last contract. If you do not recall, the players were making a killing and a vast majority of people were on the owners side in that lockout. True, they took a rollback, but they also had 57% of the revenue in the length of the last CBA. In that time, the players salaries on average are up from 1.5 million to 2.5 million before the start of the 2011-2012 season. Today, it is even higher I am sure. In the meantime, many people want to look at the Forbes report and say that it is bunk. The league made $110 million last year. That is all fine and dandy, but you if you split 30 teams between $110 million, that $3.66 million per franchise. If those are pure profits, the owners who have invested in a $250 million dollar investment would be making 1.5% on their investment. I know that the owners are viewed as billionaires and they can "lose some money", but if you had the opportunity to make 1.5% on your investment for a year, would you be happy about it? IMHO, the players can and should take a pay cut of some kind, but every contract should be honored. There is more than enough for both sides in this negotiation.

I would just like to see some kind of a sense of urgency and a willing to get to work. So far, I haven't seen that out of either side. You are right, a long negotiation session is hard. At the same time, these 1-2 hour at a time sessions with nothing getting done is frustrating.

Same old Griffins. I thought Blashill was going to change the culture. What a bunch of crap.

I think the disconnect we have here is that you are thinking too much into the word "proposal". Anyone eager to negotiate would bring a proposal with them. Not sit on their ass and say, "Well, I am not interested in proposing anything new or different." I do get what you are saying. You are taking the literal term and trying to defend Fehr to the best of your ability. I just don't understand that mindset. You are correct about something. Bettman is not taking the time to evaluate Fehr's proposals in a timely fashion. At least Fehr is taking the time to examine and come up with some good ideas. Either that, or he is stalling, like he did when it took him three weeks to make his first proposal after the NHL lowballed the NHLPA with the first offer. Taking 3 weeks, after he took 5 months to even come to the table? What an asshat. If he actually showed any kind of sense of urgency, someone would have to stick a firecracker up his ass and light the fuse. Still, I have to give Fehr credit for not turning down the NHL right away. He is either playing a PR card with that (possible), or he is just delaying (probable). In short, its very evident that Bettman and Fehr have no interest in taking what the other suggest. Which is why I mentioned the 8-10 hour marathon negotiation sessions. I do not believe either side is interested in those kind of negotiation sessions. I would like to see why you believe that Fehr is interested in this while Bettman is not.

I have no idea what we were like when Howard was with Grand Rapids, but at least we made the playoffs when Howard was here. McCollum has not panned out. Pearce is not a NHL caliber goalie. We need someone to rise up from the minors.

NHL willing to negotiate while Fehr says it isn't ping-pong and doesn't negotiate until the false 50/50 proposal. I suppose it could be defined as "the exact opposite" if you support the union. Here is a hint....let Fehr's actions speak for him. Did the NHL say they wanted to negotiate? Yes. Did Fehr step forward and negotiate a new agreement? No he did not. Why? Because he said that the NHL was only interested if it was on their terms. The league said they were ready, and Fehr said, "Well if its on their terms, we aren't discussing." Every part you bolded does not show that he negotiated at all unless it was on his terms. This is just the kind of behavior we need to get out of these negotiations. The whole, "My way or the highway" mentality, and both sides are playing that card right now and it just frustrates me. Fehr plays the card of the wounded child very well for the press. Where are the 8-10 hour negotiations between these two sides? Why must we talk about the other sides proposals? Why not negotiate? In this case, the NHL SAID that they wanted they wanted it on their terms, which I think is the dumbest thing. Yes, we have been through this before, and your posts speak for themselves. I post some satire on Fehr, and you get all upset about it. Someone else posts some satire on Bettman, and you are all supportive. I have no problems with you or anyone else supporting Fehr and the NHLPA through this entire ordeal. What I do have an issue with is the criticism towards the league while ignoring the failures of the NHLPA through this mess. You are right, maybe it is best that we don't reply to each other's posts. I really can't wait until this whole ordeal is over with. Then we can go back to giving each other thumbs up while talking about something that we are both passionate about.....Red Wing Hockey.

Same way how I say you have no idea how if the NHLPA and the NHL started bargaining in January, that they may have come to a deal with the extra time they had. You say there is no way it would have happened. I say its possible given the extra time. In this case, you choose to believe a new NHL commissioner would be more accomodating. I say not so fast, and that a new commissioner would probably lock out the players being as that the owners are only making 43%. So who is right in this case? Without anything to base it on except our gut, neither of us are right. The ownership obviously believes that they can get a better deal. Its not like Bettman is doing his own thing here. Thats funny, when the NHL put forward the proposal before the big 50/50 proposal, they were waiting for the NHLPA to come to the table and put forward a proposal, yet the NHLPA wouldn't do it. With Fehr saying this wasn't a game of "ping-pong" and he wasn't going to negotiate. No words for Fehr when he pulls that kind of buffoonery, but you have plenty for Bettman when he pulls the same stunt? I certainly don't excuse either side for their part in this charade, and neither should you. Two wrongs don't make a right.