Nightfall

Speaking of stating something that isn't accurate. No one knows how the negotiations are going. No one has seen the proposals aside from the initial ones that each group put out. There really has been nothing revealed about the negotiations. Does Bettman want to break the league or does Fehr have no intentions of talking salary cap at this stage and now wants a luxury tax system? The point is that we really don't know what either side wants to do. Sure, if you go off of their initial proposals, you may make that assumption, but we really don't know the level of bargaining and concessions that each side is willing to be flexible with. In short, I don't believe for a second that the ownership group wants to break the league just based off an initial proposal that was offered back in June. Just like I believe the players are putting their best foot forward and negotiating in good faith since they came to the table in June, even though they stalled and didn't come to the table early in January like the ownership wanted. The owners want NHL hockey going as well. This not only sends a message to greedy owners, but it would also send a message to the NHLPA. This is why when they unlock the doors, I won't be paying for tickets to NHL games for a long time.

The city of Glendale and the league just should have sold the club to Jim Baisaille who could have taken the team to Winnepeg or some other Canadian province. Why the NHL decided to expand into these small markets is beyond me. Contraction or moving them is the best option.

I do agree that the players have conceded something, but you and others on the side of the NHLPA sound like they conceded everything and the owners still want more. This is simply not the case. The players have in essence thrown a bone to the owners, but do you agree it was enough? Just based on the fact that the rich franchises and players have done very well for themselves, even after the "huge concessions" they gave up from last year, do you believe that the NHLPA has given enough? I really don't think so. Yes, if revenues keep increasing, then the split looks very good. The problem is that we don't know what is going to happen when it comes to revenues. Sure, you can predict but you just don't know. IMHO, your tone through this entire lockout thread has been against the ownership, with little to no constructive comments about he NHLPA. If you aren't 100% against the owners, then what are you? BTW, there is nothing bad about being behind the NHLPA 100%, but I don't expect anyone who follows any side 100% to see my stance on these matters like I do. Which is why when you make dumb comments like "the players have 10 apples and the owners have 100, then you think it is even" comments, I just shake my head. Of course, when I fire back a jab of my own, you complain. I will admit, as I said before, two wrongs don't make a right. I will attempt to hold my jabs back. I wouldn't say they conceded a "ton" but thats just my point of view. I believe that both sides can easily move forward and come up with a deal that is 52-48 in favor of the players. If the players are going to not negotiate at all, this is what I hope they go for. Eliminate the cap and put in a luxury tax system like baseball. It will take a lost season to get it, but at this point, I see the benefits. I don't believe it was built upon a lockout, but it was built to get everything they wanted. I eagerly anticipated both sides were going to get a deal done by working their way from their proposals to the middle. The simple fact of the matter is that neither side gave very much. I think the ownership gave a couple percentage points, and the players gave a couple in return, but it wasn't enough to get a deal done. As you and I agree upon, the initial offer from the ownership was a slap in the face. I applaud Fehr for not following suit and coming up with an alternate proposal. I think the thing to stress was that the proposal that Fehr and the players gave was a good starting point only. Sure, if revenues keep increasing, then the deal is good, but I don't know what is going to happen for sure. There is risk involved that the owners didn't want to deal with. I don't blame them for their decision. Yet, fans of the NHLPA look at this deal and compare it to the second coming of Christ, to which it is not. I believe the fault is 60-40 with the owners. I cannot let the players off the hook for waiting until June to start the CBA talks when the league was open to discussing it in January. Yes, you will say there is no indication that more time would have helped, but we don't know for sure. Yes, you and others love the NHLPA deal because of the potential of growing revenues. Yet, when it comes to having more time to bargain for a new CBA, you and others siding with the NHLPA don't want to think that more time would have helped. I suppose when it comes to looking into the crystal ball, the future is clear when it comes to revenues, but go back to January and negotiating a new CBA and that future is cloudy. Must be nice to see so clearly in one sense and not so much in another. Then you have the lack of cooperation between the two sides, which Fehr and Bettman are responsible. I could go on and on. Point is that there is plenty of blame to go around. To say that its Bettman and the owners by a country mile is an exaggeration IMHO. I would remove the "country" and say 1/4 mile just based on what I have seen so far. http://www.forbes.co...esnt-have-them/ So, the report in Forbes is inaccurate? Even a recent report shows that the top teams in the NHL are actually keeping the rest of the teams afloat. Just this should be enough to show that the profits of teams are indeed small, especially in the smaller markets. You are correct though in that I don't have any books proof to backup my statement that the profits are razor thin. At the same time though, you see a Forbes report on the business of hockey and dismiss that as well. So what good would it be to bring forward proof if you are going to dismiss it anyway? Is the NHL in as dire straits as it was back in the last lockout? No. At the same time, they are still in trouble for various reasons. Yea, they would sell, but selling is not easy these days. Why do you think it is taking so long to sell the Blues? Look at the Stars for instance as well that took years to get a deal done. I think we all know why the Coyotes aren't selling quickly, but look at teams that are up for sale that aren't being sold right away. You make it sound like selling is easy. When you aren't one of the top 3-5 teams in the league, or you aren't making a profit, then selling is not as easy as you say. Yes, their asset is appreciating in value, and the contracts are a problem. League contraction would be a good option right now, but the players are against that because it would remove players from the payroll in the NHLPA. They would much rather have the teams move around.

Very true. Only those that run their businesses intelligently should make a profit.

Buppy, First, lets set something straight. For people such as yourself who want to debate the facts, I haven't levied a single insult. Sure, you want to go back and point out some jabs I have thrown at people, and they are in reply to jabs they throw at me first. Such as insinuating that I believe that if the "ownership has 100 apples and the players have 10, then it is fair", to which I think that is totally false. So do two wrongs make a right here? Absolutely not. I will take responsibility for my part, but just the fact that you are only willing to point out the jabs that I throw while ignoring the jabs others throw really does point out your devotion towards only one side. I believe that this thread could do without a lot of the jabs that are being thrown around. After all, we are fans of hockey after all. The problem is that both sides are clearly being greedy and not willing to budge much on their initial proposals. Then you have the rhetoric that is being thrown around which isn't helping matters. IMHO, what we need are fans to put pressure on both sides to sit at the table and get a deal done. There are concessions that both sides can make to get a deal done. So why not get into a room and hash it out? The problem I have with fans on one particular side or the other is when I mention this, they have a lot of anger towards people who point this out. So the jabs start coming shortly after that. Now, as you said, you believe the PA is right. I can respect that. What I don't respect are people who like to put some insulting jabs against me for believing the way I do. Are you tracking with me so far? As for your point that the number could reach 52% for the ownership, you are correct. Thats if revenues keep climbing though, and I don't know how much growth the NHL has left in a down economy. I believe what the ownership is looking for is cost certainty and they want guaranteed numbers. While I don't know if I agree with that, its still a point that both sides need to get into a room and hammer out. Then you have other factors to consider. You have contract lengths, free agency, entry level contracts, arbitration, and so on. It goes just far beyond the split. So, in short, I agree with you. Lets keep the debate civil, but it would be helpful if both sides and people in the middle would keep it like that. While I do somewhat agree, I think that the ownership has a right to at least make a profit.

The profit margins for these teams are really razor thin. The people who are for the NHLPA like to think that owners are fine just losing millions per year for their stake in the team. Is that the right mentality? At the same time, is it right for the owners to have to lose money? Shouldn't there be a fair and equitable deal in place in order for both sides to profit equally?

This is what I don't understand and maybe someone here can educate me. I believe a fair and equitable agreement can be made between both sides. As has been pointed out numerous times, any two sides who were cooperative and were bargaining honestly could hammer out an agreement in a couple hours. I don't see many people on the sides of the owners here, and on the flip side I see many on the sides of the players. This makes sense due to the offers that were shelled out and Fehr's comments to the press. What I don't understand is why someone has to be either for or against one side. There is no looking at the big picture and seeing faults with both. There is no looking at the offers that were put forward and comparing/contrasting them. I guess its a lot like religion or political preference. "If you aren't a (insert affiliate name here), then you are wrong" mentality. I guess that its time for fans to get mad, not take sides.

I think a fair and equitable agreement could be made at 52% for the players and 48% for the owners on the core economics side of things. I would like to know why you think that I expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree? I have said numerous times that there is room for both sides to give something in these negotiations. The ownership can easily give back to the players just as much as the players can give back to the owners. Its not that hard to see that concessions can be made and they don't have to all come from one side.

I guess I have to have my head so far up the NHLPA's ass to see what you see in those greedy screwballs. Its all or nothing in your mind. The NHLPA has zero fault while the NHL has 100% fault. I can't just put all the fault on one party, when it most clearly is the fault of both why we are in a lockout right now. As I said before, 60% at fault with the ownership group, but the players carry 40% of the burden easily.

I never said that the NHLPA proposal wasn't more reasonable than the NHL's proposal. As you said though, that proposal could be tweaked and negotiated, to which the NHLPA has not been willing to budge off their initial proposal. There is still a $1 billion dollar difference between the two proposals. Here is a good breakdown between both proposals. http://www.theglobea...article4541634/ FTA Overall, as you said, its a good starting point but not the answer to the CBA problem that all NHLPA fans are drooling after. I am saying that the NHL or NHLPA could budge some more in these negotiations, and we don't know the level that the NHLPA and the NHL have budged since their inital proposals. Both sides just need to be shut in a room to figure this out. The problem, as I see it, is communication and concessions on both sides. From the ownership especially. Anyone spouting that the NHLPA has done their due diligence when it comes to these negotiations is talking out of their ass. Plenty of fault on both sides. Which is why I am not paying any money to attend games or buy merchandise for the NHL after this negotiation is over.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739 The facts are quite clear. This is a pretty good analysis of the proposals and situation.

The players gave ground temporarily, but not permanently. Why can't they meet in the middle at 52-48? If the league would have stepped forward and put an offer on the table for 5 years at that figure, then I would believe you. A temporary rollback in year 1, with percentages climbing through year 2 and back up to where we are today at year 3 is a concession, but its not a big one. The greed on the owners side is well known, but the players have to be held to a standard as well. A temporary rollback is not the solution. You make it sound like the players gave a lot of concessions, but in reality, they really threw the ownership a small treat and nothing more. You and I both agree that two rational parties could have had a CBA hammered out in 2-4 hours. Fehr and Bettman are not rational though.

At this point, the players and the owners just need to let the league die. The owners are acting like entitled brats while the players are not willing to give any ground. Seriously, screw this league and the greed. I already promised myself the only money the league is going to see from me for the next 5-6 years will be what I watch on TV. No more center ice. No more hockey tickets. No more merchandise. I will end up saving about $1500-$2000 a hockey season by not spending a dime on these greedy screwballs. If thats the only way to make them listen, then I will do my part to get their full attention.

A great article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/a-lost-nhl-season-could-happen-again/article4552510/ --- So you can clutch at straws and hope for the best by dismissing the events of the past 72 hours as the usual rhetoric and posturing – or you can go all Chicken Little and think the sky really is falling. The evidence for pessimism seems far stronger, and that’s largely because Fehr has the players convinced that their givebacks during the lost season of 2004-05 mean that the onus is on the owners to compromise this time. ---

Well, in the end, no one has been willing to comment on the points he made. I suppose its easier to complain about someone's stance than it is to reply to a very good point.

I am still trying to figure out where he demonstrated a hate for unions. It certainly wasn't said in this thread. At least I don't see it.

http://penslabyrinth...a-negotiations/ I know this came from a Pittsburgh source, but man is it funny. From the article --- Bettman wants the house in the Hamptons, the Pokémon collectibles (definitely Bettman), and the McLaren F1. That’s alright with Fehr, he takes the crib in Malibu and the 747. As the mediator takes cover under the table, they are reminded the Mansion in St. Thomas and the one-hundred-thirty foot Yacht must be divided between them. Obscenities echo about the room as the dog fight begins… In the end, personal concessions will be made by both sides as they choose partnership instead of the perceived ‘divorce’. Bettman and Fehr will recall their minions and leave the daily posturing and laughable proposals on the battlefield. The “negotiations”, however flawed and rudimentary we view them to be, are much more a belligerent staring contest than a simplistic debate. Divorce Court is nasty, just watch it on TV. We look at the X’s and Y’s and say ‘hey, stop being unrealistic, these concessions in those categories will square everything away’. I’d imagine the Suits are fully aware, but this is high-stakes gambling, not gin-rummy with grandma. No one wants to fold first. The parties are sensitive; they’d be better off with therapists heaped around the room, massaging each figurehead’s ego into a blissful state before conversing. Now that is the “Art” I would introduce to CBA negotiations. ----

You and I are in total agreement. Greed on the owners side was definitely a factor in these negotiations. I know we don't see eye to eye on this subject when it comes to player fault, but I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post. Just for clarification, the players didn't give up 5% on a permanent basis. Now, if they did reduce their offer from 57 to 52 percent for the entire 5 years, then I would be totally on the players side. The fact of the matter is that the players didn't give up anything permanently. They did take the high road on their initial offer by not lowballing the league, and I respect them for that. I know that negotiations dictate that you put forward your best proposal first and work your way down. The fact of the matter is that neither side really moved away from their initial proposal. This is a no brainer thing to hammer out IMHO. The greed on both sides is just disgusting. I know that everyone loves it when we job the owners here, but the players have some fault too. We have to have two leaders that are willing to work it out and concede things they have that the other wants.

Being as that some of the clubs are not profitable right now, them asking the players for rollbacks doesn't surprise me. What surprises me are the levels of rollbacks the owners are asking for, which is just pure greed. If anything, the owners in these areas that aren't selling tickets well need to be relocated. The owners don't see it this way though. I don't believe the players should have to go down to anything further than 52% of their share, with no rollbacks in salaries. The owners just have no interest in hearing any of that. The players don't believe they should drop their share except on a temporary basis.

Locked "us" out? Are you a player? He is responsible for the financial situation? He is responsible for the lockout? You do realize that the owners all voted to lock out the players. It was unanimous. Sounds to me that the owners are responsible for the financial situation since they are the ones signing these contracts that their franchises can't pay. Sounds to me that the owners are responsible for the lockout. So, in short, if you want someone to blame, don't blame the mouthpiece. Blame the owners. http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1257428--nhl-nhlpa-relationship-50-shades-of-nasty-cox I agree with this. ---- Forget blaming Bettman and forget blaming the players. Blame their poisonous relationship. There’s too much messy history here, dating all the way back to Eagleson, and there’s precious little goodwill. ---- I just can't stop blaming both sides.

This is what it all comes down to. Most people believe that the silly dwarf and the owners are all at fault. The simple fact of the matter is that neither side came down from their initial positions. The owners insane offer was one the players took insult to. A rollback of over 10%? Limits on contracts? No arbitration? What an insult. Plus, as talks went on, they came down maybe a couple percent, but they didn't budge off the core points. I know some people give the owners flack for dumbass expensive signings, but the simple fact of the matter is that you have 20 owners who want to compete for a cup so the contracts need some kind of limit on them. Loopholes do need to be closed. Make no mistake, the players and rich franchises benefited from the current CBA. The players came down from 57% to 53%, but only fir the first year. It then went up to 55% in year 2, and then back up to 57% by year 3 with a player option the next year at the same rate. So, a temporary rollback, which is all fine and dandy, but no concessions aside from that? The greed that both sides exhibited in this negotiation was surprising. $3.3 billion in revenues and you can't split the pie evenly? No deal to be had at all? Seriously? I love the Wings. I love hockey. What I don't love is the greed. I am done spending money on the NHL. No more tickets. No more merchandise. Let both sides starve out. I will watch them on TV, but that is the extent of my involvement with the NHL. Oh, no more Center Ice Package. I am not giving these greedy pigs anymore money. Speak with your wallets people! My prediction: We are in for a long lockout, maybe another full season. Fehr is going to pull the salary cap off the table. That isn't a bad thing in the long run mind you. It works for baseball, and I would be all for it. If the owners are indeed stuck on their proposal, it is going to be a long fought battle. Keep in mind that while Bettman locked out the players for a full season, Fehr sacrificed a world series to get the deal he wanted. Oh, and I agree with Adam Proteau on his tweet.... The phrase we heard from NHL owners in 04-05 was "cost certainty". Now they want profit certainty. That's not business, that's entitlement. Get ready for a long lockout everyone!

I would bet that Illitch didn't lose money in 2002 when he loaded his roster up and had one of the highest payrolls. Course, I can't find a link that shows the finances of the Red Wings from one year to the next.

I already know why Illitch voted yes. Foolish owners signing players to long term deals they can't afford Illitch has to pay out millions in revenue sharing to these owners who can't run their clubs in a financially sound manner Players are getting paid too much Contract length is too long Illitch believes that the owners deserve more than 43% of the revenues of a $3.3 billion dollar industry He may not be able to control the other owners, but he can control how much the owners get in their share of the pie. Illitch is a sound businessman, and if the other owners weren't idiots that didn't write checks their franchises couldn't cash, then he would probably be more forgiving.

I guess that is a difference of opinion. Illitch is an outspoken guy. I believe he voted with every other owner to lockout the players. If he didn't like the situation, he would say something. Illitch has plenty of reasons to vote lockout too. Make no mistake about it.

I believe the players don't need to take an immediate pay cut either. At the same time, both sides can give a little and they haven't. Why have two representatives in the same room when they don't want to negotiate in good faith? I can already imagine how the negotiations have gone so far. Bettman: You should take a rollback in salaries, no arbitration, and limit on contracts. Fehr: That isn't fair. We think the current system works. How about our share drops to 53% the first year, 55% the second year, and then back up to regular levels for the last 2 years of the deal? Bettman: That isn't fair. Why don't you take our proposal? Fehr: That isn't fair. Why don't you take our proposal? Two weeks go by and its the same banter back and forth. Two reasonable people would have started looking at the big picture and drew up what they wanted and started giving a little in order to get things in other areas. Players give a little in their share, while owners give in unrestricted free agency is one example.