Nightfall

Last time around, they cut the subscription down to once a month in order to save everyone on the cost of printing the magazine. That worked very well.

Once again, you and I are in agreement. The key points are that neither side as budged from their proposals. I have given the NHLPA props for having a proposal set more in reality than the NHL proposal. Not budging from your stance is not the way to negotiate a CBA though. There needs to be less rigidity and more flexibility. It is that simple.

I am in total agreement with you. The owners really want to bring a championship to their city and team though. There are 20 such owners that want to do that right now. So many of them write checks their franchises can't cash, and they cry foul when they have to cash in on revenue sharing. Actually, the rich franchises are the ones crying foul as well because these owners are spending foolishly. If I was a owner in a struggling market, such as Florida, I would find it hard to spend foolishly. My fans would be disappointed because we aren't a top tier team, but we wouldn't be spending money we don't have.

I think its equally telling just how much NHLPA ass you are willing to kiss by only focusing on the faults of the owners while ignoring the faults of the NHLPA. I don't think I need to keep repeating over and over again how much the owners proposal sucked a big one. Just like I don't need you to keep reiterating over and over again about how much the league could bend a bit more. I mean, we had this discussion back about 15 pages ago. You had some constructive comments to give to the NHLPA, and I have been saying all along that the owners proposal sucked a big one. I don't think we need to drag each side through the mud anymore than they already have. Do we really need to hear each other say the negative things about each side in order to agree that both sides really have not budged very much?

I especially think these three passages tell the tale right now. ---- Make no mistake, as offensive as the players find the NHL proposed player share cut to under 50 per cent, the NHL owners find the NHLPA proposal equally offensive, especially in light of what has happened in the NBA and NFL. NHL owners cannot fathom that just days before the CBA is set to expire, the only offer on the table from the players sees actual salary expenditure increases in each of the next three years. They're not happy that negotiations didn't begin until June 29, that the NHLPA exercised its right to employ the 5 per cent inflator to the summertime cap and that the PA rejected a league proposal to freeze the cap at the end of last season, so teams wouldn't spend their way into potential difficulties this summer since there's a practical expectation or sense that the cap number, in a new CBA, is more likely to be less than more. Earlier, I characterized the NHL's position as extreme. And it is. I don't like that the league is going for a home run (grand slam?) on its first at bat. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the NHLPA position isn't hard line, too. To be honest, I'm shocked we're less than a week from a lockout and the players' proposal doesn't include a tangible reduction in their share, not even to 56 per cent, if only to acknowledge practical considerations that the number is realistically going to end up somewhere south of 57 and the number of real dollars spent on salaries will likely be less this coming season than last season. ---- Its hard for me to fathom why both sides can't just sit in a room and figure out how to cut a $3.3 billion dollar pie. In the end, this paragraph has it right. ---- As for being pro-player or pro-owner, I suppose on an emotional level I can empathize with the players more this time than last time for reasons outlined throughout, but on a practical level, in the face of the reality that's about to strike, I'm also finding it hard to believe the players can't do better with their offer than they have. But at the end of the day, does it really matter what I think or who wins in the court of public opinion, who sides with whom? We're all pretty much just spectators here. ---- We as spectators have got to put pressure on both sides to make a deal happen. Hell, getting them to the table would be a good step at this stage. You also have to wonder how forthcoming the league is to give out that information. The answer is....probably not very much so. The players waiting until June to negotiate didn't help matters any either. Both sides need a kick in the ass. I know negotiations have been tenuous in the past, but jeez..... Its just disgusting.

Then you obviously have not been looking at the right data. http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#p_1_s_a6_ According to Forbes, 18 of the 30 teams are losing money. I would like to see the data you are describing where 24-28 of the teams should be able to afford the floor now. Care to share?

Both sides are going to have to be open to move from their initial positions in order to get a deal done. So far, the movement away from their initial positions have been small to say the least. You mention that the owners already have, but that movement was just a blip on the radar. I find it funny how people who are dead set against the owners in this want to see them make the first major move. As if that would be the olive branch that the players need to make a deal. From what I have seen so far, neither side has it right. Neither side has put forward a proposal that would even come close to fixing the issues that are out there. What we need are less fans siding with the owners or players and more fans getting angry at both sides and putting pressure on them to make a deal. The people who are siding with one camp or the other are typically blinded by their hatred of the other side so much that they cannot see the real problems. You, for instance, want to see the owners come forward with a meaningful proposal. That is all fine and dandy, but why can't both sides work together to get a deal done? Why does it have to be the owners alone? Why not the players? Oh, thats right, the players are right in your mind, and every proposal they put forward has the pulse of the league in mind right? As for your questions on how I would know if the 57% would work or not or if the cap floor is a real problem, you are right in that these things could work in certain systems. Even I don't know what will work and what won't work in any given situation. All I do know is that there is a time to take sides and there is a time to stand with other fans and put pressure on both sides to get a deal done. That is where the fans should be sitting right now, not reading NHLPA or NHL propaganda and believing that your side is always in the right while the other one is always in the wrong. If you cannot see how that approach makes someone ignorant and uninformed, then I cannot help you.

You and I are in complete agreement. Right now though, neither side seems to be willing to give up anything. What we need right now are more people who are willing to look at both sides and see there are key areas that need to be addressed. Both sides needs to give up something to get something. Why can't the NHL get entry contracts capped at 4 years while the NHLPA gets to keep arbitration and get expanded revenue sharing along with a luxury tax for up to $5 million above the cap? Answer: Because neither side is budging. Work together guys, it isn't that damn difficult.

The cap floor is a huge problem, and by the way that the league is not budging on lowering salaries of the players, it is a problem. A temporary decrease with it rising back up to the levels that they are at today is not a permanent solution. You are right on one thing, I don't have a single shred of evidence that the league wouldn't be open to a lowering of the cap floor. Their initial proposal didn't have that in there, but they could allow that. Just like we don't know how much the players are willing to concede. We also don't know how much the owners are willing to concede. This is because, so far, neither side has conceded anything. How can you have meaningful negotiations when neither side is willing to concede anything? First, lets clarify something. Some here think that anyone who disagrees with me is uninformed and ignorant. That isn't the case. I call people who side exclusively with either the league or the players uninformed and ignorant. There are a lot of people firmly sitting in the players camp and accepting everything they are saying as truth. Same with the owners camp. Take for example the players proposal. Some fans looked at that proposal as the silver bullet, the end of the lockout. The answer to everything, and while it wasn't as bad as the owners proposal, it was still bad. The simple fact of the matter is that the players want to keep everything they have now, and the owners want the world from the players. Neither is going to happen, so we may as well hunker down for a long lockout.

This is just the issue with people who are in one corner or the other. I think you got it right.

I agree 100% with Darren Dreger. http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=404679 A new system is a requirement. Negotiating that in 6 days is unlikely. The players won't budge on an immediate correction, and the league won't even look at the current system and see how flawed it is. In short, no hockey until November or December.

The players proposal calls for a 3 year plan. The first year they decrease their share of the profits to 53%, then it goes up to 55% the next year, and up to 57% in the 3rd year. So, in short, the players proposal calls for no changes to the existing system, and the league would be right back where it started 3 years ago. So, how is that not understanding what the players are proposing? How are you not surprised that the league didn't accept this proposal? http://www.vancouver...2488/story.html Once again I will say this, the people who are solely behind the players and blaming the league are uninformed and ignorant. Those people do not understand what the players proposed and the ramifications behind the proposal. The players proposal is not a silver bullet that solves all the issues, contrary to what you believe.

http://www.defendingbigd.com/2012/9/4/3290940/2012-nhl-lockout-forget-the-nhl-nhlpa-the-fans-are-the-ones-to-pay I have to agree with this article.

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now? Lets face facts here, the NHL is in trouble. What the owners are proposing won't fix the problem and the NHLPA doesn't want to see the salary floor go down. So far, the NHLPA just wants to keep everything they have right now and the owners don't want to address the problems that they have with their ownership group and clubs that are not financially secure. Its a dangerous mix, and one where both sides really need to address. The greed on both sides is going to drive the league to initiate a lockout. Sure, the uninformed and the ignorant people will say the league is at fault for locking out the players. The ones who have looked at the issues that are dogging the league as a whole right now will be able to see greed and stupidity as the biggest problems right now.

I wish I was just as confident. Neither side is willing to budge. I think we won't see hockey until November.

Opulence, he has it.

Says the "NHLPA can do no wrong" fan. I suppose anyone who stands up against the NHLPA is a league apologist in your mind. Both sides are accountable here. I have said that at the beginning and I will say it until the end. Anyone just blindly kissing the NHLPA's ass in this is an idiot. I am in the same boat. The two sides refuse to acknowledge the problems of the league right now. That alone means that we are in for a 2-3 month lockout, and I am a glass half full kind of guy normally.

I agree with this. Even if he doesn't score 40+ goals, for what he is paid, he is producing well. Obviously, I would love to see him use that body and dominate physically. At the same time, there are people here who think that if he isn't a 50 goal scorer, then he isn't doing his job.

I am going to throw out my thoughts here on this since it has been about a week since I last did. First off, I don't blame the owners for trying to fix the problem. Of course, the problem is caused by them. You have 30 owners, 20 of which want to win the cup or put a good team on the ice. When you have 20 owners all bidding for talent, the salaries of players have gone up. Maybe we do need to get more fiscally responsible owners, but I believe that these inflated contracts that are being signed are due also for a desire to win and puts butts in the seats as a result. The owners in every sport need to be protected from themselves. Look at most professional sports, where there are limits on contract length and in some cases amounts depending on the age of the player. I am less in the public relations game and more in the "get the CBA finished" game. Lets analyze both deals. The owners want to see a salary rollback, contract limits, no arbitration, and so on. The players want to see a temporary rollback in salaries for the first couple years, but then it goes back up to 57%. Which of these deals fix the overall problem? Answer: None of them The problem, as I have said before, is ownership, expanding into markets that can't sustain hockey, the salary floor, and the current financial state of the teams as a result. 12-13 teams are carrying the burden of the whole league when it comes to profits. The answer is not as simple though. The best answer would be to replace dumb ass owners who are not fiscally responsible, bring the salary floor down, move teams that are not financially stable, and limit contract lengths and amounts in some way so the owners don't kill themselves. So, here we are. Neither side willing to budge. Lockout is 11 days away now. So I say to the NHL and the NHLPA..... Screw the league, and screw the players. Go ahead and strike. I won't be spending any more money on the NHL if there is a lockout. The owners or players don't deserve my money at this stage.

Keep in mind that I typically go to 6 Wings games per year. I meant that if there is a lockout, I won't be spending a penny on the Wings for the next few years.

I have to agree. In order for a deal to be made, both sides have to be willing to give up something. The first proposals really don't address the issue. This one, while giving up some things, doesn't address the issue. As has been mentioned by others, it just opens the door for another lockout due to horrible spending practices by the owners and inflated contracts for the players.

/thread

You are correct, at least from what has been released so far. Bettman didn't mention the cap floor in his proposal. It could be in there, but lets assume he didn't mention it because its not an issue. He concentrated on rolling back salaries, limiting contracts, and getting rid of arbitration. Just further proof, as you and I have said about 10 pages ago, he doesn't recognize what the real problems are. As has been demonstrated before, spending to the cap ceiling doesn't mean you are going to win a cup or even make the playoffs. We have small market teams beating big market teams all the time. The CBA that Bettman is proposing lowers the cap floor and ceiling for a few years with the rollback in salaries, but it doesn't address the long term health of the league. In 4 years, the owners will be in the same predicament that they are in right now. Just as the players proposal, while lowering salaries a couple percent for a few years, doesn't address the long term health of the league or teams in 3-4 years. Owners are going to be boneheads, and players will sign inflated contracts as a result. IMHO, by eliminating the cap floor and imposing a luxury tax system, the small market teams will still be able to get players while the big market teams will share revenues with the small market ones. It works well in baseball, and should work well in hockey. Bettman obviously hates it, but I think Fehr would be a fan of it. Teams were icing NHL level lineups even before the salary cap era.

Those teams doing poorly in attendance, and as a result not doing well money wise, shouldn't be forced to spend to a cap floor.

Its quite obvious that the problem is two-fold. The first is the cap floor is too high. The second is the ownership can't budget or run a team. A combination of both is the real problem. I don't deny, in a perfect world, the current deal would work. This isn't a perfect world though. You point out specifics in your example that would be great in a perfect world, but the ownership in the NHL sucks a big one. Do i think the luxury tax system would work? I think it is worth investigating, because of the system in the MLB. You have rich teams and poor teams, and in the MLB there hasn't been a labor dispute in a long time. The small market teams can even compete in the MLB, and it has been determined that small market NHL teams can beat big market teams all the time. Anyway, while you have the dumb ass owners who can't budget, you have smart owners who are forced to spend to the cap floor. The forced spend to the cap floor is a problem along with the ownership.