haroldsnepsts

It's telling but not surprising that you picked a first passage that mostly focus on the negative aspects of the NHLPA, while skipping over the entire first half of the article that spells out how ridiculous the NHL's position is.

Like Toby said, it just means they didn't finance it with a mortgage. It's likely someone who just sold their multi-million dollar home to buy Lidstrom's, unless they have that much lying around in a bank account. Either way, it doesn't mean they showed up with wheelbarrows full of hundreds, just that they didn't finance it.

Good article by McKenzie about the current pathetic state of affairs. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404989

No, that Forbes list shows 18 of 30 teams have negative earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation. It's one piece of a much larger and more complex financial situation. That's not the same as 18 teams losing money. I also wonder if they're just basing that on Hockey Related Revenue by the league's definition or if they're using revenue that should reasonably be included from ownership of the team, which is a larger amount. The accounting gets fuzzy very quickly depending on what they're including as revenue and expenses. It's not a simple as "18 of 30 teams are losing money" though that's what Bettman and the league want everyone to think. Part of the problem with the negotiations is just getting the financial information together, sorting through it all, and figuring out what the actual financial picture is.

My point was that someone having a different opinion than you doesn't make them ignorant and uninformed. I think the article Pskov Wings fan quoted got it pretty right on. The league is profitable. The biggest issue is the disparity between the franchises. No matter how they perform on the ice, Nashville will never bring in the money the Leafs do. The question is how you help out smaller market teams without rewarding idiocy by owners. It's a tough question. What I do know is the answer is not as simple as taking more and more from the players. That's why I blame Bettman more than the NHLPA. He screwed this up out of the gate by going in with the same game plan as 2004. Cry poor, make extreme demands of the players, wait for the union to cave. Instead what it needs is a more nuanced approach where the players make concessions on contract length and % of revenue, while the owners also increase revenue sharing, and the league gives up or lowers the cap floor. Rather than trying to get his owners on board in the long term health of the league, Bettman seems more interested in breaking the union.

That's the heart of it right there: The league is trying the same strategy as last time, but this time it's not true. Player's salaries are not the biggest issue in franchise profitability. Sure, the people who kill puppies and punch babies think it's an equal split of responsibility for the looming lockout. The ones who have looked at the issues are incredibly smart and realize like me that the league and Bettman are more responsible. Did I do it right? I'm still learning how this built-in insult on anyone who disagrees works.

I'm not sure why you think this article laid things to rest. Ryan regretted his comments, which is no surprise, but it doesn't make the relationship with the GM sound rosy or that things have been settled. From the article (emphasis mine): I'd still be surprised if the Ducks traded him, but it hardly sounds like things are back to normal.

Agreed. that's really my point. Holland took a hard run at Suter and actually participated in ridiculous salary offers, which he usually doesn't. A big part of the reason is because he he hadn't made any moves the last few seasons to prepare for Lidstrom's (and Stuart's) inevitable departure.

I was more referring to non-hockey players that get locked out from their jobs. It's not like I meant I was worried hockey players won't be able to eat and pay their utility bills. Though when you make the income they do, I'm betting many of them have high expenses to go with it. Hopefully they had the sense to save a lot of money preparing for this lockout.

It's flawed logic. Given the fact the owners are locking them out from playing in the league with which they have a current contract, the players are taking an alternate job somewhere else. It happens often when companies lock out employees. People need to pay bills. That doesn't prove that they are overpaid. The issue isn't so much "what's the lowest amount the players will accept"(though that's the owners apparent thinking) as much as it is divvying up the billions in revenue the league collects in a way everyone can agree upon.

Agreed. It's just another case of the league talking out of both sides of its mouth. wanting the players to "partner with us," while we take away more and more of your money and decisionmaking power. "There's no salary rollback, it'll go into an escrow account until the end of the season, where it'll ultimately end up back in the owners' pockets." It makes sense that the owners would be the major decision maker in schedules and realignment, but Bettman acts like it's a terrible inconvenience to have to check with the union on these things. If he had any diplomacy skills at all he would've involved the players more and the owners wouldn't need more legal reinforcement of their decision-making power. I don't remember hearing about the NHLPA making any unreasonable demands about the realignment, just that they wanted time to look at it and figure out what it meant for their hundreds of constituents who get shipped all over North America 9 months out of the year. It is all truly so stupid. If we lose another season, I'm not coming back as long as Bettman is commissioner. I love hockey, but there's plenty of other ways I can spend my time and money.

That's a pretty good article by Lebrun. Here's another example of why the NHL saying they want to "partner" with the players is such a joke. Aside from wanting to redefine Hockey Related Revenue and reducing players share of revenue, they also want to more firmly establish their decision making and reduce the NHLPA's role. From the article:

Agreed. If we lose hockey games this season, you can pretty much guarantee Bettman will lock players out every chance he gets for as long as he's commissioner. Last time the owners got the cap, players are not trying to remove that cap, and revenue is through the roof. This should've been the easiest of all CBA renegotiations. Instead we're 9 days out and the two sides aren't even talking.

As much fun as it is to hear you crap on trade proposals, I've already made my position clear several times regarding the flawed reasoning of your "name who" game. If you're still interested, you're more than welcome to go back and read them.

I'd say the Wings dumb move was a lack of transition plan for losing Stuart and Lids which is why the ended up competing so hard in the Suter sweepstakes.

I forgot about that. Was it this same incident or another one where Cheli picked up the stick while sitting on the bench, but smashed the blade of it before handing it back to the guy?

That's the thing. Bettman and the league keep saying how only 12 teams are profitable. Are the Devils and their ridiculous contract for Kovalchuk profitable? Are the Wild with the two giant contracts they just took on in Suter and Parise? Or the Preds when they gave Weber $110 million over 14 years? Or the Hurricanes who gave Semin a $7 million deal? The owners are doing this to themselves and each other, yet expect the players to bear most of the burden for fixing their idiocy. Reduce the players share by a few percentage points (keep in mind owners are reducing what constitutes HRR so even if the percentage were the same, the owners are getting more money). Put a reasonable limit on contract length of 7 or 8 years to make it harder for GM's to circumvent the cap like they have been. Increase revenue sharing if the owners really do want to help these struggling franchises. Minor tweaks to most other things. Play hockey.

He got what he had coming? Guys challenge each other to fights like that all the time. Usually they start with dropping the gloves and squaring up. Though you'd think at this point people would have learned don't come near Tootoo unless you're ready for a suckerpunch.

It's like if someone farts in a negotiation meeting both sides have to take a break for the day. Actually, that I would kind of understand, but you know what I meant.

His rep comes from more than just his first few seasons. Maybe he was better this last one but there's plenty of gems from the last few years. This is from the season before last and a perfect example of how he suckerpunches guys when he drops the gloves. Tootoo is a dirty player who dives and is bad defensively. I'm hoping all that somehow changes when he's on the Wings.

This just in: Zetterberg finalizes CBA deal. Zetteberg's beard named new NHL commissioner.

True. It'll be nice to see someone on the Wings stand up for a teammate (other than our goalie). I just wish Tootoo didn't come with all his other bad qualities.

He's absolutely a worse diver than Franzen. Mule is a bit of drama queen, but I've not seen him flop like Tootoo. While I can appreciate the energy and toughness of his game, my dislike of him is based on him being a triple threat: dives, dirty hits, jumps guys in fights.

Isn't that basically rolling the salary back without calling it a rollback? Either way the players end up with less money than the value of the contracts they signed with the league.

It got its name from this fight (starting at 10 seconds after the Probert fight). So I guess we're done here?