toby91_ca

I saw that, I really hope they didn't change the definitino of HRR because if they did, that makes their 50/05 offer bogus and we are back where we started.

50/50 actually represents a 12.3% pay cut for the players

There is some truth to this, but any rational person should understand that it would be unreasonable to simply expect the NHLPA to come back and say, yes, we like the deal, where do we sign. The good news I take from it is that the league moved a little, the league doesn't expect an outright acceptance, but they will expect it to move negotiations forward and there should be a counter off I would think...then some back and forth, hopefully a deal in the next week or so. I don't care about PR, I just want to see a deal.

Well, I'm not sure if it was Bettman's choice or not, might be, might not, I don't know. I would assume he woudl have addressed the board of govenors and suggested this as an approach (worked for them last time as an example) and then the board would endorse such approach. In the end, Bettman wouldn't need an majority to endorse, but I truly don't know whether it is him pushing this tactic or not. Also, the stupdity of needing something like 75% to overrule him is just that, stupidity. I'm not sure if it matters though. Who knows if more than 50% would be against the lockout right now? You could point to them overruling back in 1994, but that was almost 20 years ago, different economics....different people in a lot of cases as well.

How can my statements of what I'd prefer be filled with inaccuracies? I didn't even suggest any opinions I don't think...which also can't be considered inaccurate. You seemed ot have just gone off about all the other options Bettman could have taken rather than going to a lockout....most of which I agree could have been done, some of which I disagree with, but none of that is the point, none of it was the topic of what I'd prefer to see. So, what was it that I stated inaccurately?

It's not a matter of knowing pretty high up people....that really shouldn't entitle you to confidential information. Sometimes if you know people high up, they might leak information to you, but in that case, you have information but you really shouldn't. I neither agree or disagree with you when you say costs have gone up, because I really don't know unless you show me the financial statements of every team in the NHL. Even then, you have to wonder what revenues the owners are reporting under non-HRR, etc. My point is that costs being up or costs being down are not opinions, they are guesses. To be honest, my guess would probably be consistent with yours in that costs probably have gone up, but my guess is that revenues have increased at a much higher rate. I'm pretty sure the NHL themselves report net earnings as being higher now than 7 years ago (net earnings, not simply revenues). So, I think it's safe to say that they are not overstating those earnings. I'll agree with you there, but only because I think the only way a deal gets done if both sides move towards the middle. I can honestly say I have no idea what would be "fair." I do get annoyed by constantly hearing Daly comment that the league should make a new proposal to get things progressing while the NHL could very well do the same thing. Both sides are stuck in the mud right now. I think the PA should have started at a different spot and given themselves more room to negotiate though. Agreed...although I'd be more interested in cutting out all the public relations BS and just get to work on a deal....stop paying consultatns to come in and help with PR...get to f'in work on more important things. I'm not sure why either side would be so focused on winning a PR battle. I'm sure they do so to put pressure on the other side to give in to demands before their public image gets too damaged, but I just don't see it as being very productive at all. Also, the NHL might want to think about the impacts of the players coming out with very bad PR in this...not sure that would be best for their business. I would think the NHL would want the general public to love the players and be on their side in the long run because that is the product they are selling......just a different way of looking at the PR crap.

Those stats look fairly outdated

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic. By the way, you mentioned earlier that you think the owner's deserve more for various reasons, most of which is because costs have gone up and you actually quote a few costs. Now you are saying that you don't know whether costs have gone up or not? That's not an opinion thing as you put it. Most would assume costs have gone up due to inflation, but unless you have inside information as to the financial results of the team, you won't know. I can tell you that I have access to financial information of one of the team's in the league. That information isn't rumoured, leaked, etc. It is fact. That team makes a ton of money, but I won't pretend the same can be said for all teams. Back to the main point. Increasing costs being incurred by the owner's is not a good reason to have their share of revenues to increase. What should be very obvious is that non-player expenses have not increased anywhere near the increase in revenues so the share of the revenues that the owner's are taking should be more than enough to cover increased costs......which is what shows in net profit for the league as a whole (much higher than when the last CBA was signed). So....I'll go back to the issue again and that is disparity amongst the teams. The NHL can try to suck more out of the players to cover that, but it will do nothing to help the issue, so when revneues increase signficantly again and the poor teams aren't generating it, are they going to go back to the players again to get more?

This is stated as a fact, but what is it based on? Not saying I disagree necessarily, but not sure I'd say it's the best league outside the NHL either....hard to say. It probably pays the most in an attempt to lure players, but does that make it a good league?

That doesn't mean he doesn't care about the fans. I'm not saying he does either, I just think it's a completely different issue. If I was a player, I wouldn't simply lie down and give the owners whatever they asked for simply because I cared about the fans, that doesn't make sense. I'd want what is fair.

Are you seriously referencing increased fuel costs and rent as reasons why the players should take less? I'm pretty sure revenues have increased at a much greater rate and pure dollar amount than any costs the owner's need to pay (which would include player salaries). I'm sure the league as a whole made way more this year than they did back in 2005-06. The key issue here is that the revenue growth is being driven by some teams and not others. While costs of every team have gone up, somewhat consistently, the same can't be said for revenues. That issue, is a simple one, and one that points to the teams having to share more revenues, not take money from the players to prop up poorer franchises while making the super rich teams richer....it makes no sense. All that being said, I have no idea what a reasonable sharing percentage is. No one can say 50/50 makes perfect sense unless they are in there and have all the facts, etc. Gary Bettman strongly argued against looking at the NBA and NFL, etc. back in 2005 because those leagues were very different, revenue sources are different, etc. Now, when it helps their argument, they point to the NBA and NFL deals.....very annoying. The most annoying thing of all is the request of roll-backs. The players never should have agreed to it back in 2005, but because they did, the league is pushing for it again and they'll do the same next time around if they agree to it again. I think the most "FAIR" deal is to determine what the fair split is and get to a split the makes sense without immediate roll-backs. The thing that really annoys me is that there were owners out there probably contemplating big signings this summer and the league was whispering in their ear that they will be able to negotiate 10-15% reductions in salaries. So owners go out and spend $100 million on a guy thinking that in the long run it will really only cost $85 million.

I am absolutely shocked at the poll results thus far. I could care less about Bettman. Sure, he's not very likeable, I can't stand the guy, but he really has little impact on me. I'd sign him to a 20 year contract if it meant I could start watching NHL hockey again tomorrow. Would be nice to see a new person come in, but I'd be willing to bet that we would all start to form some hatred for that person as well....maybe a little less so though. I'm not sure it would have a signficant impact on lockouts vs. no lockouts though as that is really the owners decision. I know some will reference the fact that there needs to be 22 votes to overturn vs. what you would expect (15), but I'd bet you'd still seem the signficant power from a signficant vew owners. What I'd be more interested in seeing is a replacement of the chairman of the Board (i.e. get rid of Jacobs).

Personally, I don't like this from him. With the situation we are in, the players need to be unified, you don't want individual players making comments. Hard to control, but from an NHLPA perspective, I'm sure they don't like seeing comments from the players.

Surprised to see Philly on that list. I would have thought Mr. Snider is right up there as one of the hard nosers.

I just don't see the logic in this at all. How would the lockout force out weak franchises? I almost see the opposite as well, the lockout is entirely to help the weak franchises....although I don't see how the NHL's proposals help those franchises other than in the very short term.

I hoped he wouldn't have gone over...being a player rep and all. Most might point to this as being a very bad sign in terms of where the lockout is heading, but I really refuse to believe that anyone really knows where it might head. I think there is a good chance is goes all year, but there is also a good chance it gets resolved in the next little while. You never know what may happen from one day to the next. I hoped Z would have stayed to help the cause. Also a little conflicted as to whether I think it's a good idea for him to play as well (tough call), I can see positives and negatives.

You are only considering 1 year though.

Well, they went a full year last time, which is really concerning to me. I truly do hope they are bluffing, because if they are not, they are just plain stupid + getting bad advice. I understand fighting for principle and if they go so far and "win", it won't be for them, it will be for the next players (but even then, there will be different CBA so it will be a waist anyway). The amount of money they will lose from even sitting out a year will never be recouped.

For the life of me, I'm trying to figure out how you get from what Zetterberg said to him thinking Bettman should be fired. I read it as him talking about Bettman's negotiating style and as long as he is in that role, he expects the same. That to me is just basic logic. Doesn't say anything about whether he thinks he's doing a good job or a bad job.

I can absolutely, without any shred of doubt whatsoever, tell you that it wouldn't have matter at all whether they started negotiating in January or June. Time is not the issue. It takes no time at all to strike a deal. The issue is that no one wants to move off their positions. There is no way that would have happened before a deadline. No one would have lost any money between January and now....the only hope now is that as both sides start losing money, someone will make a move (history has shown that doesn't matter too much though).

Looks like a bit of a shot from Bobby Ryan at the players who decided to go overseas to play. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406772 "I'm going to continue to skate with the guys," Ryan told the New Jersey Courier-Post. "Whether it's coming back here (to South Jersey) for a couple weeks at a time. I think it's important to stay here (in the United States) and be part of the solution and not just run from it."

Totally agree....if they started negotiating in January, we'd be in the same spot now. The reference to January and the league being ready to talk and perhaps things would have been different is total...you know what! With two sides seemingly stubborn to move at all off of their positions, there is no way either side would have before a deadline is reached, why would they? It makes zero sense. I know there are a lot of people out there that says, who knows what could have happened if they had have starting negotitating earlier, maybe they could be playing now, etc. Well, I for one have no problem saying that if they starting talking in January, there is a zero % chance they'd be playing now, not 0.001%, zero!

I have heard some discussing this as being a "screw you" to Bettman.

This is actually more common than you might think.

The difference here is that the starting point (expiring CBA) was 57%. Owners came in with a new offer of 43%. If the NHLPA were to take the same approach, they should have started at 71%, but their initial offer was already a move towards what the owners want.