102 replies to this topic

[up2here]

Devallano was trying to portray Bettman and the owners as good and right for locking out the players (and fans) and he is wrong.
Players portray Bettman and the owners as being bad and wrong for locking out the players (and fans) and they are right

Why are the owners wrong for not wanting 18 of their franchises to lose money? We can blame the owners of those teams for handing out huge stupid contracts (And I really do) but in the end it has to be fixed or the league will lose franchises which in turn equals less revenue, less jobs for players and no big TV conract.

This is why this lock-out makes me so mad. The owners were stupid and the players are greedy and have lost touch with reality.

Edited by UP2HERE, 11 October 2012 - 11:28 AM.

[chances14]

i have to agree that i think the players should keep their mouths shut, just like the owners should and have.

nothing good comes from either the players or owners bashing each other through the public. i don't know about anyone else but i am tired of going to mlive and every day it seems there's a new article with zetterberg quotes criticzing the league and the owners. we get it, you don't like or agree with the owners. repeating it dozens of times to the media isn't going to solve anything.

[frankgrimes]

i have to agree that i think the players should keep their mouths shut, just like the owners should and have.

nothing good comes from either the players or owners bashing each other through the public. i don't know about anyone else but i am tired of going to mlive and every day it seems there's a new article with zetterberg quotes criticzing the league and the owners. we get it, you don't like or agree with the owners. repeating it dozens of times to the media isn't going to solve anything.

Don't read it then? The difference between Jim Devellanos comments and the ones from Crosby, Toews, Zetterberg and Bryzgalov is this:

The players are rightfully critisizing a man, who is responsible for failed franchises, 3 lockouts Jim D throwed the players including his own ones under the bus, while portraying the greedy owners and midget as the good guys here.

I also disagree that this needs to be fixed, teams gave out contracts they cant afford so either they'll find a way to survive or go under. Nobody is helping family companies in the real world, when they are about to get bought up by some big greedy monopolistic global players and some guys are telling me I should feel sorry for billionaires who can't run their own franchise without revenue sharing? Screw that, I'd rather have a 25, 20 15 or whatever teams NHL without a lockout every 5 years.

[Buppy]

Why are the owners wrong for not wanting 18 of their franchises to lose money? We can blame the owners of those teams for handing out huge stupid contracts (And I really do) but in the end it has to be fixed or the league will lose franchises which in turn equals less revenue, less jobs for players and no big TV conract.

This is why this lock-out makes me so mad. The owners were stupid and the players are greedy and have lost touch with reality.

They're wrong because the solution to a problem they created shouldn't be to force someone else to solve it for them. They sure as hell shouldn't be looking to that solution for the second time in eight years. It's time for the owners to look at trying something other than taking money away from players.

The problem isn't how much is being spent on players, it's mostly who's spending it. Owner's need to take responsibility for their poor decisions. Also, either there's not enough revenue sharing, or the payroll range is too narrow. The owners need to address one or the other.

The top owners will likely lose around $300M if we lose the whole season. If instead they were to take half of that to help the teams that are struggling, we could get through this season. Then the next season, between the combination of revenue growth and lower salary commitments on existing contracts the player's share is lowered without requiring a rollback or escrow. Do that for a few years, and the share eventually gets down to a number the owners are more comfortable with. Combine that with increased revenue sharing or a wider range, and telling dumb owners there will be no more bailouts, and maybe we'll get the right teams spending the money and we won't need another lockout for the next CBA.

But what the owners want is to beat down the players again, the top teams will lose their $300M, the other teams will still lose just as much or more than they would playing the season, the fans lose, the league loses future revenue, and even if the owners get what they want the same thing is likely to happen again in the future, because it reinforces the owner's mentality that they can correct any stupidity on their part by taking back from the players.

[esteef]

The players are rightfully critisizing a man, who is responsible for failed franchises, 3 lockouts Jim D throwed the players including his own ones under the bus, while portraying the greedy owners and midget as the good guys here.

Translation: I agree with the players so they are right and should keep talking.

esteef

[chances14]

Don't read it then? The difference between Jim Devellanos comments and the ones from Crosby, Toews, Zetterberg and Bryzgalov is this:

The players are rightfully critisizing a man, who is responsible for failed franchises, 3 lockouts Jim D throwed the players including his own ones under the bus, while portraying the greedy owners and midget as the good guys here.

I also disagree that this needs to be fixed, teams gave out contracts they cant afford so either they'll find a way to survive or go under. Nobody is helping family companies in the real world, when they are about to get bought up by some big greedy monopolistic global players and some guys are telling me I should feel sorry for billionaires who can't run their own franchise without revenue sharing? Screw that, I'd rather have a 25, 20 15 or whatever teams NHL without a lockout every 5 years.

it's not about me reading the comments.

tell me, what good can possibly come from the both sides arguing with each other through the media about who is right or who is wrong?

Translation: I agree with the players so they are right and should keep talking.

esteef

bingo

[up2here]

They're wrong because the solution to a problem they created shouldn't be to force someone else to solve it for them. They sure as hell shouldn't be looking to that solution for the second time in eight years. It's time for the owners to look at trying something other than taking money away from players.

The problem isn't how much is being spent on players, it's mostly who's spending it. Owner's need to take responsibility for their poor decisions. Also, either there's not enough revenue sharing, or the payroll range is too narrow. The owners need to address one or the other.

The top owners will likely lose around $300M if we lose the whole season. If instead they were to take half of that to help the teams that are struggling, we could get through this season. Then the next season, between the combination of revenue growth and lower salary commitments on existing contracts the player's share is lowered without requiring a rollback or escrow. Do that for a few years, and the share eventually gets down to a number the owners are more comfortable with. Combine that with increased revenue sharing or a wider range, and telling dumb owners there will be no more bailouts, and maybe we'll get the right teams spending the money and we won't need another lockout for the next CBA.

But what the owners want is to beat down the players again, the top teams will lose their $300M, the other teams will still lose just as much or more than they would playing the season, the fans lose, the league loses future revenue, and even if the owners get what they want the same thing is likely to happen again in the future, because it reinforces the owner's mentality that they can correct any stupidity on their part by taking back from the players.

The CBA expired, so both sides have every right to do a different deal. The players obviously want the current deal extended, the owners dont. I dont agree with what they are doing but i understand why. I fail to see hows thats wrong of them.

If the league loses franchises everyone loses. There will be no big TV deal in the US without Southern teams and California teams.

[Buppy]

The CBA expired, so both sides have every right to do a different deal. The players obviously want the current deal extended, the owners dont. I dont agree with what they are doing but i understand why. I fail to see hows thats wrong of them.

If the league loses franchises everyone loses. There will be no big TV deal in the US without Southern teams and California teams.

And I fail to see how that relates to anything in my post.

[up2here]

And I fail to see how that relates to anything in my post.

You said "They're wrong because the solution to a problem they created shouldn't be to force someone else to solve it for them. They sure as hell shouldn't be looking to that solution for the second time in eight years.."

I'm saying its not wrong because the cba expired so everything is back on the table.They have every right to try to get a better deal especially if they have teams losing money. Its their own fault theyre in the mess but that doesnt make it wrong that they want to negotiate a new deal. If the players felt slighted you can be sure they would have wanted a new deal whether it was their fault or not.

[Buppy]

You said "They're wrong because the solution to a problem they created shouldn't be to force someone else to solve it for them. They sure as hell shouldn't be looking to that solution for the second time in eight years.."

I'm saying its not wrong because the cba expired so everything is back on the table.They have every right to try to get a better deal especially if they have teams losing money. Its their own fault theyre in the mess but that doesnt make it wrong that they want to negotiate a new deal. If the players felt slighted you can be sure they would have wanted a new deal whether it was their fault or not.

My post wasn't about negotiating a new deal or not, it was about the specifics of what the owners were asking for. How they were trying to solve their issues, not that they were.

[Johnz96]

How would Bettman like it the owners were to renege on his paychecks (which are much bigger than most of the players' paychecks)?

Edited by Johnz96, 23 October 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[Kronstantinov]

They're wrong because the solution to a problem they created shouldn't be to force someone else to solve it for them. They sure as hell shouldn't be looking to that solution for the second time in eight years. It's time for the owners to look at trying something other than taking money away from players.

The problem isn't how much is being spent on players, it's mostly who's spending it. Owner's need to take responsibility for their poor decisions. Also, either there's not enough revenue sharing, or the payroll range is too narrow. The owners need to address one or the other.

The top owners will likely lose around $300M if we lose the whole season. If instead they were to take half of that to help the teams that are struggling, we could get through this season. Then the next season, between the combination of revenue growth and lower salary commitments on existing contracts the player's share is lowered without requiring a rollback or escrow. Do that for a few years, and the share eventually gets down to a number the owners are more comfortable with. Combine that with increased revenue sharing or a wider range, and telling dumb owners there will be no more bailouts, and maybe we'll get the right teams spending the money and we won't need another lockout for the next CBA.

But what the owners want is to beat down the players again, the top teams will lose their $300M, the other teams will still lose just as much or more than they would playing the season, the fans lose, the league loses future revenue, and even if the owners get what they want the same thing is likely to happen again in the future, because it reinforces the owner's mentality that they can correct any stupidity on their part by taking back from the players.

by locking them (and the fans) out

[Hockeytown0001]

I agree with Z.

[frankgrimes]

I agree with Z.

Always liked him although more of an introverted guy, so it should tell everyone something when guys like him are telling the media how pissed they are and rightfully so.

[hillbillywingsfan]

Always liked him although more of an introverted guy, so it should tell everyone something when guys like him are telling the media how pissed they are and rightfully so.

I felt the same way about Jimmy Devellano.

Edited by hillbillywingsfan, 29 October 2012 - 09:13 AM.

[sleepwalker]

I felt the same way about Jimmy Devellano.

What Devallano did was completely retarded. This whole lockout is about the owners claiming they are poor and need more money, and Devallano goes off on his rant anyway knowing damn well it was going to cost the Wings organization a ton of money in fines. What an idiot. Devallano has been worse to Illitch thus far in the lockout than the union has. One dumb comment by Devallano, and it cost Illitch a $250,000 fine.

Edited by sleepwalker, 29 October 2012 - 11:28 AM.

[hillbillywingsfan]

What Devallano did was completely retarded. This whole lockout is about the owners claiming they are poor and need more money, and Devallano goes off on his rant anyway knowing damn well it was going to cost the Wings organization a ton of money in fines. What an idiot. Devallano has been worse to Illitch thus far in the lockout than the union has. One dumb comment by Devallano, and it cost Illitch a $250,000 fine.

And talking out of turn like a bunch of spoiled brats makes the players look like how? So the players can talk all they want without any fines but the owners need to shut up if not get fined......This same kind of 1 sided thinking is why we are here.

[haroldsnepsts]

And talking out of turn like a bunch of spoiled brats makes the players look like how? So the players can talk all they want without any fines but the owners need to shut up if not get fined......This same kind of 1 sided thinking is why we are here.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly.

It's Bettman who imposed the gag order on owners and management. He put the rule in place so he can fine franchises up to $1 million for speaking out of turn. That's all the league's own doing.

[sleepwalker]

And talking out of turn like a bunch of spoiled brats makes the players look like how? So the players can talk all they want without any fines but the owners need to shut up if not get fined......This same kind of 1 sided thinking is why we are here.

Why are you complaining to me about it? I didn't make the rules. Bettman put that rule in place, so blame him if you don't like it.

Edited by sleepwalker, 29 October 2012 - 12:02 PM.

[chances14]

I'm not sure what your point is exactly.

It's Bettman who imposed the gag order on owners and management. He put the rule in place so he can fine franchises up to $1 million for speaking out of turn. That's all the league's own doing.

i don't understand why bettman has imposed a gag order on owners while fehr has let the players say anything they want.

is it because bettman is worried that some of the owners would come out and criticize bettman and the owners for the lockout showing weakness among the bog?