I believe that financially, things change so a new CBA should be negotiated every 5 years or so. Lets get that out of the way first.
I believe the players should have to give up a little for various reasons. The cost to operate a club has went up, rent, fuel charges, team personnel, and so on. I don't know what it takes to run an NHL team in terms of cash, but these costs alone are worth a little bit at least. As clearly pointed out in Forbes, many teams are not making a profit right now, which means the most profitable ones are carrying the entire league. Lastly, I look at other leagues and the split in each league. For example, the NFL and NBA the split is close to 50-50 with the league. I believe an even split is quite equitable.
I agree. Costs went up, but so did profits, so that's something to take into account as well.
I can see your point though in that the players should not have to relinquish any share of the revenues for the mistakes of the NHL or management of the teams. At the same time, there are other factors which can easily make the CBA sway 2-3% back from the players to the owners.
I guess the way I see it is: if my company's business was booming and they agree to pay me $100K in annual salary, but the next few years encompassed the company making bad business decisions like opening up new franchises in bad locations and thus they wanted to lower employee salaries to compensate for these financial losses and try to save them; I wouldn't be so willing. On the flip side, knowing that I was making more money working for this company than I could at any comparable one, and it's the most reputable one on top of that, I might be willing to take a little pay cut to keep my position and pay. Then again, I might get pissed off and quit and while I might not make as much somewhere else, my former employer still lost my talent; however valuable that may be.
My stance is what it has always has been. Both sides have not been willing or able to move from what they have wanted. The owners want too much, the players won't give up very much.
Without taking sides: why do you believe the players should give up anything at all? Why are the owners entitled to anymore than they already get? This was their dream CBA 7 years ago after all. From the beginning of this CBA negotiation, the owners never risked losing anything, only something to gain. There was never the risk of the owners percentage being lowered.
So...you're offended by someone else's heritage, which was publicly displayed on a feed you chose to follow, so in turn you throw every insult you can his way and then go and post the same exact picture which you were offended by on another public forum?
Another thing to consider is the last lockout. Take a guess on how many things that the owners asked for in their initial proposal actually showed up in the final copy that both sides drafted after a season was lost.
Without a union, there would be no lockout. Without a union, there wouldn't have been the need to negotiate a salary cap... and therefore there wouldn't have been a lockout last time.
Without a league, there would be no lockout. What's your point?
The salary cap was instituted to protect the owners from themselves, because they demonstrated they cannot control their spending. Do you believe the PA proposed the salary cap last time which led to a lockout? The cap is not the reason for this lockout, and the salary cap isn't even the core of the negotiations. They're negotiating the definition of HRR and how that revenue will be split between the owners and players. If in any way shape or form the salary cap relates to overspending, it's the cap floor, and some franchises trying to reach the floor will spend more than a player is worth in the process, thus inflating salaries.
I'm beginning to think you're not familiar with the core issues about the league, PA, or CBA at all. You just seem to be bashing the PA without any apparent base.
A relationship expert would tell you that if she cheats on you and you stay with her, you lose all her respect. And this Bettman/NHL ***** has already cheated on you 3 times now. It's time to end the relationship.
You know what was weird. I turned on the TV yesterday and there was this game on where a bunch of guys ran around in the grass playing catch and hugging up on each other. I thought they called it foosball? I don't know, it was rather weird, but without a hockey game to turn to, I just kept watching.
You've got it wrong. Zetterberg's locker was placed next to Yzerman's in 2005. As such, no indication of the type you're suggesting exists.
You quoted me before I could change that up...but I know it was some kind of locker stall thing they do to put these future leaders next to current leaders. Fil was mentioned in that regard. Not only that, but his name came out of Lidstrom's mouth when asked about a replacement captain. I think that is enough to give merit to.