I hate to bring in other sports but look at the MLB, european soccer or some other non cap leagues they are all doing extremely well without work stoppages every 5 years.
The NHL will always ask and try different things in order to help very questionable markets, the truth of the matter is there are always going to be huge differences in terms of fanbase, revenue and the amount of $ a team can charge for tickets. I mean, after all this league has 30 teams and each team should be responsible for themselves. Decertification would also lead to finally seeing Bettman canned, without draf t, CBA, rights and whatsoever there really is no need for a commissioner and yes without the NHLPA Fehr would be gone too.
Owners would then compete with money, rights and nice clauses for the top players and even decent ones would get very good jobs, sure some teams would relocate or fold but thats part of the business.
Well...not entirely true. Most 'top' teams are in great debt. Most owners invest hundereds of millions in players, once an owner leaves...no more team. The problem in European soccer is that the FIFA and UEFA do not have the balls to stand up to the teams with great debts.
Would any of you walk up to a player on the street and demand that they give you $1 million, or $23 million from an owner, or half that from one of each? Would you label them greedy bastards if they refused? Aren't we as fans being just as greedy in demanding to be entertained regardless of what either side would have to give up? Their greed doesn't bother me in the slightest. I only expect them to be reasonable, and for owners to take some responsibility for their poor business decisions and lack of foresight.
In my opinion, the players are not reasonable if they refuse to take a paycut. In my opinion, the owners are irresponsible if they refuse to take action against/for the losing teams.
In my opinion, the players should be open for taking a paycut to get to a 50/50 split of revenue. In my opinion, the owners should be open to increase revenue sharing and/or relocating teams to big markets.
The players gave ground temporarily, but not permanently. Why can't they meet in the middle at 52-48? If the league would have stepped forward and put an offer on the table for 5 years at that figure, then I would believe you. A temporary rollback in year 1, with percentages climbing through year 2 and back up to where we are today at year 3 is a concession, but its not a big one. The greed on the owners side is well known, but the players have to be held to a standard as well. A temporary rollback is not the solution. You make it sound like the players gave a lot of concessions, but in reality, they really threw the ownership a small treat and nothing more.
You and I both agree that two rational parties could have had a CBA hammered out in 2-4 hours. Fehr and Bettman are not rational though.
I concur 100%. Making a deal should not be that hard if both parties would look for a solution which is in the best interest of the league and not in the best interest of the owners or the players.
A new league would still run into the same issues as this one, I think. Ultimately, the only people who can afford to own teams are of the super rich variety, and it takes a certain mindset to get that far financially. I don't think it is realistic to have owners who participate in a professional hockey league mostly for the good of the community or for fun, and not primarily from a business standpoint. Consequently, I expect the owners of the new league to lock out the players in much the same way that Illitch and the current 29 owners have, based on differences in perceived potential earnings.
I agree...a brand new league will face the same problems in the future. As long as the players have a saying in how much their employers are required to pay their employees these things will happen!
I think this player is as fed up with the BS dwarfish commissioner as everyone else and maybe just maybe he has to pay some bills, family and you know like to be able to pay them? Guys like us are playing hockey for fun, enjoyment these guys are professional athletes hockey is their job.
Thinking the fact that some players are going hardball is a good sign, last timel they gave too much they won't do so again and even the dumbest owner should know a league without all the stars will never be the same.
And they can't support their family with let's say a paycheck worth of the league minimum ($500K a year)? Hell even I can support my family with 10% of that!
I can understand it is a principle matter, but the players should never play the victim card. They should be lucky they're getting paid multiple millions a year just to play some game where even when they play horrible all season they still get paid fath checks. There are doctors/surgeons out there who save people's lifes every day (sometimes they have to be in surgery 18 hours straight!)where they can not make a mistake without costing someone's life and they do not get paid like $6M a year!
Not saying that I am siding with the owners...a lockout is at fault of all parties involved!
This morning, TSN's Darren Dreger said a "big-name" player said (paraphrasing): "I'd rather leave the game than give back more like we did the last time". The Board of Governors will also meet today, voting on Uncle Gary's desire the lockout; speculation on TSN showed voting could be as high as unanimous and as low as 25-5.
To me it sounds like that player plays hockey for the money and not for the love of the game. It's a shame!
They should allow an audience at that meeting and to be aired live, so everyone can yell "booooooo" once an owner votes for a lockout.
Hockey players and owners are "normal" people that are just more successful fiscally than you (and I). Good for them, it's free market economics at work. These posts harping on the amount of money being made reek of jealousy and class envy. Let's be happy that players get payed well in the NHL; it's a big that reason that many of them are in this league... and you get to enjoy watching them.
I don't care that a player makes 4 million a year, but what bothers me is that they won't settle for 3.7 million. Which is still a huge amount to get paid for playing your favorite sport.
Maybe I am looking it the wrong way, but this is what I think.
Revenue have been almost doubled since 2004, which means salaries have been doubled (100% increase).
My personal salary have been increased around 15% during the same period.
Is it really too much to ask that players give up a few percent on their annual multiple million dollar contracts?
And they even get paid to have one of the greatest jobs in the world...playing your favorite sport!
If there is a lockout:
Owners: would not care, since they won't have to pay salaries.
Players: would not care, since they go play in Europe.
Fans: would be pissed off, well atleast I am!!!
On a sidenote...actually the fans are (directly or indirectly) paying the owners and players so they should be #1 priority (this is why I will blame both parties incase a lockout occurs, since neither put the fans at #1)!!!
The latest proposal of the owners sounds like they gave in significantly in regards to their first proposal (from 43% to 50%). With the NHLPA set at keeping the 57% they need to drop significantly as well.
The revenue regarding hockey-related and non-hockey-related income was negotiable according to both sides if I remember correctly.
I just don't see how teams can get under the cap without a rollback but to send players to the AHL. However players would still be guaranteed their original salary which I think is important to the NHLPA.
I guess the salary cap is negotiable when the NHLPA is willing to drop from their 57%...???
And for the record...both proposals from the NHL and NHLPA does not solve the problem regarding revenue sharing amongst teams.
Just don't count on getting my sympathy vote when players reject to take a 7% drop in salary in the NHL, but still go play in Europe for a small percentage of their NHL salary.
Winning the series in 7 games: $1
Winning the series in 6 games: $3
Winning the series in 5 games: $6
Winning the series in 4 games: $10
Winning the series in 7 games: $3
Winning the series in 6 games: $6
Winning the series in 5 games: $10
Winning the series in 4 games: $15
Winning the series in 7 games: $6
Winning the series in 6 games: $10
Winning the series in 5 games: $15
Winning the series in 4 games: $21
Winning the series in 7 games: $10
Winning the series in 6 games: $15
Winning the series in 5 games: $21
Winning the series in 4 games: $28
When winning the cup:
$1 per goal for the total play-off goal difference (goals for minus goals against)
$5 per shutout for the total play-off shutout difference (shutouts for minus shutouts against)
$2 per shorthanded goal for the total play-off shorthanded goals difference (shorthanded goals for minus shorthanded goals against)
$1 per point gained extra above 99 points in the regular season (so including the 100th point) --> so this would be a $3 bonus (102 minus 99).