In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

Supply and demand is why. Suggesting players should just take what they can get would be better suited for a communist society. I don't know why you have problems with the players because all they've done is sign the deals that were offered to them. It's not like they're asking for more.it seems most players just want what was agreed to.

In response to dezaruchi's comment:

Yea I don't understand NAS's issue with what the players get either. I think the owners deserve any profits that they get. The bottom line is it's the players that make that happen. Yes, the owners take all the risk, but if the players don't perform, or entertain, the fans don't come out & then the owners are stuck being in the red. I'm not saying the players are more important than the owners. I think both sides need each other, but to continue to curse & be jealous of the players, because they make millions is rather childish. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2012/10/18/nhl-talks-advance/1641645/

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2012-10-18/nhl-lockout-news-2012-sidney-crosby-cba-negotiations-hockey-strike-schedule?modid=recommended_2_5

 

Glad there is a quick counter (curious to see what it is), keep things moving. Hopefully it is reasonable so I can keep my fingers crossed. There has to be a midaway point at which the players can agree on "presumed/predicted HRR revenues" during the 3rd, 4th and 5th years of the new CBA. 

 

It's more complicated than "supply and demand".  Arbitration, comparables, and even the salary floor artificially inflate salaries above the level of 'supply and demand'.  Then there's the artificial bump from the threat of losing sunk costs in a player's development when or if he leaves as an RFA.  Teams making offers will inflate the price in order to discourage a match - by definition, you pay significantly more than the asset is worth as a way of discouraging a match.  Teams will match anyway because the costs already sunk into a player you've planned to have as a key part of your team, and of finding a way to replace that player, are now added to the value of the player's talents.  So Dustin Penner's salary shoots up and becomes the new benchmark in arbitration for inconsistent, often lazy "power forwards".  "My guy put up comparable numbers to Penner!"  "Your guy doesn't work hard enough for teh at kind of money."  "And Penner does?!!?!"

The real supply and demand question is about the HRR.  They'll keep raising ticket prices as long as the building is full.  As long as revenue grows, the players will push for more.

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

Sorry Book but supply and demand works fine for me. Free agent bidding wars happen simply because the demand for talent outweighs the perceived supply.

Looks like NHLPA countered with 3 different offers according to Pierre Mcguire on Twitter. 

Couple of thoughts here:

1.  Bettman says the offer the NHL proposed was 'fair and balanced for the players'.  Fair would be for the NHL to honor the contracts they handed out instead of the 'Make Whole' bs they are proposing.  Balanced would be to give the players the opportunity to seek the best deal available without restrictions on terms and free agency - read that as the NHL should offer balanced contracts rather than throwing money at players and complaining that they take it.  Obvious I know, but do they really feel that it's fair?

2.  Fact check - The owners are business people and the players are the workers.  The owners will NEVER accept any deal that is proposed by the players.  Players, don't insult your the owners by telling them how to run their business.  If your business model was that good you wouldn't NEED owners.  Please use the owners deal as framework because that is the only way any of us is getting any NHL Hockey around here.  

Bettman says the players proposals were a step back and they are not even speaking the same language. This is not good. Im thinking public opinion may shift to favour owners after this.

In response to Rufus604's comment:

Not good, when the owners made their proposal I was very hopeful. I also don't think either of them really care what publlic opinion is at this point. I know the owners made their last proposal public, but I think that was geared more towards the players being able to view it themselves instead of Fehr giving them his interpretation of it.

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

 

The underlined is pretty much in play for every business in the hemisphere.  Why should sports team owners get a pass from reality.  There are also examples right in front of us, where teams figured out that there is much more to running a successful sports business than simply being "the highest bidder".  It's no guarantee of success, never has been, and probably never will be.  I agree with your inference about arbitration, but feel the problem is not the process, but the aptitude of the decision makers.   Work on the judgement factor....get smarter   

Yes, they "will" keep raising ticket prices, and that's where I run out of sympathy for the league.  They want what they spend capped....but not what I spend.  How come the the players can't get paid market value, but I get charged it.  With a 30 million cap, prices will still skyrocket if there's a sold out rink.  When ticket and beer prices get capped, my stance will soften a bit.

And....... revenues "have" increased dramatically, the players have not asked for more.

In response to Rufus604's comment:

who didn't see that coming after Bettman stated that the owners proposal was their "best shot"....

and does it really matter who the fans side with?....

 

 

 and does it really matter who the fans side with?....

[/QUOTE]

not to beat a dead horse...but I think it does, with both sides, but especially with the league.  If they feel we're on their side.. they feel less doubt anything negative happens at the revenue trough when this thing shakes out.  Regardless how believable anyones anger is...a happy customer is always preferred over an unhappy one.

I strongly feel perception matters a ton, because the league will weigh that against spending habits.

Just put us out of our misery and cancel the whole season. All this false hope is frustrating.

I don't think this is just a set back. All that optimism about them talking all along instead of waiting 3 months to do so like in 05; is now gone! Fehr is now Goodenow & Bettman is Bettman. Sounds like they're not even in the same time zone. The real bad part about this is that in 05' the players had mixed feelings about wanting to settle or not. There was a lot of fighting amongs themselves. This time they all sound fine with sitting it out. In other words..They sound a lot more "Unionized" this time around. 

I wonder how a guy like Cam Neely feels about this. I mean he's now been through both sides of it. A strike & a lock out. Really would be interesting to see what his thought process is. And please nobody try to speak for Cam, because nobody but he can answer for him. I was just typing out loud. 

In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

A bunch of entitled millionaires & "unionized" just don't seem to fit well together.

 

I wonder how a guy like Cam Neely feels about this. I mean he's now been through both sides of it. A strike & a lock out. Really would be interesting to see what his thought process is. And please nobody try to speak for Cam, because nobody but he can answer for him. I was just typing out loud. 

[/QUOTE]

be surprised if Cam would dare speak up for Cam.

In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

I'm jealous of them?  I don't think so.  Hey, we'd all like to be making millions of dollars a year but I don't think I'm jealous of them.  I'm also not jealous of the King of (Fill In Oil Country). 

I see guys who are making millions of dollars refusing to play because they might make a little less money.  Big whoop!  Be happy that you are a professional hockey player!  Unless he has been just brutally awful with his money or is a rookie/second year guy, almost all of them should be set for life anyway. 

Get back on the ice.  The entitlement is amazing. 

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

Why not?

Unique skills in a very dangerous environment

I think many NHL players are intelligent enough to own and manage NHL teams if they were so inclined and had the capital.

 

How many owners could step onto the ice and play at the NHL level

 

 

In response to skater68's comment:

Like Phil Espo & Milbury right?

In response to skater68's comment:

I think if the players had the choice to be an NHL player or an owner worth whatever the owners are worth they would choose the latter. Either way it's a sweet life, but I'm not so sure it's as easy to become as rich and business savvy as you might think.

In response to skater68's comment:

Based on what?  Most of them don't even have a good high school education.

 

 

[/QUOTE]

Based on what?  Most of them don't even have a good high school education.

 

[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on ones point of view, the marketplace is littered with very successful  businesses, owned or run by those with high school or less.

Hey..  did anyone else notice that Fehr is saying, publicly I might add, that their 50/50 split (of the 3 new ones) offer was a "new idea, so we haven't run the numbers"?

Are they serious?   All this time of not making a proposal... the NHL puts at least a "better" offer than they originally started with on the table (even if it's far from perfect, it was definitely better)... the NHLPA comes back and puts an offer up that they haven't even bothered to run the numbers on???

Sorry... but that is absolutely ridiculous. 

I realize there are other issues than revenue, but for Fehr to respond the way he did to a 50/50 proposal, which I think is more than fair, I'm thinking we won't have hockey at all.