Who's side are you on?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    [/QUOTE] 


    I've done plenty of research.  The CBA is about making teams profitable.  At 57%, many are not.  The cut of the players needs to come down.  The players are against this, ignoring the fact that many teams are losing money hand over fist in order to pay them.

    The owners want to be profitable.  How is that greedy?

    Your point is taken, but what I see as greedy are the conditions of the only proposal we've seen from the owners so far.  In my opinions, those conditions go too far.  The reason they go too far, is the desire for more money...greed.  Naturally some on the players side are greedy too, but the question of the thread was asking about whose side you take, so I was answering that I find the players proposal more reasonable than the owners, this time around.

    You're right though, I haven't researched it all that thoroughly.  I do think that there are a lot of components to the owners profitability as a franchise.  The CBA is a part of that, but I also think that many owners have managed their businesses very poorly and are losing money because of it.  If we go any farther, we'll into the whole argument of who is to blame for owners bad management, owners or shifty agents, but I just think that the CBA is only a fraction of it.

    The players will need to come down on revenue sharing, no doubt, but I think they will.  I haven't seen any indication that the owners are seeking middle ground on much of anything, so I side with the players, for now.  With better revenues and a better tv deal than they could have expected, you would think a compromise would be reachable.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    NFL:   49% to the players.

    NBA:  51% to the players.

    NHL:  Presently at 57%. 

    The NHL is the least popular and least profitable (I would guess) sport of the big four, yet they allocate more money to their players than others.  The NHL is looking for a more palatable division.  The players are not.

    NFL:  10 year CBA, no opt out for either side

    NBA:  10 year CBA, either can opt out in 2017

    NHL:  Owners asking for six years.  Players want it to be three years.

    Three years?  So we can run this story again?  Give me a break!

     

    NFL Rookie Contracts:  4 years with a team option for the fifth.  Keep in mind an NFL career is a heck of a lot shorter than an NHL career.

    NHL:  Owners want five years.  Players want three.

    Okay, okay.  That's all I'm doing for research on other CBAs and how they compare to the NHL.  I haven't found one thing that the players are being reasonable about.

    Someone help me understand why there is sympathy for the players, who, in my view, are simply asking for the world on everything.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I'm not on either side, but if the players think they are going to fet 50% then there will not be hockey this year. They are not partners, because the owners pay all the bills.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Without the numbers and without a clairvoyant on how to read those numbers, I am dumbfounded.   Yet if I remember the Cap has been beneficial to all.  So why has the landscape changed in 8 years. If this CBA was to be negotiated in 2007 then the reality would change the view.  Given it is 2012 me thinks the owners have a better claim.  Does this mean the players are suffering, nope.  Yet! Does it mean the owners are suffering, well not at the expense of punishing the players!  So I cut to the chase, short term cba with a 50/50 HRR and no escrow, no including the expenses of the AHL, and by all means if the owners want certainity and equal system of pain and success then let the players be as the owners were in Minnesota and be free agents upon the intial years of being drafted.  If the owners is not held accontable for a 14 year contract at 90 million then why restrict the players to sign for what is offered!  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jacobspleasesell. Show jacobspleasesell's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    The problem I have with this whole mess is that 5 years ago the owners (led by our own JJ) held the entire league hostage and completely screwed their loyal fan base by holding out for the current CBA and all the financials that go with it. They got what they wanted, and now 5 years later they are looking to overhaul the whole thing because some of them can't run their businesses properly. If you couldn't turn a profit after 5 years of a deal you fought for then you either don't know how to run the business or you're in a geographic location where it's just never going to work. Either fold the team or move it to where people watch hockey. Or sell to someone who can do it right.

    Knowing that once again Jacobs has his hand in this mess really ticks me off. I was willing to give him a pass after the last stoppage because the Bs annually spent to the cap, either out of a willingness on the part of the new management regime or out of necessity because  Jacobs would have been embarassed not to after he was such a driving force behind the whole cap. If this doesn't get fixed and there is another delayed season it will kill the momentum that has been building in the last few years and the owners will be to blame for it. Real hard to be profitable when there are no games actually being played.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I found a link to help many who are in a quandry on what goes on in a CBA Meeting!

    http://minnesota.sbnation.com/2012/8/29/3275833/nhl-cba-negotiations-meetings
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to jacobspleasesell's comment:


    That was a catchy name a few years ago.  There were bumper stickers that said "Please Sell The Bruins".  I think there was even a website.

    And then the won the Cup.

    And everyone shut up about it.

    Time to retire this account and start another one.  "ThanksForNotSellingJacobs" might be available.

    Unless, of course, you weren't happy when the B's won the Cup because you still felt that Jacobs owning the team was bad for hockey in Boston.  In that case, keep your creative name.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Like I said before, the onwers pay the bills and the players need to realize this. And i dont agree when people suggest without the players there would be no product. Thats only 50% accurate. The players need the owners as well.

    Won't happen, but if the owners get a bigger slice of the pie, I'd really like to see them offer better prices on ticket packages. They (the owners and players) have pretty much priced me out.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to kelvana33s comment:

    Like I said before, the onwers pay the bills and the players need to realize this. And i dont agree when people suggest without the players there would be no product. Thats only 50% accurate. The players need the owners as well.

    Won't happen, but if the owners get a bigger slice of the pie, I'd really like to see them offer better prices on ticket packages. They (the owners and players) have pretty much priced me out.



    If all of the current NHL players decided to to leave the continent and go play in the Japanese league, the next round of players would take their jobs.  Yes, ticket prices would probably have to drop some, but it wouldn't be the end of the league, nor would it be the end of the interest of hockey fans.

    I'm not a Bruins fan because Milan Lucic and Zdeno Chara are Bruins.  In fact, I believe only Bergeron is from before the lockout.  I'm a Bruins fan because I love hockey and I grew up watching the Bruins with my family.

    We've seen some pretty B-A-D Bruins teams over the years.  I didn't stop watching or going to games.  I have paid money and watched Mark Mowers.  I have paid money and watch Zach Hamill.  I paid to see Ben Walter in the shootout and Karsums failing everywhere. 

    My point is that the current players are not the key to the league.  Hockey is. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I'm not really on either side, but I tend to see the owners' side more clearly than the players.  What's Sidney Crosby's value over replacement job?  If they was no pro hockey for Sid the Kid, would he be washing cars?  I'm guessing a sommelier (yeah, it's a whine joke)?  Most of the owners have the money to own teams because they've earned it elsewhere.  There aren't a lot of teams or owners out there in hockey who are goofy rich because of their hockey business.  JJ has made his share, and MLSE always turns a big profit, but there aren't many teams out there that haven't had capital problems at some point.  Snider has buttressed himself with local cable, so he can spend like an idiot.  Illitch like winning enough to forego a new Bugatti every six months.  My point being that the players, by virtue of a skill set that is almost entirely non-transferrable, need the owners to create the environment in which they make crazy cash.

    If the league total income is $126M, that's an average profit of $4M or so per team.  Does it make sense that the ownership of an NHL team should bank about 60% of what Scott Gomez is guaranteed annually despite his lack of production?  If Bettman's right and the average NHL team is worth more than $200M, that's about a 2% return on investment.  Given the insane amount of risk involved to get that 2%, I don't see how the owners are being "greedy" looking for a bigger share given that they're the ones risking existing assets.

    I also disagree that a) the owners got everything they wanted last time and b) the players aren't responsible for any of it - they just take what they're offered and hey, wouldn't you?  The owners wanted and got a cap with roll-backs.  As badly as the PA collapsed, they didn't sign on until the share of revenue was high enough that they could swallow the cap.  They got concessions in average age of RFA and UFA.  They gave back on the assumption this would make the league more profitable, and that their average salaries would grow right back to where they were - and they were right.  The players push for every dollar they can get, and that's fine, but why should they get a pass on responsibility just because the owners eventually have to say yes to someone or not field a competitive team?  The players know the business risk of losing familiar faces or guys who play important roles - or even more important, guys who get the team on NBC more often.  And they take advantage of it.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I'm on the owner's side and here is why.  Originally, I viewed this CBA from 3 perspectives; "rich" owners vs. "poor" owners vs. players.  You would have to think the owners from Nashville have a much different perspective than that of the Flyers BUT not one story has come out from the owners of the "poorer" teams claiming that the problem is between the groups of owners.  If there are stories, please share them...

    Instead, the owners appear united but yet fully aware that there are struggling franchises out there trying to make payroll.   I do not think the Fehr's group would go to the table with an offer unless they had agreement amongst the ownership groups that the "New Deal" would be beneficial to all.  This is why I was not surprised by the initial proposal from the owners.  While most were saying this is posturing or lowballing, I would argue that what they were asking for was much closer to what is necessary (for ALL teams to prosper) than a 50/50 split suggested by others.  

    Until I hear clear outlines from the PA how their offer helps the struggling teams like Phoenix, NYIsle, StL, Fla,  etc..  AND until I hear an admission from player's that 12 year contracts really, truly don't make financial "CENTS", and are ridiculous, in a sport that has a 4-year-career average.  The fact that players want to revisit this "mess" in 3/4 years with what they are proposing, clinches the fact that they do not care about the long term health of the sport and are only looking out for themselves during their own careers.   
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jacobspleasesell. Show jacobspleasesell's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

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

    In response to jacobspleasesell's comment:


    That was a catchy name a few years ago.  There were bumper stickers that said "Please Sell The Bruins".  I think there was even a website.

    And then the won the Cup.

    And everyone shut up about it.

    Time to retire this account and start another one.  "ThanksForNotSellingJacobs" might be available.

    Unless, of course, you weren't happy when the B's won the Cup because you still felt that Jacobs owning the team was bad for hockey in Boston.  In that case, keep your creative name.



    You know, it absolutely breaks my heart that you don't like my screen name, it really does. The Globe doesn't allow for changing, so that's the way it goes. When I started posting here years ago Jacobs was still the worst sports owner in Boston, possibly in the league. I'm glad he finally gave in and spent to the cap that HE designed and HE imposed on the league (yes, it was approved by all involved but he was the driving force behing it) while screwing over the fans for an entire season. No one is happier that they won the Cup than I since I still remember the previous 2 times (pre-Jacobs I might add) and waited most of my life for them to do it again. I'm just hoping that a new agreement can be reached between the players and the owners, who incidentally are led by our beloved Jeremy Jacobs (as the head of the Board of Governors), but thanks for focusing on the important part of my previous post, that being my 6 year old screen name.


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Every time I read this thread, this song gets stuck in my head:

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AI0agUKkQw

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skater68. Show skater68's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Greedy fat cats

    They know that the players have a short window of opportunity to make their career a success and are using that leverage.

    The owners don't necessarily have to make a profit to make money. I would venture to say none of them depend on the team ownership for their livelihood. It's a hobby, sure they want it to be profitable but as I said previously a lot of them use it as a tax write off

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I'm on the players side, but that doesn't mean I feel the owners shouldn't negotiate some things moving forward.
    Many feel the percentages are off(57-43).  None of us know the full details exactly how those numbers are extrapolated, however, most figure something around 50-50 would be fair.  I can't argue that, and I  think the players would sign off there.  That's the big financial hurdle, and if I thought the players would hold out for that...I'd be with the owners.  I have no problem with long contracts at all.  In fact I like the idea of "lifers".  The way contract durations currently circumvent the spirit of the cap needs to be addressed.  The "duration" isn't the problem, it's the annual payout.  I don't see the players having much to say about fixing that.
    The "cap", was a life changing, high water mark in the evolution of pro hockey in North America.  It took a lot of the "business" out of the hockey business, but it not only made the game more financially viable for the owners, it also made the game more competitive.    As a Bruin fan, I think it helped our cause, in that it took the owner right out of the equation.  Not just ours, but the Sniders, and Ilitches too.  We can thank the players, cuz that was totally their concession.
    Surely, we still need some element of "business", or free enterprise in the system somewhere don't we?  Well, I think the owners are currently trying to block this too.  With the cap, any increase in years...to entry level contracts, is merely blocking a player from market value for additional time.  I don't see why that is a good idea, or the neccessity.   In fact it just flies right in the face of anything fair.  Same with UFA privleges.  We have a cap.  Work within those confines.  I don't think the league needs this stuff at all, therefore I'm with the players.
    Arbitration, is another example of pure greed, coupled with unbridled arrogance.  In virtually every segment of Western society, there is some sort of appeal process available to those who feel they may be treated unfairly.  Seems any sense of "entitlement", has woefully gone over to the owners side.  This shouldn't even be on the table.
    The final negotiated revenue percentages will dictate the cap ceiling, and this is perhaps where the crux of my position stands.  The players have no right to expect their millions, and neither do the owners.  There are laws currently, prohibiting players from cashing in on the free market, but none for the owners.  Any argument that the owners "have the right" to make some good bucks too...is seriously flawed.  The only way to ensure that, would be to bring the cap level to the financial wherewithal of the weakest team in the league.  Surely everyone see's the folly in that idea, therefore the league has to figure out some type of corporate welfare system, where the big dogs prop up the underlings.  No matter how "good" things are going, this will alwyas, always be in play.  Doesn't matter where the locations are, how big or small the league becomes...there will always be bottom feeders financially.  The owners need to find a long term plan to deal with this...they can't just keep sloughing it off on the players.
    Basically teams today are on commision.  Not much different than your average car salesman.  the only difference is, that commission is payed to the entire sales staff, then divied up.
    The up side, is that the employer takes on no salary risk.  If there are no sales, the guys don't get paid.  The down side.....is that if things are going really well, the employer is kicking himself thinking he left something on the table.
    Can't have it both ways.
    If revenues had slipped 10% since the last agreement was signed, we'd be looking at a cap for 12/13 of around 35 mil.  I think the owners would have been happy to merely extend the agreement.  I would have been on their side.  If there had been slight growth...I believe the owners would have been happy to extend things as they are.  I'd have stood with them there too.  Therefore there is no element of integrity here.  Just greed.
    Like Bettman, I don't see the game growing like it has over the last few years, so the next cap figure could be the zenith.  It could go down every year just as easily as up.  So, the only reasonable way to peg this thing is a percentage of todays game.  I think 50.5 owners, 49.5 players(under current accounting methods) is fair.  I think the players would accept this, so that's another reason I stand in their corner.
    There is a ton of stuff that needs negotiating, but I don't think much of anything that should warrant a work stoppage.  It's all just fine tuning, and closing loop holes.
    The bar has been set for capped sports leagues.  Around 50% seems to be the number.  The health of struggling teams should not be confused as a player issue.
    So...I'm with the players because I think they'd quickly go along with 49.5%, thus making them the "less greedy".
    If not, I'm with the owners.
    dHow these contracts should be paid is kindergarten stuff, duration isn't an issue.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Some very good points steve, and frankly, I'm learning a lot in this thread.  I can see the arguments on both sides.

    That said, I don't think that calculating the average profit margin of owners tells you anything useful at all, except that owners are more likely to make money than to lose money.  Some teams are very profitable and others are not.  Many owners bought teams that are not profitable due to fanbase, bad leases, bad location, or whatever.  Some are not profitable because of poor management, bad contracts, bad marketing, etc.  To expect the players to consider that the average profit margin for an owner is around 2% and to construct to CBA with that in mind is nonsense.  The players obviously need to give up something here and a more even revenue split is in the cards, but the average profitability of the 30 team owners is well beyond the scope of the players.  The owners thought they had a fair arrangement 5 years ago.  Whether they have made money or not is up to them and depends largely on their own management.  They agreed to a CBA, made their signings, and ran their teams.  No sympathy if in hindsight the profit margin is now deemed to be too narrow for some of them.  Professional sports ownership is a tough business to expect a consistent 15% annual return on your investment.  It's risky, and everyone knows that.  I think owners are entitled to fight for more revenues, but to cry about the average profit margins being below Wall Street yields (barely) on the basis of a CBA that the owners gladly agreed to 5 years ago seems woefully naive. 

    I hope they meet at 50/50 on revenues, but I also hope that the length on contracts does not become too short ("protect us from ourselves!") and the salary cap doesn't dip too low. I don't know where that puts me -- I think it means I'm leaning slightly towards the players.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Fletch, I think what the profit numbers tell you is that the owners in general are not making money hand over fist, and it's as flawed an argument to base perception of the owners' collective state on the 5-6 teams that print their own money (Toronto, Montreal, New York, Boston, Detroit...Philly - notice anything?) as it is to say that everything should dumb down to accommodate Phoenix, Florida and Columbus.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?


    Agreed Book, but I also see the exact counter-argument as having merit.  That the CBA agreement should not have to accomodate the bottom feeders either, some of which have much bigger financial problems than the CBA.  I think that owning a professional hockey team (excluding those listed above) is a terrible investment for a steady, reliable return/profit.  Some owners have bought into unprofitable teams, agreed to the CBA as it stands, and then spent a lot of money.  For them to throw up their hands and say 'where are my profits?' is disingenuous.

    I do see your larger point though and have been swayed somewhat by this thread that the owners are indeed entitled to fight for more.  I hope a 50/50 revenue share meets most of the difference between the two, and we don't get into micro-managing contracts just because the owners have done such a bad job managing them on their own.

    Like I said somewhere earlier, I hate the idea of having to resign Tyler Seguin every four years.  I think you need to retain the option for an owner to lock guys up long term, and then they can sink or swim on the basis of their own decisions (and not blame the CBA if they make the next Yashin signing).
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Wow! I'm glad I started this thread. I have a whole different way of seeing things. Thx everybody for the insights & enlightenments! I need to ask one thing. Haven't the players offered to go lower than the 57% for the 1st 3 yrs & then have it backup to the 57% in the 4th  year? I thought for sure that's what I read. Is that not a compromise & shows a williness to negotiate? 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?


    Agreed Book, but I also see the exact counter-argument as having merit.  That the CBA agreement should not have to accomodate the bottom feeders either, some of which have much bigger financial problems than the CBA.  I think that owning a professional hockey team (excluding those listed above) is a terrible investment for a steady, reliable return/profit.  Some owners have bought into unprofitable teams, agreed to the CBA as it stands, and then spent a lot of money.  For them to throw up their hands and say 'where are my profits?' is disingenuous.

    I do see your larger point though and have been swayed somewhat by this thread that the owners are indeed entitled to fight for more.  I hope a 50/50 revenue share meets most of the difference between the two, and we don't get into micro-managing contracts just because the owners have done such a bad job managing them on their own.

    Like I said somewhere earlier, I hate the idea of having to resign Tyler Seguin every four years.  I think you need to retain the option for an owner to lock guys up long term, and then they can sink or swim on the basis of their own decisions (and not blame the CBA if they make the next Yashin signing).

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry Book, I realize upon reading more carefully that my first sentence is redundant of what you were saying, but I can't edit it now...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Yeah, and I'm not in favour of owners returning to the days of Wirtz Sr. and Harold Ballard carrying grudges against players and trying to ruin them financially, nor do I think owners and GMs should be completely insulated from their own stupidity.  But there is a point where the players need to see their interests.  There are probably 25 NHL salaries for every team in the NHL if you include buy-outs and demotions and LTIR, so creating a system where teams are viable in weaker markets, especially if there are no obvious better markets, is in the best interests of the union. 

    A 30 team NHL also dilutes the talent pool, especially at the high end, and, as we've discussed before on this board, some guys see their stats go up because, hey, someone has to score for a bad team and players who would have been 3rd liners in a talent pool the same size as the one 25 years ago are now 1st liners playing 1:20 of each PP.  Given the role of stats comparisons in arbitration and negotiation, diluting the talent escalates the salaries of these players. 

    Add that a lot of these new teams struggle to make money because, unlike the Bruins or the Rangers, they had to borrow buttloads of money to build or refurbish arenas in areas where the facilities didn't exist, and in some cases borrow even more because they were willing to take a loss on hockey in order to build a profitable business around the buildin.  These were multi-million dollar business risks that they owners took and without which there would be fewer jobs and more of a buyers market for NHL talent.  Debt service doesn't come off of the revenue projections.

    I don't think there are many Mark Cubans in the NHL.  Most of these franchises need to be businesses first and hobbies last, so profitability is hardly an afterthought.  At very least, I think the owners' argument that franchises should be able to turn a profit and the players' argument that, in the end, they only sign the contracts they're offered come from the same "it's a business" foundation and should be weighted equally.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I'm not a huge supporter of either side, as I don't think any of the three proposals that have come forward so far by themslves address the major issue at play - the NHL,. as it is, is a terrible business model.

    Overall revenues are strong, record setting actually, but only 13 teams had a positive operating income last year (aka profit). As one may expect, those were the Original Six teams, the other 5 Canadian teams, as well as the Avs and Flyers. The remainder suffered losses.

    In a model where expenses are tied to revenues, rather than profitability, and with the BOG having done a poor job over the years of properly vetting ownership groups and doing market analysis prior to exapnsion or relocation, overall franchise health is simply not attainable.

    The best scenario would be a compromise, not on the level of a 50/50 split, but accepting the base proposals by both sides. If they decrease what is considered to be HRR, and share 50/50 as the owners suggest (with a decrease in HRR bringing that percentage to actually 46 per cent under current standards) and couple that with MAJOR increase in revenue sharing, then the league can be more equally viable.

    This change in HRR and percentage would take the number of teams with positive operating incomes from 13 to 21, with revenue sharing making an additional 5 teams stable.

    If they were to put a model like this in place, and then promptly relocate struggling teams to stronger markets (the four not made stable by these changes, who are the usual suspects) thereby increasing the revenue sharing pool and reducing the number of teams requiring it, then NHL financial sustainability would follow.

    Unfortunately, this is not going to happen.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?


    Profit numbers tell us nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There are 30 teams in the league, and 30 different measurements for the term "profitability".  Most large businesses are made up of a few smaller ones, and overall "real" profit is moved around within them.  This is strictly smoke and mirrors from the league. 
    By the leagues own accounting, revenues are up a ton.  We know that, and that's all that is really important.  Bringing additional stuff in, like profitability, just convolutes the real issue.  
    The PA, it should be pointed out, are playing the same stupid game painting a picture with imaginary growth projections.
    A percentage, is a percentage, is a percentage, and it shouldn't have to be re-negotiated every 4 or 5 years, simply, because it always stays constant.  The precedent seems to be around 50%, so it can't move too far from there.  If it does, professional hockey as we know it here, will implode.  We'll have another long term lock out followed by some kind of WHA upstart,   migration to the KHL, or both.  Whether that's successful long term is immaterial.  The fact is, the product goes to hell in the meantime. 
    I think the players would quickly agree to that 50ish % split.  Everything else is just detail.
    I don't think even the fiercest PA supporters suggest the owners have nothing to negotiate, but are primarily miffed at the tire iron up side the head, delivered by the owners to start the negotiations.
    NAS makes a point that I feel mirrors those of many in the pro owners camp.  "The players are asking for the world on everything".
    It's easy to come to that conclusion, but that statement couldn't be more incorrect.  The players are asking for very little.  The owners are making all the demands.
    And...for all of you who stand with the owners, what happens to our Bruins with a 50 something mil ceiling?


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    steve, ask the tax payers of Glendale who have shelled out $50 million in two years to the NHL if profits tell them absolutely nothing.
     

Share