NHL lockout?

[butcher99]

The players want a fix to the problem with teams in poor markets..

The players want to do that? That's why they turned down a 50/50 split of revenue? The players want to do the exact opposite. They don't want to give up any of there money. The owners realized they screwed up by giving the players too much money and now they want to lower the players pay roll, but the players want to keep all there money. My thoughts on this is the players make enough money they can give up some of theirs. "Oh no instead of making $10 mil I will only make $7 mil. How will I ever support my family now?"

It was not a 50/50 split. It was the same thing that was offered before but with how the money was paid moved around. How many of the players make $10,million a year? How many make minimum.
Perhaps you should ask yourself about the owners. Why should the owner have to take a cut from 40,000,000-80,000,000 a year down to 35,000,000 to 75,000,000? a year. Have you taken a look at what the owners make a year? No one is saying that the players do not make a lot of money.
If all star hockey players were as easy to find as carpenters or plumbers they would be paid the same. Problem is most of those carpenters and plumbers can play hockey, they just are not all stars.
Why should the players be responsible for protecting the owners best interests from the owners?
LIke I said in my post. The players want the league to pay attention to the teams that are costing the players millions of dollars a year in lost revenue. Every money losing team costs the players money. The problem is it costs all the players money and mostly only the team owner. There needs to be some mechanism in play that punishes the owner who pays a borderline star $100,000,000 that does not not penalize the players. If like they do in baseball they owner was fined and that money went to the poor team instead of after revenue money going to the loser team (money that the players also have to help fund as that is negative revenue) then you would see the players happily sign a 50.50 deal.
As I said before, when Winnipeg got a hockey team back that now makes money instead of losing money the pool of cash the players draw from goes up and they make more money.

[theyeti]

just shut down the nhl and come back with a new league ..

[butcher99]

just shut down the nhl and come back with a new league ..

Sounds good to me. Where are you going to get the players from? How are you going to stop the new owners from doing exactly what the old owners did. And that is exactly what all owners do. They inflate salaries over and over and then they will expect the new players to save them from themselves again.
The players have a plan that will make the league better but the owners have to take the first step to make it so. They have to agree that they are the ones that have to fund the huge salaries that are breaking no one but themselves.

[jaz301]

How many make minimum. (The minimum wage in NHL is 500k. If players can not live of that pay then there is something wrong with them)
Perhaps you should ask yourself about the owners. Why should the owner have to take a cut from 40,000,000-80,000,000 a year down to 35,000,000 to 75,000,000? a year. Have you taken a look at what the owners make a year? (How many owners actually make that. Most teams do not make any money at all. This list is a bit old, but it shows 18 teams did not make any money. http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/#p_1_s_a6_ and here is another link about it http://www.rantsports.com/nhl/2012/10/1 ... ey-in-nhl/)
Why should the players be responsible for protecting the owners best interests from the owners?
LIke I said in my post. The players want the league to pay attention to the teams that are costing the players millions of dollars a year in lost revenue. Every money losing team costs the players money. The problem is it costs all the players money and mostly only the team owner. (If the players really wanted the league to pay attention to teams that aren't making money then why did they accept these big pay contracts? They should have been like "Woh that is a lot of money. I don't think you can really afford that.")

[butcher99]

How many make minimum. (The minimum wage in NHL is 500k. If players can not live of that pay then there is something wrong with them)
Perhaps you should ask yourself about the owners. Why should the owner have to take a cut from 40,000,000-80,000,000 a year down to 35,000,000 to 75,000,000? a year. Have you taken a look at what the owners make a year? (How many owners actually make that. Most teams do not make any money at all. This list is a bit old, but it shows 18 teams did not make any money. http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/#p_1_s_a6_ and here is another link about it http://www.rantsports.com/nhl/2012/10/1 ... ey-in-nhl/)
Why should the players be responsible for protecting the owners best interests from the owners?
LIke I said in my post. The players want the league to pay attention to the teams that are costing the players millions of dollars a year in lost revenue. Every money losing team costs the players money. The problem is it costs all the players money and mostly only the team owner. (If the players really wanted the league to pay attention to teams that aren't making money then why did they accept these big pay contracts? They should have been like "Woh that is a lot of money. I don't think you can really afford that.")

Would you say "wow that is a lot of money if your Boss offered you 3 million a year? Why should they. No, they want the owners who are driving up the salaries to pay a penalty of some sort that goes to the bottom sucker teams. A penalty that the owners who cause the problem have to pay. It would not affect the bottom teams at all, but it sure would affect the top teams who blow the budget. Those loser teams all cost the players money. That is why they want some sort of cap on the owners just like the one the owners want on the players. What is good for one side should be good for the other.
On top of that, if 18 teams are losing money perhaps the best thing for the owners who are losing money to do would be to close up shop. No, they continue to make rediculous offers like the one paid out by Nashville just before the strike started. They cannot afford it and know they cannot yet they did it anyway. Now they want the players to pay for the owners stupidity.

[theyeti]

well the owners as stupid as they r happen to be worth alot of money they r the boss at the end of the day .. whens the last time u held your boss over a barrel and expected to come out ahead for it with an apology for hurting your delicate feelings as well .. i dont care where the players come from if they started a new league ..

[jaz301]

i dont care where the players come from if they started a new league ..

I say just fold the NHL and the AHL can be the main league.

[butcher99]

well the owners as stupid as they r happen to be worth alot of money they r the boss at the end of the day .. whens the last time u held your boss over a barrel and expected to come out ahead for it with an apology for hurting your delicate feelings as well .. i dont care where the players come from if they started a new league ..

not sure what you are trying to say here. If they are losing money on a team they can sell it and cut their losses. They could quit making these stupid deals. Sure they are worth a lot of money. A lot of them got it from their dads or they are huge corporations like Bell or Rogers.

[butcher99]

i dont care where the players come from if they started a new league ..

I say just fold the NHL and the AHL can be the main league.

and those teams are owned by..... the same owners that own the NHL teams. They will want new players. GREAT players. Where do the get them? They sign all these new free agents that are floating around. And how much will they pay for Crosby if he is a totally unrestricted free agent with no ties to any team? Probably more than they are paying him now. Now, they are probably stuck in a small arena and opps, they will want the players to take a pay cut because they, the owners once again screwed up and paid more than they can afford.

[theyeti]

crosby is a cry baby id let him sell shoes at sportmart

[jaz301]

As long as they kept the AHL salary to where it is at now which is like $10mil cap per team then we will be fine. That is the way it should be. Its too late for the NHL to got to that, but if the AHL stays like then we should not have the problem where players are over paid.

[butcher99]

As long as they kept the AHL salary to where it is at now which is like $10mil cap per team then we will be fine. That is the way it should be. Its too late for the NHL to got to that, but if the AHL stays like then we should not have the problem where players are over paid.

And how long would that last? So, now the owners are going to get the money that at one time went to the players. You are going to take a billion dollars that was at one time given to about what 750 players and give that to 30 people. Sure, that seems fair. I am sure the owners would be happy to take all that money. Of course at the end of the current AHL contract there would be another strike for an equitable share of the proceeds from the gate, beer, hats, sweaters etc etc etc and then what is your suggestion? Close down the AHL and just have juniors? Then what? They are already trying to start up a players association. BTW, the current ahl contract has 2 years left.

have you ever watched an AHL game? I have. It is not as fast and the players are not as talented as the NHL players. That of course is why they are not in the NHL. It is great hockey if a little rough around the edges but it sure is not NHL caliber

[butcher99]

crosby is a cry baby id let him sell shoes at sportmart

maybe you would but I know about 30 or so owners who think the going rate for a Crosby should be about 5-10 million a year.

[Rwede]

Another good reason to get rid of unions and let the players negotiate their contracts plus profit sharing based on the value they bring to their employers.

[butcher99]

Another good reason to get rid of unions and let the players negotiate their contracts plus profit sharing based on the value they bring to their employers.

Well the owners would like that. How would that work for all the rules and regulations re:injuries, time off per diems for travel and on and on with the hundreds of minor and not so minor rules in the current contract. Each player negotiates his own?
As usual your simple solutions are just hat. They work well for the owners but not at all for the players.
How about we get rid of free agency and go back to the days where a team owned a player for life? Go back to Territorial drafting of players where if you live close to Toronto Toronto owns you for life. The players have a union because the owners were treating them like owned goods. Is that what you want back? It seems like it.