NHL Lockout

[RainRaven]

Listening to Gary Betteman on Espnews is damn annoying. The union may indeed be out to get as much as for themselves but don't make us try to think the owners are a bunch of angels in the situition eithier. Both sides need to shutup, lock themselves in a room for a few days and figure things out. I hope Bettemen relizes that airing out all of your laundry in public towards the union isn't the best step if you want an agreement any time soon.

[Hurst2112]

I have been thinking...

I have thought of all the work-stoppages that have taken place in the 4 majors since I was born. I know I am missing a baseball stoppage from the late 70s/early 80s (I think anyway):

NFL: 82 and 87 (both player strikes)

NHL: 94/95 season, 2004 season (both lockouts)

NBA: Forget the year...99? (lockout)

MLB: 93/94 season (player strike)

Any details or others that I have missed. I guess my point is that out of all of them, the MLB strike from 93 was the most damaging to the fans. It seems that lockouts aren't as desctructive for the fan base. The NHL lockout from 95 was bad, but I think the NHL did a good job of recovering from it and promoted the shit out of the sport since then, regardless of the slow rise of fans watching the games on TV.

Funny about the NFL strike from 87. They got their free agency, but fans seem to forget about that whole season...replacement players and everything.

I remember the tournament playoffs they had for the 82 season. 3 rounds or something. I remember the Packers winning in Lambeau against the St. Louis Cardinals and then losing the next week to the Cowboys. The Skins beat the Cowboys to get to the Superbowl that year.

rock on

[Tekneek]

Bettman doesn't want an agreement anytime soon. He intends to get things his way no matter what. If he has to wait until the end of next summer to declare negotiations at an impasse, that is what he will do. At that point, the league may be able to legally declare its own CBA and open up the doors for business once again with whichever players decide to show up.

[GrantDawg]

Wo-hoo! No hockey updates screwing with real sports news!















Sorry. I hate when people do this kind of stuff in threads on subjects I like. I just feel like showing my butt today.

[sabotai]

TROLL!!

[Johnny93g]

part of me was wishing for a half ass agreement like they did in Baseball 2 years ago...sure, it wont solve anything, but atleast there would be hockey this year

[Maple Leafs]

Screw the NHL. Let them go for the year, or longer. Good riddance.

First of all, I'm not taking sides in this dispute. Neither side is worthy of our support. And I don't mean that in the typical "they're all overpaid" way, since I don't bedgrudge anyone a chance to make as much money as they can.

But it's obvious here that neither side wants a deal. Both the PA and the league are singing from the same hymnbook, and it's tiresome. Every time Bettman or Goodenow or Daly or Linden open their mouths, it's the same thing: "We want a deal, we love the fans, but the other side won't negotiate." It's nonsense, and it's insulting to my intelligence.

The owners have made this mess by expanding too quickly, pursuing a ridiculous "market footprint" strategy that's almost killed the game. The players sat back and watched it happen and now they don't care how bad things are, they're not giving back one shiny penny. Fine. Screw 'em all. Screw 'em in the mouth. Come back in five years for all I care.

And here's why... Ten years ago, the 1994 lockout damn near killed me. I couldn't imagine life without the NHL. My friends and I practically went into withdrawal for four months waiting for the games to start again.

Since then, we've seen the advent of the neutral zone trap, expansion, glowing pucks, more expansion, clutching and grabbing, less passion, more yapping, playing not to lose, yet another round of expansion, 12-save shutouts, and 2-0 being an insurmountable lead. The NHL sucks these days. It's not worth watching. The league says the game hasn't taken off in the new markets. Why would it? What kind of sports fan would watch today's NHL and fall in love with it?

Note what I said: the NHL sucks. Hockey doesn't suck... I still think it's the greatest sport in the world. A good hockey game blows away any of the other major sports for pure excitement. It's just not worth sitting through ten garbage games every night just to get to that one good one.

So let them go. It's obvious where this whole thing is going: there won't be a deal until one side cracks, and that won't happen for at least a year. There will be no 2005 season. The greatest trophy in sports won't be handed out this year. The players will lose over a billion dollars that they'll never get back. Thousands of people who make less in a year than Jagr makes in a period will lose their jobs. People in Canada and the small core of fans in the US will wring their hands, while the rest of the US barely notices.

Good. I hope they stay out long enough for three things to happen.

One, that some sort of salary control is put in place so that all teams can at least be competitive. There is no reason, none, why NHL players should make as much as baseball and football stars when they play a niche sport that most people don't care about.

Two, I hope between 6 and 10 teams go belly up. Doesn't matter which ones. That will be another 200 NHLPA jobs lost, but oh well. They don't seem worried. Most of those 200 players aren't good enough to play at this level.

Three, I hope the game falls so far off the radar screen of North American sports fans that owners realize it's time to bring back the entertainment value. No, not laser shows and guns that shoot t-shirts. I mean it's time for owners to stop hiring coaches who play not to lose and are happier with a 1-0 loss than a 6-5 win. Maybe with fewer teams, each franchise will have enough skill to try to actually play the sport, not just prevent it from being played.

If all that happens, I'll be happy. If it takes a few years, that's fine. Because this league is dying. Maybe it's died already.

[Franklinnoble]

Great post, ML.

I don't even like hockey, but I "get" what you're saying.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Screw the NHL. Let them go for the year, or longer. Good riddance.

First of all, I'm not taking sides in this dispute. Neither side is worthy of our support. And I don't mean that in the typical "they're all overpaid" way, since I don't bedgrudge anyone a chance to make as much money as they can.

But it's obvious here that neither side wants a deal. Both the PA and the league are singing from the same hymnbook, and it's tiresome. Every time Bettman or Goodenow or Daly or Linden open their mouths, it's the same thing: "We want a deal, we love the fans, but the other side won't negotiate." It's nonsense, and it's insulting to my intelligence.

The owners have made this mess by expanding too quickly, pursuing a ridiculous "market footprint" strategy that's almost killed the game. The players sat back and watched it happen and now they don't care how bad things are, they're not giving back one shiny penny. Fine. Screw 'em all. Screw 'em in the mouth. Come back in five years for all I care.

And here's why... Ten years ago, the 1994 lockout damn near killed me. I couldn't imagine life without the NHL. My friends and I practically went into withdrawal for four months waiting for the games to start again.

Since then, we've seen the advent of the neutral zone trap, expansion, glowing pucks, more expansion, clutching and grabbing, less passion, more yapping, playing not to lose, yet another round of expansion, 12-save shutouts, and 2-0 being an insurmountable lead. The NHL sucks these days. It's not worth watching. The league says the game hasn't taken off in the new markets. Why would it? What kind of sports fan would watch today's NHL and fall in love with it?

Note what I said: the NHL sucks. Hockey doesn't suck... I still think it's the greatest sport in the world. A good hockey game blows away any of the other major sports for pure excitement. It's just not worth sitting through ten garbage games every night just to get to that one good one.

So let them go. It's obvious where this whole thing is going: there won't be a deal until one side cracks, and that won't happen for at least a year. There will be no 2005 season. The greatest trophy in sports won't be handed out this year. The players will lose over a billion dollars that they'll never get back. Thousands of people who make less in a year than Jagr makes in a period will lose their jobs. People in Canada and the small core of fans in the US will wring their hands, while the rest of the US barely notices.

Good. I hope they stay out long enough for three things to happen.

One, that some sort of salary control is put in place so that all teams can at least be competitive. There is no reason, none, why NHL players should make as much as baseball and football stars when they play a niche sport that most people don't care about.

Two, I hope between 6 and 10 teams go belly up. Doesn't matter which ones. That will be another 200 NHLPA jobs lost, but oh well. They don't seem worried. Most of those 200 players aren't good enough to play at this level.

Three, I hope the game falls so far off the radar screen of North American sports fans that owners realize it's time to bring back the entertainment value. No, not laser shows and guns that shoot t-shirts. I mean it's time for owners to stop hiring coaches who play not to lose and are happier with a 1-0 loss than a 6-5 win. Maybe with fewer teams, each franchise will have enough skill to try to actually play the sport, not just prevent it from being played.

If all that happens, I'll be happy. If it takes a few years, that's fine. Because this league is dying. Maybe it's died already.

:Gives Maple Leafs a standing ovation: Wow, you said it. I agree with almost everything you said, bravo!

[druez]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Wo-hoo! No hockey updates screwing with real sports news!












Sorry. I hate when people do this kind of stuff in threads on subjects I like. I just feel like showing my butt today.

I love hockey

[Kevin]

Damn! That was well put, ML.

I sure miss the days when players could play without helmets, because they kept their sticks on the ice. You checked people by using your shoulders, not your stick, elbows and knees. I miss the skilled players who were 5-7 and 5-8 who can't even get drafted now. Unfortunately, those days are likely gone forever for the NHL.

[condors]

i also agree with ML

I do want to add this is a lockout could some rich folks form a league of 8 teams sign the best players and totally screw the NHL? If i was running ESPN i would create the ESPN hockey league...they have contacts i am sure it could be done. I just wonder if they could legally steal the players from the NHL. Probally just a fan with wishfull thinking though

[Havok]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Screw the NHL. Let them go for the year, or longer. Good riddance.

First of all, I'm not taking sides in this dispute. Neither side is worthy of our support. And I don't mean that in the typical "they're all overpaid" way, since I don't bedgrudge anyone a chance to make as much money as they can.

But it's obvious here that neither side wants a deal. Both the PA and the league are singing from the same hymnbook, and it's tiresome. Every time Bettman or Goodenow or Daly or Linden open their mouths, it's the same thing: "We want a deal, we love the fans, but the other side won't negotiate." It's nonsense, and it's insulting to my intelligence.

The owners have made this mess by expanding too quickly, pursuing a ridiculous "market footprint" strategy that's almost killed the game. The players sat back and watched it happen and now they don't care how bad things are, they're not giving back one shiny penny. Fine. Screw 'em all. Screw 'em in the mouth. Come back in five years for all I care.

And here's why... Ten years ago, the 1994 lockout damn near killed me. I couldn't imagine life without the NHL. My friends and I practically went into withdrawal for four months waiting for the games to start again.

Since then, we've seen the advent of the neutral zone trap, expansion, glowing pucks, more expansion, clutching and grabbing, less passion, more yapping, playing not to lose, yet another round of expansion, 12-save shutouts, and 2-0 being an insurmountable lead. The NHL sucks these days. It's not worth watching. The league says the game hasn't taken off in the new markets. Why would it? What kind of sports fan would watch today's NHL and fall in love with it?

Note what I said: the NHL sucks. Hockey doesn't suck... I still think it's the greatest sport in the world. A good hockey game blows away any of the other major sports for pure excitement. It's just not worth sitting through ten garbage games every night just to get to that one good one.

So let them go. It's obvious where this whole thing is going: there won't be a deal until one side cracks, and that won't happen for at least a year. There will be no 2005 season. The greatest trophy in sports won't be handed out this year. The players will lose over a billion dollars that they'll never get back. Thousands of people who make less in a year than Jagr makes in a period will lose their jobs. People in Canada and the small core of fans in the US will wring their hands, while the rest of the US barely notices.

Good. I hope they stay out long enough for three things to happen.

One, that some sort of salary control is put in place so that all teams can at least be competitive. There is no reason, none, why NHL players should make as much as baseball and football stars when they play a niche sport that most people don't care about.

Two, I hope between 6 and 10 teams go belly up. Doesn't matter which ones. That will be another 200 NHLPA jobs lost, but oh well. They don't seem worried. Most of those 200 players aren't good enough to play at this level.

Three, I hope the game falls so far off the radar screen of North American sports fans that owners realize it's time to bring back the entertainment value. No, not laser shows and guns that shoot t-shirts. I mean it's time for owners to stop hiring coaches who play not to lose and are happier with a 1-0 loss than a 6-5 win. Maybe with fewer teams, each franchise will have enough skill to try to actually play the sport, not just prevent it from being played.

If all that happens, I'll be happy. If it takes a few years, that's fine. Because this league is dying. Maybe it's died already.

^^^what he said ^^^

[thealmighty]

[Buddy Grant]

Puck will eat itself.

[Tekneek]

If ownership has locked you out, you can go play anywhere you want to. Your NHL contract is just that...an NHL contract. If they won't let you show up for work and are not paying you, you are free to go market your services to whomever you like (outside of the NHL).

[Karim]

Well said, Maple Leafs.

Selfishly, I just hope the Flames and Oilers are still around when all is said and done. A band-aid solution will ensure both franchises relocate. I don't even want to consider how that will feel.

[Chubby]

does anyone have email addys for the commish and players union head?

[Chubby]

here's MY proposal to end the lockout...

*$35 million salary cap.
*Cap increases/decreases in relation to the television revenue increases/decreases.
*Gradual implementation of the cap over a three (3) year period. Teams over the cap for
the first 3 years of the CBA are allowed to resign players already under contract to lower
salaries but restricted from signing new players or increasing their cap cost in the current
season.
*Teams over the cap will pay a percentage of the difference between their payroll and
the cap to a fund which will be evenly distributed to all teams under the cap. This
percentage will be 10% the 1st season, 25% the second season, and 50% the third season.
*Any teams over the cap after the third season of this agreement will be subject to
punishment by the league up to and including voiding of contracts and loss of draft picks.
*The Gretzky Rule - One player can be designated as a Gretzky Rule Player so that his
contract does not count against the cap. This designation stays with the player for the
duration of his contract and all teams may only have one Gretzky Rule Player on their roster
at all times.
*Accurate financial reports for each team must be kept and turned over to the NHLPA after
each season. These reports are to be kept confidential and not released to the public.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

If ownership has locked you out, you can go play anywhere you want to. Your NHL contract is just that...an NHL contract. If they won't let you show up for work and are not paying you, you are free to go market your services to whomever you like (outside of the NHL).

Which they are and will. This one of the things that plays towards the players side in this more than any other major sport. There are plenty of opportunities for these players to make money during this lock-out. Not as much as they would make in the NHL, but more than enough to survive. Of course, the owners of many of these teams just can't survive with the current CBA or what the players are offering. I would say their best bet would be with scabs and break the Union, but because many of these teams are in Canada there is no chance that will happen. It is going to interesting to see how this one ends.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Which they are and will. This one of the things that plays towards the players side in this more than any other major sport. There are plenty of opportunities for these players to make money during this lock-out. Not as much as they would make in the NHL, but more than enough to survive. Of course, the owners of many of these teams just can't survive with the current CBA or what the players are offering. I would say their best bet would be with scabs and break the Union, but because many of these teams are in Canada there is no chance that will happen. It is going to interesting to see how this one ends.

I know the Sabres will lose less or the same amount of money during a lockout compared to a season under the old CBA.

[Arles]

The NHL needs to look at the NBA's system and then realize that it will probably be able to generate less than half the revenue and adjust accordingly. I remember reading something that the entire TV deal signed by the NHL is less in revenue than what the Arizona Cardinals make by themselves in the NFL.

The NHL needs to understand that if it wants to survive, it will have to start having both sides care about the financial state of the league. The first thing in this process is realizing that the NHL is closer to the arena football league than the NFL in revenue - and start treating their salaries accordingly.

As to GrantDawg's point, I know of atleast 10 NHL players that have already signed to play in European leagues for this year. I think the way their contracts work is that they can play as long as the NHL is not lpaying games.

[GrantDawg]

I'm no expert in this, but I was just sitting on the toilet and thought of something...


Wouldn't this be the perfect time to start an European super league to compete with the NHL? Would something like that be viable? There are a good number of countries in Europe that play hockey, and wouldn't a Superleague bringing in all of the best players from Europe make enough money to rival the NHL?

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

(Not quoting this part, doesn't paint a pretty picture as I eat lunch...)

Wouldn't this be the perfect time to start an European super league to compete with the NHL? Would something like that be viable? There are a good number of countries in Europe that play hockey, and wouldn't a Superleague bringing in all of the best players from Europe make enough money to rival the NHL?

A lot of the Russian teams are owned by some pretty rich people, and a decent number of Russian players already were playing there because they were getting more money than NHL teams could give them. We're not talking superstar players but, nonetheless, I think it started a trend. I think European leagues definitely could lure top players back, especially those native to those countries. I think a lot of players would stay home if they were making as much or more than they made in the NHL: closer to home, see your friends/family on a regular basis, and, most likely, be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

As for the superleague, I think there is a tournament much like soccer's Champions League for hockey teams, but I don't think its that big now. However, if a lot of NHL players go back and are playing in it, I think it could definitely grow.

Oh, and ML, your post earlier in this thread was one of the best I have ever read on this board. I totally agree with what you said.

[SirFozzie]

I think what's sad is that the players have bent over freaking backwards and sideways to get this thing done. They've offered luxury taxes, to reduce entry level players contracts, many many many many different things. But the ownership is so hellbent on a salary cap (basically, telling the players.. "Help! Save us from ourselves!") that no give either way is possible.

They are attempting to break the union, but they have to kill the game to do so.

[Huckleberry]

They should disband and reorganize in a European soccer model. Relegation/promotion to/from the minor leagues. Lower the number of NHL teams to 21. Play a round robin schedule of 4 games against each other team for a total of 80. Have a Cup to satisfy playoff fans. Have another cup where minor league teams have a shot. Completely free market financial system. No minimum salary, no salary cap, nothing. Only thing that's centralized financially is the TV Contract and a cut of merchandising.

Crazy cool. I'd become a hockey fan.

[Qwikshot]

There's always EHM.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I think what's sad is that the players have bent over freaking backwards and sideways to get this thing done. They've offered luxury taxes, to reduce entry level players contracts, many many many many different things. But the ownership is so hellbent on a salary cap (basically, telling the players.. "Help! Save us from ourselves!") that no give either way is possible.

They are attempting to break the union, but they have to kill the game to do so.

HAHAHA, you made a funny.

I mean come on, the luxury tax has certainly kept things in check and brought parity in baseball hasn't it

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Ha Ha Ha. I bet those punks on ESPN wished they kept Craftsman truck coverage.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Ha Ha Ha. I bet those punks on ESPN wished they kept Craftsman truck coverage.

Stay tuned for 547 episodes of the WSOP.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Stay tuned for 547 episodes of the WSOP.

d'oh!!!

[Capital]

It should be clearly obvious to any hockey fan, or sports fan in general, that the NHL is losing money in an obscene way. 4 teams filed for bankruptcy. Ottawa missed player payments. TV money and ratings barely register. With all of this being said, the players essentially want to maintain the status quo. While I don't want to see franchises fold, I would like to see what the unions spin would be after after they lose 150 jobs for a folding of 6 teams.

Not to mention the infamous report filed by the former chair of the Securities Exchange Commission. While the owners may have hired him, that kind of title should carry a significant amount of weight. Not only that, but the owners offer the players the right to jointly collaborate in the creation of this report. The players declined. Obviously, because then they might have to admit to the truth.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I like the Eurpoean soccer idea. But I dont think the both sides will agree to it. I would also like some contraction and relocation of teams to more ''traditional'' hockey hotbeds, instead of in the south or in the southwest where nobody cares for it. Move a few teams back to Winnepg, put a team in seattle and move a team to Alaska, I bet hockey is popular there. Put a team in Wisconsin etc etc.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I think what's sad is that the players have bent over freaking backwards and sideways to get this thing done. They've offered luxury taxes, to reduce entry level players contracts, many many many many different things. But the ownership is so hellbent on a salary cap (basically, telling the players.. "Help! Save us from ourselves!") that no give either way is possible.

The players' offer was a joke. Not necessarily more or less of a joke than the owners' offers, but still a joke. Your fooling yourself if you believe it was a serious offer that they thought would be accepted.

Beyond that, the players' definition of "salary cap" is so vague that it could apply to virtually any offer the owners make.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

I like the Eurpoean soccer idea. But I dont think the both sides will agree to it. I would also like some contraction and relocation of teams to more ''traditional'' hockey hotbeds, instead of in the south or in the southwest where nobody cares for it. Move a few teams back to Winnepg, put a team in seattle and move a team to Alaska, I bet hockey is popular there. Put a team in Wisconsin etc etc.

That's too logical. They'd rather try and cram the sport down America's throat instead of catering to the hardcore hockey fans.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Wouldn't this be the perfect time to start an European super league to compete with the NHL? Would something like that be viable? There are a good number of countries in Europe that play hockey, and wouldn't a Superleague bringing in all of the best players from Europe make enough money to rival the NHL?

This has already been tried. A few European financiers/entrepreneurs tried to bring together a "Champions League" of hockey. Their intention was not to compete with the NHL directly but they were hoping eventually to have the Champions League winner play the Stanley Cup Champion to determine true club supremacy.

The major hurdle was the lack of TV interest in Europe. Without major sponsors, the idea never got off the ground. Another obstacle is that the arenas are nowhere near NHL quality. Sure, rich owners could pay a few million to have NHL stars play in Europe, but it's not because the team is making any money. We'd end up right back where we're at now.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Karim

This has already been tried. A few European financiers/entrepreneurs tried to bring together a "Champions League" of hockey. Their intention was not to compete with the NHL directly but they were hoping eventually to have the Champions League winner play the Stanley Cup Champion to determine true club supremacy.

The major hurdle was the lack of TV interest in Europe. Without major sponsors, the idea never got off the ground. Another obstacle is that the arenas are nowhere near NHL quality. Sure, rich owners could pay a few million to have NHL stars play in Europe, but it's not because the team is making any money. We'd end up right back where we're at now.

Thanks, that answered that.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

The players' offer was a joke. Not necessarily more or less of a joke than the owners' offers, but still a joke. Your fooling yourself if you believe it was a serious offer that they thought would be accepted.

Beyond that, the players' definition of "salary cap" is so vague that it could apply to virtually any offer the owners make.

At least it's a starting point. $100 million in immediate wage roll backs is a huge thing, and that's before any negotiating. I'm sure the players would agree to move down the tax threshold and increase the penalties for going over it, but that can't happen without dialouge, something the owners are refusing. The players are opposed to anything that puts a hard cap on wages and I have no problem with that.

If both sides would sit down and start off with the players proposals they could try to find some common ground, but Bettman's promised a cap, and he's going to look like an idiot when it doesn't happen.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

At least it's a starting point. $100 million in immediate wage roll backs is a huge thing, and that's before any negotiating. I'm sure the players would agree to move down the tax threshold and increase the penalties for going over it, but that can't happen without dialouge, something the owners are refusing. The players are opposed to anything that puts a hard cap on wages and I have no problem with that.

If both sides would sit down and start off with the players proposals they could try to find some common ground, but Bettman's promised a cap, and he's going to look like an idiot when it doesn't happen.

There can't be dailogue if one group doesn't talk, which would be the players. This is the first proposal from the union after MANY by the league and it was still a joke. I fail to see how you can have no problem with the union's unwillingness to negotiate on a hard cap when you fault the owners for not wanting to back down from their wanting a hard cap.

You're obviously biased towards the players "start off with the players proposal", why wouldn't they start off somewhere in the middle? The NHL needs a cap, they will get one. Neither side is "right" but for the good of the game it needs to be done.

[Huckleberry]

I don't like caps. I don't think any league "needs" one or should even have one. I think, instead, leagues should have less stupid owners.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

At least it's a starting point. $100 million in immediate wage roll backs is a huge thing, and that's before any negotiating.

For one thing, the $100 million number that the union throws around is made-up. Do the math. If the rollback was 5%, the players would have to be making $2 billion (more than the entire league's revenue) for the rollback to equal $100 million.

Beyond that (and even putting aside the fact that $100 million still leaves the owners with significant losses), it would be a temporary offer. You can bet that every player would demand his 5% back as soon as their next contract was up.

[sachmo71]

We were doing so well with one hockey thread. Now we are as sloppy as any other sport.

Damn.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

For one thing, the $100 million number that the union throws around is made-up. Do the math. If the rollback was 5%, the players would have to be making $2 billion (more than the entire league's revenue) for the rollback to equal $100 million.

Beyond that (and even putting aside the fact that $100 million still leaves the owners with significant losses), it would be a temporary offer. You can bet that every player would demand his 5% back as soon as their next contract was up.

It's over life of the contract, not just the coming season. I posted this in the other thread, I'm sure you'll disagree with me again but no biggie.

"The numbers released yesterday show a $50 improvement in NHL losses from $275 mil to $224. Trevor Linden was on local radio talking about it. According to him, 6 teams made up $170 mil of the 224. 2 teams he said had horrible leases (My guess is Pittsburgh and .....) 2 teams were just spending far more then their market allowed (he mentioned a guy who wanted a better team then his brother in law. My guess St Louis trying to best Colorado. No idea who the other team would be) and 2 teams that were in non traditional markets who couldn't get good attendance (Carolina ??? and....)

So if the other 24 teams were losing an average of $2.25 million each, why does there need to be a hard cap again? If they just took the players offer of a 5% rollback in salaries, most of those teams would be in the black."

As someone noted on another board I visit, this is a discussion that isn't going to go anywhere, you're pretty much on one side or the other. Peace.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I don't like caps. I don't think any league "needs" one or should even have one. I think, instead, leagues should have less stupid owners.

Indeed. So does the NHL head office. I loved their idea of all contracts being approved or disapproved by the league. No more Marty Lapointe type contracts at least, but what does that tell you when the league can't trust it's owners to get their heads out of their collective rears......

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

As someone noted on another board I visit, this is a discussion that isn't going to go anywhere, you're pretty much on one side or the other. Peace.

No, if you read my first post in this thread you'll see that I'm not on either side. Given the way both sides have conducted themselves over the years, I can't believe that people are actually throwing their support behind one or the other.

[RainRaven]

I always find it funny that owners want to be saved by a salary cap. The owners offered the contracts and no one forced them to do so, if the team is losing money it is due to their decisions in that business enviroment. I am not saying that I agree completely with the players but why should they be the ones to "restrain" spending. The players certainly can take a pay cut but let's be honest, none of us would jump up and down at the thought of a pay cut reguardless of the reasons our work place gave us.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by RainRaven

I always find it funny that owners want to be saved by a salary cap. The owners offered the contracts and no one forced them to do so, if the team is losing money it is due to their decisions in that business enviroment. I am not saying that I agree completely with the players but why should they be the ones to "restrain" spending. The players certainly can take a pay cut but let's be honest, none of us would jump up and down at the thought of a pay cut reguardless of the reasons our work place gave us.

so you think a team that struggles to get attendence (when ticket sales are the bulk of revenue in the NHL) would do better by cutting payroll on their own $10 mil and have a much crappy team resulting in even worse attendence? Some teams are forced to spend more than they bring in to stay at least semi-competitve and still be able to draw fans. The salaries are pushed into the stratosphere by the teams making oodles of many, the same salary structure the lower end teams have to pay out as well.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

No, if you read my first post in this thread you'll see that I'm not on either side. Given the way both sides have conducted themselves over the years, I can't believe that people are actually throwing their support behind one or the other.

I read it and choose not to fence sit. How does a hard cap fix the problems of the 6 worst teams in terms of losses? It won't improve interest in the non tradional markets and it certainly won't get Mario a cut of the concession revenue his team needs to survive. The other teams that willfully spend more then they can afford? Fuck em, learn to run a business like everyone else in the world.

[RainRaven]

Originally Posted by Chubby

so you think a team that struggles to get attendence (when ticket sales are the bulk of revenue in the NHL) would do better by cutting payroll on their own $10 mil and have a much crappy team resulting in even worse attendence? Some teams are forced to spend more than they bring in to stay at least semi-competitve and still be able to draw fans. The salaries are pushed into the stratosphere by the teams making oodles of many, the same salary structure the lower end teams have to pay out as well.

Why are they struggling in attendence? Is the market not hockey friendly in the first place? Other major sports taking the entertainment dollar of an average fan? Has managment had a history of poor decisons reguardless of money spent and hence has lost fan faith? Lower income teams in baseball can overcome the economic disadvantages with good scouting, development and retention of key players. The owners and players are both idiots and neither deserve our sympathies in this sitution. I just hope they can resolve their differences before the people who lost their jobs incur debts that they cannot afford to overcome after the lockout.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Chubby

so you think a team that struggles to get attendence (when ticket sales are the bulk of revenue in the NHL) would do better by cutting payroll on their own $10 mil and have a much crappy team resulting in even worse attendence? Some teams are forced to spend more than they bring in to stay at least semi-competitve and still be able to draw fans. The salaries are pushed into the stratosphere by the teams making oodles of many, the same salary structure the lower end teams have to pay out as well.

Being crappy and drating/trading well worked out for Tampa quite nicely. I can't think of many, if any, teams that look as good as they do going forward.