There will be a strike

[Reefer2]

In other news, my SIM league lost their first game of the season, our league commish would not allow the UFA trades to be completed until after game 1 to ensure all teams are cap compliant. We almost had a walk out by the owners because we felt it was not fair after all we made the deals why can't we do it.

Said from day one and I will say it again, both sides are to blame and this posturing is all gamesmanship to see who has the biggest penis (am I allowed to say that here?). I also believe there is still a 50/50 chance there will be no season at all, once boys start playing with their genitals and comparing who has the bigger one......

[Fred]

Pretty good article comparing both offers

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/h ... le4622895/

[ukcanuck]

Sorry UK but other than a handful of markets it will be a hammer made of paper mache if the league is locked out for a year , let alone two. Kiss goodbye to 5 - 10 teams. And if there is a hammer at that point it will be swung by the few owners that still want to prop up pro hockey.

you know what I am one of those people that loves hockey, played it most of my life, and thats the point I am a Fan of Hockey and I DON"T want this lock out. I AM NOT HAPPY about it and wish the players were playing, but its Bettman who's done this not the players so I blame the owners.

The average price of a Yankees ticket is $70..... so it's less than a Canucks game to be sure. You are comparing a shriveled grape to a big rosy apple. It's irrelevant really and why you would pick a popular team in a niche sport and compare it to the most popular team in a very popular sport is beyond me. Why the fuck do I care if the Steinbrenners are getting rich? They have a brand far bigger than the Aquillinis could ever dream of.

Great thanks for that I didnt know that prices for the Yankees games are so reasonable? but i didn't make the comparison you did, you brought up the yankees and i was curious not ever having been to a MLB game...As for not caring where the money goes does that mean you are in my camp and don't mind the players getting their fair share then?

I've said it before i'll say it again. I could care less who is right and who is wrong. I am a fan of the game . Both sides can share the blame here

Thats a fair comment and I know a lot of people feel this way, but I have to wonder what the NHL will look like if the owners and Bettman get their way? if the salary structure and life style for an NHL player is pushed downward, how long before the Europeans stop coming here to play and stay in their own countries? The KHL is already out there with a nearly 40 million dollar salary cap and growing...do you really want a hockey world where no one knows whether the Stanley Cup winner or the Gagarin Cup winner is better? The other three sports dont have the same issue, there is no viable option for players in those sports. Hockey could very well become as fractured a business as soccer.

I laugh at people who get so bent out of shape and vehemently blame only one side, like they actually have a dog in this fight. The owners and the players will be the real losers if they shitcan another year. Eventually most of the fans will find other things to do.

well then you are laughing at more than just me because this thread is full of vehemence one way or the other. I happen to be the most vocal and probably the most extreme voice for the players around here but its a two way argument, I am not posting alone and arguing or discussing by myself. And WTF? thats the whole point of this website forum isnt it? id love to be talking about the sport of hockey and the Canucks but its this or bear baiting and I prefer politics.

[Aaronp18]

They need equipment and uniforms... paid for by the owners.

I agree with your sentiment except for the above factoid, the equipment manufacturers are more than happy to donate their stuff to be used in the NHL. If the owners were paying for sticks you better believe they'd be reinforced with re-bar so they last a little longer than a shift.

As this drags on, and the players miss half a season, they can count up what it's costing them. Half the owners were losing money, so the lockout doesn't cost THEM anything!

This isn't entirely true either. The owners are still losing money, they still have empty arena's with a lot less revenue and mortgages or leases to pay. They are also still paying the coaching, scouting, arena staff, etc not to mention hindering the growth of the game in the beloved US of A especially immediately after one of the biggest cities in the country just won the Cup.

Oh and they're still paying Bettman and his cronies to not have their teams play - again!

The lockout is not good for anyone and in reality costs both sides money.

[the Dogsalmon]

who really gives a fuck...

[dbr]

Great thanks for that I didnt know that prices for the Yankees games are so reasonable?

Keep in mind with baseball you have teams trying to sell 4 million tickets a year (80 home games in a 50 000 seat stadium) compared to the Canucks trying to sell about 800 000 (41 home games with fewer than 19 000 seats for hockey in Rogers Arena)..

[donlever]

who really gives a fuck...

Word.

[Aaronp18]

who really gives a fuck...

Word.

Up.

[ukcanuck]

who really gives a fuck...

Anyone who's got a fuck to give?

Except Bettman he'd squeeze the Queen off of a penny, but he wouldnt touch anything with Canada on it.

[donlever]

....Canucks trying to sell about 800 000 (41 home games with fewer than 19 000 seats for hockey in Rogers Arena)..

As an aside don't disregard the full pop pre-season ducats that the Nucks charge you for.

Not specifically relevant to your point but I guess they have to pay for the pre and post game buffets somehow.

[Tciso]

Pretty good article comparing both offers

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/h ... le4622895/

So, both sides agree to move to 50/50. The only issue is how quickly. And, the other "issues" that they discussed earlier and "made good headway" on seem to be just as much of a stumbling block.

So, to summarize. Both sides are willing to go 50/50, but won't move on a bunch of other issues, unless the 50/50 is changed, at which point, they may conciser agreeing to other concessions, unless someone proposes something else, at which point, the negotiations may take a step backwards. Neither side is "talking the same language", but are moving towards some commonality. However, there is still a great divide between the two sides, which can optimistically be closed, assuming good faith negotiations continue.

(I blacked out for a bit while typing, so if you know what that summary means, please let me know)

[Potatoe1]

Pretty good article comparing both offers

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/h ... le4622895/

So, both sides agree to move to 50/50. The only issue is how quickly. And, the other "issues" that they discussed earlier and "made good headway" on seem to be just as much of a stumbling block.

So, to summarize. Both sides are willing to go 50/50, but won't move on a bunch of other issues, unless the 50/50 is changed, at which point, they may conciser agreeing to other concessions, unless someone proposes something else, at which point, the negotiations may take a step backwards. Neither side is "talking the same language", but are moving towards some commonality. However, there is still a great divide between the two sides, which can optimistically be closed, assuming good faith negotiations continue.

(I blacked out for a bit while typing, so if you know what that summary means, please let me know)

If only it were that simple.

The truth is that the Players have not been up front publicly with their real intention which is to remove escrow and de-link salary and revenue.

They keep saying "we just want to be paid what our contracts say we should" but the truth is they haven't had that since before the previous lock out.

If that was not their priority then a deal would be very close.

Truth is they are miles apart there really has not been any meaningful negotiations, just 2 sides that are smiling for the camera.

The owners will not even consider a proposal that removes linkage and the players haven't made an offer which includes it.

It's kind of funny when you think about it. The players keep saying that they just want to be paid what was agreed too, but by signing under the old CBA they agreed to escrow which they knew was going to be 2-20%. Now they claim that they are entitled to the full amount.

[rats19]

urge to kill...rising...rising....

[dbr]

The owners will not even consider a proposal that removes linkage and the players haven't made an offer which includes it.

My guess is that the players endgame is to keep this up until they win back either an unlinked cap or their 57%.

It could be awhile if their resolve is as strong as they think.

[Potatoe1]

My guess is that the players endgame is to keep this up until they win back either an unlinked cap or their 57%.

It could be awhile if their resolve is as strong as they think.

Yup.

They tipped their hand with their first offer. 3 years with no linkage and then an owners option to return to 57%.

So far they have only been willing to drop their share if the owners remove linkage.

For the record I can appreciate their position completely.

Why agree to a lower percentage with out getting anything in return?