The Final Nail in the Hockey Experience Coffin

[the Dogsalmon]

i am convinced there is only one thing we need to resolve all hockey problems for decades..............................................bettmans funeral...

[Meds]

Ryp was from the city that rhymes with fun.

He would understand the tarts...

Coleman, Alberta?

[Meds]

i am convinced there is only one thing we need to resolve all hockey problems for decades..............................................bettmans funeral...

Generally I'm right on board with your Bettman hate, but not this time.

Bettman is a moron when it comes to the way hockey is played out on the ice and the game related tangibles and intangibles that get so badly mishandled (like officiating and discipline).

However, from a business standpoint there is no denying that the guy understands the markets (in general) and has made the owners a bucket or two of money. I think he could have made that same money for them without pushing for expansion in a few markets, and he certainly didn't need to try and make the NHL work in the fucking desert. Hartford should have relocated somewhere other than Carolina, and Phoenix should have headed back to Winnipeg a few years ago and an open door should have been held for Jim Bassillie to move Atlanta up to Hamilton. But that doesn't matter. The NHL has seen its profits balloon nicely, especially considering that they endured a lockout and were just regaining lost ground when the infamous bailouts took place and the economy took a nice dip and forcasters prophesied a full out plunge to the basement. Through all of that the NHL owners made more money, and the players increased their average salary by a million dollars. The league became somewhat more competitve, and the game was speeding up and getting exciting again.....right up until the halfway mark of the 2010-11 season.

This upcoming lockout is all on the players. Why should these millionaires be demanding raises? What could possibly be going through their heads that they outright reject the owners proposal that reduces their 57% share down to 46% instead of countering with a 50/50 offer and at least getting one issue out of the way. There aren't too many employers who have to make sure they share at least half of their profits with their employees.....not sure where the players are coming from with this. I realize that I would fight too if someone tried to take away something I already had, but all the same, compromise is the name of the game here. Then the PA counters with a new system that will force owners of wealthy and successful teams to lend a helping hand to bottom feeding franchises that can't sell tickets and grab fans because they have either mismanaged their teams into the league's cellar or decided to buy a team that was located in a place where people think a hockey stick is the short-bus version of a golf club. They also propose a system that will completely trash equitablity so far as competition is concerned and will allow the rise of dynasty teams that can simply buy the Stanley Cup year to year. The PA is a joke this time around, and I honestly hope the NHL breaks the union's fucking back.

[ukcanuck]

i am convinced there is only one thing we need to resolve all hockey problems for decades..............................................bettmans funeral...

Generally I'm right on board with your Bettman hate, but not this time.

Bettman is a moron when it comes to the way hockey is played out on the ice and the game related tangibles and intangibles that get so badly mishandled (like officiating and discipline).

However, from a business standpoint there is no denying that the guy understands the markets (in general) and has made the owners a bucket or two of money. I think he could have made that same money for them without pushing for expansion in a few markets, and he certainly didn't need to try and make the NHL work in the fucking desert. Hartford should have relocated somewhere other than Carolina, and Phoenix should have headed back to Winnipeg a few years ago and an open door should have been held for Jim Bassillie to move Atlanta up to Hamilton. But that doesn't matter. The NHL has seen its profits balloon nicely, especially considering that they endured a lockout and were just regaining lost ground when the infamous bailouts took place and the economy took a nice dip and forcasters prophesied a full out plunge to the basement. Through all of that the NHL owners made more money, and the players increased their average salary by a million dollars. The league became somewhat more competitve, and the game was speeding up and getting exciting again.....right up until the halfway mark of the 2010-11 season.

This upcoming lockout is all on the players. Why should these millionaires be demanding raises? What could possibly be going through their heads that they outright reject the owners proposal that reduces their 57% share down to 46% instead of countering with a 50/50 offer and at least getting one issue out of the way. There aren't too many employers who have to make sure they share at least half of their profits with their employees.....not sure where the players are coming from with this. I realize that I would fight too if someone tried to take away something I already had, but all the same, compromise is the name of the game here. Then the PA counters with a new system that will force owners of wealthy and successful teams to lend a helping hand to bottom feeding franchises that can't sell tickets and grab fans because they have either mismanaged their teams into the league's cellar or decided to buy a team that was located in a place where people think a hockey stick is the short-bus version of a golf club. They also propose a system that will completely trash equitablity so far as competition is concerned and will allow the rise of dynasty teams that can simply buy the Stanley Cup year to year. The PA is a joke this time around, and I honestly hope the NHL breaks the union's fucking back.

Would you vote for Mit Romney too?
The league got there salary cap and cost certainty last time and it wasn't enough !?
Take free market economics from the players but not for themselves ...fukkers, just like the banks. Where in the Keynesian compromise does it say it should be a free market only when it suits the rich? Why should they be able to post profits on the backs of the rights of others to access the market freely? Crony Capitalism is what it is and fuck them for trying to get it.
if you were the PA would you immediately agree to the owners first offer? They know as everyone should that the owners are starting at twice what they are willing to settle at. So fuck the league, let them lock out and show how the world how unrepentantly greedy the mofo's are... lets just see how willing Bettman is to toss the season before he negotiates honestly....

[SKYO]

Might lose an entire season this year, however I can see something done for a January start.

[Boston Canucker]

Might lose an entire season this year, however I can see something done for a January start.

I just cannot see losing a whole season. It would be an epic fail on Bettman's part, losing a 2nd full season. And the issues are not as structural as last time. I go with the general view, as you state, that we will lose some time, but not the whole year.

[Benjo]

Why is all on Bettman? There are 2 sides to this and the players are just as much to blame if there's a lockout. They waited until August to submit a proposal that revamps the entire NHL financial system, not to mention completely ignored the owners proposal. Obviously Bettman low balled them which everyone expected in negotiations but it was nothing earth shattering. If the players wanted to propose an entire new financial system they should have done it LAST summer so the NHL could have at least had their numbers guys go over it thoroughly and negotiate from there.

The players say the NHL is using a lockout as a first case scenario but I would argue both sides are doing that.

[ukcanuck]

Why is all on Bettman? There are 2 sides to this and the players are just as much to blame if there's a lockout. They waited until August to submit a proposal that revamps the entire NHL financial system, not to mention completely ignored the owners proposal. Obviously Bettman low balled them which everyone expected in negotiations but it was nothing earth shattering. If the players wanted to propose an entire new financial system they should have done it LAST summer so the NHL could have at least had their numbers guys go over it thoroughly and negotiate from there.

The players say the NHL is using a lockout as a first case scenario but I would argue both sides are doing that.

Maybe because Fehr knew all along that the owners would reject it out of hand no matter when they presented it. Have you ever bought a used car? Unless you paid the asking price, the price agreed upon was most likely the last one presented before walking away. negotiation is a game of chicken by definition...

[ESQ]

This upcoming lockout is all on the players. Why should these millionaires be demanding raises? What could possibly be going through their heads that they outright reject the owners proposal that reduces their 57% share down to 46% instead of countering with a 50/50 offer and at least getting one issue out of the way.

I don't typically begin negotiations by offering to reduce my pay by 11% and remove almost all of my contractual rights...especially not when the employer is turning its biggest profit in history...

[ClamRussel]

This upcoming lockout is all on the players. Why should these millionaires be demanding raises? What could possibly be going through their heads that they outright reject the owners proposal that reduces their 57% share down to 46% instead of countering with a 50/50 offer and at least getting one issue out of the way. There aren't too many employers who have to make sure they share at least half of their profits with their employees.....not sure where the players are coming from with this. I realize that I would fight too if someone tried to take away something I already had, but all the same, compromise is the name of the game here. Then the PA counters with a new system that will force owners of wealthy and successful teams to lend a helping hand to bottom feeding franchises that can't sell tickets and grab fans because they have either mismanaged their teams into the league's cellar or decided to buy a team that was located in a place where people think a hockey stick is the short-bus version of a golf club. They also propose a system that will completely trash equitablity so far as competition is concerned and will allow the rise of dynasty teams that can simply buy the Stanley Cup year to year. The PA is a joke this time around, and I honestly hope the NHL breaks the union's fucking back.

Off base w/ this argument. The players aren't children creating widgets in Indonesia, they ARE the product. One that is worth 3 and a half BILL per. Without them there is no profits that the owners have been raking in.

The fact of the matter is, this lockout is going to be about the *owners*.
They need a CBA that protects them from themselves.
The players don't need a cap....the owners do. Its the owners who open up their wallet and give Shea Weber a $100million offer sheet as a RFA.
Its the owners who don't want to profit share amongst themselves.
If there's a team in a market that can't sustain itself the blame should go on to Bettman and the owners. There are several markets just waiting for a chance at team....markets that can support the game w/o 2for1 ticket sales & cheerleaders.

Face it, this is all in-fighting and its all about greed.

The salary cap is there for 2 reasons. To protect small market teams from their behemoth partners and to protect them from themselves. In a true free market system its the owners who get out of control, not the players.

As far as I'm concerned both the owners and the players are overpaid. Its the fans who always get screwed in these deals.

[Fred]

I agree a pox on both their houses and undoubtably the fans are the ones that will take the crap when it's all over. The best chnace of the fans not to suffer even more is if the owners do better out of the CBA than they are now. If the players were to make gains...it would be more ticket hikes.

The fact that most seem to conviently forget is the owners put up huge coin the buy the franchise. Players rarely re invest in the NHL ( apart from Mario, who did it to get back what was owed by a bankrupt owner ) and certainly the PS does not see fit to buy in

[the Dogsalmon]

This upcoming lockout is all on the players. Why should these millionaires be demanding raises? What could possibly be going through their heads that they outright reject the owners proposal that reduces their 57% share down to 46% instead of countering with a 50/50 offer and at least getting one issue out of the way. There aren't too many employers who have to make sure they share at least half of their profits with their employees.....not sure where the players are coming from with this. I realize that I would fight too if someone tried to take away something I already had, but all the same, compromise is the name of the game here. Then the PA counters with a new system that will force owners of wealthy and successful teams to lend a helping hand to bottom feeding franchises that can't sell tickets and grab fans because they have either mismanaged their teams into the league's cellar or decided to buy a team that was located in a place where people think a hockey stick is the short-bus version of a golf club. They also propose a system that will completely trash equitablity so far as competition is concerned and will allow the rise of dynasty teams that can simply buy the Stanley Cup year to year. The PA is a joke this time around, and I honestly hope the NHL breaks the union's fucking back.

Off base w/ this argument. The players aren't children creating widgets in Indonesia, they ARE the product. One that is worth 3 and a half BILL per. Without them there is no profits that the owners have been raking in.

The fact of the matter is, this lockout is going to be about the *owners*.
They need a CBA that protects them from themselves.
The players don't need a cap....the owners do. Its the owners who open up their wallet and give Shea Weber a $100million offer sheet as a RFA.
Its the owners who don't want to profit share amongst themselves.
If there's a team in a market that can't sustain itself the blame should go on to Bettman and the owners. There are several markets just waiting for a chance at team....markets that can support the game w/o 2for1 ticket sales & cheerleaders.

Face it, this is all in-fighting and its all about greed.

The salary cap is there for 2 reasons. To protect small market teams from their behemoth partners and to protect them from themselves. In a true free market system its the owners who get out of control, not the players.

As far as I'm concerned both the owners and the players are overpaid. Its the fans who always get screwed in these deals.

there is no way that is my post...i cant put together that many thoughts in a row...

[Meds]

Off base w/ this argument. The players aren't children creating widgets in Indonesia, they ARE the product. One that is worth 3 and a half BILL per. Without them there is no profits that the owners have been raking in.

I disagree. The players are important, but the product is hockey. I've cheered for the Canucks since I was a kid, over over 25 years of loving this team. The players have changed. I still love this team. If you replaced some of these guys, sure the quality of the game might suffer slightly, but the bottom line is that if these players were basically told that they can play and make millions of dollars in the new system that the owners propose or simply take their show elsewhere and play in Russia or Europe, well I think you would find the majority of these players staying here. The fans want a hockey season and they don't care whose name is on the back of the jersey, we just get behind the guy putting up the points, or the one working his ass off and bleeding for the team out on the ice night in and night out.

Face it, this is all in-fighting and its all about greed.

Absolutely right.

The salary cap is there for 2 reasons. To protect small market teams from their behemoth partners and to protect them from themselves. In a true free market system its the owners who get out of control, not the players.

As far as I'm concerned both the owners and the players are overpaid. Its the fans who always get screwed in these deals.

No argument there either. However, if the owners are saying they need a system of rules and regulations to govern the system and keep it equitable across the board so that every team has a chance to be competitive (at least from the standpoint of being able to afford players.....some simply can't attract players due to location or management, ie. Edmonton]).....well good for the owners.

The players factor in here because when they play and have some success in a certain city with a certain franchise and then when it is time for a new deal they pull a Ryan Suter and "test the free agent market" to see what they can get elsewhere. Now maybe they aren't happy living in the city in which they are currently playing, fair enough, we all have the right to try and find work wherever we want if it makes us happy. But generally it is about the money and they say no to $4.6M per year on a 5 year deal to get $4M per year on a longer deal with a lesser team that pays them $10M in the first year but lowers the overall average of the contract. When players hold out for more money they pressure the owners and send the message that if you overpay and get out of hand with salary offers then you can buy us, and as players we just don't care about the equitability of the system or the competitive nature of the league, just show us the money.

Again, as you said, it goes back to greed.

Here's a question for the business owners here on the board though. Would, or do, any of you pay your employees a decent and fair wage and then also offer them a greater share of the profits than you yourself would take? Do you as an owner want to go out of your way to tie your own hands and give even more control to your employees? No. You hire people and if they don't do the job they were hired to do you lay them off or fire their asses for being lazy and incompetent. And these employees probably have not made enough to retire on during that time. When you get paid a couple of million dollars every year I think it is fair to say that a guaranteed income where you cannot possibly get fired or laid off and will never fail to collect on the millions you've been promised.....gimme a break. No business owner is going to say this is a good thing.

I have no use for NHL players, or any professional athlete for that matter, who makes 7 figures but thinks they should have the right to be guaranteed that kind of money for long term regardless of performance.

So the owners need a leash, but the players need to be given a smack upside the head and told to wake the fuck up because they play a GAME. They don't slave away in uncomfortable weather conditions, or do manual labor 8+ hours a day toiling away at something they don't really like......and they certainly aren't doing it for an hourly wage that will gross them in the 5 figure range every year.

At least these owners, many of them anyway, have had to work, stress, invest, and put the time in to make the money they have, I hate greed, but it's more detestable when it comes from overgrown kids who make more in a few of years than 75% of the population makes in a lifetime.....all to play a game!

[ukcanuck]

At least these owners, many of them anyway, have had to work, stress, invest, and put the time in to make the money they have, I hate greed, but it's more detestable when it comes from overgrown kids who make more in a few of years than 75% of the population makes in a lifetime.....all to play a game!

Wow I totally disagree with everything you are saying in this post. you think the owners actually worked for their money? seriously? and even if they did, why is their work and money more valuable than the players who have spent their entire lives building the skills maybe 500 people in the world have?
The players deserve every bit of at least half of the pie

[Meds]

At least these owners, many of them anyway, have had to work, stress, invest, and put the time in to make the money they have, I hate greed, but it's more detestable when it comes from overgrown kids who make more in a few of years than 75% of the population makes in a lifetime.....all to play a game!

Wow I totally disagree with everything you are saying in this post. you think the owners actually worked for their money? seriously? and even if they did, why is their work and money more valuable than the players who have spent their entire lives building the skills maybe 500 people in the world have?
The players deserve every bit of at least half of the pie

Do the players pay for the arenas? Do the players pay the cost of running the league? Do the players pay for their equipment or the general operations of the team they play for? Is it coming out of the players pay cheque every time he gets frustrated and breaks a $275+ hockey stick? Who fronts the money for the jerseys and the advertising? Do the players pay for the cost of the teams travel?

And the players feel they are entitled to half the profits? They don't own the teams and they have, for the most part, no loyalty to any particular team beyond the size of the pay cheque they can get. They are mercenaries for hire.

Fuck the players. Fuck the owners too. Fuck the NHL and pro sports in general that make millionaires out of babies.