Season Over

[Viper in Vancouver]

I heard the talks just broke off between the NHL and the NHLPA. I also heard that Bettman is going to hold a news conference at 1:00pm to probably announce that the season is over. Screw both sides, I could care less if they ever play again. I think they should just start a new league, and screw the NHLPA

[Viper in Vancouver]

Yep, Bill Daly just said that meetings have broken off and that they're are no future meetings planned. It's all over, and it's definitely not a surprise

[BrantfordBudFan]

I have 2 tics for the Rock game Saturday night fuck the N.H.L.

[Viper in Vancouver]

I have 2 tics for the Rock game Saturday night fuck the N.H.L.

Good plan, and go support those Excelsiors as well

[BrantfordBudFan]

I have 2 tics for the Rock game Saturday night fuck the N.H.L.

Good plan, and go support those Excelsiors as well

SIX NATIONS!!!!!!!!!!! Actually going tonight to watch High school basketball tonight might be the nephews last game 6'5 250 LBS and his mom did not want him too play hockey because he might get hurt?!?!

[scritti]

any good concerts i should pick up on?

war Toledo storm

[d-townmike]

go Eagles!

[Blitzkrieg]

Even if they did play hockey this year, I heard that the new plan was to play a 26 game schedule with a normal playoff format.



Greedy bastards.

[Cross Traffic]

He is the true asshole:

[fix]

He is the true asshole:

Go figure?

Betteman is the one that locked the players out.
Why should Goodenow capitulate to a jackass that took over the game following what was probably one of the best Stanley Cup finals in 1994 and has run the game into the toilet.

The NHL's never been willing to negotiate. At least tbe NHLPA made an offer to rollback their salaries and instill a luxery tax system.

Here's your true asshole.



The game would have been better off today if only someone had fullfilled Chelly's prophecy during the last lockout.

[The Anomaly]

otis: You are a fool and have no business sense. The owners offered to tie salaries to revenue - 55% to be exact. A rollback does nothing. Players can still demand whatever they want. A lux tax does what? Nothing. The sport needs to be fixed economically.

Defend your position. Don't attack the owners without a clue.

Get one.

[BSmack]

Why don't the owners institute revenue sharing accross the board? That would have the same net impact as a salary cap without that nasty side effect of bitchy players and lost seasons?

[Hapday]

Betteman is the one that locked the players out.

Players are welcome to come play under a cap anytime. True that Bettman locked them out, but I don't see any players knocking at their team's areas to be let back in and play. The players are also refusing to play.

Why should Goodenow capitulate to a jackass that took over the game following what was probably one of the best Stanley Cup finals in 1994 and has run the game into the toilet.

Considering players salaries have risen 300% since that year, somethibg has to be done. Both the owners and players are to blame, but a salary cap is the solution and protection fans have.

The NHL's never been willing to negotiate. At least tbe NHLPA made an offer to rollback their salaries and instill a luxery tax system.

The NHLPA has been just as stubborn. The minute the word 'cap' is mentioned the NHLPA walks out. The luxury tax system is a great idea, but the NHL wanted harsher taxes and the NHLPA said no.

The game would have been better off today if only someone had fullfilled Chelly's prophecy during the last lockout.

Both of these idiots need to fired 10 minutes after the next agreement is signed. I don't like Bettman, but here are the reasons Goodenow is the asshole here:

1) The NHL wanted to meet and start the process of negotiating the CBA two years ago and the NHLPA (Goodenow) refused to until the current CBA had expired.

2) Any union lets its members vote on offers from management, and the NHLPA refuses to do that. They know damn well what the result would be thats why. When over 70 per cent of the union already makes under $2 million, what do you think their answer would be?

3) This compliments the last point, but Goodenow is clearly looking after only the superstars. A salary cap would restrict and even eliminate NHL players making over $5 million. The third and fourth liners making less (which is an overwhelming majority) would really be affected. The fact that he didn't even tell the NHLPA members of the 'roll-back' back plans tells me who he is looking out for and that he damn well knows they will make that money back.

[SunCoastSooner]

People outside of Canada are still paying attention to the NHL?

[JD]

Heh... the NHL refused to negotiate???

The NHL has presented 4 different proposals to the union. Never once has the union negotiated on those proposals. They've simply said no and walked out of the room.

The NHLPA made ONE proposal, and the NHL took it home for nearly a week to actually study it before it was rejected.

And why was it rejected? Because a 24% rollback means fuck all when something like 60% of players are actually under contract right now. It means nothing when it still allows the Leafs to go and get whomever they want, twofold since they've just saved 24% on their existing contracts.

The 2nd last NHL proposal looked pretty damn good to me (the one before the "we'll use yours and when the triggers hit we'll use ours" one). It was said that the NHL was willing to talk about putting a luxury tax into it too. Instead, it was outrightly refused and no further negotiations happened.

The NHLPA is simply doing what it's always done: pressure the NHL into resolutions they didn't want because of the use of pressure tactics and the threat of losing entire seasons.

The only difference this time is that the owners aren't bluffing.

Fuck the NHLPA.

[Hapday]

The only difference this time is that the owners aren't bluffing.

Fuck the NHLPA.

RACK!!

What the NHLPA has to realize is that owners are either making money due to lockout or losing far less money than they would if hockey was being played right now.

Would it be so horrible if the top NHL player made only $5 million a season? I'm sure if they budgeted the bills properly they could somehow manage to get by. :roll:

[BSmack]

The only difference this time is that the owners aren't bluffing.

Fuck the NHLPA.

RACK!!

What the NHLPA has to realize is that owners are either making money due to lockout or losing far less money than they would if hockey was being played right now.

Would it be so horrible if the top NHL player made only $5 million a season? I'm sure if they budgeted the bills properly they could somehow manage to get by. :roll:

I'm still failing to understand why the owners can't just end the lockout and unilateraly impose a full revenue sharing system. Implemented over time, they could easily force a lowering a salaries by allowing the teams to all compete on the same financial level.

It couldn't have anything to do with the owners of big market teams being greedy could it?

[Hapday]

I'm still failing to understand why the owners can't just end the lockout and unilateraly impose a full revenue sharing system. Implemented over time, they could easily force a lowering a salaries by allowing the teams to all compete on the same financial level.

It couldn't have anything to do with the owners of big market teams being greedy could it?

How would revenue sharing lower salaries? It would just mean that teams like Colombus would have jack to overpay their players with. I agree with revenue sharing AND a hard cap. This would help the league grow, and smalller yet hockey-mad markets survive.

[BSmack]

How would revenue sharing lower salaries? It would just mean that teams like Colombus would have jack to overpay their players with. I agree with revenue sharing AND a hard cap. This would help the league grow, and smalller yet hockey-mad markets survive.

If you had hard revenue sharing, you would have a hard salary cap. No team would be able to significantly pay above and beyond another team for a lineup. A real commissioner would make the owners understand that the only way the league will flourish is collectively, not individually.

[Hapday]

How would revenue sharing lower salaries? It would just mean that teams like Colombus would have jack to overpay their players with. I agree with revenue sharing AND a hard cap. This would help the league grow, and smalller yet hockey-mad markets survive.

If you had hard revenue sharing, you would have a hard salary cap.

No really. Toronto, New York, and Detroit could all have budgets of well-over $80 million, and would have less revenue to 'share'. You can't have guaranteed revenue to share unless costs are guaranteed. You can't tell teams that they HAVE to give $30 million each to revenue sharing, it just won't work.

[BSmack]

How would revenue sharing lower salaries? It would just mean that teams like Colombus would have jack to overpay their players with. I agree with revenue sharing AND a hard cap. This would help the league grow, and smalller yet hockey-mad markets survive.

If you had hard revenue sharing, you would have a hard salary cap.

No really. Toronto, New York, and Detroit could all have budgets of well-over $80 million, and would have less revenue to 'share'. You can't have guaranteed revenue to share unless costs are guaranteed. You can't tell teams that they HAVE to give $30 million each to revenue sharing, it just won't work.

Of coursde you would have to phase in revenue sharing. That would give the big market teams a chance to pare back their salaries. In the case of the Rangers, I would recomend paring back by firing squad.

[Hapday]

If you had hard revenue sharing, you would have a hard salary cap.

No really. Toronto, New York, and Detroit could all have budgets of well-over $80 million, and would have less revenue to 'share'. You can't have guaranteed revenue to share unless costs are guaranteed. You can't tell teams that they HAVE to give $30 million each to revenue sharing, it just won't work.

Of coursde you would have to phase in revenue sharing. That would give the big market teams a chance to pare back their salaries. In the case of the Rangers, I would recomend paring back by firing squad.

Why would the big market market teams pare back salaries? Would the NHL force big market teams to contribute a certain amount of money? Who would set that amount? How would you set that amount?

Revenue sharing is a great idea WITH a salary cap, without a cap there is no point. It would completely turn into a baseball-type of economic system.

[JD]

I like the idea of absolute revenue sharing. It creates a league that operates as one entity trying to operate as a successful business in all markets. But since there are 30 owners/ownership groups all looking out for themselves, it would be difficult to convince them that this is the best way to go. Hard to tell the Leaf ownership that they need to take their revenues (ie, profits) and give it to the Ducks, who are perhaps poorly run and losing money every year.

But for it to work, I really think you'd have to cap salaries at whatever level the revenues are being shared. Otherwise, as Hap points out, owners start dipping into their own pockets to sign free agents and make their teams more competitive.

Then again, this sort of thing is akin to communism.

But really, the end result of the thing is that it TIES REVENUES TO PLAYER SALARIES, which is exactly what the league is asking from the players. The league is saying, "We want to pay you 55% of the league revenues". The players are essentially saying, "But that's a cap!!!".

Friggin' buffoons mustn't realize that each day this thing goes on, the less likely their union is to win this thing, and the less revenue the league is going to be making when they DO come back. The players WILL get "stuck" with 55% of revenues by the time this is over, and by that time, 55% of nothing is, well, you do the math. :x

[Hapday]

Friggin' buffoons mustn't realize that each day this thing goes on, the less likely their union is to win this thing, and the less revenue the league is going to be making when they DO come back. The players WILL get "stuck" with 55% of revenues by the time this is over, and by that time, 55% of nothing is, well, you do the math. :x

Yup. As I have said before, there will be a cap and the players and teh NHLPA WILL lose. The only thing left to decide is when do the players finally smarten up?

[BSmack]

Why would the big market market teams pare back salaries? Would the NHL force big market teams to contribute a certain amount of money? Who would set that amount? How would you set that amount?

You obviously don't understand that revenue sharing means sharing of ALL revenue. Therefore, each team would have the same operating budget. The owners could do this without any input or say by the union and the NHLPA would be left out on the cold.

[Hapday]

You obviously don't understand that revenue sharing means sharing of ALL revenue. Therefore, each team would have the same operating budget .

Wrong.

If there is revenue sharing with no cap, there is no limit to how much revenue teams would have to 'put in the pot' to share. Therefore the Leafs could still have a $80 million budget and only contribute $5 million to revenue sharing. Other teams could take the money from this revenue sharing and continue to overpay players.

That system in no way means that there would be a ceiling on salaries, and that is what the NHL is after. The larger-market teams would still pay overimfated prices on players, and this would have a trickle-down affect to smaller market teams trying to keep their talent.

The owners could do this without any input or say by the union and the NHLPA would be left out on the cold.

Not without cries of coillusion from the NHLPA. The players would hardly be left in the cold in that system and salaries would continue to rise.

[BSmack]

Wrong.

If there is revenue sharing with no cap, there is no limit to how much revenue teams would have to 'put in the pot' to share. Therefore the Leafs could still have a $80 million budget and only contribute $5 million to revenue sharing. Other teams could take the money from this revenue sharing and continue to overpay players.

I'm talking about HARD revenue sharing.

For example. The Leafs take in 300 million this year. The Leafs would contribute 300 million to the league revenue sharing pot. The Stars say make 200 million. They would contribute 200 million. Meanwhile the Atlanta Thrashers (wtf kind of name is that?) make 50 million. They would contribute 50 million. That money would be redistributed back to the teams equally along with merchandising revenue, the 3 dollars and change that each team would get from the next TV contract and other assorted revenues. Then all teams would be on the same playing field as far as operational income is concerned. It would be impossible for a team like the Rangers to corner the market on washed up has been players with no heart and it would be equally impossible for a team like the Wings to stockpile all stars like cordwood.

Face it, the real obstacle is the greed of the owners. The guys with the big pies don't want to share, and the guys with the little pies want to take it out of the players.

[Hapday]

I'm talking about HARD revenue sharing.

Which is impossible unless you have a hard cap to base that on.

For example. The Leafs take in 300 million this year. The Leafs would contribute 300 million to the league revenue sharing pot. The Stars say make 200 million. They would contribute 200 million. Meanwhile the Atlanta Thrashers (wtf kind of name is that?) make 50 million. They would contribute 50 million. That money would be redistributed back to the teams equally along with merchandising revenue, the 3 dollars and change that each team would get from the next TV contract and other assorted revenues. Then all teams would be on the same playing field as far as operational income is concerned. It would be impossible for a team like the Rangers to corner the market on washed up has been players with no heart and it would be equally impossible for a team like the Wings to stockpile all stars like cordwood..

First of all no NHL team takes in over $25 million a season, and that's one of the reasons why we are in this mess. I realize that you just threw out those numbers as an example.

Let's take the Leafs. While I don't have exact numbers, the ones I have are very close. The Leafs payroll was somewhere around $65 million and they made close to $25 million. The league can't demand the Leafs pay $25 million every year to revenue sharing. The next year the Leafs will just double their payroll, and why not? They have to give the money away anyway, why not overpay some players? The cry poor the next year and say they only make $1 million. This hasn't stopped the out-of-control spending one bit and the fact they overpaid players will have a trickle-down affect on small-market teams trying to re-sign players.

You can't have a HARD revenue sharing plan and force the Leafs to fork over $25 million when they bring in less than that.

Face it, the real obstacle is the greed of the owners. The guys with the big pies don't want to share, and the guys with the little pies want to take it out of the players.

Maybe I am being Pollyanna here: They have no TV contract in the U.S. and the WNBA and bowling get better ratings. To get popular in the states they have to start from scratch and have cost certainty so that there is flexibility in pricing to attract fans to come out to rink. You ask an uniterested fan base to shell out $70-100 to see a sport they don't give a rats as about. Charge less and offer more and you get some interest.

If a hard cap won't work, then I like a HARD luxury tax.

Over $35 million - owners pay $0.50US on every dollar spent

over $40 million - owners pay $0.70US on every dollar spent

over $45 million - owners pay $1.00US on every dollar spent

over $50 million - owners pay $1.50US on every dollar spent

etc., etc.

This still allows some strategy for GM's come trade deadline day, and allows for larger-market teams to still use that to their advantage. Why shouldn't a team like Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, or New York have that advantage?

The NHLPA offered a luxury-tax system, but it wasn't strict enough.

[The Anomaly]

To get these fans back they will have to rollback ticket prices. Less revenue, less payroll.

Many of you think too highly of the players. If I own something, it's mine. The players forget it's the sport the fans come to see. That's what brings em. Not the players. Players change all the time, they change teams, they retire but it is the sport they love.

Screw the players. The owners SHOULD have total control. They OWN the damn teams.

Just a side note, if the owners give up 55% of revenue, they are basically capping their own revenues in return(45%).

[fix]

otis: You are a fool and have no business sense. The owners offered to tie salaries to revenue - 55% to be exact. A rollback does nothing. Players can still demand whatever they want. A lux tax does what? Nothing. The sport needs to be fixed economically.

Defend your position. Don't attack the owners without a clue.

Get one.

And only a fool would take the owners at their word.

Revenues?

Bwahahaha... just what they decide to report or would an independent auditor decide what the revenues actually are, and not some fucking idiot that was paid by Bettteman and friends to conjur up numbers that made their case.

Forbes found significant differences in what the Levit report claimed.

And even then, why should the NHLPA trust the owners to begin with?

Let's refresh our memory of the illustrious list of the league execs and owners over the past decade and their track records:

Longtime hockey czar and players union head R. Alan Eagleson went to prison for fraud in 1998. His cozy relationship with NHL executives and owners helped depress the players' salaries for years.

Gilbert Stein, the NHL's longtime vice president and general counsel, wrote in a 1997 book that NHL President John Ziegler Jr. "seemed to know in advance what the players would probably agree to in negotiations.

"Was he clairvoyant? No. His insights usually arrived courtesy of his cozy relationship with Eagleson."

The players "never suspected," he wrote.

Stein, who was also NHL president for one year, decided to retire when he was caught trying to rig his own election to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Bruce McNall, owner of the Los Angeles Kings between 1986 and 1995 and former chairman of the NHL board of governors, went to prison for stealing $236 million from several financial institutions.
The Kings fell into bankruptcy due in part to McNall's criminal activity.

The Buffalo Sabres went bankrupt in 2003, and former team owner John Rigas and his son were convicted of fraud for systematically lying to investors of their company, Adelphia Communications, the nation's fifth-largest cable TV business.

The NHL was also embarrassed after approving the sale of the New York Islanders in 1997 to John A. Spano Jr., a swindler who left a trail of bounced checks before dropping out.

Spano passed an NHL background check that cost the league $750. His deal to "buy" the team was for $165 million.

Scandal hit the Islanders again last fall, first when co-owner Sanjay Kumar was indicted on a string of federal charges including securities fraud. Next, Heather Jabick, a team accountant, was charged with doctoring the books to transfer almost $174,000 into her personal accounts. Kumar and Jabick have pleaded not guilty.

Meanwhile, a tax case involving the Boston Bruins and owner Jeremy Jacobs -- a key supporter of NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and the lockout -- may make players wonder about the way teams account for hockey revenue, though no criminal charges were involved.

The state claimed the Bruins and Jacobs under-reported taxable income on ticket sales and broadcast rights between 1991 and 1994, according to records of the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board obtained by The Eagle-Tribune.

NHL teams keep all the ticket money for home games, with the visiting team getting nothing.

The Bruins argued that they shouldn't pay Massachusetts taxes on all of their home-game revenue because they are obligated to play half their games out of state, incurring expenses but making no money.

The tax board rejected that argument. It also rejected the Bruins' claim that they shouldn't be taxed on all the team's broadcast revenue. The Bruins had a 31 percent ownership stake in New England Sports Network (NESN) at the time.

The Bruins claimed that a third of the revenue came from out-of-state viewers receiving the broadcast from rented property that was far from Massachusetts -- a satellite floating "22,300 miles above Earth's surface and 1,200 miles west of Mexico's Baja California coast."

That reasoning, wrote board Chairwoman Abigail A. Burns, "would result in 'nowhere' property ... not to be taxed by any jurisdiction. This interpretation would produce an absurd result."

The Bruins and Jacobs were hit with a bill for $3.2 million in back taxes and penalties.

If you want to blame anyone for the escalation of salaries.. then one person that should be held to the fire is one of those claiming poor now.

Hurricanes owner, Peter Karmanos.
He was the one that offered Sergei Federov the huge contract which forced Red Wings owner Mike Illitch to match it.


In any other business, owners are the ones that are accountable for the running of their companies. If they mismanage, they go belly up.
The employees or other contractors aren't responsible for bailing them out because they can't make proper business decisions.


Credit to Russ Conway.

[Cross Traffic]

Karmanos only did the offer sheet to screw over Illitch, not to actually help his team.

Goodenow is no angel either. The players are the ones who kept Eagleson from the start of the NHLPA to the early 90s, and were blind to the theft from their pension funds.

[BSmack]

First of all no NHL team takes in over $25 million a season, and that's one of the reasons why we are in this mess. I realize that you just threw out those numbers as an example.

Let's take the Leafs. While I don't have exact numbers, the ones I have are very close. The Leafs payroll was somewhere around $65 million and they made close to $25 million. The league can't demand the Leafs pay $25 million every year to revenue sharing. The next year the Leafs will just double their payroll, and why not? They have to give the money away anyway, why not overpay some players? The cry poor the next year and say they only make $1 million. This hasn't stopped the out-of-control spending one bit and the fact they overpaid players will have a trickle-down affect on small-market teams trying to re-sign players.

Right now the league can't demand the Leafs pay into jackshit. What I am suggesting (knowing full well it will never happen) is more akin to all the teams in the league pooling all of their financial resources together. It would require a fundamental restructuring of ownership. Simply put, I would merge the ownership interests of all 30 NHL teams. Obviously this would require foresight and business acumen. That's why it would never happen. But that's how you could impose a hard revenue sharing plan without the input of the NHLPA. And with hard revenue sharing comes a de facto hard cap.

It's a pipe dream, but it's not as insane as it seems. It's just completely beyond the ability to the owners to execute.

[JD]

And only a fool would take the owners at their word.

Revenues?

Bwahahaha... just what they decide to report or would an independent auditor decide what the revenues actually are, and not some fucking idiot that was paid by Bettteman and friends to conjur up numbers that made their case.

In the owners' offers, they've included the concession that an independent auditor, CHOSEN BY THE PLAYERS, would be responsible for determining what a dollar of revenue is. What more could they want?

Forbes found significant differences in what the Levit report claimed.

Ah, very true. But both investigations found that the league is losing gobs of money. Again, what exactly are the players looking for?

Let's refresh our memory of the illustrious list of the league execs and owners over the past decade and their track records:

insert wordy article condemning NHL people

Of that group, only Jeremy Jacobs remains part of the league. Then again, if you're merely here to point out shadiness, the players are a group having consisted of such wonderful citizens as Kevin Stevens and Mike Danton or Jefferson or Knobgobbler or whatever he's calling himself these days. Not that they have anything to do with this, but I don't really see how Gil Stein has anything to do with this negotiation either.

If you want to blame anyone for the escalation of salaries.. then one person that should be held to the fire is one of those claiming poor now.

Hurricanes owner, Peter Karmanos.
He was the one that offered Sergei Federov the huge contract which forced Red Wings owner Mike Illitch to match it.

Yup. I wholeheartedly agree with that. And let's not forget the Rangers' ridiculous offer to Sakic in '97 or whenever that was. And the Ducks' offer to Kariya... and on it goes. The owners are almost certainly to blame for the mess the league is in, but definitely not all of them.

In any other business, owners are the ones that are accountable for the running of their companies. If they mismanage, they go belly up.
The employees or other contractors aren't responsible for bailing them out because they can't make proper business decisions.

But the owners aren't looking to penalize the players. They're not asking for money back from them (incidentally, the players ended up offering money back... ). They're looking to institute some checks and balances that prevent renegade, overzealous owners from fucking up the payscale again.

The players are just pissed because that opportunity for the jackpot contract is taken away from them. Who's gonna offer Alexei Yashin a 10 year $90M contract when they've got to adhere to some guidelines, ie, a CAP? I understand why they don't like that idea, but somewhere some reason needs to be governed into this sport. The owners are obviously too stupid to police themselves.

This business was going belly up, evidenced by both Forbes and Leavitt. The owners are doing what they can to stop that. And in that vein, they're making business decisions. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

[fix]

JD, I agree that salaries must be rolled back.

But how they get there is what I'm disagreeing with.
I'm deadset against a salary cap, or at least the hard cap that the NHL is proposing.
Like you already said, "The owners are almost certainly to blame for the mess the league is in, but definitely not all of them."

"They're looking to institute some checks and balances that prevent renegade, overzealous owners from fucking up the payscale again."

They are the ones that must take the responsibilty to control player salaries. Not through forcing the NHLPA to protect the owners from themselves by agreeing to a hard cap.

And I'd also be in favour of revenue sharing IF it were to help those teams in true hockey markets.
Such as Calgary, Edmonton or shit, even Pittsburgh.
One day it might even spark a return of NHL hockey to Winnipeg, a city that to this day, still deserves to have their team back.
Phoenix, Nashville and Atlanta? Come on...

[Hapday]

JD, I agree that salaries must be rolled back.

But how they get there is what I'm disagreeing with.
I'm deadset against a salary cap, or at least the hard cap that the NHL is proposing.

Why? It's the only protection the fans have against greedy and stupid players and owners. If not a hard cap, then extremely harsh luxury taxes as I mentioned earlier.

Like you already said, "The owners are almost certainly to blame for the mess the league is in, but definitely not all of them."

"They're looking to institute some checks and balances that prevent renegade, overzealous owners from fucking up the payscale again."

They are the ones that must take the responsibilty to control player salaries. Not through forcing the NHLPA to protect the owners from themselves by agreeing to a hard cap.

You are also forgetting about the Mark Gandlers of the world. You have to factor them into the equation.

And I'd also be in favour of revenue sharing IF it were to help those teams in true hockey markets.
Such as Calgary, Edmonton or shit, even Pittsburgh.
One day it might even spark a return of NHL hockey to Winnipeg, a city that to this day, still deserves to have their team back.
Phoenix, Nashville and Atlanta? Come on...

A hard cap would help teams move to Canada a lot sooner. With a hard cap of $35-40 million, Quebec City and Winnipeg could both get their teams back.

I think a hard cap is needed until the league can get that fat TV contract, then the cap can be raised.

[Hapday]

Right now the league can't demand the Leafs pay into jackshit. What I am suggesting (knowing full well it will never happen) is more akin to all the teams in the league pooling all of their financial resources together. It would require a fundamental restructuring of ownership. Simply put, I would merge the ownership interests of all 30 NHL teams. Obviously this would require foresight and business acumen. That's why it would never happen. But that's how you could impose a hard revenue sharing plan without the input of the NHLPA. And with hard revenue sharing comes a de facto hard cap.

It's a pipe dream, but it's not as insane as it seems. It's just completely beyond the ability to the owners to execute.

It still wouldn't cap salaries in way shape or form, and would be impossible to legislate.

[The Anomaly]

If you want to blame anyone for the escalation of salaries.. then one person that should be held to the fire is one of those claiming poor now.

Hurricanes owner, Peter Karmanos.
He was the one that offered Sergei Federov the huge contract which forced Red Wings owner Mike Illitch to match it.


In any other business, owners are the ones that are accountable for the running of their companies. If they mismanage, they go belly up.
The employees or other contractors aren't responsible for bailing them out because they can't make proper business decisions.


Credit to Russ Conway.

You don't make any sense. You say blame the owners, yet the minute they get together its called collusion. They want to bargain in good faith and save the sport. You mention belly up.....well that is what is going to haapen. Then what?

You are very ignorant. Have you ever taken at least one economics class, maybe at the JC you attended for that half semester before you dropped out? Your logic is so screwed up. If they mismanage they go belly up and the players lose out too. Or did you forget that? Tying salaries to revenue is the only way. Everybody shares in the ups and downs. The players just can't accept it(even though over half would vote yes).

Keep not making sense.......I love it.

[The Anomaly]

They are the ones that must take the responsibilty to control player salaries. Not through forcing the NHLPA to protect the owners from themselves by agreeing to a hard cap.

HELLO? The second they get together and say...."don't pay anyone a certain amount..." they will get hammered with collusion.

COLLUSION. Do you know what that means?

[fix]

If you want to blame anyone for the escalation of salaries.. then one person that should be held to the fire is one of those claiming poor now.

Hurricanes owner, Peter Karmanos.
He was the one that offered Sergei Federov the huge contract which forced Red Wings owner Mike Illitch to match it.


In any other business, owners are the ones that are accountable for the running of their companies. If they mismanage, they go belly up.
The employees or other contractors aren't responsible for bailing them out because they can't make proper business decisions.


Credit to Russ Conway.

You don't make any sense. You say blame the owners, yet the minute they get together its called collusion.

They knew that when they bought into the league. If they weren't aware of it, they're idiots.

They want to bargain in good faith and save the sport.

Bargaining in good faith? You mean like offering up the deal with the 4 triggers in it that would have automatically given the NHL what it has wanted all along?

Ya, that's real good faith. :roll:

You mention belly up.....well that is what is going to haapen. Then what?

Then the owners will have what they've been out to get all along, a busting of the union.

If they mismanage they go belly up and the players lose out too. Or did you forget that?

Wrong. Someone else will step up and buy the franchise as witnessed in Buffalo, Ottawa.

Tying salaries to revenue is the only way. Everybody shares in the ups and downs.

But the money flows through so many intertwined businesses, subsidiaries and family trusts controlled by the owners that they'd have a field day skimming off the top before reaching their figures on how much revenue there is to be shared.

The players just can't accept it(even though over half would vote yes).

Oh? Can you provide some form of proof to substantiate this idiocy or would it be safe to say that you're just running your mouth off about something you have no clue on.

[The Anomaly]

proof? How come the NHLPA won't let all the player's put it to a vote?

Gotta show that false unity.

You are a complete jack ass. It's amusing.