PS – without employees… large companies CEASE to exist.

It’s called parity. If ALL the current players were replaced tomorrow, the game wouldn’t be ‘quite’ as good, but not markedly substandard. The parity of incoming player talent would still produce very good hockey

The players aren’t saying keep it the way it is, they’re saying don’t risk permanent damage to the league by shutting it down while they renegotiate.

We like to think the Wild had a nice deal, but it’s only in the mid teens to early 20′s.

They owners are asking for a massive rollback that wouldn’t see the salary cap reach it’s current level until year 4 which would put over half the league currently over the salary cap … after these exact same owners just spent the last few months handing out some of the biggest contracts hockey has ever seen.

Once again they’re asking the players to protect the owners from the owners…

Add to the equation the fact that the players offered to continue the season and negotiate in good faith without a work stoppage of any kind … and it’s kind of hard for me to be on the owners side right about now.

I can’t even put into words how wrong you are.

Employees of “large company” contribute to the goods, service, and ultimately the product of a company … the players are the NHL’s product. Without the players the “large company” ceases to exist.

Of course that’s ignoring your iron clad argument that if every one of the best players in the world suddenly disappeared the product would be exactly the same because they’d still have jerseys to put on warm bodies… and there’s no arguing with that kinda “logic” is there…

On a side note, is Minnesota a small market team (like the Twins and Wolves) or middle market or big market now they spend like one?

I do support lowering the players’ salaries down to help some of these teams stay more competitive but there’s no way dropping salaries alone will by any stretch make failing teams more economically viable, unless they chopped it from the current 57% to less than 30%. That’s clearly out of the question. It would be frustrating as an owner to have to spend more and more every year, and overpay players simply to reach the cap floor.

What they ought to do is place the cap at 50% OR a hard cash cap at, say, $55-60 mil/year, whichever is lower. Who’s the say that HRR won’t just keep climbing over the next 8-10 years? Also, consider that if a failing team (eg Phoenix) moves to greener pastures (Quebec City), you also bring up league revenues with it, further raising player revenues and the cap floor/ceiling. I do really want the league to be successful (obviously) and there is something to be said about keeping the field level. However, revenue sharing in a league that makes it money by tickets sold is not really the answer.

Both the NFL and NBA deals, the players took pay cuts down to around 52 to 53% of the their total sport revenue. The NHL should be no different, in fact I’ll argue they should get less than those. Compared to the NFL and NBA, the NHL is a niche sport here in America. Where I can hear the argument is that the NHL is the NFL of Canada.

The problem is the players are trying to put the big markets (Chicago, Toronto, Rangers, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles against the small market teams (Winnipeg, Carolina, Edmonton, and Columbus) against each other. The big markets don’t want to share their massive local tv deals with the small market teams to help keep them competitive.

Those are just the monitory issues. Throw in the Olympics, drug testing, realignment, and player safety; this is just looking like one big cluster (explicit word here).

This CBA really shouldn’t be that hard to get done. The players get to represent their countries once every four years and the NHL takes a break with no All-Star Game, the owners get realignment (which was perfectly realigned). It’s going to take the players to know their place in such a niche sport and the big market owners are going to have to be willing to help out the small market teams. Until these 2 things happen, wr aren’t going to see hockey for a long time.

I’d invest in the Big10 network and start watching Minesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan, and Ohio State hockey programs each Friday and Saturday night. Or start watching the Lakers/Heat journey to the NBA Finals (which is exactly why a luxery tax is a terrible idea).

Stop trying to get deeper and deeper into the OWNERS pockets.

If these players ALL went away tomorrow, there would be another group of players following right in behind them, wearing the same jersey’s the guys before them did. The players get drafted, sign a contract, and skate on ice they NEVER EVEN thought about… before that moment. That folks, is why the PRODUCT endures and supercedes any individual player.

The product includes everything: The OWNERS efforts to build a market, the brand, the venue, the logo, the broadcasting and advertising, AND the players.

Players getting 57% of hockey related revenue… what does that mean? What is hockey-related and what is not hockey-related?

If it’s merchandising, ticket sales, video game licensing, and concessions, that seems a bit high. What revenue do the owners get that is not hockey-related? Other events that occur in buildings that they own?

It’s important to understand what the numbers represent. If we’re talking about hockey operations, it seems that the revenue should be split roughly evenly. 57% seems high.

That’s not even the debate (to oversimplify it) they’re debating how much each partner should get when revenues are split.

Fehr – “different in some respects …[but]… doesn’t feel better or worse”

What about these two statements don’t relate?