Comments on: Parise: “Gary’s pretty adamant about his third lockout of his tenure”

By: pg99bassist

pg99bassist — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 02:44:08 +0000

All of what you said would be valid… if the players had instantiated a strike. But they didn’t. The OWNERS locked them out. The owners let the current CBA expire. The owners made the first offer that is roughly 20% less that what they currently make. Meanwhile they are the ones offering guys like Parise, Suter and Weber these ridiculously long, inflated contracts.

Do you know what an offer sheet is? The players are free agents. They discuss what their terms may be but the TEAM offers them the money. If the owners want to play paupers… they wouldn’t be throwing all the money around.

Again… the OWNERS locked the players out. There isn’t going to be hockey until the OWNERS let the players return to work. People in the minority (the ones who side with the owners) always seem to forget that they hold all the cards. You could walk into my bosses office and demand a raise or a bonus… but it will be their decision to give it to you. And when they decide you aren’t worth your salary or can replace you… well… you can figure the rest out.

By: topnotch60

topnotch60 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 05:15:15 +0000

Pg99 you must have spent the whole day finding such a big word, not bad for a total moron. You cant overlook the overhead the owners have besides contracts i dont like the crap thats going on and if theres another lockout. I myself am gone. I think its bs that players have a 98 mil contract and need more, im sorry but that i dont agree with. The players should live on the contracts they’ve negotiated and let the owners share the HRR with less fortunent franchises. Let them save themselves by sharing the money the fans dish out for jerseys and hats etc. i dont feel sorry one bit for a guy, who makes 10 mil a year yet he needs more. Now whos being greedy. Dont even bring up injuries either. Every “career” has injury potential, very few have a 10 mil a yr salary and heaven forbid they get a headache, they might miss a season and still get that fat paycheck every week. Now quit whining, get the bs done and “lets play hockey!!!”

By: mpg44

mpg44 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 02:33:18 +0000

Actually …. I was talking about the HRR , not the revenue sharing between the teams. You do know there is a diffrence , Right??

By: windmiller4

windmiller4 — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:06:19 +0000

@polegojim Cool it with the capital letters, i know your feelings got hurt but I’m sure it’ll go away eventually. I honestly can’t even believe the pure stupidity in that comment, either you don’t know how the business side of how things work, or you just enjoy stirring the pot. If there is a lockout maybe you can use all that extra time to brush up on your economics, maybe then you’ll be able to wrap that tiny brain of yours around such a big subject

By: polegojim

polegojim — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:59:01 +0000

Ahhh capsfan… Because 85-100 mil a year is…

“Feelings… nothing more than feelings,
trying to forget my… feelings of love”

Teardrops… rolling down on my face,
trying to forget my… feelings of love.

Feelings… feelings like I’ve never lost you
and feelings like I’ll never have you again in my heart.”

Those idiot owners – how DID they get so rich???

By: polegojim

polegojim — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:53:01 +0000

Oh Windmiller… those AWEFUL owners.

How DARE they make money… with THEIR team. The nerve of them.

WHAT??? Do they think this is a CAPTALIST country or something???

How do the poor players even put bread on the table at $2.4 million ave annual salary…

Perspective? You Own, you Win big or maybe lose. If you’re an EMPLOYEE, you get a salary and paycheck if you work. If you don’t work, you don’t get paid. What’s SOOOO hard about that concept?

If it’s SO unfair, stop playing hockey, get a different job, get even with that ‘Evil NHL Empire’.

By: swini8

swini8 — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:48:36 +0000

This is exactly what burns my ass…one of the biggest problems I’m seeing is with revenue sharing where large market teams that generate profit are having to kick money down to smaller market teams that lose money every year…I have to wonder how this is OK…A team like Minnesota which is a smaller market team operating at a loss every year can only afford to pay huge salaries to Suter and Parise through revenue sharing…Basiclly the Boston Bruins, Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, etc. are paying the salaries of players like Parise, Suter, and Kovalchuk. I feel that if a team isn’t making money it needs to move or fold

By: mpg44

mpg44 — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:53:54 +0000

All the players are demanding more money by wanting a higher percentage share of the hockey related revenue.

By: Doesnotmatter

Doesnotmatter — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:04:32 +0000

Why all the Parise bashing? He signed a 13 year contract that pays him a little over 7.5 million dollars a year. I know its ridiculously long, front loaded and includes huge signing bonuses. The new CBA should take care of the cap circumvention contracts. Yearly salary plus signing bonuses should equal the cap hit for that year. Cutting players salaries? In no way do I agree with that. Not when Metta World Peace is getting over 7 million per year for whatever he does.

By: icyirish

icyirish — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:41:15 +0000

Are you a moron or just stupid,hes not asking for more money,he just wants to play.what is so hard to understand. Any other sport would have fired this ny jew after 1st work stoppage.By the way I am a ny jew.

By: dino1730

dino1730 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:24:16 +0000

You have to love this guy and how it all worked out for him. He was the prize catch in an awful free agent class. He was lucky enough to become a free agent right before the CBA expires so he benefits from another one of these ridiculous contracts. Finally, the state of hockey was so dismal in The State of Hockey (was that a pun?) he found his sucker to pay him an absurd bonus to go ice fishing all winter. O, and he just married some smoking chick. Good for him.

By: windmiller4

windmiller4 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:36:17 +0000

@Mtwinston – In comparison to us, those millions of dollars are a very large amount, but if compared to what the owners and the league make its nothing. it all depends on perspective. I think the one thing we can all agree on is bettman can go to hell

By: mtwinston

mtwinston — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:23:39 +0000

I do totally agree with you- and I personally hate Bettman, but it is difficult to say that the players are getting “little in return” when they’re making millions and millions of dollars.

By: windmiller4

windmiller4 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:02:27 +0000

way to make your point like a mature adult spiciercheez, calling them babies twice is sure gonna help make your argument valid…

By: spiciercheez

spiciercheez — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:47:26 +0000

Well you sure cry like little babies for not caring, you baby

By: mpg44

mpg44 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:51:16 +0000

Parisienne being a great example of greed…. Is 98 million dollars not enough for you ?? You don’t think that you have the capacity to have your family and you be able to live off of that for the rest of your days? You really need more ?? This only shows how out of touch with reality these athletes are. Hockey players were always the lowest paid but played with the biggest hearts …. For the love of the game !! A lot of players are forgetting this and now this will make us no better then the other money whore sports ( ie . Baseball and basketball)

By: mpg44

mpg44 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:46:38 +0000

Here is the bottom line …. A players incentive to play better and be a “leader” on and off the ice is the better he does all of that the more valuable his is to the team. There by earning him a high value contract then others. This still does not entitle them to any money brought in from other outlets. Moral of this is …. Work for what you earn. Any money they get from hrr , is purely a bonus and should be treated as such.

By: mpg44

mpg44 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:40:53 +0000

A player is given a contract with its size based on his popularity and or his skill on the ice. That is the reason better or more skilled players get more money in their contracts. So the better they play , and sell the fans on the game. The better their contract is. Still not an answer on hockey related revenue. The better the player the better the contract. Still doesnt entitle them to refund or profit from some thing they had little to nothing to do with. This also robbing mIndy away from the owners to use to run the day to day operations of the team.

By: pensfan1

pensfan1 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:16:37 +0000

What kind of leadership is it when the only management style shown is management by lockout? I side with the players. Owners got what they wanted last time but feel they need more so it’s a “take my ball and go home” management style. Players want to play – the owners do not.

Bettman’s management style isn’t hurting them or even the players. It’s killing the fan. I’m sick of the whining and biting and “making progress statements”. Summer is long enough – get the game underway and stop holding me hostage by making me choose sides.

By: tatdue

tatdue — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:12:26 +0000

So what you are saying is that the players, who we all know and buy tickets for, are to be paid their millions in contracted salaries plus get a much larger share of HRR while the owners who work around the clock taking care of their investment (which includes paying hundreds of employees beyond what you buy your tickets to see, supply everything for those players from team jets, state of the art workout facilities, miniature hospitals equipped with MRIs, X-rays, and God knows what other equipment as well as the Doctors and other medical staff to run things, and countless other amenities that they give their players.) Plus pay all other related bills like hydro, gas, and water (could you imagine those bills?) and I imagine the biggest bill of all…Insurance for all those people watching those games (and the players)….get what?

By: smillr58

smillr58 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:49:56 +0000

I bet the entire state of hockey would love to see you try… What a tool

By: sfischer1967

sfischer1967 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:46:16 +0000

tmoore, I think we need to remember the last lockout, and who set the conditions for the return to work, and who made all the concessions. The owners got the system they wanted in place. Now, after one term of a CBA, the owners are again saying “yeah, we need more concessions from the players. that system we put in place…well, that didn’t work like we wanted it to” Gary Bettman bears the majority of the responsibility for that. They (the owners) had all the leverage in negotiating the deal last time, and now, its a deal that they can no longer live with?

I want to see hockey in October as much as anyone, but if it doesn’t happen, no laying it at the players feet this time.

By: pg99bassist

pg99bassist — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:48:22 +0000

I side with the players. Me, like most fans, pay money to see guys with names like “Ovechkin,” “Crosby,” and “Stamkos” on their jerseys on the ice. Last time I checked… not one single fan bought a “Leonsis,” “Ilitch” or “Molson” jersey. They don’t have an award for “Owner of the Year.” Teams don’t print tickets or make bobbleheads of owners or NHL organizational members.

It’s real simple. If the owners think the game exists more for their efforts than the players efforts… more power to them. They can have that stance. They can afford to. We, hard working shlubs, can’t. And we essentially pay for all of it. So who loses?

And to anyone who doesn’t lace up and play… these guys we watch night in and night out, from the fringe grinders and enforcers to the softest hand snipers and playmakers, put more of themselves in one complete season (which is the longest regular and post season of any sport in existence) than any owner or bureaucrat… they are the reason we watch, care, spend and love.

And from someone who plays hockey himself… I find the owners recalcitrant approach to the players insulting. On many levels.

By: gmenfan1982

gmenfan1982 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:42:42 +0000

And I was also throwing out 20 and 80 percent as mere suggestions. I didn’t exactly crunch numbers. I’m simply talking in theory. The players deserve a much larger share than the owners. That’s all I’m saying. They bring in the money, and therefore deserve a larger piece of the pie.

By: gmenfan1982

gmenfan1982 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:40:08 +0000

I do understand that there is more to running a team than players salaries. I simply feel that those actually responsible for bringing in revenue deserve to see the majority of that revenue make its way into their pockets.

By: itison86

itison86 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:26:32 +0000

You do realize that this is revenue sharing, not profit sharing, right? Revenue and profit are not the same thing, and believe it or not, it does cost money beyond the players' salaries to run a hockey club. Your suggestion is so incredibly arbitrary and short-sighted. Not every team is turning a profit as it is, and without crunching any actual numbers, I'm pretty sure that every single owner (or if not, almost every one) would be losing money if their cut was 20% of the revenue.

By: gmenfan1982

gmenfan1982 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:24:18 +0000

A player earns “hockey related revenue” by playing in a game that makes fans spend money on hockey related items such as jerseys, shirts, tickets, etc. If it weren’t for the players there would be no items to sell. The players sell the game and therefore earn hockey related revenue.

By: mpg44

mpg44 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 02:52:38 +0000

Just how exactly does a player “earn” hockey related revenue? Considering that this is the real issue that is holding everything up.

By: mpg44

mpg44 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 02:50:17 +0000

Youngs…. You are correct . However you just help prove what a liar he really is. . All one would need to do now is look at any interview during the last season and a half to see the lies he was saying.

By: gmenfan1982

gmenfan1982 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 02:22:34 +0000

Sorry. I gotta say screw the owners. They are more than well off for the rest I their lives. The players earn their money and the money the owners have. It’s time for those to earn the full fruits of their labor. And in terms of revenue sharing, there’s far more players to divide up a 50% share than there are owners. Each owner will receive much more money out of their percent of the revenue sharing than each player. The owners should get maybe 20% to divide up between the 32 of them. 80% to divide up between the HUNDREDS or players.