Skip to content

Players need to ask themselves: Is it worth it?

Oct 30, 2012, 1:15 PM EDT

Fehr and players

Even after the NHL canceled all games through November, NHLPA chief Donald Fehr maintained it makes sense for the players to hold out for a better deal from the owners.

“It’s a five-or-six-or-seven-year agreement,” Fehr told the StarTribune Monday. “Also, look at what’s on the table [from the owners], there’s a lot more that’s on the table in addition to just player share. They’re saying the things players got in the last agreement in return for the 24 percent rollback [and salary cap], they have to take it back. [The players] lose ground in salary arbitration, they lose ground in free agency, lose ground in the entry-level system, contracts are limited in all kinds of ways that make them much less secure.”

However, when asked if it would make sense to lose an entire season of salary – in 2011-12, total player compensation was $1.873 billion – Fehr would only say that the league stands to lose an entire season of revenue, too.

The counter-argument is that an NHL franchise isn’t an NHL player. The first has an indefinite life span and a value that’s determined by the expectation of future revenues; the other has an average career length of four to five seasons and a value that falls to zero once that career is over.

In September, Mike Modano reflected on the season the players lost due to the 2004-05 lockout.

“At some point, we were sold a bill of goods,” Modano told ESPN. “Everybody was buying it. Everybody thought, ‘Let’s not let each other down. Let’s do it for the future of the game. Blah, blah, blah.’ You’re only in the game so long.”

And he wasn’t the only one to look back in regret.

Last November, Dave Andreychuk advised locked out NBA players to get a deal done as soon as possible: “In the end, it will be worse.”

Last October, Bill Guerin concluded: “Burning a year was ridiculous.”

So is Fehr doing the players a disservice by advising they hold out for a better deal that he’s not even guaranteed to deliver? Sure, the NHLPA – which like an NHL franchise has an indefinite life span – may be stronger in the long run by standing up to the owners today, but if you’re a current player, how much are you willing to sacrifice for the future of the cause?

Only the players can answer those questions. Perhaps money isn’t the root cause of their dispute with the NHL. Maybe it’s more about pride and fairness. Nobody likes to be extorted, even if paying the ransom is preferable on a non-emotional level to the alternative.

Fehr said he reminds the players “a negotiation is a process of constant reevaluation.”

So, do they stay the course?

Or, is it time to…reevaluate?

134 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. mpg44 - Oct 30, 2012 at 1:20 PM

    I think it is time for the players to have a meeting about their so called leader , Fehr . It is time to decide if he has done more damage then its been worth !

    • elvispocomo - Oct 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

      Well, to be fair, “their so called leader” is at least asking to meet so negotiations can continue, where the NHL only wants to meet if it’s about what they want to talk about. I’d suggest that points to one side’s leader being worse than the other.

      • mpg44 - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM

        My only problem with that , was the NHL offer went to 50/50 split right off the bat . And all three of the nhlpa were” leading towards a 50/50 split” . Why could Fehr not go in and negotiate as best he could off if the NHL s offer . If it doesn’t work out … Hey at least you tried. But no , he didn’t do that . Just another way for fehr and Bettman to let their egos get in the way . I really don’t think either one has their parties best interest at hand here.

      • elvispocomo - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

        “Why could Fehr not go in and negotiate as best he could off if the NHL s offer .”

        Because the NHL offer wasn’t particularly good to begin with? The NHLPA has asked for some rationale from the NHL on why they need to go straight to a 50/50 split and cause chaos with the cap. They’re also wondering how the NHL can call players’ contracts protected when they take from the players’ future HRR to pay for it. Then they’re curious why they lose out on all the other things they gained from the last CBA (length of RFA and entry level deals, arbitration rights, limited contracts, etc).

        Here’s a question for you: Why couldn’t Bettman have a serious look at the NHLPA’s offers and why won’t he have open negotiations now?

      • mpg44 - Oct 30, 2012 at 7:03 PM

        And then the NHL says the the nhlpa offer is no good . Then the nhlpa says the NHL offer is no good. Then the NHL say the …… Do you the the hint yet. This is a summarize version of the negotiations up to date. Both Bettman and fehr or the actual players and owners ( chosen representatives of course ) need to nut up and admit that neither is going to get everything , then figure it out from there. But I will tell you that any deal will include a 50/50 split right out of the gate ! Why?…. You can blame the nfl union and MBA unions for that , the owners are looking at that and saying well if that’s what they get , so do we.

      • elvispocomo - Oct 31, 2012 at 1:42 PM

        So to prevent any offer/counter-offer scenario, the NHLPA should just work off of the NHL’s last proposal? “Gary, I know you said minor tweaks only, but so much of that offer was bad that we pretty much had to revamp it…That means it’s a new proposal you say? Ah, well then I guess it is – here’s two more to look at with alternatives…No, you don’t care that we have our own ideas? I think that’s the first thing we can agree your right on.”

        In regards to the NFL/NBA, that’s where the details are important. Sure the NBA and NFL went to 50/50 splits, but they also legitimately protected contracts like the NHLPA has been asking for. The NBA expanded revenue sharing as they have a similar setup where only the top teams make the money (the NFL actually reduced revenue sharing I believe as most teams make money), but the NHL doesn’t want the majority of the share the players lose to go towards that.

        Each sides proposals have had points that are closer to the median, so saying countering with different proposals won’t work isn’t correct. While you seem to agree both sides need to sit down and figure it out, you still didn’t answer my last question: “Why couldn’t Bettman have a serious look at the NHLPA’s offers and why won’t he have open negotiations now?”

    • blomfeld - Oct 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM

      STAND BY FRIENDS … “REASON & SANITY” ARE ABOUT TO TAKE CENTER STAGE !

  2. buffalomafia - Oct 30, 2012 at 1:25 PM

    They make millions as is! Why all the greed! (Sorry)

    • millertime30 - Oct 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

      some do..

      • slickvb82 - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

        lets be real here, the league minimum was $525k last year, even not a superstar making millions you’re still much better off than a hell of a lot of people

        this whole thing is just pathetic

      • millertime30 - Oct 30, 2012 at 5:17 PM

        nobody’s arguing that. just pointing out that millions is an overstatement for some of the players

      • thebigeasy2002 - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:35 PM

        Lets be real slick. Using your logic, the average owner makes 1000s of times more then the average player, so who should take the cut? Also when has it become a crime to make good money? $525 isn’t a lot of money. After taxes and agent fees you need to divide that number in half. $263K is as much as a CPA might make. That isn’t what you would consider rich. There are plenty of professions who will make more then that when they reach the top of their profession. NHL players are at the top of their profession. The owners on the other hand have MILLIONS of dollars.

    • dadawg77 - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM

      Are you talking about the players or owners? Either way you would be correct.

    • desertfan - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM

      Perspective is really important!!

      A $1M per year player has an average career of 5 years.

      We all have a 40 year career.

      5 x $1m = $5m/ 40 = $125,000 per year.

      Numerous of us will far exceed that average over the next 40 years.

      BUT- take a 15% pay cut tomorrow -are you in??

      • scalper44 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

        One little thing you are missing. What do they do for the rest of our normal career timespan? Nothing? They are free to pursue other ways to make money.

        Assuming they only do half as good as you say many of us will at 125k thats about 65k x 35 years. Another 2.3mil, conservatively. That’s 7.3 mil total or about 180k annually.

        Thats 1%er money, much better than most of us will ever do.

        I agree, perspective is very important. Especially when you take the proper perspective. I for one would love to have retired after five years. I’d have retired about six times now.

      • lordfletcher - Oct 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM

        The quick answer is YES.

        Most people would take a 15% pay cut when making well over 120k+ per year to keep their current job or whatever the % is.

        I make (in the ballpark) half of that ammount and I could take a 15% cut and live my live the same way everyday.

        The point is. It’s not greed, it’s just both parties trying to get what they feel is rightfully theres. I am sure both the owners and players live great lives, and will no matter the outcome of this.

      • splittinghairs007 - Nov 4, 2012 at 12:52 AM

        There is more than one fault with your analogy.

        1. Retired hockey players still have another 30-35 years to earn other means of income (as already stated).

        2. If financially prudent much of the $5M can be invested “fairly quickly” to earn even further income. It is not just about comparing two similar pay check incomes over a life time BUT comparing how quickly the relative incomes were earned. The faster the income was aquired allows perhaps the number one rule of finances to kick in, namely MONEY MAKES MONEY.

        Even if $2M of the $5M earned over 5 years (by 25-30 years old) was invested prudently, it can generate MILLIONS in additional income over a typical life span. Even a conservative investment of $2M could bring in an extra $100,000 to $150,000 per year, and there is always real esate to purchase on the cheap right now and sit on until the markets rebound.

        3. Most hockey players earn extra income and “freebees” from promotional deals and sponsorships.

        Last but certainly not least, most players that last at least 5 years in the NHL, have an option available to them that 99% of the rest of us do not. They “could” retire or semi retire at a very young age with a nest egg that can sustain them for the rest of their lives.

    • hockeyflow33 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM

      Waaah, people make more than I do

    • 6952m - Oct 31, 2012 at 12:46 PM

      buffalomafia, who makes millions , the players if anyone should make millions if the owners hire managers who are signing these players to multi million dollar contracts why blame the players, these owners apparently have no idea how to run their franchises.

      And why should the players take any cut in salaries to help support these losing franchises, Bettman thinks he is so smart, cut these losing franchises from the League its that simple, Bettman has not got the Guts and the other Owners are paying to support these Losers, yes that is what they are “LOSERS” and then the
      NHL could go on and start playing , are these LOSERS on WELFARE for the Viable NHL teams to Support, What is wrong with this picture.

      And again i say to many So called Sports Anylists are, supporting Bettman and the NHL Team owners , it is so easy to see this when you watch all these shows on TV in Canada, Come on you guy’s out there in TV land show some Balls and stand up for the NHL players who you cheer for and say how great they are when they are Playing, What a bunch of Fence Sitters.

  3. blomfeld - Oct 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

    “the night is always darkest just before the dawn” …

    Stand by friends … things are about to start happening :)

  4. savior72 - Oct 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

    I know if there’s no season, it’ll be my last year ‘cept I still have a job.

  5. bhawksrule - Oct 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM

    I disagree wholeheartedly ;
    The owners signed a contract and should honor it.

    With the crazy spending this summer and the offers made as if money was infinite, it’s the owners who need to be explaining themselves and re-evaluating.

    • Jason Brough - Oct 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM

      It’s not an “agree” or “disagree” question. The players have to ask themselves if it’s worth it to keep fighting. So do the owners, but this post is about the players.

      • tomnickle - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

        Is it worth it to fight a 24% salary decrease which would in turn become a 48% salary decrease in the last eight years?

        The majority of these players have decided to take a less than 24% pay cut overseas while paying less taxes on their income.

        Is Fehr hurting the players? The most appropriate response to that question would be that he isn’t hurting them any more than the owners are trying to. The two biggest differences are that he isn’t out to hurt them long term and is actually looking out for their interests, just as Bettman is looking out for the owners.

        If Fehr loses this game of chess, which I find highly unlikely given the fiscal instability of nearly two dozen NHL teams, he’ll be fired. The alternative(Fehr winning) would be a major loss for the owners. Their game will be tarnished and future labor relations with players will have equal footing for both sides.

        Fehr’s only mistake in my view is that he hasn’t had Sidney Crosby, Claude Giroux and Ryan Miller join him in a news conference with a collective statement to the media reading that they refuse to negotiate any further until Gary Bettman is no longer the Commissioner of the NHL. Bettman’s removal would get this moving quickly in my opinion.

      • hockeyflow33 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

        That would be interesting tactic, if they agreed to the NHL offer, contingent upon Bettman stepping down.

      • tatdue - Oct 30, 2012 at 5:00 PM

        Is it worth it for the players? How about a question with a question….If they give in now will we be watching hockey in 6 years or sitting through another lock out?……I’m guessing the later….

      • gp424 - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:43 PM

        Holy Crap the spin is out of control in here. Tomnickle when did the owners ask the players for a 24% decrease? Are you on Fehr staff or something. The owners proposal which was made public shows a decrease of at most 9% nowhere near 24% where did you come up with this BS?

        And get this math clue 24% (which is a made up lie) of 1 million is better then 100% of nothing.

      • tomnickle - Oct 31, 2012 at 12:43 PM

        @GP24

        The owner’s proposal you’re referring to has been taken off of the table per Gary Bettman. Their initial offer included a 24% salary cut and cap decrease across the board.

        And to answer your question, no I don’t work for Donald Fehr. I see league revenues rise and a Commissioner and group of owners with the responsibility of managing expenses and making every business entity operating under the NHL umbrella profitable. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of the players to balance the league and team checkbooks.

    • valoisvipers - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:01 PM

      You friend are wrong, the owners have paid all contracts out in full and then some. For the last 7 years players have had full payment and every Oct 2 they get an additional cheque for monies owed to pay the full 57% of HRR. So the owners wild spending sprees that you speak of are still not lucrative enough to fully pay all players.

      • dadawg77 - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM

        The check they recent received is the refund of the portion of the players salary placed in escrow to ensure the 57%. If you read the story, you would know that players gave money back to the owners to achieve the 57%. 8.5% of a players salary was place in escrow and 7.98% was refunded.

        http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/19/nhl-players-will-receive-escrow-checks-soon/

      • eyeh8goodell - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

        And yet it’s exactly the system the owners wanted and then gloated about after they got it. Get your facts straight. They want players to pay for ownership mistakes (Phoenix Coyotes being a huge one).

    • flyerkidd - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM

      Agree with you bhawksrule…

      It was an owner that signed DiPietro back in the day and an owner that signed Suter, Parise, Weber, Kovalchuk, Crosby and Bryzgalov (bad move!). You have to draw a line in the sand and honor these K’s and if you want to limit futures K’s to 5 years so be it.

  6. sgtr0c - Oct 30, 2012 at 1:55 PM

    If it comes down to a time amount, as in the players can only play for X amount of time, the teams/NHL will be around for a lot longer, why are the fans whose fathers and grandfathers (third-fourth generation fans) the ones that are getting screwed? We are still around and will be whenever these millionaires babies get over themselves…

  7. travishenryskid - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

    The players have already lost more money from losing games than they would’ve if they had just accepted the owners last offer. But hey, at least fans know how principled they are.

    • hockeyflow33 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

      It must be tough to live without a backbone, eh?

    • tatdue - Oct 30, 2012 at 5:05 PM

      @travishenryskid – That’s an admirable trait where I come from…..

  8. takingbovadasmoney - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM

    Burning a year for a player is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous for owners of successful franchises to burn a year to help prop up franchises that will never succeed.

    • cweez2 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

      Agree completely, and I hate soccer. But the fact is, the sport is gaining popularity in the US, the price of entry is a hell of a lot cheaper and (at least in the ‘States), the men’s national team is halfway decent, the women’s team is one of the world’s best, and thus they get ink & TV time.

      • cweez2 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM

        whoops – thought I was replying to scionofflame’s post below…

  9. id4joey - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:08 PM

    Yep! The players will NEVER make up for lost money if the whole season is cancelled. Take the hit now because the owners can holdout longer than the players and they can make up for lost revenues.

    Hockey will be here soon. It would be nice to save the WC. If not, c est la vie!

    • splittinghairs007 - Nov 4, 2012 at 1:31 AM

      The owners should honor the contracts already signed in good faith. I have no sympathy for the owners they are the ones paying these large sums of money to the players, but the league can probabaly afford to sit out the whole season more than the players. Most NHL teams lose money and their number one expense by far is player salaries, plus the NHL still gets the $$$$ from the TV contract with NBC even if the season is cancelled. If the whole season is lost it just gets tacked onto the end of the deal.

  10. scionofflame - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM

    Tack onto this the fact that soccer is slowly creeping up behind the NHL and I think they need to get back onto the ice sooner than later.

    NBC Sports Network grabbed the rights to broadcast Premier League soccer, propping up MLS more…the last thing hockey needs is to get edged out on broadcast time too.

    • cweez2 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM

      Not to mention Fox is placing Champions League on during Football Sundays.

    • hockeyflow33 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

      Soccer has been the next big thing for 50 years

  11. sjsharks66 - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

    Oh hey look, Fehr is making an ass out of himself again. Why don’t we hear FROM THE PLAYERS?? I don’t mean suter and parise on the tit of the wild’s owner either. I mean real players that want the season back and are ready to take a slight pay cut and cut in contracts.

    This is just wasting key players time also. Look at all the people who are getting old or decided to play one more year. WASTED.

    • hockeyflow33 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM

      The players are regularly speaking out through the media and on twitter. Not sure where you’ve stuffed your head but player opinion is readily available.

      • gp424 - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:45 PM

        Hmmm have heard a peep from Temmu Selanne, or Ray Whitney two players who careers could be over because of the players. Plus never heard a word from those 200+ players who never returned after the last lockout.

    • atwatercrushesokoye - Oct 30, 2012 at 5:02 PM

      Why don’t we hear from the owners? Not the Leipold or Bettman but the Ed Snider’s, the James Dolan’s (okay maybe not him) the Tom Ancelmi’s (I believe he’s in charge of Maple Leafs Entertainment) see if those guys are pumped about losing out on the money they stand to make.

  12. aventador12 - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:28 PM

    What slickvb82 & sjsharks66 said. (^^,)/

  13. greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:40 PM

    How do players lose ground on salary arbitration? More often than not, the team and player agrees to a contract in the days leading up to the arbitration date. When a player goes to arbitration, they are usually awarded a 1 year contract in their favor and the team is forced to accept it, or cut them loose as a free agent.

    The NHL actually has the entry level contracts right unlike other sports. Why should a rookie’s first contract be more than an established NHL veteran, when the rookie hasn’t played 1 NHL shift. Do the names Pat Fallon and Alexandre Daigle mean anything? They are usually a 3 year contract that makes them a restricted free agent after. That usually leads to a nicer contract followed by a massive contract, if they have earned it

    Screw you Fehr

    • tomnickle - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

      They lose because salary arbitration is an elective feature put into the CBA to provide more exclusive negotiating rights for teams with the players.

      The team holds all of the power. They can choose to walk away from the arbitration award or honor it for one year without having to make a long term financial commitment to the player.

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:42 PM

        Okay but at the same the current team that doesn’t want to take the 1 year arbitration award, the player becomes a free agent and the team gets no compensation and the player gets a “market value” deal, most likely a multi year deal with the contract guarantee.

    • eyeh8goodell - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM

      You need to go do some research, actually alot of it.. The PA isn’t prosing any kind of increase in entry level deal. The owners aren’t offering a single concession to players, and this is after they did nothing but take the last time around. The players don’t owe it to you to take a bad deal so you can watch hockey.

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:49 PM

        When did I say anything about the owners wanting to scale back entry level contracts? I said the NHL currently had/has it right.

      • thesableo - Nov 2, 2012 at 1:48 PM

        @greatminnesotasportsmind The “Screw you Fehr” is a bit confusing. The owners want to extend the length of entry level/RFA contracts, and the PA doesn’t. So if you like things the way they are, shouldn’t it be “Screw you Bettman”?

      • splittinghairs007 - Nov 4, 2012 at 1:43 AM

        I think we all fully understand by now that the players are driven by self interest.

        The best thing that could happen after the lockout ends to send a clear message to both sides, is for the NHL to play to 75% empty rinks, at least for the first month or two. Watch the games on TV and stop buying the “hero” jerseys. Unfortunately most of the rinks will probabaly be packed to the rafters, especially in Canada.

  14. joeyashwi - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:48 PM

    If the players were on strike, I could understand people’s points a little more but they aren’t. They were LOCKED OUT from playing. They aren’t being greedy as they aren’t asking for anything, just asking that they aren’t taken advantage of and having a bunch of things taken away. Players put their health and bodies at risk for our entertainment and for owners’ profits. They aren’t crying because they don’t make enough money, the owners are. They aren’t crying because they were signed to ridiculous long term contracts but the owners are. Yes, the players are rich, so what? They are the ones working! Actors are getting paid $20 million for a film, not beating themselves up for 82 games plus playoffs plus preseason plus off season workouts, etc. A player’s short career length is actually a reason to fight to not have things taken away from them, not to be extorted, and that’s exactly what the owners are doing by locking them out from work until they get their way, because once you give something up you never get it back. The players aren’t the ones asking for our sympathy. The players aren’t the ones who refuse to meet. The players are almost all different than the last two lockouts and there are some different owners as well but what is the ONE constant from all three lockouts? BETTMAN! Makes you wonder, right? If you hate rich players then stop watching all sports, movies, and tv shows and stop listening to music because like it or not, entertainers are being paid at their market value. Quit comparing them to the rest of us working stiffs, nobody is paying to watch us work. Saying they are greedy because they want to play hockey at the pay that they were promised is not only ridiculous, but downright moronic. Lockout-they have no control! The owners have kidnapped their paychecks and their futures and won’t give them back until a ransom is paid. That is extortion. If it was a strike I would feel the exact opposite but it isn’t.

    • woodstakes - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:27 PM

      Wow, joeyashwi I couldn’t agree more or say it any better. Thanks for throwing a little truth out there. In fact if you look a little deeper into the numbers, the owners/Bettman look even more greedy and ridiculous:

      “Beyond the dissonance between the owners’ desire to pay less and their continued demonstrated ability to pay more, there are hard numbers. In 2003-04, the last season before the only labor-erased season in the history of major North American pro sports, NHL teams paid $1.332 billion in player salaries, according to USA Today’s salary database. In 2011-12, NHL teams paid $1.699 billion in player salaries. Adjusting for inflation, salaries rose just over $84 million over the last eight years, an average of $2.8 million per team.”

      “While salaries are slightly higher than they were eight years ago, NHL revenues are not. In 2003-04, league revenues were $2.1 billion. In 2011-12, that figure reached $3.3 billion.”

      source: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2012-08-23/nhl-labor-talks-gary-bettman-lockout-sept-15-cba-player-salaries-zach-parise

      So that’s a difference of $1.2 billion in revenue increase from ’03-’04 to ’11-’12. Teams are paying out $367M more in contracts over the same period of time. So that’s $833M to the plus side… so if owners are so broke… where is all that money going??? It’s not going to the players, so who??
      IDK apparently a lot of teams are WAY richer than we all thought and maybe if the elites think we should have 30 teams in the locals we do, well maybe they should figure out another way to share the revenue, because in the end it was the owners choice to put them there and moreover it IS their choice to keep them there, NOT the players. Getting back 7% or even 15% more ISN’T going to save 15-18 teams. Yet, they are unwilling to adjust the way they are doing things; it’s ALL the player salaries that are the problem here. I don’t THINK SO!

    • steverolley - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

      The owners are just that, the owners.

      They have the legal right to lock out the players if they cannot reach a CBA.

      the owners in the NHL have always been shady, and have always tried to break the NHLPA.

      The question posed in this article…. “Is it worth it”

      and I can’t see one scenario playing out where players will “win” this by missing a whole year. Hate Gary the weasel all you want but from a business standpoint the players are losing money no matter what.

      • eyeh8goodell - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM

        The owners didn’t try to get a CBA before locking out the players, they threw a ridiculous 43/57 offer at them that had no hope of being accepted, then they locked them out.

        The owners do not “own” the players. The players have a globally marketable commodity in NHL caliber talent. If these owners won’t work with them, then others will in other leagues…….as has been demonstrated. It’s funny how many of you are either willfully or otherwise misinformed and are just butthurt because the players don’t cave to their “corporate masters” so you can have NHL hockey. I’ll bet at least 90% of the people spouting this nonsense are regular Fox News viewers.

      • atwatercrushesokoye - Oct 30, 2012 at 5:11 PM

        There are certain breaking points in the players favor though, teams have money they have to pay for buildings that they’ve built, owners also have to pay interest and payments on the amount they borrowed to buy teams, which leads to the trump card, two big corporations just paid a boatload of money (some of it financed) to purchase the economic engine of the league (they make twice the profits of the 2nd highest earning team) those corporations will not be happy about having their money printing machine taken away from them for the entire year. Make no mistake, if the Maple Leafs decide they’ve had enough of this lockout they have the financial clout to move the owners.

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 30, 2012 at 7:01 PM

        Are you kidding me? Sure they best themselves up for 82 games a year. Guess what, so does the NBA for 82 games a year. The NFL game is the equilivent for being in a car crash every week (so I’ve been told, not that you and I know for sure), but both of those sports just redid CBA and both are at a. 50/50 split. Hockey is a nitche sport, compared to those two sports in every aspect from television and revenue generated. The NHLPA needs to learn that. World Series numbers came out today, the lowest ever 12 million people watched them. The NHL is still 6 times, let me repeat 6 times behind that number, even when it’s 2 biggest markets are in the Finals. The NHLPA should be lucky to get 50/50.

        Sure the owners have bills to pay as well, but they still get paid their record television money regardless if there is a season or not. Owners still get money for jersey sales and merchandise sales. Last I checked, store still carry NHL merchandise and nhlshop.com is still online. The owners didn’t just get lucky to get a team, they made their money elsewhere that gave them the opportunity to buy the team. Unlike the players, they don’t have a life span of 4-5 years in the league like the players. Just like the last lockout about 1/3 of the players will have played their last game in their career if they don’t play this year. Money they will never see.

      • steverolley - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:17 PM

        @eyeh8goodell

        “The players have a globally marketable commodity in NHL caliber talent. If these owners won’t work with them, then others will in other leagues”

        These other leagues pay half of what the NHL would, you really think the average player in the Finnish elite league is making 2 million. There are over 400 NHL players not playing right now. Where is this market for NHL talent? Russia? Cause they only allow 3 NHL players per team.

        Save the mellow drama about corporate masters, we’re talking about hockey players taking a 12% cut in salary that would have been paid back over the duration of the CBA.

      • eyeh8goodell - Oct 31, 2012 at 10:53 AM

        @steve rolley

        1) While it’s not as much as the NHL, it’s still a pretty nice wage. Many of us would switch companies to take jobs for less money if it made us happier people as long as the pay was still comfortable. In my case, it’s something i’ve done. I’d rather make less money and be happy and not feel like my bosses are going to stick a knife in my back at the first opportunity. 3 lockouts in a row. You’ll notice these other leagues don’t have this problem.

        2) The “make whole” provision in the owners offer as a clever bit of BS that was designed to pay players back with their own money. That provision still relieved ownership of having to pay the difference of the contracts. That’s why guys like Fehr are doing the negotiating and not you.

      • woodstakes - Oct 31, 2012 at 2:24 PM

        @steverolley Your just wrong on the idea that NHL elites can’t make as much money overseas. Example, Alex Semin… was offered $10M a year to play in KHL on a multi year contract, NHL… $6M for 1 year. Now, before you say its because he’s Russian… Crosby, Parise, Suter, Weber, Nash etc could ALL make what they make here there. The ONLY reason they are not getting those contracts now is because the KHL stated they could not pay above a certain % of what these players current NHL contracts are.. BECAUSE they are considered “rental players”. IF they could sign these guys to actual long term contracts, they would probably make MORE in the KHL then they do here.

        So why do these guys chose to play here rather than there? Simply because elite athletes want to play/compete against the best of the best. Winning a KHL championship means very little when all the greats are competing for the Cup over here. Yes, players play for money, but its not ALL about the money. They could make more right now overseas if they wanted to. Now, if the NHL would somehow not recover from this, you would see an exodus of players going over there and signing 3-5yr contracts worth as much per year or more than they are getting over here.

  15. therealjr - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM

    NHL players, probably moreso than NFL, NBA, MLB as a whole have so much personal pride that they won’t do what is best at this juncture. It’s honorable, and yet incredibly stupid.

    • eyeh8goodell - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM

      No, they’re just more fiscally responsible than their NFL/NBA/MLB counterparts. They don’t go blowing their money on bling, 7 cars, 10 different baby mamas, or mansions. You don’t see them on MTV Cribs burning cash they don’t have. So they’re not caving at the first missed check like their counterparts in the other leagues. The players have been well prepared and have been planning their finances accordingly for this. They knew Gary would lock them out (for the 3rd time) and sure enough he did after wheeling out a ridiculous 43/57 offer.

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 31, 2012 at 12:04 AM

        Until we find out exactly how many NHL players take a payday loan while being locked out. Someone will be dumb enough to.

    • hockeyflow33 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM

      They are doing what’s best. I can’t believe how many of you people don’t understand this is their job; it’s not a game to them.

  16. chc4 - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM

    joeyashwi — You’re splitting hairs. Since the system has been working for the players they said “let’s just keep playing under the last CBA while we negotiate”. That’s a red herring. NHLPA would have no incentive to negotiate under those circumstances. The only leverage owners had was a lockout. So it’s not like they all got in a room and said “hey let’s lock the players out for fun and screw em”. Owners didn’t want the last CBA for another year so this was the only option.

    Had the players been terribly unhappy with the last CBA and in desperate need of reform you can bet they would’ve gone on strike late last season to initiate a new CBA. This is what happened in MLB back in ’94. But since the players were benefitting this past season they had no desire to walk out.

    • gp424 - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:53 PM

      Plus we can add in the fact that Fehr already publically stated that the NHLPA would be happy to keep playing under the current system until an agreement is reached. If the system is so bad and the contract so bad why would he say that? And why would players salaries have gone up over 300% during this “bad” deal that was agreed to by 97% of union members in 2005.

    • woodstakes - Oct 31, 2012 at 2:34 PM

      @gp424.. As I posted earlier, I don’t see where you see a 300% increase:

      “Beyond the dissonance between the owners’ desire to pay less and their continued demonstrated ability to pay more, there are hard numbers. In 2003-04, the last season before the only labor-erased season in the history of major North American pro sports, NHL teams paid $1.332 billion in player salaries, according to USA Today’s salary database. In 2011-12, NHL teams paid $1.699 billion in player salaries. Adjusting for inflation, salaries rose just over $84 million over the last eight years, an average of $2.8 million per team.”

      “While salaries are slightly higher than they were eight years ago, NHL revenues are not. In 2003-04, league revenues were $2.1 billion. In 2011-12, that figure reached $3.3 billion.”

      source: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2012-08-23/nhl-labor-talks-gary-bettman-lockout-sept-15-cba-player-salaries-zach-parise

      So $1.332 Billion (in ’03-’04 season) minus $1.699 Billion (in ’11-’12 season) is $367 Million. How is an increase of $367 Million a 300% INCREASE????????

  17. sportsfan69 - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

    The NHLPA need to put their emotion and pride in check here. To lose an entire season to make a point, is STUPIDITY, MORONIC, AND MOST OF ALL, JUST PLAIN DUMB.

  18. steverolley - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:49 PM

    The players don’t get it,

    All of the owners run successful businesses outside of Hockey. They are not relying on the NHL for their lively hood. Any loss they suffer this year will be a tax write off for their companies. Yes some owners will lose money this year but the have an indefinate window to earn it back

    Players have no education and depend on Hockey for 100% their lively hood. Not only are they losing salary but everyday they are losing valuable earning time. If the average career is 5 years you are risking %20 of your career by not playing this year.

    • elvispocomo - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

      Here’s a different look at it: the money the players make isn’t primarily tied to how much revenue the league and it’s teams make. Sure, those salaries are based on what is financially possible and their share of HRR is directly affected, but once they have a deal they get paid their salary each year.

      The money the league and it’s owners make is tied directly to revenue though. They don’t get a salary from Bettman so if fans stop coming because they forget about the NHL during the lockout – particularly in small-market or non-traditional hockey cities – then the owners make less off of ticket prices, jersey sales, etc. Add to that they lose cash cows like the Winter Classic and the All Star game, as well as the issues it raises with money they’re trying to generate from TV deals in the US, and the owners have significantly less to gain from a lockout than they did back in 2004.

      • chc4 - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM

        And then the owners throw in the towel, the league folds. Brilliant strategy you have there!

      • chrisvegas - Oct 30, 2012 at 7:43 PM

        Great points Elvis. Don’t listen to this nitwit chc. He hasn’t a clue and can’t comprehend the wonderful points you made in your well thought out response.

      • steverolley - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:24 PM

        Owners primarily make money through the appreciation of the franchise.

        And you are wrong, Players pay 12% of their salary every year into escrow. If Revenues plunge then they lose that 12%. Last year the players lost 2% of their salary to escrow.

        If revenues plunge the salary cap lowers and the average salary drops.

        A lot of NHL arenas have Basketball teams and other events to make up for the loss of hockey games.

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 31, 2012 at 12:10 AM

        Steverolly is dead on. On all points.

      • elvispocomo - Oct 31, 2012 at 1:58 PM

        @steve: There certainly is the investment side of the finances as well, but with a locked out season the franchises’ values aren’t increasing. The players would certainly lose out on revenues as well from their share of HRR, and I mentioned that in my post. The owners do have other sources of income as well, some of it tied to hockey that’s accounted for by separate companies rather than under the team’s financials, but they want to point out how much the teams are losing on their end of year reports rather than talk about where else they make money.

    • chrisvegas - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM

      Sometimes you have to stand for principle. These players won’t starve if they miss one season. At some point people need to stand up against billionaires. Billionaires are always crying about how much money they lose so they get tax payer funded bailouts. Unintelligent people like you are far too happy to give in to their lies and demands. No the players need to do what is right and hold out for what they deserve. They can still get paid something this year overseas. If the owners win this there will be a lockout every seven years.

      • atwatercrushesokoye - Oct 30, 2012 at 5:17 PM

        Exactly! This lockout, and Bettman’s hard line stance, is because the players caved last time, if they cave again the same thing will happen at the end of this CBA.

      • steverolley - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:38 PM

        There already is a lockout every seven years.

        I remember missing a year of hockey based on the NHLPA “Principle” of not accepting a salary cap. Remember what happened?

        Thats right salary cap

        And good thing the NHLPA was so against it, I mean players salaries only doubled over the last 6 years.

  19. ducksk - Oct 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

    Fehr is in a high stakes pissing contest and his ego will continue to force the issues. Players must decide if this dink is really goin to “win” for them in the long run. I know some players on the lower end are no longer fully on board…..

    • cweez2 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM

      And conversely, it’s been reported there are several owners happy with the PA’s proposal to go from 53 to 50 over a set time. The rank and file players and owners are going to have to drive their “representatives” this to get it done.

      • blomfeld - Oct 31, 2012 at 1:41 AM

        Cweez2 – it’s a good thing for you pal that PHT is only an “electronic” forum, otherwise I’d have already snapped your neck like a chicken … same goes for several other “POS” posters here like hockeyflow33 and tatdue …

  20. firemarshal1 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:03 PM

    Where is Blomfeld’s comment?

    • cweez2 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM

      He’s looking for a Lawrence Welk video to illustrate his point.

    • blomfeld - Oct 30, 2012 at 9:56 PM

      All will be well shortly friend, I guarantee it ! :)

  21. scalper44 - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM

    The real losers in this deal?

    #1 Fans
    Think our ticket prices will go down? Think our beers will cost less now? No matter what happens the answer is no and no.

    #2 Business owners who rely on income derived from NHL operations
    I was just in Hockeytown, visited many or the usual haunts that would normally be full of hockey of people and they aren’t. These businesses are hurting because of this mess which hurts and therfore alienates even more people.

    The players, owners and NHL are digging themselves an early grave with this mess. Dirt is being thrown on the casket as we speak.

  22. eyeh8goodell - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:18 PM

    It’s funny how many of you anti-player dweebs talk about Fehr’s “ego”. He’s doing exactly the job he was hired to do, which is to give Gary “3 lockouts in a row” Bettman a taste of his own medicine. The players owe you people NOTHING.

    • chrisvegas - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM

      Exacly. W

    • ucaneverscorenoughgoals - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:09 PM

      Agreed, and us people are allowed to laugh at the player’s and Fehr for acting like they’re all victims.

      If the players don’t want to be treated like or referred to as cattle, speak up when cap circumventing deals get put on the table. Or, don’t max out the cap escalator when some of your own said employers are struggling to meet the cap floor.

      Otherwise you’re putting your head in the sand until someone comes along to kick you in the @SS.

      I have no sympathy for the player’s. “When you act like mindless cattle, you get directed wherever the guys who own the farm want you to go”

  23. chrisvegas - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:31 PM

    Stay strong players!!! Go play in Europe. This is about principle!!!! Don’t give into billionaires. I’m tired of Billionaires always acting like they lose money so they get bailouts when it is the little people who truly get extorted. If the players give in now they are going to have to give in every lockout. Hold tight. As for me I just ordered the NBA package, the nhl isn’t getting my money for a long time.

    • habsman - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:48 PM

      Good, go watch basketball, see ya!

      In the meantime let hope the players come to their senses and display more common sense than you do.

    • bhawksrule - Oct 30, 2012 at 5:36 PM

      Basketball? LOL enjoy watching Miami vs. LA Lakers for the next decade.

      Next!

    • chc4 - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:41 PM

      Yeah, b/c the NBA has no billionaire owners and has never had a lockout.

      Seriously?

      • ucaneverscorenoughgoals - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM

        Aaaaaand most of the player’s are wanna be rappers that make me sick to my stomach

      • chrisvegas - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:06 PM

        No. Just because Basketball is on this year and hockey isn’t. Hockey is my favorite sport, but I still think Basketball is a good sport. Ya I have all the problems with the NBA that other people do, but there isn’t going to be hockey on anytime soon so I’ll watch.

  24. chrisvegas - Oct 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM

    Reading the majority of these idiotic comments harping on the players for trying to get a fair deal is sickening. No wonder America has turned to crap. We have plenty of Billionaires who constantly cry about how much money they lose who then demand tax payer funded bailouts. Ever realize billionaires are always losing money? That is why they are billionaires I guess…. Give me a break! The players want a fair deal and are sticking to their guns based on principle and what is right. You morons are ready to give into the billionaire owners because you buy into their propaganda and are afraid to miss a season of hockey. Well giving into their demands won’t stop the lockouts. The lockouts will stop when we as well as the players stand up to these billionaires and tell them we aren’t giving it. Grow a pair people. The majority of players aren’t millionaires and having a few million isn’t the same as being a rich billionaire. Don’t be jealous of people for making more money than you do for reaching the top of their profession. Reading these comments I get why America has been robbed blind by special interest and government. Nobody has any backbone anymore and when they do people criticize them. What a disgrace! Players hold out as long as you have to and get a good deal!!!!

    • slickvb82 - Oct 30, 2012 at 5:58 PM

      Did you ever think your viewpoint could be just as idiotic as the last? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The thing I don’t think you understand is that fans are frustrated because you have the rich fighting the rich, over money. That’s it. The fans are the ones who financially support these players and owners, so who are you to say we cant be upset with either side? You say the majority of players are not millionaires, well you know what, neither is the majority of the working class. The same people who pay thousands of dollars for season tickets, $8 a beer, $25 to park your car. Don’t give me your liberal lecture on Government and Billionaires, blah blah.

      The bottom line is, there would be no NHL without fans and we are frustrated with the continuing pathetic nature of this whole thing. Both sides suck.

      • chrisvegas - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:26 PM

        Ya I know the fans pay for everything genius as I have been one for 34 years. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and my opinion is that a good many of you (those who support the billionaire owners) are a bunch of idiots. Billionaires in this country constantly whine and cry about the money they lose and because they buy off media and politicians they get bailed out of their own stupid behavior at the average person’s expense. The NHL owners are the ones who overspent! The NHL owners are the ones who signed these huge contracts! Not every player who makes the NHL is rich. The owners caused this lockout out of greed. Wake up! And I am not liberal. I just see how billionaires in this country use their influence to take advantage of the little guy. I guess you like that. I’m sure the billionaires are happy you support them raping you. I’m not against people making money, which is why I support the players. You know, the ones who work their whole lives to get atop their profession. The ones who fight to get paid fairly before their short careers are over. The ones who sacrifice their health to play this sport. … ect. The last I checked it wasn’t people who had a few million dollars that were ruining this country; it was the billionaires who bought off government. The bottom line is it is the owners who have screwed everything up. It is the owner’s who cause 3 lockouts in 20 years. It is the owners who will keep doing this until people like you wake up and stop kissing their golden A$$.

      • eyeh8goodell - Oct 31, 2012 at 10:56 AM

        The majority of pro athletes are NOT “rich”. When will people understand this? Probably never.

    • chc4 - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM

      America is going to crap b/c you can only take away so much of rich people’s money before they aren’t rich anymore. And then the people they employ lose their jobs and everyone suffers.

      • thebigeasy2002 - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM

        Actually, it is because of the billions of dollars in never ending wars and the trillions of dollars in bailouts. Go look it up, there are more billionaires in America today and less middle-class.

      • chrisvegas - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:50 PM

        How many billionaires do you know who lost money? Give me a break! They got bailed out at tax payer’s expense. Man people are naive. America is facing the war on the middle class, the rich aren’t the ones suffering.

    • splittinghairs007 - Nov 4, 2012 at 1:38 AM

      These billionaires got that way from their non hockey business, not from overpaying what are essentially a bunch of over grown kids on skates. Look I have zero sympathy for billionaire owners that agree to multi million dollar contracts then cry they are losing money (which most teams do), BUT in todays economic world if not for mega rich owners there would be no NHL, at least as we know it. Whats the alternative? have players gamble their own money to start up their own teams while at the same time playing for less money? Yeah right.

      Also what the heck has special interest groups and governments ruining America got to do with a hockey lockout between billionaires and millionaires? Unless of course you are talking about sense of entitlement, if so yes I agree, todays team owners AND professional athletes are symptomatic of the growing entitlement that has gripped America for the past 30-40 years.

  25. thedavesiknowiknow - Oct 30, 2012 at 5:33 PM

  26. id4joey - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:11 PM

    The lockout is winding down. How this issue is resolved and who wins is irrelevant. Fehr and players or GB and the owners? It shouldn’t matter to the fans. Note: ‘fans’ who choose not to come back were never true fans of the game. We all have choices.

  27. sjsharks66 - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:22 PM

    @chris, it’s time to take your head out of your ass. You obviously are not a real hockey fan. A lot of people who are dont turn to other sports. Because in our eyes, there is no sport like hockey. Everything else is just mediocre and boring.

    We hate all of them. Players, owners betman and Fehr. This is all their fault. Oh no the rich get even more rich! Go play in Europe players! (You do know the players are rich and are getting money in Europe. Which only makes them richer.)

    Stop contradicting yourself and go enjoy basketball.

    • thebigeasy2002 - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:46 PM

      Actually, I think Chris is right on. He is simply defending the player’s position of trying to get a fair deal. Should the players just give in to the owners because they own their NHL franchises? Unfortunately that is the sentiment I am hearing from many of you. Why shouldn’t the owners bend a little? They have been making a significant increase in revenue from 10 years ago. So no on the contrary, perhaps it is you who should take your own advice and get your head out of your rear end.

      • chc4 - Oct 30, 2012 at 7:02 PM

        Fair deal? A fair deal is what the owners and players *together* say it is. Hence the lockout. If they don’t like it the players can go play in Europe for pennies on the dollar. Or put their high school degrees to work and get a job at the local skate shop.

        The owners are not obligated to give the players anything. That’s why it’s called “collective bargaining”. It takes both sides to make a “fair” deal.

      • thebigeasy2002 - Oct 30, 2012 at 7:14 PM

        @chc4- Oh really? The owners aren’t obligated to pay these huge contracts that they spent the last two years signing? Nobody forced them to sign these players to long term multimillion dollar contracts.

      • chrisvegas - Oct 30, 2012 at 7:18 PM

        @Thebigeasy – Great point man! Ya this is the mindset of people. Why should the billionaires be held responsible for their own actions? They aren’t obligated to pay the players these huge contracts. It is pathetic that people like chc4 take the side of billionaires. I guess he will enjoy paying increased taxes and increases in inflationary taxes each year. Lets bailout more billionaires at the tax payer expenses. They aren’t obligated to take responsibility for their own loses.

      • splittinghairs007 - Nov 4, 2012 at 1:57 AM

        The problem with the NHL’s business model is not that revenues have increased, it is that overall LEAGUE revenues have increased substantially and still most teams continue to lose money. A small number of teams in a competive “must win” league rake in the cash, most of the rest lose money trying to keep up.

        The long term solution would be to cut back the number of teams. Moving a couple of US teams to Canadian cities that are without NHL hockey and would fully support it should already have happened.

  28. thebigeasy2002 - Oct 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM

    Actually, I think Chris is right on. He is simply defending the player’s position of trying to get a fair deal. Should the players just give in to the owners because they own their NHL franchises? Unfortunately that is the sentiment I am hearing from many of you. Why shouldn’t the owners bend a little? They have been making a significant increase in revenue from 10 years ago. So no on the contrary, perhaps it is you who should take your own advice and get your head out of your rear end.

  29. mpg44 - Oct 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    I still say that the players …. Not Fehr ,need to look at this and realize that 50% or 57% of nothing is nothing . Compile that with their paycheck a of nothing so far this year totals a whomping NOTHING!!!! Meanwhile the owners are not paying hardly anyone , and at this rate of cancalations will be able to schedule other events in the arenas rather then hockey. So less money in , compiled with way less money out is MORE THEN NOTHING. THIS IS THE REASON THE PLAYERS LOST IN 05 AND IS THE REASON THEY WILL LOSE THIS YEAR TOO.

    • chrisvegas - Oct 31, 2012 at 1:27 PM

      If the players get nothing, then the owners get – something as they still have to pay their bills. Also the players still will get paid to play overseas. Not as well as the NHL, but some of these leagues like in Russia pay pretty decent money.

  30. steverolley - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:31 PM

    For the record I think this whole thing is a big joke! I hate both sides in this but

    CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME HOW THE PLAYERS WIN THIS?

    I am trying to figure out how missing a year of Hockey will benefit players.

    Does anyone remember 2004? For a year all we heard was the players weren’t taking a salary cap, guess what happened?

    Please explain to me how the players will come out of this ahead? They have already basically agreed to a 50 / 50 split. Now its just a question on how to get there, so why does missing a season seem better than a 12% reduction?

    • greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 31, 2012 at 1:34 AM

      Not only wouldn’t they accept a cap in 2004, 240 players never played an NHL game again. That is about 1/3 of the league.

    • chrisvegas - Oct 31, 2012 at 1:15 PM

      You don’t understand this thing at all do you? The players already agreed to taking a cut. This is about getting the NHL to honor the current contracts. Why any fan out there doesn’t support the players on this key issue is beyond me. Why should these billionaires not be held accountable to the contracts they signed. If they don’t want to pay the full amount on these contracts that they were giving out right up into August of this year, then one can reasonable assume that they signed these contracts without ever intending to pay the full amount. That is fraud. The players are willing to move to a 50-50 split after the current contracts are honored. I support the players in their reasonable stance. How to they win? They hold out longer then the owners. Can they? Yes they can if they stick together. Understand that the owners can miss this entire season, but they will have serious problems with their current tv contracts if they miss more then one season. This is why I think that we unfortunately will not see this solved until after this season is canceled. The owner can hardly afford to miss more then this season. This is about principle and holding the owners accountable.

  31. tpa43 - Oct 30, 2012 at 8:56 PM

    You mean the owners should ask themselves if it is worth loosing all that revenue? The owners are nothing without the NHL and the franchises and the players. Owners just get to sit in the drivers seat and play with their cool new toys. Now they want to try and make as much money as they can off the players and try to take advantage. Who sells jerseys, merchandise, tickets? Not the owners! The players! Suck it up and pay your employees!

    • steverolley - Oct 30, 2012 at 9:06 PM

      Pretty much every owner has a billion dollar business outside the NHL, so please explain how the owners are nothing without hockey. Every player relies on the NHL for their salary.

      Thats the major difference, the owners really don’t need hockey, your right its just their toy.

      The thing is that players might sell tickets but there is a new group of players entering the league every year. So the question is the sacrifice the players making going to benefit them, I don’t believe it will

      • eyeh8goodell - Oct 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM

        Since you seem to know so much about Ownership’s outside finances, then perhaps you could list some of these outside businesses the owners have going.

        The NHL has already lost 1/4th of its marketing value since this lockout began. And most of the owners do NOT have the money to keep writing checks for millions. And they’re already being smashed where it hurts, in advertising dollars.

        http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/labour-dispute-slams-nhls-brand-value-study/article4651332/

      • chrisvegas - Oct 31, 2012 at 1:20 PM

        @Steve – Why don’t you think the owners should be forced to honor the current contracts that they signed? You do realize that is the biggest issue in this lockout? The players agreed to move to a 50-50 split after the current contracts are honored. So why shouldn’t the owners be forced to honor their word?

      • steverolley - Oct 31, 2012 at 6:45 PM

        @eyeh8goodell

        Philip Anschutz Team: Los Angeles Kings , Net Worth: $7 billion (oil)
        Stan Kroenke Team: Colorado Avalanche , Net Worth: $3.2 billion (real estate)
        Ron Burkle Team: Pittsburgh Penguins , Net Worth: $3.2 billion (grocery stores)
        Terry Pegula Team: Buffalo Sabres , Net Worth: $3.1 billion (natural gas)
        N. Murray Edwards Team: Calgary Flames , Net Worth: $2.2 billion (oil)

        the list goes on, I know the Canadiens are owned by a beer company, the Canucks are owned by a real estate magnet, the leafs are owned by a cable company.

      • steverolley - Oct 31, 2012 at 6:54 PM

        @chrisvegas

        Personally I think the owners should have to pay the full amount of the contract they signed but that’s not how it works in collective bargaining.

        Again I think Bettman and the owners are terrible, and I don’t really understand how they can go on TV during the stanley cup finals talking about massive revenue gains then cry the blues two weeks later.

        But the question of this “is it worth it” and I really can’t see the numbers working out for the players. Just looking at the numbers the players have so much to lose and almost nothing to gain.

        Losing a year of Hockey didn’t end any franchises, but it ended a lot of careers.

      • splittinghairs007 - Nov 4, 2012 at 2:21 AM

        @ steverolley

        Philip Anschutz Team: Los Angeles Kings , Net Worth: $7 billion (oil)
        Stan Kroenke Team: Colorado Avalanche , Net Worth: $3.2 billion (real estate)
        Ron Burkle Team: Pittsburgh Penguins , Net Worth: $3.2 billion (grocery stores)
        Terry Pegula Team: Buffalo Sabres , Net Worth: $3.1 billion (natural gas)
        N. Murray Edwards Team: Calgary Flames , Net Worth: $2.2 billion (oil)

        You forgot perhaps the richest of all, the Philadelphia Flyers majority owned by Comcast Spectacor with annual revenue of $4.5 Billion (more than the total yearly revenue of NHL) and who have diverse financial interests outside of hockey. On top of that the parent company of Comcast Spectacor is Comcast cable who made $55 Billion revenue in 2011

    • greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 31, 2012 at 1:32 AM

      Actually it’s the NHL and and owners that have the rights to the players jerseys and team merchandise. Sure the players get a portion of that sale to have their last name stitched on the back, but the majority of the profit goes to the owners and the league.

      And as steverolley points out, the owners made their billions of dollars outside of hockey. There revenues will continue to roll in. Also in some cases, the owners also married into families that does alright for themselves. Daughters to parents that created Wal-Mart and S.C. Johnson for example.

      • eyeh8goodell - Oct 31, 2012 at 11:12 AM

        Tpa didn’t say the players were the ones making money off merch, he said they drive sales. Nobody buys merchandise because of the owners. Nobody in Washington is rocking a Caps jersey with “Leonsis” on the back. Nobody is New York is rocking a Rangers jersey with “Dolan” on the back.

        And you actually believe people are still buying a bunch of merchandise right now? Please. Owners are writing checks for millions to lease empty buildings. The Islanders pay a lease of 14 million per year, and that’s the lowest in the league. I’m sure somebody will retort with other events bringing in money. Well, that money doesn’t go to the NHL owners, it goes to the building owners. NHL teams typically do not own their buildings and are on the hook for the lease regardless of whether they play their games.

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 31, 2012 at 2:33 PM

        Of course they don’t buy a jersey with the owners name on it. But when you buy that Ovechkin jersey, the majority goes to Leonsis’ pocket, you buy that Gaborik jersey, the majority goes to Dolan. Anything with that Stanley Cup hologram on it, goes to the

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 31, 2012 at 2:37 PM

        Of course they don’t buy a jersey with the owners name on it. But when you buy that Ovechkin jersey, the majority goes to Leonsis’ pocket, you buy that Gaborik jersey, the majority goes to Dolan. Anything with that Stanley Cup hologram on it, goes to the owners.

        I’m guessing if I was to walk into JC Penney, Sports Authority, and any other store, hell even the local grocery store has NHL merchandise? Yeah, your right, not 1 person would buy anything. Probably your mom, wife, sister who has no clue I’m guessing might buy something for Christmas/Hannukah/Birthday. Just like that NHL 13 copy that’s probably sitting in your Playstation 3 or Xbox right now.

  32. fortwaynekomets - Oct 31, 2012 at 10:19 PM

    wow 125 comments. everyone came out of the woodwork!

    just like that greedy piece of $hit Gary Bettman knows we all will when the players finally cave in next summer, after a year of hockey was already lost.

    • greatminnesotasportsmind - Oct 31, 2012 at 11:59 PM

      Because Donald Fehr has a glowing halo on him…

Featured video

Caps' 'culture change' proving positive

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. J. Spezza (3372)
  2. P. Stastny (2985)
  3. E. Kane (2913)
  4. V. Hedman (2883)
  5. E. Staal (2647)
  1. J. Drouin (2613)
  2. M. Gaborik (2548)
  3. C. Crawford (2479)
  4. P. Datsyuk (2260)
  5. S. Varlamov (2255)