Comments on: Roenick thinks there’s a deal that owners should take

By: kitshky

kitshky — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 22:11:02 +0000

…and of course your name is General Lee you ignorant prick.

By: phillyphanatic77

phillyphanatic77 — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 21:45:09 +0000

That is absurd to tell us that the players are the ones who are stubborn and ignorant. What is ignorant about wanting to protect the contracts signed by both the players and the owners? I know you’re gonna tell me that the union has to realize that the owners aren’t conceding, but if the players bend over for the league again (just like 04-05) then what’s gonna happen in the next lockout? Bettman will come out, attempt to tell us that the players got a better deal than everyone thinks, then lockout another season until the players give up even more. I want hockey as much as the next person, I’m suffering through an absolutely dismal year of Philadelphia sports, but if the owners dominate the CBA again then it will continue the precedent of Bettman thinking he can force the players hands every 5 years. Bettman will continue using the lockout as their number one negotiating tool and in 10 years the players will have as much rights as NCAA football players. The union has to make a stand, to certain degree to end the tyrant grip Bettman has on the league. The league is dragging itself and the players over a cliff and seeing if they can rob the players pockets before hitting the ground

By: phillyphanatic77

phillyphanatic77 — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 21:23:43 +0000

You’re wrong, any sane commissioner would be working towards middle ground to preserve a league that could potentially implode with another missed season. I mean the owners have not moved an inch from their actual positions, they’ve simply moved off their draconian first offer then acted as if they were doing a huge favor to the players with every inch they crawled away from the initial offer. This is coming off a season of huge, record revenues and unprecedented fan support, the game was heading up a peak, and only a self-serving, greedy man (standing for other self-serving, greedy men) would throw all that away for gains that will pale in comparison to the gains they would’ve made by accepting a fair deal and playing this season. That shows me that the league will never stop until they take the union to the cleaners. And then the next lockout Bettman will tell us they got screwed and have to renegotiate and take even more. That’s if the league survives long enough for the owners to destroy it again. There’s no other logical explanation for why the owners refuse to budge on ANYTHING.

By: shotzongoal

shotzongoal — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:32:50 +0000

What Mr. Roenick and many others forgot is number 5 in the player’s proposal that starts out that we agree with you and then two little words change the entire 50% concept.

5) Players’ Share
- Our players’ share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, OTHER THAN a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players’ share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

After year one, the player’s dollar amount will never go down even if revenues go down, regardless of the cause of lost revenues. I think we all agree that NHL revenues will be less in the up coming years. If Roenick other suggestion of contraction were to become a reality, revenues would certainly be reduced but not the player portion due to this clause.

By: omniusprime

omniusprime — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 14:15:56 +0000

The greedy 1% moocher class owners want to ensure they remain the takers while the players remain the makers. Just more union busting by the 1% takers who have a false sense of entitlement. I want to see the owners and players deep six the NHL, let them all eat pork and beans instead of filet mignon.

Best thing that could happen to pro sports is for the despicable NHL to cease it’s pathetic existence. Bye Bye NHL!!!

By: bleed4philly

bleed4philly — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:19:12 +0000

This will solve everything: break up the union and the NHL. Get rid of the communism and each team and player just take care of themselves. Then Walmart and Microsoft will get in on the action and hockey will become the #1 sport in the world. Or… Keep this up.

By: fortwaynekomets

fortwaynekomets — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:06:41 +0000

Nashville surprisingly has a decent fan base but when you think Tennessee you don’t think of hockey. Canadiens took hockey for granted, therefore teams moved to more profitable markets, including Nashville.

but in my personal opinion, enough relocating, enough expansion teams, I’d much rather like to see the NHL go back to either 26 or 22 teams. might be selfish, but its better for the league.

By: xaf605

xaf605 — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:49:16 +0000

Agreed general lee nashville goes nowhere as for you northstar i dont think you know as much about hockey towns as you think you know

By: General Lee 1175

General Lee 1175 — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:35:34 +0000

Hey Genius , Nashville arent going anywhere , why move back into a country that couldnt even afford to keep half it’s teams to begin with ? players dont want to live and play in depressing mudville salt mine towns up North anymore

By: northstars17

northstars17 — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:05:11 +0000

as a lifelong hockey player, who know lives in San Diego, CA…. I am all in favor of taking some of these “sunbelt” teams BACK TO CANADA.

I was raised in Indiana as a diehard B-Hawks and N-Stars fan (that might sound odd but its true). I have also LIVED in North Carolina and Oklahoma and I can say for 100% sure those ARE hockey states. especially N Carolina. so KEEP the Carolina Hurricanes and the Dallas Stars.

the teams that need to go are obviously Phoenix, Columbus, and either Florida or Nashville. when I say need to go I mean relocated, preferably in Canada where the sport was built. how can there honestly be only 6 Canadian teams??? I think 2 teams need to go back asap. one to Quebec, and one to Ontario.

By: kitshky

kitshky — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:52:49 +0000

Wow …how very self aware of you.

By: bruinpred

bruinpred — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:33:05 +0000

Just because someone has a big mouth doesn’t mean he has anything to say.

By: valoisvipers

valoisvipers — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:45:48 +0000

Yet the article fails to mention that the players can’t not make less than the previous year. Which is 50-50 plus 182 million. Yes Fehr is Fehr

By: stakex

stakex — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:45:37 +0000

The thing I don’t get is that this offer is closer to where the owners want to be then any previous players offer… yet there has been little talk between both side since it was put on the table. That doesn’t make sense to me, unless both sides have firmly declared that their offer on the table is a bottom dollar offer. If thats the case we have a serious problem.

Roenick is wrong though, in a fair world the owners would take a much more serious look at this deal and find a way to make it work. The reason they won’t however, is that they know a not too secret fact: The longer this goes on, the better deal the owners will get. Which is why its the players, not the owners, that should be jumping on whatever deal they can get right now. Is that fair? Probably not, but its how this works.

By: valoisvipers

valoisvipers — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:42:57 +0000

No not for greedy bastards like Jacobs (although he would gain too) but for the 13 teams that are losing money and the other 5 teams that make less than a star player.

By: stakex

stakex — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:39:02 +0000

Well no employer really likes unions. However you are reading too much into this, and what the owners are asking for wouldn’t even come close to destroying the players union as you seem to suggest.

By: whatthepuck2012

whatthepuck2012 — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:14:04 +0000

If the majority of teams are losing money, despite the growing popularity of the sport, there’s something wrong. Players gotta give.

By: pastabelly

pastabelly — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:07:39 +0000

Players gave up major % share of revenue – 57% to 50%. People here want even more of a win for greedy bastards like Jacobs. Sigh.

By: id4joey

id4joey — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:58:24 +0000

Limited contract lengths, UFA eligibility reduced, and especially front loaded contracts are at the core of the impasse. Mediators did squat so if the owners get their demands met for 2 of these 3 issues we will have hockey. The players are ignorant and stubborn. Sign the deal before you lose the whole season. Is anybody listening to Modano?

By: bcsteele

bcsteele — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:38:07 +0000

I don’t agree with everything that Roenick usually says but AMEN. They put a deal on the table that I thought was good for everybody. Rights the finances for the league and still offers a decent deal for the players. Fair is fair, get the boys back on the ice before you further destroy this sport.

If the league goes further with this I think they should be charged with robbery from the fans, and extortion or rape of the players….or both.

By: manchestermiracle

manchestermiracle — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:29:13 +0000

What the league really wants is a players’ union in name only. They want to dictate every aspect of the game, both on and off the ice, while maintaining the illusion of a union in order to keep their anti-trust exemption. They will continue this lockout until they get what they truly want: An eviscerated players’ union.