View Single Post
Old
10-05-2012, 01:21 AM
  #42
Zam Boni
Registered User
 
Zam Boni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Both sides are obviously to blame here, but if I gotta go with one side I'll pick the players.

I lose a lot of respect for the NHLPA for their unwillingsness to negotiate this deal earlier. On the other hand, the first NHL offer was a real low ball and would probably have been the same offer last summer. Maybe a little bit serious more serious first offer from the NHL would have drawn the PA to the table earlier.

The owners, locking out the players one year to get their hard cap in place, only to spend the next 8 years trying their best to circumvent it.
Handing out three contract totalling over $300 M over 40 years only to lock out the players a couple of weeks later.
NHL is profitable, some franchises are not. According to Forbes, Phoenix lost $25M with a payroll of roughly $55M. Show me how decreasing salaries are going to make them profitable?
If revenues are up 50% (how many companies beat that!?) and you're claiming you're still losing money, maybe you're doing something wrong?!


50/50 split of revenues and increased revenue sharing, or start cutting money losing franchises.

Zam Boni is offline