Everything that you have said, is exactly how I feel about this whole thing. It isn't about the fans,it's all about the owners turning a profit. They are taking their bad signings (raising salarys to new hieghts) and then blaming the players for doing so. If the owners were willing to pay those types of salaries; ofcourse the players would except! The owners just don't have to keep doing it, that's why were at this point.
Quit blaming the players and blame the owners for not watching their spending on player salaries.
To blame all the owners is totally wrong,the problem with the NHL and every other pro sport is the disparity of revenues between markets,one retarded owner pays a 40 goal scorer in NY 10m because he has the budget to do so but it makes a team in say Calgary,Edmonton..etc either do the same or lose the player!
The league needs a system to protect itself from itself. (like every other fricking pro sports league)
1) Players give back 20% to start the season
2) Teams MUST spend 28m on salaries
3) Soft cap starts @ 31m
31-35m = .50 cents to cap fund
35-40m = .75 cents to cap fund
40-45m = 1 dollar to cap fund
45-50m = 1.5 dollar to the cap fund
Hard cap set @ 50m or 57% of league revenues (hopefully 57% will grow to over 50m)
TV revenue sharing:
Teams give 50% of their tv revenue to a pot that all teams share equally.
45% to bottom 10 teams
35% to middle 10 teams
20% to top 10 teams
End of season player bonuses:
Any team not spending 57% on salaries will disperse the profits to the players and local minor hockey. ( i figure 60% to player and 20% to minor hockey and 20% to the owners)
Bettmen had a choice not to sign off on the last CBA, it is also his mistake.
No, you're wrong. Bettman didn't sign off on anything. He told the owners not to accept the deal, but they voted for it anyway, 17 to 9. What's he supposed to do, physically restrain the owners from voting?
It's not his fault they did the opposite of what he said, and came to regret it.
Note the low 65% acceptance is why the new rule was put in requiring at least 75% of the owners to agree.
But he extended the CBA twice. Any commish that allows such a pro-player CBA to continue for so long deserves to be recognized for their flaws. Some business magazines think along the same lines too...
He extended it twice because the owners wanted their expansion fees and they couldn't get them without the CBA. Simple as that.