I never understood how the players can dictate how the league is gonna be run. What happened to the days of I pay you the millions so **** and just play the game. Does the owner of any other business let the employees dictate how it's going to go ? Sorry I just don't understand all this.
There is a fine line there...the players are THE product...and should get 50% of the revenue...not 46% not 56% but 50%.....
Pro sports is not your typical employer/employee relationship...but owners own, and players play...negotiate your best deal and away you go...at the end of the day, the players cannot form their own league...
It wouldn't surprise me if they locked out the players until Xmas or so. I've heard various pundits make this prediction and it wouldn't be out of the question if this is what comes to pass.
For our team, it's the ideal scenario, easier to trade Gomez and Kaberle plus the youngsters like Galchenyuk, Leblanc and Geoffrion will hopefully get enough seasoning to be ready for the NHL.
Makes a lot of decisions a lot easier.
Maybe - but I'd rather be watching hockey.
Time to support another league. Maybe if TSN started broadcasting KHL games - I bet that would get the owners off of their fat, lazy *****, and stop trying to gouge every last GD nickle there is.
There is a fine line there...the players are THE product...and should get 50% of the revenue...not 46% not 56% but 50%.....
Pro sports is not your typical employer/employee relationship...but owners own, and players play...negotiate your best deal and away you go...at the end of the day, the players cannot form their own league...
Thank you for a proper response, unlike some dimwit in here. I see your point.
wow that' some list.
the only thing missing is the bringing back of the old master-serf clause called " prima nota "
it's when any common girl gets married to a hockey player, the owner of the team has sexual rights to her on the first night.
You're talking as if they get paid $50k a year. The worst player gets paid $500k or so. I think "the product", especially these guys that get the millions are well paid for their "product". Give me a break
It's not like we're talking about a struggling corner store owner being forced out of business by Walmart here. The poorest NHL owner is still worth hundreds of millions of dollars, tens, if not hundreds of times the richest player.
Remember when Shea Weber was fined like $2500 for his hit last year, and people were making those "regular Joe" comparisons? Where they were saying the equivalent value of Weber's fine was about $12 to the average working guy, or something like that? Do the same math for NHL owners and their losses compared to their net worthes. I would bet it comes out to like $500 a year, give or take. Less than four tickets in the red.
Well whatever happens to fix that game but in the meantime....prospect lover as I am, I hope they filled the nights with AHL and CHL games.....I hope those stations are ready to get some agreements going. Do hope to see the Dogs often this year...is any TV station going to do that? I doubt we have those people to think about that....
Players won't go on strike, they're happy with the CBA as it is... it would have to be a lock out. I'm still numbed about how many people don't really understand the difference between both...
- % of revenues : hard to guess this one or to have an opinion. Decreasing from 57 to 52-53 should be enough for this negociation. Aiming at 50-50 the next time.
- Max. length of contracts 5 years : That one is mandatory. No more stupid contracts leading players to 40 years old when they're 25-27 ! In European soccer, 5 years contracts are the max. length.
- No more arbitration : Who cares, really ? It's less and less used nowadays...
- 5 years entry level contracts : No, this one is not needed. Better the 5 years limit to all contracts and upping the UFA age.
- 10 NHL years before free agency : I'd add, "or being 30 years old". This one will be hard to get. If I had to choose between this one and the length of contracts capped to 5 years, I'd choose the length of contracts capped. Getting 2 or even 1 year on free agency should be good enough.
This ^^ .. Was going to post pretty much the exact same things.
A 50-50 division would help both the rich and the poor teams. It would help the Habs in two ways. First, it would mean more revenue. Second, it would mean the Habs would pay less in revenue sharing because the poor teams would keep more of their own revenue.
A 50-50 division would help both the rich and the poor teams. It would help the Habs in two ways. First, it would mean more revenue. Second, it would mean the Habs would pay less in revenue sharing because the poor teams would keep more of their own revenue.
Same way I look at it.
Players don't deserve more than 50% of the revenue.
Well whatever happens to fix that game but in the meantime....prospect lover as I am, I hope they filled the nights with AHL and CHL games.....I hope those stations are ready to get some agreements going. Do hope to see the Dogs often this year...is any TV station going to do that? I doubt we have those people to think about that....
Sportsnet has a national deal for CHL Friday Night Hockey and I think CBC has a deal for a bunch of AHL games on Sunday. Shaw out West shows several games of CHL every week also.
If anything, I would expect extended coverage (more games) as a way to create interest in their product. Look at what happened when TSN promoted the U-20 WJHC. Big win for them in the ratings game.
46% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now
max length of contracts 5 years
no more arbitration
entry level contract 5 years instead of 3
you need to be in the NHL 10 years before free agency...
if there is any truth to this, we may look at hard hard negociations...
If you show up at somebody's house to buy their car, and they have the price set at $5000, you don't offer them $5000. you offer them 4 and then go from there.
How about "a player's cap hit equals the salary paid"? That would solve a lot of stupid contracts in the NHL.
But that's crazy talk, ain't it?
That would create even more problems with teams making even crazier contracts to cap circumvent to be able to load up for a 1 or 2 year window to win the Stanley Cup.
5 year contract limits will solve most of the current problems.
If you show up at somebody's house to buy their car, and they have the price set at $5000, you don't offer them $5000. you offer them 4 and then go from there.
You also don't offer them $1000.
What if Fehr comes back and says "instead of 56%, we want 65%?" The middle of 65 and 46 is what? 55-ish? Think the owners will go for that, because it's in the middle? Is that fair negotiating? "We'll meet in the middle" negotiating? Or is just a waste of time?
If the NHL strikes again this soon, I'm done with it.
Chances of a strike are very low. Players are fine with the current arrangement. NHLPA even said they are fine going into the season without an agreement.
Its a lockout you should be worried about. If games are missed this time the owners are more likely to be the guys to blame.
