If I were a player and there was a guarantee that the owners wouldn't simply just pocket the salary cuts, I'd be a lot more willing to go with it. If you read about the NHLPA proposal, the players said they'd be willing to not take a chunk of new revenues from franchise relocations or if there was additional revenue sharing. Not quite the same thing, but a little more of a wider view for the health of the league than the owners.
If I were a player and there was a guarantee that the owners wouldn't simply just pocket the salary cuts, I'd be a lot more willing to go with it. If you read about the NHLPA proposal, the players said they'd be willing to not take a chunk of new revenues from franchise relocations or if there was additional revenue sharing. Not quite the same thing, but a little more of a wider view for the health of the league than the owners.
"We're willing to not take money that we wouldn't have ever been privy to anyway." Oh what a compromise!
As for Fox Sports North, it’s preparing a package of “Classic Wild” games during the lockout, presumably full of 2003 playoff games (Andrew Brunette’s heroics), a certain 5-goal game by a former player, a certain third period comeback against Chicago.
FSN obviously has a full slate of programming with Twins, Wolves, Gophers hockey and high school games, so right now it has said it is looking into the possibility of airing some Aeros games on the network. But that’s not a guarantee and obviously wouldn’t be all anyway.
__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.
"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
Thinking about Bettman's statement about how players will lose more in a lockout than over the lifetime of the CBA, I think if the NHL raise that first year or two or threw the PA a bone (like a partial escrow refund/payment up front) it might move things along quite a bit. Would make it easier for players to stomach long-term losses, especially the majority of the PA who don't make tons of money.
There are some positives. Imagine if the Leafs win the draft lottery if they get 3 balls, that'd be hilarious. Also any rule changes and new players coming in, it'll be neat to see what happens afterwards as unfortunate as the lockout would be. Maybe they'll give centre ice for free like the NBA gave League Pass online.
well on the bright side, my productivity this winter will increase 10 fold.
Seriously though, this is such a waste. No excuses from either side. Just freeze the ****ing cap at the real dollar amount its at. If the league's revenue decreases, then decrease it to keep the percentage moving towards 50. If revenues continue to grow keep it frozen until it hits 50.
Temporarily increase revenue sharing for a couple of years to help ensure that all teams have the opportunity to make money. As the owners gain a larger %HRR, revenue sharing can be reduced to a level that is fairer for money making teams.
If smaller market teams don't start to turn it around, relocate them. Quite dicking around with unsustainable markets. I get the idea but when they can't keep up they can't keep up.
Seriously though, this is such a waste. No excuses from either side. Just freeze the ****ing cap at the real dollar amount its at. If the league's revenue decreases, then decrease it to keep the percentage moving towards 50. If revenues continue to grow keep it frozen until it hits 50.
Temporarily increase revenue sharing for a couple of years to help ensure that all teams have the opportunity to make money. As the owners gain a larger %HRR, revenue sharing can be reduced to a level that is fairer for money making teams.
If smaller market teams don't start to turn it around, relocate them. Quite dicking around with unsustainable markets. I get the idea but when they can't keep up they can't keep up.
While I don't disagree with this solution, it just won't fly with the League. They seem to be clear that they will only agree to pay the players significantly less now. Personally, I think the owners need to be held responsible for the contracts that they made but I don't think this gets done without the players giving some of their current contracts back. It sucks but as long as the players refuse any sort of rollback or escrow, the negotiations will continue to go nowhere.
How will I write my thesis paper without having a hockey game playing in a second window on my laptop? Gonna send a scathing letter to the NHL about how this lockout will be negatively effecting my studies.
well on the bright side, my productivity this winter will increase 10 fold.
Seriously though, this is such a waste. No excuses from either side. Just freeze the ****ing cap at the real dollar amount its at. If the league's revenue decreases, then decrease it to keep the percentage moving towards 50. If revenues continue to grow keep it frozen until it hits 50.
Temporarily increase revenue sharing for a couple of years to help ensure that all teams have the opportunity to make money. As the owners gain a larger %HRR, revenue sharing can be reduced to a level that is fairer for money making teams.
If smaller market teams don't start to turn it around, relocate them. Quite dicking around with unsustainable markets. I get the idea but when they can't keep up they can't keep up.
This is just a gian cluster ****.
As another poster alluded to, the league will not accept any deal that does not involve immediate cuts. The league is losing money at the current levels, so keeping costs at the current levels will not help them stop losing money. It might reduce the bleeding and make the future a little brighter, but it's just giving a leaking ship a little bucket to try bail water out. It might keep it afloat for a while, but it's not fixing the issue.
The players also wouldn't likely want to accept it because of the risks involved if revenues don't continue to rise.
As another poster alluded to, the league will not accept any deal that does not involve immediate cuts. The league is losing money at the current levels, so keeping costs at the current levels will not help them stop losing money. It might reduce the bleeding and make the future a little brighter, but it's just giving a leaking ship a little bucket to try bail water out. It might keep it afloat for a while, but it's not fixing the issue.
The players also wouldn't likely want to accept it because of the risks involved if revenues don't continue to rise.
yea, im aware. that is more of what i thought they should do (no expert here).
Owners wont budge from paycuts, player are wont except pay cuts out of principle. Yup were ****ed, this could get nasty unless someone blinks.
One would think an agitator would be more concerned about his career; especially since it will probably be extremely short-lived.
On the other hand, as an agitator, he's probably more concerned about his career and simply can't sit in there and listen to what the PA is trying to do.
one of those people is the owners, one is the players the other is the fans, you figure it out
come to think of it, the one paddling is bettman, the fat dude watching is ferh, the two behind bettman represent the owners
so ****ing fitting
come to coming to think of it, the fans is saying " I still will come back its ok i know you don't mean this deep down inside. no one wants to get a deal done as much as you "
players will only feel the pinch after they miss a month or so. Can we get together and hold a food drive for them in December if nothing has been worked out? $900,000 only goes so far (edit: if you're spending it on Bentleys and Las Vegas bar tabs)
Is it really that much of a surprise to anyone? I think we all saw this coming when they waited so long before beginning talks and the fact that it's Bettman and Fehr heading each side. I know I did. Say goodbye to the entire season folks, it's a lost cause.
...
