2025-2026 NHL Offseason

polaris_x

Players
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCW0VsfR9FM

Owners
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=6415 ... L|NHL|home

i think so far, the players are "winning" the public perception value ... heard on the cbc today about a rumour that their are owners who aren't interested in negotiating anything and that this is simply an exercise in busting the union ... it has nothing to do with what is fair ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

Players
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCW0VsfR9FM

Owners
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=6415 ... L|NHL|home

i think so far, the players are "winning" the public perception value ... heard on the cbc today about a rumour that their are owners who aren't interested in negotiating anything and that this is simply an exercise in busting the union ... it has nothing to do with what is fair ...

I'm not going to fall for the PR bullshit. Both sides are greedy. We're not talking about CAW negotiating with the Detroit 3. It's millionaires bickering with billionaires...ridiculous.

The one thing I would like to know is the players want to share the revenue? Correct? Now is that gross? or net?

I never hear the players say we want to share the revenue but if our teams loses 15 million we'll share in the loss's.

Thats the problem with these athletes...they want none of the risk...nothing hardly ever happens to these teams when they lose money...players aren't laid off! the owner just keeps accumulating loss after loss.

Then when I hear some of these players talk about HAVING to take jobs in Europe! really what'd you do with the millions from previous seasons...just a bunch of babies.

Indifference71

lukin2006 wrote:

Thats the problem with these athletes...they want none of the risk...nothing hardly ever happens to these teams when they lose money...players aren't laid off! the owner just keeps accumulating loss after loss.

Why should the players have to take the risk? They aren't the ones that own the team. Owning a team comes with risk, obviously. It seems that owners want a system where they are all guaranteed to make money and it shouldn't be that way.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

I never hear the players say we want to share the revenue but if our teams loses 15 million we'll share in the loss's.

Thats the problem with these athletes...they want none of the risk...nothing hardly ever happens to these teams when they lose money...players aren't laid off! the owner just keeps accumulating loss after loss.

Then when I hear some of these players talk about HAVING to take jobs in Europe! really what'd you do with the millions from previous seasons...just a bunch of babies.

uhhhh ... your argument is based strictly on issues that have no relevance ... it doesn't matter that they make $500,000 or $5 million a year ...

what the nhl is asking for is an economic situation where EVERY team makes money but some teams will make A LOT more ... it's the owners that aren't interested in helping the struggling teams/markets ... why don't they revenue share?

how would you feel if i paid you $100,000 a year to play hockey but then use your image and celebrity and your skill to make $5 billion? ... yeah, these guys make a lot of money but does it void their right to an equitable share of the revenue!? ... people don't pay to watch cheerleaders or jumbotron trivia ... they pay to watch the players ...

lukin2006

Indifference71 wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Thats the problem with these athletes...they want none of the risk...nothing hardly ever happens to these teams when they lose money...players aren't laid off! the owner just keeps accumulating loss after loss.

Why should the players have to take the risk? They aren't the ones that own the team. Owning a team comes with risk, obviously. It seems that owners want a system where they are all guaranteed to make money and it shouldn't be that way.

Then why should they even be entitled to a 50-50 spit of the revenue or guaranteed any percentage of the revenue. I'm pretty sure the average joe working at ford or chrysler isn't guaranteed a percentage of the revenue...but they share in the risk...its called being laid off if your product doesn't sell and make money.

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I never hear the players say we want to share the revenue but if our teams loses 15 million we'll share in the loss's.

Thats the problem with these athletes...they want none of the risk...nothing hardly ever happens to these teams when they lose money...players aren't laid off! the owner just keeps accumulating loss after loss.

Then when I hear some of these players talk about HAVING to take jobs in Europe! really what'd you do with the millions from previous seasons...just a bunch of babies.

uhhhh ... your argument is based strictly on issues that have no relevance ... it doesn't matter that they make $500,000 or $5 million a year ...

what the nhl is asking for is an economic situation where EVERY team makes money but some teams will make A LOT more ... it's the owners that aren't interested in helping the struggling teams/markets ... why don't they revenue share?

how would you feel if i paid you $100,000 a year to play hockey but then use your image and celebrity and your skill to make $5 billion? ... yeah, these guys make a lot of money but does it void their right to an equitable share of the revenue!? ... people don't pay to watch cheerleaders or jumbotron trivia ... they pay to watch the players ...

then why not some of the risk? seriously! do the owners make money off the players endorsements? Or just having the player suit up and play off ticket sales and all that jazz?

Also when are people going to realize that hockey will not make money for the majority of teams. Hockey has no big TV contract like the other big sports. I thought they had revenue sharing in place?

And business makes billions off people everyday and most of them don't share in revenue or hardly even acknowledged. Look at the autoworkers who sacrificed and gave concessions to help their companies.

Sorry they are millionaires bickering with billionaires. Until I see the players wanting to take some risk...neither side gets my sympathy. It doesn't have to be sharing the loss's maybe...it could be as simple as getting rid of guaranteed contracts...the players need to show me something as well.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

then why not some of the risk? seriously! do the owners make money off the players endorsements? Or just having the player suit up and play off ticket sales and all that jazz?

Also when are people going to realize that hockey will not make money for the majority of teams. Hockey has no big TV contract like the other big sports. I thought they had revenue sharing in place?

And business makes billions off people everyday and most of them don't share in revenue or hardly even acknowledged. Look at the autoworkers who sacrificed and gave concessions to help their companies.

Sorry they are millionaires bickering with billionaires. Until I see the players wanting to take some risk...neither side gets my sympathy. It doesn't have to be sharing the loss's maybe...it could be as simple as getting rid of guaranteed contracts...the players need to show me something as well.

uhhh ... they do take the risk - hence the revenue splits ... that means that if revenue is low, the players get less ... how is that not taking any risk?

at issue here at the end of the day is how do we keep nhl hockey going? ... for the fans and for the people who depend on it for their livelihood ...

option 1: players concede everything and owners get their way
option 2: nhl and nhlpa negotiate in good faith and settle on a fair deal

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

then why not some of the risk? seriously! do the owners make money off the players endorsements? Or just having the player suit up and play off ticket sales and all that jazz?

Also when are people going to realize that hockey will not make money for the majority of teams. Hockey has no big TV contract like the other big sports. I thought they had revenue sharing in place?

And business makes billions off people everyday and most of them don't share in revenue or hardly even acknowledged. Look at the autoworkers who sacrificed and gave concessions to help their companies.

Sorry they are millionaires bickering with billionaires. Until I see the players wanting to take some risk...neither side gets my sympathy. It doesn't have to be sharing the loss's maybe...it could be as simple as getting rid of guaranteed contracts...the players need to show me something as well.

uhhh ... they do take the risk - hence the revenue splits ... that means that if revenue is low, the players get less ... how is that not taking any risk?

at issue here at the end of the day is how do we keep nhl hockey going? ... for the fans and for the people who depend on it for their livelihood ...

option 1: players concede everything and owners get their way
option 2: nhl and nhlpa negotiate in good faith and settle on a fair deal

I don't care if hockey started until the playoffs myself. But since your a leafs fan I can see why that could be a problem . Is that gross revenue? or net revenue?

Well I haven't seen any owners proposal that asking the players to work for minimum wage.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

I don't care if hockey started until the playoffs myself. But since your a leafs fan I can see why that could be a problem . Is that gross revenue? or net revenue?

Well I haven't seen any owners proposal that asking the players to work for minimum wage.

hey ... no need to go there ... ... leaf fans should be treated like the animals you see on humane society infomercials! ... we should be pitied!

either way - there is a reason why the majority are favouring the players now ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I don't care if hockey started until the playoffs myself. But since your a leafs fan I can see why that could be a problem . Is that gross revenue? or net revenue?

Well I haven't seen any owners proposal that asking the players to work for minimum wage.

hey ... no need to go there ... ... leaf fans should be treated like the animals you see on humane society infomercials! ... we should be pitied!

either way - there is a reason why the majority are favouring the players now ...

I have no sympathy for either...like I said millionaires bickering with billionaires...both sides are pathetic...

blackredyellow

lukin2006 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I just wonder how long before the NHL starts looking at ownership in Quebec or Seattle?

I think Seattle is interesting. I don't know enough about Quebec City, but Seattle has the corporate climate for a team to be successful. It's not just about rabid fans, it's more about corporate money, and a concrete plan.

Look at Winnipeg, it took them a while, but they had a good arena, and spent years cultivating business support, and had good management in place.

Quebec City is in the early stages of arena development. Back in the 80's Montreal and Quebec was the best rivalry in all of hockey and right up there in all of sports.

I don't have any doubt that Quebec city would be a great fanbase once again, but what is the corporate climate like there? I honestly have no idea, but you need millions of dollars from businesses for suites, advertising, sponsorship, etc.

I loved the Nordiques...

Sprunkn7

This sucks, Bettman sucks.

EZ1221C

Can Bettman and Fehr be fired? Millionaires vs. Billionaires and the fans lose. Take a 50-50 split and play hockey

Indifference71

Sprunkn7 wrote:

This sucks, Bettman sucks.

Yes and Yes.

This lockout is really fucking up my plans. Getting married in a month and my gift to all of my groomsmen was to take them all to a Blackhawks game vs. the Shark on Sat, Oct 27th. Sat night games are very rare for the Hawks since the Bulls have usual Saturday night rights at the UC. Don't know what to do now.

Hartydog

EZ1221C wrote:

Can Bettman and Fehr be fired? Millionaires vs. Billionaires and the fans lose. Take a 50-50 split and play hockey

Amen to that. Split it down the middle and get going.

Heisenberg

Maybe the regular NFL refs can play hockey

lukin2006

Alex Ovechkin talks lockout, KHL

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nhl/story/_/i ... -full-year

DS1119

Heisenberg wrote:

Maybe the regular NFL refs can play hockey

Hartydog

The lack of news and updates is killing me as it's making me think this could drag on for a while.

eeriepadave

comcast sportsnet was showing the flyers vs bruins series a couple years ago