2025-2026 NHL Offseason

DS1119

Personally I'm not sure why players feel entitled to revenue sharing.

81

hockey is dead to me.

Jason P

Just like an abused spouse, I'll be back when hockey comes back because deep down inside I know hockey still loves me.

drivingrl

Jason P wrote:

Just like an abused spouse, I'll be back when hockey comes back because deep down inside I know hockey still loves me.

I laugh because I'm guilty, too. :(

Drowned Out

DS1119 wrote:

Personally I'm not sure why players feel entitled to revenue sharing.

Personally, I'm not sure why owners feel they're entitled to all of the revenue when, without the players, there would be none.
A new elite league could be formed without these owners. Can't say the same about the players.

MayDay10

Drowned Out wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Personally I'm not sure why players feel entitled to revenue sharing.

Personally, I'm not sure why owners feel they're entitled to all of the revenue when, without the players, there would be none.
A new elite league could be formed without these owners. Can't say the same about the players.

Owners dont feel like they are entitled to all the revenue. They are asking for 50%. They also have to pay all costs such as employees, rent, travel expenses, cooling, heating, marketing, etc.

The players cant start a new league. They lack the $, the infrastructure, and frankly, brains. Maybe they can get something together, but it would be a miracle if they made $1.65 Billion in profits they would be missing out on with the NHL.

I dont think you can have one without the other.... but Id be willing to venture that people are more loyal to the crest than the player.

Drowned Out

drivingrl wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Just like an abused spouse, I'll be back when hockey comes back because deep down inside I know hockey still loves me.

I laugh because I'm guilty, too. :(

I'll be back. Hopefully soon.
It's my favourite sport...as long as there is an honest competitive drive in the players, there is a purity to sports that none of this bullshit can't touch. Once the puck drops, none of this really matters.

Drowned Out

MayDay10 wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Personally I'm not sure why players feel entitled to revenue sharing.

Personally, I'm not sure why owners feel they're entitled to all of the revenue when, without the players, there would be none.
A new elite league could be formed without these owners. Can't say the same about the players.

Owners dont feel like they are entitled to all the revenue. They are asking for 50%. They also have to pay all costs such as employees, rent, travel expenses, cooling, heating, marketing, etc.

The players cant start a new league. They lack the $, the infrastructure, and frankly, brains. Maybe they can get something together, but it would be a miracle if they made $1.65 Billion in profits they would be missing out on with the NHL.

I dont think you can have one without the other.... but Id be willing to venture that people are more loyal to the crest than the player.

You can't have the NHL without both parties agreeing to terms. You can most definitely have another league. No, it wouldn't make 1.65B the first year....but eventually, it would. And you would have a lot of owners lining up for teams if the buy in was reasonable. But in the end, that's all just posturing anyway.
Yes, people are more loyal to their team than the players (in most instances at least - depends how the player is being treated, and how that treatment affects the team).....but....I don't necessarily see that as a statement of support for ownership.

MayDay10

I dont see the players signing up for that. There would likely be a lot of jobs out the window, and salaries would be a fraction of what they are now.
nor do I see a glut of businessmen who would be willing to invest that much to start from scratch. At least not in the next few years. They have trouble finding investors for the NHL.
Not to mention the complexities/cost of encroaching on NHL lease agreements with nearly every arena.

Would Sidney Crosby be better off taking $9,500,000 instead of $10,000,000 and not have to worry about shit?

Im not on one side or the other, but the players need to buckle down a bit, take the owner's 50/50 offer and get all they can out of it.

Over 1/4th of the season is now cancelled. So, players have lost 25% of their pay because they're unwilling to lose 7% of their pay.

This is what happens when you tell a group of high school educated millionaires to make a financial decisions.



The owners are crap too, but they hold all/most of the cards.

polaris_x

i'd rather watch the good players play in a breakaway league then watching scrubs play in the current ... i am personally tired of owners sticking it (pun intended) to whoever they feel like ...

MayDay10

I wouldnt support either. Breakaway nor replacement players.

DS1119

Drowned Out wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Personally I'm not sure why players feel entitled to revenue sharing.

Personally, I'm not sure why owners feel they're entitled to all of the revenue when, without the players, there would be none.
A new elite league could be formed without these owners. Can't say the same about the players.

Because the owner/owners takes on ALL of the financial responsibility. The player only has to perform. He's paid based on his contract regardless of how the team does financially. The profit sharing with players in my eyes was always a bad idea.

lukin2006

There's my problem with the players right there...they want a split of the revenue, but none of the responsibility that the owners take. If the players would offer to do away with guaranteed contracts then I might have more sympathy...guys like that Gomez in Montreal...really 7.5 million or whatever it is...ridiculous.

It's not like these players are making minimum wage :fp:...

Millionaires fighting Billionaires...

lukin2006

The players could never start their own league ... it would also be next to impossible for a bunch of other rich guys to step in and start a league ... most of these teams will have it written into their lease agreement preventing competing leagues from using their facilities ... some cities that have 2 arenas might, but I doubt many cities have 2 NHL capable arena's ... plus no competing league would be up and running for at least a 1-11/2 years by then the NHL will have settled.

The players only other options are Europe or the KHL ... those aren't glamorous choices ... the KHL has a 30 million cap, most of those teams play in old Soviet era arenas that seat 6000-7000.

The players have only 1 real alternative ...

DURP

Players wanting more than 50% of revenue is ridiculous. I get that they say "Owner make money off of us" i get that. But do owners get a percentage of what players make on the side? Do players give 50% of the appearance fees that get? Or the money charge at events to sign autographs. It's not like these guys are making 10 bucks a game.

In the end I'm with 81 NHL is dead to me. I would rather drive to Wheeling WV or down to Cincinnati and see some ECHL hockey. Cheaper tickets, entertaining and players who are playing for fun. Also I would rather drive up to Columbus and watch Ohio State hockey. I'm not a Buckeyes fan but it's better than this bullshit.

Crying over money these players, owners and league could give a rat's ass about the fans. Because they know that most of us are going to be dumb enough to fill the seats up again. Maybe one day i can get over this but for now and in the future kiss my ass NHL.

polaris_x

players will settle for 50/50 ... all they want is that the existing contracts be honoured and that the terms by which HRR are defined stay the same ...

81

caught some of a '94 hawk/leaf playoff game last night. yeah...i know...i was just as shocked as you seeing the leafs in the playoffs.

polaris_x

81 wrote:

caught some of a '94 hawk/leaf playoff game last night. yeah...i know...i was just as shocked as you seeing the leafs in the playoffs.

i believe its part of our local history curriculum ... so, it isn't forgotten ... :fp:

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

players will settle for 50/50 ... all they want is that the existing contracts be honoured and that the terms by which HRR are defined stay the same ...

Actually DURP has a good point...why don't the players give the owners 50/50 of all outside endorsements? If the player were really serious as well they would propose doing away with guaranteed contracts...even if they allowed teams to rid themselves of 2 guaranteed contracts a year I think they might get a deal done. Too many overpaid players in the NHL.

The players want too make millions...but don't want too share in the risk.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

Actually DURP has a good point...why don't the players give the owners 50/50 of all outside endorsements? If the player were really serious as well they would propose doing away with guaranteed contracts...even if they allowed teams to rid themselves of 2 guaranteed contracts a year I think they might get a deal done. Too many overpaid players in the NHL.

The players want too make millions...but don't want too share in the risk.

a contract is a contract ... why won't the nhl honour their contracts? ... and at the end of the day - the owners/nhl is making a killing now ... so, a few ill advised teams in poor markets aren't ... so, you want to screw the players so that those teams make tons of money and the owners make even more ...

look at the owner of the oilers ... he epitomizes what's wrong with the owners ... the guy is making a killing yet he wants the taxpayers to fund everything ... these owners just want more and more ... if you give them something ... they just take and take without giving anything back ...

give me 1 item in their proposal that is good for the players ... just 1 ... it's all about the players giving and giving ... with nothing in return ...