Whether it's fair or not is irrelevant, just that they have no right to be taking it as an 'insult' when they wound up on the long end of the exact same percentage in the last CBA. So I guess they were insulting the owners offering 57-43 at the end of the last CBA? The NBA's first offer was even worse than that lol.
I mean first offers are first offers, and no one cares about them today. But the NHL is making record revenues - I'd be a little insulted if I worked somewhere that was making record profits, in part because of my work, and they offered me and everyone else there 20% less money. But that's business, I don't think anyone cares about it now.
If it's so ludicrous on their end, they should realize that's how the end of the last CBA looked to the owners. But it's telling you think even 57-43 for the players isn't 'fair'.
No percentage is fair. When you cut percentages like the NHL has, what you end up doing is forcing small market teams to spend beyond their means while big market teams rake in money. And you put out of reach that money that the big market teams rake in - money they want to spend on players. And of course they don't want to just give it to other teams in revenue sharing - it's theirs! They earned it! (By enforcing a municipally-funded monopoly such that competitors can't enter their market w/o buying a franchise and paying exorbitant fees)
The owners signed every single one of those contracts that were so unfair. The players did not compel them to do so. I don't understand how you don't understand this - the percentage of revenue that players ultimately got in 2004 were the owners and GMs doing and theirs alone (beyond, of course, the CBA put in place which allowed the owners to do that).
I do blame both sides, I just don't like when people look at this negotiation solely as the players being 'bullied' or the owners being obstinate. Both sides are equally culpable, especially since there's no reason beyond greed for this lockout. In '04 the system was broken. The system is not broken now, not when you have an #8 seed winning a Cup and then Minnesota throwing around $200 million for two players and Nashville matching the ridiculous Weber offer sheet.
I have no idea how you can write these sentences in the same post and not have the 'aha!' light come on.
The owners lose, but the players lose more. Replacement players are a gimmick and more of an 'fu' to the players. I don't honestly believe they would go that route. But the NHL unfortunately does not have the impact the NFL has, etc. That said, they can recover quicker because they have a smaller, but hardcore fan base. Fans are pissed. But once games are back on, they will return very quickly. The casual fans, less so... but then again, the casual fan really has less impact in hockey than it does in any other major sport.
The owners should just play hardball, get what they want and stop this nonsense of trying to do it over a couple CBA's.
Sigh. Replacement players don't work, that's why they won't go that route. They didn't work in the NFL, and they wouldn't've worked in MLB. The players ARE the game.
The NHL has clearly gotten into a pattern whereby they lock out the players, make a bunch of demands, then realize that they totally underestimated themselves and the market and again they have to return to the drawing board. And that's why I can't get behind this - it's utter horsesh!t. Sure, the players can't stay at 57% of revenue, I think we all know that. However, it doesn't mean that all the money that the players give back end up in the pockets of the 6 most wealthy teams, whose wealth largely comes from government subsidies of arena costs and artificial market protections, and that's where it will mostly end up. The smaller markets will lose more because of a lockout - their hold on their fanbases is already tenuous - while the big markets have got plenty of corporations and wealthy fans willing to pony up.
The NHL is in this mess because it underestimated how popular its game is. I bet they never thought they would even hit the 57% revenue threshold, or that the players would vote for the 5% cap inflator every single year.
I like how they stand by their assertion that our defense is "perilously thin" after literally this exact same group got us to the finals last year. But oh, don't forget folks that this team was "one goal away from being eliminated in round 1". What a joke.
In 2011, Boston was also one goal from being eliminated in round 1. Don't hear much about that from the media.
I think the schedule will look something like this -
6:00 AM: Summer of '94 6:30 AM: Summer of '94 7:00 AM: Mark Messier jersey retirement ceremony 11:00 AM: Highlights of every Knick playoff win since 1999 11:05 AM: Summer of '94 (abridged) 11:30 AM: Dog Day Afternoon for some reason 2:00 PM: Summer of '94 2:30 PM: MSG Vault (Watch the Rangers play a game from 1982: it's mediocre hockey but here they don't get bailed out by a guy who wears pads larger than entire nations) 5:00 PM: Linsanity 5:00 PM: Feltonsanity 6:00 PM: Summer of '94 6:30 PM: Game 7, Conference Semi-Finals, 2012 (Remember the balloons and streamers! We want the Cup! We want the Cup!) 9:00 PM: Rocky IV 11:00 PM: Summer of '94 11:30 PM: Summer of '94
Did you not like the Rolston deal at the time? I couldn't dig up the Rolston signing thread. Yeah, the downside is rough for a guy like Rolston if he sucks right off the bat for sure (not too many teams are going to rush to trade for a guy who seemingly ages overnight), but Rolston seemed as likely to succeed as anyone would in that position...Lou rolled the dice on that one, but I don't remember too many fans not liking the signing when it was announced.
I loved it, I think, but I've learned a lot about hockey in those 4 years, and I think had the Devils signed that deal now, I'd hate it. I did say if Rolston's game went south he'd still cut it as a checking line player, which turned out to be true, but that's a job he didn't see himself being fit for. I'd hate it if they signed Shane Doan to a similar 4 year deal, and not just because Vanderbeek opened his wallet the other day and a moth flew out.
Yeah cause seriously (well from what he was telling the media) it seems like deboer never had anything against the play of any player... How many times a player had terrible stretches and reporters were asking him what he was thinking about the players play and seems like he was always okay with his play and that there was no problem at all. Of course he wouldnt throw a player under the bus there but still, to me he never admitted that a player was having bad games... I could be wrong tho but im under that impression anyway
Throwing players under the bus in the media is immature and unprofessional. It makes fans feel better since the coach is acknowledging that one of his players isn't playing up to his potential, but players don't like it. I know guys like Tortorella make it work.
I can guarantee that it wasn't all wine and roses behind the scenes.
His comments today tell me otherwise. They tell me he wanted to play somewhere with Ryan Suter, and they were discussing it on and off for the last 12 months. Now, being as close with Suter as he is, I'm sure Zach knew Suter had no interest in coming to the Eastern Conference. So that tells me Zach really didn't intend to stay, even if he claims we were in it to the very end. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Last 12 months? I bet they were talking about it during Draft Day, 2003. 'Hey, when we become NHL stars, let's play on the same team, okay?'.
I bet Zidlicky was talking about coming to New Jersey with Elias, Zubrus, and Sykora when he went on vacation with them as a member of the Wild. Guess Zidlicky was probably having wild group sex with them, also. What a snake in the grass.
I mean think about this, the captain of the New Jesrey Devils was more concerned with thinking of ways to play with freaking Ryan Suter after the season. He was more worried about playing with Suter than with the guys that were already on the team, while still on the team!
And he played like it, too! Remember that one time he took a shift off? 'Cause I don't.