NHL Lockout...Whose side are you on?

[BLUELANDbeliever]

With the inevitable NHL lockout looming, what are your views on it? What's different and the same this time around?

[IceCap]

The NHLPA. Of the two sides they've shown the most willingness to seek a compromise.

[Sport]

Everyone should be on the players side in this. If you're on the side of the owners then you haven't been paying attention.

[TrueYankee26]

I don't care, I just want hockey! They better get a deal, or else.

[BLUELANDbeliever]

Im siding with the players. The way I see it, the owners (and Bettman) see us as pawns. Seriously, other than the All Star game and that cheap cheesy speech he says every year to give out the cup, when has Bettman actually done anything to thank us fans? Never. And the owners... they think slapping 'Thank you fans' down on the ice is good enough to say we appreciate your patronage? Hell no!

[The_Admiral]

Anyone supporting the owners eats paste.

[Kevin W.]

Of course I'm on the players' side.

[aci]

They got virtually all the concessions they were looking for, and while the players got a couple treats (the prime one being earlier UFA status), the new NHL proposal wants to take those away, too. The League seems to think 57% of revenues are too much to give to the players, but they are forgetting that they pushed the Union to agree to that in 2005. Considering that revenues have gone up considerably between 2005 and 2012, that means that the NHL's 43% share of the booty has gone up by that much, too.

What I think would be a reasonable solution would be to pin the cap where it is, and give the players 48% of any revenue increases from this point forward, on a long-term CBA. No cap rollback, no salary rollback, just a rollback of how much the players will get from any future revenues. So for 2011-12, the Hockey Related Revenues were $3.3 billion for the whole NHL, by the source I came across. If the revenues went up to $3.5 billion for 2012-13, the cap would be whatever it was in 2011-12 plus 48% of the additional $200 million in new revenue. This would add $96 million to be divided into the cap numbers instead of $114 million.

That, in addition to the players sacrificing the insanely long-term and unbalanced contracts (which are a real problem), should actually solve any issues the League has without giving into owner greed. If contracts were limited to 8 years and each year had to be at least half as valuable as the most expensive year, I think it'd save the moron GMs from themselves.

[NJTank]

whatever side Bettman is on I am against

[BLUELANDbeliever]

whatever side Bettman is on I am against

[The_Admiral]

No cap rollback, no salary rollback, just a rollback of how much the players will get from any future revenues.

There has to be a rollback. Even the union acknowledges this. Obstruction/shell hockey has decommodified the players. Most of them are little more than unionized scabs now with the way they play the game. The Boyd Gordons of the world don't deserve 57%.

That, in addition to the players sacrificing the insanely long-term and unbalanced contracts (which are a real problem)

Problem for whom? No player has been signed to a long-term/frontloaded contract against his will, and no GM has been fired for tendering one.

[Magnus]

I guess that if I'm arguing for a 50-50 split, that puts me on the owners' side. Hmm. I'd prefer to think I'm on neither side at all. I am against the keeping of teams in markets that are failing. Having said that, I am against having contracts negotiated that end up circumventing whatever cost-controlling measures are put in place. That might be the fault of players' agents, but it also might be the fault of owners who just want to buy up the best players. So...I dunno which side I am on.

[Don]

On the side of the workers of course.

[sportstar1212]

I'm most definitely on the players side. They tried to make a pretty fair compromise and Bett wants it his way or no way. I hope he gets fired.

[The_Admiral]

I am against having contracts negotiated that end up circumventing whatever cost-controlling measures are put in place.

Not all teams' costs need controlling, and indeed, those who do aren't in the market for elite talent in the first place. As long as the checks clear, what's the problem?

[Don]

I am against having contracts negotiated that end up circumventing whatever cost-controlling measures are put in place.

Not all teams' costs need controlling, and indeed, those who do aren't in the market for elite talent in the first place. As long as the checks clear, what's the problem?

They opened the door for that themselves by making the cap hit the average annual value of the contract rather than the actual money being paid out anyways. They created the "problem" and never fired a GM for offering such a deal and NOW they have a problem with it? I call BS.

[Kevin W.]

whatever side Bettman is on I am against

I feel like this is a philosophy someone could live their entire life on.

[The_Admiral]

I liked that right in the middle of these labor negotiations, Daryl Katz committed $78 million to Taylor Hall and Jordan Eberle through 2020. Ownership Solidarity Forever!

That ownership is not the united front they're being made out to be is prime for exploitation.

EDIT: also, the OP has to change "who's" to "whose" in the title before I pop a blood vessel

[Don]

Considering only 4 owners have participated in negotiations (Caps Leonsis, Bruins Jacobs, Wilds Leipold, Flames Edwards), this is pretty much fact.

[JH42XCC]

[Muttering to himself] Ah, great. We got ANOTHER lockout to deal with.

Anyway, I'm with the players on this one.