NHL Lockout Clock

[doulos]

lol...said the torturer to his victim.

Hahah, yeah that was my first thought as well.

[Bomm Bastic]

Hahah, yeah that was my first thought as well.

It just popped into my head when I read that, the image of some guy relentlessly beating another while telling him "It's your fault I'm doing this, just agree with everything I say and I'll stop."

I'd let the NHL owners torture me any day of the week by paying me millions of dollars for playing hockey.

lol...c'mon, Mr. Jacobs...er, Carcillo you beat me up enough yesterday. Have me mercy on this old guy.

[Carcillo]

Since the start of this thread, players have lost another $36 million in salaries. Or in another words $6 million more than NHL's 4th biggest money maker Vancouver Canucks makes profit in a season.

[27Blue]

for the players, this thing obviously quit being about money a long, long time ago...

[arctic_rogue]

Since the start of this thread, players have lost another $36 million in salaries. Or in another words $6 million more than NHL's 4th biggest money maker Vancouver Canucks makes profit in a season.

Those poor billionaire owners. I don't know how they can ever do it.

Seriously though, I'm all about making the league healthier. What's the problem with mirroring baseball's system of revenue sharing?

[arctic_rogue]

for the players, this thing obviously quit being about money a long, long time ago...

Absolutely. The NHL could have reduced the animosity if they didn't come out first with the 43-57 spit of revenue.

[Carcillo]

Seriously though, I'm all about making the league healthier. What's the problem with mirroring baseball's system of revenue sharing?

TV money. MLB gets $1.5 billion per year for national TV rights. NHL gets $200 million.

[Carcillo]

for the players, this thing obviously quit being about money a long, long time ago...

Yet they still argue that 5 contract limit would limit the future earning of middle class players. Other stumbling blocks are cap on escrow and setting the salary cap figure. It's still very much about money.

[Carcillo]

Absolutely. The NHL could have reduced the animosity if they didn't come out first with the 43-57 spit of revenue.

Would the players ever have agreed to 50/50 HRR split in that case if it wasn't meeting in the middle with NHL's original offer? Or would they have met in the middle with whatever NHL offered (55/45, 52/48 whatever their first offer would have been)?

[27Blue]

Yet they still argue that 5 contract limit would limit the future earning of middle class players. Other stumbling blocks are cap on escrow and setting the salary cap figure. It's still very much about money.

i don't think so... i think that at this point the battle is over principle and the players are saying that they need to win something. the fact that the remaining issues are escrow and contract limits are circumstantial... the players just want to win a small battle here and those just happen to be the remaining issues they can win.

[Carcillo]

i don't think so... i think that at this point the battle is over principle and the players are saying that they need to win something. the fact that the remaining issues are escrow and contract limits are circumstantial... the players just want to win a small battle here and those just happen to be the remaining issues they can win.

If the players win the escrow issue it has direct effect on the 50/50 HRR split. Escrow is directly linked to HRR and if there's cap on that I have no idea how they could make sure the players won't take home over 50% of the HRR. I don't see any way NHL gives on that issue. This battle is strickly about money. Another loophole Fehr is trying to squeeze in the CBA.

I agree that the NHL should give on the contract issue though (as long as those they can get those long retirement contracts out of the game). Let that be the "win" for the PA (even though it's actually a loss too).

[arctic_rogue]

TV money. MLB gets $1.5 billion per year for national TV rights. NHL gets $200 million.

Gotcha. Didn't know there was that much of a disparity. Any idea how much that has grown since the last lockout?

[arctic_rogue]

Would the players ever have agreed to 50/50 HRR split in that case if it wasn't meeting in the middle with NHL's original offer? Or would they have met in the middle with whatever NHL offered (55/45, 52/48 whatever their first offer would have been)?

Good point. That's definitely my issue with collective bargaining. Sides start off so far apart that it often insults members of the other side. I know with my collective bargaining unit, my employer (the government) came in with some pretty substantial concession demands. It definitely left a bad taste in the mouth of many, many members.

[Carcillo]

Gotcha. Didn't know there was that much of a disparity. Any idea how much that has grown since the last lockout?

Not sure about MLB but these are NHL's figures to my knowledge:

1998-2004: $120 million per year
2005-2011: $70 million per year
2011- : $200 million per year

By the way NHL gets that $200 million this year even if lockout lasts all season.

[arctic_rogue]

Not sure about MLB but these are NHL's figures to my knowledge:

1998-2004: $120 million per year
2005-2011: $70 million per year
2011- : $200 million per year

By the way NHL gets that $200 million this year even if lockout lasts all season.

So that's substantially less than MLB and there's no indication it's going to even get close.

With that in mind, the owner's know their bottom line, why don't they just spend accordingly? And when does it end? Next lockout, will there be a new crisis where the league is not healthy and the owners need a 60-40 split with 3 year contracts?