Who do you blame for an NHL Lockout

[moahunter]

Assuming agreement isn't reached, who do you blame?

I'm inclined to mainly blame the players. Why? They receive a higher share of revenues than any other major professional sport in north america (mind you, hockey is "lower on the scale", but way more than say, the CFL), and if I had the ability, I'd play for free. What happened to love of the game?

Anyway, what do you think?

[Medwards]

Thankfully, looks like a good NFL season this year. Hopefully they have some sort of NHL season...

[moahunter]

^I'll probably watch the NBA instead....

[edmonton daily photo]

Maybe you dont have to blame anyone.. maybe this is just the way it plays out!

[moahunter]

^still time for last minute deal? I guess so and hope so.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

I blame both. Why did both sides wait until a month or two ago to begin negotiations???

[McBoo]

It's a symbiotic relationship: the players have nothing without the NHL brand. But the NHL has no brand except that its players are the elite from around the world.

On that basis - a 50/50 split with a little more to the owners, who take the financial risk, would seem fair.

[Medwards]

It's the NHLPA that waited forever. They had to get their new boss up to speed, which is really just a lame-duck excuse, but its there reason for delaying the negotiations. The NHL themselves wanted to start before last season ended.

[Chmilz]

I voted players, although I think both have made blunders. Without a better deal for the owners, a lot of them will make no money and likely lose lots. Regardless of the deal, the players will still make a lot of money, although potentially less of it.

When one side is fighting for survival, and the other side is fighting to have less taken away from their big pile, it's pretty hard to sympathize with the latter.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

http://twitter.com/CountBettman

Only 2 days away from my 3rd consecutive lockout! I'm so exited I can't even sleep! Life is good

[jagators63]

both is at fault, I prefer to see pro hockey gone and bring in semi pro hockey like AHL have but no union is allowed for the players.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by Chmilz

When one side is fighting for survival, and the other side is fighting to have less taken away from their big pile, it's pretty hard to sympathize with the latter.

This.

This is the reason I have never once sided with the athletes in a professional league players strike or lockout.

When Sidney Crosby takes home more money in a year than the guy who signs everyone's paychecks, the players are getting too much.

[bicycles]

It is not the players fault that the league is in miserable shape. It's the fault of Bettman and the owners and their love affair with Southern expansion. Don't punish the players for the NHL's foolish business decisions.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by bicycles

Don't punish the players for the NHL's foolish business decisions.

Oh yeah, a proposed pay cut from $2.4 million to a mere $1.9 million a season is such a punishment. Those poor, poor players.

The NHLPA knows if the owners don't get a profit, they don't get to play, right? Pro athletes are such morons.

[Barry N]

Really difficult to feel sorry for the players,when some of them are making $60.000 per game.

[lobbdogg]

I understand the players are standing up for the principle of not taking another paycut...but c'mon, its not like they'd be hurting. Even players making $800k a year, still don't have any issues financially. Yet you have some families in North America, who were hit very hard by the recession, and can barely put food on the table. It almost appears that the players think that they shouldn't be affected by the recession. Hard to feel sorry for them, now if they were barely making a living I would say it would be a different story.

Although I wouldn't say everything is rosy on the NHL side either, pushing hockey into markets where it would obviously struggle, probably wasn't the best plan either. I think both sides really need to look at the big picture, and do what is best for the game.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by McBoo

On that basis - a 50/50 split with a little more to the owners, who take the financial risk, would seem fair.

The 50% that goes to the players is pure "profit" to them, the owners have to use their 50% to pay for the office staff, trainers, coaches, management and the flights, and all the other costs of running an NHL team. How many companies make a 50% profit margin on their sales, or have 50% of their costs made up of salaries? Very few. NHL players have it very sweet.

[Alex.L]

wait...

So you guys are actually arguing that the players are getting paid too much and should take a paycut (which they've offered), because the owners are hurting?

These are the owners that are signing the players to ridiculously expensive and long-term deals...right? The owners who bought the teams in the first place, fully knowing that they'd have to pay for things like flights, management, coaches, trainers, office staff, etc? THE VERY SAME OWNERS WHO ARE LOCKING PLAYERS OUT, AND THUS MAKING ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY THIS YEAR, RIGHT?

Yeah, they're really hard done by. Want to make money? Grow a brain and stop increasing the salary cap, stop playing contract chicken with the other owners, and start folding the money-losing teams so you don't have to pay for them to exist. This is not a charitable organization. If Phoenix can't support an NHL team, they shouldn't have an NHL team. Simple as that.

If I open a business on 104th that is not a money-maker, do you think the other businesses on 104th will prop me up for an indefinite period of time? Not a chance in hell.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Ander

Yeah, they're really hard done by. Want to make money? Grow a brain and stop increasing the salary cap, stop playing contract chicken with the other owners, and start folding the money-losing teams so you don't have to pay for them to exist.

That's what they are trying to do, the players have to agree though. That's why this negotiation is happening.

[Alex.L]

Fine, slow down the increases in the salary cap. Link it to inflation or something instead of a structured increase every year or two.

The owners painted themselves into this corner at the last CBA negotiations. I have no sympathy for them.

[lobbdogg]

Think of it this way though. One team may offer player A a $5 million per year contract, which lets say is a little more than average for the same caliber of player on other teams. So now those same players feel they should get $5 million per year as well (since the other guy got it). Teams trying to lure in free agents may try to offer a little more, to entice the player to play for his team. It has been a progression like this over the last number of years. True that the teams are offering the contracts, but I'm sure if they felt they had a choice to retain or recruit a player, then the salary would be lower, and they would probably not be in as bad of position.

If say the Oilers were paying less money to players that they could get from other teams, chances are, we wouldn't be able to ice a very competitive team. Because it wasn't competitive, attendance drops, and they lose money anyway. Basically if you aren't paying your employees enough money that the next guy will do, why would you stay?

There really is no magic bullet for this problem, but both sides need to realize that in order for there to be NHL hockey, they'll both need to make some comprimises, and figure out a way to avoid this inflation in the future.

[bpeters]

Dear Zach Parise,
Don't ever, ever get in front of a microphone again regarding the CBA. Sincerely, the hockey fan.

[Alex.L]

Originally Posted by lobbdogg

Think of it this way though. One team may offer player A a $5 million per year contract, which lets say is a little more than average for the same caliber of player on other teams. So now those same players feel they should get $5 million per year as well (since the other guy got it). Teams trying to lure in free agents may try to offer a little more, to entice the player to play for his team. It has been a progression like this over the last number of years. True that the teams are offering the contracts, but I'm sure if they felt they had a choice to retain or recruit a player, then the salary would be lower, and they would probably not be in as bad of position.

If say the Oilers were paying less money to players that they could get from other teams, chances are, we wouldn't be able to ice a very competitive team. Because it wasn't competitive, attendance drops, and they lose money anyway. Basically if you aren't paying your employees enough money that the next guy will do, why would you stay?

There really is no magic bullet for this problem, but both sides need to realize that in order for there to be NHL hockey, they'll both need to make some comprimises, and figure out a way to avoid this inflation in the future.

It makes sense, but I still firmly hold the owners responsible.

They institute a salary cap (WOOHOO, BIG WIN!!), then they did absolutely everything they could to circumvent it, leaving themselves in the same position as before.

[Thomas Hinderks]

I very rarely comment on sports...not my thing.

But in this case

There really is no magic bullet for this problem, but both sides need to realize that in order for there to be NHL hockey, they'll both need to make some comprimises, and figure out a way to avoid this inflation in the future.

And to be clear I am not commenting directly to the poster of the comment...

You're missing the third party that is part of the problem. The General Public.

As long as the the fans continue to support high ticket prices it feeds the high salaries and other issues...

As long as the public continues to support investment of public dollars to the tune of multiple millions in support of professional sports...

it will continue.

No I am not saying completely stop public investment in professional sports, but I am expressing the opinion it's time to get it and ticket prices back to reasonable levels.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by Ander

These are the owners that are signing the players to ridiculously expensive and long-term deals...right?

Not all the owners.

To ensure that players are guaranteed to get 57% of revenues, all NHL teams needed to have a salary cap floor as well as a salary cap ceiling.

With the high Canadian dollar, and Canadian-based franchises all raking in record profits, it made the cap rise, and as a result, many owners couldn't break even, despite the fact they always gave out reasonable salaries and were only spending to the cap floor.

The players seem to fail to realize that if the guys who pay them can't make any money, they probably need to take a pay cut.

[Marcel Petrin]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

This.

This is the reason I have never once sided with the athletes in a professional league players strike or lockout.

When Sidney Crosby takes home more money in a year than the guy who signs everyone's paychecks, the players are getting too much.

Oh come on, give me a break. Yes, some teams are fighting for survival. Meanwhile, others are making over 50 million a year (Leafs, Rangers, Habs, perhaps Hawks and Flyers). The fact is that the NHL has a broken economic system not because the players are making 57% or 47% of league revenues, but because some teams have revenues that are several multiples of other teams, and almost no revenue sharing to even things out.

It's also more than a bit ironic that the same owners who are proposing salary roll backs, restrictions on contract terms, free agency and the like have spent the better part of the summer throwing around ridiculously expensive, long term, and cap circumventing contracts.

I still voted "both" in terms of blame, but if I had to pick one side it would definitely be the owners. They're once again using the CBA as a means of saving them from themselves and their own poor decisions and refusing to tackle the real issue of revenue disparity in the league. If the bar is set so the lowest common denominator teams can turn a profit while spending somewhere in the middle of the cap with no revenue sharing in place, the top 5-10 teams in the league will all be making 20-50+ million a year.

Originally Posted by Ander

They institute a salary cap (WOOHOO, BIG WIN!!), then they did absolutely everything they could to circumvent it, leaving themselves in the same position as before.

I'm still surprised that no one, on either side, saw the gigantic loopholes that could be walked through in the cap system. And it's ridiculously easy to close: no year's salary can be less than a third of the overall average of the contract. Or a quarter, or half, whatever. Bam, problem solved. No need for contract term limits or anything else.

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

No I am not saying completely stop public investment in professional sports, but I am expressing the opinion it's time to get it and ticket prices back to reasonable levels.

By what metric or comparison do you use to claim that tickets for professional sports, or specifically the NHL, are not "reasonable"? Have ticket prices gone up substantially faster than inflation, or other forms of entertainment (rock concerts, opera, movies, stand-up comedy and the like)? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm genuinely curious on what basis you make that claim because it's not self evident to me at all as a season seat holder that Oilers tickets are unreasonable compared to similar forms of entertainment, nor as compared to inflation (a bit faster than it, but not ridiculously so).

And further, why SHOULD tickets for professional sports or indeed any other form of entertainment be "reasonable"? Should not the market and public decide what is reasonable? If so, the fact that the Oilers have sold out every game in the past half decade or so would be a pretty good indication that indeed, the ticket prices ARE reasonable.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Morning Marcel:

By what metric or comparison do you use to claim that tickets for professional sports, or specifically the NHL, are not "reasonable"? Have ticket prices gone up substantially faster than inflation, or other forms of entertainment (rock concerts, opera, movies, stand-up comedy and the like)? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm genuinely curious on what basis you make that claim because it's not self evident to me at all as a season seat holder that Oilers tickets are unreasonable compared to similar forms of entertainment, nor as compared to inflation (a bit faster than it, but not ridiculously so).

Not saying they have gone up faster...saying that if public money is invested to support professional sports then an average family should be able to afford to attend at least once a year. At the current ticket prices I know far too many average Edmontonians that can't ever attend and even more that can't take the "family" but have to pick and choose "who" gets to go to the occasional game.

And further, why SHOULD tickets for professional sports or indeed any other form of entertainment be "reasonable"? Should not the market and public decide what is reasonable? If so, the fact that the Oilers have sold out every game in the past half decade or so would be a pretty good indication that indeed, the ticket prices ARE reasonable.

First....
If no public money is invested or subsidizes I agree...but the second you start I believe that there is a responsibility to make sure the tickets are prices so the above can happen...IMO.

Second...
Because they sell out doesn't mean they are reasonable, it means it is what the market will bear. There is a difference.

So if you take the public money out of the equation (all public money) then I agree with your comments, in fact quite support them.

But from what I have read seems that is rarely the case., please correct me if I am wrong.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[AShetsen]

Do you really care?

Why?

[Dupa]

I blame the fans. Stop going to games, buying merchandise etc....use your power instead of pandering to millionaires....something we do very well in Canada

[Komrade]

Who cares. Millionaires fighting with other millionaires that neither is getting enough millions

Fold the whole ******* league and let these guys sell cars or become peace officers like they were ment to

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

Not saying they have gone up faster...saying that if public money is invested to support professional sports then an average family should be able to afford to attend at least once a year. At the current ticket prices I know far too many average Edmontonians that can't ever attend and even more that can't take the "family" but have to pick and choose "who" gets to go to the occasional game.

I am curious how you conclude that. The average family in Edmonton earns approximatley $90,000 per year, I think they can afford to attend once a year, or buy a mini-pack (which I did, even when earning less than this).

Keep in mind, there are other options for families, there is the Oil Kings, Lacross, and various other forms of enteratinment (from Monster trucks, through to Rihanna), that the average, or even not average, family might choose to support, all of which will be pretty exciting downtown.

[Thomas Hinderks]

I am curious how you conclude that. The average family in Edmonton earns approximatley $90,000 per year, I think they can afford to attend once a year, or buy a mini-pack (which I did, even when earning less than this).

By talking to families that are huge hockey fans on:
- My school council
- Community League
- Kids sports and other activities
and many other sources.

Averages don't the tale of numbers Moa there are many thousands of households that run on less than 1/2 of that.

Keep in mind, there are other options for families, there is the Oil Kings, Lacross, and various other forms of enteratinment (from Monster trucks, through to Rihanna), that the average, or even not average, family might choose to support, all of which will be pretty exciting downtown.

Well two things here...it's not the topic of the conversation and I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that

(from Monster trucks, through to Rihanna)

get public dollars and I am fairly sure nether the Oil Kings or LaCross do ether.

In my highly biased personal opinon

[moahunter]

^I thought your reference to public dollars might have been to an Arena. Sure, off topic though. I don't think there has ever been a time where going to a major league sport in a large city has been easy or cheap. There was probably once a time when Edmonton wasn't a large city so people were spoiled (i.e. during the Gretzky years), that things have changed is more about the growth of the City and Canada rather than the greed of the sport (IMO). As long as things don't go the way of Toronto (where only suits can afford the real estate), but even then there are other hockey options. Those options (like the Oil Kings), exist to some extent because we have the NHL.

PS. Even earning half of that, one could I think buy a mini pack with a couple of seats, and roatate the family through games. People have choices how they spend their money, not everyone will think NHL is worth the premium, but some will sacrifice other expenditures (like holdiays, or meals out).

[jagators63]

The Quebec Labour Relations Board has turned down the NHL Players' Association's request to block a lockout in Quebec.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405247

[Caesar555]

Seems to me the owners are getting greedy. They shut the league down for a whole year last time around to get what they wanted, but that still isn't enough. Did you not get it right last time? What changed? Revenues have grown as has the salary cap, isn't that what you designed?
Either way, the rich fighting the rich.

Why do I care about hockey anyway?

[Barry N]

Originally Posted by Caesar555

Seems to me the owners are getting greedy. They shut the league down for a whole year last time around to get what they wanted, but that still isn't enough. Did you not get it right last time? What changed? Revenues have grown as has the salary cap, isn't that what you designed?
Either way, the rich fighting the rich.

Why do I care about hockey anyway?

Give me U.S. College Football anytime.

[rime ice]

The players and owners are forgetting the third party in all of this.....you know, the people that create that 3.3 billion in revenue ....us. Wouldn't it be something when hockey returns the fans boycott all the first games each team plays. Then the owners and players will realize without the fans neither the players or the owners are worth a damn thing.

Without the fans they may as well be playing beer hockey on saturday nights with the boys!

[lobbdogg]

For me, the biggest thing about having an NHL lockout, is that there won't be the coverage on TV that I've been accustomed to. I love to follow hockey, and maybe not necessarily the NHL, but its going to feel like a long winter if it drags on.

Here's hoping we can get some coverage of some other leagues at least in the meantime, although I'm not holding my breath.

[AShetsen]

If the lockout lasts long enough, perhaps the purely local debate about the new arena will be reframed the way it deserves to be.

[The_Cat]

I think it's hard to exclusively blame players when owners offer exhorbitant, long-term contracts, like the ones offered by Minnesota to Parise and Suter (about $100 million each over 14 years). These salaries become the new norm.

I think that the new CBA has to limit these outrageous contracts as they hurt smaller market teams. There should also be revenue sharing for the smaller markets, if the cap is cut.

[jagators63]

The Alberta Labour Relations Board has ruled that the NHL's lockout of players from the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames can continue.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/alberta...#ixzz28wyeeLbS

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by jagators63

The Alberta Labour Relations Board has ruled that the NHL's lockout of players from the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames can continue.

Good.

[EveB]

I thought appealing to the Labour Relations Board was a real long shot given that the employer is multinational and that the employees work in both countries (away and home games). In fact, that is the argument that the NHL made.

Eve

[moahunter]

^it was a disrespectful application to the hundreds of thousands of workers who will individually not make as much in their entire career's as most NHL players do in one season.

[EveB]

^ That too.

Eve

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by AShetsen

If the lockout lasts long enough, perhaps the purely local debate about the new arena will be reframed the way it deserves to be.

Yes.

What a time to be expecting a city to dig deep to pay for a .5billion arena.

"Look, I'll move the team to Seattle, no, San Francisco, no, Houston, no, Quebec City, no, then they'll be no NHL played here, you'll be verrry sorry and you don't know how bad that'll be, oh wait..."

I'm sure the KHL would be content to expand to an arena like Rexall. The way things are going I'd probably prefer that be the case. Get to cheer for Yakupov one way or the other I figure.