[Optimus_Prime]

What about when the owners lock them out so they can't play as a bargaining chip.

You do realize this is a lock out and not a strike, right? You know the difference, right? You know it's the owners saying "you can't play" not the players saying "we won't play"

The way I see it, any existing contract should be honoured. Otherwise, what's the point of any contract? The owners don't want to honour what their GNs signed them up for? Too bad. Fire the GM. A rollback should not, in any way, be necessary to getting this deal done. The owners made their beds and now they want to sleep somewhere else? Screw that.

Oh man, I was reading the responses and I'm glad somebody has some common sense when it comes to contracts/negotations. I would have to assume that people who were saying that it's all on the players now and that shame on the players for not taking this have never had to negotiate their jobs/contracts.

Thank you for explaining very well above about this being a lock out, not a strike. This is on the owners. And how can anyone say bettman is not the problem? This was his decision to lock out the game until they can get a CBA together. What? When was that ever the 1st tool of negotiations?
Also thank you above for saying how crappy it is for the owners not to honor previous contracts. So because the owners want more money the contract i signed is null and void? Hogwash man. Sounds like the banks. They make all sorts of crazy deals and now they want a bailout? Shame on you for not being fiscally responsible. Why should the players have to bail your bad decisions out? That's now how the real world works. The owners think they can throw their weight around and get whatever they want? I hope they cancel the season. Well no i dont because it hurts EVERYBODY but man, I'd love to see the owners and bettman get it right where they want it.

[nemesis77777]

Well yes, youre right, ive never had to negotiate a job/contract. But i still think when youre getting paid in the millions, compared to the guys who's pulling beers at the local pub, or driving buses, deal with it. I mean were not talking about people who are struggling to feed families. If they dont like the pay or whatever go play in the KHL or somewhere where theyll pay better (im not sure there is anywhere??). The NHL is the biggest and best league in the world, get what youre given or go somewhere else, just get out on the ice and stop whinging. And also the figures Fehr would be talking about (obviously) covers every player, so those figures would be massively inflated by the salaries or the top 5-10%.

All this said, im more playing devils advocate. I think the league needs to get their act together as well, but the reality is, where else besides being self employed, do the employees get the better of the deal? Its always the management, etc that makes the real coin. If they can find better money somewhere else, by all means take it, rather than just holding out on an agreement that makes the fans hurt. If the NHL wants to play hard ball, leave the NHL, they'll learn one way or another but at least then theres hockey on the table.

Im probably contradicted in what im saying, but i just want to see hockey played... being in Australia, we dont get coverage at all really, let alone of other leagues, and im just so annoyed this hasnt been dealt with, and agreed on.

[wickabee]

Yeah, but if they make these kinds of concessions every time, they'll end up back in the days of having to play to age 50 again eventually. The owners and Bettman have made it very clear they have no problem denying fans of the product. They've demonstrated this time that they are willing to use a lockout as a stage one bargaining tool. If the players back now, they screw themselves in future negotiations. If they back down now the message to Bettman is "lock us out and you can get us go sign anything always." I do hope they work this out, but it looks to me as if the owners put out a contract that was 50/50 on hockey related revenue but had a very narrow view of what "hockey related revenue" is and still ended up with owners getting a ton of money back from already signed contracts that they now don't want to honour.

And for anyone blasting the players for making millions to play hockey and complaining they're not getting paid enough, remember, by saying that you're defending billionaires who own these teams as status symbols and are complaining they aren't getting enough money for it.

[nemesis77777]

I agree about the backing down message for sure, they cant be weak in the negotiation, or theyll get completely screwed. But the figures indicate (from both sides) that theyve moved away from a 24% rollback, to 12%. For mine thats good enough to get on the ice, and by saying that the players should stop complaining, im NOT (im not getting angry just emphasis lol.) condoning billionaires who own the teams as trophies, or as pure business investments with having no passion about it, i think its horrendous. It sucks. But its the same in the real world, for people at Walmart, McDonalds, any corporation. The corporate heads make the money, the workers (players) just do what their told, and earn their wage.

Thats why im saying they should just sign whatever is there (after SOME negotiation), and if they dont like it, leave. There would still be hockey, the NHL would learn if they still want to be the best league they need to up their game - its effectively ultimate free agency. Maybe it'd put paid to 15 year contracts etc, and we wouldnt have this "rollback" issue, because contracts could stand. I like the idea of a max contract length, it makes it simpler for future bargaining. Anyway i digress.....lol.

Thats my opinion (part of) and im sticking to it, im happy to defend it for healthy debate

[swjrp10]

I have no idea what to say after so many profound statements....*turns on KHL hockey*

[wickabee]

I see what you're saying and greed is definitely a motivator in this situation. However, those contracts are signed, some of them immediately before the owners asked for a 24% rollback. Sign it Monday, take it back Friday is not a very good way of doing things. If the issue were a salary cap or some such thing, I'd be on the owners' side. But this is about owners trying to take back signed contracts. I don't know how it's acceptable to sign a contract and then turn around and say, actually, I don't want to pay that much. Would you take it in your job? Why should they.

If the owners don't like the contracts, they shouldn't have let the GMs offer them. Sure, go ahead and sign Suter and Parise for $200million combined. When all is said and done, it will only be 176million. They're trying to break contracts, not get a new one signed. I'm like everyone else, I just want hockey back, but I understand where the players are coming from and I don't understand how the owners have the right to take back money they've already signed away. Since that seems to be the main hanging point at the moment, I have to side with the players.

[nemesis77777]

Yeah im definitely hearing you on that one. It is bad business to sign for long contracts and then renege on them, thats why im in favour of the leagues idea for short max contract lengths - i think its a positive movement, that will stop situations like that in the future. It almost seems like the leagues looking at the future and the players are looking at the now. Thats why theyre not speaking the same language lol. (Said with tongue firmly in cheek). But the thing i cant look past (coming from a poor background mind you) is the ONLY 176 million lol. Sometimes i get blinded by big figures and knowing ill never see half of that kind of coin in 50 of my own lifetimes, you have to wonder a bit But thats my problem, not the players i guess, and 176 million is peanuts to the guys who ultimately run the show. Money is a disgusting thing....

[wickabee]

Well, I could say that if you're going to say that about 176million, you'd probably admit that 24million is also a ridiculous number. That's what the Wildwould be saving on just 2 contracts signed just 3-4 months ago. That's the money they are contractually obligated to pay and now say is too much. That's the point. It doesn't matter if it's $176million or $1.76 (for the record, I also have a very modest financial background). If you say they should just sign because $176million isstill a lot of money, what's going to be a lot of money next time? $150million? 145? And the negotiation after that? 100? maybe 98? That number will keep shrinking every single CBA negotiations. Both sides are looking at the future, and they are talking the same language. It's just that both sides are trying to set the stage for the future. The players, overall,seem to want things relatively fair. The owners started by locking the players out and demanding 24% of their money back. Tells me who has what on their minds.

As for players being overpaid, I believe that's wrong. At first glance they're getting paid to play a game, but when you think about it, they're getting paid tobring in money by playing games. They aren't getting paid for the games, but the sales revenue they bring in. Based on that, thereare a decent number of overpaid players, but overall, they're getting paid pretty fairly. I can actually see Parise making his money in Minnesota, being from there and a premier player, he could attract a lot of fans with some good play. I guess the Wild figured Suter could bring all of Wisconsin? I don't know.

[irbecards32]

Im on the Owners sides of this (except they should honor current contracts) I honestly didnt even know the NHL players got 57% of revenue ON TOP of their contracts before I read about this strike. Thats is REDICULOUS... 57% in a sport that i think is ranked 5th or 6th in total money being made!!? (behind MLB, NFL, NBA, Nacar & at one point MLS) For people defending the players with look people pay to see the players play, they are entitled to that 57%... No they arent IMO, your contract is what your entitled to, and the contracts are WAY to flipping high as it is if you ask me, and most players dont even put in the effort that players used to, they are contantly coasting & taking days off just cause they dont have the desire that the generation i grew up watching had (80s-90s).... Come on, a guy like Adam Burish gets 1.75-2mil a year, playing 4 mins a game with a career high of 7pts plus a percentage of the teams profits, give me a break. The guy should be making league minimum or not even be in the league...
People also use the arguement, if you support the owners your supporting billionaires to get richer. Well yes I am, those owners put in a lot of effort to be successful at something in life to generate money, and with there money bought a team, they should be rewarded with the profits the team makes. If its so easy to do that, many these players shouldve been businessmen and theyd be making billions to. Oh wait its not that easy, in fact its a lot easier to become a professional athlete then a thriving businessman...
They should be happy with their contracts and IMO thats ALL they should get except for personalized jersey/memorbilia with there name on it. Has anyone ever worked for a company that pays you over 50% of there total profits?? No flippin way, every company in north america would be broke if that happened!. Oh, well the players make the NHL run... Well the laborers & warehouse workers & grunts of every job make their company run, yet they dont see a percentage of profits. Few working people are lucky enough to even see a yearly bonus at their place of employment.

This generation of players are a lot less talented, a lot more paid, and a lot bigger spoiled brats. Suck it up, sign the deal and get paid your millions to play a sport that many of us PAY to play it ourselves.

[wickabee]

Im on the Owners sides of this (except they should honor current contracts) I honestly didnt even know the NHL players got 57% of revenue ON TOP of their contracts before I read about this strike. Thats is REDICULOUS... 57% in a sport that i think is ranked 5th or 6th in total money being made!!? (behind MLB, NFL, NBA, Nacar & at one point MLS) For people defending the players with look people pay to see the players play, they are entitled to that 57%... No they arent IMO, your contract is what your entitled to, and the contracts are WAY to flipping high as it is if you ask me, and most players dont even put in the effort that players used to, they are contantly coasting & taking days off just cause they dont have the desire that the generation i grew up watching had (80s-90s).... Come on, a guy like Adam Burish gets 1.75-2mil a year, playing 4 mins a game with a career high of 7pts plus a percentage of the teams profits, give me a break. The guy should be making league minimum or not even be in the league...
People also use the arguement, if you support the owners your supporting billionaires to get richer. Well yes I am, those owners put in a lot of effort to be successful at something in life to generate money, and with there money bought a team, they should be rewarded with the profits the team makes. If its so easy to do that, many these players shouldve been businessmen and theyd be making billions to. Oh wait its not that easy, in fact its a lot easier to become a professional athlete then a thriving businessman...
They should be happy with their contracts and IMO thats ALL they should get except for personalized jersey/memorbilia with there name on it. Has anyone ever worked for a company that pays you over 50% of there total profits?? No flippin way, every company in north america would be broke if that happened!. Oh, well the players make the NHL run... Well the laborers & warehouse workers & grunts of every job make their company run, yet they dont see a percentage of profits. Few working people are lucky enough to even see a yearly bonus at their place of employment.

This generation of players are a lot less talented, a lot more paid, and a lot bigger spoiled brats. Suck it up, sign the deal and get paid your millions to play a sport that many of us PAY to play it ourselves.

Really? Because if they took the deal they were given, their contract -12% is what they would be entitled to. I know you started off saying the owners should honour the current contracts, but then you chastise the players for not accepting an agreement that does not fully honour the contracts already signed. Not being argumentative but you kind of made my point right there.