Rant

[JackStraw]

I'll post this again, because I think it's significant:

While baseball has had labor peace since 1996, Fehr has often spoken of a new “playbook” for other sports leagues, in which they impose salary caps and lock out players to force them to accept pay cuts. The N.F.L. and N.B.A. lockouts of 2011 reduced players’ shares of revenue in those sports to about 50 percent, and Bettman has frequently cited that as a main rationale for the current N.H.L. lockout.

Fehr said “the same people” are behind these tactics “regardless of the sport” — a reference to the Proskauer Rose law firm, which represents the N.H.L., the N.F.L., the N.B.A. and Major League Baseball in labor negotiations. Bettman worked there as a lawyer in the 1970s.

Bob Batterman, a top Proskauer Rose lawyer who works closely with the N.H.L. and the N.F.L., said in January that “the pendulum has swung too far toward the employees,”and that “employers are using lockouts because unions are reluctant to do what the employers consider reasonable.”

Fehr said: “He’s obviously right that employers are using the lockout more often. Bob has been the architect of a whole host of those.”

http://www.nytimes.c...ed=2&ref=hockey

Lockouts do indeed seem to be more common these days. I remember the NFL players striking in '97, and MLB players went on strike in '94. Now it seems it's the owners who are forcing the work stoppages.

Edited November 17, 2012 by hf101
made font bigger

[flyerrod]

Why did that happen?

Because enough of them thought the union was not doing enough to support them and they trusted the company......It took less than 2 weeks for them to realize what they did to themselves....

[flyerrod]

And just on a side note, my company asked me to go to meetings and not get paid. When I was done laughing and said no they just stood there looking at me. Then they paid me to go to the meetings and gave me a promotion a couple months later...

A few tried that here too idaho....those are the ones who got the layoff notices........Every Union has a few bad apples that that give a bad name to the rest. The same as management but they do keep companies in check and paying a fair wage. If it weren't for the Davis Bacon act, Sub contractors would not make the wages they do either. Oh I am sure the Sub contractors will bid the job as if they were paying benefits but that would not make it to the actual workers.

[radoran]

I detect the good old anti-rich people thing over and over again when talking about unions... Must be some sort of envy or entitlement thing cause I keep trying to figure it out. No one was saying the owners (whether NHL or Hostess) didn't screw it up but it's still their business to screw up if they want (which you almost gotta figure is true... I mean Phoenix!? Really???). Well, the workers are the workers and I guess thats just the way it is. If the NHL doesn't get fixed teams will go under and then the union will be screaming bloody murder over that. The players can give in now and earn some money or not. The NHL will go on at some point regardless. Just the same as the union bosses and execs at hostess will be more than ok and someday another company will make twinkies. But those 18500 workers are the ones screwed... If thats what a Union does for ya then a-ok. And just on a side note, my company asked me to go to meetings and not get paid. When I was done laughing and said no they just stood there looking at me. Then they paid me to go to the meetings and gave me a promotion a couple months later...

The owners' lockout has put thousands of people across the country out of work.

True story.

[aziz]

Who is responsible for those struggling franchises? Who decided there would be a lockout?

the owners, sure. we're back to "fair" again, though. the business reality is that more than half the league is on a course to bankruptcy unless salary costs are contained. fair or not fair, survival of those franchises (and thus the players' jobs that go with them) require player salaries be controlled. i mean, we talk about the owners screwing up and then wanting the players to absorb the cost to fix things, which sucks...until you realize that the owners screwed up by paying the players more than they can afford. how else are they going to fix that other than paying the players less? existing contracts have to be honored, absolutely, but how is it wrong to say they will stop handing out those contracts going forward? that's what this is, right, the league trying to codify a commitment to no longer handing out unsustainable contracts? the players are essentially saying, "we refuse to allow you to formalize a plan by which we get paid an amount that, had you done so from the start, would have avoided this whole mess in the first place. we insist that you leave yourselves the possibility to continue screwing up and giving us more money than you can collectively afford." that just doesn't make any sense. the owners handed out bigger contracts than they should have, the only solution is to stop handing out those contracts. to the extent it needs to be put on paper, i don't see the problem there.

Furthermore, available evidence suggests that the lockout is being driven by Bettman, with the owners of wealthy teams being his strongest supporters

is that true? i was of the understanding that the lockout was being driven by the 18 teams losing money season after season, and that the big market teams, the few that are losing money with no hockey being played, would like things to be wrapped up quickly. there are 12 profitable ownership groups, obviously they can be outvoted by the 18 unprofitable ones. how can the 12 be driving this thing?

though, apparently, the bruins ownership is on the side of the small market guys, for some reason.

Your suggestion is that Fehr should be replaced by someone less capable who will allow the owners to once again force the players to cover their arses because they don't know how to run their own league? Sorry, doesn't work for me.

my suggestion is that nothing will happen here so long as the primary motivator from the players' side is ego, getting even for the last CBA negotiation, and fehr trying to personify his reputation. there are numbers and dollars realities to be dealt with. "force the players to cover thier arses because they don't know how to run their own league"? put the specifics of the situation into that sentence in place of the generalizations and you have this:

"force the players to take salaries that are within the owners' ability to pay because the owners previously handed out too many big contracts." what's the problem? what other solution is there for a salary situation that the owners can not continue to cover?

"Fehr is doing his job. If we're lucky he'll be able to get the billionaires who created the mess to clean it up."

clean it up, how? i know i'm repeating myself, but the core problem is a lot of teams can not go on spending they way they are. how are they going to clean it up without spending less?? that's the problem. fehr is out to win this thing, without any particular care for what that does to the league. without any particular care for what the basic problem is. the owners can't foot the bill as it has been going, and so want something on paper that keeps things sustainable. fehr refuses. how else can this be cleaned up?

again, "fair" says the owners should all go out into the street and get hit by buses, but that doesn't actually get us any closer to having NHL hockey again.

And if the NHL goes the way of the dinosaurs, good riddance. I'll still be able to watch the same players in a new league. I'm sure Philadelphia will get a team.

well, ok. play that out. the new league would have teams in the profitable markets, all 12 of them. maybe a few teams in those markets strong enough to handle a second team, like toronto and montreal. so, 14 teams. 15, maybe. 15 teams, and you can bet that the first thing the league would put into place, before there were any players involved, a salary structure and containment system to ensure this new league doesn't go the way of the NHL. being a new venture, money would be tight initially, probably would be for a while. certainly, it'd be way way way less than the NHL was bringing in. so player salaries would absolutely be way way way less over there than they are for the NHL. figure the NHL's average salary of $2.4mil would probably be cut by half, at least.

so, the players would have succeeded in winning thier mission, breaking the league and making the NHL owners suffer for their overpayments. good job, fehr. now, we have a new league that offers half the number of player jobs, and at half the salary. awesome. the players sure did show the NHL.

sum up: the reality is that so long as the players maintain a hardline approach to this, the NHL will not play hockey. a majority of the owners can not afford to accept anything but a normalization of player salaries. right or wrong isn't the point. the owners screwed up by paying players too much, so they need to pay them less.

[JackStraw]

the owners screwed up by paying the players more than they can afford. how else are they going to fix that other than paying the players less? existing contracts have to be honored, absolutely, but how is it wrong to say they will stop handing out those contracts going forward? that's what this is, right, the league trying to codify a commitment to no longer handing out unsustainable contracts?

"Stop me, before I spend again!" Right? Do you really think that stopping the Pens from paying Crosby $9 million a year (and other similar contracts) is gong to save hockey in Phoenix or Columbus? Doesn't the question of whether or not those struggling franchises should even be where they are come into play? The league should be able to blithely go ahead and put franchises wherever it pleases, and then expect the players to pay for their bad decisions?

i was of the understanding that the lockout was being driven by the 18 teams losing money season after season, and that the big market teams, the few that are losing money with no hockey being played, would like things to be wrapped up quickly. there are 12 profitable ownership groups, obviously they can be outvoted by the 18 unprofitable ones. how can the 12 be driving this thing?

If you haven't already, read this: http://www.philly.co...NHL_talks_.html

clean it up, how? i know i'm repeating myself, but the core problem is a lot of teams can not go on spending they way they are. how are they going to clean it up without spending less??

Well, get rid of Phoenix and Columbus... (I mean the teams of course, not the cities) put franchises in markets that are more likely to be profitable. Or contract, which the union would oppose, but would probably have to swallow.

fehr is out to win this thing, without any particular care for what that does to the league. without any particular care for what the basic problem is

I don't know the details, but the union's initial counter-proposal (in response to the league's initial joke of an offer) included a plan to help out the struggling franchises. Since I don't know the details of any of the proposals I can't speak to the veracity of what's been reported, but the first mention of helping the franchises that are in trouble that I heard came from the players' side, not the league. fwiw.

sum up: the reality is that so long as the players maintain a hardline approach to this, the NHL will not play hockey. a majority of the owners can not afford to accept anything but a normalization of player salaries. right or wrong isn't the point. the owners screwed up by paying players too much, so they need to pay them less

That article by Seravalli (not that I think he's the Woodward and Bernstein of hockey reporting, but...) suggests that you could very well be wrong about that. There are franchises that apparently opposed the lockout, like the Rangers and Pens. A quote from the article:

Put simply: Snider and the rest of the NHL's owners were promised a big win by Bettman, with player concessions on revenue division and contracting rights. The best they'll get now is a small win in revenue split - coupled with a demoralized fan base and all-important corporate sponsors that are ready to quit.

A source familiar with Snider's thinking characterized it as: "If this is the deal we are going to get, what's the point of dragging this out?"

My guess is that if Snider goes over to the "Dark Side", this could end fairly soon. I honestly don't think that the fact that we have no hockey is because we have a labor dispute. It's because a group of owners decided to back Bettman's tactic of a lockout, rather than do what the players have said they were willing to do, play on under the current rules and continue to negotiate.

Edited November 17, 2012 by JackStraw

[jammer2]

It seems to me the players cause is doomed to failure. Fehr is famous for waiting out his opponents, letting time pass and having the offers get sweeter due to the desperation of the other side. Problem is, I don't know how long the NHLPA members can hold out. Sure some are still making money, but a great portion are not getting paid what they used to. The old adage the more you make, the more you spend is certainly applicable here. There is huge bills to be paid on the players side of the ledger, the more time passes, the more this turns to the owners favour IMHO. Realistically, like aziz said in the opening post, most of the owners will make money by not playing. Combine the owners making money by not playing and Fehr's classic wait and lie in the bushes approach, we have a long wait ahead of us.

The other problem the players have is this a year/wages they can never get back....it's not like careers are 20+ years, that is the exception, not the rule. If this thing looks like it will take up a full year and push into a second, the owners are in the drivers seat...if they don't go bankrupt waiting out the process.

[aziz]

Fehr is famous for waiting out his opponents, letting time pass and having the offers get sweeter due to the desperation of the other side.

Exactly, this is what I'm talking about as regards nothing getting done so long as fehr is running this. There is no desperation on the owners' side. While I'm sure there is greed involved from some of the profitable teams, the core problem is more than half of the owners are financially better of to not play ever unless a deal that answers their concerns is made. In a situation where everyone is losing money due to the stoppage, a waiting game maybe works. When a voting majority will net negative dollars by taking an unfavorable deal, a waiting game just wastes time. There will be no nhl hockey until a majority of owners are happy, right or wrong. That is the distasteful reality to the situation. Eventually, the players will have to conceed that point. The *only* question is when. The answer to that question, as far as I can see, is the week after the players replace fehr.

[flyerrod]

the core problem is more than half of the owners are financially better of to not play ever unless a deal that answers their concerns is made.

Florida is considered one of the worst teams financially right? Have you read this article yet?

http://nhl-red-light.si.com/2012/11/16/nhls-money-loser-mirage-rangers-flyers-hurricane-relief-game-more/

Just how many are teams are *suffering* financially like Florida? If I were Don Fehr, I would have Steve Fehr take a more in depth look at the other teams. Forbes credibility definitely is suspect if a writer can get this info out of public records.........

[Vanflyer]

the owners, sure. we're back to "fair" again, though. the business reality is that more than half the league is on a course to bankruptcy unless salary costs are contained. fair or not fair, survival of those franchises (and thus the players' jobs that go with them) require player salaries be controlled.

And whose fault is that?? The owners of course- they are the ones that approved expansion into geographical regions where it was unrealistic to sustain. In doing that, they bankrupted their league. By the same stroke of their genius, they deny a franchise saving move (Basilles- Phoenix), only to let the league foot the bill to keep that team viable. Why you might ask? Because of ego's and idiocy. I have zero sympathy for the owners. They made their bed, let them lay in it. At this point, just blow it up and start anew.

[B21]

And whose fault is that?? The owners of course- they are the ones that approved expansion into geographical regions where it was unrealistic to sustain. In doing that, they bankrupted their league. By the same stroke of their genius, they deny a franchise saving move (Basilles- Phoenix), only to let the league foot the bill to keep that team viable. Why you might ask? Because of ego's and idiocy. I have zero sympathy for the owners. They made their bed, let them lay in it. At this point, just blow it up and start anew.

This problem goes beyond teams in unsustainable markets. Part of the problem..sure. But a small one. When you have 18 teams losing money as aziz noted then geography cannot be the only problem. If you only have 10-12 markets that can sustain a profitable team then you don't have a league. If you want a league you have to create a system in which the majority of your teams can turn some sort of profit. The owners messed things up and are now trying to fix the problem. The union is not letting them. Plus, I never heard the union object when the league put teams in these 'unsustainable' markets. More jobs. Just because the union had no role in expansion doesn't mean they had a problem with it. I guarantee that if the league put contraction on the table the union would object to that even more strongly than a smaller share of the pie.

[aziz]

"Stop me, before I spend again!" Right?

as lame as it is that is has come to that, yes. you have a dynamic of teams that can spend willy nilly and other teams that really really can't, and the owners are looking for a mechanism that forces a balance between the two. it really does look rediculous, but there it is.

Do you really think that stopping the Pens from paying Crosby $9 million a year (and other similar contracts) is gong to save hockey in Phoenix or Columbus?

no, it won't. but dropping the average salary from $2.4mil to $2mil just might. the margins for the majority of the bad-off teams seem to say that fixes everything.

Doesn't the question of whether or not those struggling franchises should even be where they are come into play?

on the "how did we get here" front, absolutely. there are two things that remove that question from the table in this negotiation, though.

1. each team removed from the equation equals 23 NHL players that will no longer be in the NHL or making an NHL salary, a theoretical total of 50 contracts with NHL teams that will no longer be available, and at least 2 minor league teams that will lose their backing. the very very very last thing the union would want is contraction. i agree, it is the answer to this entire thing, contract the league back to 15 teams, relocate a couple teams in bad markets to underserved but hockey-vibrant areas, and move forward. that is the best solution, right there. neither side wants it, though.

in other words, it is the best solution, and the one that is not possible. at least as regards these particular negotiations

which leads me to....

2. i don't know that the league can just decide to contract. there are owners for these teams that will not accept a directive to cease hockey operations. the exception being phoenix, who could be ended tomorrow and everyone (except the players who are currently property of the coyotes) would be happy. beyond them, there are 17 teams whose ownership currently have votes at the board of governors' table, and they will not never ever accept a proposition that requires they disolve their organizations. this is the problem. as rightous as the players' case might be, there are a lot of votes on the owners' side to agree to nothing but large scale rebalancing. that seems to me to be an immovable object, and any solution involves making those people happy. it is a terrible thing, totes unfair, horrifically unjust, OMG IT SUCKS, but it's what the reality seems to be.

The league should be able to blithely go ahead and put franchises wherever it pleases, and then expect the players to pay for their bad decisions?

you have to keep in mind what you mean when you say "expect the players to pay for [ownership's] bad decisions". the specific bad decision was the profitable teams in the league paying too much for player contracts, thus inflating contracts around the league. undoing that bad decision, obviously, means reducing the amount of money teams pay for player contracts. it isn't like a cell phone company that made crappy phones and are demanding the employees absorb the cost of those mistakes. the players got paid too much, and now a lot of teams are in trouble due to salary expansion. the fix will involve containing the amount of money players get paid.

unless you see the primary mistake being over-expansion. which, deep down, i would agree with. directly fixing that is off the table, though, as i said above. it bears repeating that the players would NOT want the league to directly fix that mistake. how would the players react if the owners said tomorrow, "ok, you know what, we are going to get to the root of the problem. effective tomorrow, the 9 franchises added to the league in the 90's and later will be removed from the league. a dispersement draft will be held one week prior to the next NHL training camp cycle. 207 players will no longer be in the NHL, and the teams' respective minor league affiliates will be free to negotiate new arrangements with the remaining 21 NHL teams." i agree, that is the single best solution possible. and it totally totally won't fly.

and so we're left with the overpayment being the problem that is solveable. reducing the average salary by 14% or whatever the drop from 57% to 48% of HHR is, that is doable. that takes the average NHL salary (figuring a $3.3bil figure for total HHR) from 2.4mil to 2.0mil-ish. it's not like they would need second jobs.

do that, set the new total player share at 48% of HHR, leave free agency and entry level deals alone, pay existing contracts as signed but reduce their value for purposes of the new cap and figuring players' share by 14% (or whatever), and start the season. players will make 14% less going forward, but when the minimum salary is currently $500k, exactly how much do we empathize with their plight?

[aziz]

Florida is considered one of the worst teams financially right? Have you read this article yet?

interesting article. it only says that the owners of the panthers are making a profit on their business ventures overall...and i don't know what else they own. it doesn't directly cast light on the idea that the panthers themselves are a money pit. i'm interested to see details in what else that ownership group is making money on.

[aziz]

. I have zero sympathy for the owners. They made their bed, let them lay in it. At this point, just blow it up and start anew.

seriously? to what end? who would that benefit?

your opinion seems to be that the players should really stick it to the owners, show them who is boss and make them pay for their mistakes....by letting the teams go out of business until the NHL collpases and something new begins to rise from the ashes. a new league would have fewer teams and would pay less money to its players.

the fact that the NHL pays its players an order of magnitude more than any other league on the planet says that the players should be DESPERATE to keep the league intact (the KHL average salary is $658k, in case you were curious). they have as much to lose as the owners if this thing can't be figured out in a way that makes all 30 teams healthy. this is the problem with donald fehr: he doesn't care about that. he doesn't care that dying teams represent lost jobs or drastically reduced incomes for his members, so long as the spotlight is kept on "but it's the owners' fault, they caused the problem by paying us so much money" things will be bad. the moment the members realize it is decidedly in their own interest to make this work and hire a negotiator who understands that, things will move forward.

now, if it turns out that this is all a lie and all the teams are way strong financially and have no actual worries about losing money season after season, as has been suggested, then that changes things. if we accept that there are a lot of teams in real trouble, though, then the players will eventually have to realize that they should want those teams to get well.

[idahophilly]

interesting article. it only says that the owners of the panthers are making a profit on their business ventures overall...and i don't know what else they own. it doesn't directly cast light on the idea that the panthers themselves are a money pit. i'm interested to see details in what else that ownership group is making money on.

Aziz, you have more patience than me. Those against the the owners are idealogical and won't change their minds. They will find shreds to support their cause. They have a basic mis-understanding of free enterprise and economics based on their pedigree. You may try sir, but doubt you will win, much less sway any side in this matter. The best thing is to let them win and watch it all fall apart while they continue to B & Moan about it. They will. As sure as the sun will come up tomorrow. Your logical and coherant view point is wasted sir. No offense.

Idaho-

[flyerrod]

@aziz

What part of "The panthers current ownership did not get in the business to lose money,and according to the county auditor, they have NOT lost money. Florida commonly represented as one of the leagues *have not* teams,and an example of over expansion, is nothing of the sort; it is a healthy business, carefully presented to appear like a money losing operation."

My question to you is, how many other *money losing* teams are there? I think it is something that needs to be examined in depth and the results pasted on every news agency that is sports related. This would be one of the biggest black eyes for any sports venue ever if all the teams that are *losing money* through creative accounting practices.

[flyerrod]

@ idahophilly

Found a new *SHINY* have you.........Go ahead and keep giving worship to Gary Bettman and the owners blindly if that is what you choose but don't whine about pesky little facts that keep popping up and tarnishing that shine....

[aziz]

My question to you is, how many other *money losing* teams are there? I think it is something that needs to be examined in depth and the results pasted on every news agency that is sports related. This would be one of the biggest black eyes for any sports venue ever if all the teams that are *losing money* through creative accounting practices.

there are 18 that are reportedly losing money year on year. and i agree, if this is all a shuffle where things are being moved around to make it look bad, then that sucks, and rah players. it also means that the owners would have no ultimate motivation to keep this lockout going. they'd like to make more money, sure, but even that isn't quite as powerful a driver as i'm-losing-money-right-now is, with gate revenues no longer coming in and merchandising having fallen off a cliff. if that's the case, i would expect a desperate offer from the league in the next couple weeks. i mean, a lot of these teams are only looking at making a couple million more from their proposals. the minute this has them losing more than that, this explaination no longer makes sense.

like i said, i'm interested to actually see the guy's info.

Edited November 18, 2012 by aziz

[idahophilly]

@ idahophilly

Found a new *SHINY* have you.........Go ahead and keep giving worship to Gary Bettman and the owners blindly if that is what you choose but don't whine about pesky little facts that keep popping up and tarnishing that shine....

God, you just are not listening. I have NEVER been on Bettman's side. Read my posts dude and stop getting mad when i hit a sore point. I have not been on the owners side either... Here is the evident difference between us smart ass....

I don't look to fellow workers to take care of me. I don't look for faceless union bosses to take care of me. I don't look for a corp or their execs to take care of me. I look out for myself. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot in my books. If you don't like where you work GO somewhere else. But I won't and have never have told someone else how to run their business unless asked, which I have been. I earned allot of money doing that.

So, NEVER get flippent with me unless you want it back my friend. If you are satisfied with YOUR status quo then so be it. But don't blame your boss if you are not. And if they are a-holes, then leave. Those a-holes do exist but it isn't up to you or I to say how they run their business. PERIOD. I know you don't like that but i suspect thats what bothers you about it.

And, an FYI, I have a strong reaction to this because I'm sick and tired of hearing this in the shoutbox when I come here for hockey talk, such as it is. I have tried a few feeble "come backs" but I'm sick of listening to the American system being ridiculed by a bunch of people who want handouts... No MORE. I'll leave it alone if you will...

[flyerrod]

@ aziz

I am biased to the Players side so All of my posts are going to be anti-owner. A large part of that comes from being one of those money grubbing Union guys that went on strike for 3 months to try and maintain retirement and medical benefits for new hires. Stupid huh? We didn't go on strike for more money or raises or more benefits for the current employees but for the benefits of workers not even hired yet and after 91 days on strike, we managed to get new hires a flat amount of 1400 dollars(taxable) paid each year for them to invest as they see fit. They have no 401k or IRA or ANY other retirement. Was going on strike for that stupid? Not to anybody that was hired after our last contract....

[idahophilly]

I had no opinion on why you went on strike. I knew you did from another post but figured it wasn't my business. It's a very nice thing you did. However, devils advocate would say you went on strike to saddle the company with expenses they have not even had the oppurtunity to incur yet. If (IF) that company runs into trouble later on I trust you are saying the legacy expenses you saddled the company with for another generation will be waived to keep the company competative and to keep the current jobs, even if not at optimal pay or benefit levels? Or would you prefer the Hostess model?

[flyerrod]

God, you just are not listening. I have NEVER been on Bettman's side. Read my posts dude and stop getting mad when i hit a sore point. I have not been on the owners side either... Here is the evident difference between us smart ass....

I don't look to fellow workers to take care of me. I don't look for faceless union bosses to take care of me. I don't look for a corp or their execs to take care of me. I look out for myself. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot in my books. If you don't like where you work GO somewhere else. But I won't and have never have told someone else how to run their business unless asked, which I have been. I earned allot of money doing that.

So, NEVER get flippent with me unless you want it back my friend. If you are satisfied with YOUR status quo then so be it. But don't blame your boss if you are not. And if they are a-holes, then leave. Those a-holes do exist but it isn't up to you or I to say how they run their business. PERIOD. I know you don't like that but i suspect thats what bothers you about it.

And, an FYI, I have a strong reaction to this because I'm sick and tired of hearing this in the shoutbox when I come here for hockey talk, such as it is. I have tried a few feeble "come backs" but I'm sick of listening to the American system being ridiculed by a bunch of people who want handouts... No MORE. I'll leave it alone if you will...

FYI

You haven't read my posts or you would not have responded with your last line...

Go bury your head in the sand if you don't want to look at ALL the facts that are out there. You see aziz make a post and jump on his coat tails Your POST BELOW in case you already forgot...

" Those against the the owners are idealogical and won't change their minds. They will find shreds to support their cause. They have a basic mis-understanding of free enterprise and economics based on their pedigree. You may try sir, but doubt you will win, much less sway any side in this matter. The best thing is to let them win and watch it all fall apart while they continue to B & Moan about it. They will. As sure as the sun will come up tomorrow. Your logical and coherant view point is wasted sir. No offense."

Sure sounds like someone else is B itching and moaning to me...........

[idahophilly]

FYI

You haven't read my posts or you would not have responded with your last line...

Go bury your head in the sand if you don't want to look at ALL the facts that are out there. You see aziz make a post and jump on his coat tails Your POST BELOW in case you already forgot...

" Those against the the owners are idealogical and won't change their minds. They will find shreds to support their cause. They have a basic mis-understanding of free enterprise and economics based on their pedigree. You may try sir, but doubt you will win, much less sway any side in this matter. The best thing is to let them win and watch it all fall apart while they continue to B & Moan about it. They will. As sure as the sun will come up tomorrow. Your logical and coherant view point is wasted sir. No offense."

Sure sounds like someone else is B itching and moaning to me...........

Ohh, another more BARBED post from you. Rub you raw. I have been saying what AZIZ has been saying for months. Aziz just is more concise and well worded. Thats why he is a master at it...

I posted a honest assesment to Aziz in case he had forgotten what it's like here but I'm assured he is aware. I am however guilty about bitching and moanind about B & moaning. You continue to miss the point of my and atleast a half dozen others arguments on this subject. I have another 2-3 paragraphs on that sir but will end this excersise if you will...

[Vanflyer]

This problem goes beyond teams in unsustainable markets. Part of the problem..sure. But a small one. When you have 18 teams losing money as aziz noted then geography cannot be the only problem. If you only have 10-12 markets that can sustain a profitable team then you don't have a league. If you want a league you have to create a system in which the majority of your teams can turn some sort of profit. The owners messed things up and are now trying to fix the problem. The union is not letting them. Plus, I never heard the union object when the league put teams in these 'unsustainable' markets. More jobs. Just because the union had no role in expansion doesn't mean they had a problem with it. I guarantee that if the league put contraction on the table the union would object to that even more strongly than a smaller share of the pie.

So, let me see if I understand this. The salaries are the SAME as 1998. The revenue is quadrupled since 1998. The ticket prices since 1998 have increased nearly 90%. I know it is about corporate sponsorship and tv contracts and the peon season ticket holder gets pissed on.

Aside from that, you want to cite the players for the expansion (or include them in any part of that)? Really? I never heard of ANY union in ANY sector have the ability to veto where their employers should or should not expand their business to. A stretch does not even begin to describe that concept.

[Vanflyer]

now, if it turns out that this is all a lie and all the teams are way strong financially and have no actual worries about losing money season after season, as has been suggested, then that changes things. if we accept that there are a lot of teams in real trouble, though, then the players will eventually have to realize that they should want those teams to get well.

I would like to see the books for all the teams. When 18 teams are at 100% capacity in attendance (or very near) and another 8 teams are at 85% capacity, it becomes confounding to me how they lose money. The salaries are the SAME as they were in 1998. These stats beckon again that this is lockout is about a minority of teams that can not sustain financial profitability. Beyond geographical reasons, there are a host of other reasons why that is (NYI are a poster child for this).

At the end of the day, the reality is that it is not the fans that buy tickets that butter the bread (not directly). It is the corporate suites / advertisers and associated TV contracts that generate all that revenue. Of course without high attendance, corporate suites, advertisers and tvs deals do not get signed / sold.

I am on the owners side regarding the money. I am on the players side regarding the existing contracts and the new UFA terms.

Yet, at the end of the day, I do believe firmly that is the owners fault that they are in the mess they are in. You cite they are taking course corrections steps to remedy that mess, but those course correction steps are at the expense of the players- when the players are not the ones that made the mess or should be attributed to the mess. I again cite that contracts in 1998 are the same as today.

If a tree is dying, what do you do?? You cut off the dying limbs / prune it. The league / owners have decided to keep the dying limbs and let the players be the ones to pay for the life support.