Francesco Aquilini the Puppet Master

[oldnews]

I think the ball is in the owner's court. They can just sit back and wait for the players to sign. If I am not mistaken a majority of team owners also own the arena, so they are still getting arena revenue from rentals, parking etc.

How would it work with scab players? What constitutes a player being in the NHLPA? Could a team ice it's prospects who are not in the NHL and sign players out of europe, college and minor leagues? If the team stole some of the best talent out of europe, the AHL, and NCAA the league could still be the strongest in the world.

Edit: Google is my friend

http://www.torontosu...ems-end-lockout

[crazyforhockey]

<p>

I think you guys might be a bit under-informed and underselling Bettman's role in the lockout. He recently had the NHL bylaws changed so that he only needs the support of EIGHT owners in order to turn down any NHLPA proposals:

http://twitter.com/w...075057878925312

Anyone who has that kind of control cannot just be a mouthpiece. He's an agent, yes, but I think it might be he who is advising the owners on what needs to be done and so much not the other way around.

[Clonedanielsedin]

I just like the faces Bettman makes

[nuck nit]

Iain MacIntyre on CKNW 98 Sunday @ 10 pm night explains that since the last lockout :

The players are the core business.They are not employees.The owners never created the product.The players are the show.

The players got 72% of the revenues before the salary cap.

The player's salaries increased 40% since then. The owners income increased 180% in the same time frame.

Why should the player's take another hair cut when the owner's will just do it yet again in another five years?

There is no economic justification for the players to take less.

I don't buy the 'players make a lot of money' argument.

The owners want more.They want to pay less starting now.

The players have indicated they will take less-they have stated a profound offer.

The players share will go down to 50% with the players offer and the owners will get a heck of a lot more money over time.

Once owners start losing real money they might try to get a deal done but Gary is ruling with an iron fist.

The players get a salary and it is strictly labor costs we are talking about.The players do not want a percentage of the owner's business.

[Baggins]

Fold six teams and it also undermines the ownership driven / Bettman meta-plan to sell the NHL to national US networks.

Fold six teams and it's not just cutting 150 "employees" - take the 6 teams with the lowest (Forbes) valuations and those franchises are 'worth' in the range of 900 million dollars - who loses that? What would those 6 owner's response to such a proposal would be?

I don't see players as "employees". I see them more as contractors - franchises bid to sign them to contracts.

For example, you are free to hire another contractor to build your water park, but if you want people to come and spend their money at your water park, you might want the best contractor / the most entertaining water park. The contractor builds your water park, but you decide where. You do the market research. It's your capital that builds the park, and also, you assume the risk. If you come back to that contractor in seven years and say you want some of your money back because you chose to build the park too far out of town, or somewhere that not many people like waterslides, whose fault is that? They build water parks, you own water parks, so you need each other, but really, they held up their part of the deal didn't they? You may want to offer less the next time you contract that person to build a water park, but you've already agreed to the terms of your last contract. If that contractor's price is too high because there is another water park owner who has a bigger, more established water park in the heart of the hottest town in the state, whose willing to bid more... Should they take less money because you have trouble deciding where a good location for a water park is?

Anyway, it's an abstraction, like "employee", but does the analogy apply any less?

[nuck nit]

Baggins ,read what the interview says with Iain MacIntyre states.

You are so out to lunch it is comical.

[nuck nit]

What part of the owner's position do you not understand?:

The player's salaries increased 40% since then(the last lockout of players by the owners).

The owners income increased 180% in the same time frame.

The owners are trying to turn it back into the old days and I hope the players sit out for the remainder of the season,if need be.

The owners will be crying by Christmas as their flagrant circumvention of past contractual agreements has shown their level of honor amongst themselves.

[Baggins]

Iain MacIntyre on CKNW 98 Sunday @ 10 pm night explains that since the last lockout :

The players are the core business.They are not employees.The owners never created the product.The players are the show.

The players got 72% of the revenues before the salary cap.

The player's salaries increased 40% since then. The owners income increased 180% in the same time frame.

Why should the player's take another hair cut when the owner's will just do it yet again in another five years?

There is no economic justification for the players to take less.

I don't buy the 'players make a lot of money' argument.

The owners want more.They want to pay less starting now.

The players have indicated they will take less-they have stated a profound offer.

The players share will go down to 50% with the players offer and the owners will get a heck of a lot more money over time.

Once owners start losing real money they might try to get a deal done but Gary is ruling with an iron fist.

The players get a salary and it is strictly labor costs we are talking about.The players do not want a percentage of the owner's business.

[nuck nit]

The owners aren't letting them go belly up so the players are the scapegoats for the sick franchises that were all promised lucrative tv deals.

How can you tell a billionaire to go belly up cuz Bettman's promise is a failure?

The owners have the problem and the players are paying.The players have figured it out and have solidarity -thus far.

[oldnews]

If the owners with money decided they would no longer share their revenue at least 6 teams would likely go belly up. Probably more would fold. You simply let them and there's 150 players out of a job. Yes it would undermine the national TV revenue but if you're sharing more than you're collecting where's the incentive to continue to pursue that avenue? The players solution is the the owners share more of their money. Like I said, I might be inclined to share more if the players were willing to take a smaller slice of the pie. That way both sides are contributing to keeping those teams (and the jobs they create) alive. Btw, the national TV deal wasn't Bettmans idea. That was one of the objectives he was given by the owners when he was hired.

Is there a water slide championship that water slide companies and their contractors compete for? Do water park contractors have a limit of 30 locations to work as the NHL players do? Do water park contractors continue to be employed after the park is built? It's a nice try but building water parks doesn't really equate to competing in a professional sports league.

Sorry, players are contracted employees of the owners. Which is why they have formed a bargaining unit. They are employees nonetheless. Which is why as a whole they negotiate a contract that oversees the entire league.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Read that the owners voted 30-0 in favour of the lockout. In times of greed, there are no heroes.

[TOMapleLaughs]

But i'm taking Baggins in an argument over nuck nit 10 times out of 10.

[Baggins]

The owners aren't letting them go belly up so the players are the scapegoats for the sick franchises that were all promised lucrative tv deals.

How can you tell a billionaire to go belly up cuz Bettman's promise is a failure?

The owners have the problem and the players are paying.The players have figured it out and have solidarity -thus far.

[nuck nit]

I don't know why the CDC opinions only listen to yourselves until you are blue in the face telling others how correct you are.

I listen to those that cover this sport and just relay what it is the professionals are all saying.

There are 20 teams financially viable and ten teams that want Gary to get em some mo money cuz they are in non -traditional hockey markets.

The players are the scapegoats and the owners keep going to the players and public,laying hostage to the game.

If your argument held any weight ,water or truth Baggins,the owners and those franchises would be gone.

This is the third time the players have been asked to take it for the owners greed,189% vs 40% and you still can't figure it out.

TO,my sentiments exactly.Send my love.

[nuck nit]

There was no "promise" of lucrative TV deals. You seem to think this whole thing was Bettmans idea. No. It was the agenda given Bettman by the owners when he was hired. They lost ESPN because bowling drew better ratings than hockey. The bottom line was: to get a national deal they needed to be a national sport. To be a national sport they needed to expand into non-traditional markets. Bettman was hired to do that and he has.

[Baggins]

Sorry,Baggins.You are mistaken if you think NHL hockey is anything important in America,It never has been.It is Canada's sport,Russia's sport,the northern hemisphere's sport.

The US is basketball,baseball,football and college tiddlywinks.Hockey is not a national sport in the States.Never has been and never will be.

I don't care whose idea it is.Bettman is the face of the NHL and that is his and their FAILED MANDATE.

Canadian and northern US hockey markets do not need ,never needed nor ever will need NHL hockey to succeed in the US south for them to be wildly profitable.

The billionaire greed knows no bounds and they want the players and the game to continuously pay for their greed and mistake that needs to end.

Do you just write stuff cuz you are bored cuz this is awful comical nonsense you are offering as some form of history or entertainment?

Do a simple google search entitled: 'Bettman mandate to expand on promise of tv revenue.'

There is no tv deal.Hockey is not a national sport in the US.Bettman and the billionaires failed.Turf the guy and stop the nonsense.This mandate has failed --three times to the well and they still prop up the failed mandate.

Bettman expansion for the billionaires based upon a tv deal is a failure.Hello.

Rescue the game of hockey from these greedy idiots.

[nuck nit]

Bozo,take off the clown nose.

The players got 72% of the revenues before the salary cap.

The player's salaries increased 40% since then. The owners income increased 180% in the same time frame.

[nuck nit]

Northern US hockey markets, Baggins.Spare me the drama.

"Canadian and northern US hockey markets do not need ,never needed nor ever will need NHL hockey to succeed in the US south for them to be wildly profitable."

[Baggins]

Bozo,take off the clown nose.

The players got 72% of the revenues before the salary cap.

The player's salaries increased 40% since then. The owners income increased 180% in the same time frame.

[Baggins]

Northern US hockey markets, Baggins.Spare me the drama.

"Canadian and northern US hockey markets do not need ,never needed nor ever will need NHL hockey to succeed in the US south for them to be wildly profitable."