Key comment for me:

And if you follow what’s happened in the capped sports, part of the problem from a player’s standpoint is that the basic view is, whatever the circumstances are, if the owners’ position is, ‘Let’s lock out and see if they’ll give us some more,’ it really doesn’t matter what your agreement is.

With their initial offer, the owners pretty much said this.  It doesn’t hurt the great majority of them to lock out the players so they figure ´Why not? maybe I’ll make an extra couple (or ten or hundred if you are MLSE) million per year if we can get this.´

And for all of you saying that the players make an obscene amount of money compared to teachers, or firemen, you are right,  they do - because of you.  So either stop with the hypocrisy and start a THL or an FHL or accept the fact that you value sports over these professions.  The players don’t set ticket prices, what they do is to try and sell their services at the highest value the market will bear.  If you didn’t pay the ticket prices set by the owners, and the owners didn’t raise salaries to try and get the best product so they can rise ticket prices higher, the players would be playing beer league hockey somewhere because most of them actually love the game - something that can’t be said for most owners.

Why anyone would side with the billionaires in this fight simply amazes me.

Posted by gusoline on 10/03/12 at 08:21 PM ET

Look, this issue is pretty simple.  The owners don’t want to give the players 57% of the pie.  The players don’t want to give up their 57% of the pie.  All the other stuff is fine print, window dressing, and mostly meaningless.

So, if someone thinks that the players in a league should be entitled to 57% of that leagues revenues… well, there you go.

Personally, I think a 50-50ish split is more than fair considering the risks and investments on both sides.  This is why I don’t think the owners are being particularly greedy, per se.

I mean, the owners willingness to lose an entire season should sort of clue people in that the financials in the NHL are out of whack, right?  The people who are NHL owners didn’t get to the point where they could own a hockey team by being cavalier with their cash.

Further, the lack of people who actually want to be NHL owners ought to be a second hint that the league, as currently constructed, has some financial shortcomings.  The Coyotes have been league owned for, what, almost two years now?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/04/12 at 06:53 AM ET

Further, the lack of people who actually want to be NHL owners ought to be a second hint that the league, as currently constructed, has some financial shortcomings.  The Coyotes have been league owned for, what, almost two years now?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/04/12 at 06:53 AM ET

Exactly, but that is an argument that there is something wrong in the overall model, it isn’t strictly a revenue split issue.

Both sides need to move toward the middle, for sure. A tiered approach that moves toward a 50/50 split over the course of a few years, thus not requiring salary rollbacks on existing contracts, with increased revenue sharing (ideally via a luxury tax), is a fair compromise that would fix the underlying issues with the league’s model and would feature all factions getting something for their concessions (big markets get the ability to flex their muscle in their payroll, small markets get more revenue sharing dollars to keep their clubs profitable, players finally see an end to the cycle of givebacks and labor strife).

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 10/04/12 at 10:33 AM ET