|
|
Post by slippy on Aug 17, 2012 4:04:23 GMT -6
Self explanatory. In your opinion, how are things looking for the upcoming NHL season?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guardian on Aug 17, 2012 10:34:53 GMT -6
Yes.
First game of the season will be the Winter Classic on New years Day.
|
|
xman
4th Line Grinder
Posts: 145
|
Post by xman on Aug 17, 2012 17:22:22 GMT -6
At least the Jets got "in before the lock(out)" couldn't resist  |
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Aug 17, 2012 20:52:44 GMT -6
Yeah, pretty much a guarentee at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Aug 18, 2012 10:31:26 GMT -6
Yes. First game of the season will be the Winter Classic on New years Day. I thought the same thing actually. |
|
|
|
Post by bigcanadiano on Aug 18, 2012 21:15:33 GMT -6
I can't believe this thread hasn't generated more interest. To be honest, I can live with a lockout, because I want an agreement to better the interests of the fans. That means, revenue sharing, players take a solid look at salary arbitration, not an abbreviated version of the former CBA, but changes which are necessary to hold both the players and owners accountable.
1- No ten year deals for players, to a max of 6 year contracts.
2 -The players cannot afford taking an exodus, even if it means they have to agree on their share of revenue reduced.
Those are the two main points in my own view. In terms of economic stability, the state of the league is constantly fluctuating. The players still make a ton of money for a new agreement to be viable. They can hold the players out all they want to, because Bettman is going to win this war.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2012 21:48:38 GMT -6
I can't believe this thread hasn't generated more interest. To be honest, I can live with a lockout, because I want an agreement to better the interests of the fans. That means, revenue sharing, players take a solid look at salary arbitration, not an abbreviated version of the former CBA, but changes which are necessary to hold both the players and owners accountable. 1- No ten year deals for players, to a max of 6 year contracts. 2 -The players cannot afford taking an exodus, even if it means they have to agree on their share of revenue reduced. Those are the two main points in my own view. In terms of economic stability, the state of the league is constantly fluctuating. The players still make a ton of money for a new agreement to be viable. They can hold the players out all they want to, because Bettman is going to win this war. I know why this hasn't generated more interest: because the lockout discussion is boring. We'd rather be talking about hockey! And, yet, here I am commenting on it... |
|
|
|
Post by bigcanadiano on Aug 20, 2012 19:58:23 GMT -6
The longer the players drag this out, the more they are going to lose. Like I said: my second^ point re; share of their revenue reduced. That is where the players are going to get worked on this deal. This is on the players. They make plenty, enough to warrant a reduction in their shared revenue.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigcanadiano on Aug 20, 2012 20:03:18 GMT -6
1- No ten year deals for players, to a max of 6 year contracts.
2 -The players cannot afford taking an exodus, even if it means they have to agree on their share of revenue reduced.
This needs to happen.
In terms of entry level deals, I think the NHL can compensate the players to increase that amount.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2012 22:33:25 GMT -6
1- No ten year deals for players, to a max of 6 year contracts. 2 -The players cannot afford taking an exodus, even if it means they have to agree on their share of revenue reduced. This needs to happen. In terms of entry level deals, I think the NHL can compensate the players to increase that amount. Yeah - I am sick to death of the 10-15 year contracts. 5-6 sounds about right with equal payment for each year - hopefully! |
|
