unless you think the owners are going to crush this next CBA, which they probably will.

i agree with your larger point about most guys not getting in to make money, but iirc there have been a few guys getting in the last year or so with an eye on winning these negotiations big, which obv makes being in a lot more attractive, or at least doable.

and Balsillie probably would have gotten a team is he just kissed the ring and played ball. owners don't like renegades coming in, same reason Cuban got frozen out of MLB & the NHL, and Bill Laurie with the NBA, to name a few examples.

as for the AHL game in Buffalo...I'd bet a lot of fans around here didn't even know it was happening. it got zero publicity. when listening to local radio it would get a mention during the "sports update" but it was never a topic that was discussed.

also, we're in the middle of the Bills season and it's always been said that the hockey season starts once the Bills' season ends (usually 4 pm week 17).

Yes but that's not why I've used him as an example here.

His supporters up here during the original saga couldn't figure out why the league wouldn't want his oodles of wealth in control of a team; he was a Riverman FREE MONEY lock. 3 years and countless failed BlackBerry products later, RIM is still bleeding profusely and Balsillie's net wealth is juuuuust a li'l bit lower. He's not such a viable candidate for ownership anymore.

Triumph's right - you replace all 700 players at once and you get an awful product. But I can assume with much greater confidence that the cyclical replacement of these players from a pool of developing kids worldwide is far more certain than the replacement of franchise owners from a pool of business moguls. Kids will still pick up a stick during a severe economic downturn; I can't be sure magnates will drop $200m+ on unprofitable hobbies.

Cody Hodgson and other AHL'ers are not locked out at all. They were assigned to their AHL teams the day before the lockout.

AHL teams can practice and play in the NHL buildings and practice facilities. The NHL'ers have to pay for ice time at the practice facilities out of their own pocket...and they are not allowed to wear their team's logo on the ice because they are currently not representing them...they are locked out. Blah blah blah.

Fwiw, injured nhl'ers from the end of last season arent locked out either. I guess they can't be with insurance, etc. So they can use the workout facilities if their teams like normal is my understanding. A guy like Pronger for example.

Ovechkin and others skipped outta the country to play with other leagues completed unaffiliated with the NHL.

I don't think they want the locked out players in NHL arenas playing games with other teams. For example, if Fleury and Giroux and Talbot ever get their charity tour going, I don't think they will be able to do it at NHL arenas. Their exhibitions would have to be in other buildings.

I'm not an expert on all this stuff, but I've learned through talking with nhl beat writers that I actually have a better understanding of some of the aspects than some of them do. Not all aspects. But some.

I saw it written that in English soccer, where afaik there are no salary restrictions and it's closest to being an actual free market, players get something north of 70%.

I don't think I am, but we're talking serious hypotheticals here. You can't argue that hockey is a money losing business without getting into why it is, and that's largely because of location restrictions that the NHL has built, historically, and because of the existence of owners who don't care about profits who merely want championships. No, I agree that in the current NHL, there aren't a bunch of people who'd run out to buy a team in the bottom third of revenues. But that's not what I am suggesting - I am suggesting a new league, with arenas (by far the largest sunk cost) already in place. If the NHL were to go away, another league would immediately sprout up in its place.

I know the KHL has delusions of grandeur, but even this seems like a giant delusion. I don't think they were expecting to play those games in a locked out NHL - if they were, why not schedule them earlier?

Never been to the Mausoleum but by all accounts it was way out of date and a terrible venue. I do think they will lose some of their existing fan base - people who live and work on Long Island will probably not be season ticket holders in Brooklyn. The arena is going to be an absolute nightmare to get to by car. I don't know how much steam they will pick up in Brooklyn, honestly - I don't think that Brooklyn thinks of itself as a different part of New York City. So I don't see them doing much better in Barclays, but I could be wrong. I think the Nets will struggle once they get past the novelty stage, although good lord did James Dolan leave the door open for them.

I haven't heard anything more about that which seems to make it far less likely.

72off, yes they are compelled to play in the AHL.

Burmistrov had a big offer to play in the KHL. he wanted to go there. And thought he was going there. Instead, Winnipeg ended up deciding to ship him to the AHL. that decision cost him a few mil. But his contract with Winnipeg is worth more than that for the future so he's stuck. Right now though he's probably making $80k or something in the AHL instead of $2-3M in the KHL in is hometown.

Skinner didn't want to play though and Carolina agreed that he could do what he wanted. Up until the lockout it was assumed he was going. They gave an open invite that he can show in Charlotte whenever he wants. Something like that. Sounds like they are being cooperative with him.

Delicate situations in a lot of places

Most are genuinely cool with being in the AHL though. For many, it sure beats having to decide IF they wantp to make the long move, WHERE they want to go and if they can land a spot there, etc.

They want to play. But yes, they also miss the big money. That's what one NHL'er told me when I said, "at least you don't have to move abroad. You're relatively close to home." "Yeah, that's definitely better...but I really like the big money, man." This was all casual convo and not an interview or anything. It was pretty funny. And you can't blame him.

talking about what's "fair" is pointless anyhow. there's no extrinsic universal power that judges the fairness of a contract. what's fair is whatever the parties agree to.

Which is typically driven by industry precedents, which is why I'm led to believe they'll end up at 50/50.

oh last thing on Brooklyn, about how long does it take to get from Long Island to Barclays for a 10pm local game start? best way to get there the subway?

well i said like 6 months ago (based on very little ldo) that the next deal would be like 50/50, or 52% for the players max just bc that's what the NBA & NFL players got beat back to. as soon as that happened i knew the NHL owners were thinking "well if that's what they got, we can too". MLB players seem to be doing the best out of the 4 leagues, but both sides seem as though they've been relatively happy there for a while, for whatever reason.

Does that include player transfer fees? Because despite clubs paying massive transfer fees to acquire the services of the player, the players themselves don't see a nickel of that payment.

Not EPL, but as an example, Thiago Silva became the world's most expensive defender when PSG bought him from AC Milan for €42 mil; Silva's salary is "only" €7.5 mil, however. So if transfer fees are included when discussing what portion of revenues go towards the actual talent, we're working with inflated figures.

As such, I don't think that 70% figure represents a proper analogy.

Premier League is not a very healthy league financially.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...010-11-profits

Oh, 69% on wages, so indeed I stand corrected.

And yeah, sustainable business model, ldo.

69% on wagers, then the transfers and other fees (agents, etc) on top of that? yikes!

yeah i knew almost nobody made money in European football, but wow.

It is sustainable. It's just that some owners want to pay more and don't care about profits. That's why a luxury tax is the best solution in leagues that allow collective bargaining, as it penalizes those owners while rewarding owners who can keep costs down. So how about this compromise will never be broached by either side - 50/50 split is where the salary cap midpoint falls with a dollar for dollar luxury tax that has a threshold at 57% of league revenues/30, which taxes get split by the lower revenue teams. Hell, you could even put the threshold at 60%. That allows owners to spend more without getting outrageous, and allows for increased revenue sharing.

And when their coffers run out? Does the transfer market they've created magically deflate? It's kinda what I was alluding to earlier - the world isn't full of Roman Abramoviches ready to pick up the pieces at any price.

As far as your luxury tax proposition for collectively bargained leagues,

All teams should be Not for Profit Organizations and the players get 100% of revenue. This would solve EVERYTHING. I'm yet to hear a good counter argument for this.

Just remove the competitive business money making machine from competitive sports and you'd never see a lockout again. So simple.

Depends on where in LI. But you'll have to train into Jamaica, and then you might have to transfer. The Atlantic terminal is right next to the Barclays center, so you can ride the LIRR all the way there. The Barclays center is also next to an assload of subway lines, but I don't live in NY, so I can't give you a recommendation for that.

Sure it is. Either the transfer market collapses or new owners come in - it can't be neither. With the way that wealth is funneling towards the top .1% of income earners, I don't think there'll be a lack of people who want to own top soccer clubs.

Funnels don't grow wider at their apex.

sick SICK goal by Couture tonight. Ill post a link when there is a video somewhere.

Logan

This doesn't make sense. Their coffers won't run out because the franchises still have tons and tons of value - they can sell and get out of the business.

i am just speaking to the fact that it's the owner's ranch, and the players are the cattle. or rather indentured servants. anyone who is on ownership side is probably a slave owner at heart.

good, so you agree that it's ridiculous to NOT let guys who are not compelled to play in the ahl also play in a new "non-yet ready" for NHL hockey arena. i was simply arguing selling out in brooklyn and barclays is now an nhl rinks ARE NOT the reason this is cancelled.

the two clubs who would be playing went 7 games in the final last year. it would be a big game regardless. i know it doesn't live up to your standards of it's-not-a-big-game-unless-nhlers-are-playing-and-shown-on-north-american-tv, but it would be a big game.

so, it's my ranch and only my indentured servants can play there, and if i say they can't, they shouldn't be allowed to play anywhere. gotcha. sounds fair.

guys like evander kane went over there as well (could he be assigned to AHL, similar to eberle, hall? i dunno). chara, rinne, backstrom, and a multitude of others. why are you calling out only everyone's one of two favorite GORBs in these matters?

ok, so barclays should be a-ok then. not an nhl building yet, and nhl will really only rent it like everyone else from 2015 to 2040.

interesting anecdote. so the owners are actively hurting the lockout players by COLLECTIVELY keeping them away from other sources of income, i.e. other leagues. yeah, i can totally see how this lockout is players being greedy.

one other thing about Coyotes ownership.

that's a team in trouble, that doesn't own the building they play in and has suspect fan attendance. so men of wealth, being somewhat shrewd businessmen are WISELY staying away from it. needless to say there would be a line out the door of wealthy men AND wealthy corporations if a good hockey market team would be up for sale.