You both need new hobbies!

dcn, we absolutely agree on that and, if they can't learn from the other leagues' labor issues, hopefully they can at least learn from their own. People still remember a whole season being canceled and the NHL suffered big-time as a result. Only in the past few years have they really recovered and another prolonged work stoppage - particularly now, with the current economy/unemployment issues and right after the NFL and NBA sagas, when people's patience for such things is wearing very thin - would put them right back where they were after canceling a season and would be even tougher to recover from.

One other thing I'm sure we agree on.....in the end, I just want to watch great hockey (or basketball, football, baseball...) and these labor and money issues, from a fan's perspective, are just annoying distractions from the games I love.

Hey bizona - You make valid points, so we will just agree to disagree on who should get what.  I just hope that both sides can figure it out so we do not have any work stoppages or delays to the upcoming season.  I think the NHL gained some fans due to the other sports work issues and I would prefer the NHL doesn't make the same mistakes the other leagues made. 

I don't diagree with anything you wrote, except for the blame you assign to the players. I put it on both sides. As for revenues, I think there should be a 50/50 even split. You're right, there wouldn't be a league without the owners, but you wouldn't have much of a league without the players as well. One may argue that players are replaceable, but the same goes for owners - teams get bought and sold all the time. Also, if the NHL suddenly disappeared today, tomorrow there would be another group of people (both money people and hockey people) putting together a new league. Nothing is forever and just about everything is replaceable.

Personally, I think 50/50 is fair.....the owner still gets a good size chunk and the players get their share, which then, of course, gets split amongst the whole roster. It also recognizes that both sides need each other. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

I understand your frustration with the players unions, but they're just doing their job in advocating for their players. I don't see that in any worse light than the owners trying to limit what they have to pay players. Both sides are just doing what anyone else would do in their respective situations. Owners are just trying to run their business and make it profitable. I get that. However, for me, it's difficult to ignore the fact that an owner has a much longer window of time to own a franchise and make money from it than a player has to play, so it's hard for me to blame players from trying to make as much as they can while they can. As a fan, it sure stinks, but I can't really blame either side more than the other.

Hey bizona - not trying to turn this into a political discussion, but I am tired of hearing how badly the players in these leagues have it.  Not just the NHL, but all major sports.  True, players risk their well being to play a game for a living and yes, owners take risk to own a team, so in reality, everyone takes risks in their lives.  I guess I put most of the blame on the players b/c I think that the unions are the ones driving costs up for fans who like to attend the games.  I don't think if you cannot afford to go to a game you do not work hard enough, what I am saying is the cost to attend a game is making it impossible for your average joe with a family and kids to afford to go to a game b/c of the demands the unions place on owners regarding player salaries/benefits.  To me the unions feel like the players should be receiving the majority of the income the teams/league makes and I disagree with that.  If the owners did not take a risk to start the team/league, these players would not have the opportunity to play a sport for a living, while making good money.  Now one can argue that the majority of players have a limited window in which to play and make money and they should make as much as they can possibly get, I won't argue that b/c it is a valid point.  Careers can be ended very quickly due to a variety of reasons.  But to say that the unions can dictate weather or not a season is held b/c they want more of the money from "rich" owners stinks of socialistic views (take money from the haves and give to have nots).  That is all I was trying to say.  I would like to see owners and players agree to lower costs and make it more afforable for everyone to go to a game, it is a cool experience, but in reality, the only way that ever happens is if the owners/players alike get so greedy that fans stop spending their money on the product they produce.  The fact that the union blocked the realignment stinks of a powerplay by the unions in an effort to hold the owners/league "hostage" come time for contract negotiations.  The league should be able to realign the teams however they see fit without worrying about the union not liking it, the owners own the league.  I think that in the US, the owner of something should be able to do whatever they want with the thing they own (for the most part, obviously nothing criminal). 

BTW, I think it's interesting you give all the blame to players for hard-working people being unable to go to games.

First, why no blame for the owners who okay the contracts and write the checks? The truth is, in all the US pro sports leagues, the owners and players have worked together to create whatever situation exists in their respective sports and share credit and blame for the good and bad.

Second, based on everything else you said, I would think your take on that is if someone can't afford to go to a game, they must not be working hard enough. lol

I just think it's foolish to say "the owners take all the risk." Actually, forget foolish, it's downright stupid.

dcn, you can turn this into a political discussion if you want, but not with me. I'm not saying the players don't make a lot of money or get enough medical attention and I'm not making any comments regarding other professions and what they make. I'm not sitting here imagining what kind of person you may be based on an opinion about hockey and nothing I said has anything to do with socialism (either you need to get a dictionary or that's just your new catch-word for anyone you disagree with about anything).

I'm just saying that if you think the owners take more risks than the players, you're wrong.....unless your only concern is money. That's not my only concern and if that offends you, oh well.

I haven't heard of too many owners who have suffered a head injury or been put in a wheelchair while doing their jobs.

With this thinking, then construction workers and people with similar jobs should be paid the same as athletes or more.  There are many more people with "real" jobs that get killed, injured, paralyzed and those people do not have a dedicated medical team at their job location ready to spring to action should something bad happen.  Nor do they continue to receive medical care after the injury like athletes do.  So basically, your whole post reeks of OWS crap and socialist ideas. 

Why do people keep repeating that BS line? It is particularly absurd for a hockey fan to suggest the owners are the ones who "take all the risk." I haven't heard of too many owners who have suffered a head injury or been put in a wheelchair while doing their jobs.

The owners take all the monetary risk and everything in this world evolves around money.  If you are concerned about your health or being injured, get a 9-5 job, sit behind a desk, answer phones and make a little money.  If you want to make hundreds of thousands of dollars playing a game, there is a health risk involved with that.  The players make a lot of money to play a game for a living, are there risks involved, yes, if you don't want to take those risks, get another job.  Hard working people cannot even afford to go to a sporting event anymore because the players make so much money the ticket prices keep increasing. 
On another note, try borrowing millions of dollars to open a business, then work to repay those loans, there are health risks invovled with that too, mainly stress and heart issues.  Nothing in this world is risk free.  The players, if they manage their money correctly, do very well for themselves. 

the owners of these teams......take all the risk

Why do people keep repeating that BS line? It is particularly absurd for a hockey fan to suggest the owners are the ones who "take all the risk." I haven't heard of too many owners who have suffered a head injury or been put in a wheelchair while doing their jobs.

Writing checks is a lot less dangerous than taking body checks. Owners risk money, but not much more, and for most sports franchise owners, their sports franchises are not their primary source of income. Players risk their bodies, lives and, since they make their living with their bodies, their whole earning potential every time they step onto the ice.