Contact the NHLPA

[Louie 28]

http://www.nhlpa.com/feedback/index.asp

Express your disgust to them.

[Chadd 916]

http://www.nhlpa.com/feedback/index.asp

Express your disgust to them.

why? At least they've made offers to get the season started again. The owners haven't done anything to attempt to resolve the situation.

[Jim Bob 0]

Please, the NHL has made offers to get things going as well.

But, both sides refuse to move off their one main stance of cap vs no cap.

Until one side moves off their take on that one issue, then neither side has done anything to save the season, IMO.

[DrMolotov 0]

http://www.nhlpa.com/feedback/index.asp

Express your disgust to them.

why? At least they've made offers to get the season started again. The owners haven't done anything to attempt to resolve the situation.

Both sides knew this would happen for quite some time now, they're both to blame for this mess. On one hand without the players there would be no hockey, on the other if no one invest the millions there are no teams no place to play.

In the past people purchased a team for the love of the sport and not as a means to get richer, now it is all business and you and I are the ones who foot the bill.

I don't believe either side right now because the bottom line is if they truly wanted to get this resolved it be done. Its all pride now and neither side wants to lose face.

They're all a bunch of wankers.

[Chadd 916]

The NHLPA has at least made offers that would serve as a good base for negotiations. The owners have not given those offers any respect and are holding to their intial position. That's not negotiation.

[Jim Bob 0]

Both a luxury tax and revenue sharing system and a hard cap system can be a basis for a negotiation if both sides agree to talk about one system or the other.

Right now you have each side refusing to talk about the one that the other side wants. Until one of the sides changes their take on that one fundamental issue, then there will be no movement. And both sides will be equally to blame, IMO.

Both sides know that their offers have been non-starters for the other side. So to say that anyone has offered up something that could be a basis for negotiations is a joke because they knew it was something that the other side was unwilling to even consider.

[Chadd 916]

Both a luxury tax and revenue sharing system and a hard cap system can be a basis for a negotiation if both sides agree to talk about one system or the other.

Right now you have each side refusing to talk about the one that the other side wants. Until one of the sides changes their take on that one fundamental issue, then there will be no movement. And both sides will be equally to blame, IMO.

Both sides know that their offers have been non-starters for the other side. So to say that anyone has offered up something that could be a basis for negotiations is a joke because they knew it was something that the other side was unwilling to even consider.

The NHLPA is open to any suggestion other than a hard cap, be it a tax or other soft cap. The NHL owners won't consider any plan that is not a hard cap. The PA offered major concessions in arbitration and salary rollback and would accept some form of drag on salaries. Did they put what they would accept on the table? No. Should they have put an offer on the table that gave in on every point? No.

The problem is that they aren't negotiating. That's when both sides give up something they want to get something else they want. Right now the NHL owners are saying, "thanks, now give us everything we want on every other point and we'll have a deal."

[Jim Bob 0]

Both a luxury tax and revenue sharing system and a hard cap system can be a basis for a negotiation if both sides agree to talk about one system or the other.

Right now you have each side refusing to talk about the one that the other side wants. Until one of the sides changes their take on that one fundamental issue, then there will be no movement. And both sides will be equally to blame, IMO.

Both sides know that their offers have been non-starters for the other side. So to say that anyone has offered up something that could be a basis for negotiations is a joke because they knew it was something that the other side was unwilling to even consider.

The NHLPA is open to any suggestion other than a hard cap, be it a tax or other soft cap. The NHL owners won't consider any plan that is not a hard cap. The PA offered major concessions in arbitration and salary rollback and would accept some form of drag on salaries. Did they put what they would accept on the table? No. Should they have put an offer on the table that gave in on every point? No.

The problem is that they aren't negotiating. That's when both sides give up something they want to get something else they want. Right now the NHL owners are saying, "thanks, now give us everything we want on every other point and we'll have a deal."

The NHLPA is not open to any system that doesn't include a salary cap.

If the NHL offered up a luxury tac based system that got rid of guaranteed contracts as a way for the owners to protect themselves from bad long term deals, the NHLPA would claim that they had to have guaranteed contracts as well.

And right now nothing matters beyond a salary cap vs no salary cap.

The NHL could give the NHLPA everything that they want, with a cap attached, and the NHLPA would say no.

The NHLPA could offer up everything the owners would want minus a cap and the owners would say no.

All the "concessions" on non-cap issues are just fluff at this point.

Until there is agreement by both sides on the fundamentals of the overall economic system, i.e. cap or no cap, then all the other stuff doesn't matter.

Neither side is negogiating at this point because neither side has proposed a system that was based on the other sides basic tenant of a cap or no cap.

Although, you could argue that the NHL's offer of a single entity to negotiate contracts was a non-cap system. However, the NHLPA turned that down out of hand because they knew that that would result in their usual inflationary tactics not working in the future.

[Chadd 916]

Although, you could argue that the NHL's offer of a single entity to negotiate contracts was a non-cap system. However, the NHLPA turned that down out of hand because they knew that that would result in their usual inflationary tactics not working in the future.

It also included a provision that teams could not spend more than an amount to be determined by the league that was linked to revenues. At least according to the version I read.

[Jim Bob 0]

I never saw that written anywhere.

I was guessing that the NHL would run things in such a manner that each team had a certain budget and they wouldn't allow them to go over it. But isn't that just what the NHLPA is saying that teams should do now?

[Chadd 916]

I never saw that written anywhere.

I was guessing that the NHL would run things in such a manner that each team had a certain budget and they wouldn't allow them to go over it. But isn't that just what the NHLPA is saying that teams should do now?

The difference is that the NHLPA believes that each team should be able to set their own budget, not have the league tell them what their budget is.

[Jim Bob 0]

Of course, because the NHLPA feels that that will be inflationary for salaries. And they are fighting tooth and nail to keep an inflationary system in place.

[Chadd 916]

Of course, because the NHLPA feels that that will be inflationary for salaries. And they are fighting tooth and nail to keep an inflationary system in place.

All of the teams in the NHL don't want that system. There is nothing wrong with salaries increasing, they just shouldn't increase exponentially.

[Jim Bob 0]

Of course, because the NHLPA feels that that will be inflationary for salaries. And they are fighting tooth and nail to keep an inflationary system in place.

All of the teams in the NHL don't want that system. There is nothing wrong with salaries increasing, they just shouldn't increase exponentially.

There is no system that all of the NHL teams will want.

The big revenue clubs want a system that allows them to maintain an economic advantage over low revenue clubs.

And low revenue clubs want a system that levels the economic playing field.

And teams like Boston and Chicago want a system that guarantees profits even if they run their teams like idiots.

[Chadd 916]

And teams like Boston and Chicago want a system that guarantees profits even if they run their teams like idiots.

That's the one thing that we can be sure will happen.

[Fletch 219]

My letter to them -

Please, for the love of god get this resolved and get the season started! This isn't fair to the fans! Remember, it's not the owners who pay your salary. IT IS US, THE FANS WHO PAY YOU. YOU OWE US.