LastPommerFan

Another option would be increasing the spread. Allowing the "rich" teams to spend more and the "poor" teams to spend less. That makes sense though, for every dollar the players give back in salary only 1/3 go to the struggling teams. ALL of the money from revenue sharing goes to the struggling teams. So $60M in revenue sharing is nearly $200M in HHR split. I withdraw "taking home" and replace it with "taking back to the office" They are taking home INFINITELY more than they were in 2005 because they were net losing money then and now they are MAKING money. If the NHL were a stock it'd pay a 5% dividend. Which is pretty awesome right now, all things considered.

I would love to see the cap gone. I am aware nothing lasts forever, I'm not looking for forever, I'm looking for ONE cup. The owners are taking home twice as much money as they were 7 years ago (30% 0f $2.4B vs 43% of $3.3B). That wasn't enough because it's not about league wide profits, it's about profits at an individual team level. Cutting the players share doesn't directly address that problem. Revenue sharing does. i'm just asking them to do what needs to be done to actually address the underlying problem. then have a discussion about the equity of the player-owner split.

I can't argue with the FACT that owners get to decide. I accept and, in fact, endorse that reality. But part of that reality is evicted when a salary cap is put in place. If the owners want full control over their revenues, remove the cap, and consequently, the floor. Let each team decide how they want to spend their money, just like baseball. Short of that, the system needs to be set up for success, and the owners have proven that dropping the players share does not prevent the owners from losing money. Something more needs to be done. I, and the players, propose significantly increasing the revenue sharing. sure, combine that with a draw-down of the salary cap, but cutting the players pay will not solve this problem, the owners will be right back here, asking for 55% in 5 years. There is too much that is not like a business to make the analogy. There is not a single business outside of sports that would have turned down a second team in Toronto. The owners are intentionally holding down their revenues in an attempt to grow. I love it. Great to see them investing in the business. But they aren't going to grow if every sixth season is canceled or delayed because the players, like all employees everywhere, will stand up and fight when you try to cut their wages.

All but three teams (panthers, jackets, coyotes) could be made to break even at 85% of the cap (which happens to correspond with the current cap median) with only minor adjustments to the revenue sharing program. If they want to spend more than 85% of the cap, they do so at their own financial risk. The owners should bear the risk of revenue growth, they are the ones who have decided to double down on geographic expansion. They could move the Panthers and Coyotes to better locations if they wanted to ease that risk. Ontario and Quebec would love to throw more money at the NHL.

Fair enough, I'll use my mouth to warn you.

You'll know.

See, you just blew my chance at getting nfreeman to agree with the Players proposal. Less commenting, more concentration on his poll.

I would support 50% if the path there was based on splitting growth. For instance, next year 56%, covered by current escrow rules, no rollback. After that, revenue growth is split between increasing the cap and increasing the Owners take. So if revenue grows by 4%, the cap goes up 2%. The resulting split would be 55-45. Year three Revenue goes up 3%, Cap up 1.5%. now the split is just a shade above 54-46. Keep doing this until the target 50-50 split is reached, then cap increases proportionally with revenue. At a modest 3% growth model, this would take 8 seasons. At a 5% growth rate it would take 5 seasons. The owners have made clear their decision to grow the league rather than maximize revenues in the immediate. They should be the ones to invest the time and money to make that happen.

The "Owners" are not losing money. As a whole they have made money. SOME Owners are losing money. Because the league is still in a growth phase. You can't force a team to stay in Phoenix, prevent a team from moving to Toronto, then bitch about your "share". The owners decided they still want to grow the league geographically, and that costs money. They want the current players to pay for this decision. I understand this will benefit the future players, but the league doesn't seem to want to take any significant amount of time to lower the player share, they want in now or in the next 3 seasons.

A salary cap number based on making the lowest revenue teams profitable makes no sense. Why would the players agree to limit their income to the amount they would make if all the teams we located in terrible hockey markets. The comparison to the NFL is weak because all the NFL teams were profitable or nearly profitable BEFORE the 50-50 split was negotiated (link). There is no other option for Football players to make any money at all. That is not the case for Hockey players. If I were an average NHL player, I'd be fine making a third of my salary in Europe to break this cycle of bargaining. The only way we aren't here again in 3-5 years is a strong revenue sharing program that recognizes that the Leafs and Rangers are significantly less profitable in a 24 team league than they are in a 30 team league.

See, Here's the thing, you chose to pursue a career in Cell and Molecular Biology at an academic level. That's awesome. What I don't think you fully accept, yet, is that in pursuing a career in Cell and Molecular Biology at an academic level, you forfeited your right to complain about the olfactory influences of your co-workers. I'm sure you signed the release when you started. It probably looked a lot like the release I signed when I went into Manufacturing that said I forfeited my right to complain about being called 'Junior' well into my 30s when I chose a career in American Manufacturing.

It must be tough for an owner like Anschutz. His kings lost $2M in 2011, on their way to winning the Stanley Cup. So did he succeed or fail as a business? There really isn't a parallel to this in the rest of the corporate world outside of sports. For the average CEO if you lose money, you lose. The Leafs on the other hand...

I try to make conscious decisions to be civil. I do understand, however, why people can get that way, given America's current political climate. I really believe in a certain vision for this country. Many people don't share that view. I think I can change that, but I know it can't be done by calling people the myriad names that are thrown at modern conservatives (Stupid, Racist, Redneck, Bible Thumper, etc.) At the core of my belief is this: Most, nearly all, people in this country want two related things: The ability to provide for their family, and the chance to give their children a slightly better lot in life than they had. I start there when trying to convince people why the Democratic platform is a better direction for America. We (Democrats) might as well not show up to the debate if we think the average Conservative is to stupid/racist/greedy/Christian to see our side. All of these equally applies to the GOP. They can't get anywhere as long as they think Liberals are immoral/lazy/dependent/godless.

This type of event (the film) is not usually covered via interview on the nightly news broadcasts. For instance, in 2004 when Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie came out, he wasn't interviewed on the NBC Nightly News, he was interviewed on Dateline. That interview, by Matt Lauer, was very accusatory and by no means a softball for Moore. (transcript here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5239322/ns/dateline_nbc-newsmakers/t/moore-defends-incendiary-film/#.UFyf2I0iZ8E) D'Souza was interviewed on ABC's Nightline. They seem to be receiving similar treatment by the networks. There is also the celebrity status thing that plays into this. Michael Moore was already in the popular conscience when released Fahrenheit 9/11. D'Souza, while well published, is not a "Celebrity" on the same stature. Unfortunately, that matters in the media, although I still fail to understand why.

Fair. If his film is not highly partisan with significant logical leaps of faith, it would be a deviation from his recent writings, including the book, The Root's of Obama's Rage (2010), which I have read and the movie is based upon.

I have read the book, but I have not seen the movie, and thus cannot comment on its (the film's) specific relevance or objectivity. I would be as skeptical going in to it as I would be for a Michael Moore film, however, as the book struggled to bridge the gap between a son believing in his father and an American President actively working to destroy America.

D'souza was a policy analyst in the Reagan White House. IMO he automatically fails any test of objectivity. His writings seem recently to be singularly obsessed with painting the president as an Angry Post-colonial African. I can't buy a conspiracy big enough to allow for that to be true.

Once you removed the inflammatory rhetoric, you have A legitimate critique of the president. This is how I would approach trying to convince an Obama supporter that the President is not what the country needs right now. The next step is to put together a positive argument why Gov. Romney would be better. For my part, I'm willing to accept that the president can work just as well on AF1 as he can from the oval office, but agree it would have been better to cancel the next day fundraiser. I don't think netanyahu was as urgent to have a face to face meeting as the israeli press indicated or he would have said something himself. He hadn't exactly been guarding his tongue lately, and with good reason.

1a) Obama immediately step up security at all the Foreign Missions around the world. http://news.yahoo.com/us-embassies-step-security-libya-attack-071954957.html 1b) Ambassador Stevens was not dragged through the streets, he was brought to the hospital. His Body was never "missing" http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ambassador-chris-stevens-breathing-libyans-found-american-consulate-rescue-article-1.1161454 2) The Jay-z fundrasier and the Letterman taping are already done, Netanyahu does not arrive in NY until Monday. Instead, they spoke on the phone last week. Listen, there are plenty of things that are upsetting about Barack Obama, they don't need to be made up.

He's right. In the next 18 months, it is far more important for the country that the economy be bolstered than the budget be balanced. The report does not insinuate that cuts in the immediate future are critical to the fiscal health of the nation. The other note from report that is interesting is its insistence that "Everything must be on the table". Even a casual observer of the debates on this topic would recognize that one party (the GOP) is taking a significant piece of this puzzle (increased revenue through taxes) off the table. The President attempted a large scale debt reduction, but was thwarted by Tea Party Republicans because it involved tax increases for the very wealthy. So I have to disagree that both parties are the same on this issue. And that neither party is willing to compromise. The Democrats are not perfect, but their platform is much better suited to driving America forward than that of the Republicans. My hope is that this election delivers enough of a message to conservatives in congress that they're obstructionism is no longer the will of the American People. The problem with these allegations is that none of them are accurate.

Something like this: Which is part of the package of incentives for job creation that President Obama and the Democrats proposed in January but which is currently being stymied by Republicans in congress.

Exactly, so some where in that loop you can insert the only body capable of changing the results of that loop. Government Stimulus. You can insert a employer ("job creator") tax cut anywhere in that loop and nothing significant changes.

Fixed one minor detail. But yes, this is further evidence of my point. Companies will only hire as many employees as they absolutely need. No business, large or small, has ever looked at their year end P-L and said, "wow, I made a lot of money! I should hire someone." For the two, profits =/= employment, they are barely related at all, other than if I can make the same revenue with less employment I will make more profit. And tax cuts only increase profits. EDIT: I should clarify, tax cuts for employers only increase profits.

I understand your clarification, but i still disagree, I think the two parties are are extremely different in the methods they attempt to implement to address those three interrelated problems. I think the reason the results are similar is largely a result of this stark difference. The GOP has determined that the country would be better off with no action to address this issue rather than a compromise with the Democrats that would result in a tax increase. Similarly, the democrats have resolved that the issue is best left unaddressed rather than a solution that balance the budget solely through spending cuts. It is the differences that result in the continued status quo. The way you phrased it, shows that. "Out of Control Spending" implies that cuts are the right solution. I think that ignores the economy. Government spending is a critical part of the economy during a recession. I don't buy the supply side argument. In business, your not going to invest or grow unless you have a potential customer for the additional goods or services you are going to produce. Just look at the cash American Corporations are sitting on. They aren't stagnant because they have a shortage of available capital, they are stagnant because there is a shortage of demand. Businesses react to meet the market. Massive cuts to government spending, be they to Defense or Domestic programs, would undercut already weak demand. I don't care how much cash you hand me in tax cuts, I not going to hire another worker unless I think I can use them productively to meet a customer need and get paid for it. Say I'm in the business of making rivets for the joints on bridges. If you cut my taxes so I have an extra $100k at the year, I'm going to be stoked about the additional $100k on my bottom line, but I'm not going to hire another rivet maker. On the other hand, if you spend the money to upgrade a bridge, I'm going hire another rivet maker to meet the demand. Now you've had the same impact on the budget, but you've created another job. And that money will multiply several times as it moves the the economy. But I see it differently than a standard GOPer. And the GOP has enough power in Congress to stop me from spending that money, even if they don't have the power to initiate the tax cut. So we'll continue with the status quo.

See, I disagree with this premise. Sure, there are plenty of individuals in Washington who choose unethical actions for their own benefit, but that comes with the territory. In general, I think the average member of either party genuinely acts to implement their stated vision for the country. The guys don't to the exact same things: President Obama made it official policy to stop deportation of illegal immigrants who were brought here as children. This is absolutely not something the prevailing leaders of the GOP would do. It is also the right and just thing to do. President Obama took the initiative to stop discriminating in the military based on sexual orientation. This is also something any of the recent crop of Republican candidates would refuse. It, again, was the absolute right and just thing to do. President Obama fought to extend unemployment benefits to keep millions of people who lost their jobs in the Great Recession from going from unemployed to indigent. The Tea Party faction of congress used this critical lifeline as a bargaining chip. It was the right thing to do from a fiscal standpoint, even if it did add to the debt. It was the right thing to do. That's just a handful of examples, but I don't think it is accurate to say that it doesn't matter which of these two parties wins. I don't think the Republicans would destroy the country, not at all, but I think the country will be a much better place with the Democrats.