I literally stated facts because everything you said was incorrect. I base my statements off facts which is “weird” to you but completely logical. Yes I pay to watch the Illitch family on the ice…. please at least articulate something logical. What you’re doing is playing the victim in this.

The only fact you’ve stated is that the salary cap is CBA approved. Good job. We all know that. Now you wanna act high and mighty for stating that.

I’ve actually stated multiple and clearly the “we all know that” isn’t exactly true based on your statements. Let’s go through them.


So your logic is because their billionaires they can afford to pay more. For which I replied there is roughly half of the owners losing money each year. It’s a business, business are there to make money for individuals with equity. I even elaborated that owners paid their salary during stoppage with little to no cash flow which is why we have escrow. The important component of that is that present value of cash > future value of cash and this repayment doesn’t come with interest so the players come out ahead in this.

Additionally, squeezing players by the owners rules? It’s a mutually agreed upon CBA. The key word is mutually meaning both parties agreed with no coercion.

An argument I haven’t seen you say but I’ll just squish it before it comes up is if those owners are losing money why have the business. It’s for growth of the game into new markets to increase future revenue and exposure to the game. It’s a main reason why there’s revenue sharing.


Here you resorted to an illogical argument saying I’m pro billionaire because your argument doesn’t hold up to logic. I’m pro abiding by contracts individuals sign.


Here you went for a personal attack because again illogical argument or you don’t understand main components of the CBA. Business are created for revenue and hobbies are for fun.

Juolevi has no value (coming from a Nucks fan)

Canucks would take this trade all day as Theodore and Hughes is a wash. Hughes has better upside and younger, Theodore is better all around. Adding Hague is a bit much from Vegas end

Still defending owners I see. Please continue.

This. Nailed it.

I'm all about that crappy Molson beer, and overpriced blueberries from Aquilini!

Got it, you can’t defend your position. Have a nice day playing victim.

No where did I play victim. You continue to shout “facts” while only providing opinions.

Also there’s nothing to defend. Players deserve to get paid. Period. End of story.

Facts
1. CBA is mutually agreed upon
2. Owners can’t coerce players to signing contracts
3. Roughly half the owners are in the black
4. Owners paid more during Covid which is why we have escrow

“Players deserve to get paid” are their contracts pro bono? Of course they deserve to get paid and they are no one has ever argued against this. You literally haven’t stated a single fact and can’t comprehend my facts which why you keep calling them opinions.

You’re also playing victim because you think all billionaires are evil or are their to support you like their your parents.

Escrow was around before covid. What does coercing players have to do with anything I’ve said? The salary cap gets voted on before each season by both owners and players so it can legitimately be any number if both parties agree.

You’re right I’m asking billionaires for their money. You’re so weird.

You’re here defending owners because I said players deserve to get paid and it’s actually smarter to pay RFAs for their current and future production than it is to pay UFAs for past production. And that owners squeeze RFAs because teams pay for past production of older players.

Did I ever say escrow was created because Covid? No, I said escrow was a result of paying players their full contract amount when the revenues didn’t justify that revenue split so they essentially were fronted that portion which was over a billion. The salary cap isn’t voted on annually, it’s literally a formula based on revenue since the entire business is splitting said revenue. The only time both of the parties vote on the salary cap is when a new CBA needs to be ratified.

You essentially asked the owners of the league to give up their portion of the revenue split because players need more money. I’ve already addressed that half of the owners are taking a loss so they’d take even a bigger one because your feelings are that these millionaire athletes deserve it. In a way you want them to subsidize your entertainment because it’s not coming from your wallet.

For the third or fourth time, I’m no defending owners nor do they need me too. I’m defending this notion that two parties mutually signed a contract and are held to those terms. Owners have leverage on some RFAs that aren’t arbitration or over sheet eligible but that is a small minority and for a short duration. Owners have very little leverage on albatross contracts for players not living up to them especially compared to other major sports.

I’ve never once said anything about UFA/RFA compensation here but I’d agree that GMs should offer contracts based on expected performance for the duration of the contract.

Read #4 from your list above.

Yes I said players should see more of the money the owners pocketed from SEA and VGK joining the league.

We know the salary cap is CBAd. That’s the only thing you continue to say. You fail to realize that the salary cap is agreed to on a year to year basis.

This whole conversation started because someone else doesn’t think RFAs deserved to be paid.

My fourth bullet, owners did pay more than the agreed upon split per the CBA. I’m not going to look it up but was 1.3-1.7B and basic economics we know PV > FV. That’s a fact, nothing to even debate there. The cap is also calculated based on a formula which I’ve already stated and the NHL has already published what thresholds need to be met to increase it.

VGK and Seattle owners bought equity into the league. The players have revenue split and no equity. It will be the equivalent if I worked for company X for an agreed upon salary + benefits if the company sells a division or the entire company to other company I wouldn’t be compensated for that as I have no equity. This isn’t the correct forum for this but this is capitalism and not socialism. Are you even sure they didn’t get a portion of this as revenue?

I think players should get fairy compensated based on comparable contracts and expected future performance. I don’t agree with the notion that RFA should just take whatever they’re offered but most RFAs are eligible for offersheets or arbitration which they should do if it makes sense. So I agree with you in this aspect but some of your sentences were either disingenuous or incorrect which is why I called them out and we’ve already gone over.

You’ve yet to provide any information as to why the players don’t deserve to get paid?

We’ve already gone over this. Players split revenue with the owners and don’t work “pro Bono”. They signed a CBA knowing the terms, pretty simple. I never once said players should work for free so not sure why you keep bringing this up in your defense. If anything I’ve lobbied for them to use the leverage they negotiated in the CBA. I think we’re just going to disagree because you keep putting words in my mouth, personal attacks, or believe players have equity.

Oh yes the CBA you continue to point to. I forgot.