I am more than amused by the owners' bleatings that they need a salary cap to keep their businesses afloat.

Don't want to pay millions of dollars for players who aren't worth it? Try this: don't pay it. It really IS that simple.

The owners - and what a rogues gallery of carpetbagging, rapacious, bottom-feeding, tax-dodging, government-scrounging, as-yet-unindicted-but-give-it-a-year-or-so scumbags they have been over the years - whine that not paying ridiculous salaries to athletes will make them less competitive. As if their main concern has ever been pleasing the fans, and as if "pleasing the fans" were the key to financial success..

The Toronto Make Believes have been perpetual losers for close to forty years, and still never play to an unsold seat. The Philadephia Flyers routinely pack 17,666 into their arena - and haven't won diddly since back in the days when I had hair.

If someone can explain to me why the owners need the players' permission to say "No, I won't pay an aging third-line forward $2.4 million dollars for his 11 goals a year", I will be eternally grateful.

How about the fans saying I won't pay 2.4 billion as all the teams and players are talking about is reallocation of money paaid by the fans directly or indirectly. I say we boycott them all and starve them into giving up quality for the cash we pay.

Wouldn't it be fun if the CBC opted to cover the CHL instead and fans ended up prefering it to NHL coverage?

IN MEMORIAM

Goose,Golden: Died tragically in New York, after a lengthy illness, brought on by stress as a result of its long-standing neglect by the two stewards and benefactors charged with its well-being. RIP.

What is an owner to do when a major market team ups the ante on all quality players? Continue to ice a losing team, or go head to head witht the big boys? The players are using the rich teams against the poor like a spoiled kid playing one divorced parent against the other. The owners are investing their money, they have the right to expect a profit. Otherwise, teams will fall like the Nordiques, unless they can convince the Canadian taxpayer to support the critical part of Canadian culture...Hockey. Bull. 75 out of every 100 dollars in revenue is turned right over to employee payrolls.
Fans can voice their opinion with their wallet...if they think it is worth it, fine. But, I think the time for the real fan being able to afford the ticket prices are long gone. So, while some will whine about no hockey, most will mutter...``Looks good on `ya!``

All the Canadian teams will survive to 2006 when the NHA will start.

"What is an owner to do when a major market team ups the ante on all quality players? Continue to ice a losing team, or go head to head with the big boys?"

That's the owners' big argument, of course - but it presupposes that major market teams purchasing what they believe are "quality players" will be more successful on the ice than smaller teams who spend their money more carefully. History begs to differ.

We know this. We see it in the ongoing woes of the New York Rangers, the New York Islanders, the Toronto Maple Leafs (why isn't it "Leaves"?), the Philadephia Phlyers, and on and on and on.

Say it with me, kids: "Spending huge dollars on free agents is not a guarantee of success." Oh, I know the owners look on that as some sort of blasphemy. This faithless cabal of kabillionaires cannot fathom a world in which their dollars can't purchase what they want. But it's demonstrably, undeniably, irrefutably true.

Last year's Stanley Cup finalists were Tampa Bay and Calgary. I defy you to find either team in the top ten of the league in payroll. And while the Calgary Flames may have ridden a hot goaltender to a surprise playoff run - and so be considered by some to be a "fluke" - the Tampa Bay Lightning were anything but. They were a team built from the ground up, not purchased piece by piece on the free agent market.

I get tired of the argument that "players shouldn't make so much money". Nobody ever whines when Paul McCartney sells out their local stadium at $80 per ticket or Tom Cruise gets $24 million to star in Mission Unwatchable 3. We live in a society that can't make the mental leap between tickets at the Cineplex going to $10 and Jim Carrey making $40 million for Dumb and Dumber 3.

And while Tom Cruise and Jim Carrey are safely in their trailers while a stunt man handles any job likely to result in something more serious than a paper cut, Brad Richards is throwing himself into goalmouth scrambles with whirling sticks and slashing blades and the knowledge that a wrong turn or unexpected hit could tear his joints apart and end his career on the spot.

(I know why guys make the argument that players are overpaid, of course. It's sheer frigging jealousy. We know we can't look like Tom Cruise or make people laugh like Jim Carrey (well, OK, bad example, but still ...) but we secretly, deep down, think that if we'd just spent a little more time at the rink, or if our dads had flooded the back yard, or if the skates didn't pinch our feet when we were seven, or if if if ... then it might be us skating around holding the Cup over our heads.)

The players have suggested a scheme tying salaries to profits. If things are so bad, they say, open up the books, we'll work with you. The owners cough and stammer and say "Yeah, well, things are bad, you're just gonna have to trust us on that". As if they have a long history of trustworthiness.

The owners want salaries capped, but not profits, of course, because " ...after all, this is free enterprise. So, we'll cap every salary but our own."

The owners do not need the players' co-operation to cap salaries. They can do that on their own, by the simple expedient of DECIDING NOT TO PAY OUTRAGEOUS SALARIES.

They do it all the time in other aspects of their operations. Can you imagine an owner's response if box office workers demanded a raise to triple their salaries? How long between that request and an appearance by stadium security, a box from the shipping department to hold their personal belongings, and an escort to the door?

Will exercising a modest amount of restraint mean a team will never win the Stanley Cup? No. Demonstrably, irrefutably, undeniably, it will NOT. Will it cost them fans? No. Demonstrably, irrefutably, undeniably, it will NOT.

I am simply amazed by how the owners have been able to garner sympathy for the argument that "Players are bad because they take the money we throw at them."

Yo, dude. Stop throwing it. Problem solved.

Isn't it that the owners need to be protected from themselves, or more to the point, from the one or two nut-bars who will pay anything for a "winner"?

(BTW, with a baseball comparison, who doesn't think the Expos are now just a laughing stock, "development" team? - isn't that the future of all but a handful of teams in the NHL?)

Precisely my point - the owners are sacrificing the good of the sport by claiming that they need the players to act against their own best interests in order to protect the owners from their own idiocy. In what plaid-coloured-sky world does this make them sympathetic figures in this mess?

As for the Expos, they have become a joke - notably, under the management of their own league. But it wasn't so long ago that they were competitive (under Philipe Alou), despite having a payroll that was a fraction of every other team's.

If grotesque overspending guaranteed success, the Yankees would win easily every year. That they do not is a) evidence that this is, indeed, a just Universe; and 2) the only faint glimmer of hope that hapless Bosox fans can cling to ...

While spending is no guarantee of winning, the faith teams have in their scouts give them the best possible judgements, (certainly better then mine would, `cause I never thought Lori Kane would play LPGA golf when she was 3rd best Junior girl at Belvedere.) The yankees have done pretty well in the sportsworld where there are no certainities. Not that I like that.

As far as jealousy, I do not want to look like Tom, or live anybody elses life, `cause I have learned that their lives are no better then yours or mine. Being divorced from Nicole is no different then divorced from anybody else. Maybe it is resentment of the owners, who through the investment of their money, we have pro sports.And, deserve to get a ROI.

Why is it a 10 goal scoring bum gets 2 mil. and if he scores 25 next year, asks for renegotiation? And has the gaul to say he is worth it!

Salary Caps work. And, with so much of the sports revenue dependent on a limited American market, needs one, especially if we want Canadian cities represented. Be prepared for a long lock-out, with 18 teams left, fewer bums and enforcers and fewer fans. But, a stronger league with a future.

Would a group of owners getting together and deciding to not offer high salaries not be considered collusion, and against the law? Lawyers?

And whose best interest will it serve when there is no game left, because nobody can afford multi-million salaries for hockey journeymen?

The players could afford their own league now. Mario is the precedent the players never wanted. They can hire managers, buy shares in and get non-voting shares out after. Change the entire system and lose the owners. <p>In the UK, the greatest innovation arising after the failure of greedy owners over the last ten years is the rise of fan trusts which gather money to buy out the team. I own a share of the team in my Dad's town and in ten years the trust will likely own the majority of the shares. Again, the fan shareholders will be more prudent and careful as they think of the long term as opposed to the <strike>merger and acquisition based captialist pig dogs</strike> business classes.

But, that is not the American way...!

... so it would be perfect for a league where a disproportionate number of franchises are in Canada.

We'll know, by the way, when nobody can afford multi-million dollar salaries for journeymen. The owners will stop dishing out those contracts. When that happens, and only then, should we listen to them bleating about their business woes.

Friday night - CTV Sportsnet just gave Swiss Elite League highlights. Davos! Davos!

Later: Swiss 'scores', I should say (I didn't see any video).

I saw the highlights ... Thornton was player of the game and the other guy (Reid?) scored. Ugliest uniforms EVER, and I include some pretty hideous soccer jerseys and the puppy-puke-yellow Team Canada first game jerseys in that assessment ... more advertising than a frigging race car.

If more NHLers go over to Sweden, TSN might be smart to go over and telecast some Elite games during the drought. The danger, of course, is that hockey sans goons might become addictive.

CanadaEast released results of their poll.39.8 % blame the players, 10.7 % blame the owners, 47.3% blame both. The players are well behind the owners in the war for public opinion. Yes. Of course! Certainly I am pleased the vast majority agree with me.

The wealth and popularity of overpaid athletes, pop-tarts with no taste and actors who lecture on national budgets, is at the whim of the bored, uninspired and inept. By the numbers, even they are getting fed up with the antics of rich, criminal athletes, shallow thinkers who are only good at pretending to be someone else or ``comics`` farting in public to get a laugh.

I would like to draw an analogy…it is a shame that the most influential advisor of the court has become the King`s fool-jester. Pardon me while I retire to enjoy watching some over-paid, over-popular American golfers get whupped by the underdog guys from over-there…again!

I trust you volunteer you are planning a pay-back to your boss, too, Wayne. The owners are the least necessary part of any sports enterprise. Other forms of entertainment have ditched them in favour of the organizing manager on the payroll. This does not mean the prima donnas are not just that but market conditions are soon going to see the end of the team owner as the dinosaur as soon as players see that their abilities do not need to be hired but free lanced.

If that happens, watch salaries drop. Owner-players would quickly realize that they were not worth the money they were paying themselves, and quickly cut their own salaries. I am my own boss, and know the value of my employee...me! And pay myself, accordingly.

Given that the owners want 50% of gross to salaries to the players but are able to maintain 75%, I am sure the players would be happy with that prospect of "cuts" in exchange for their fair share of equity. Keeping in mind all the revenue streams the owners keep out of the equation, it is a great opportunity to suffer.

The point is, they cannot, or most understandably - will not - maintain the 75%. And 50 is still a high number for any business, regardless of cupie doll and concession sales.

And what about the players keeping the revenue out of the stream that they collect from 6 year-olds for autographs? And lets not forget all those sponsorship endorsements from beer companies and Viagra sales. And free pizza and egg rolls from local restaurants, free golf games, on and on........

In then end the value is on the ice. The owners of sports team, especially in the NHL have a legacy and a habit of treating the players like coal deposits and now face a diversification of entertainment that endangers their "investment". The NHL has attracted millionaire owners rather than billionaires. Teams are toys not business as the (hopefully) 14 teams to go under will find out. Sure there will be 120 fewer grinders making 1.3 million but that is great. Between the owners and the extra players the game has gone to hell. With a little determination from the majority of players, that may come to an end come February 2006 when the strike ends. Bettman said: "In the absence of such a system, there is no future for our game." I take him at his word. Time to end his game.

The fact that a majority of hockey fans think the players are to blame for all this neither surprises me nor makes me reconsider my position. This, you will remember, is the same majority who think Don Cherry is worth listening to ...

I simply do not believe the owners on any issue. Their history of outright lies and deception is very well documented and their reluctance to let anyone have a peek at the books fairly screams "We're full of shit, but you can't prove it, so hahahahahaha!"

I envy people who are willing and able to suspend disbelief and take the owners' part in this fray. It must be a lovely world for them.

What are the players asking for? Just this: let us negotiate - in good faith - whatever contract we are able to negotiate with whoever will pay us.

They don't hold a gun to anyone's head. If they find a willing team ready to pay their price, all they ask is to be able to sign a frigging contract with that team.

In a free market society, the value of a service is determined by what the market will bear. If there was nobody willing to pay a journeyman 2.5 million dollars to pot his 14 goals a year, he would not be worth 2.5 million. If there is, he is - simple as that.

The value of a journeyman forward's contributions to society relative to a neurosurgeon or a poet or a carpenter or a home-maker is absolutely, categorically irrelevant to this argument. Falling back on that old cliche is tiresome and time-wasting.

Do we live in a free market society or do we not? The owners - willing as they certainly would be to snatch up every penny of profit in this equation - would have to argue "Yes, it's a free market society."

Well, then, Sparky ... let the free market rule, and stop whining to US when your idiot partners overspend.

The comments about Don Cherry, and linking him to this discussion is equally tiresome time-wasting, irrelevent, and insulting to fans of the game, regardless of their thoughts on Don.

Our free market society is not dependent on the direction of the conflict resolution no more then it is on the approach to delivery of medical services, electricty, water or other controlled commodities.

Bottom line, a salary cap works in the most free market society on earth, which happens to be where most of professional hockey is played. To save the game from a greedy union, we need the same approach as Regan in the '80's with the Air Traffic controllers.

Yes, that worked out so well. Count the losses.

We agree on one thing - mentioning (or even thinking about) Don Cherry is tiresome and time-wasting. I invoked his loathesome name simply to counter the implication that since a healthy percentage of fans who were polled blamed the players for all this, somehow that should carry some weight. I have no regard whatsoever for what the majority of fans think.

I also wonder about the whole "greedy union" thing. I don't see the union being greedy here. Individual players are certainly looking after their own interests - as one might expect ... and depending on whether you consider an individual's demands to be reasonable, you can label him greedy or not.

The union seems to be simply standing for what I see to be a fairly civilized principle - that a player ought to be paid his fair market value. And my feelings about what that player's value is, or yours, or Joe Phan's, are irrelevant, because by definition market value is determined by the buyer - in this case, the owners.

As you say, you are your own boss and know the value of your employee, and pay yourself what you believe you are worth - as you would any employee. We can assume the owners - who are, after all, very wealthy and therefore presumably have measurable IQs - are able to determine the value of their employees. Why should the players agree to a rule that effectively stops their employers from paying them what they are worth?

That having been said - and, I guess, re-said - I'm sensing a shift in the tone of the conversation and I'll shut up now.

Like the rest of us, professional hockey players should be required to make money the "old fashioned way - earn it". Now, I'll shut up too. And, we will both have to wait a`long time to see who wins...although everybody will lose.

We will all win if the lockout culls the weak. As long as we are looking for raw capitalist imagery, lets get right to survival of the fittest.