wow, whats he want?

I think he is sooner or later going to be exposed as an agent of NASCAR, out to destroy all other professional sports from the inside.<p>I am still thinking Winnipeg 2007 for the AVCO Cup is almost a sure bet.

What's that quote from the Vietnam era that comes to mind when thinking of Bettman's negotiating style? Oh yeah, "We had to destroy the village, to save it".

I think some of the villages are called Nashville, Columbus and Atlanta.

I predict the players will take the 42.5 mil salary cap by tmw morning before 11. Bold prediction I know, but I think most of the younger players want to get back playing.

Players counter at 49 million at 10 pm EST.

So the season is cancelled. What a suprise - for Bob Goodenow and company. While the focus can be placed on Bettman and his irritating negogiating style, at least he and the NHL were not blowing smoke about their walk away point. The acceptance of the cap can only be seen as final admission by the NHLPA that the NHL revenue figures were right, but the players it seems were unwilling to secure the future health of a business in which they as partners would receive only 50% of the revenues.

I think it is pretty clear that the revenue figures were right but the revenue sources in that analysis were not fully included. I still stick to the idea that this is really a dispute between the big teams and the small teams.

Columbus is actually an incredibly solid hockey town. They have a decent young team, a low payroll, a good GM, a good arena, a good owner and they're the only pro team of any sort in the city. Columbus will be fine. So will Atlanta. Carolina and Florida are more likely to be in trouble, and perhaps Nashville.

The players never really disputed the figures, it was the sources, like Alan said. When one person or coproration owns the team, the arena and, let's say, the cable company the games are broadcast on, how do you report the revenue? Is it just what the team makes through ticket and merchandise sales or do you include concessions and the cable revenue that wouldn't be possible without the team? That's the dispute. The more well run a team is the more financial spinoffs there and the easier it is to hide revenue.

I thought the NHL had proposed a definition of "all hockey revenues" to protect the NHLPA, with independent auditors and binding arbitration to settle revenues in dispute? I also thought that the Forbes article on NHL Revenues, that was praised by the NHLPA, still concluded that the players were receiving about 65% of "total hockey revenues"? I could be wrong.

But the definition of "hockey revenue" may excluse concessions, brand, parking, and any number of other items of income.