While I was with the hopeful masses this week thinking that a deal to end the lockout might get done after the owners tabled a 50/50 split, I can’t say that I am shocked now that the NHLPA-Owner negotiations have again reached a standstill.

It’s hard for me to decide which side I support; Rich athletes living a dream lifestyle that I would give anything for, or super-rich owners that want to be even wealthier by getting a higher share of Hockey Related Revenue based on the fact that other leagues have a 50-50 split. To me, one thing is clear; they are all still rich.

I think I am at the point that I just don’t care who gets what, but just that a deal gets done. I really don’t care if a guy making a minimum of 500+ K loses 12 percent of that, and I definitely don’t care if a billionaire gets several more million dollars from the deal. I find it absurd that anyone in the media or otherwise, would be supporting either side in this, but after listening and reading a lot of sports media, there is a certain divide on the issue.

James Cybulski from TSN radio loves hockey players so much (see: World Junior Championship 2007) that he goes on the radio every afternoon and smashes Gary Bettman with thinly veiled insults – none of which really make his argument any more valid – unless he’s trying to prove his undying love for hockey players. Only a brief moment on his show is worth listening to, and that’s when Bob McKenzie comes on to shed some real light on the situation, the only problem is that Bob comes sporadically between 5pm and 6pm with no pattern. But my opinion of Cybulski is an entirely different issue.

As much as you want to hate this guy, he’s not the problem.

The only thing I will say is that he is attacking Bettman, who might be the scapegoat on the league side (and a great one), but is not the villain. He’s representing the people he serves. The owners tell Bettman what to do at the negotiating table, and while he might offer insight or suggestions to them, he’s not making these offers alone.

Now this doesn’t mean I support the owners. I think it is ridiculous that teams would sign players to huge, long contracts in the past year fully knowing that the CBA was expiring and that they would be looking for a rollback under the next CBA. But that’s why they are successful businessmen. Craig Leipold, owner of the wild, will be laughing if there is a significant rollback after his two recent signings.

I also think it is ridiculous for owners to hide behind the guise that certain teams are losing money etc. and the rollback is necessary, since owners of these teams usually buy their team as a side project or hobby. You’d be hard pressed to find an NHL owner whose entire income comes from an NHL team.

Other media I have read; blogs, columns, articles, and comments sections come at the players a lot more critically.

Why should a guy making a minimum of $525,000 be complaining about a 12 per cent rollback? He’s still making more than $450,000 to play the game he loves. Not to mention enjoying the other perks that come with being a professional hockey player; paid travel and hotels, expensed team meals, summers off, a high per diem than most travelling employees, and state-of-the-art training facilities and medical staff – the list goes on, but the bottom line is that and average life in the NHL, or as any pro athlete, is pretty amazing compared to the average life of a fan.

Zack Parise and Ryan Suter after signing identical 100-million+ contracts in July.

People will refute this by saying “well NHL players retire early and then they don’t have that income in their 40s,” or “guys making the minimum are at risk of being placed in the minors or have a short career in the NHL.” But that’s their burden for choosing to pursue professional hockey and forgoing getting an education and finding a stable job. I don’t have any sympathy for a guy who makes, say 5 million gross dollars over his career in the NHL, and squanders it on a big house and lavish lifestyle when he knows full well that he might not be playing a 20 year career.

So I don’t really side with the players either. I agree with them on the level that they don’t want their signed contracts to be altered under the new CBA, but at the same time, people in the real-world have their salaries frozen or rolled-back all the time. Since the recession, we have seen layoffs, contract restructuring and hiring and salary freezes across the board – so why should they play by different rules?

You think the Ontario teacher that signed a contract 10 years ago expecting banked sick days, steady pay increases and unmatchable benefits is happy about current negotiations? Probably not, but he doesn’t make 500 K per year and can’t afford just to take a year off to negotiate a deal.

One thing that is clear is that NHL lockouts hurt the game in the US. While the NHL is growing nicely (hence the players wanting to keep the current revenue share), the fair-weather American fan will find something else to watch if there is no 2012-13 season, and may never come back.

We don’t have to worry about that in Canada, since people will watch again if the league takes 5 years off (myself included). But with lockouts happening every 5 or 6 years, people who are starting to enjoy hockey down south will find other sports to watch.

This ultimately results in less HRR, which hurts both the owners and the players. So in that sense, you’d think it would be in both of their best interests to find a solution to keep the game growing a steady pace.