View Single Post
Old
11-25-2004, 03:15 PM
  #26
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary69
I undestood that the situation talked about was that the players didn't sign the new imposed CBA (after impasse) and decided to strike instead. And then owners used replacement players and whoever NHLer decided to cross.

Now the owners are locking out their own replacement players?

And as for stopping certain games and TV broadcasts to proceed smoothly, this certainly can be done with the help of other labor unions, result being that in the future games fewer and fewer fans will bother even to try to get into games and TV stations would begin to lose their interest in replacement hockey.

And with all kinds of lawsuits flying around everywhere, it would surely seem to make more sense to most owners to get rid of their "no hard cap -no CBA" - stance, and find a compromise.
Yeah, I read that wrong. I was thinking about the players signing a new CBA and then striking, which has been mentioned many times in the past.

The current players that would be on strike at that point could try to form picket lines, but I fully believe more than half of the players would be playing in the NHL. The rest of the players I doubt will get much support from other unions. The people in these other unions are already not making money from NHL games. If replacement players are bought in next season, those people will be very happy for the income since they probably didn't have a lot of money saved like the hockey players.

And as I mentioned, the more they decrease attendance and revenues, the smaller the pie will be when they eventually come back to work.

djhn579 is offline