View Single Post
11-26-2004, 06:56 AM
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
If a season is lost and the risks of losing another one seem high a year from now and the two sides negotiation stances are the same as they are now, certainly quite a few owners might do some re-calculating how long it takes to recover the money in a capped system as compared to some sort of compromise. Especially as the date for the start and duration of that capped-system league would still be unknown.
Bettman only needs the support of 8 owners to continue with whatever tactics he chooses.

Of course there is pressure for players as well, but it isn't about recovering the lost money, because a vast majority of them could easily figure out that during the remainder of their career they're never gonna get the money back they've lost/will lose during this lockout.
The pressure is far greater on the players. That is exactly why the "starve them out and bring them to their knees" stategy will work. When the vast majority of players in the NHLPA, who are NOT set for life, realize that they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg over the principle of "no cap" of any kind, they'll either get Goodenow to change his stance or remove him from office. If you think they are going to be happy finding other jobs that pay "more than minimum wage" when they could be set for life just by giving in to a concept that has helped make NFLPA and NBAPA members wealthy, then you are kidding yourself.

The NHL infrastructure won't go anywhere if they have to sit out two years. They'll still have the buildings. They'll still own the brand name. Sure they'll lose advertising, TV and gate revenue over the short term, but the loss of revenue will be reflected in reduced player costs. That's the ulimate beauty of their strategy. The more the players shrink the revenue pool by refusing to accept reality that cost certainty is coming, the less they'll have to pay them when they come back.

SENSible1* is offline