View Single Post
03-28-2005, 12:08 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
Unfortunately that was the fault of a few clubs that negotiated with the PA behind Bettman's back. That is why the proviso was in there this time that Betteman can override deals that don't have a major majority of the teams on board
Yep, when I read that a month or two ago it was really eye-opening. While I blame a few specific owners for some of these problems, blaming "the owners" for this is wrong. "The owners" aren't a collective like the players are. They aren't "all for one and one for all" whereas the players via the NHLPA are exactly that. The players practically give ORDERS to the top UFA's each year to max out their contracts even if it hurts their teams or the salary structure. The owners don't (and can't) do that because it would be collusion.

blind willie is complaining that the majority of owners can't trust a minority of owners to maintain a profitable cost structure. This is true. But that's not the end of the discussion. Since the majority can't FORCE the minority to spend reasonably, what exactly are they supposed to do? Continue to operate at huge losses or, at best, very small profit margins? Fold 23 teams? He's mad at the owners but I honestly don't see any system that can work other than one that is (or acts like) a cap. Well, other than an entire redistribution of income, which I personally think would be THE BEST solution. But the NHLPA hasn't proposed that and likely never will because it would be tantamount to a cap as well.

So, Mr. Cookie want the owners to negotiate some sort of system that benefits both sides, right? What kind of system do you think would do that?

(Of course, there is a false assumption in all this that the owners' proposal doesn't benefit the players, which it just benefits them less than the previous CBA which gave the players a COMPLETELY unfair 76% of revenues.)

jt is offline