View Single Post
09-13-2012, 12:50 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 508
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
While I'm more of a "they both need to make comprimises pool" I will tell you why you could take those points and still be on the owners side:

Actually I'll just summarize cos it will take a lot to explain it all. If you go to there have been many good articles that have shown that:
The losing $$ owners have been exponentially increasing in losing money
The owners who spend more do consist of a larger percentage of the teams who go into the playoffs
The UFA system is controlled by supply and demand and other qualities of free markets; ie: it isn't an option for them to not attempt to make the contract decisions they make.

Also with the hardcap for lockout: it was to show how they wouldn't play with the old cba which was what Fehr wanted/asked for. Most speculate because Fehr wanted a late strike to shift the power to the players.
Which still comes to my point about "it's a business"

The NHL went to the NHLPA and said "Hey we need a cap and a salary rollback then we will be all fine." except they werent. exponential losses etc. Now the NHL comes back with an idnticle offer demanding basically the same things they already got in the last stoppagew but slightly tweeked, this time for sure it'll work they say....

The business model is flawed. Why do something again tthat didn't work the first time?

The NHL teams that lose money are in the wrong markets, or have bad leases, or just plain are fibbing about thier numbers(most likely) either you can afford a team and make it pay(TNSE!!!) or you can't. So if the league is a business like tthe owners say, put the teams where they are successful and let the losers fail, or do what the NHLPA has said needs to be done, and fix the revenue share. If the league wants to go after the fantasy of a huge American TV contract like the NFL gets then the league money makers need to pony up some more dough to ensure the survival of marginal teams until they get the contract. If you are business owner you put a franchise in a location where it will make money, if your trying to grow into a nontraditional market you need to support that store financialy until it becomes profitable. that's not so hard to figure out.

Also I keep hearing about how the owners have all the power here? Really? The KHL owners are salavating at the thought of the NHL lockout lasting a season or more so guys like Sid the Kid and Ovie, and Stamkos will be out looking for jobs.

People like me won't walk away from hockey, but the almighty "new and casual fans": the NHL covets in the USA might never turn on the game again if there is a reign of never ending labour strife in the league.

Free market for players is wholly controlled by the owners. always has been always will be. For the owners to go out and demand a rollback on contracts already horrible. The players are willing to slow future salary growth but they see no reason, and I agree with them, why they should rollback salaries again.

Skidooboy is offline