View Single Post
Old
09-16-2012, 01:08 PM
  #35
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by My Cat View Post
In 2004 they weren't coming off a prior lockout. More specifically, in 2004, the players weren't being asked yet again to bear the cost of the owners idiotically breaking their own supposedly "certain" system. There is almost no incentive for the players to grant similar concessions to the owners this time, because it's clear "lockout" has become synonymous with "mulligan" to the owners.
The owners aren't breaking the system, the record revenues in Toronto, Montreal and New York are. The cap median (and thus floor) are based off total revenues, and the mean revenue is skewed heavily upwards compared to the median by those three teams. The lower half of the league is still being forced to spend 60-70% of their revenues on player costs because of the cap, while Toronto spends maybe 30% of theirs, and the average player's salary has doubled.

And the incentive to roll back salary is that the geniuses will never make up the money they lose in a lockout. Ever. With an average NHL career of 4 years, that's a lower loss than most of them are going to take sticking it to the owners, and the longer the lockout goes, and the lower revenue goes when the NHL returns, the more that comes out of their salary through escrow when play resumes.

The only way a lockout occurs is if more teams find it financially advantageous to not play a season than to play a season. The fact that the last CBA had unintended/unforeseen consequences doesn't mean the players should get a "win" this time just because they "lost" last time, when the financials show the players did extremely well with their "loss".

Ducks DVM is online now   Reply With Quote