View Single Post
09-19-2012, 11:51 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 884
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
It's absurd to think that any union is going to negotiate pay cuts for the people they represent when the industry those people are working for is increasing its revenues and profits each and every year. That the NHLPA is still not likely to win is almost beside the point. Taking that kind of a hit without any resistance just about makes it a fact that the union itself is of no use to those it represents--and the NHL and owners need the NHLPA--because without the NHLPA there is no bargaining agreement--no rules anymore on pay, free agency etc. etc. There would be no limits to what teams may or not pay and no protection for younger assets beyond the term they sign for. A player only bound to the team for the length of a contract he signs as a single individual. Without the NHLPA the wealthier owners would be eating the less wealthy owners. Crosby wouldn't be playing in ****ing Pittsburgh or Malkin.

So IMO--asking the NHLPA to knuckle under here and accept whatever it's offered is not going to benefit anyone--not the players, not the owners and not the fans. If the NHLPA rolls over here--why would you stay in it? If the players were to decertify their union there would be ****ing anarchy (not necessarily a bad thing IMO). Too bad for the owners that Allan Eagleson is no longer there to fix everything for them.
One reason that fans are a little more "anti player" than they were a few weeeks back is that the last couple of proposals seem to have come from the owners. Just because there is a "wide gap" is not a reason to not try. That may be perception more than reality, but the owners seem to be doing a little better on propoganda front.

Two points not often mentioned in all these discussions. One pro owner, and one pro player. Both are difficult to quantify but are very real in my opinion.

The "pie" being fought over. The league went back to old HRR canculation which is good. Every game that gets lost, that pie will theoretically shrink. So if the players are willing to sacrifice half a season to get 52% vs 49% blended over life of deal, that 52% of overall pie could be less than the 49% they could get today. i.e would you rather have 49% of $18B renevue over 5 years or 52% of $14B revenue over same period?
The biggest improvement to the game post lockout last time was rule changes / increased speed. I don't think the league has another level to push to drive revenues up if there is a prolonged work stoppage. The TV deal is brand new. what's going to happen to advertising dollars the last two years of the next CBA. The league has set a precedant for labor strife and lost games/revenue.

Point two that is rarely mentioned is owners increase in franchise value...This goes for football, baseball, etc...when revenues and salaries are increasing, franchise values will be increasing as well. Owning an NHL franchise is akin to owning a rental property. You will show a small loss, hope to break even in real dollars, and maybe gain a little enjoyment. The real financial payioff comes when you sell it for a profit.
I know there are some isolated teams where this is not the case, but I guarantee that if Columbus went to a few WCF, they too would see a huge increase in franchise value.

Cliffy1814 is offline