Thread: News Article: AEG, including Kings. for sale
View Single Post
Old
09-19-2012, 12:17 PM
  #41
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingsation8 View Post
I remember a little while back, someone made a claim that the seasons could have started even if a CBA was not in place. Does anyone know what is holding this idea back?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
Greed and Gary Bettman is what is holding that idea back. They'd rather give up building momentum off a $3.3B industry in order to gain a lump sum of cash back by taking a share of the players' salaries back, whether it be by escrow or rollbacks.

Not sure if this belongs in a thread discussing a change in Kings' ownership though. And a possible name has emerged.

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...0,749032.story

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sports...r&dlvrit=53285
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
I beg to differ Ziggy.

The last time the league allowed a season to start without a CBA in place was 1991-1992, when both sides agreed to play under the terms of the expired CBA which had expired prior to the start of the season.

The players, led by Bob Goodenow for the first time after taking over from Alan Eagleson just a year earlier, elected to wait until April 1st, 1992, or about 10 days before the start of the playoffs, and then they went on strike.

As a result, the players effectively held the playoffs hostage and were able to gain a lot of power over the owners a result. After striking for 10 days, the players ended up getting a lot of their demands met.

Since then, the NHL has had a CBA expire without an extension three times, once in 1994, once in 2004, and again this month. Each time the owners have refused to start a season without a new CBA in place, and for good reason. After what the players did the last time around, it'd be foolish to start a new season without a CBA in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_NHL_strike

Ironically, the 1992 strike helped lead to Bettman's hiring. Then NHL President JohnZeigler was fired by the owners after the strike, and was replaced by Gil Stein for just one year. Stein's biggest accomplishments in his one year legacy was the implimentation of paid suspensions (where a player would get suspended but still get paid. Doug Gilmour's arm-breaking slash on Tomas Sandstrom was the most well-known of these) and getting himself inducted into the HHOF. I believe that his induction into the Hall has since been overturned, but I'm not 100% sure on that. After a year of Stein's ineptitude, the NHL brought in Bettman.

As for the AEG sale, I find it funny that some are calling AEG down or saying this is a 'dick' move. I want AEG to stay as owners as well, they are fairly hands off as far as owners go and let DL spend to the cap ceiling, so we have a chance to ice a competitor annually, not to mention they showed a lot more patience than most owners in allowing the team to do a proper rebuild, even if it mention a six year stretch with no playoff hockey. This is however their team to do with as they wish and they have zero obligation to hold onto the team if they don't feel the need to. They have other goals right now to pursue and they wish to do so, that's their choice. It is not a 'dick' move, it is their absolute right, just like it's our right to sell anything we own.
To add to this. Totally forgot about the players doing this in 92. Fehr used this tactic in 1994 in the MLB strike too costing the league the entire playoffs. After having seen it twice in two different sports its actually a smart move by the owners.

kingpest19 is offline   Reply With Quote