Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-04-2012, 10:34 PM
Join Date: Jun 2011
Originally Posted by
The NHLPA because they were willing to continue this season with the previous CBA, whereas the owners went to a lockout as their first resort instead of the last resort.
The owners intended to have a lockout from the beginning, because it's the single most powerful negotiating weapon they have to ultimately get what they want. Turn off the NHL tap and the players' salaries stop; turn it off long enough and the players will cave. This lockout isn't the result of unresolved negotiating terms, it IS the negotiation term. This is their leverage and it's exactly what the owners wanted. This is big-ass muscle flexing by 30 men who are showing 700 younger men who's running the show.
It's the same leverage they have with the fans, who will not only come back, but pay more for the privilege.
So yeah, that puts me on the side of the NHLPA. But don't misunderstand -- I don't dislike the owners for using a good business model. It's smart and it's how things work. And let's be honest, the players are still millionaires and we fans volunteer to buy ridiculously-overpriced tickets. There are no real victims here. I just hope the players get what's fair.
Last edited by Lshap: 10-04-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Lshap