View Single Post
10-28-2012, 11:31 AM
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
haseoke39's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 11,041
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
The players are unionised. If you agree with the owners rationale, that is fine, but the presence of a union indicates that what is best for the owners is not anywhere close to the only thing that is in consideration here.
Of course. But what's "best" for the owners and what the owners can afford are two different things. What would be best for the owners would be the players play for free and the owners make pure profit. But what the league can afford refers to what's best for both parties. The owners simply aren't going to let the game be played until a deal is on the table that makes it worth their investment. That is good for all parties involved, because the league doesn't survive long-term without being a good investment. Players don't want contraction, either. And right now, the math isn't even close - owners are getting shafted. The NHL is a terrible, stupid place to put your money. If players think them taking a piece of the pie so big that the median owner loses money trying to keep their team afloat every year is good for anyone in the long term, they've got another thing coming.

And that's why owners are going to win this one. They just sent a letter saying "Dear players, it's not worth it for us to continue funding the league under anything close to the proposals you've put forward. We'd just as well just shut it down. Thank anyways, Owners." So this isn't about getting what's best for owners. It's about getting owners barely enough to make it worth their while to run the damn show.

haseoke39 is offline