Owner-Player meeting only, no Bettman or Fehr (UPD: 12/4 in NYC)
View Single Post
12-01-2012, 12:46 PM
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
Join Date: Mar 2011
Originally Posted by
I differ on a couple of things here.
1) HRR will take a hit, but this is a loss to both sides, some people really only focus on the players losing money. I read somewhere the leafs and Habs made almost $400M between them in the past 3 years (sure they're the 2 biggest but they're losing a boatload)
2) The pie being split again is a huge deal. A significant number of players will be a part of the next one too. Although the league argues the last CBA is over and you don't use it in negotiations. Next CBA they will try to cut from 50/50 (or whatever they agree to), if it were 60/40, it would be worked off that number. These percentages never really disappear for this reason, not that I believe it's worth losing a season for.
3) Decertification - do I think it will ever come to be? no. That being said, I think it helps the players more than the owners. They're used to paying medical/travel/hotels etc... so why would they stop if they want to be competitive? Just let your team fail? The issue is the owners are screwing the owners here. if i'm a mid range player 20g-30a-50pts and I want $X guaranteed with benefits, you think Vancouver, LA (b/c of their success), Philly, Pitts etc.. won't give me whatever I want? (Ask Minnesota) The small markets have to try to compete with the big markets. The big markets, I believe don't care about this CBA and want to play b/c they're making money regardless. Do the big markets want higher profits? Absolutely, but have no interest in protecting the small teams. They'll destroy them if they had the chance.
Suggestion to the players to protect another lockout, every contract should ask for signing bonuses to be handed out 1-2 months after the next CBA ends.
(1) Both sides lose, but players lose more because they make more. Period. When both sides are fighting over $5, and one side loses $1 by fighting and the other side loses $10 by fighting, the side that should cave is the side that will lose more than $5 by fighting.
(2) Not quite sure what you're trying to contradict here.
(3) You're right that players will have an upper hand in bidding wars when there's no union, but my point was that the league will basically have to contract if it's just Wild West rules on who gets paid what. It doesn't matter who that hurts more at that point - what matters is whether the union will be better off than if they just take the deal on the table now. I think a no CBA league will be a disaster for all parties involved at that point. Sports leagues work because they seldom resort to pure economic competition - they're a quasi-free market manipulated to the extent necessary to keep 30 competitive teams on board. Get rid of collective bargaining, and I think you see the gulf between that haves and the have-nots take control to the extent that a number of teams become unviable - first competitively, and then economically.
Last edited by haseoke39: 12-01-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by haseoke39