View Single Post
12-13-2012, 01:50 PM
Mayor Bee
Mayor Bee's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,572
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Skraut View Post
Your Father In Law works in a business with competition, a business where the entire industry was losing money. Other companies were producing better cars more cheaply. Customers were not buying cars, or buying cars from other companies if they were.

That relates to hockey how? There is no WHA competing with the NHL providing better hockey entertainment for less money. The league is doing just fine, more than fine actually considering the revenues have tripped since the last lockout. Yes some teams still struggle, but rather than the owners of the wealthy franchises investing in the smaller market to continue to grow the sport as a whole, they demand that relief come from the players, because that will help line their pockets even more.
The NHL is in direct competition. The fact that they're not competing directly with hockey leagues doesn't mean there isn't competition against MLB, NFL, and NBA teams, college football or basketball, or NASCAR, or any of a thousand other ways to spend an evening out on the town.

Not every benefit has to help every player. But when you ask the players to give up so much, you should be willing to give something back. Not take something additional.
Shorter contract maxes equals less time to free agency, equals more bidding wars for more players. If the guys who had signed insanely long-term contracts had gone the shorter route and hit UFA status, the Parise and Suter deals would look like nothing by comparison. The fact that several premier players took "retirement deals" isn't the fault of the NHL.

I see your point. Since the last lockout, and the conditions that were in the most recent CBA, the league's income has increased from $1 billion to $3.2 billion. Clearly the league was doing something wrong. It's a good thing we're having this lockout to bring stability to that rapid growth.
Not the point at all.

Mayor Bee is offline