View Single Post
12-20-2012, 01:05 PM
Registered User
Dudicles's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 404
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
I think the biggest thing that frustrated me from the beginning is the fallacy that the players “lost” the last CBA. In fact, I think they “won”.

Remember, I did not really become a fan until about 2006-2007, so I didn’t experience the angst of the last lockout.

However, as far as I have educated myself on the issues, the business model that caused the 04-05 season to be lost was wholly unsustainable. A lot of teams would have been in serious financial trouble had that model continued to be how the NHL operated. The struggles of teams like Nashville would have been a pandemic throughout the league.

Considering that Nashville is NOT one of the teams listed that lost a crap-ton of money last season, and you can see how the new business model implemented in the expired CBA helped. It added more stability to the league, which in turn, solidified the number of available NHL jobs.

Out of the teams that lost a major amount of coin last season, there were mitigating reason why this happened to each of them.
- The Islanders operated at a massive loss because of their arena issues.
- Phoenix operated at a loss, because, well, it is Phoenix.
- Columbus also had major issues with their arena.
- Dallas lost money because of the ownership uncertainty and the product on the ice.
If you listen to Phil Esposito, Tampa actually broke even last season, even though they didn’t make the playoffs. Florida operated at a minor loss, actual loss figures were less than Leipold suffered with the Wild.

I would argue that the majority of these issues were not due to the CBA or the Cap, but rather due to years of mismanagement and/or a crappy product on the ice.

Meanwhile, the players saw their salaries bloom from an average of 1.1 million to 2.5 to 2.7 million depending on how you figure the math. Contracts in the NHL are guaranteed, so even if you were a failing and falling player like Wade Redden, you got paid.

All things considered, the process from the PA was flawed from the beginning, because Fehr constantly hammered home the fact that his constituency *lost* the last CBA. How different would early negotiations have happened, if the players actually understood that they *won*?

Pretty sure we would have opened on time…
The biggest problem is both sides are arguing about winning and losing and sticking it to the other side instead of simply getting a fair deal done that helps grow the game year after year (thus lining everyone's pockets).

Dudicles is offline   Reply With Quote