Any deal potentially a bad deal? (Please tell me im wrong)
View Single Post
12-23-2012, 01:20 PM
Veni Vidi Toga
Join Date: Jul 2003
Originally Posted by
The main idea I'm looking to have a discussion about is more that the league will continue to struggle with instability because of the nature of the markets, rather than another lockout specifically
Is there any deal that the league is reasonably likely to get that would prevent them from locking the players out again next time, because after all, the nfl gets to skim a couple billion of the top before revenue sharing with the players. How can the NHL owners possibly forgo that opportunity? But that's the next lockout propaganda, no one is really rallying around that terrible injustice to nhl owners in these, what shall we call them, talks?
But due to the nature of the markets? I guess we are acknowledging that the NHL is in markets that dont have the revenue parity, or revenue sharing responsibilities met, in order to reasonably compete as one of 30 equal spending teams. And also operates with 2 currencies that can fluctuate wildly.
Last time the cap and lower player salaries were said to be needed to save the small Canadian markets and keep all 30 teams in their current locations, and everyone, including Bettmans own statements, at the time confirmed success, finally, in that regard. Everything seemed to be humming along famously, most figuring from Bettmans words that cba talks would be a breeze, until last year when Bettman declared radical changes were required once again.
Now the very nature of that last deal, linkage and a floor, once seen as the saviour of the NHL forever more, is now seen as the very cause of the problems requiring new solutions. Although no changes are proposed there, and no one wants to talk about the past cba deals.
Perhaps its because so many are intent on forgetting the past, that that was then and this is now, what can possibly be gained by learning from past mistakes, that the exact same solution that failed last time is being re-proposed. What is the likelihood that this time it works, is that the question?
The league as a whole isnt in dire straits, as a whole it is profitable. There are some teams, for various reasons, that cant keep up. And the players have acknowledged that. Are there likely still going to be teams in that position at then end of any next cba should one be negotiated? It would seem inevitable to me.
So once again we will have forced 30 equal spending teams from 30 wildly divergent revenue generating capacities, and then will be complaining they cant all keep up and the only solution is that the players need to take less again. Maybe we should focus on creating 30 equally profitable teams instead. And give teams that cant spend equally other advantages like more draft picks or other such competitive equalization structures. It seems to me to be a lack of imagination that thinks the only way to be fair is to spend the same. We keep trying it. It will keep not working without lockouts imo.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by thinkwild