My stance has always been: Fehr and Bettman, though acting like children, are educated, rational-thinking people. The gap is way too small and there is way too much to lose in cancelling the season.
Mine too.
You're seeing the final acts of a scripted dance play out right now. Im still 99% sure that these 2 guys wont let relatively minor details like contract term lengths cancel an entire season. They know that letting such trivial things cancel another NHL season would be an absolute deathblow to league revenues -- and in turn everything else they've been arguing over.
I feel sorry for the folks who have lived and died with every page turn of this script.
First off I just want to say 50/50 split is fair, the players were at that point a long time before the owners put it forward masked in a whole lot of other BS.
As for the bold, that's not what I was arguing for. They don't need to be set for life, but I don't like it when people pretend these guys have regular career paths. The regular guy works for 40ish years while expecting to make a fairly regular to increasing wage throughout that time. Of course that varies from occupation to occupation, but that's generally the normal worker's expectation. So you expect to make about 2.5% of your lifetime earnings a year (roughly). The pro-athlete is very different. Many of these guys will make a significantly higher % during their playing years than they will afterwards. They need to make their money while they're viable. An injury can cut a guy down at any time. They know that. An injury can hinder their future earnings inside and outside the sport. That's part of the game. That's why you need to make all the money you can while you can. It's true most of the guys don't face that terrible injury, but they're all aware that the chance is out there. You should always plan financially for the worst. That's what they try to do. And I can't blame them for that.
The idea that the pro sports biz is just going to intentionally make less money to be nice to the fans isn't about to happen. So either the money will be divided between the players and owners. I'd rather it go to the guys who are 1) less wealthy and 2) actually give me what I'm watching.
This part is less important but I think it should be noted based on some of the comments here, being an owner for the most part is easy. Most of these guys are filthy rich from other businesses and they hire people to run the day to day hockey and business operations. So this idea that they're providing such a service to us by owning the team is bs. The players are risking a lot more by trying to be pro athletes.
If the owners never bought Franchises which gave the players a place to play, marketed the business, and took the financial risk who would? ? The gov't?
The players aren't really employees. They are partners in the sense that they will receive 50% of the revenues. As the revenues rise who benefits. Both equally. The players truly benefit directly from revenue growth. While the CBA is in effect the players receive their share whether the league is profitable or not.
THe owners pay all the expenses from their share. According to Forbes the net was around 200 million + for the owners in 2011-12 out of their 1.4 billion dollar share?
The league would be better served long-term if the season was canceled at this point. The only way they play this season is if the owners and players agree to a patch work CBA. And for what? A short season that really only sweeps the issues under the table?
The league would be better served long-term if the season was canceled at this point. The only way they play this season is if the owners and players agree to a patch work CBA. And for what? A short season that really only sweeps the issues under the table?
Yea, but if that occurs, who knows when they'll ever try to negotiate again.
Remember about a year ago when both Bettman and Fehr expressed interest in negotiating the next CBA while the final season of the last one played out?
Unfortunately, reality sunk in - and the disgusting battle for power and leverage was placed above the game and it's fans -- as is usually the case.
Yea, but if that occurs, who knows when they'll ever try to negotiate again.
Remember about a year ago when both Bettman and Fehr expressed interest in negotiating the next CBA while the final season of the last one played out?
Unfortunately, reality sunk in - and the disgusting battle for power and leverage was placed above the game and it's fans -- as is usually the case.
What is negotiating achieving at this point? Why argue over getting a bigger piece of a pie that is getting smaller by the day? Cancel a season and leadership on both sides can't hide anymore. Let the corporate money (Comcast) get involved. At this point, nothing lasting or truly effecting will be agreed upon. Who needs another bandaid when 3,4,5 years from now, everything is back to square one.
Neither side should get the chance to claim victory or come off as looking. Both sides deserve nothing more than abject failure.
What is negotiating achieving at this point? Why argue over getting a bigger piece of a pie that is getting smaller by the day? Cancel a season and leadership on both sides can't hide anymore. Let the corporate money (Comcast) get involved. At this point, nothing lasting or truly effecting will be agreed upon. Who needs another bandaid when 3,4,5 years from now, everything is back to square one.
Neither side should get the chance to claim victory or come off as looking. Both sides deserve nothing more than abject failure.
I certainly see your point, but Im not quite as pessimistic. I still think there will be a season. But to your point, I think we'll be right back here in 5-8 years in another lockout, watching the 2 sides argue about the same thing. The structural failures of the game are too deep, and thats not going to change with Bettman and/or Fehr gone.
What is negotiating achieving at this point? Why argue over getting a bigger piece of a pie that is getting smaller by the day? Cancel a season and leadership on both sides can't hide anymore. Let the corporate money (Comcast) get involved. At this point, nothing lasting or truly effecting will be agreed upon. Who needs another bandaid when 3,4,5 years from now, everything is back to square one.
Neither side should get the chance to claim victory or come off as looking. Both sides deserve nothing more than abject failure.
I certainly see your point, but Im not quite as pessimistic. I still think there will be a season. But to your point, I think we'll be right back here in 5-8 years in another lockout, watching the 2 sides argue about the same thing. The structural failures of the game are too deep, and thats not going to change with Bettman and/or Fehr gone.
There can be a season as late as March if they want. I'm thinking bigger picture and am willing to sacrifice this season in favor of a better future.
What is negotiating achieving at this point? Why argue over getting a bigger piece of a pie that is getting smaller by the day? Cancel a season and leadership on both sides can't hide anymore. Let the corporate money (Comcast) get involved. At this point, nothing lasting or truly effecting will be agreed upon. Who needs another bandaid when 3,4,5 years from now, everything is back to square one.
Neither side should get the chance to claim victory or come off as looking. Both sides deserve nothing more than abject failure.
We lost a season last time, and for what? All of the same problems exist 7 years later. What makes you believe that losing another season would benefit the NHL in any way?
There can be a season as late as March if they want. I'm thinking bigger picture and am willing to sacrifice this season in favor of a better future.
I bet you were saying the same thing in early 2005
To solve the real deep-seeded issues of the league, you're going to have to get leadership in here thats willing to have a serious discussion about relocating some teams and contracting a couple of others.
More importantly, we need leadership who recognizes that professional hockey is, and always will be a niche sport - firmly entrenched at #4 in the public's eyes. No more pie in the sky garbage aimed at massively expanding the fanbase. Take care of the fans you already have, because they are the most loyal in sports.
We lost a season last time, and for what? All of the same problems exist 7 years later. What makes you believe that losing another season would benefit the NHL in any way?
Because losing two seasons puts the NHL in a league of it's own (pun not intended). Losing two seasons in a decade is a shocking happenstance. At the very least, it puts the fire to the feet of leadership on both sides.
It does. Losing two seasons puts this league in uncharted waters — in terms of lost fans, lost revenue, lost sponsors. We've seen other leagues go through work stoppages. We have never seen a league lose two seasons in a decade.
It does. Losing two seasons puts this league in uncharted waters — in terms of lost fans, lost revenue, lost sponsors. We've seen other leagues go through work stoppages. We have never seen a league lose two seasons in a decade.
So you would consider the above to be benefits to the league?
So you would consider the above to be benefits to the league?
I dont think the NHL being torn down to its foundation is the worst thing at this point.
At the very least it would make everyone involved re-assess how they do business. Besides the Winter Classic, there hasnt been an innovative idea to come out of the league in a long, long time.
Nevermind planning for long-term success. These are guys that sit and wait for the CBA to expire so they can mindlessly argue about it again.
The question was: What makes you believe that losing another season would benefit the NHL in any way?
I'm wondering how lost fans, lost revenue, lost sponsors would benefit the NHL.
In the short term it won't. Long term it might.
A patch work CBA to save a 40 games season just keeps the vicious cycle going.
Both sides need to see what not playing will really do to them. It makes it even worse that they will lose two seasons in a decade.
They were amazingly lucky last time. They were lucky that fans came back. They were lucky that they had Crosby entering the the league. They were lucky that Outside Living Network became the NBC Sports Network.
I bet you were saying the same thing in early 2005
To solve the real deep-seeded issues of the league, you're going to have to get leadership in here thats willing to have a serious discussion about relocating some teams and contracting a couple of others.
More importantly, we need leadership who recognizes that professional hockey is, and always will be a niche sport - firmly entrenched at #4 in the public's eyes. No more pie in the sky garbage aimed at massively expanding the fanbase. Take care of the fans you already have, because they are the most loyal in sports.
I get the overall thought of your post but the bolded is arguable at best.
#4 could be NASCAR or Soccer at this point... after this deabcle I'd say the NHL was well on it's way towards Top-10 status.
This doesn't even include NCAA Football or basketball which of course are both bigger.
Because losing two seasons puts the NHL in a league of it's own (pun not intended). Losing two seasons in a decade is a shocking happenstance. At the very least, it puts the fire to the feet of leadership on both sides.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I would think losing 1 season would be enough to accomplish that, and it clearly wasn't. I don't have any faith that either side will learn a lesson from this.
It would be great to see hockey again, but I've got a negative feeling about a 1/2 season. Team performances are going to be a crapshoot and success will be rewarded with a big, fat asterisk, just like the Devils' '95 Cup.
