The business isn't losing money, the profit from the money making teams was greater then the losses by the money losing teams so if everything was shared they all would have profited.
If a business is set up so that half the entities are failing and supported by the other half, thats a bad business. I think there should be more revenue sharing, but the bottom line is that the players costs need to go down. If the US heads further into the economic sewer, youre just going to see more have-not teams, which wont be able to be propped up by the have teams.
operating costs: even if these players play for free, I would think the costs to maintain the ice surface and keep the power on in Phoenix and Nashville might exceed the gate receipts. Also keep in mind these referees and linesmen make money and so if the NHL reconvenes under replacement players, they'd have to maintain the real officials since they aren't being locked out.
insurance; there'd have to be a strong insurance policy, you know darn well if it became a reality, Average Joe would think "hey i could go out there, get hurt and sue a billionaire owner"
The fact that it is a LOCKOUT not a strike
Seems due to provincial laws, you'd be losing all the teams in Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta.
The lack of a major TV deal in the USA. The NFL, NBA, and MLB have luxurious TV deals in the US and thus would rake in quite a bit of coin trotting out replacements as they are still satisfying that deal. The NHL does not.
The lack of talent available; Any player under NHL contract is being locked out, therefore those in junior, the AHL, or ECHL whom have signed can not play. The only players available would likely be those whom have given up on the NHL dream (the scab factor)
As mentioned the extreme attendance drop. The talent level would be lower than that of the AHL, ECHL, CHL, and college hockey so fans would likely still tune into those leagues unless they are die hards of a particular hockey team. Now you could fathom that perhaps the NHL tries to hold their seasons ticket holders to their agreement and forces them to pay for their tickets or lose them but given what's happened, I can't imagine it's wise to fight with the fans. At best the talent caliber would likely be on par with Canadian college hockey.
b) Football had no competing leagues where the star players could go and compete while still getting paid a very good salary.
Neither does the NHL, from my understanding. If you sign short-term in Europe, you are on the hook for prohibitive insurance amounts that negate much of what you make. If you sign long-term, you're there for quite a while, away from friends and family and the continent you call home.
It isn't quite as hard for Russians and Swedes; they're going back to play near where they grew up. Are players like Ryan Kesler or Shea Weber going to spend 1, 2, 3 years away from home? Would they spend the remainder of their career?
Not possible for good reasons...There is 0% chance as this is a lockout, the courts would not could not should and will not allow this in Canadian province (BC, AB, Man, Ont, Que), I know for a fact California as well, and if memory serves me right NY stae as well...and the rest I dont know but if the rest of the states would allow this then I dont know what the people in those parts have ben smoking.
If a business is losing money in which the majority of the costs are directly paid to the employees, and the employees are a union that will not allow those costs to be lowered, there should be a recourse.
wow! I cant beleive there are people out there like you. Think long and hard why these are such fundamental laws. Unions are no different then a government, maybe even more important as they work on more micro scale. They are democratic instituions, your ideas are no different then a government saying, mehh no one is voting for our proposal so we will implement it anyways because we have no other recourse.
sorry this actually got me a bit mad...and unions in my case actually make my life considerably harder...although in the past I have even sat at the bargaining table on both sides during contract negotiations for companies I worked for before.
In many jurisdictions, you would have major difficulty bringing in scabs during a lockout. If the owners offered to work out a deal while playing under the terms of the existing CBA and the players went on strike it would be much easier.
For starters, it wouldn't be beneficial for players with future NHL aspirations to scab and possibly forgo any potential benefits of being a part of the union. Second, where are you going to get the replacements from? What potential ramifications would there be from them flaking out of already signed contracts and on their own players union?
I'd have absolutely no interest in watching replacement hockey, sending out players who have no business wearing our teams sweaters makes no sense from my perspective. It would be an embarrassment.
The NHL wouldn't go this far because it's hard enough for the NHL to get ratings with real NHL players (lol), a product with replacement players on NBC would probably get outdrawn by things like darts and spelling bees and that would hurt the NHL brand tremendously.
If I'm a sponsor paying the NHL for that I would immediately ask for my money back.
Speculating about replacement players in one things, but more interesting is how NA fans react to the idea. If fans are ready to abandon the league because of replacement players, that's quite interesting. NHL does not have real competitor and it has the best players. If having the best players is only reason why people in NA watch NHL, it means that there's something wrong with the league and fans. Usually people watch sports because they like it. European leagues don't have the best players but still people are interested about them in many countries.
It's also funny how many say that they're not interested in watching inferior hockey. Most hockey spectators wouldn't notice a difference if NHL teams were replaced with AHL teams. NHL players aren't some super players, which are 10 times better than others. There are some elite players, but most NHL players aren't so much better than those who are "bubbling under". They may have 10x salaries, but salary doesn't make player better.
Usually in sports there's no one league which has almost all best players. Soccer is major example of that. A league doesn't need to have the best players of the world in order to be interesting and popular, if people just care about the sport and teams. NHL is different. It needs to have: best players, no competitors, salary cap, all kinds of contract restrictions, relocate teams, four playoff rounds, trade players like cattle and make all teams as even as possible. Even with all these aids NHL is smallish sport in USA. NHL is lucky that it doesn't have a real competitor in ice hockey world. Otherwise it couldn't continue like this.