Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by tinyzombies, Apr 13, 2006.
Feel free to run me out of the rink if this thread is ad nauseum.
AGH...my eyes...it burns, it does!
Some things are better left buried.
The game is way better now, so lost season, schmost season.
The previous "season" and all things about it has been permanently removed from my brain.
I was to blame for the loss of last season! You fools!
Well one side said "we won't have NHL hockey until we get what we want" so it's pretty obvious.
Didn't both sides say that?
To the best of my recollection, the players were willing to play and negotiate but the owners said they would not play until they get a salary cap.
I'd love to see the cost of total salaries this year vs. cost of total salaries from the last season we played.
In other words - I'd really like to know what the percent difference is in total salaries in a capped vs. non capped system.
I'm sure the number would be down in the capped system but I also have a feeling it wouldn't be down as much as we'd think and basically all we've seen are the salaries spead out over the entire league instead of 6 or 7 teams.
Anyhow. I'm just thrilled hockey's back and we have a system that will ensure the NHL's survival by controlling costs, promoting parity and paying the players fairly for the foreseeable future.
ah but it was worth it wasn't it? At least a team like Pittsburgh is now financially viable and there is no threat of them moving anywhere.
I hope no one forgot the now famous comment made by Jose Theodore back in november 2004 :"If there is a salary cap in the NHL, I won't ever play there again!"
Anyone knows other GREAT comments like that
Since the players ultimately caved in on everything the owners asked for anyway, I just find myself wondering why a whole season had to be lost. It would have been nicer if Bob Goodenow had said "look, we're going to bend over fowards to accomodate you anyway, so just pass the lube and let's try and make this as painless as possible."
Was it really that bad? This season is proving to be one of the best in recent years, Mike Modano's dog is still being fed as far as I know, and despite dire predictions, the commercial success of the league doesn't appear to have suffered much from the lost year. Something that really cheesed me was hearing players and pundits say stuff along the lines of "if the NHL loses a year to the lockout, we'll lose the momentum we've built, and we'll be back at square one." They didn't have any momentum before the lockout, and in a large number of markets they never really left square one anyway.
The rich, greedy owners who locked the players out.......duh! It wasn't a strike, it was billionaire owners who wanted more more MORE! And they'll do it again too.
There's no option for "the owners who signed the LAST CBA" because thats the real culprits. Or you can blame the NYR ownership for signing Joe Sakic to a way overpriced offersheet, taking salary escalation into overdrive.
I would have to say a combination of a league that had no forseit in it's last CBA, the rich teams for driving up prices and the players for being to greedy.
Without a doubt it's still the greedy owners.
I thought the original stand of the players was to not accept a deal that included a cap? I guess I could take that as "We will not accept your offer until it contains what we want." But, I don't want to stir up another union v. owner crapper of a thread.
I really didn't care as long as the game came out O.K. Blame Bettman, blame the 9-figure owners, blame the 7 or 8-figure players, blame the 5-figure fans, blame Goodenow, blame G-dubs, blame Hillary or blame them all. The game and the league seem better for the wear.
The salaries right now might be very similar in terms of salaries to revenue ratio.....but you do realize that there is an escrow account and all the players will lose money if revenues do not proportionally grow at the same rate as salaries....right?
Mrs Brovloski told me so.
Didn't McCabe say something like that too?
The players vowed not to accept a cap but were willing to play during negotiations. The owners said "no CBA, no games."
"Mandrake, (The Lock Out) is the greatest Communist plot ever concieved"
Blame goes completely on the NHLPA leadership for the lockout.
Everyone knew this game had serious financial problems and it was time to accept the reality that the sport needed a cap and some major changes to the economic structure of this business, the NHLPA wanted no part of it, they were greedy and shortsighted and forced a lockout by not negotiating in good faith.
When it was all said and done it was a complete and total victory for the owners, the product and the fans, the NHLPA was broken and it got what it deserved because they were selfish trying to not have a cap when football, basketball labor negotiations history showed it was inevitable.
McCabe springs to mind and of course Modano`s poodle.
You should've had an "all of the above" option, because that's the best representation of where the blame lies. Of course, you could've just had "shortsightedness" as an option and it would be true as well.
The owners are to blame because they spent the money that caused teams to put one foot into their financial graves. If they hadn't offered some of those ridiculous deals, none of this would've happened. Their shortsighted approach to outbidding the competition meant that they didn't know or didn't care that every dollar they through at an overpriced free agent was helping to bury other clubs and create the multi-tiered playing field that was killing the game
The players are to blame because they weren't willing to accept the fact that their gains from the last CBA were an abhorration, and that continued success for them under that system could only lead to the degredation of the league as a whole. They were shortsighted because in their insistance that the old CBA's system was fine, they were ignoring the downswing of so many teams with money issues. It may not be their job to prop the owners up, but they should know that if the league isn't healthy enough to live, they won't have a place to work.
The negotiators are to blame because they decided it was better to play a game of chicken rather than actually negotiate. Both sides spent so much time dug into their positions that they couldn't see the solution that stared them in the face for practically the entire negotiation period. Their shortsighted approach to negotiating caused them to be concerned only with trying to stick it to the other side rather than working together.