Peter said:
Here's the bottom line. The owners lock out the players. Wait a year and start all over again...over just walk away. What do they lose? It's not like these owners count on their NHL teams to feed them. These teams are hobbies for all of them.
But the players...without the NHL what do the players have?? Europe. The minor leagues. Maybe a rival league. But none of these choices will ever pay these players the amount of money they are currently making.
Bottom line...players will have no choice but to give in.
If only it was that simple. What about the arena investors who do not have their main tenants because of the lockout? Do you think Continental Airlines Arena, since the Nets are jumping ship are keen on not having the Devils, a 3-time Stanley Cup champions, playing in their house? They get loads of money from the Devils (despite not being a huge draw) because they are robbing them with the arena lease. Do you think the owners of the Arrowhead pond are just willing to just sit there and mainly be a venue for concerts and a few Clippers games? Miami? Tampa Bay? Vancouver? Calgary? They can't afford to have arena just sit there and play host to concerts, junior leagues and minor league sports. If the owners of the arena aren't getting their money from the NHL teams (and the cities I just mentioed, the NHL team is the main tenant) then the owners of the arena are the owners of an NHL team. An NHL team that has an arena just sitting there playing host to concerts and other minor activites. Even in arenas with more than one main tenant, do you think arena owners are going to be just oke doke with one of their main draws bringing in money. Do you think
How about sponsors? Sponsors who invested their time and money in a product that is at an impasse? Sponsors who bear the name of the arenas (Wachovia, Fleet Bank, Staples, Bell Mobile, Gaylord Entertainment). Nevermind the fact some of these arenas have other tenants (Sixers, Celtics, Lakers). This is money they are losing. Phoenix just opened a building, $200M and might sell naming rights to KB Homes. They're not going to be selling any naming rights to anyone (thus making money) during a lockout. Do you think Nationwide Bank, a business that is essentially dealing with money, loans, mortages is going to sit around while a hockey team, the Blue Jackets, that they invested sponsorship money in is going to just sit there and not get pissed off about it? Do you think they won't do anything about this?
Do you think the owners built a $300 million 'war chest' so that it is ok they can just get money go out the window because of player salaries and their own piss poor decisions? What if the sponsors, and arenas, and other marketing entities take the NHL teams to court because they're not being supported with the product they agreed to invest in? All these people are just fine and dandy losing money simply because they have more? The owners didn't save this money if they knew they weren't going to be pissing it away in a lockout.
And just by business decisions, the NHL losses this past season were not as extensive as they were in the past. And this was only because of a possibility of a lockout? Do you think its a good business decision to lockout all season, start a new with replacement players, and then you know they're going to outrageously overprice tickets, even more than they do now to watch AHL and ECHL players fight to put their names on the Stanley Cup, which at this point, would be tainted forever?
The owners will have no choice but to give in. With a new deal, the players only have to satisfy themselves. The owners have many more things to worry about than pissing off the players because they have an extra stash of cash..
And just wait when people start catching on that the owners are just brainwashing fans to cover up their terrible business decisions and trying to blame it on the players.