mudcrutch79 said:
I have, believe it or not, and I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of those hating on the PA for this situation are idiots. I'd be really interested to see the average age/education level for people who are hardcore owner supporters vs. those who are more moderate/leaning PA. Too many people hear $270MM in losses, throw in the fact that their favourite team doesn't have a couple of Cups in the past 10 years, and they think tickets are too expensive, and come to the conclusion that the owners are absolutely right. It's insane.
After having read a lot of your posts, I would have expected more from you than to make a generalization like this. I know I'm coming out of nowhere as a new poster, but all the same, I'm calling you down for the generalization. I think you'd probably be tempted to do the same to someone calling down hardcore pro-player advocates in the same way.
I don't think my age and education are particularly relevant, but since you asked, I am 25 and am A+, Net+, NANS, and NSNS certified, finished college, and am currently enrolled at the University of Lethbridge studying psychology and neuroscience. I don't know if I fit what you would call a hardcore advocate for the ownders or not - I feel I'm moderate in that I have an open mind and can think clearly, but on the other hand, you may call me hardcore because I support the owners during this particular round of CBA negotiations.
As for whether or not the owners are right - I've seen you comment on Cal Nichols and the Edmonton Oilers, so we'll use them as an example. Obviously anything taken from either side needs to be taken with a grain of salt, so I won't quote any numbers. On the other hand, a loss is a loss, whether it is as high as claimed or not. I know you question that the Oilers are actually losing money since they seem willing to accept a CBA that would not include revenue sharing amongst the teams. It has been suggested to you that they are counting on increased competitiveness and thus revenue in a more equalized environment, and I BELIEVE I have seen you say you don't believe there's a strong correlation between competitiveness and revenue (if it wasn't you, I apologize, but it still fits the purpose of this post regardless).
I would be strongly critical of any claim that there isn't much correlation between success on the ice and success in the bank book. If that REALLY was the case, you would see the more business savvy teams consistently fielding low budget teams, not because they were low on cash, but because they were more profitable than winning teams. As a result, you would NOT see overly inflated salaries. Smytty never would get his $4.5 million salary because it would be much more profitable to have a PR player a la Laraque take his place for a cool million a year. Because of this, you would see high contract players being waived left right and centre. Demand for these elite players would be down, and powerhouse teams like Detroit and Colorado could grab these high performing players up for much less money.
The fact that there IS demand, a LOT of demand, for these elite players strongly suggests to me that winning equals money. There may be some idiot owners and GM's in the league, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that all 30 teams suffer from this lack of intelligence.
mudcrutch79 said:
There are solutions out there that don't involve a salary cap. The fact that Bettman has chosen not to pursue them tells me he's going after a big increase in franchise values. Fine, that's his and the owners choice, but don't expect me to support them while they seek it, and don't lie and say that it's about competitive balance.
I believe I've already partially addressed this in the earlier portion of my post, but I'll hit it some more. Yes, it IS about competitive balance. That's a lot of nerve to assume that I'm lying simply because I say it. Is it as cut and dry and simple as competitive balance? No. Competitive balance means increased money for teams that were on the low end previously. It means added insurance for the teams that are elite today, but due to unforeseen circumstances could be on the shallow end of the pool tomorrow. The latter has happened a lot throughout sports history, and will continue to happen. In the meantime, a cap DOES also mean savings for a number of teams. A team that previously budgeted $50 million to compete with a $60 or $70 million payroll now finds that it's financially EQUAL to the top tiered teams at $10 million in savings.
As for Bettman trying to increase franchise values? It shouldn't really need to be said. But... apparently it does anyway. NHL is a business, through and through. Bettman and the owners will ALWAYS be trying to increase franchise values. Any player who wishes to interfere with this ability is being ridiculous and unreasonable. Yes, a player has a right to profit from his efforts at the same time, the owners' profit shouldn't be in exclusion of fair salary for the players, but neither should player profit be in exclusion of ownership profit. If the only way you would support the owners is if they were NOT seeking the increased value of their franchises (I'm not saying it is, I'm saying IF), then I would have to say that you were yourself being unreasonable also.
Now that the long post is out of the way - I DO respect your ability to think, or else I wouldn't have wasted so much space on one of my first posts on the board - so take it as some food for thought.