Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by chriss_co, Sep 16, 2004.
How long will it last? Are you pessimistic/optimisitic?
And who do you think will crack first?
I predict that this time, the players will crack. But it will take awhile.
The players will understand how much they are losing and that going back to work with a cap but earning several millions of dollars won't be so bad
It will end when one or both sides feel the pressure to make a deal. Hard to tell at this point because both sides seem entrenched in their position. I would not be surprised if there was no hockey this season.
The entire 2004-2005 season will be lost (restart next year)
And the owners lose nothing? We don't know what the players have but the owners have a 'war chest' of $300 million.
That accounts to $10 million per team. Not a whole lot.
Well lets take a look on the players side. Whats the total cost that players make? Well, I dont know the exact figure so lets figure it out.. $1.8 million average salary. About 800 players in the union? So what is that? $1.4 billion?
So... players lose $1.4 billion or the owners lose $300 million (i doubt the entire war chest will be used up in one year.. probably 1.5 years of no NHL to use the entire war chest fund)
The players ultimately lose more.
The lockout will last until January of 2006, at which point the owners if they can remain united will break the union, and get their cap. The players who rank some 700+ strong, cannot remain on the same page for a prolonged period of time and that is why they will crack and give in to most of what the owners want, yes even a cap. The players feel that if they wait until late Dec. that the owners, through fear of losing the rest of the season and more importantly the playoffs, will cave, as they did in '94. However, if the owners don't see major steps toward reviving the health of the game, why would they rush back. They look at the last work stoppage and wish they had done more to get control back from the players, and this time they are playing hard ball, because if they don't, there will not be enough of a game left to come back for in a couple of years. If the players force the issue, and lose the season and playoffs, then that will just make the owners that much more angry and determined to make sure this goes a long time. I think that the players will begin to speak out against the PA and will force their reps and higher ups to do whatever it takes to get a deal done. I feel Jan 2006 is about right, unless the players begin to lose their composure early, in which case Sept 2005. Either way, I feel this season is toast and damn them all for that!
When you consider that they don't have to pay much during the lockout, the owners should be in good shape to hold out until they get what they want. The players however realize that their careers only last for so long and then its over. Their time to make money, is limited, so the veterans will sell out the younger guys to get it done and return to playing the game. Take a look at all the high profile veterans who only have 1 maybe 2 years left. Do you think they want to go out like this? Yzerman, Hull, Stevens, Andreychuk, Roberts, Hasek, Nieuwendyk, Belfour, and the list goes on and on. I think when you combine that with the fact that the young guys coming into the league just want to make some money, I think the owners hold all the cards. It is just a matter of waiting it out.
Right On!!! Jan. 2006 in what i think as well!! its gonna be along 1.5 years !!
I agree. The NHL has been preparing 5 years for this. If anyone is going to crack, its the NHPA I believe.
Another interesting note. John Davidson said on a radio show in Vancouver that he heard from a reliable source that the NHLPA was hoping that 4-5 teams would fold which account for the majority of the losses.
I hate to say it, but it would be much better for the game if there were less teams. Greater talent pool, rid the league of guys who can't really play the game, but will do whatever it takes to remain in the league. That is the problem...There are too many guys in the NHL just hanging on, and they make it difficult for those skill players to do what they do best. I feel bad for those teams who don't make it through this, and even worse for their fans, but I don't see a point in everyone going down with the ship. The league needs fixing and if they lose some lesser franchises for the greater good, then so be it. Keeping them around will only be a drain on those markets who do well, because whatever form of cost certainty they end up with, is going to keep those teams alive, but not give them any serious help on the ice. I don't think there is a point to it. Like former GM turned TV ananlyst, Brian Burke said recently,,,"It's like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".
The union is hoping that 4-5 teams fold??? That's 100-125 jobs??? Interesting... Knob Goodenow could lose his job if that was his thinkning...
I find it VERY hard to believe that the NHLPA is in favor of contraction. Like you say, why would they want to lose jobs for their members? That's not exactly doing them a service. Makes no sense.
5 teams account for the majority of losses. I guess their thinking is: If those teams are gone we won't have to accept a salary cap because the losses won't be so dramatic.
NYR is apparently a big loser and the NHLPA would have fits if its sugar daddy was folded. I'd be betting its not the 5 biggest money losers its the 5 clubs who can and do pay the least. Knock off the 5 lowest salary teams and average salary goes up. Yes its an optical illusion but the players might fall for it. If the NHL sets a cap to help the 5 weakest and they are gone, then the cap can moves up quite a bit to cover the next 5.
At first I thought this would be similar to the 94 lockout but I think the owners are serious and will not flinch this time. I'm going to say this is going to last the entire year.