Alternative??
thinkwild said:
As Bob Mackenzie was reporting, the owners plan may be to not use replacement players at all, but rather just to continue the lockout another year. Perhaps McCabes comment really irked them, and they decided then to put it to the test. After all, that is the only way they can win power back. Hopefully they also realize the folly that replacement players would do to the league.
But for whatever reason, if there is no replacement players, no draft, no hockey again next fall, and we are here one year from now, and nothing has changed ...
If this is the strategy, do you still find the owners decision making wise? Still worth it? Worth your support? Still cant find another way of saving the money?
Darkness descending faster lately.
Given the damage to the game that this prolonged lockout will bring to the NHL, the owners seem pretty set in their ways that this is the only way for them to go. They have a good gage of how much revenues will drop with a prolonged work stoppage and have made the determination that this fight with the PA is worth it.
In terms of strategy, it's the only one that will work for the owners. MacKenzie also said over a month ago that only 200 players make more than the 1.8 million average salary, leaving 500 players making less than that. Those are the ones who will crack before the likes of McCabe, Pronger, Linden, etc. That's what the Owners have to be banking on.
The players collectively last season made somewhere in the 1.2 to 1.4 billion in total salary. What's the take this year going to be? Maybe 5% which is 60 to 70 million. 260 and more are overseas, so if you take 70 million over 260 players, each player would have to make an average of $270K.
I saw an episode of the Business of Sports with Bob Magowan when he had 2 agents, Mike Gillis and JP Barry, along with the former CBS sports head and former Thrasher President and current NHL board of Governor as guests. At the end of the discussion, Magowan asked Mike Gillis if the players would take 53% of the Revenues after both sides have agreed what to include as Revenue. Gillis said no. When asked the same question, but with 75% of Revenues going to the players, Gillis then changed his answer to YES.
I think that says a lot about the labour situation.