And that's illogical. It's not because its a pro sports league that it means it should be ran the same way. NBA has half the players than the NHL does, but players take less health risks directly related to their sport, while NFL players more than double the number of NHL players and take a lot more health risks. They don't catter to the same crowds, don't have the same TV deals, don't have similar rules. Their only similarity is that they are pro sports league managed for the sake of making money. I understand the whole point about industry standards, yet that wasn't what the NHL was going for 8 years ago. They say that now, because it fits their agenda, an excuse to reduce costs by cutting player salary rather than getting their **** together. If industry standards were so important, why didn't they try to implant a luxury tax... oh wait, the NBA doesn't have one, but the MLB does. Why? Because they are different sports with different needs when it comes to management of both the sport and the business side.
If the owners of the company I work for suddenly decided to negotiate on the basis of industry standards to reduce costs, yet are making tons of profit, and our own standards are far apart from the industry, I would refuse to negotiate on that basis, because what is already established, the concessions and litigation in prior negotiations and CBA takes much more precedence. In any negotiation, you have to give and get, you don't just deny what was done previously so that you can only 'get' and not give, and that's why the NHL is using the industry standards excuse, because they know full well that on the basis of prior negotiations, their demands are that they still 'get' and not 'give' anything away. Sure they had a lot of ground to catch up to, since prior to 2005, it was the players who 'got' most of the concessions, and that's why many people like me thought that they should be able to hold on to the status quo this time around while giving a little and getting a little in return in terms of concession. But instead of seeing this as an opportunity to offer some stability and actually strengthen the 'partnership' relationship they implanted, the owners have used it as yet another power struggle as they saw a chance to make the players pay for their own shortcomings in management, whether on the basis of single teams or league-wide management. They don't actually need the players to take this pay cut to make things work. And their dialogue is contradictory as they want equity to help cost reduction, yet they refuse to upgrade equity in revenue sharing among themselves. Refuse to deal with league wide management problems they've created themselves by implanting teams where there shouldn't be any. In all 3 other sports league, when a market dwindles, it takes a lot less time for that franchise to move on to another city, that's an industry standard which is a necessity for viability, yet the NHL stubbornly holds on to markets that are not suited to their needs. Industry standards fit only when it fits their agenda.
I don't see why it's illogical.
For instance, lets use Fedex, UPS, Purolator, DHL as examples. Suppose Fedex and UPS make big cuts to increase efficiency and profitability, do you believe the others may stay idle? They may even have different business models, different regional focuses, different benefits but they are indeed similar. Granted, this is major league sports, so it's a particular case.
You say Football has greater risk, yet football doesn't have guaranteed contracts. The NHL hasn't suggested taking them away to my knowledge. That is a HUGE plus for players relative to other leagues is it not?
The fact you bring up TV deals leads me to believe we clearly see it different. You suggest NHL doesn't have same TV deal, as if it justifies players getting more cut. I see it other way that NHL is small time compared to other leagues and can't afford that level of cost. Not to mention, arena maintenance cost is clearly higher for the NHL.
8 years ago, the NHL wanted a new system. It helped EVERYBODY. It helped the game, the owners and the players. You suggest NHL teams get their **** together. How many long term deals has PHX gave? So I suppose they are really profitable right? Dallas hasn't done it, neither has St louis, Florida, Anaheim, Winnipeg, Columbus, etc... It's Philly who has done a lot of them in Carter, Richards, Offer sheeting Weber, etc...NJD did 1 in kovalchuk, vancouver did 1 in luongo. Rangers did 3 in Drury, Gomez, Richards...
Point being, a lot of those teams aren't struggling. The point is the even the playing field so guys like nashville don't get ****ed with weber offer sheets. Don't you agree if big market teams are forced to play fair it will give small market teams a chance? Some people may start busting my balls for suggesting it then turn around and demand "MORE REVENUE SHARING!!!" to help small market teams. I think if you make the market normal AND you give them revenue sharing, there is no reason why they can't succeed.
As for MLB talk, MLB hasn't come up at all because NBA and NFL are better comparables. MLB is only 1 with luxury tax, so no, they are not industry standard. BTW, same way NHL is comparing to industry because it benefits them, NHLPA is comparing to previous CBA because it benefits them. It's only normal in business.
But NHL isn't as profitable as other leagues, so why you say "yet are making tons of profit" is confusing to me. You follow it up with "our own standards are far apart from the industry". So NFL has guaranteed contracts? In other leagues Di Pietro and Gomez would already be 10-20 mil dollars less rich.
You say the NHL refused to increase Revenue Sharing. Sorry, they boosted it at the players request.
You bring up NHL wanting to cut costs, no ****, they are businessmen. I'd argue some revenue sharing and cuts are necessary.
As for small market teams not leaving as quickly. NHL isn't as popular as other leagues. NFL can go anywhere and be relatively successful. NHL cannot. There's a good reason why they are in PHX and apparently it's mostly canadian hockey fans that don't get it. NHL is trying to grow and claim market share. Fact of the matter is say Quebec City, some people will come down to MTL and watch a game, many will still by merchandise with or without a team. In PHX, not the same. You have to convert them, it takes time. We're seeing players come out of california now, how is this a bad thing? Kids are being raised into playing hockey, that will grow our sport.
Look, what people don't understand from my point of view is that I just don't care how much owners make or how much players make. I want everyone to be profitable, including players, that's it. If players don't like the price, then you can do other jobs like the rest of us, I don't know. No one forced them to be hockey players and no one forced Owners to buy the team. As far as I'm concerned the habs can make less money as long as PHX makes more. I really don't care. My only concern is the competitive balance. Everything past the salary cap and expenditures are merely profit that will never get back into fans hands anyway. So don't take me for a person who is PRO-big market owners. I don't care about habs and leafs profit margins. I want a balanced league and call me crazy but if 30 teams can spend to the cap, that's good for everybody, including players and fans.
The reason why i'm on owners side is because as greedy or whatever you want to call it(they are both greedy anyway) they want each team to have better value. Yes, it's in their best interests but I really don't care because as a fan, it helps me and everybody else who wants to see this game be stable.
