Sometimes I have the feeling that people are just innocent....

[Vlad The Impaler]

but if the owners have no intentions of going the distance, why start in the first place ?

Well, it's only my perception that they are probably not ready to go the distance. If that is right, the purpose of doing the posturing could be a few things. Perhaps it's a well-planned bluff that they knew from the start they were going to try. In the hope the union will crack a little.

Another possibility is that the owners don't really know what the **** they are doing. Maybe they are panicked and some may be in more trouble than is revealed. Or maybe there is in-fighting about what to ask for.

Lastly, it just seems human nature to wait until the very end to get things done. Why are so many students able to pump several more pages per day in the final days before they have to get something to the teacher? Adrenaline, all that stuff.

I suspect there is a lot of vanity on both side. It's only now that this whole thing is sinking in. From the point of view of the owners, there is at least ONE thing that makes sense to me: I would not have started negociations before the end of the World Cup. There is some kind of finality now. The elite players have gathered one more time and now it's crunch time. Makes them think a little.

thats why i am so anti owner, they are fighting for the sake of fighting because thye know the payoff is HUGE and the downside LOW. Look, they already have recieved over 200 million dollars in concessions. Give me a break already, this negotiation is already won by the owners, why kill the season to get more ?

I don't know if they will kill the season. But if they do, it will be to try and make long term gains that might have an impact a decade after or two. The victories of the union years ago can be felt today. I don't know why exactly they are doing it.

They mmight be greedy bastards and making tons of (hidden) money and just want more. Or they might be in even more financial trouble than they care to admit, even to the union. Or it may ben in the middle, something similar to what we know so far.

I have no idea.

But you know, I don't think they care about the $200M. What they're saying loud and clear is that they are not capable of self-regulating themselves in a free market. That seems to be the message they are sending to me.

Having always enjoyed games of strategies, alliances and fronts, I know I sympathize for them. I haven't seen this pulled often successfully either. In a competitive environment, it's a pain in the butt to count on good will, intelligence and solidarity.

I think the NHL has realized that they will always try to cut each other's throats unless they put it in writing before a season start. Once they are in competitive mode, they will always try to crush their opponents and if it means bankrupting someone in the process, shattering the salary scale or any crap, they'll do it as long as it benefits them individually.

But they've realized that a little too late. They don't have too many aces up their sleeve. If there is a cap, it will be spectacularly symbolic (very, very high). And even that is unlikely. But they probably figure they have to try this.

 

[I in the Eye]

in many cases, if not for the NHL team:

1) the arena to host the dog show could not have been financed, threfore would not exist

And if not for John McCaw's mother, John McCaw would not exist... Therefore, John McCaw's mother deserves a percentage of revenue generated from the dog show as well... How absurd is this argument? As absurd as yours...

Anything that directly relates to hockey should be included in the definition of hockey-related revenue... anything that does not directly relate to hockey shouldn't... How can revenue generated from a dog show EVER be considered apart of hockey-related revenue is beyond me - at least if not told as a joke...

The players do NOT have a stake in GM Place... The players have a stake in revenue generated from GM Place in the course of a hockey-related event... But NOT overall revenue - period.

2) the rates for the board and other in rink advertising would be significantly lower

You don't think that Alanis (and other rock/pop musicians) could bring over 18,000 people to GM Place? You don't think that Pepsi considers this an attractive target market and worthy of a significant advertising expense?

Perhaps the rates for rink (and venue) advertising would be lower without the NHL (TV spots, constant draw of approx. 18,000 people, etc.) - but calculate it for me how much lower? Calculate the value to Pepsi for advertising at an Alanis concert compared to a Canucks hockey game?

Advertisers advertise in GM Place so that their brand is in front of their target market... SOME advertisers JUST advertise during hockey games - these revenues should ALL be included in a definition for hockey-related revenue...

SOME advertisers advertise for ALL events (with the biggest draw being NHL hockey AND concerts)... To these advertisers, the target market is SIMILAR - For example, Du Maurier's target market is in both concert goers, hockey fans - and hell, dog show fans too... If 18,000+ people go to the dog show at GM Place (and the dog show includes members of the market that Du Maurier is targeting) - is that not also very valuable for Du Maurier as an advertiser?

The players are important - but they didn't create the Earth... IMO, the players should have a piece of the pie for events that happen in GM Place (for hockey-related activities)... but DEFINITELY NOT THE WHOLE PIE - and certainly not for events that are not directly hockey-related...

Regardless, how about how much the owners make from parking, concessions and other arena related revenues during a hockey game ?

dr

During a hockey game, IMO, it should be included as a part of hockey-related revenue...