Jaded-Fan said:
I can tell you what it is like from the 'burgh . . . perhaps the most union-oriented town in america at one time, and still having deep union roots. The sport columnists and fans are almost universally behind the owners in this fight. The roots may run union, but we got left holding the bag for hundreds of millions of dollars that we will be paying for decades to come with that beautiful baseball stadium, PNC Park, where they play minor league baseball and seem destined to always play minor league ball. We were promised otherwise by baseball when we voted for that Park. The sentiment for the players unions has soured completely in this town. The bad experience also has complicated the new arena for the Pens, though that seems to be able to go through on the back of slot machine revenues.
Why would the players be at fault because the owners don't want to spend the money to bring in UFAs or players that can make a difference? (Just asking not trying to pick a fight).
Bottom line, perception is that players are rich and spoiled. Everyone would love to play hockey in the NHL and would be willing to do so for $200,000.00 per year (figured pulled out of my behind). However, noone would pay to watch the majority of the posters here play anything. And why should the owners be the ones making the big dollars?
People always seem to feel that those who make big money, shouldn't. There is always resentment between the haves and the have nots (fans v. players and teams v teams). The players lost the war, because most of us look at them and wish we could do what they do. Based on our own income, I would imagine to be significantly smaller then the average NHL salary, we would be williing to do it for what we currently make.....
So when a player is getting 1 million to play a game, most of us shake our heads. But if you look at free market value - that should be, if owners set budgets for teams, what the player will make the team in revenue generation, at a minimum.