This is a joke - Playing elsewhere!

Status
Not open for further replies.

_Del_

Registered User
Jul 4, 2003
15,425
6,736
Kickabrat said:
Which is why the owners are in absolutely no rush to get negotiations started again. They can sit back, make some money by renting the stadium for some Ashley Simpson lip syn concert and just wait it out. I think the union misjudged this situation completely. The sooner they accept the notion of a cap the sooner they will get back to work.

I agree ... You hear certain owners say they will lose less money by sitting out the season -- assuming that's true, and I'm sure in atleast some markets it is, what is the incentive for the owners to bend? Hell, not only are they in better shape just sitting, most have venues to fill with other events.
The players have all kinds of reasons to want back in. After a half a year's vacation in Europe, playing for half, or less, your normal salary has to start losing it's appeal. I'd seriously question the unions stance on my best interest when it looks like I maybe playing for 'peanuts' longterm while I could be playing for a substantial check even under a cap in the NHL.
And the lower talent tier guys aren't playing at all for the most part. If I miss half a season's worth of the 1.8M avg sal, I think I'm going to start noticing the numbers involved, and think, 'how is this in my best interest? Even if the PA wins, under a new CBA will MY salary likely change all that much? Probably not'
And if they ever decided to bring in scabs after this years 'season', despite the outcry from the union talking heads, I'm pretty sure it would break the union in short order -- the internal pressure would ATLEAST push the union back to the table, and it's not unreasonable to believe that quite afew players would break rank with the union. Along with the talent from abroad and in the 'A', I don't think it'd be terribly long before the union would have to cede defeat -- not that I'm hoping for scabs. Ideally, the issues would be solved way before next season, but if it came to it, I'd still route for the same team(s) regardless.
I think the PA was hoping to win the PR battle and 'force' the owners to cede. But they're failing miserably even keeping their own members pleased with the progress of negotiations, much less the public.

The cards point to an eventual 'win' by the owners, it's virtually guarenteed -- unfortunately, I think the PA is going to find out the hard way... The longer they wait, the more incentives they have to compromise, but ownership doesn't face the same problems really. They're not losing money -- many of them are SAVING money. So why sign the line until they get what they want? It's not going to be pretty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->