Posted: 12/23/2012 3:45 PM
Last edited 12/23/2012 3:45 PM by Sangue
Posted: 12/23/2012 5:26 PM
Posted: 12/23/2012 5:47 PM
Posted: 12/24/2012 5:37 AM
gr1111 wrote: I must respectfully but emphatically disagree with you, as calling them "ass hats" is far too kind.
Posted: 12/24/2012 10:03 AM
Last edited 12/24/2012 10:10 AM by katoy2j
Posted: 12/24/2012 11:08 AM
What you just described would eliminate hockey in the US period. You might have the Rangers, Blackhawks, Bruins, and Penguins survive but outside of those couple U.S teams the rest would be gone.Would the players be willing to lose over half of their jobs as well? Because Canada could not support 30 franchises so the players would commit job suicide themselves especially the players at the bottom half of the league. You would go from 30 teams to say 15 teams so the players would be essentially giving up half their jobs. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The owners and players must both give for them to come to an agreement.
katoy2j wrote: Hiring Fehr was a good move by the NHLPA actually. The players agreed to a salary cap in the last CBA and the owners still want to take more from them this time around in a reduction of already signed contracts. Lets not forget that the players who were already under contract in 2004 gave back 24% of their contracts last time around when they signed the CBA. Fehr's stance is to decertify the union and become the only major North American sport without a CBA. That is a nightmare for the owners because it takes away all their power. You can't have a entry draft and every player who turns 18 is a free agent.Here is where the owners are in trouble. 80% of the leagues revenue comes from 7 teams. The Canadian teams. The other 23 teams make up 20% of the leagues revenue. Granted the Rangers make a lot and the reason it is so low is because all the losing money is coming from US teams. If the players decertify all that will happen is that teams like Toronto would become the Yankees and buy up every good player. The big risk is that contracts only exist in the CBA so if the players decertify all the contracts become void as well. Which means that every player is a free agent. That would be a nightmare for a team like Pittsburgh who has Sidney Crosby. He would be a free agent and Toronto would have no issue paying him 20 million a season. He's worth more than that to them just from a marketing perspective. Having this type of situation would scare the crap out of owners in smaller market teams with superstars. Tampa Bay would lose Stamkos, the Penguins would lose Crosby, the Islanders Tavares, all the way down the line.So it was a smart strategy by Fehr. What's going to end up happening is the owners will not want to go that route because it will pretty much kill 15 of the teams in the league as they would lose their star players and would never be able to compete with the Canadian teams that sell out every game. You can't have a salary cap without a CBA as it violates anti-trust laws so that would go out the window and if they tried it would get sniffed out through collusion pretty quickly.What will happen is the owners will cave because the players stand to gain more by going the route they're taking. The owners won't want to lose a salary cap so they'll settle at a 50/50 split in revenue and pretty much accept the offer that the players presented and hockey will be being played sometime in the middle of January.See the players have a lot of options here. While football is the number one sport in the US, it's only popular in the US. Tom Brady isn't getting a big salary playing in any other country. Hockey is more popular in pockets of Europe than it is in the US. The NHL was losing players to Russia especially even when the league wasn't locked out. Guys like Alex Ovechkin and Evgeni Malkin are losing very little money because they make a bunch playing in their home country. Sidney Crosby can go over to Europe whenever he wants and make a lot of money too. These guys all have options. Perhaps they make 6 million instead of 8 million but the owners are the ones losing money as the operating costs to run a franchise are huge. On a NHL level without travel, equipment, etc. Just keeping things status quo costs each team 15-20 million a year. You can't just fire everybody, you still have to pay taxes and all that jazz.
Posted: 12/24/2012 11:26 AM
Posted: 12/24/2012 11:43 AM
Posted: 12/24/2012 11:54 AM
Maybe so, but do you think the Union will get the support from the players knowing half their jobs would be eliminated?
While I agree with what you are saying to a point, the truth is more towards the middle.
Absolutely no way the Players will allow Fehr to decertify to do what you described. They would be committing career suicide for half the players. And while those lower players are the so called "pawns" they are still pawns making some serious coin to the tune of a couple hundred grand a year.
Try telling half of them they will be out of a job because of Fehr's strategy. See how well that goes over. Even the Top players would not support that kind of cut throat activity with their peers.
katoy2j wrote: At the end of the day it's always about the people on top. The guys on the bottom are pawns. Always have been and always will be.
Posted: 12/24/2012 12:07 PM
Posted: 12/24/2012 12:18 PM
Posted: 12/24/2012 12:41 PM
Posted: 12/24/2012 1:31 PM
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:04 PM
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:28 PM
Posted: 12/26/2012 7:21 AM
katoy2j wrote: Lets look at who it really impacts. Like in most sports out of the bottom half of the league, lets say 300 players. Probably half of those guys get recycled anyway each year. So it isn't half the year. There is a new 150 players or so cycling through. NHL roster are just like MLB rosters. Guys like Rick Van Den Hurk, Delwyn Young, Drew Sutton, etc. These guys are all interchangeable. They play for a bit then they move on. If there is a CBA or not these things will happen to these players anyway so nobody cares about them honestly.
Posted: 12/26/2012 7:22 AM
katoy2j wrote: The difference between hockey and baseball is night and day. Baseball probably has 2 or 3 teams that don't belong. Hockey on the other hand has about 10 teams that don't belong. It's also a niche sport and most in the US don't care about it. What runs sports is television and a national tv contract. Hockey will never have that. Americans care about baseball in places without teams. in Iowa I'm sure they watch baseball. I bet most people in Wyoming, New Mexico, Missisippi and Montana watch baseball. I bet most of them have also never watched a hockey game on tv.The ratings for tv are brutal at a local level. For a Florida Panthers game they get like 40,000 people to watch from the state. That is form a population of 19 million. Probably most of that is even from Canadians who transplanted there to retire. Toronto gets about two million people to watch a game on tv. Out of about 12 million.The market just isn't there for it in the States. It never will be and they should just pull the plug on at least 4 teams move a couple more to Canada and the league would be much stronger.
Posted: 12/26/2012 7:37 AM
katoy2j wrote: The difference between hockey and baseball is night and day. Baseball probably has 2 or 3 teams that don't belong. Hockey on the other hand has about 10 teams that don't belong. It's also a niche sport and most in the US don't care about it. What runs sports is television and a national tv contract. Hockey will never have that. Americans care about baseball in places without teams. in Iowa I'm sure they watch baseball. I bet most people in Wyoming, New Mexico, Missisippi and Montana watch baseball. I bet most of them have also never watched a hockey game on tv.
Posted: 12/26/2012 9:08 AM
Posted: 12/26/2012 10:28 AM
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2014 Microsoft|