An Open Letter to the NHLPA from a Fan

[johngould21]

LOL Sir the NHL can replace all the players currently contracted in and and I would still watch My Canucks~! Why because Im a Canuck fan not a Luo fan or a Bieksa fan.....not even a Linden fan...lol NHL players can be replaced...Nazzy was our Captain I was loyal to him for been loyal to the Canucks once he was traded...I never gave him a second thought...I just thought about "MY" team...

[ccc44]

LOL Sir the NHL can replace all the players currently contracted in and and I would still watch My Canucks~! Why because Im a Canuck fan not a Luo fan or a Bieksa fan.....not even a Linden fan...lol NHL players can be replaced...Nazzy was our Captain I was loyal to him for been loyal to the Canucks once he was traded...I never gave him a second thought...I just thought about "MY" team...

[oldnews]

I'm not sure the same math does apply to the owners. I speculate that If over half the teams are losing money or breaking even when they are playing, then sitting out a season isn't going to have the same impact. In addition to that there likely isn't the same pressure on the owners as they have many other businesses and revenue streams. In most cases their hockey team isn't their primary source of revenue. Again, I'm not saying this is fair, but it seems to be the case.

Yes, I am bothered by the owner's poor management of the situation as well. Perhaps I am mis-representing myself a bit as too anti-player. I guess what I am is pro 50/50. Whichever side is unwilling to move towards an even split is the one I will not support.

I'm still bothered by players that go play elsewhere, but that is due to my own philisophical point of view. In any case the NHL and NHLPA with both lose my support if we lose the season.

[BigE]

You speculate that half the teams are losing money?

Sorry, I don't buy that at all. I think you are simply dealing with saavy business people who separate profits into different streams. If it were the case that half the teams were losing money, someone would have to explain to me how the very worst franchise (in terms of revenue and alleged 'losses') has a valuation of 134 million dollars...

But fair enough - if you look at the fact that the owners are not budging and see both sides as sharing responsibility, I have far less issue with your claims. I still believe when you get down to it that the owners position is riddled with contradictions. And if the players only stream of revenue is their average 6 or 7 year NHL career, why shouldn't they play hardball where their interests in revenue, security and insisting that owners honour the contracts they have signed is concerned?

I too am not impressed by certain guys going to places like the SEL - but my reason is that I find it inappropriate for a guy like Nash or Thornton - who have been making 7 million anually - go and take the position of a player who is making maybe 50k. The SEL average is 200k - the guys at the bottom are making a relatively average living. I can't agree with those guys doing that. I understand why players return to their home leagues - I think that is different and there are a lot of other motivations involved.

[oldnews]

Yes, we can either speculate based on the reports and accounting submitted by the league or we can speculate based on how we all see big business manipulate books and come up with creative accounting. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It doesn't help the league's case when I read this morning they hired a professional "spin doctor". I agree with you about players bumping roster spots in the lower leagues. As is well documented, I see it as even more than that.

[BigE]

I think the part you aren't considering regarding the math that I referred to before - is that the most powerful franchises in the NHL start to lose a lot of revenue rather quickly during a lockout - if you do the math for the richest franchises, their savings in reduced salary are outweighed rather quickly - and the weaker teams

that allege to be losing money, don't pull the strings in the NHL.

Imo the contradictions on the owner's side are not only in their messages, or representations of their revenue - they are also literally contradictions in their interests regarding a lockout. They are far more divided and conflicted than things appear in their public presentation of unanimity. Anyone who scratches the surface can see that there are also a whole lot of disparate interests on the owners side.

This is why I think Bettman took a big risk, puffed up his chest, essentially bluffed, and is going to pay dearly. Not only will he face more heat for the history of his dispute-ridden NHL career, but he tried to rally an ownership group that i think has simply too many different interests to please simultaneously - and I doubt he has the leverage to accomplish that. Nor do things like the mega-deals on the eve of the lockout help - they are losing the PR battle rather significantly - not only are the looking to reneg, but got the terms they wanted out of the last lockout, and have taken the action of the stoppage. People may think the players need to cave sooner because they have less wealth than owners to fall back upon, but I don't believe Bettman has enough of a basis of unity to last the NHLPA out. I think he sinks before the NHLPA gives in and is probably being pulled in a whole lot of directions right now.. I simply can't see the richest, most powerful franchise owners tolerating a lockout that lasts that long, and the weakest franchises are also challenged by their fickle markets and the loss of any inroads they may have made if this transpires too long, despite their interest in players essentially subsidizing the floundering markets. If I am a strategist, regardless of what my own leanings might be, I'd advise the NHLPA to hold out, and the NHL to suck it up and make the concessions necessary to end their own ill-advised lockout, as I think the owners actually do have more to lose, and will.