Drybone, on 13 November 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:
League stooge? Hyperbole? You are reduced to personal insults now? In other words the NHLPA argument has failed.
It it is utterly irrelevant what you think . Just as it doesnt matter what I think or what my personal feelings are. Just so you know, I would prefer they get on with a contract so we can get on with the season.
It is irrelevant to you or what the terms are. Neither of us will ever have anything to do with how they split it up . Just as we will never hoist the Stanley Cup nor ever play in the NHL or have anything to do with the Canucks other than just be fans.
However, I have come to discuss the facts from a dispassionate point of view of the real world. And those facts are exactly as I have laid them out. I am not sugar coating this for anyone.
League has all power, NHLPA has none.
Again, it is irrelevant what you WANT TO BELIEVE. Its what the actual reality is. Anyone who believes the NHLPA has any power at this point must be deluded i. Its so obvious they dont.
I have been telling you all along . I am sorry you dont want to believe it. However, I'm not going to sink to throwing personal insults at you. If you are still holding a vigil for the NHLPA to somehow 'win' , I feel sorry for you.
If you don't tow the 'party line' around here you obviously are a ownership stooge. Methinks the debate on here is what it is all about rather than your dose of realism. When you study the history of the NHLPA it becomes clear that it is the NHL that has had clearer objectives than the union. Eagleson, Goodenow, Saskin and Fehr hardly 1st stringers. While the name escapes me the fellow that interests me the most is Fehr's predecessor. His approach was more collegial and non-confrontational. His preferred approach was unique to previous union leadership and possibly had the most potential. The risk in this approach is as I am sure will be pointed out that the players might not get the best deal. My question would be what have they gained over the past 3 negociations? The collegial approach required the NHLPA become integral partners with ownership. A relationship that transcends the Bettman and Daley roles. It is not a labour vs management relationship it is businessmen with businessmen. I cannot comprehend otherwise as NHL players and ownership are both in this for the money and not for the fans. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming.
As these two groups fight over a $3.3 billion pie it should be obvious to both that a smarter solution would be increasing the size of the pie. If the NHL is to aspire to be something more than a 2nd tier sports franchise then they had better get it together.
- the NHL has a cost advantage over the NFL, MLB and NBA. A ESPN contract or expanded NBC contract is possible.
- the NHL incurs costs even with a lockout.
- it is cheaper for the NHL to continue a lockout than it is for the players. IMO that is why a confrontational approach is a losing proposition for the NHLPA.
- it is not all strength for the NHL as a lost season depreciates the value of their existing player contracts. Just as a player never recovers his lost season neither does his club. All teams have development timelines and for those like Van who are CUP contenders a lockout is deadly for their CUP aspirations.
- the longer a dispute lasts the more stressed the NHL's partners become; media markets, staff, vendor partners, venue partners.
- Fans: I don't think the players give a hoot what the fans think no matter what Crosby says. The NHL might worry about lost revenue in some cities but the reality is the $ sign over each fans head.
It is a simply dollar calculation of cost vs benefit. When those numbers line up the NHL will settle. I am not sure how much emotionalism drives the NHLPA. I hope they have good number crunchers as well. I have doubts about that as they would not have got themselves in this position if they had. When Eric Lindros was one of the key guys responsible for getting Fehr hired it makes me wonder.