TORONTO -- With the Stanley Cup finals now securely in the rear-view mirror, the question still remains: Will NHL games be played next season?
NHL Players' Association head Bob Goodenow says the answer very easily could be no.
“
The owners set the scale of salaries for the players and that is the marketplace. It has always been that way for the past 75 years or so and that is the way we are going to go forward with it. ”
— Bob Goodenow
Goodenow, in Toronto for the NHLPA meetings, said the players remain firmly against a salary cap.
Management and the union have been at odds for the past 18 months over the issue of a cap. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and his negotiating team want a hard cap, while the union wants no part of it. Neither side is backing down as of yet.
Is a high-stakes game of "chicken" on the horizon?
___________
Play hard, shake hands, drink beer.
"LA needs two hockey teams like Switzerland needs two navies" -- Norman Chad (from "My 10-Point Plan to Save Gary Bettman from Himself")
"Playoff hockey is the best two months in team sports . . . period."
Fuck the players association. You guys are getting paid millions of dollars to play a freakin' game. Try working your ass off all year 'round, making a difference in the world, and getting paid just enough to get by.
I'm sick and tired of hearing about this crap. I hope there's no hockey next year.
The sad part, I think, it that there is a middle ground here that involves spreading the wealth and maintaining a high standard of compensation for the players (just not the eight-figure salaries we see). But neither side gives any indication that it respects, let alone desires serious negotiation with the other side. Bettman wants to be David Stern; Goodenow wants to be Don Fehr. And neither of those sports is particularly healthy (or at least they're no longer "growth sports"). Meanwhile, the behemoth of the NFL enjoys more money than God and labor peace. The NFL model can't be transported to the NHL (primarily because of things like TV revenue that makes everyone rich), but it seems that you'd want to try to emulate success instead of failing models. Instead, Bettman wants to emasculate the players union as Stern did in the NBA, Goodenow wants to adopt a "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable" stance. A pox on both their houses.
___________
Play hard, shake hands, drink beer.
"LA needs two hockey teams like Switzerland needs two navies" -- Norman Chad (from "My 10-Point Plan to Save Gary Bettman from Himself")
"Playoff hockey is the best two months in team sports . . . period."
While I understand where you're coming from, Wharf, I look at "Try working your ass off all year 'round, making a difference in the world..." and I wonder how many kids dream of being you (or me, or fjc, or anyone here). I mean, some of the players raise millions for charity, make a big difference in their community and inspire kids and adults everywhere. I don't know that too many 'normal folks' do that, ya know? $10 mil for a player is excessive, sure, but if that's what the owner offers then that's what the player should take.
It's the old 'diamonds vs. water' dilemna. One is vital for life and is essentially free. The other is a luxury/industrial tool yet costs thousands of dollars for half a cubic centimeter. It's the supply factor: water is everywhere, diamonds aren't. Good teachers are everywhere, NHL caliber hockey players aren't. Doctors make a lot of money for similar reasons: to reward decades of commitment to education and internship (sounds like major league athletes, eh?). The thing is that any intelligent person could probably become a doctor of some sort. Not every fit person can play world class sports.
I respect your distaste for the way things are, but saying "Fuck you, I hope you go away and don't come back" doesn't seem like the healthiest attitude.
Anybody dreams of being me, I have the committal papers ready to be signed for them.
But seriously, I'm all for an unfettered market for these sorts of things . . . would it were true that sports had them. Pro sports exhibit some behaviors of a cartel, others of an oligopoly, but "free market" (to disappoint the Bob Goodenow's of the world) they ain't. If hockey was (and again, to disappoint the Goodenows), you'd see teams dropping off the radar, since they couldn't compete for labor (the chief input for the output of wins and losses). Geez, you'd end up with Montreal and Toronto as the only Canadian teams. You'd see dominant industries/teams (just like Coke and Pepsi dominate the soft drink "market", so to would a few teams -- the usual suspects -- end up dominating the NHL since they could pay for talent and generate more income than the minor firms/teams).
But with rights come responsibilities, and on this point, I have more quarrel with the NHLPA. A union's first responsibility, in my opinion, is not to preserve the income of its top earners, but that of its lowest earners. In that respect, I think the NHLPA has a greater responsibility to look at minimum salaries, benefits, pensions, and free agency requirements . . . a "salary cap" just isn't the big labor issue here, to me. The NBA players' union failed that test miserably in their last CBA negotiation when the top earners pretty much told the union, "we've got ours, see ya," and leadership endedup caving to ownership. The NHLPA had better take a look at what the game might look like 8-10 years out; part of their responsibility is to ensure that there are jobs there 8-10 years from now. Unions have given back and do give back concessions for the health of their industry (the airline unions might have gone overboard in this respect). Finding a way to apply brakes to the escalation of salaries past the income constraints facing the league isn't labor blasphemy.
___________
Play hard, shake hands, drink beer.
"LA needs two hockey teams like Switzerland needs two navies" -- Norman Chad (from "My 10-Point Plan to Save Gary Bettman from Himself")
"Playoff hockey is the best two months in team sports . . . period."
Honestly I think the best thing for the NHL would be a modifed version of the NBA salary cap where your free agent signings are capped but re-signing existing players isn't (although I think the NHL should cap that too, just be fairly lenient about it to keep disparity at a minimum). I was thinking about this yesterday after reading an article on Yahoo and I think it would work better in the NHL than in the NBA because the NBA gets more TV revenue so you still have some HUGE disparity for the bigger market teams. Let's face it, the NFL sells out pretty much every game of every year because of the supply and demand factor so the TV deals for the NHL will never come close to that and I think a hard cap there is a mistake, however, I'm tired of paying a minimum of $25 to see the Kings play and I think some sort of spending control needs to be put in place. The owners are as much to blame as the players are. Ted is the one who just HAD to have Jagr at $11 million a season and look where that got us. If Jagr was demanding that money up front (which Ted said had been presented to him before he ever signed Jagr so he knew he was giving up prospects to spend that money on him) then Ted could have just said "nah, I think I'll just look somewhere else".
The one league I hope the NHL does NOT imitate is MLB where the $29 million payroll Devil Rays play the $185 million payroll Yankees 19 times a year. A-Rod makes almost as much as the Devil Ray's entire roster.
________________________________________________________________
Don't make me angry.... you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.....
fjc, "A union's first responsibility, in my opinion, is not to preserve the income of its top earners, but that of its lowest earners." Absolutely, I agree 90%. I'd change it to "A union's first responsibility is to all of its wage earners", not just the top or bottom, but I agree completely with the sentiment. The owners, being in a weaker position, will be willing to cave sooner or later. It's up to the NHLPA not to prolong this too far, I think.
Lee, the tix will never get significantly cheaper. Ticket prices are set to maximize revenue, not to recoup costs. If a team can make more money selling 80% capacity at an average of $50/ticket than it can at $40 average and selling out, then it'll take some empty seats at higher prices and go with the money. Some ticket prices will drop for some teams, sure, but that's trying to remain competitive, not out of sympathy for the fans.
I thought the hard part of playing Chicken was laying the eggs.
Despite my strong dislike for both Bettman and Goodenow , I doubt either are really that dumb to shut down the NHL for an extended time.I fully expect to see NHL hockey next season , cause without I'll go CRAZY!
I need my NHL fix .
Current Topic - The Hard Part About Playing "Chicken" . . .
