Re: Suddenly it has dawned upon me...
posted at 11/15/2012 9:15 AM EST
In response to BadHabitude's comment:
OK, so I'm not the brightest bulb in the circuit, and maybe a lot of you have already said this, but it has occurred to me that the owners can afford a season without hockey and that they will recover their losses by any concessions that they can gain from the players.
From comments the owners have made, JJ's classic foot in mouth moments I thought they were simply idiots. I was thinking of them in terms of the CEO's that I've seen. As CEOs they would lose their jobs for saying such idiotic stuff as they have. But again, the obvious, they are not CEOs (although some like to call themselves that), they are owners (duh, on my part).
Damn, but this is so obvious. We will see a strike every 7 years. What the owners lose from 1 season they will regain in the next 7. The players will have to blink first until they can all sign in Europe for similar money. And even if that happens, if every player making more than 2 million signs in Europe, know what? They will still be able to fill their rinks.
Despite what fans are saying, they will come back to the NHL. Can you honestly picture yourself staying up late to see Moscow Spartak games even if the whole Bruins roster signed there? And virtually no one will take the flight or move to Moscow to buy tickets.
The NHL is a monopoly. Their product is like crack cocaine to all of us. Even if the crack is diluted the addicts will come back. And the dealers aren't users - the few interviews JJ has had have proven he knows as much as a casual fan, maybe less. (Examples: not being able to recall Jagr's name back in 2000, the Neely comment in the Cup speach, and many, many more)
1. yup. with a new 7 year deal, if the league gets a 15% concession, they've pretty much got their money back even with a totally lost season. Those concessions just keep going on to infinity too. Using the last cba as an example, the 24% gained by the owners moves forward to this next cba too, plus whatever else they negotiate this time.
The gift that keeps on giving. I
If most players stuck around for 20 years, their pain would be minimal too, but they're giving away about 20% of their lifetime earnings on average. From a mathmatical perspective, it's easy to see who has the hammer.
2. see #1.
3. highly addictive all right, but only to a very small minority. most people aren't as committed as you and me.(thank goodness)
Obviously the owners have an incredible amount of power, and it all can't go unchecked, or we'll be right back to the Gordie Howe days. There needs to be some element of fairness, and balance. Your comment regarding a "monopoly" reminds me of the mid 70's. Although, it didn't prosper, the WHA frigged up that monopoly, ruined the owners ability to pillage, and that element of competitiveness re-set the scales.
Same thing will happen again, in some form. If things get too far off the tracks..if it becomes too easy to make money in the hockey business, a rival group will come in and try and cash in.
Another tid bit regarding the WHA, the "addicts" loved it...the addicts bought tickets, however unfortunate, a successful business needs that other 70% to get by. That may be the only thing that gets things moving for this latest schamozzle
The owners are attempting to thwart market forces at every turn. The only part of their business they don't want regulated, is what they charge you and me. Ironically, at some point, free enterprise will step in, and start the process all over again.