I agree that the NHLPA has been unreal;istic in sticking to his demands. A couple of points:
It may be irrational on the surface, but don't overlook the legacy of Alan Eagleson. All those years of the pkayers union boss being an ownership shill, with the drastic depression of salaries has to leave a feeling of mistrust. Goodenow has done well for the players.
The other point is the notion that the owners seem to be asking the players "help save us from ourselves". That is, any team is free to set themselves a budget and stay within it. They chose not to. The core of that problem is gross revenue inequities, but nobody seems to be talking about that. English Premier League soccer has the same problem with revenue inequities (and a subsequent lack of competitive balance), but it seems to be surviving, and some might say thriving.
Furthermore, many of these problems are of Bettman's making. The ill-fates expansion into non-hockey areas, the alientation of core fans, and the abject failure in the TV department all fall on his doorstep. Once again, it may seem irrational, but why should the players have to sacrifice their incomes to help correct his errors?
D'oh! Why don't I spell check?
...stick to "its" demands
..."players" union
...alienation
Barry,
Thanks so much for the comments, and I'd like to counter the points you made:
1) I understand the Eagleson situation. He's gone. It's over. Grow up.
2) The idea of the 'owners needing to be saved from themselves' is a facile argument. The problem is not over-spending in the aggregate, it's a disparity of budgets in the specific. Simply put, Edmonton can afford a $35 million payroll. Detroit can afford a $70 million payroll. Note the word "afford," in each case. This is games theory. For each player in the game to have a chance of winning initial resources and resource generation must be nearly normalized amongst all players of the game. Under the current setup Edmonton cannot compete. Period. All NHLPA propaganda to the contrary be damned.
3)If the expansion into new markets has failed so badly why are teams like Florida and Anaheim (who are drawing in the lower 1/3 in attendance) still putting nearly 14000 people in seats every night? Hockey is a gate-driven sport, and the CBA should reflect that. Honestly, I believe the CBA had as much to do with the loss of TV ratings as anything else. The points you raise are all contributing factors, but don't let the players off the hook either. They get paid to play every night, and they don't. Also, they know they don't have to. That's the CBA's fault as well.
The talent pool will be filled in the next few years as less money is spent on existing players and more money can be spent 'developing' players, which includes better scouting in Europe and the U.S.
I said months ago that this was a 'small market' vs. 'big market' problem with the players caught in the middle. Now, the players have the opportunity to be accountable for the product they produce but refuse to answer the call. To hell with them.
Ta,
Barry,
And as far as spell checking is concerned... I usually have to edit a post twice after I write it... It's no biggie, really.
Ta,
Commenting by HaloScan
