Dare I bring up The Lockout?

[Cheeta]

Why not?

I'm not **** disturbing. I just think the whole situation is the ultimate extreme reality show. Real people, real lives, and multi-billion dollar stakes. Don't forget this reachs well beyond hockey for a huge number of these teams (and that's just on the financial side). There are a lot of shiny newer arenas who need NHL tennants to be more viable while they dream of NBA expansion.

And the hate which will soon be flying! Between, and within, the NHL and the NHLPA. It'll be more entertaining than friday nights in the trailor park I tell yeh!

Of course NHL Big Fish would like a salary cap, even though they're the ones who drove up salaries in the 1st place, but why should the Big Fish loose a season to save the Tampa Bays, Pittsburgs, and LA Kings of the Bettman world? Remember the last strike? The owners cracked because the Big Fish said fu'k it, status quo. Every team already has a salary cap. It's called a budget. Try it some time.

And even though everyone knew this was coming years ago there are still going to be players out there, and plently of them, who haven't prepared for an entire season without a paycheck or are unwilling to live a less affluent lifestyle while taking a hit in the savings account.

And if there is anything we've learned it's that owners want to protect their product and players will play. For the highest bidder of course, but they'll play. Don't expect anyone to retire after all this is said and done because it just dosen't pay to play in the NHL anymore. Dought MSG Entertainment will say "forget the Rangers, they're not worth the headache" either.

So what am I saying?

It's going to be great fun watching as it evolves. I haven't watched NHL hockey for years, but I'll be watching this in a sort of ghoulish fascination. Like seeing a realy bad automobile accident right up close and knowing the guy involved while still alive, is dead no matter what anyone dose and it's tic-toc, tic-toc, until the blood pool dosen't get any bigger. Creepy. Too creepy. But you just got to keep staring and not even blink. Can't help yourself.

That, and they'll end up playing a half season with some sort of short term, half won-half lost CBA for both sides.

There won't be a salary cap so if you're keeping score when it comes to NHL labour/managment disputes it's going to be Players-2 Owners-nil.

See you in 6 months. See how close I am.

[Free kick]

A few days ago, Sportnet showed the results of one of their usually innane internet polls. Normally, I have no use for these kind of silly internet polls since the questions are usually very stupid and the results are ultra predictable. You'll usually get things like (duh!), who is the best Canadian NHL team? and results will always be (duh!) the Leafs of course. Reagrdless of where they are in the standings.

But this particular poll was interesting. The question, as usual was silly, but the results very surprising. It asked who the viewers supported in the NHL labour conflict. A surprising 50% said: "the owners" while only 8% said the "Players". The rest went with an in between option. I would have never thought that there would have been such widespread support for the owners and so little support for the players union given what we have seen in the past with strikes and lockouts in pro sports. Especially considering that a disproportionate number of viewers are in the Southern Ontario market ( ie.: Leafs supporters). You would think that salary caps and cost controls would hurt the bigger spending teams in that they would bring them back to the pack in terms of spending to improve their team.

The PR wars always seem important in these kind of things judging from past players strikes in North american sports. I have a feeling that, for the first time, the players union is losing badly on the PR front. This would lead me to believe that they will be the first to blink in conflict and that the conflict may be shorter than many think. The NHL is now the only league in North america without a cap. How will they be able to justify thier cause under these circumstances when the more popular and profitable sports circuits do have a cap.

[Free kick]

A few days ago, Sportnet showed the results of one of their usually innane internet polls. Normally, I have no use for these kind of silly internet polls since the questions are usually very stupid and the results are ultra predictable. You'll usually get things like (duh!), who is the best Canadian NHL team? and results will always be (duh!) the Leafs of course. Reagrdless of where they are in the standings.

But this particular poll was interesting. The question, as usual was silly, but the results very surprising. It asked who the viewers supported in the NHL labour conflict. A surprising 50% said: "the owners" while only 8% said the "Players". The rest went with an in between option. I would have never thought that there would have been such widespread support for the owners and so little support for the players union given what we have seen in the past with strikes and lockouts in pro sports. Especially considering that a disproportionate number of viewers are in the Southern Ontario market ( ie.: Leafs supporters). You would think that salary caps and cost controls would hurt the bigger spending teams in that they would bring them back to the pack in terms of spending to improve their team.

The PR wars always seem important in these kind of things judging from past players strikes in North american sports. I have a feeling that, for the first time, the players union is losing badly on the PR front. This would lead me to believe that they will be the first to blink in conflict and that the conflict may be shorter than many think. The NHL is now the only league in North america without a cap. How will they be able to justify thier cause under these circumstances when the more popular and profitable sports circuits do have a cap.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

There won't be a salary cap so if you're keeping score when it comes to NHL labour/managment disputes it's going to be Players-2 Owners-nil.

See you in 6 months. See how close I am.

If the players cave in, there will be a salary cap. Thats how they eneded up with one in the other sports. For example, if the owners decide to go with replacement players or players decide to defy the union and cross the picket. Those guys that went to Switzerland can't possibly hope to make anywhere near the same kind of dough that they make in the NHL. Eventually, they will see the light.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

There won't be a salary cap so if you're keeping score when it comes to NHL labour/managment disputes it's going to be Players-2 Owners-nil.

See you in 6 months. See how close I am.

If the players cave in, there will be a salary cap. Thats how they eneded up with one in the other sports. For example, if the owners decide to go with replacement players or players decide to defy the union and cross the picket. Those guys that went to Switzerland can't possibly hope to make anywhere near the same kind of dough that they make in the NHL. Eventually, they will see the light.

[Cheeta]

Ah yes, but will anyone pay to watch the third and fourth line players slug away?

Jets averaged around 13,000 per year the last couple of years. Moose average maybe 5,000 at half the ticket costs with lots of corporate give aways. Corporate seats will still get sold but buildings are going to be pretty empty.

Moot point anyway. As long as there's a lock out replacement workers cannot be brought in. In BC and Quebec at least and I'm pretty sure in Ontario as well. If there is no lock out everyone returns to work on the old status quo if no other agreement has been otherwise reached.

Not surprised with the poll results. Hard to sypathise with people making millions of dollars per year and not being happy about it. Certainly have a salary cap at my work.

Alternative hockey options are what's going to decide this dispute I'm thinking. The NHL just can't allow anyone to get their foot in the door so to speak. If something evolves it would sure speed up the process but that's a pretty tall order. Still, a few lads with a few bucks could put on a tourny or two and test the waters. At least in Canada and the American NE.

The networks would buy into.

[redhat]

Ah Cheeta, it's a big ass can of worms...

There are only a few players worth signing for big bucks. Other than that, the players get

limited sympathy for me. As for your examples regarding the Jets (still a sore issue up to now),

they averaged 13,000 people in a 15,000 arena (that was built in the 50s meant for 7,000). People

had some passion despite outdoor parking (in -40C weather), ridiculous seats, and inferior amenities. (May I remind you of the trough-like urinals in the washrooms!).

As for the Moose and the AHL, it's a fairly-priced example of entertainment with unrecognizable

players. But as a developmental league, the parent team (Vancouver) always will take rising stars

and have playing time for its prospects as a priority. In other words, winning is not the goal.

There's some form of cap in all other sports and maybe some of the players had too many cross-checks

to the head as they still don't get it regarding the future of the NHL. Good luck to some of them

in Europe.

Too early yet to miss hockey, and too early to give a damn. Thank goodness for football (soccer

and CFL).