>>But the root of the problem remains "idiot owners", and I don't see why the Player's Association has to pay the piper for the responsible owners' inability to deal with the idiot owners.
>>
>>Idiot owners are not your typical "businessman" with keen eyes for profit/loss, but rather egotistical people getting their jollies from owning a winning team and willing to pay any price to achieve that goal.
>>The owners can certainly exercise control of who gets to buy franchises. In fact they have that control but let the idiots in anyway! I guess the immediate injection of $$$ paid to get into the club outweights the future problems that may arise.
>>
>>The owners should definitely learn to administer their OWN idiosynchrocies before forcing the palyers to do the job for them! They can all exercise good and proper business practises without being guilty of collusion.
>>I feel sympathy to neither side. But I sure can't see how it is that the Player's Association carries any guilt here when it is (idiot) owners who offer the huge salaries in the first place and the responsible owners just let them do it. If there's something illegal about owners preventing themselves from doing stupid business then let the owners settle that issue first before making the players the scape-goats for their own inadequacies.
>>
>>Greedy owners caused the formation of the Player's Association in the first place. And they even successfully "bought" the players' first representative (Alan Eagleson) to retain much of the status-quo regardless. Now the owners are using the law to break the Player's Association! Boy, that's pure brass balls!
>>
>>Sadly, the law may be on their side, too! Which all really goes to show that the old saw that "the law is an ass" is still true.
>>
>>The players are in a tough spot too given that they earn so much money. But you can be sure that the owners are earning even more money.
>>In general we have all been conditioned by the media over many years that UNIONS ARE BAD. So we have all watched, sometimes with great glee, as unions were busted by either legal or illegal means. We're now all headed back to pre-1930s labour situations with long hours and less pay and fewer benefits and employers able to fire you on whatever whim. This is just another "benefit" of the "defeat of Communism". Have you noticed how it is popularly called "the defeat of Communism" yet China remains Communist and was always the biggest communist country?!?! But we've found a way to exploit those poor Chinese Communist masses (who have no unions and never will while Communism rules there) so they don't seem to count. And what it really all means is that **we** have only one way to go - DOWN until we are at the same level as our Chinese Communist (masses) 'brothers and sisters'. Sounds good, eh.
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>>The owners are in a bit of a hard spot with respect to paying lower salaries. Major League Baseball was sued by the Player's Association about 10(?) years ago for collusion. The Players won and the owners had pony-up millions of dollars. Without a salary cap, the NHL owners, if they made a concerted attempt to keep salaries lower, could also be sued fo collusion whether they actually "organized" this effort or not. The salary cap serves to protect responsible owners from idiot owners who do overspend. The irresponsible owners who overpay have a very bad affect on the responsible owners when it comes time for salary arbitration. Idiocy of another owner is NOT a factor when an arbitrator has to decide on which contract wins in an arbitration case. The arbitrator factors in salaries other players of similar skills are making.
>>>
>>>>I stopped going years ago for that very reason.
>>>>While I think that MarkM basically had it right - BOTH are greedy B*S%A&D$ - I tend to get upset with OWNERS who can't exercise SELF CONTROL!!!
>>>>They don't need a contract to impose self control, they can do it themselves. When contracts lapse just offer less. If the player goes, he goes. SIMPLE.
>>>>These guys call themselves "businessmen" yet they can't make decisions - they have to have contracts to IMPOSE discipline on THEMSELVES???? What a pile of crap!!!
>>>>
>>>>As long as an owner - and there will always be some - is willing to pay ANYTHING to have a winner I don't see how you can blame a player for taking the $$$.
>>>>
>>>>If you knew anything about the history of hockey you'd know that players got royally screwed in the first 50+ years of the league. They even got screwed by their own "player representative", Alan Eagleson. They NEEDED a union to get some value for their services.
>>>>
>>>>Why do we put owners in a special category... the players are just ordinary Joes but the owners are special in some way? The owners have done this to themselves. I think it's a safe bet that even if they had agreed to the terms some owners would have found 'legal' ways to breach, or would have paid the 'fine' to pay more. So what would that have resulted in?... same problems imposed by the same people, with players only too happy to take the extra $$$ that the owners are only too happy to dole out.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think the owners would have cut ticket prices if they had won? I can't see it. But suppose they did. Likely that a hot dog or nachos & cheese would have doubled in price.
>>>>
>>>>I simply can't side with the owners because THEY engineered the current situation and they will continue to put ego before rules anyway, as they always have.
>
>
>I totally agree with you but to save the sport I don't see another way than to have a salary cap. And that only because some teams won't be able to compete with the owners having franchises in big market.
>
>But the way that sport have been changed over the years I wonder if it'll ever get back to the way it was before. So I'm beginning to think "I don't care anymore let the owners kill it and then we'll create another league and then create new rules. Good rules this time".