Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
The re-negotiated agreement was pretty obviously a 'best-case-scenario' when it was signed. Unfortunately, we're pretty fair off from that scenario.
The owners always have more leverage, as hockey is a secondary business for [almost?] all of them. It's pretty much the players' only option for a livelihood.
|
Agreed. I somehow doubt that franchise values are going up at the moment and if the owners can lose less money cancelling the season, they will probably go that route. The players have much more to lose.
And while I do not "feel sorry" for billionaire owners, they are still responsible to their companies and employees outside of hockey. If I worked for them and saw them subsidizing hockey players while my livelihood was in peril, I probably wouldn't be too happy. If they are going to use their personal wealth to keep people afloat during COVID, it would be better used to help the middle class 9-5ers who work for them, as opposed to millionaire hockey players.
It would be a much better financial decision for hockey players to take a big cut now and hopefully raise their value (and the value of the product in general) in the post-COVID future than to sit out and not do anything to increase their worth and let fans get used to having no NHL hockey.
I have supported the players in past labour disputes where the owners were the ones responsible for creating detrimental economic situations, but this one is beyond their control.