We should be celebrating the opening of training camps instead of lamenting the possibility of another lost season.
The Habs annual charity golf tournament is currently being played for the first time without the Habs. This is a sad reality on what should be a joyous and benevolent occasion.
And both sides in this dispute are neglecting the bargaining table in a shortening two-week window that they have to negotiate, in order to potentially avoid the cancellation of the first regular season games.
Bob McKenzie was on TSN690 this morning, and mentioned that in order for the regular season to commence, NHL teams must hold two-week training camps. That puts us at late September before they have to start cancelling real hockey games (season slated to start October 11th).
And while the court of public opinion weighs heavily in the players' favor, despite Bill Daly's delusional interpretation that Twitter sentiment is generally split down the middle in support of the league or the players, it seems clear a deal won't be struck unless the players bend (not break) on their unwillingness to take any reduction in salary whatsoever.
And don't get me wrong, because I'm not suggesting the NHLPA's position is unjustified. I, like you, want there to be hockey next season.
In 2004-05, we lost an entire year. We lost it because more teams were struggling than thriving, and because the game had lost its magic, tied down by the level of interference that eroded its excitement. That lockout brought with it wholesale changes, both to the health of the league and to the state of hockey.
Did we need to lose a year? No.
There was such hatred on both sides of the fence that no negotiation between the parties took place between the announcement of the lockout and mid-December, as McKenzie reminded listeners this morning.
Have both parties learned from that? We hope. We hope so dearly...
And when we consider what's happened since then, how can we not side with the players who, like us, have heard nothing but rave reviews from Bettman and co. since the last deal was signed? The numbers have been flaunted as a whopping success, with revenue climbing by 1.2 billion dollars, and the product has never been more exciting. Add that to the fact that it's been reported that Phoenix and Columbus account for a 1/3 of the league's revenue losses, in stark contrast to the statements Daly's made about there being a significant portion of franchises losing under the current agreement, and that scale tips even further to the players' side.
No one is buying that the deal Bettman's bragged about for seven years has been a failure that has put them right back in the same place they were in before, and that the rising costs of running NHL franchises has all but cancelled the positive momentum the league's enjoyed since 2006.
But McKenzie has pointed out what's been obvious since negotiations started (too late). He did so in this
brilliant piece, penned last week. While the players are justified in not wanting to give back any of the money owners happily doled out to put a competitive product on the ice, they're losing percentage points with every cancelled game.
And though the players reconcile and retort with their concern for future generations being done right by in their stance against the league, their proposal calls for a maximum four-year expiration date on whatever agreement they come to terms on.
Will Gary Bettman go back on his word that the offer the NHL put on the table that would have the players between 47-49% of the pie will be the best one they make? Doesn't seem likely. At least not right now, with the lockout having just commenced.
Bettman's bullying aside, a deal between both parties seems likely to be made at, or near the 50-50 share that other leagues imposing salary caps have agreed to with their respective players.
So the question is, how much time (and money) do the players want to lose before inevitably settling on those terms? How much of their careers and viability are they willing to forfeit "for the future generations of the NHLPA"?
Their solidarity appears to be unbreakable. But the hope has to be that they've held strong to their position of not accepting any type of rollback so that they can inevitably settle on a deal that's better for them, and certainly one that's better than what the NHL has proposed thus far.
It's a faint hope. And if no progress is made over the next two weeks, will we be headed down the same road we painstakingly traveled in 2004?
How much more will they lose with a lost season? Last time, they gave back 24% after an entire season of lost salary.
For all the bending over the players did last time around, they sit now with 57% of a revenue pie that's increased by 50% over seven years. Would giving back 3-5%, or even the full 7% be so detrimental if their share escalated reasonably over the coming years of whatever agreement gets signed?
No matter how much support the players have garnered (much more than the league, so far), all of us outside of this dispute are on the same side. We want hockey next season. And we can't exclusively blame one side if we can't have it.
Pray for some flexibility on the players' behalf. Regardless of how justified they are, they can't escape the logic of a lost season vs. a couple of lost points on the revenue scale. This lockout was not their choice, but it's the boat they're sailing in right now. No one's asking them to jump ship, but they owe it to us, to each other, and the NHL owes it to us to start working on a deal that would avoid everyone sinking.
Montreal Canadiens Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»