Could the NHLPA not disband and make their own league?
The current players and alumni are extremely wealthy. Could the players not disband from the owners and form their own league with a more democratic formula? Where the players are owners as well and vote for moves such as salary caps, financially unsuccessful teams moving markets, where the overall profit of the league at large gets allocated?
I just wanted to put out an obvious point that the biggest reason these teams are going bankrupt is the supposed business-savvy owners are voting and accepting ridiculous markets to enter. Would you open an ice skates store in equador? No. So why would you think an nhl team would work in the desert(arizona)?
Although I appreciate the side of the owner's are looking at long term and expansion...I cannot help but notice a potential alternative motive whereby sure to fail teams bring justification for the league at large to impose restrictions on salaries...meanwhile the heavily profittable teams can sustain the current ones and more if necessary. The majority of the southern teams will inevitably fail but continues to be leverage and justification for the owners to cut costs such as salaries for everyone.
This was most evident when Hamilton, Ontario presented their case to move Pheonix Coyotes to them and was denied without clear justification. This would tap into the Toronto M
My message/rant got cut off there. To summarize the Southern Ontario/Toronto Maple Leaf market is so large and profittable that it could easily support two teams and likely flourish and expand the popularity in a region where it is already big. However the Leafs' owners are part of the Old Boys Club and do not care about the league at large just their share and the NHL refused the location with little justification. Like the rest of the old boys they are not willing to reach a reasonable level of profit sharing either to prop up the teams in trouble and instead imposing it on the talent using the justification of these poorly located failing teams as leverage to cut salaries league wide which brings their individual profits up still further.
The players will go to the highest bidder...so my question is why can't the players do it themselves instead of waiting for someone else to do it (if that day ever comes...hopefully not to Russia). Yes they are not MBA grads, but they ha
ve the money to do it and can hire execs to carry out a more democratic format, where the success of the league at large will be the only goal not a select member of teams manipulating the system to lower their individual costs. I am looking for a feasible end to lockouts in hockey or any sport period.
So, if it is not feasible please present a reason more detailed than the players are jocks and have no clue what to do.
Thank you tomjc43...for a very valid point and history lesson with Ballard...I remember hearing that story when I was a kid. Okay, arena's are expensive....really really expensive. So is there anything else? Perhaps the individual cities come in as part owners of both the arena and team? Or they can lend the money/invest in the team/arena with a return and payback period over say 30 years...much like Edmonton is considering...except for the fact that the owner is just pretty much demanding over 100 million in anultimatum or he is moving the team...these owners are bullies of industry and arrogant enough to bully government now. Is there anyway to give them the heave ho?
Regarding broadcasting...I don't know if I buy the neworks worrying about offending as much. This is business...and business is following the talent. There are so many networks out there at stiff competition for ratings and ad dollars...I think that hurdle could be overcome personally.
- 9 years agoFavorite Answer
Easy, the players have no clue how to properly run a business. These are hockey players raised to be hockey players. The reason this lockout happened is because they are driving half the league into bankruptcy. How in the world do you expect them to play AND manage the league? The lockout occurred because the owner's are trying to make moves that will keep the NHL alive and thriving for years and the players just want their cut now... because they do not have to stick around for 50+ years.
Lockouts and strikes occur because, essentially, owners think long-term strategies (what keeps the NHL alive) and the players think short-term strategies (what gets them their money now) and they struggle to find land in between.
If the NHLPA did this, that league would sink within five years and it would be a mockery as the XFL was for football.
- tomjc43Lv 79 years ago
Sounds good but here is the big problem. Where would they play?
The only sizable arena in any of the Canadian cities happen to be owned by the NHL teams. All the original six teams arenas are owned by the existing original 6 teams. Snider owns the Wells Fargo Center. So the only viable rinks are owned by the dreaded NHL owners. Think they will capitulate and let these teams in?
When the WHA came into existence the Toronto Toros negotiated a lease with Maple Leaf Gardens to play in Toronto. (Ballard was in prison and couldn't stop it). When Harold got out he shut out the lights in the Greys, locked up the washrooms and shut down the concession power. "I can't stop them from playing on the ice but they aren't using the rest of my building." The Toros moved to Birmingham Alabama the next year. If they are able to find places to play (Hamilton is a possibility) who will watch the games on what. There is no way Rogers, Bell (CTV, TSN), or CBC are going to offend the NHL by showing this league on TV. NBC (read Snider) won't show it in the states and ESPN didn't want the original NHL why would they settle for the ersatz version.
So even if it sounds good these millionaires need those billionaires more than the alternative.
- 2Lv 49 years ago
I've been wondering this as well. After all, what do the owners do that is so important. A reason as to why not to is that it might not be competitive. Players have no control over who is on their team but in their own league they'd have that choice. Would they choose friends or players that fit the team? Their contracts might not let them either. Another thing is that, think of all the people in the NHL. Not the players and owners but everyone else. There are so many jobs in the NHL that we probably don't know about that it might be a bad idea. Another reason is back to the friends thing, how biased would the players be? Would they choose friends of the cup? This can happen in the NHL too it just seems more likely in the players league.
- 9 years ago
NHL players have millions, not billions.
The creation of a sports league requires an intensive and massive influx of capital at the front end to get going: stadiums, branding, personnel at all levels, lawyers, forms, uniforms.
To essentially re-start the NHL would require billions of dollars in capital at the front end... that the players don't have. This is why we have owners.
A more basic reason is that such a monumental undertaking would require personnel at all levels from Vancouver to New York to Los Angeles to organize, plan, and adopt a new league.
You think the NHLPA and Owners are having a tough time talking details? Try the NHLPA and "North America." Good luck.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 9 years ago
I can't believe that people are supporting the owners.
How can you advocate rolling back salaries when small-market owners give out ludicrous contracts?