Posted on 09/15/2012 11:41:43 PM PDT by smokingfrog
NEW YORK – The clock struck midnight, and the NHL turned into another sports league closed for business.
Unable to reach agreement on a new labor deal, the National Hockey League locked out its players at 12:01 a.m. Sunday, the third major pro sport to impose a work stoppage in the last 18 months, behind the NFL and NBA.
The action also marks the fourth shutdown for the NHL since 1992, including a year-long dispute that forced the cancellation of the entire 2004-05 season when the league successfully held out for a salary cap.
That fight ended with the latest collective bargaining agreement, and when it ended Commissioner Gary Bettman followed through on his longstanding pledge to lock out the players if no deal was in place.
NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly confirmed the shutdown was in effect. The union said it would have no comment.
The sides were so far apart in their discussions that they didn't even meet face-to-face for negotiations on Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The reality is that a professional sports league tries to have it both ways ... by combining individual ownership (and all of the revenue potential that provides) with a rigid organization that allows it to function outside the normal economic and financial constraints of other industries. Basically, a professional sports league is a cartel that would be deemed illegal in almost any other industry.
The problem the NHL faces is that while there is a large barrier to entry for new NHL teams, there is not the same constraint for competing hockey leagues. In fact, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for a competing pro hockey league to start encroaching on the NHL by focusing on traditional hockey markets and ignoring those silly places like Arizona, Florida and Texas. It's no coincidence that the NHL was the most sports league in North America to have a viable competitor (until the WHA merged with the NHL in 1979).
Again, you make some excellent points, but miss the main point: that is the sacred right of ownership does exist - it just exists in the macro of the league itself and not necessarily the individual teams.
My problem with the lack of appreciation of the sacred right of ownership and some freepers is that sacred property rights has nothing to do with being stupid or with mis-using the asset. I am not defending anything the league is doing, but I am defending the right of ownership in general. That includes the right to screw up or the right to be greedy. Without those rights, as well as the right to make smart decisions or to be generous, there is no sacred right.
I’m pretty lucky in that respect too. I have 5 AHL teams within about an hour’s drive (Hartford, Springfield, Bridgeport, Providence, and Worcester), numerous div I hockey schools (Quinnipiac, Yale, UConn), and high school hockey. None of it is televised though. But hockey is great live, so I’m not complaining too much.
And the majority of teams the NHL decided to move south were all WHA teams. Hmm.
Quebec
Winnipeg
Hartford
The only surviving WHA team in their original city is the Edmonton Oilers.
I think the problem here is that many Freepers legitimately question just how “sacred” that right of ownership is when NHL owners go out and sign players to huge contracts — then turn around and complain that they can’t stay in business with such high salaries. Do these owners really expect anyone to take them seriously when this is how they conduct business?
That shouldn’t really come as a surprise, when you think about it. With the exception of teams in large cities like New York and Chicago, the WHA franchises were typically located in smaller cities where they had no competition from NHL teams. Many of these WHA teams were located in some of the smallest cities in North America with major professional sports franchises at the time, including the four WHA-NHL teams you listed, plus Calgary, Ottawa, Dayton, Indianapolis and Birmingham. So it actually makes sense that the former WHA teams would be prime candidates for relocation to much larger metropolitan areas 15-20 years later.
I can’t believe you said 2 things, proving that there are huge chinks in your conservative armor.
First, players hold out for big contracts, fans demand the players get signed, the media, all libs, demand the players get signed, and then you blame OWNERSHIP for that. You are naive enough to work for ESPN.
Second, you disregard the sacred right of ownership, and even belittle it, when ownership does something you disapprove of. If ownership is only ok when they do what you want them to, then it is not sacred at all. It is situational.
Therefore, I can only assume that while you may hold some conservative positions, you are absolutely NOT a true conservative. It does not coarse through your veins.
First, players hold out for big contracts, fans demand the players get signed, the media, all libs, demand the players get signed, and then you blame OWNERSHIP for that.
Based on this statement, it seems like you've given an ownership stake in these teams to the fans and the media. Do the owners have "sacred rights of ownership," or not?
An NHL owner who signs players to enormous contracts and then complains about player salaries is like a GM executive looking to Uncle Sam for a bailout after the company has spent decades signing ridiculous contracts with the UAW. Yeah, I am the one who isn't a "true conservative" here. LOL.
you have no ability to separate out the sacred right of ownership - versus an analysis of the non sacred situational decisions made by ownership.
You can’t. You are 50 IQ below my tolerance. Bye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.