And now for something completely different…

Think of a crappy garage band playing the seediest bars in the city. At this point in time, the NHL doesn’t have much more prestige than a crappy garage band playing in a seedy bar. Hell, poker outdraws it on television, and crappy American cars driving around in circles for hours on end is more popular.

I think an agreement common in the garage band scene is that when a band plays a venue (seedy bar), the band gets to keep the cover charge, the bar keeps the income from alcohol sales. Could this work for hockey?

The PA now wants all of the benefits of the league, but will accept none of the responsibility. They want huge salary increases for one good season and will not accept a decrease in salary when in a two year slump. When a franchise is failing, they summon their collective wisdom and economics degrees and suggest that the team should just move.

The owners have already demonstrated their incompetence in managing their own affairs.

I’m going to propose a true partnership between the NHL and the PA.

The league would hand over control of a certain number of seats in each building. The PA sets the price for these seats, sells them, and distributes the revenue however the hell they want. If 10,000 seats per rink (average) were given to the players, averaging $100 per seat and 41 home games per team, that equals about 1.2 billion – about what the owners are offering, and any sane person with an IQ greater than a that of a turnip would jump at it. These are just estimates, don’t jump on me for the details.

In this scenario, the PA would decide how to pay the players, and the team and the public don’t need to know anything about salaries. The only thing the team needs to know is that they have the players’ rights until the age of 30 or 31 and that’s it. UFAs can then switch to any other team for whatever reason (although there should probably be a limit of 2 or so, so that Toronto doesn’t end up with every twit who grew up dreaming of playing for the leafs). There would be no holdouts – the players themselves have agreed (good luck) to the salary system. There would be no salary based contracts – a base salary plus performance bonuses (or something like that) would replace the salary contract.

The teams would keep all the revenue from the remaining seats, TV contracts, concessions, jerseys, souvenirs, parking, etc. And do not have to worry about player salaries or US – Canadian currency exchange.

This would add some responsibility to the PA, remove the resource disparity in the league, end arbitration and holdouts (unless of course they try to demand a trade), end all those incredibly boring articles in the paper about salaries and payroll and, yawn, I’m dozing off just thinking about it. It might even lead to an end in player agents (do they take about 10% of players salaries?).

Is this complete crap? Are these the ramblings of a man already pushed over the edge due to a lack of hockey?

6 Responses to And now for something completely different…

  1. 7thWoman says:

    And it is the FANS, the ones whom the PA cares so little about, who are feverishly racking their brains generating creative solutions to this mess while the powers that be stamp their feet and refuse to look at each other.

    Bring in the replacement players. I bet they’d play their hearts out. Besides, they’ve already got my money. I paid for entertainment, and I’m sitting home on opening night.

  2. bpanther83 says:

    Bettman cares little for them 2. Sry but the players r right to accept money if the owners r dumb enough to pay it. U wanna weed out the greedy players dont let them play. Tell them this is our offer, take it or go play somewhere else. The owners cannot sit their and say “Damn I offered them 2 much money, i want it back now” They r the ones who offered it. And its true, if a team offers a 20 goal scorer 4 million a year, what do u expect when u have someone who scores 50. Of course he is gonna want more. If work and lets someone does less work then u, is counted on for less, and such, ur obviously gonna want more money then him cause ur value is higher to the company. Its up to the owners to say to the players this is what were offering if u don;t wanna play, then we’ll offer it to somone else. And if a team in NASHVILLE, who shouldnt even have a team cause they have no fan support, can’t keep up with the pace, then DUMP THEM. They got into a business with HIGH risk HIGH reward. But its the owners faults for offering the money they offer. If a 20 goal scorer only gets say 2 million a year…then 50 goal scorer may only ask for 4 or 5 million. They made these contracts up, the players signed them, the players kept their end by playing, now the owners should have to keep theirs. So as I keep repeating…The owners only have themselves to blame for letting these prices get out of control. If they want to restore order then I would take what the players are offering with the luxery tax and the immediate contracts being cut and so on. But They are to blame, they should have to at LEAST honor the contracts they have already made, UNLESS the players agrees to play for less.

  3. NjDEVSFN says:

    $100 on average for those 10000 seats? you can only get away with that in select markets

    what if the league and players agree on less than 82 games? how will the players generate 1.2billion then, even WITH $100/10000seats?

    its a good idea, but it doesnt seem very practical…or workable, but this is only the first time ive seen it, make some adjustments, and you might have a good plan

  4. 19Yzerman says:

    Aren’t going to miss seeing those players performing over and above thier normal capabilties during seasons prior to free agency?

    How about those owner vs owner player auctions?

    I agree that the owners and players alike should not have to be reminded the sanctity of a conctract.

    They should all be sent to some production factory and put on an incentive based piece work job for a while so that they may consider how that would apply in an NHL contract world.

  5. wingedim says:

    An interesting proposal. There are some serious flaws in it, but you have pointed that out yourself that this is just an idea.

    $100/seat is excessive in most markets unless of course you are talking Can$ then that does tend to make it more reasonable ($60 US give or take) for the high-mid range tickets.

    Giving the PA 1/3-1/2 of the seats in the arena for HOCKEY RELATED events isn’t a bad idea, BUT having them set their own prices would just mean seat pricing wars between the ownership and the PA to fill those seats. Good for us as fans, bad for them in their attempt to put a reasonable team on the ice.

  6. GilaMonster says:

    kiss my ass! american cars don’t suck.


Leave a Reply