Not that either side really, really cares what you think – both the players and owners know the fans will be back as soon as a CBA is signed – but if you absolutely had to pick a side to support right now, which one would it be?
(We’d offer a “neither, just tell me when a deal gets done, I’ll be over here watching preseason NFL” option, but that would be too easy.)
OK, so in the players’ defense, they did give up a ton to end the 2004-05 lockout. Specifically, they accepted a hard salary cap with a 24 percent salary rollback. Now, after a season that saw the league brag about record revenues and through-the-roof TV ratings, they’re being asked to make massive concessions again? That doesn’t seem very fair. Besides, all this could easily be solved with revenue sharing.
Of course, in the owners’ defense, the players gave up a ton to end the 2004-05 lockout because salaries were getting completely out of control. In fact, most of the fans supported the league’s side back then. And things aren’t much better for a lot of teams today. Take the Nashville Predators, a small-market franchise with a local ownership group that was forced to give Shea Weber a 14-year, $110 million contract lest its captain and best player leave town not long after its other star defenseman, Ryan Suter, walked away. It’s easy to say revenue sharing would solve everything, but why should owners of teams like the Leafs, Rangers and Flyers – owners that have far more invested than owners of small-market teams – subsidize money-losing franchises, some of which are losing money in part because they’re not doing a very good job running their businesses? Isn’t that, like, communism or something?
Alright, so now it’s time to vote.
We’ll understand if you abstain.