I'm thinking that the league could have been way more creative in offering a more palatable transition at the very least. If they are really concerned about the bottom feeding teams they could have linked a revenue sharing component. but they have done none of those things.
They have a lockout and keep offering ultimatums
This is not how you negotiate unless you have designs on destroying the other side.
Having a union is in the NHL's best interest, a united body who can be addressed.
Profit sharing, it sounds good but think of this. For years the Canucks were a team that struggled at the gate, few people attended a game. Tickets needed to be cheap but more than that they also needed to address the problem with marketing companies and sales force to try and build the franchise up. It took a long time and a lot of money to do that. They suffered financially as a result. Having invested so much time and money into establishing the franchise now on a solid footing it's suggested that they should now participate in doing the same for teams that are unwilling themselves. Teams that have suffered and do not want to invest more money ie good money after bad. If I'm the Aqualini family I'm thinking " that doesn't sound fair to me, and I don't want to invest more into say Colombus or Florida, I want to recoup what the franchise lost already " It's a conundrum. Teams that have lost a lot don't want to throw away more money and given half a chance would like to just get their money back, teams like Florida are giving away more tickets than they're sellin, and the teams that do have money don't want to invest money in a competing teams financial woes. with only a slim chance of ever seeing a return on the money they're asked to give away.
It's not as easy as it looks. Teams like the Ranger have reinvested in their own product immensely by broadening their scope with TV stations and basketball, and sales staffs bringing in shows and the infamous circus to MSG. Chicago were a failing franchise just a short couple of years ago, turning the corner for them I'm sure took a lot of money pumped back in. Teams like Edmonton are tenuous at best. IMO the league is split in to 3 groups
A) Teams that are doing well...30%
B) Teams that are doing very badly
C) Teams that are just holding their own
All of those teams have paid millions for their franchise, take the entire risk.
The players on the other hand have paid nothing, risk nothing and are being paid the best salary they have ever received in the history of the sport.
As to players...ex players.. like Morrison you can bet he's talk loud and often about pension rights
Seems simple to me as well