Stephen Brunt goes a little of the deep end on the NHL

Again, I think the saltwater of the east coast has effected Steven Brunt. The normally well written columnist for the Globe and Mail seems to be sounding the alarm bell a little early in his most current article which can be found here.

Here is the relevant evidence:

“But the collective agreement has proven to be a disaster from the owners’ point of view. The spiking Canadian dollar pushed up overall league revenue (and thus player salaries), with no coincidental spike in the U.S. hockey business, and the revenue-sharing system didn’t do enough to protect struggling U.S.-based franchises from the wild inflation.

Bettman said over and over again he was only interested in negotiating a deal that worked for all 30 franchises in their current markets. If that was the goal, he failed miserably, and some of those owners doomed to perpetual operating losses must have noticed.

A flawed contract, problem franchises, spiralling salaries, a tough guy (Paul Kelly) again running the union: So why did they sacrifice that season again?

And now there is the continuing fiasco with the Predators — a franchise that, if the labour agreement was all it was cracked up to be, surely wouldn’t have had any trouble attracting stable, deep-pocketed ownership.”

Wait wait wait. The current deal is a disaster? I think, if memory serves me correct the geniuses who claimed this to be a one sided deal for the owners were the press. It was the hockey blogosphere, especially the good folks at who said this was probably a more balanced deal then being portrayed by the sports media.

While the current deal isn’t perfect, I don’t think I have heard anyone call it a disaster. Yes the Canadian dollar is up, way up. Yes this has had a huge effect on the well being of the league and a cause of the rapid increase in the cap. to call it a disaster is a but much Stephen. I think we need more time to see how the dust settles before we can call it a disaster no?

About the Author