View Single Post
Old
09-12-2004, 11:14 AM
  #53
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
YOU said owners need something to protect themselves from other owners that don't give a dam about anything else

So the players should cave because the owners are not good managers enough to control themselves ?

You just said in your opinions that the best ''MINDS'' of hockey was on it. If they were such good businessman, managing a hockey team wouldn't be a problem because they would do what's best for them regardless of another owner. PLEASE stop talking about the rich teams. There's a lot of SMALL MARKET TEAMS that are very poor in making decisions, it's not the NYR-DET-TOR vs PIT-BUF-NSH. They all made bad decisions for 8 years out of 10.
Yes I said that. I also said for it has to be negotiated into a CBA. If it wasn't, it would be called collusion, which is illegal.

Should the players that have been the benificiaries of the imbalance created by a few owners, cave? If the alternative is losing teams (which also means losing NHLPA jobs), yes. And why does it have to be considered caving? The job of any union is to protect workers from unsafe work environments and make sure they are not being unduly exploited (being forced to work for low wages). I don't think the roll of unions was to exploit the present business situation to the point where they will lose jobs. That is not a very smart business practice.


The NHLPA knows that they can exploit the current situation, that's why they don't want a salary cap. They just want more money regardless of what the consequenses are for the fans (lost leams does effect fans, especially in the cities that lose teams...) or the owners. That is called being greedy. They would hardly be underpaid under a salary cap.

djhn579 is offline