View Single Post
Old
02-10-2005, 04:37 PM
  #11
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falon
You know what, i do think it is reasonable. And here is why, please fell free to butcher my numbers here as I have no doubt that it will happen anyway.
No, no. I'm not going to butcher your numbers, they add up correctly and are a reflection of what you feel a player should be paid. As such, they are accurate.

Quote:
They need to understand that 3 million or 2 million is still 3 million or 2 million.
Only one problem with that, 2 or 3 million isn't 2 or 3 million, it's closer to 1.2 and 1.8 million. Don't you just love taxes. I know, we all pay them (well, mostly) but the take home pay is what I count each paycheck.

Quote:
It is still excellent money that can keep a person in a very comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their life. Keep in mind as well, that this is per year.
That is a very easy statement for you or I to make. Most of us could only dream of making multi millions per year. However, it is the same reason why all pro-sports players are making big bucks, why movie stars are commanding up to $25 million for an eight week movie shoot, and why CEO's for large corporations take home 7 digit salaries. They for the most part are the ones that generate the revenue by draining suckers like ourselves from our much lesser money.

Quote:
I remember when players were making 40,000 at entry level. In Gilmour's retirement speech, he spoke about how when he came into the league he was making 40,000 a season and the highest paid player on their team was Mike Liut who was making 500,000. He said that all he could think about was that if he could make that kind of money one day, he would be set for life.
And times, they are a changin'. Prior to the late eighties players were fiscally slaughtered by the owners and almost overnight the PA reversed those roles. Now, it's time to find a middle ground, hence negotiations, not the demands the NHL is trying to bully in which become more restrictive with each passing day.
Quote:
I do not see how one can defend a group that demands such money, when clearly half of what they make would still keep them in lavish lifestyles well after hockey.
Again, that's very easy for us average Joe's to say, but these players have a special talent that none of us do, even the fourth liners have that quality, otherwise the pool of players to select from in the NHL would be in the hundreds of thousands with each little tike who laces up from the age of 4 having a realistic shot in the NHL. With that, more supply becomes less demand which in turn would drastically reduce the salaries. Unfortunately in the real world and in this capitalist society that we so lavishly cherish, when you have three teams wanting one player, prices will escalate.

In my opinion the only true solution to the above is 1) to slightly lower the age of UFA's and two 2) Put an influx of around, oh, I don't know, say around 138 (23 x 6 ) players back into the market. But, like you, it's just MO.

Dar is offline