View Single Post
11-18-2003, 03:45 AM
Registered User
discostu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,591
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
All I've done is make your arguments sound as ridiculous as they are. We have a business that generates billions, managers who are paid millions, a CBA that leaves them free to spend or not, and they are blaming the employees because they are losing money. And you buy it! If they are losing money it is their own fault. Not ours. Not the players. Theirs.
You've done nothing of the sort. All you've done is manage to spout the same old rhethoric, and when you run out of arguements, which is quite often, you'll resort to personal attacks. It's same level of maturity as the individuals on the trade board who start cursing when people don't like the draft picks for superstar proposal.

As for the owners, I do believe it is their fault they are losing money, although, I think they're biggest flaw is signing a CBA that let that happen. Payroll cost is the biggest expense, and the largest factor in determining profitability in this case. That's why this CBA takes on more importance, and hence my interest in its outcome.

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Is this a high risk business? Sure. If John McCaw wanted low risk he could have invested in Microsoft or something. There has always been feast and famine in this business. Years with low profits and years with staggering profits. Build a winner and you clean up. Build a loser and you get mocked and your revenues barely cover expenses. That's the way the business works.
If you admitted you don't know anything about their finances (since all information available is tainted by the owners), then how can you make this claim. Pick a side. You've stated that all financial information has been tainted by the owners, and cannot be used to make any conclusions, yet you continue to make conclusions from it. You can't have it both ways. You've been avoiding this issue. Why don't you address your inconsistencies in your arguments.

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I sometimes wonder myself. I definitely don't expect to change your views, but I've been surprised at the number of individuals who I have influenced. I think I appeal to their common sense. Mostly though I am pissing into the wind.
You appeal at their paranoia, and their hate of big business. There are many people that do not like the concept of big business, and you offer them hollow statements that is contrary to the popular view that gives them further justification for hating these businesses.

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I]Some[/I] of the changes have the ability to change the game? Now there's a strong statement. Too trifling to talk about, I guess. You never challenge the core premise to my argument about what the owners really want. I say they want to eliminate elite teams. I say that will suck.
Why on earth would I have this discussion with you. To have a discussion on how the changes will improve the game, we would first need agreement on the problems that game currently has, which we won't. You think the NHL's current model is fine. I do not.

I think the current CBA is inflationary, and is pushing up salaries. I believe that a new CBA is needed to ensure the stability is needed. Unlike your accusations, I do not think the objective is to eliminate elite teams, but instead to give more teams the opportunity to reach the elite level.

The problems with "Elite Teams" is that there isn't an equal opportunity to get that status in each market. Management in Edmonton or Calgary needs to be more proficient to get to an elite level than management in the bigger markets like New York, Toronto or Detroit. Those markets have much more resources that can be thrown at players. That's a problem to me, and one that I think can be partly mitigated with a new CBA.

discostu is online now