View Single Post
Old
09-13-2012, 06:50 PM
  #41
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
except in this case the employer came out with a Draconian proposal while included loss of rights as an employee,
False.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
has been touting record revenue growth, has been touting that no franchise is worth less then 200 million dollars (even tho they sell lower)
Which means less than nothing without the establishment of expense growth, normalization of currency, or distribution of wealth. When those factors are taken into consideration, it's pretty flagrant of silly and ignorant such statements are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
the issue isn't the employer will shut down and cease operation if players don't take a cut,
False.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
its that there are part who are raking the money in because they are located in favorable markets, those teams are responsible for inflating the cap and making it so the smaller markets can't cover costs.
Minorly true, however, it's entirely irrelevant considering how "proposals" offered by the PA have exacerbated the issue rather than offered any chance of resolution. This is more an argument against the players than for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
the owners have then come out with a solution that they take money from players.
The players are overpaid and have provided "solutions" that take more money away from the owners. Considering NHL players are compensated at a rate that's between 16% and 26% higher than the industry norm, demands for paycuts are hardly unexpected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
to use a better example, you sign a deal to work with a company, your boss boasts about record revenues during a press conference and then comes and tells you he wants you to take a massive pay cut, do you go with it?
There is no merit to this analogy as it does not compare at all to the NHL scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
again players have said THEY ARE OK WITH SMALLER % OF HRR, JUST NOT WITH GIVING ACTUAL REAL ALREADY SIGNED DOLLARS BACK.
"I'm fine with taking less percentage-wise in revenue as long as you don't pay me less." What sort of half-wit actually looks at that statement without facepalming? The players have one position "You must pay us more than we have previously ever made." Despite the ludicrous claims they've made in the press, they've continuous refused to reduce their percentage of HRR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
thats where the NHL is ****ing up, you bring up NBA and NFL yet NOT ONE NBA OR NFL PLAYERS HAS LOST A DIME ON A DEAL THEY ALREADY SIGNED BEFORE THE CBA.
Oh god, you're serious aren't you? This would be hilarious if it weren't so depressingly deluded, ignorant, and ridiculously off-base. There aren't even words to describe the fact that someone would actually make this statement.

Here's the deal, teams will give NHLers 60% of revenues if they agree to non-guaranteed contracts like in other sports. Let's see how quickly the NHLPA agrees to that.


Last edited by squidz*: 09-13-2012 at 07:22 PM. Reason: fixed typo
squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote