Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team
Again.. proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Options that are issued as compensation aren't traded on the pink sheets, they're typically not traded on any listed exchange. They're generally long term warrants with restrictions on exercise and sale. And you said something about issuing shares earlier. Shares aren't "given as options". You're either giving shares or you're giving options/warrants.
Now.. take a deep breath, and reread everything you said in this thread and consider the following:
- Is any of this remotely realistic?
- How does any of this favor the current owner's interests? The CURRENT OWNERS are the ones who decide if this would happen. Even if this was realistic (it's not) and it would benefit the league as a whole (which is very questionable), it would hurt the current owners. They're not going to say "hey, let's all give up our teams because it'll be better for the league in the long run, even if we don't get the benefits of it!"
|
How does it help the current owners? It gives them a season and ends the lockout - it's 100% realistic, the idea that it isn't is something that those of you who side with the players have concocted in order to avoid a realistic analysis of a superb idea. The owners no longer have to worry about players begging them for money and instead can keep the revenues to get themselves out of the black ink while issuing the promise of future stocks to current players.
It's a very simple and realistic idea to compensate for the 7%-14% disparity in revenue between the two sides by offering the players stock options, thus ending the need to give them actual revenue this year, or any year. The money goes to the team to pay their debts to the cities they play in and to pay their expenses.
As we speak, team owners are losing money, and players are making money.
Teams first, players second. That has to be the mindset in order for CBA talks to progress. The primary issue in this case is not the viability of my idea itself (which could be re-worked over 100 different ways) but the realistic usage of an idea like this one as a platform to leverage compliance.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that you would say anything to side with the NHLPA, and I would strongly suggest that you work for the NHLPA or some related faculty and that is why you are making these assessments. You have a motive.
Agreements are like this ARE realistic - they are regularly created in every corporation in the US at the executive level - the highest paid professional athlete is still only an expendable employee, and should know his place.
The NHLPA wants power and control. I say, why not give it to them? And by give it to them, I mean force it on them.
If the owners were to offer the players 7-14% of their given teams, and the players didn't take it, it would reveal for a fact what the average hockey analyst already knows - that the NHLPA and Don Fehr forced this lockout as a power trip. This is no longer about money, this is about power and control of the NHL. If you want power and control, you have to accept responsibility..
The fact is that it's better for owners to give up part of that 7-14% than to have no season and give up 100%. However, giving it to players as cash is like giving a kid too much money as an allowance - he's just going to blow it. Put his college money in a mutual fund and make him earn it. The average NHL player has zero monetary sense - their agents do all of the work for them. They just spend the money, they don't invest it, or put it into anything, which is why Jaromir Jagr is still broke.
I'm sure that one day when your contract working for the NHLPA expires, you'll see things my way