Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-05-2012, 12:23 PM
Join Date: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by
1. Explain to me what Metallica playing the Arena in Columbus has anything to do with the hockey team losing money.
2. You really think revenue sharing is fair? Explain that to Goeff Molson or Rogers who own the 2 richest teams in the league. Who also paid 10 times as much for their teams as the owner of Columbus did. You think its fair now to say to Molson, "I know you paid 10 times more for your team than I did for mine but too bad, please share your revenues"
Oh and the players will not accept any form of reduction of salary or % of revenues that currently go to them. Thats why there is a lockout.
3. Here is an example of what players salary would be if they accepted a 7% reduction. Crosby goes from 8.7 million to 8.1 and the league minimum would go from 550k to about 515k.
you still feel bad for the players who get 57% of revenues and pay 0% of the costs. The players who are the only ones who have guaranteed salary? And accept no risks what-so-ever?
I feel 0% bad for them.
Now that being said I do not exactly feel bad for the owners either. Im just saying that 50-50 is fair for both sides.
That's difference between players and owners. The players sign contracts to NOT have to take any risk. The owners are businessmen, and by definition make money of risk.
if i work for company x, and sign a contract guaranteeing me x pay and x% revenues, you think i will bow down and take less then my contract states, because company x took bad risk ? where their only short term solution is to slash costs? The company made the contract, their risk, and they have to honor it.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by uiCk