View Single Post
10-07-2012, 09:38 AM
Registered User
Roulin's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,229
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
what does that have anything to do with anything?

Ryan White is a borderline NHLer and makes almost 700k. If we assume he sticks in the NHL for a while and plays 5-6 years. He will lose a chunk to taxes and union dues, his agents cut he will still bring home close to 400K. That is over 2 million in his career. If he is careful with his money that is more than enough to live the rest of his life. Plus dont forget the NHL pension plan and medical benefits it provides to its players who played 4 years or more.
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
3) Based on your belief that millionaire athletes are overpaid, you want more money to go to billionaire owners, which doesn't logically follow at all.
What DA said. I think ragging on millionaire players in the context of, consumers are willing to spend too much money on the highest level of pro sports, is fine. Ragging on how much players make in the context of a labor dispute with owners who are all more wealthy than the players, doesn't work so well.

Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I side with the owners. Like Bobby Dollas said, how can you be in a fair partnership when one side is getting significantly more of the pie? A 50/50 split should be easy to understand. The owners pay for everything related to the hockey team (players, trainers, Zamboni drivers, rent, security, etc...), take all the financial risks, and help bring jobs to the city of the team they own. The players get paid very generously for the job they perform. The best thing for the players is that they have guaranteed contracts, regardless of how they perform. Gomez gets 7+ million no matter how pathetic his on-ice performance is. What guarantees do the owners have? If they spend millions to buy and run a team, if it fails to do well, they lose money. If the players fail to perform they still get paid. So, I side with the owners.

Actually, I side with the owners enough that I would actively support replacement players as long as ticket prices were reduced by a fair amount (25% ish). Players come and go, I care about my franchise more than about any individual player. Heck, 85% of our entire roster has changed from the centennial season to now. So, I side with the owners.
Actually, if it fails to do well, they can sell the team, usually at a profit. The exceptions that I can think of - Moyes, who would have made hundreds of millions selling the team to Balsillie, had the BOG not intervened - and Koules and Barrie, who ran the Lightning into the ground.

As far as replacement players go... what would that make the NHL, the 5th or 6th best league in the world? I'd stick with the KHL and junior hockey.

Roulin is offline