View Single Post
10-23-2012, 09:29 PM
Registered User
IdealisticSniper's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,997
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by turd ferguson View Post
I think it's interesting that you use a pecuniary defense as to why the players are the greedy party in a lockout - not a strike - when almost all of their income is salary based, unlike the owners who are getting more money and at a lower percent of tax (most likely)

You can argue all day, but there's really no leg to stand on in the "why won't the players play for less for the poor owners" crowd
Want to know what leg there is to stand on? Keep it very simple. No agreement means no NHL. No NHL means no job for 700+ players. Said players would have to disperse to other continents to continue playing. More than half wouldn't have a job playing professional hockey anywhere anymore. Most players have very little to fall back on.

No NHL for the owners means they have to find another investment, tax write off, toy. Nothing more nothing less.

That simple. Players need it to live, owners do not. Therefore owners hold all of the leverage. Period.

As for why players are being greedy compared to owners. Players have zero expenses, zero risk financially. The owners pay for all of that and lose money. Players don't lose money, they just don't get as much as get could have had the product made more. Players have health risks but they have fully paid for health care from the best doctors in the world. So yes owners should make more and players should make less just based on that. Frankly I think 50/50 is incredibly good for the players.

IdealisticSniper is offline   Reply With Quote