View Single Post
10-30-2012, 12:39 PM
MoreOrr's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,632
vCash: 500
Most of the arguments being expressed against the players seem to relate to the general issue of athletes getting paid too much. But don't hockey players have the same right to receive those excessive salaries as do athletes in any other pro sports? I could generalize too and argue that I'm against the players because I don't have sympathy with athletes in general receiving such quantities and complaining if someone is trying to cut into their salaries; BUT I don't see that as the issue here.

Hell, the same argument could be made against the owners. These billionaires who don't run their hobby business well and end up losing a few million $, I mean, what's that compared to the billions they make elsewhere. At least the players are on the ice playing/working their 82-game schedule to earn their $. The owners are primarily just behind the scenes handing out cheques and giving the responsibility to others to run or manage the teams. BUT then, hey, I'm not here arguing against billionaire owners either.

I see two issues:
1) the players trying to protect what they negotiated to receive in their contracts.
2) the owners trying to cut costs so that not so many of them end up losing money each Season.

Both seem to be reasonable objectives, IMO. Though I do think that the owners are in a big part responsible for their economic woes; and I think that they need to burden some of that responsibility and not try to compensate for it by demanding that the players have to take less than what they negotiated to receive. The lower costs to the owners should be in moving forward from here, not by making changes to contracts that have already been signed (at least not ones that have been signed and already played on).

Last edited by MoreOrr: 10-30-2012 at 12:44 PM.
MoreOrr is offline