View Single Post
11-11-2012, 09:40 PM
Registered User
Forsead's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,339
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
That's actually not correct.

In order to have things like salary caps, entry level contracts, trades, escrow, etc you need a labour union to agree to these things. They are illegal in the private marketplace.

What you have in the private marketplace are employers competing for employees and vice versa. This drives up wages in a high-talent field like the NHL, where we saw before the last lockout 72% of revenue went to players.

If the owners want to go back to free markets I'm sure the players will agree to this at anytime and thus claim 72% of revenue, however, the owners prefer socialism. Given that they prefer socialism, negotiations will be part of the process.

Wrong, in high-talent fields it is common for employee compensation to run higher than 50% of revenue. I previously gave the example of Wall Street on this thread, where investment banks like Morgan Stanley spend 51% or 52% of their revenue on compensation. When employers have to compete for high-talent individuals, wages go up and up.
About my first quote I think you did not get what I mean, what I wanted to say, is they have every right to do theses demands, yes the NHLPA have to accept and they have to negotiate, that's normal. I don't deny that. but I personally thinks it's normal that the owners are getting more their way and they have every rights to do so, they have the bigger end.

In my second quote I made a precision about professionnal sport, then again you made a point with 51-52 % not 57 % !

Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
I think their strategy called for negotiations right after the season because during the season they would have much less leverage.
It's probably that, but I still thinks it's hard to defend and actually look bad for the public relation in my opinion.

Forsead is offline