View Single Post
Old
11-13-2012, 12:05 AM
  #471
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I share your concerns about the second world and the third world but they are a complete non-sequitur.

It's true that there are people out there who have it worse than Kovalchuk, but there will always be people who have it worse. That doesn't justify transferring money from Kovalchuk to the billionaire owners. Cutting money from the players, and giving it to Jeremy Jacobs, is not going to help with malaria vaccination programs in Uganda.

If you don't like it, take the money you're spending on hockey now, and donate it to Doctors without borders.

By the way, it's a well-known statistic that most lottery winners end up losing everything. NHL players live a necessarily expensive lifestyle and forego an education to pursue a career that often leads to physiological damage and brain damage. They retire at 40 (if they're lucky) with no transferable skills. So yes, every additional dollar is a huge difference. If I'm a player I go for every dollar I can.
My brother worked for both Doctors without Borders and Red Cross, I've donated before. Right now I'm doing Movember, and am organizing a fund raiser with a raffle at the end of the month. I do the best I can with my limited resources.
But yes, it's not about that, I was responding to the fact that they're doing this for their well being. Point is, they will be just fine.
It's not my fault players are stupid and go spend every dime, and all the more reason to give them less. If all they're going to do is spend carelessly because of their expensive lifestyle, they get even less sympathy. Poor guy won't be able to make his payments on his Ferrari and Lamborghini..
Let's break out the tissue box..

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
1) Kovalchuk's contract has nothing to do with the lockout. Even if Kovalchuk had signed a 7 year contract paying 49 million total, there would still be a lockout. The contract does not negatively impact the finances of the NHL. The players get 57% of revenue regardless of what how the terms are spread out.
2) The NHL had the option of rejecting the Kovalchuk deal. It chose not to, it merely requested a small modification.
1) Kovalchuk is part of the group that's absolutely against rollbacks, to the point where he would stay in the KHL. A
2)NJ gave up their 1st round pick for that contract.
3) The league wants that type of contract to disappear, hence the 5 year max contracts under the proposed new CBA.

Kriss E is offline