View Single Post
11-14-2012, 11:02 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 16,970
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
theres some logic problems in these statements. first as far as the owners handing out 'individual' contracts and then being blamed for 'overspending.' Remember that owners are obligated under the old cba to give the union members 57% of hrr. Not one penny more... not one penny less. Owners cant screw themselves up by issuing individual contracts since the money is already gone.

Now remember that owners have to compete... keep fans happy... winning teams sell more tickets... as do teams with attractive gate attractions. So once an owner knows he is on the hook to contibute his share to the 57% then it really doesnt matter if he spends a buck to try to make a buck. OF COURSE what the owners are saying now is that 57% is way too much money and forces them to lose more money then they would otherwise agree to.

Remember... these are billionare owners so if they WANT to lose SOME money they are able to do it {and often do} But they are just asking now not to be FORCED to lose TOO MUCH money.

Ultimately its the fans that force the owners to spend to the cap and over their budget anyhow. If our owner doesnt spend spend spend then we revolt. So the owners are really just asking for protection against us and our demands anyhow.

Moving on to point number 2. When an individual player leverages a payout to himself, he is taking money from the collective. The collective is entitled to 57% of the hrr under the old cba. The collective gets this money whether crosby or ovechkin get their 7-9 mill or not. If the individual contracts dont add up to 57%, then the collective still gets the money as the owners MUST give the collective 57%

so when an individual player gets an extra million here or there from some owner... its not really the owner paying him. Its really the collective. That money otherwise would have went to the collective. Every player is taking money that is otherwise owed to the collective. So all players take from each other.

Now as for the rollbacks last time around... this money didnt go to help the collective. The wealthy players didnt give to help the poor. This money went to the owners and was used to protect everyones jobs. The rich players didnt give any bigger % then the poor players did.

The players DO NOT revenue share with each other. They resist improving pensions for retired players. They maximize their individual earning powers. They sacrafice entry level players that cant defend themselves yet. They dont fight for the righs of juniors or minor leagers.

The players point the finger at the Maple Leafs and Rangers and say that maybe these 2 teams can bail out the 10 big money losers but Maple Leafs and Rangers are owned by corporations with share holders. It is a bunch of people living hand to mouth that own these teams. Taking away their profits is hurting moms and pops. The players could also easily help the 10 biggest money losing teams by accepting a rollback in their share of hrr from 57 to 50%. This rollback would repersent around a loss of 100k or so on a million dollar salary this year... and less loss in the future.

The players are not willing to survive on 900k compensation this year instead of 1 million but are willing to tell the shareholders of the rangers and leafs that instead of a meager dividend on their investment, they should be happy with nothing

dont get me wrong... i think players do deserve a very good living, but lets call it as it is. The owners have been operating under a very crappy system that has seen players salaries skyrocket way beyond reason. The only way the owners even struggle to survive is by taking taxpayer handouts. Without the 10s and 10s of millions of dollars taxpayers give the owners every year, theres at least 10 markets that wouldnt be able to still be supporting hockey at all.

at the end of the day... the union needs these teams to exist or they are going to lose 33% of their cozy jobs... and thats going to be a hell of a lot more difficult for them then any possible cutback on salaries from an average of over 2.5 mill per player down to maybe around an average of 2 mill instead for the next year or two until growth in revenues has it right back to 2.5 mill anyhow
1. The first point was in response to the idea that an individual could always go somewhere else to get the money he demands if a team refuses to pay him. The problem is that the "somewhere else" is always another team. Players only get paid when owners decide to pay them.

2. When the NHLPA agreed to a salary cap and a max contract tied to the cap number (20%), they agreed to profit sharing among players. Why not place the same profit sharing equation on owners? As it is, three teams individually take home more than 20% of league profits- the Leafs take home 2/3 of all league profit alone! If 20% is a good cap number for players, why not 20% for owners and the health of the league?

JMiller is offline