View Single Post
Old
11-14-2012, 12:12 PM
  #931
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
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?
in the nfl... there is definitely much better profit sharing. the owners there made the choice. there was individuals that owned the most profitable teams that made the choice. i guess ultimately they knew football was popular enough that a national tv contract would give them all enough money that it would be in their best interest to profit share in order to make it all work.

but it wouldnt have been possible without the owner of the teams in cities like new york and chicago and dallas and los angeles being willing to see this as the right move.

in baseball... the profit sharing seems to be tied to a luxery cap but in baseball the model doesnt work at all right? there are some teams spending way over 100 mill and some unable to spend even half that.

basketball is closer to hockey i guess in terms of the money involved. Basketball was on deaths door i guess back in the early 1980's and had pretty much busted the union at that point if i understand my history. most the teams were pretty much busted too i guess? i guess this is when they put in their plans to save the league and got lucky cause bird/johnson came along.

in order to convince the owners of any of these leagues that giving from the rich teams to the poor teams was at all a viable idea... it was a difficult process. It is not the first solution that the owners ever easily embrace. Unless the rich owners are the ones pushing for it... its not something in their nature to give into.

and it actually isnt something in the nature of any other big business to do either. Microsoft gave some money to Apple but it was only to avoid anti trust issues. A large franchisee business like a restraunt chain will not see owners of a successful outlet reach into their pockets to help owners of an unsuccessful outlet. Even when the same coperation owns an outlet in one successful location, they dont easily keep an unsuccessful second location going indefinitely. The normal practice is to shut down weak outlets in the chain that cant make it on their own.

So it just is never the normal thought process for anyone that is successful to be forced to give up their success to help someone else that isnt successful. In fact we call this idea communism and we say its an evil thing. Or we quote the bible about giving men fish and letting them eat for a day and how teaching them to fish lets them eat again and again.

our culture isnt set up to make revenue sharing between the owners... the goto fix here. and owners in toronto and newyork and philly answer to shareholders anyhow. so even if someone thinks its the best idea for these teams to give away all their profits... they really cant. They dont really have the authority to agree to it anyhow.

I mean if there was no other solutions... then sure they could probably do it... but there is a very obvious other solution.

Everyone knows the players are now averaging around 2.5 million per year in salary. No one believes that the players need to average 2.5 mill a year in salary to be able to feed their kids or have a roof over their heads. There is obviously room to cut the compensation level of the players back. This will fix the problems and still allow the players to be overpaid.

no one is suggesting for one second to underpay any players. this whole argument is boiling down to how much do the players get overpaid?

i mean.. if you disagree or anyone else here disagrees then id like to see any of you put it down for the record. Would an average salary of 2 million per player put them into the doghouse? Would the players be unable to live in mansions and retire on a 3 year career if they had a minimum salary over 800k per year?

I dont think anyone is suggesting to lower the minimum salary. In fact, I would say it should be raised. I support the idea that the players get enough money to be well compensated. I support raising the minimum salary and making the pension plan better for the players.

For me... i cant stand how the middle class of the players is using the sytem to be getting 3-4-5 mill a year these days. Most middle class players have 8-12 year careers and are making 30-50 mill for their careers easily. This is what is destroying the economic model of the NHL

and I dont see anyone begrudging guys like Crosby or Ovechkin or any other gate attraction from making their money. We see that the top 12 guys in the NHL arent getting more now then they were 8 years ago... and this is WRONG. Guys like Stamkis and the Sedin Twins and Chara deserve whatever they can get.

How many guys are in the NHL that you would pay to go see? 20? 40? 60? Whatever the number... these guys deserve whatever they can get.

I know the number isnt 100 for me... its not 200 for me... its not 300 for me. Theres a couple hundred guys making more then 3 mill per year that could easily be getting paid half their current salary and theyd still be very very rich men. take 200 of these players and cut their salary in half and the funding issue is solved and they will still be getting overpaid.

Thats the thing here. Boychuck and Peverly and Kelly to name 3 guys could all get their contracts cut in half and they would all still be getting over 1.5 mill a year. A person doesnt need more then 1.5 mill a year or 6 mill in their lifetime to be able to live very very very nicely.

None of these players are the reason i watch the Bruins play. I like having them around... but if they were gone and someone else was here that was a similar player then id be fine. I was a fan before these guys joined the team and ill be a fan when they are gone too. I wasnt blown away when we traded for any of them... I wont shed tears when any of them get dealt. I dont buy jerseys or posters of these guys.

Chara.. Lucic... Seguin... Bergeron... Tomas... whatever they can make... give it to them. And I think most fans feel as I do. We want our team to keep our heros. We want our heros to get paid what they deserve or even more if the business can afford it.

So.. none of us actually care if Toronto makes 80 mill this year or 180 or 8. We dont... but Toronto cares and its shareholders do. We dont care if Boston makes 1 mill or 10 mill or loses 10 mill... we dont care. None of us do but Jacobs does.

Revenue sharing between the owners isnt their choice how to fix this and its understandable. The players have room to give back and still be paid too much anyhow. Its pretty easy to see where this is going to end up because the owners are willing to lose the season to make it happen.

They wouldnt lose the season unless they felt very strongly about this. We can all wish it wasnt so... but it is. The players can wish they are allowed to keep their 57% but they wont be. Unless the players are able to make their own league... they have to play under the rules of the owners of this league. Its like walmart employees or any other employees. At some point the owners will analyze their business model and offer only so much in salaries to its most valued workers. And at some point the workers either agree to it or go to a different business.

there is no other hockey business in the world paying anything CLOSE to what the NHL is... at least not for non russian superstars anyhow. The players ultimately can only play 1 of the 30 NHL owners against the others when negotiating for their slice of the pie. But right now the majority of the 30 owners are willing to lose this season rather then do revenue sharing or continue under the 57% split.

again, if the players actually stood to 'suffer' it might be alot easier to feel sorry for them. But 50% of 3.3 billion is still 1.65 billion and split over 700 contracts is still well over 2 million average per player. There actually is no suffering to feel sorry for here.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline