View Single Post
11-14-2012, 09:04 PM
Kriss E
HFB Partner
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 26,651
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I do not have low standards. I believe that the players were guaranteed 57% of hockey-related-revenue, that is all. That means that when one player is underpaid, another is overpaid, and vice versa.

The "standards" for how much hockey players should be paid are determined by fans like you and I, when we pay a lot of money for tickets, and when we watch the cable shows, and when we increase beer spending at bars showing the games. If you think hockey players are overpaid, then you have the power to spend less on hockey.

It's the fans that determine how much players should be paid. Why do you think dominant MLB players get paid more than dominant NHL players? Because the former brings in more money from fans. It has nothing to do with the former being superior athletes, they might even be inferior athletes.
I really don't get what you're trying to say here..
How much money these industries make is based on how many fans they have and how those spend? No kidding.

Not at all what we were discussing. You said Kovalev, Hammer, Cole are guys that are/were underpaid because they gave a lot more to the team than the cash they ended up making. I disagree. I think those guys either more money than what they gave, or at the very peak, earned their contract.
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Not getting treatment when you have metastatic cancer doesn't guarantee you're going to die, it merely makes it more likely.

Jumping out the window from a 2-story building doesn't guarantee you're ending up a cripple, some people somehow end up ok, but it does make it a lot more likely.

Driving drunk on a regular basis doesn't guarantee you're going to hurt someone, but it does make it a lot more likely.

And so on. You can engage in all the sophistry you want about "guarantees", but the real world is run on probabilities, all of it.
So? NO GUARANTEE still stands.

Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I have never assumed this. What I'm assuming is that a CBA which solves none of the league's problems, such as the Bettman-Jacobs plan, is more likely to lead to renewed labour strife.
Yes you have, which is what sparked it all to begin with. Here's the quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
3) What the NHL asked on day 1 was a 25% roll back, so Kovalchuk would lose 25 million. He would then lose even more in five or six years when the next lockout happens, losing more money due to lost playing time, and whatever the next rollback is that Bettman has in mind. The players should not set a precedent of losing 25% every five or six years.
So you see, you were speaking as if it was a certainty. After that you switched over to near-certainty or probability.

All I said was no lockout is guaranteed. I don't care if you think it's 99% sure there will be one, fact remains there's no guarantee.
A lot can happen over 5-6 years (if that's even the length of the next CBA), and if the supposed ruthless Fehr accepts a deal, then it'll be because he is satisfied. If he's forced into it and settles for less, I'm not sure he'll be rehired for the next convention and so, who knows. Really, there's really no way to know what's going to happen until then.

Kriss E is offline