Thread: GDT: Lockout Thread II
View Single Post
11-16-2012, 02:44 PM
Maniacal Laugh
tigermask48's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: R'Lyeh, Antarctica
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by BigKing View Post
Until a few months ago, I worked for a community bank for six years that fell on hard times due to the economic crisis. In the Summer of 2009, they rolled back salaries on everyone making over $50M, starting at 5% for those at $50M and then increasing at tiers unknown to me. Now, we don't have a union and don't have contracts outside of some members of executive management, but nobody packed their bags and left because we were all in it together and you know, 5% off of $50M is better than nothing. Common sense is crazy, I know.

Now, my bank did not reduce these salaries because they just had record revenues but rather due to losing money: lots of it. Regardless though, revenues do not equal profits and if there are a large number of teams losing money, irrespective of these record revenues which the players are getting 57% of regardless of profits, then you need to reduce overhead so the ones paying the salaries can make money. If they aren't making money, what's the point?

To want the owners to subsidize the teams losing money is ridiculous. Folding them would make more sense but that would hurt the players due to job losses so that's off the table. Revenue sharing will hurt the profitable teams just so the players have more jobs by keeping these troubled markets in play, so you ask them to revenue share and maintain an unbalanced share of revenues? Some people still wonder why most are on the owners side if they had to pick a side?

If the players truly think revenues will continue to grow, they wouldn't hold to delinkage. If you truly think it will grow, then 50% of increased revenues will eventually equal 57% of current revenues, nevermind that 50% of anything is more than 0% of nothing which they are currently getting.

You signed contracts under an old agreement that is no longer valid. Those that pay the salaries say that they can not continue under the current system as it is not profitable. Players don't seem to care that those paying them are not making money. Owners are willing to split revenues with them 50/50, which is still pretty sweet when all is said and done. Everyone wins if they treat this as a partnership and both sides are guilty of missing that point, although the players seem to be missing this point more.

Go down to 50/50, realize that you KNEW these contracts signed over the summer were not going to be honored (all of a sudden, signing bonuses were the rage this summer when they haven't been previously...why is that? BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULDNT GET THAT CONTRACT HONORED!!!) so work out some sort of make whole that gets back some of it and move forward. Tell the owners you will not put any cap on contract length and adjust the +/- $500M per year thing a bit more in your favor. With that latter clause, no owner is going to give a contract of 10 years anyways because the cap hit will be crazy for that long. Hell, they should just drop "make whole" but tell them we are keeping UFA and other contract matters, outside of closing the circumvention loophole, and move forward.

I haven't chipped in much on this, but it is maddening that we are where we are right now. If I was justa rank and file member of the NHLPA, I'd be unbelievably pissed right now. I'm not good enough to get paid nice dollars overseas and maybe I'm going to risk my career to make $70M in the AHL. Ridiculous.

I'd love for the owners to go Hostess on them and tell them to have fun flying the russian skies for the next ten years. I loathe Bettman but lets be real here: owners put up the money and risk losing it while the players get guaranteed contracts and the perks that go with being a professional athlete. The owners are not acting like a warehouse owner from the 1820s but are asking their employees to make some sacrifices so they can keep EVERYONE employed, including those in troubled markets. That should be more important to the players and the numerous jobs it brings than to the 4-5 owners folding teams would impact.

Makes far too much sense for it to ever be taken seriously... Bravo.

Only thing that jumps out is I think you meant "K" instead of "M" regarding salaries.

tigermask48 is offline