View Single Post
11-19-2012, 10:31 AM
Registered User
ales83fan's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,812
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hoogaar23 View Post
Was just going to post something like this. Of course if I'm asked to take less just for the sake of it, then I probably would fight it as much as I could, but if the option is to take 10-20% less and still have my incredibly good paying job or not take a cut and lose my job, or even lose a year's worth of salary - then yeah, I would take a cut.

But again - people like to try to compare athletes to regular jobs. The fact is, in a single year they can pay off their car, house, kids education, all the toys they want, and still have some left over. A 10-20% paycut from $2.5M is very very different than a 10-20% paycut from $50K.
On the flip side, if you are about to make 3 Billion in profits, and the option is not to take more than 7% back, (so from 57% to 50%) or not have a season at all and lose all of the profits, even the profits for the year - then yeah, I would take that deal as an owner.

But again - people assume owners to be a regular investment opportunity. It's not because of the size of the capital. The fact is, the millions they are fighting for don't even represent 1% of their's like me and you cancelling our jobs over 100 dollars.

Like I said, the same arguments can be brought up for both sides.

And I agree with you, the players don't have a "normal" job. They are the best at what they do. If any of us can perform at that level, the doors are more than open. The reality is we cannot. This is why lawyers make more than other professions, it's why doctors make more, and it's why NHL players make what they make. Side note, they make what they make because of the owners offering them those contracts.

ales83fan is offline