View Single Post
11-23-2012, 05:25 PM
Kriss E
HFB Partner
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 27,122
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Why not? Revenue comes from fans, fans come to see NHL games, NHL games are played by NHL players. (assuming a healthy revenue stream) Why shouldn't the players get the lion's share? The owners are merely investors, them demanding (up to) 50% of revenue is ludicrous in my opinion.

I'll respond to Kriss E shortly, suffice to say I think blaming agents for contracts offered, signed and paid by owners is a wrong way to look at things.
Owners needs the players just as much as the players need owners, hence a 50-50 split.

I think blaming one side only for this is the wrong way to look at things.

Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
You're fixated on a red herring. The supposed giant contracts that are ruining things for the owners. This is a total irrelevancy. The players get the same amount of money in total regardless any contract signed. All a big contract does is take money away from other players to give it to that player, it has no net effect on ownership.
When did I say these giant contracts are ruining things for them? I think it's bad for the NHL, not the owners.

And no, that's not all it does because a limitless owner can give out a lot more cash in salary and yet still be at the same cap as every other team.

Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
TtG, I tried explaining to him the other thread that every time one player is overpaid, you get other players being underpaid by the exact same dollar amount. He somehow convinced himself that this could not be.
That's because I don't think it's as simple as that. What will determine if a player is overpaid, underpaid or fairly paid is performance. I understand that at the end of the day, 57% will remain 57%, but that's without considering performance.

Kriss E is offline