Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
11-28-2012, 10:42 PM
Join Date: May 2004
Originally Posted by
The owners take the financial risks. The players takle certain health risks. What makes the players so special compared to people in other jobs where there is risk, though? Oh, yeah, the incredible compensation on insurance the players receive, overall. Let a police officer, fireman, or construction worker get hurt and see how well he/she is compensated compared to hockey players. It is a joke. The players are in the profession of their choice and get damned well compensated for their job. Far more than the vast majority of other people in jobs as risky or moreso. They should not be entitled to get over 50% of the HRR simply because they could get injured doing their job. The worst thing is that most of the injuries are from other players! They deliberately do it to each other. Let them learn to play without cheap shots and the deliberate attempts to injure we see every year and there would be far less risk.
The owners take all of the financial risk of buying and running an NHL franchise. They pay everyone's salaries and all of the bills. The players line their pockets. It is 100% clear who takes all of the financial risks of paying for hockey and all associated costs. That is why people are on the side of the owners who are asking for 50% of the HRR. They aren't even asking the players to add all of their HRR to the total HRR amount, which they should.
Enough with all this crying for the poor players and the great risks they are taking. The vast majority of people are not as well protected, financially, should something befall them at work. Let the players assume a portion of the costs related to running the NHL and then they can ask for a higher % of the HRR. Until then, do your job, accept your extremely lucrative and guaranteed money, go get your endorsement money, hockey signing money, signature fees, etc...and accept a fair share of the HRR.
I'm not so much about crying poor players as I'm crying honor the contracts. I think it's not an argument anymore that the players are accepting to go to a 50% HRR, but want to do so while maintaining previous contracts, and really why should the contract that was signed for 10 years not be honored or the ones signed hours before the lockout? The owners that agreed to those contracts took the risk of awarding those contracts and should live with the risk that they took.
No one is disputing that the Gomez contract was a terrible contract, but regardless Gomez should be paid what he signed. What Gomez's contract should be, is a lesson to all owners to be wary of giving out contracts like that. (not that it is in actual dollar amount a huge burden at this point)
I don't disagree with the owners wanting more of the pie as that is their mandate, that's what corporations do and that's what should be done from the owners point of view. What I don't like is the owners wanting to do that by essentially re-writing contracts that have been written. And really the make whole provision I think is huge at this point.
Now on the flip side the players want to be assured that they won't go backwards and lose money, or the clause that says that no matter what, they won't make less than what was brought in from the previous year. Well this I don't agree with. If the revenue goes down and it has a good chance of doing so then players looking for new contracts in the new CBA I think will need to accept less. As unfortunate as it is for those unlucky players the solution would be to sign short term deals I hope for something more favourable later. If in the near future the league is still shrinking I think there will be bigger problems at hand.
Ultimately I would think that if this does not happen, then the small teams will fold and players should recognize that. But players that are currently under contract should remain under-contract and be paid out the amount that was promised. So if that means that the players make greater than 50% of HRR then fine, but as the contracts expire and the game either grows or shrinks HRR will eventually be split 50-50. Does that mean that some high profile players whose contracts expires next year may not get as much as another big star who is under contract from the previous CBA? Absolutely, but I think it's unreasonable to deny the convergence to 50-50 by not taking on the scenario of shrinkage.
It is a concession from the players to do this, but I'm quite sure the players want the game to be workable with all 30 teams to not have jobs lost to teams that just don't work anymore. I would say that until 50-50 is reached everything remains somewhat frozen. The problem with my suggestion though is how does a team sign new players. I guess I would suggest that from a salary cap point of view all current contracts get "reduced" by the 7% decrease from 57%. Then the league would resume from the framework there forward until true 50-50 is reached in however many years that takes.
What's to stop another lockout though? Well I'm not sure how to address that one, I just don't know how this cycle gets broken...
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Reiher