Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
12-03-2012, 09:30 AM
Join Date: May 2007
Originally Posted by
DA said it all in his last post, sorry dude. If the NHL wants to 'Partner' with the players, with a salary cap and a cap on share of revenue, it means they are asking the players to share the
risk of owning teams.
It is evident. And it is why I side with the players. They create team value, and do not profit one penny from the rising value of the team they play for.
To be clear:
While being asked to share operational risk, the players share nothing of the proceeds from the sale of their teams for profit.
Often, huge profit. Far more than the operational losses of many years of running the team.
If the owners said, we ask you to share our financial risk, and we will pay you a percentage of profit on the sale of this team, then fine.
That is not what is happening, it will never happen, and that is why I can't believe anyone but a Capital owner and Rentier would ever side with the owners in this debacle. Is that you?
If not, it is not in your interest to defend the owners. You are like a factory worker in America who votes Republican because of your beliefs, and against your interests. It has not helped them, and it will not help you.
And, if the owner sells at a loss?
He can write it off.
This is the real injustice of Capital today.
Massive Losses should sink you like the Titanic, but they do not, not any more. I would take back this entire post if I knew that owners truly risked ruin for selling a team at a loss, but they do not. And so I do not support them in any way.
Today, in this time, you have to understand the difference between money, and Capital. It is an
Yes, they do not profit from a raise of value in the team. They also do not get affected one penny by the loss of value. It goes both ways. The league was flourishing so it's easier to look at them not touching profit, but if it wasn't, they would still get every single penny promised.
Owners don't turn in profit, they lose money. Owners don't turn in profit, players still get paid the same. No risk.
And you're wrong. If they create team value and participate in the growth of revenues, the salary goes up, which means compensation goes up, which means players get rewarded. So, indirectly, they do get a share of the profit.
Likewise for if the league revenues decrease, the new salaries may slightly drop if ever there was a drop in the cap, however everybody already signed to a deal would still get the same amount as their contracts are guaranteed. So again, players risk nothing.
In order for it to be a risk, there must be the potential of loss, players do not lose a dime.
DA's point wasn't even that. He said the players take a financial risk because they are risking career ending injuries every time they play. He fails to see a difference between both.
Also, the idea that the owner is just fine even if he sells at a loss is simply wrong. We have no idea of the debt he owes. It's very possible that his investment turned in the negative. What usually saves them is their other business ventures and the huge assets they hold.
I'm not siding with anybody. I've said this about a million times already. I said at this point, it's all about cutting your losses short. If the players lose the season, they lose more cash than they would had they accepted a 12% rollback. At the same time, the league is losing a lot of credibility and sponsors. Potential TV deals might be gone as well. Who wants to invest in a league that could lockout every half decade?
Both sides are losers, both sides have handled it poorly, and both are dumb for letting it go as far as it has and still is.
View Public Profile
Kriss E's albums
Find More Posts by Kriss E