Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0
View Single Post
12-09-2012, 07:11 PM
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Originally Posted by
I can't speak for all the players but it's clear that they feel a) insulted by the initial offers and b) feel like they're losing at every corner.
It's not a matter of being insulted or about viewing this negotiation as winner/loser situation. It is about developing a sustainable business model.
A majority of the owners don't take a LIFE risk with their team. For the players it literally their life, and their average career isn't even that long.
Hundreds of thousands of people take a bigger LIFE risk than hockey players and make less money. As for hockey being their life, that is their career choice. A lot of guys have made the same choice and have to change their careers. Just because you chose to pursue a career in hockey doesn't mean you should be immune from having to change careers when you don't want to.
The players trained all their lives and sacrificed a lot to get to where they are. Much more than your parents or you were willing to sacrifice (so it seems). They sacrifice a lot every year. Being on the road for so long is a major issue that most people would not be able to comply with. Having to stay in tip-top shape is a major issue that most people would be able to comply with. Being a public figure is a significantly major issue that most people wouldn't even consider.
I repeat my above argument
Why do you feel the owners are owed 50% of the fans' money?
The players put 50% of the fans money in their pockets. The owners incur a great many expenses and none put 50% of the fans' money in their pockets. In fact, there are quite a few don't get to put one dollar into their pockets
The current offer in it's current state is massive ground lost for the players - I think we'd all agree. So the players are hesitant to give to an unknown system that clearly starts off disadvantaging them from the get-go.
The problem is that the players can't or won't see the big picture. A smaller slice of a big pie can be a lot more than a big slice of a small pie... if in fact there is any pie left
I don't know where I stand on this but I can still consider it from the players' perspective and it makes a bit of sense.
It seems like the players have a victim mentality that is constantly being fed by Fehr and a large number of the hockey 'analysts' who used to be players. They also have a sense of entitlement and are willing to jeopardize the very industry that has been so good to them.
Baseball is really, really competitive even with its whack financial structure.
Baseball still remains a sport where some teams will never have a shot at winning and its popularity sagged for along time after the player strike. And that structure has Fehr's fingerprints all over it.
The owners would've encouraged even more revenue sharing if they were interested in parity.
Let's have more revenue sharing among the owners and among the players, too. The ratio of revenue between the lowest team and the highest is far closer than between the lowest player and the highest.
And the money comes from the fans, not the owner. Owners put very little of their money after the initial purchase - it's an investment not a continuous cost and for the most part the entire thing pays for itself and then some.
Hmmm... do you understand how business works? I don't even know where to begin on this one. That is simply an amazing couple of sentences.
Didn't the pendulum swing last lockout? Salary cap and a huge reduction in the HRR-pie seems awfully like they gave up a lot - no?
Yes it swung during the lockout but it swung back again during the term of the CBA
Now there are record revenues overall but problems with lower-revenue teams but to make up the difference they're going for the players. Seems wrong.
So are you saying the lower revenue teams shouldn't be offering such big contracts, because if you are, then you are on the side of the owners.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by HCH