View Single Post
Old
12-09-2012, 11:41 PM
  #69
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 14,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myron Gaines View Post
Those weren't concessions. The concession for the salary cap was recieving 57% to 43% even if it was unfair. Some of those benefits are not tools to play hockey, and I'm not talking about medical attention, equipement or gyms that have been there pre-cap era. I've never said they were ridiculous benefits, but I do think some of them are privileges and not job requirements, which is what were debating. Privileges are relied to playing hockey at the highest level, but not in any way instrumental to the product on the ice, downgrading them a bit wouldn't significantly hurt the product or work conditions as compared to equipement, medical attention and training facilities. Some of the best hockey games I've seen we're 20 years ago when the NHL didn't have the wingspan that it has today. It's easy to blur the line between job requirements and actual privileges when we talk about the greatest hockey players in the world who play for the greatest hockey league in the world. It is absolutely understandable to find players who act like they're being oppressed annoying.

I sense that the problem with the NHLPA is not that the owners are treating them to unsuitable work conditions or pay; It's that they lose a bit of salary and are scared to be condemned to lose more in the future. Which is not in the league's interest, because players can easily opt to play other leagues if the pay is greater, even though their working conditions or privileges aren't as good.
What's "fair" is the players getting 76% of HRR, that's what they got in a free market system. When they agreed to go to 54% of HRR in 2005 (later bumped to 57%), the players got some concessions in return such as better working conditions. Before that point it was up to each individual team to decide how to treat their players on various issues that are now standardized.

What are these benefits that are not tools to hockey? People have mentioned better equipment, doctors, training facilities, flights, etc. Those are tools to better hockey. You could of course have hockey with players flying coach or riding buses, but it wouldn't be as good as hockey with players flying first class, whereby they will be oxygenated, better-rested, and have fewer back problems.

DAChampion is offline