View Single Post
12-10-2012, 10:12 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,202
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Fehr is a consultant and he can be replaced at any time. Fehr's role is greatly confused by you people. 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.

Now can you disagree with both points? Forget the supposed "realities", just how they feel.

Yes, the players felt insulted by the initial offer. Yes the players feel they are losing at every corner. I don't disagree that the players FEEL that way. However, the owners have been living under that "insulting" offer for the entirety of the last CBA and feel they are being insulted by being asked to continue to accept less than they feel they deserve. Now, can you disagree with that point?

The money has a lot to do with it. A majority of the owners don't take a LIFE risk with their team. They don't even stake too much of their own money. For the players it literally their life, and their average career isn't even that long.

Yes, the money is a very big part of it. No, the owners are not risking anything physical in owning the teams. The players do take the physical risks involved in playing hockey. They are extrememly well compensated for those risks. The owners take all of the actual financial risks, though, and they are businessmen entitled to try and earn a profit from their investment. Please keep in mind, the players are not playing for slave wages. The players are the highest paid in the world because they are, overall, supposedly the best in the world. Along with their salaries, they get a ton of other amenities throughout their careers and even afterwards. Jean Beliveau still commands $40-$50 per autograph when he comes to a signing in Montreal. I do not begrudge him that because he is the type of guy who got screwed back in the day. Today's players? They get paid far more than yesterdays ever did and still run around charging tons of money for autographs. Ovechkin charged $100 per autograph at a recent signing in Montreal. The players are able to do things to earn money after they retire. They can also get other jobs. The only "real" problem for them is that they can not normally find jobs that pay them millions.

Again, this brings up lots of issues but mostly it ha to do with where you feel the owners fall. Are they investors or are they business owners in the modern sense? Are the players the product or are they employees of these businesses? Can me or you compare our work and job to theirs?

The owners are both businessmen and investors. The players are both product and employee. Yes, you or I can compare certain aspects of our careers to those of the players.

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.

My mother was a single white Mom raising 2 bi-racial sons through the 70's and 80's. She had to deal with racism and poverty on her own due to her husband having died at the age of 38 while her children were 8 years and 6 months old, respectively. She made far more sacrifices than I can even remember, and it cost her a shortened life because of it. She sacrificed everything for us. I also made plenty of sacrifices to get where I am. I started working 1-3 part-time jobs at the age of 15 to help pay for my and my brother's education, as well as help my Mom as best I could with finances. I worked throughout my education AND I made time to do Kung Fu on a daily basis in order to stay in physical shape. In my 20s-30s I was as fit as anyone around me even though I was doing 2 university degrees and working 1-3 part-time jobs to pay my way. I was even paid by McGill University to run an extra-curricular gymnastics program. I have never said players do not work hard to get where they are. They do. They do not necessarily work harder, or sacrifice anymore than many other people who will never see the kind of financial rewards that NHL payers ultimately get. Take it from someone who averaged 4 hours of sleep over 7 years while getting 2 University degrees, staying in fantastic, fighting shape, and working 1-3 part-time jobs to pay for what needed to be paid for. Hockey players are not the only hard working people in the world to make sacrifices to get where they are today.

This is all clear, obviously, but it seems as though most of the anti-PA folks are glossing over these realities.

I never denied that players worked hard to get where they are. I never denied that they and their families have possibly made sacrifices to help get them to where they are. I have stated that there are other people who have worked just as hard, if in a different manner, and who will never get paid the way a hockey player can. Choosing to go into hockey and making sacrifices to get there is the same as choosing to go to University and making sacrifices to get there. There are physical training differences, but hard work is not isolated to the realm of the physical.

Why do you feel the owners are owed 50% of the fans' money?

They pay everything related to hockey. They employ everyone related to hockey. They own the actual business and I feel it is only fair for an employer and an employee of a successful business that needs both the employer AND the employee equally to get the same financial compensation. I also feel that the teams are as valuable, in a marketing manner, as the actual players, if not more. I pay to watch the Habs. When Dryden was playing, Roy, Theodore, and now Price. I will watch the Habs when Price is long gone. I follow the TEAM more than the individual players, and I think there is value in that for the owners. Those are some of my reasons.

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.

No, we do not all agree, which is why there are such disagreements online about this lockout. The players have been getting more than their fair share for quite some time, and that was a deserved response to when the owners were completely screwing the old players who used to have to work jobs while playing hockey and seeing owners get rich. The pendulum was in the owners favour for far too long a period of time. It eventually swung to the players' favour. It is time for that damned pendulum to do what it needs to do: come to rest in the middle. 50/50 is fair, not onerous for just the players.

Then you'd hate the current owners. The owners would've encouraged even more revenue sharing if theu were interested in parity.

I think the owners need to get better revenue sharing going, as well. I don't believe the owners are these ultra nice, benevolent and generous dudes who buy teams for the sake of giving their money away. The problem is, we are talking about competing businesses within the league. They all want to win as well as make money. It is hard to get a guy like Molson to buy into complete revenue sharing with teams that don't have the ability to bring in 30% of what his team brings to the table are the major beneficiaries and are competing against him to win. It would be like asking Crosby to share his salary with LeBlanc. We all know that better revenue sharing should occur. The how is what needs to be worked out.

Ok, from June '12 to Dec '12 the amount of the pie the players are to receive got smaller. This is not arguable.

Due to the lockout, the entire pie share got smaller for everyone, NOT just the players.

Actually if an owner wanted to skimp on stuff it would be his prerogative but his franchise would clearly not be appreciated as there are other teams which would. It's call competition. 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.

Actually, while that is true for the Habs and some others, it is not true for teams like Columbus and some others. There are plenty of teams LOSING money. That is the problem.

So what's your point with this?

My point is that the players get a lot of benefits that the owners all pay for. The costs of all of these benefits should not be dismissed and ignored as if they were some inalienable right of the players to get it. It is an expense that the owners incur. My point is that the players get a lot of perks to go along with their GUARANTEED salaries, a major perk in and of itself.

Elaborate on this. I think the owners hold the high ground because they are asking for things to ensure the profitability and longevity and continued growth of the game (as well as their own revenue. I am not blind nor stupid). I am with the owners because 50/50 is a fair numerical representation of the value both the owners and the players bring to the financial value of the league. I am with the owners on a 10 year CBA so that there is not another work stoppage in 5 years. I am with the owners on the 5 year contracts because there are some idiot owners willing to try and do anything to win, including finding loopholes to circumvent the cap in order to try and win. The only players who benefit from contracts longer than 5 years are the star players, anyway. There are not more than 20% (probably not even that many) contracts signed for longer than 5 years because there are only a few players worth that kind of investment and risk. It should not be allowed since it is a tool being used to circumvent the cap system aimed at trying to get teams closer to a competitive parity. Before this idiotic lockout, MOST people felt the long term contracts handed out were wrong and crooked anyway. Since it only benefits a few players, and is used to screw the cap system, there should be no problem getting rid of it. However, the superstars don't like that idea. My guess is that the Hamrlik's of the league would rather be playing and getting paid right now rather than fight over the less than 20% of the payers who might one day get a 6+ year contract.

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? 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.

It started to swing back, yes. It needs to fall the final distance: 50/50. The owners' franchises bring as much value to the league as the players do. That is where it lies. Both the teams and the players are necessary. As such, both should get to enjoy a fair 50% split of the HRR pie.

I refrained from insulting you, let's see if we can come to a real discussion. But if you don't address ALL my questions you'll be dismissed.
Sorry, it took a bit longer to get to your post than I intended. Thank you for refraining from insults. Notice I never insult anyone unless they take shots (usually more than one) at me. I love to debate and have fun discussions/arguments with people in all walks of life about many things. I hope I have answered your questions sincerely enough to not be dismissed by you in future discussions.

I also apologize to all of the other HFBoards people who might be suffering through my long winded reply.

Drydenwasthebest is offline