View Single Post
12-10-2012, 03:26 PM
Registered User
DAChampion's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 15,778
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
For those who suggest a free-market is fair. Would you not concede that a salary cap has created a more diverse and unpredictable, therefore better, league?
The fairness point brought is largely a response to those who say that players getting more than 50% is unfair because people various lines of work don't get 50%.

I like the salary cap as an investment into a better game. However, the players have already made the sacrifice going from 76% to 57% and now even 50% of revenue. Now it's the owners' turn, they should accept the kind of revenue sharing necessary to aggressively expand the game.

They're aggressively trying to grow the game from a regional game into a national game, that's a great idea, maybe they should cover some of the investment costs.

Originally Posted by bsl View Post
The whole hotel, equipment, trainer, and travel argument is absurd. All of these costs are factored into every player's salary by owners. You bloody well bet if they were not, agents would ask for 10% more to cover that too.
The fact players and in general all employees in every industry do in fact pay for for part of their benefits is counter-intuitive economics.

You shouldn't expect to get far in explaining it. They'll keep saying "no, owners pay for it".

Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
He says a 10 year deal is a good because it will cut on salary loses.
The league has not offered a 10 year deal. If both sides can cancel it after 8 years, then it's an 8-year deal.

The fact people are calling it a 10-year deal shows how successful the league is at promoting its propaganda.

Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I don't know anybody that goes into a Fitness related field and gets to be surrounded by the best trainers that wouldn't think of it as a privilege. Being from that field, I can relate.
You can choose to be stubborn and yet again focus on a minor detail, but there's very little point to it.

Don't quite understand your fair comment.
I mean surely you must feel inconsistent that you're constantly trying to argue down what financial benefits the players should feel entitled to with arguments that can apply as well to the owners.

It's also a privilege and a life choice to own a professional sports team.

- You get to feel like a winner if your team does the winning. Whereas players have to contribute their minds and bodies to winning, owners contribute their money.

They do engrave the owners' name on the Stanley Cup. I think Jeremy Jacobs actually put his wife's name on the Cup.

Why do you think Philadelphia offered 110 million to Shea Weber? Because it will increase playoff revenue? Maybe? Or Maybe because the owner wants to win a cup?

What do you think of European soccer teams paying 50 million dollars just to have the rights to players?

And have you ever seen Marc Cuban at a Dallas Mavericks game?

One can legitimately argue that owning a team is an expensive hobby, like running a philanthropic organization, and not an "investment".

- Owners make a lot of connections easy. Think of all the business deals the owners end up doing with each other. Closer to home. think of how Geoff Molson's social capital must have skyrocketed among Quebec's elites. Being a billionaire is all about having connections, I'm sure they get more mileage out of that than out of the massive profits and increased franchise valuations their teams bring in.

Last edited by Habsfan18: 12-10-2012 at 04:19 PM. Reason: merge
DAChampion is online now