View Single Post
Old
12-23-2012, 02:08 PM
  #462
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazedZooChimp View Post
I kind of do, my stock options get diluted every time we have to raise more money And I might accept that if it came with a guaranteed contract paying a minimum of $500k a year. Also, I think most professions don't have salary tied to revenue, so it probably isn't uncommon for a salary as a percentage of revenue to go down for a lot for people who work a companies that have growth (like I would if my company ever made money...).

I view it kind of this way. The players could get what they want, and in turn the league could contract several teams that aren't viable. So, what percentage of jobs in the NHL are worth it to get a higher revenue stream? Would losing ~100 contracts be worth it? Maybe for the rich guys, but not for the 4th liners who bounce around the league. In a normal business, if you a union won't renegotiate a contract that is unaffordable for the employer, people get laid off. It's like a city laying off police officers if they can't afford to pay them an the union won't reduce their pensions. Or like a manufacturer closing a plant because it doesn't make enough money to be profitable. That's the concession the owners are offering them. Of course, if the players sign a deal that should keep everyone afloat and then the league contracts that's sort of ********, but ideally that wouldn't happen.
I'm not sure what you do, but odds are you would be more easily replaced than the NHL players. This gives the players economic power. So during 2004 the owners enacted a plan that was designed to save the NHL and the players made large concessions in that bargain. Since that time the NHL has bragged about record revenue and has expanded rapidly. Eight years later all of sudden the Owners claim that the deal they forced the players into doesn't work and now the players will have to take more cuts, but not us for goodness sakes we take no responsibility in this. Revenue sharing? How dare you!
Also your police officer analogy was foolish. In the typical municipality police and fire make up about 1/3 of the work force and yet they make 2/3s of all compensation.

WantonAbandon is offline