View Single Post
12-23-2012, 02:55 PM
Release Evertroll
Foppa2118's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 22,820
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SoundwaveIsCharisma View Post
That outlook, that the players are losing money, seems to neglect the fact that the owners are the ones that are taking the majority of the financial risks. If their teams lose money, the players are still going to get paid, they are the ones that have to spend the money to make their teams more attractive to fans, and they also risk a lot of money if they want to upgrade arenas or even more to get new ones.

The argument seems to be from fans that players should shut up because they make millions, the players seems to be that the owners should shut up because they make "billions". Honestly, both sides should shut up, they should get a really good team of financial/market experts in as arbitrators and figure out something that will work longterm.
This just isn't a valid argument. The players play the game, the owners spend money on their business. It doesn't matter if the team loses money. The players are paid to play hockey. That is their contribution. Without that, the owners make ZERO money.

Financial risk has nothing to do with why the players should be contributing more money. It has nothing to do with them. That is the owners sole job. Contributing money into their business. They make the business decisions without the players approval. They reap the benefits. They take the losses if they're making bad decisions. They don't do anything else except contribute money.

I won't disagree the players need to contribute a little more than under the previous CBA, but not for this reason. They have to contribute ALL the health risks (except for PL and Sather's cigar smoking) and contribute a litte more financially because the owners don't think it's fair? Why don't we pick a few owners names out of a hat every year and break their nose, or their leg, or hit them over the head and give them a concussion that may affect them for the rest of their life. I think that's what's needed if you want everyone to share risk.

Originally Posted by Bender View Post
C'mon now, join everyone else in the REAL WORLD. Every single successful business in the entire world has the OWNERS of that business making light years more than the employees!!! 57%??? 43%??? That is laughable in any 'real world' example.

Do you think rock stars making an album make more than the music distributor that sells their record? Do you think actors on TV shows make more than the networks that hire them?

Most importantly, do you really believe that NHL owners as a group, are all doing just fine and making lots of money and this is all about just making that much MORE money? If so, why wouldn't they have just taken the players LAST offer, to stop this nonsense and obvious damage to the sport, to just get back to the aforementioned 'money making madness'??

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that all of these franchises are being run properly and efficiently or that there aren't a few of them that are beyond reproach because I am certain that there are.

The point is, as I've maintained all along, the NHL as a major sports league, saw the NBA and the NFL see their revenue split go to '50-50/49-51' with their new CBA deals and they wanted the same. That's pretty much the only conceivable argument that they can put forward that is actually worth anything. The fact that there are lots of franchises that are losing money and can't keep up?? Practically irrelevant in my view. Why? Because last time, Gary told everyone who would listen that what the league needed was 'linkage' between salaries and revenue to be successful...well, they got linkage, so they certainly shouldn't be crying about it. However, the players had to expect going down to 50-50. The other issues right now, in my view, are 'idiot-proofing' the existing system. (I still don't see how it prevents another moron from signing Wade Redden to that ******** contract.) The players are no better in this stupid dispute. They were and will continue to be paid VERY fairly and their salaries will continue to grow (damage to the game from the lockout notwitstanding). They should have taken the league's last offer because the rest of the crap that they are arguing on, is just a bunch of fluff. Contract length isn't going to restrict players that much. Term of the CBA??? If the NHLPA were actually smart, they'd ask for a 12-15 year CBA. A 50-50 split fifteen years from now is going to look fantastic after the NBA and NFL go through this AGAIN as well, in my opinion.

You can choose to view this as a shakedown and perhaps that's a term that can accurately describe the situation when you DON'T compare it to the other major sports and their recent CBAs.

If the NHLPA really doesn't like it, then maybe they should start their own league, with their own arenas and their own teams and branding and staff and all that great stuff that is apparently super easy to obtain. What other alternative do they have? Class action lawsuit? Triple damages?? Ok, the NHLPA does that and WINS, then the league shuts down? Hurray?

As far as the owners 'not taking health risks', well as you mentioned, they are business men. They didn't decide to play hockey for a living with all the risks that are involved with that. If the players can't handle the 'risks' involved, they can move over and there will be another guy right behind to take their spot, and he'll be real happy about it.
You completely misinterpreted my point, and ironically made my same argument in the last paragraph. It has nothing to do with whether the owners should make more money. Of course they should. Why you ask? BECAUSE THEY"RE ARE TAKING THE FINANCIAL RISK!!! That's their only contribution to the partnership. THE ONLY ONE!!!

They are business men. If they can't take the risks involved, they should get out of the business. But instead they want to rig a system, where every owner is guaranteed a profit, no matter how poorly they run it, or how poor of a market they're in. And what a surprise the other businessmen don't want to give more of their own money to make this happen for crappy businessmen making poor decisions in poor markets, so they refuses to give more, which leaves Bettman to insist on the players fitting the bill.

This is why the Leafs owner "turned purple" and stormed out of New York when the other owners agreed to offer up more money to the players at the beginning of negotiations. That's mostly HIS money.

This is not 04, most of the teams did not lose money. Only a handfull of teams are struggling, and mostly because of being poorly or managed, or being in markets they shouldn't be in. Gary thought the same system that worked for leagues like the NFL and NBA, whose revenue pool is ridiculously larger, would work for the NHL, where every percentage point counts that much more, and each side fights that much harder to keep from losing it. It can't work the same as the other leagues, and it doesn't.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote