View Single Post
Old
12-24-2012, 01:08 PM
  #486
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
The posts above referenced out of whack salaries and said they wished they got 50% of the revenue or something like that. I'm saying it's a stupid comparison. But if there is a comparison to be made it would be CEO Pay vs Worker Pay / NHL Players vs NHL Worker pay.

The CEO's are the high end talent of their companies and the players are the high end talent of hockey and only reason there is a league at all. The talent pool is ridiculously low and if you think they're over paid then go spend your money on AHL or ECHL season tickets.

Again, I have a lot of problems with the framework of pro sports in general and blame the players and owners. But let's not pretend that most owners didn't used to buy teams for their ego and to win championships, not to make money.

While that has changed to some degree that's only because there became money to be made and others jumped in. Now we're somewhere in the middle.

EDIT: I believe there have even been owners who bought teams for love of the game.
Ok, that makes some sense, though I don't agree the comparison is terribly valid. CEO's work without collusion. They get what they themselves are able to earn and negotiate. I'm not a fan of collective bargaining in general and have no problem with eliminating it entirely, though I realize that would dramatically change the way sports league's operate. That's not likely to happen so not really worth discussing.

Again, my point is simply that the league as a whole is unhealthy and giving the players more money at this stage is simply going to make things worse. Who that's fair or not fair to is irrelevant, the NHL needs to fix it's economic problems and nothing the players have presented seems to address that in the slightest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
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.
Revenue sharing as discussed before has nothing to do with the players, it has to do with one owner who is making money bailing out another owner who is not. It's the opposite of healthy, it's punishing the successful well run franchises to help the poorly run ones. That will only lead to a less healthy league. Why be successful if they are just going to take it from you and give it to the teams with incompetent management? The way you fix the problem is creating an environment where the majority of the league can be successful and at that point the ones who are still failing have their management replaced. Yes some owners are idiots and signed players to ridiculous, totally unsustainable (from a league perspective) long term contracts. Those owners SHOULD be punished, but that doesn't mean all of the owners are to blame and thus should just allow that kind of idiocy to continue.

The last CBA was 'supposedly' a win for the owners, but in the end loophole after loophole was found until we ended up in a worse situation than we started. Those loopholes have to be closed, and some of that damage has to be reversed or the league WILL inevitably fail. If the players don't understand that then the owners have to make them understand, for their own good.

hockeyball is offline