View Single Post
01-01-2013, 03:05 PM
Bruin fan since 1975
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,114
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by 08SeaBass08 View Post
If this is your version of the "bullying" being committed by the league, then we have a very different perspective of what "bullying" is.

You make the owners out to be some kind of benevolent gift-givers, who are simply misunderstood and unappreciated by the recipients of those gifts. I make the owners out to be something very different.

I'll give you a different analogy - Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie gave away almost all of his fortune when he died. That makes him a great man, right? However, he made his fortune by screwing over every rank-and-file employee with low wages, terrible working conditions and the perpetual threat of job loss. So his money, while spent nobly, was as ill-gotten as possible. By your measure, we should ignore how his fortune was made because he did such good with it later.

From what details have been published in the media, I believe this latest offer from management is a good and fair one the players should agree to.

My problem is that management wasn't interested in making any semblance of a fair offer until the NHLPA stood their ground. Had management been more forthright in what the economic realities were from the beginning, I believe this stupidity could have been avoided. Instead, they were committed to making the best deal possible for themselves, and in doing so, created a more adversarial relationship with the NHLPA than was necessary. Some would call this good business. I call it dishonesty, and I don't blame the players at all for responding the way they did.

I refuse to accept the notion the management/labor relationship in any industry has to be adversarial.

To return to your playground bully analogy, the owners thought they could take some lunch money from the weak kid, and when the weak kid punched them back in the face repeatedly, the owners cried to the teacher that the weak kid wasn't playing nicely.
lets see if we can find common ground here... and look at the facts

so we will study it from the players side

they want to play hockey... agreed?

so they have some choices... agreed?

they could start their own league... but they dont... thats one possible choice

they could go to the khl or some other league... and some do... thats another possible choice

they could choose to simply not play hockey... thats another choice...

so lets say they want to play hockey... and lets say that theres complciated labour laws in the land that have penalties against monopolies...

now... thats where we are... i hope you agree

so now lets ask... given these realities.. how much bullying is actually going on?

i believe most owners lose money... i believe the evidence speaks for itself...

and yet you believe the players get bullied.

i dont see many players getting screwed over on their money... they make more then anywhere else...

so what defines bullying to you?

is it the hours they are forced to work?

seems to me they work less then you and i do... so what definies bullying to you?

they say a five year guaranteed deal averaging 2.5 mill a year is bullying...
would you be ok if your boss bullied you that way?

some people say... that we arent like hockey players so stop comparing ourselves to them...

so what definies bullying to you?

if im right.. and most owners lose money... are they the ones being bullied?
is that what im meant to infer by your own example?

are the owners in the nhl.. the rinkraft...

do the players use the threat of antitrust and monoploy right to work rules... against the owners in these cba negotiations?

who is being bullied?
i wonder?

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline