HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHLPA fires Paul Kelly (UPD: player review of firing completed)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-31-2009, 12:25 PM
  #51
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Are you kidding?

It seems the same actors who knocked off Saskin are behind this move, also accusing Kelly of not following the rules.

Did it ever occur to you that the NHLPA is such a mess that it might be impossible to operate it in the current conditions?

Whether Linden followed the rules or not, he ended up getting a good deal for the people he represented, and things would have been much much worse if they'd sat out another season because he followed the rules.

Now that "L" word (lockout) is going to be flying all over the place, and the players are going to take all of the blame.
Different set of actors at the NHLPA now.

Linden breached the Constitution and put a weasel in.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 12:34 PM
  #52
colonel_korn
Luuuuuuuuuu....lay?
 
colonel_korn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox X Mulder View Post
I'd take issue with that statement.
Of all the sports I'd say hockey players are number 2 in the education ladder after baseball players.
Not sure how you can say that given that the vast majority of football and basketball players go through college/university, while a ton of hockey players (i.e. anyone coming from major junior) don't.

colonel_korn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 12:45 PM
  #53
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 32,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox X Mulder View Post
I'd take issue with that statement.
Of all the sports I'd say hockey players are number 2 in the education ladder after baseball players.
YIKES, I'm disagreeing with the big guy
He lets one person per month do that. Good thing September is almost here.


It's not a matter of relativity, but perhaps absolute education. Pro athletes, in general, do not major in finance, economics, business or law-- assuming they even go to college (or their classes).

As an aside, the NFL had some program with Wharton to educate players (or was it retired NFL'ers?) on handling their money.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 01:06 PM
  #54
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,369
vCash: 500
Here's a sample of some of the headlines this is generating:

Globe and Mail (link):
Kelly departure a palace coup

National Post(link):
Buzz Hargrove, making friends wherever he goes

The Hockey News(link):
Kelly's thoughtful approach may have been his downfall

Sportsnet(link):
Stormclouds looming


What a fiasco. The players need to fire everyone involved. And ban the Lindros family from anything to do with the NHLPA in the future.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 01:26 PM
  #55
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,972
vCash: 2635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox X Mulder View Post
I'd take issue with that statement.
Of all the sports I'd say hockey players are number 2 in the education ladder after baseball players.
YIKES, I'm disagreeing with the big guy
I didn't rank them or say they were the least well educated so I don't know what you're disagreeing with. A lot of the athletes in other sports come from impoverished backgrounds and broken homes. They've had people trying to hustle them from the day they could rub two nickels together. It's a way of life in the inner city. Most hockey players have no such experience. Their instinct is to trust people.

Buffaloed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 01:32 PM
  #56
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed View Post
I didn't rank them or say they were the least well educated so I don't know what you're disagreeing with. A lot of the athletes in other sports come from impoverished backgrounds and broken homes. They've had people trying to hustle them from the day they could rub two nickels together. It's a way of life in the inner city. Most hockey players have no such experience. Their instinct is to trust people.
Case in point - Alan Eagleson's corrupt reign as hockey czar.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 01:36 PM
  #57
hockeydadx2*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post

Crosby is the perfect poster boy for the argument. The most he could possibly make is $9.6 under the current deal, and the team has little room for enough other good players if they wish to be competitive. Your idea of choice is like chooing between a revolver or a glock to be the gun that shoots you. He had nowhere near the kind of choice you wish to have people believe he did. Without the cap he makes significantly higher money *and* Pittsburgh can get someone better than Bill Guerin to flank him. Crosby's choices and salary were both limited.

Stupid argument. Without the cap, Crosby would be making a ton more money, maybe, but the Penguins would not be able to afford to pay "someone better than Bill Guerin" while still keeping the rest of the team intact. In fact, they probably couldn't even afford to keep Crosby if the Rangers, for example, would be willing to pay him $20million/yr. And they might do that, given that they are the same idiots who paid Bobby Holik as much as they did a while ago.

The cap works fine. Crosby seems happy with his salary, and his team just won the Cup, in spite of the fact that his mediocre winger was Bill Guerin.

The system works, except in the minds of big-market teams who are used to paying whatever they want to acquire whomever they want.

hockeydadx2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 01:38 PM
  #58
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Here's a sample of some of the headlines this is generating:

Globe and Mail (link):
Kelly departure a palace coup

National Post(link):
Buzz Hargrove, making friends wherever he goes

The Hockey News(link):
Kelly's thoughtful approach may have been his downfall

Sportsnet(link):
Stormclouds looming
All of these articles seem biased as well. I really don't know much about Kelly or Hargrove or what's going on inside the NHLPA (although it's easy to guess), but the repeated suggestion that a hard-line union leader is a bad thing is ridiculous. If I'm charging someone with representing my monetary and career interests, you damn betcha that I want them to be hard-line. I don't think Goodenow was wrong in trying to prevent this awful CBA from getting ratified in the first place. I think he was just wrong in overestimating the strength of his union.

Our own Kevin Forbes had the most insightful comment in Mirtle's link that the players themselves (having neither the education or experience in labor relations) shouldn't be involved in the executive process. It's like wanting to hold the sutures as a doctor operates on your child.

Snap Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 01:55 PM
  #59
Turboflex*
 
Turboflex*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snap Wilson View Post
All of these articles seem biased as well. I really don't know much about Kelly or Hargrove or what's going on inside the NHLPA (although it's easy to guess), but the repeated suggestion that a hard-line union leader is a bad thing is ridiculous.
Cuz it worked out so well for the auto industry.

Turboflex* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:00 PM
  #60
Wondercarrot
Stone, Mr.
 
Wondercarrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snap Wilson View Post
All of these articles seem biased as well. I really don't know much about Kelly or Hargrove or what's going on inside the NHLPA (although it's easy to guess), but the repeated suggestion that a hard-line union leader is a bad thing is ridiculous. If I'm charging someone with representing my monetary and career interests, you damn betcha that I want them to be hard-line. I don't think Goodenow was wrong in trying to prevent this awful CBA from getting ratified in the first place. I think he was just wrong in overestimating the strength of his union.

Our own Kevin Forbes had the most insightful comment in Mirtle's link that the players themselves (having neither the education or experience in labor relations) shouldn't be involved in the executive process. It's like wanting to hold the sutures as a doctor operates on your child.
what exactly would be the bias? that their informed opinion differs from yours?
they also seem relatively factual to me as well. there doesnt have to be 2 equal sides to argue here.
the union membership seems to be acting very erratically, they appear to be making poor decisions.

Wondercarrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:04 PM
  #61
st5801
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 1,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
Crosby is the perfect poster boy for the argument. The most he could possibly make is $9.6 under the current deal, and the team has little room for enough other good players if they wish to be competitive. ...He had nowhere near the kind of choice you wish to have people believe he did. Without the cap he makes significantly higher money *and* Pittsburgh can get someone better than Bill Guerin to flank him. Crosby's choices and salary were both limited.
You're missing the larger point, which is not every team has an unlimited amount of money to put towards salaries.

st5801 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:05 PM
  #62
Kevin Forbes
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snap Wilson View Post
Our own Kevin Forbes had the most insightful comment in Mirtle's link that the players themselves (having neither the education or experience in labor relations) shouldn't be involved in the executive process. It's like wanting to hold the sutures as a doctor operates on your child.
That's not exactly what I meant. The players need to have the final say over their own association. However, for the same reason that they need to have that final say, we end up with situations like this.

It all comes back to trust and that stretches right back to Eagleson. Things like Eagleson's handling of the PA's funding led to the players not trusting their own leadership.

Fast forward to the lockout year and even though Goodenow had said to prepare for two years without hockey, the actual reality of a lost season carried a much stronger impact with the players than he anticipated and soon the doubt in his leadership took hold, leading to Saskin and Linden to make the deal with the NHL, effectively turning Goodenow into a lame duck and him resigning shortly after.

Soon afterward, there was talk of a reformed NHLPA with Saskin at the helm and a stronger presence by the NHL team reps with more power to the players. That was followed by Saskin's ousting, first due to an auspicious hiring process and then the final nail coming when it turned out he was monitoring players emails.

Now it's Kelly being pushed out for reasons that aren't too clear but appear to be brought forth by people whose own agendas aren't particularly clear and may be more self-serving then for the betterment of the NHLPA.

I'm not saying that the players shouldn't have the power to run their own association. They need to have that ability. I'm also not saying that Eagleson, Goodenow, Saskin and perhaps even Kelly should not have been ousted as NHLPA head.

But, if you look at the history of the association, and the sheer lack of trust that the players seem to have in the leadership, I don't know how easy it will be to stop this pattern. Regardless of who replaces Kelly, it seems like there will always be guys like Pink and Hargrove whispering in the ears of the player reps and planting seeds of doubt and swaying opinions again.

I just can't see how this scenario will not repeat itself soon enough.

Kevin Forbes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:09 PM
  #63
Turboflex*
 
Turboflex*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
The Hockey News(link):
Kelly's thoughtful approach may have been his downfall
Quote:
Perhaps his biggest mistake, one source suggested, was that Kelly didn't articulate his plan to help grow league revenues. The league's salary cap is tied directly to revenues.

"If he had a coherent plan, he wouldn't be in this position," the source told SportingNews.com. "At the end of the day, there's no platform. No rallying cry."
Maybe I'm reaching here, but does anyone else see this coming back to Coyotes-Canada franchise situation?

These guys could start pushing to flush US franchises and add Canadian ones for the sake of more revenue. Hargrove knows how to play Canadian retail politics, I could see him whipping up the media and maybe getting the NDP to make noise (hopefully the Liberals will maintain their dignity and won't bite).

Turboflex* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:13 PM
  #64
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydadx2 View Post
Stupid argument. Without the cap, Crosby would be making a ton more money, maybe, but the Penguins would not be able to afford to pay "someone better than Bill Guerin" while still keeping the rest of the team intact. In fact, they probably couldn't even afford to keep Crosby if the Rangers, for example, would be willing to pay him $20million/yr. And they might do that, given that they are the same idiots who paid Bobby Holik as much as they did a while ago.

The cap works fine. Crosby seems happy with his salary, and his team just won the Cup, in spite of the fact that his mediocre winger was Bill Guerin.

The system works, except in the minds of big-market teams who are used to paying whatever they want to acquire whomever they want.
Considering the revenues of 2 Stanely Cup Finals runs, and the new building, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Pittsburgh's ability to keep players. A team that was in bankruptcy not long ago is now spending to the cap, while several other teams are barely above the midpoint. If they couldn't afford to pay more, why are they spending the money on Malkin, Crosby, Fleury and Staal like they are and banking on cheap young guys? Seems they'd play it close to the vest(and mid point of the cap) if there was no money to spend.

But suppose the Rangers did sign Crosby. His argument was that players are better off now than they were before this CBA. If Crosby did get $20 million a lot more players would be making $10 million or more. Players in general would be much better off. Stars drive the salary scale.

But let me thank you for stating up front you had a stupid argument. "Crosby seems happy with his salary." "The cap works fine." Right. Because a team can't win a bidding war over a player by offering, say a 12 year deal worth $70 million but pay over $40 million of that in the first 5 years over another team that can only pay that $70 million over an evenly spaced 12 years. A team like Detroit can't do that.....oops, sorry, wrong sport.

Some of us believe players should get market value, and not some predetermined number like a communist regime.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:13 PM
  #65
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboflex View Post
Maybe I'm reaching here, but does anyone else see this coming back to Coyotes-Canada franchise situation?

These guys could start pushing to flush US franchises and add Canadian ones for the sake of more revenue. Hargrove knows how to play Canadian retail politics, I could see him whipping up the media and maybe getting the NDP to make noise (hopefully the Liberals will maintain their dignity and won't bite).
lol getting the NDP involved would be hilarious. Every time Jack Layton is in front of a camera hilarity ensues.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:16 PM
  #66
2525
Registered User
 
2525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboflex View Post
Maybe I'm reaching here, but does anyone else see this coming back to Coyotes-Canada franchise situation?

These guys could start pushing to flush US franchises and add Canadian ones for the sake of more revenue. Hargrove knows how to play Canadian retail politics, I could see him whipping up the media and maybe getting the NDP to make noise (hopefully the Liberals will maintain their dignity and won't bite).
I hope not. Last thing we need is for the Yotes situation to become a political issue (other than saying, yes we'd like to have more teams)
Realistically, Canada could support only 3 more teams.
I can't see a Liberal or Conservative getting involved in this...the NDP...who knows.

2525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:17 PM
  #67
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboflex View Post
Maybe I'm reaching here, but does anyone else see this coming back to Coyotes-Canada franchise situation?

These guys could start pushing to flush US franchises and add Canadian ones for the sake of more revenue. Hargrove knows how to play Canadian retail politics, I could see him whipping up the media and maybe getting the NDP to make noise (hopefully the Liberals will maintain their dignity and won't bite).
Kelly did support moving the Coyotes to southern Ontario and said so publicly.
Quote:
They (Kelly and the NHLPA) also sided publicly with the move to shift the money-losing Phoenix Coyotes to southern Ontario, on the grounds that if the players and owners were really, truly partners, then it was up to the league to maximize its revenue potential – and anyone with half-a-brain in their head can conclude that the Toronto/Hamilton/Kitchener axis would be far more profitable than to pour another $30-million down the drain this year in that money pit known as the Coyotes.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1270789/

BTW Hargrove had his NDP party membership revoked in February 2006 for undermining the party. In retaliation the CAW severed all ties with the NDP.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:21 PM
  #68
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snap Wilson View Post
All of these articles seem biased as well. I really don't know much about Kelly or Hargrove or what's going on inside the NHLPA (although it's easy to guess), but the repeated suggestion that a hard-line union leader is a bad thing is ridiculous. If I'm charging someone with representing my monetary and career interests, you damn betcha that I want them to be hard-line. I don't think Goodenow was wrong in trying to prevent this awful CBA from getting ratified in the first place. I think he was just wrong in overestimating the strength of his union.
Hard line is ok, but it has to be realistic. The Auto Unions kept being "hard line" until they drove their companies into the ground. Goodenow's was "hard line" and cost some players a very large % of their career earnings. A more intelligent negotiating approach could have gotten the same/similar outcome without a lost season (and probably without a 24% rollback).

As for Goodenow's mistake being overestimating the strength of his union, I think that is true. However, while you suggest this was a minor error than anyone could have made, a more reasoned analysis would suggest that it was never a realistic strategy. An average NHL career is well under 10 seasons, so a plan that involves those same players passing on over 20% of their career was ALWAYS doomed to failure. And this ignores the negative effects on future income as a result of the work stoppage. Goodenow constructed a flawed plan, and the result was a CBA which violated his no cap stance, a union that, 4 years later is in a fractured state, and a complete blowing of their leverage.

In short, I would suggest that Goodenow made huge strategic blunder, the union equivalent of Hitler invading Russia.

Egil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:25 PM
  #69
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
You mean to tell me that a deal where not only is the compensation the owners have pay set at a limit, but the players have to hand over a portion of their salary to be held in an account for year, and if the businesss owners couldn't generate enough revenue they get to take that money(that they signed a contract to pay the player) back and spread it among themselves.

The star players are making as much or less than they did before(think Crosby signs for $8.7 without a cap?), and veterans who are not top stars are getting caught between the stars and young kids who come cheap. Except maybe for the cheap young kids, for whom exactly would things have been much worse for had they sat out another year?

Trevor Linden did not get a good deal for the players. He got a good deal for the owners. The only thing he did for the players was got them playing, which, in the cnotext of the deal they signed, was also a very good deal for the owners.

This was the view from a thread regarding Detroit's creativity with the cap, when I asked why was a year given up:

"it wasnt about a hard cap, it was about linkage. Cost certainty. The transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars paid to the players back to the owners. And the owners have it. They have everything they wanted. The players surrendered on bended knee, giving complete and total victory of the triple cap payroll range system to the owners along with Goodenows head on a plate of Russian Borscht from which he is now taunting them. Escrow backed cost certainty."

That is what Linden got the players. In hindsight I have to think there are several Calgary Flames wondering just what they were doing shaking his hand after that game.
Trevor Linden/Saskin got them their jobs back because of the foolish management of the PA up until that point of time. Do you not understand that if you go into the second year out, you are endangering alot of jobs, and most of those jobs are the "grunt" jobs that you feel are being lowballed? They are not going to get international jobs or even if the result of the lockout was the end of the NHL and a "reduced" hockey league, they would not have jobs either.

If they want to go down this road, they will meet the same fate.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:31 PM
  #70
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
Hard line is ok, but it has to be realistic. The Auto Unions kept being "hard line" until they drove their companies into the ground. Goodenow's was "hard line" and cost some players a very large % of their career earnings. A more intelligent negotiating approach could have gotten the same/similar outcome without a lost season (and probably without a 24% rollback).

As for Goodenow's mistake being overestimating the strength of his union, I think that is true. However, while you suggest this was a minor error than anyone could have made, a more reasoned analysis would suggest that it was never a realistic strategy. An average NHL career is well under 10 seasons, so a plan that involves those same players passing on over 20% of their career was ALWAYS doomed to failure. And this ignores the negative effects on future income as a result of the work stoppage. Goodenow constructed a flawed plan, and the result was a CBA which violated his no cap stance, a union that, 4 years later is in a fractured state, and a complete blowing of their leverage.

In short, I would suggest that Goodenow made huge strategic blunder, the union equivalent of Hitler invading Russia.
Goodenow spent two years before the lockout travelling around briefing the players and the agents on the strategy that had been endorsed by the player reps. Goodenow had his marching orders blessed by the executive. Everyone at the NHLPAwas in agreement,

The NHLPA had worked its strike fund with a two year timeline in mind and provided financial planning to help players prepare for a lengthy work stoppage.

Goodenow was very clear with the players if they decided to go down this path it would not be until the second year of work stoppage that it would likely be possible to get an agreement.

His mistake was underestimating the commitment of many of the players and the ability of certain agents to undermine the strategy.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:37 PM
  #71
pepty
Let's win it all
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,496
vCash: 395
Duhatschek calls it a palace coup, a pure power struggle:

In one corner of this fight, you'll find Lindros – who currently has no official standing in the organization – plus his replacement as “interim ombudsman”, Buzz Hargrove, along with Halifax labour lawyer Ron Pink, and lawyer Ian Penny, a holdover from the Goodenow era who'd received a lucrative multi-year contract extension from the NHLPA executive board during last June's meetings in Las Vegas

The Lindros family, Buzz Hargrove, some labour lawyer who lost out to Kelly
and Ian Penny, a "holdover from the Goodneow era who received a lucrative multi
year contract".

There we have it folks, a power struggle ...there is money to be made, all you need is a bunch of old style union types and others on the take.

Kelly had too much integrity and class evidently.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:38 PM
  #72
Turboflex*
 
Turboflex*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Kelly did support moving the Coyotes to southern Ontario and said so publicly.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1270789/

BTW Hargrove had his NDP party membership revoked in February 2006 for undermining the party. In retaliation the CAW severed all ties with the NDP.

Yeah I know about the NDP-Hargrove fallout. Doesn't mean they're beyond making amends for the opportunity to latch onto a fresh new populist issue. Hell throw the Quebec City franchise issue in and the Bloc Q party will be all aboard that train too.

Turboflex* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:45 PM
  #73
Section337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
His mistake was underestimating the commitment of many of the players and the ability of certain agents to undermine the strategy.
I'm guessing there was a lot of silence equals consent, support.

Section337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:50 PM
  #74
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by st5801 View Post
You're missing the larger point, which is not every team has an unlimited amount of money to put towards salaries.
The question is, though, why is that the players' problem? Owners of these teams you refer to choose to be in this business. They put out a product that gets judged nightly against other owners' product. The people put in place for that product have been valued at a certain amount by the owners.

From the players' perspective, they are nothing more than cattle. The minute they no longer are deemed of value(either by performance, or performance at a particular salary), they are cast aside. They are employees. However, they are among the few employees where their presence can have a direct relationship on revenues. Owners sign players to contracts worth $x amount of dollars because the player will bring in $y amount of revenue. And make no mistake, owners do not sign a deal for a cent they can't pay. They will cloud and couch things under different guises, however, these are successful businesspeople.

They need to generate revenues. Tickets, television rights, merchandise, you name it. Some cities can do this better than others. Forgetting the obvious question of why a franchise is in a city where this is so difficult, for a moment, the owners claim that all these cities need to have teams that are "viable" for the overall health of the league. But many people here will tell you(and I know what they are saying, and don't disagree) that the players have no say in where a franchise is located. They have no business getting involved in that.

Which leads back to the question then: if it is the owners who determine who has a franchise where, and not all of those franchises can compete for players, why is it the players' problem? Why are the owners unable to run their business in such a way that they need the employees to save them? The owners do not pay their players a share of their profits if they have a really good year.

I don't disagree with your statement. I disagree with the idea that it's the players' responsibility to fix that. By signing the CBA they did in 2005, however, the players said it was their responsibility, which is why they ind themselves in the mess they do now.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 02:57 PM
  #75
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,369
vCash: 500
Don't see Layton jumping on the hockey populism wagon.

That would more of a Harper thing to do.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:01 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.