HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

Anti-lockout protests in Buffalo and around the league

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2012, 12:38 PM
  #26
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Yes, when you will still be getting paid better than 99% of the CEOs that unions were designed to protect labor forces from in the first place. Especially because your demands hurt the business you work for.
How much money they make doesn't matter. Everyone has the right to work for what they think they are worth. I don't know what you do or how much you get paid, but I don't pick some arbittary number out of thin air and tell you that you make too much and you should take a pay cut. When did we as a society decide that we should have some say in how much money some other person makes?

zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 12:44 PM
  #27
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
You mean the union that, right now, IS OFFERING TO TAKE LESS MONEY? The union that IS MAKING CONCESSIONS TO TRY AND MAKE A WORKABLE DEAL?
The NBA and NFL, both far more profitable, came down to 50% sharing. Last I saw, the NHL offered a 49% to 47% deal, while the NHLPA wanted a gradual slide from the current 57% but never getting near 50%. It seems to me, the NHLs offer is much more realistic.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 12:47 PM
  #28
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbubble View Post
How much money they make doesn't matter. Everyone has the right to work for what they think they are worth. I don't know what you do or how much you get paid, but I don't pick some arbittary number out of thin air and tell you that you make too much and you should take a pay cut. When did we as a society decide that we should have some say in how much money some other person makes?
When we decided that there were employers and employees. But guess who does pick that arbitrary number, andgets to tell me I have to take a pay cut or go somewhere else? My boss, like 99% of the world.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 12:50 PM
  #29
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
First off, you weren't given an ultimatum, so of course you're not on strike.
If the owners gave an ultimatum and they are the ones that locked the doors, then they share at least some responsibility in the stoppage. You can't say the players are 100% at fault if they're willing to work.

Quote:
Like I said, I am pro union when it's called for, but stopping millionaires from taking a paycut is not the spirit of what unions are intended to do.
It shouldn't be lost that you're advocating that the already billionaires that own the teams make more money.

zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 12:51 PM
  #30
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
The owners offered a new cba in good faith but the players refused to accept it because the players wouldn't budge from their expired salaries despite the knowledge that it was hurting the business. See, I can spin it too.
This is not true. The players made concessions in their proposal.

zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 12:52 PM
  #31
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
It is called a "lockout", but by not accepting the terms the NHL ha. offered, the players are essentially on strike. To me, those numbers are pretty freaking fair.




not sure if I should dare read the rest of this thread

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 12:54 PM
  #32
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
It's relevant to why we have unions in the first place.
I think you're somewhat confusing unions and collective bargaining with minimum wage or the concept of a living wage. These are two different things.

zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 12:57 PM
  #33
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbubble View Post
If the owners gave an ultimatum and they are the ones that locked the doors, then they share at least some responsibility in the stoppage. You can't say the players are 100% at fault if they're willing to work.



It shouldn't be lost that you're advocating that the already billionaires that own the teams make more money.
Correct. That is their right as the employer. In terms of pure profit, the players earn much more than the owners in this business. There is not an owner who became rich by owning a team, they got rich elsewhere, and there wealth from outside sources is independent of this debate.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 12:59 PM
  #34
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,961
vCash: 500
The owners would make exactly zero dollars if the NHL players didn't play for them.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:06 PM
  #35
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
The owners would make exactly zero dollars if the NHL players didn't play for them.
How many owners treat an NHL team as a money making investment? Few if any. Even Golisano did it for philanthropic reasons, not as an investment. This is what you don't seem to get. The owners aren't doing this for greed, they are doing it to make sure it floats.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:09 PM
  #36
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
When we decided that there were employers and employees. But guess who does pick that arbitrary number, andgets to tell me I have to take a pay cut or go somewhere else? My boss, like 99% of the world.
That is exactly my point. Your boss does. Not some third party like me. Just like you as a third party don't have the right to tell the players what they should make.

zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:11 PM
  #37
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
How many owners treat an NHL team as a money making investment? Few if any. Even Golisano did it for philanthropic reasons, not as an investment. This is what you don't seem to get. The owners aren't doing this for greed, they are doing it to make sure it floats.
The facepalm is strong here.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:14 PM
  #38
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
How many owners treat an NHL team as a money making investment? Few if any. Even Golisano did it for philanthropic reasons, not as an investment. This is what you don't seem to get. The owners aren't doing this for greed, they are doing it to make sure it floats.
Baloney. Golisano knew the landscape and took a risk he would make money in the end. If he did it only out of the kindness of his heart he would have sold the team to Terry for what he paid for it and not made 100 million dollars on the sale.

Why do you think it's so hard to find a buyer for Phoenix? With revenue sharing it could stay afloat. The real reason is because there's serious doubts they can make money.

zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:16 PM
  #39
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
The facepalm is strong here.
Please list the owners who have used the NHL as their primary business to gain wealth.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:20 PM
  #40
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
In terms of pure profit, the players earn much more than the owners in this business.
Collectively, yes, but individually, no. Divide 57% by 500 players vs. 43% by 30 owners and tell me which individual gets the bigger share.

zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:24 PM
  #41
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Please list the owners who have used the NHL as their primary business to gain wealth.
That wasn't the point. You're implying that nobody owns an NHL team to make money. That's hogwash.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:25 PM
  #42
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbubble View Post
Collectively, yes, but individually, no. Divide 57% by 500 players vs. 43% by 30 owners and tell me which individual gets the bigger share.
Take that 43% and run 100% of the rest of your business, and you are left in a $240 million hole.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:27 PM
  #43
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Please list the owners who have used the NHL as their primary business to gain wealth.
We we said and what you're asking are two different things. No one ever said they do it as their primary source of income. Rich people diversify their portfolio with many holdings expected to make money. The fact that they own the team is a big one, for the simple fact the value of a franchise increases over time.

zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:27 PM
  #44
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
 
BowieSabresFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
How many owners treat an NHL team as a money making investment? Few if any. Even Golisano did it for philanthropic reasons, not as an investment. This is what you don't seem to get. The owners aren't doing this for greed, they are doing it to make sure it floats.
I probably don't quite follow what you're saying here, but it makes it sound as if you believe people buy NHL franchises as a form of philanthropy. That they like the NHL so much they are willing to lose money to keep the sport afloat. Am I right?

BowieSabresFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:28 PM
  #45
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Take that 43% and run 100% of the rest of your business, and you are left in a $240 million hole.
Why is it the responsibility of the players that MLSE profits over $80M a year, and the NHL loses $25M a year on the Coyotes?

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:29 PM
  #46
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
That wasn't the point. You're implying that nobody owns an NHL team to make money. That's hogwash.
Well of course they try to make money, otherwise it wouldn't be worth it. But they do it for reasons other than money. That's the point. It isn't the primary motivation, but it has to profit to work.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:40 PM
  #47
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
owning a sports franchise94875]I probably don't quite follow what you're saying here, but it makes it sound as if you believe people buy NHL franchises as a form of philanthropy. That they like the NHL so much they are willing to lose money to keep the sport afloat. Am I right?[/QUOTE]

I'm saying, nobody buys an NHL team as strictly a financial investment. There are many reasons to do it, including reputation enhancement, that are involved.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:44 PM
  #48
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
Why is it the responsibility of the players that MLSE profits over $80M a year, and the NHL loses $25M a year on the Coyotes?
Because the NHLPA would never allow the NHL to cut 25 players out of the league. Back to the original argument.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:12 PM
  #49
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Because the NHLPA would never allow the NHL to cut 25 players out of the league. Back to the original argument.
The NHLPA doesn't have a say in franchise contraction.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:20 PM
  #50
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
You mean the union that, right now, IS OFFERING TO TAKE LESS MONEY? The union that IS MAKING CONCESSIONS TO TRY AND MAKE A WORKABLE DEAL?
The league's not making net profit. Under the current financial structure, that only can add up to contraction in the long run - or laying off players, effectively. So the players have to give. Consider it like the owners have been giving more than the players performance was worth for 6 years, so now the players are damn well expected to give back.

haseoke39 is online now   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 06:18 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.