HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

NHL vs. NHLPA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2012, 09:49 AM
  #1
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,025
vCash: 500
NHL vs. NHLPA

I'm just wondering how most people feel with regards to the likely lockout that is about to happen

Who do you side with, if anyone at all?

Personally I think both sides could care less about the fans or if the season starts on time. Otherwise they would be working a hell of a lot harder to get a deal done on time.

But at the same time, I blame the players more than anyone. These guys get paid millions (in most cases) to play the game they love. Taking for granted the fact that pretty much every kid growing up as a hockey fan dreamed of making it to the big show, scoring the winner in game 7 OT. These guys are living the dream, that so few have the privilege to ever take a part in. And what do they do, potentially throw away a season (or a large chunk of one) simply to try and grab a bit more pocket change at the end of the day. IMO that is so ****ing weak and sad, and is an insult to all those who truly love the game.

These owners are billionaire businessmen, who pay the players quite well to do what they do. I understand that as a player it is more then a full time job and is a tough lifestyle. But so are a lot of other professions where individuals make peanuts compared to these players.

I've lost a lot of respect for the PA during these negotiations. What is everyone else's opinion?

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 10:44 AM
  #2
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 704
At the start, I was on the players' side, simply because they got bent over last time around. However, they've done a horrible job of PR.


Now I'm on the fan's side. I don't care who "wins", we all lose if this goes on much longer.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 11:32 AM
  #3
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
The NHL wanted to start negotiations a year ago. The PA didn't engage until just a little while ago. I have to say that the NHL has been far more serious about trying to prevent it; I think Fehr actually wants a lockout, because he knows Bettman will take the heat for it.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 11:48 AM
  #4
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 704
Agreed, since Fehr has been saying "a lockout is a choice" for some time now, indirectly placing blame on Bettman.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 12:09 PM
  #5
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,940
vCash: 133
I am not really on anyones side, more as I have 2 different levels of discontent for each of them. The owners had their shot last lockout to fix the system, they are making more money than ever and now they are crying fowl that the players salaries have also increased, because the CBA THEY AGREED TO allowed it.

Now the players are supposed to feel like *******s because the owners say they are making too much money?

Minnesota just spent $200M on 2 players, and then the owner wants to turn around and say "these players make to much money." Its a crock of ****.

On the other hand, the players are multimillionaires fighting over more money than most people make in a lifetime, so I honestly don't really have any sympathy for them either.

InfinityIggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:20 PM
  #6
berto14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
The NHL wanted to start negotiations a year ago. The PA didn't engage until just a little while ago. I have to say that the NHL has been far more serious about trying to prevent it; I think Fehr actually wants a lockout, because he knows Bettman will take the heat for it.
What are you basing this on? IIRC, the NHL didn't present their initial proposal until mid-July, while the NHLPA presented a counter-offer about a month later.

EDIT: Nevermind, just heard Bettman say it in his press conference.


Last edited by berto14: 09-13-2012 at 02:48 PM.
berto14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:27 PM
  #7
TherapyforGlencross
I'm the Man
 
TherapyforGlencross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 50
Both sides are to blame. The NHLPA could have started talking over a year ago, but decided not to. On the other hand, the NHL was the one who made the last CBA, and now they want to re-do it, I'm guessing just because of the revenue splits.

TherapyforGlencross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 03:22 PM
  #8
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,129
vCash: 50
I'm on the players side 100%. They gave into everything the owners demanded last CBA. They owners have been irresponsible in the contracts they have been handing out even over the course of the last month. Now they are going out and saying basically saying that they need protection from themselves and are demanding a rollback of salaries not honoring the contracts they just signed the players to.

Yes these guys are professional athletes, but NHL players make quite a bit less than other players in other major professional leagues, especially the majority of players. For every Iggy, Jbo or Cammy, they are many more players making 750k-2million dollars.

Maybe its just me, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for the owners. They have been spending money recklessly on players salaries and now they are crying Wolf. League revenue has been going up every season since the last CBA, so players wages should as well. Revenue sharing is a major problem for the smaller market teams that cannot keep up. If they can address that problem more efficiently, then I think its a win/win for both sides.

Ultimately I'm just super pissed off about this whole thing. It incredibly sucks as a fan and we are the ones that pay. Money and greed is an ugly thing and it is showing its true colors here.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 04:26 PM
  #9
Some Other Flame
Registered User
 
Some Other Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnome View Post
But at the same time, I blame the players more than anyone. These guys get paid millions (in most cases) to play the game they love.
So just because players love the game they should ignore the fact that it's now a 3.3 BILLION dollar business? Should they really be content to take whatever the owners offer despite being the only reason the league makes as much revenue as they do, because don't kid yourself, fans watch the game for the players more than anything. The players are the product that generates that $3.3B and without them, the leagues essentially the AHL with better marketing

Quote:
Taking for granted the fact that pretty much every kid growing up as a hockey fan dreamed of making it to the big show, scoring the winner in game 7 OT. These guys are living the dream, that so few have the privilege to ever take a part in.
There's naivety and then there's just plain foolishness and then there's this.

It may be a privilege to play in the NHL, but it's not like the 700 or so players there were just gifted spots. They actually had to work to earn them; spend a lifetime in training to achieve it. And for every player that does, hundreds fail.

Quote:
And what do they do, potentially throw away a season (or a large chunk of one) simply to try and grab a bit more pocket change at the end of the day. IMO that is so ****ing weak and sad, and is an insult to all those who truly love the game.
For one, the players aren't the reason why the league isn't starting on time - they've said numerous times that they're more than willing to play through the season while a new CBA is negotiated. It's the owners that are locking the players out because the deal that they negotiated back in 2005, in which they got everything they wanted, is now, suddenly, no longer viable.

You also seem to be confused over what the CBA discussions are actually about. The players don't want a bigger cut of the pie, they just don't want their cut to get smaller.

The problem with the league at the moment, is that the rich teams make too much and the poorer ones can't keep up. The NHL's solution is too take money from the NHLPA and divide between ALL 30 teams. Essentially the rich get richer, while the poor get some relief.

But what happens when revenues continue to climb?

Rich teams remain unperturbed. The poor teams however, once again, can no longer keep up and now need another scale back. And once again, the players will have to give up more just so those teams can continue keep afloat.

It shouldn't take a brain to realize the NHL's offer does nothing to actually solve the problem!

The players at the very least, tackle this issue with their emphasis on greater revenue sharing.

Quote:
These owners are billionaire businessmen, who pay the players quite well to do what they do. I understand that as a player it is more then a full time job and is a tough lifestyle. But so are a lot of other professions where individuals make peanuts compared to these players.
Basic supply and demand. From a moral societal point of view, should simple entertainers be paid as much as they are? Most would say no. On the other hand, there's evidently enough people in the work who are willing to pay to see these people do what they do to generate billions of dollars. Keep in mind, there's only 700 people in the world who can make it to this stage, and given that the league is a business first and foremost, expecting them to just take whatever the owners offer is nonsense.

Some Other Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 04:37 PM
  #10
Spacecorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The moon
Country: Canada
Posts: 438
vCash: 500
Looks like the players are going to have to buy used Lamborghinies what a tragedy and the Owners are going to have to vacation in Costa Rica instead of the Bahamas what a darn shame. Fans? Oh I thought those were just dollar signs the never left no matter how frustrated we made them. After that being said I know not everyone involved in the negotiations are money hungry but its not like there going to go broke and start living on the streets. If there's a lock-out ill take my interest well money else where.

Spacecorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:31 PM
  #11
I Hate Chris Butler
Backlund Fan Club
 
I Hate Chris Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,274
vCash: 50
I'm on the PA's side.

I Hate Chris Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 08:17 PM
  #12
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,952
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
The NHL wanted to start negotiations a year ago. The PA didn't engage until just a little while ago. I have to say that the NHL has been far more serious about trying to prevent it; I think Fehr actually wants a lockout, because he knows Bettman will take the heat for it.
This I don't agree with. Being a manager, getting informed is more important than making decisions. Fehr came in to the position with a mandate of getting informed. He exercised the NHLPA's right to audit the owners and he spent some time understanding the history and economics.

Now how can he argue HRR when he hasn't audited an owner about HRR? He was doing his job IMO.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 08:45 PM
  #13
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,952
vCash: 67
Although I haven't read each proposal and am forced to base it on the media's interpretations, I agree more with the player's proposal.

Bettman said an NHL in a sunbelt region would bring TV contracts and they haven't...

Bettman said the last concessions would fix those "sunbelt problems" and they didn't...

So Bettman is asking for more concessions now because they need them to fix the sunbelt problems?

All Fehr is saying is that it's insane to try the same thing over and expect different results. Hence the NHLPA put a proposal together to attempt to tackle league disparity. Had the player's put together an offer that mirrored Bettman's, the NHLPA would've started negotiations at wanting 74% revenue, 1 year entry-level contracts, 3 years before UFA, etc. But they didn't, instead they took the reasonable road and actually tried to solve the problems.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 08:54 PM
  #14
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,952
vCash: 67
And I don't believe for a minute that there was a unanimous decision from the owners in the same regard I don't believe all 760 players are willing to cave to avoid a lock-out. There are some owners that have too much to lose and don't give a **** about the poor owners, likewise there are some 4th line/AHL players that can't afford a lock-out.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 10:17 PM
  #15
BVicious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,269
vCash: 50
You can dissect it anyway you want, but no billionaire makes less than his employee. Furthermore, I applaud the owners for their hardball approach. You don't like it, go play elsewhere. Oh wait, there IS no elsewhere. Ok, u wanna not make $6.25 million or make $4 million?
If the players take a hit, then ALL teams benefit. And the players still make those millions of dollars. Ok so not all players make millions, well the % is the same so a guy makeing 500,000 only gives up like 50,000. Suck it up.

I'm totally for the owners.

BVicious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 10:33 PM
  #16
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,952
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVicious View Post
You can dissect it anyway you want, but no billionaire makes less than his employee. Furthermore, I applaud the owners for their hardball approach. You don't like it, go play elsewhere. Oh wait, there IS no elsewhere. Ok, u wanna not make $6.25 million or make $4 million?
If the players take a hit, then ALL teams benefit. And the players still make those millions of dollars. Ok so not all players make millions, well the % is the same so a guy makeing 500,000 only gives up like 50,000. Suck it up.

I'm totally for the owners.
And if your boss told you to take a pay cut? I mean, suck it up right? Especially in an economy, like P.E.I for example, where your specialization and trade has a limited market, would you just roll over?

And there is other places to play. If the NHL owners sold and the league closed it's doors, you can bet that there will be another league starting because there's profit to be had.

And whose paying these players? Before the cap, players were making free market value of their labour. It's different than typical employee/employer relations because the players are the product of the business.


Last edited by MarkGio: 09-14-2012 at 12:15 AM.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 11:59 PM
  #17
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,837
vCash: 354
I wouldn't say I have a side as either way we get ****ed from a lockout but I guess I understand the owners side more. The players make more percent of the leagues revenue than Football and Basketball players and yet they don't think that is to much? If 2 of the other 3 leagues players agree that something around 50% is the right number why can't hockey players? While it is true that the owners have allowed their gms to throw the cash around I believe they have done so out of fear that Toronto, Montreal, NY Rangers would throw more money if they didn't because they can bury players in the ahl. Yes the players cut a pay cut last time but that was to structure the nhl into a cap system since than we have seen a huge grow in the sport but we can't expect the sport to grow by 7.1% per year as it has the past couple as it is moronic to use the best case to predict the future if they used a far more conservative estimate it would make much more sense. I understand that the owners are rich and only what to get richer but why should they not make money?

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 12:01 AM
  #18
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,129
vCash: 50
Why should the players have to take 2 consecutive pay cuts because the owners signed them to irresponsible deals? IMO the owners need to be accountable for their ways. I'm fine with the players making less revenue, but the players should not have to make another concession here in regards to their wages. Let the owners and GM's suffer for their actions and figure out ways to be cap compliant.

Economically speaking the problems with the NHL are the small market teams. League revenues are at all time highs and the rich teams are making piles of cash. Why should the players be the ones forced to bail out the owners for their mistakes? They should have to eat what they made and learn from their poor decisions.

Again I support the PA 100%.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 12:18 AM
  #19
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,952
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
Why should the players have to take 2 consecutive pay cuts because the owners signed them to irresponsible deals? IMO the owners need to be accountable for their ways. I'm fine with the players making less revenue, but the players should not have to make another concession here in regards to their wages. Let the owners and GM's suffer for their actions and figure out ways to be cap compliant.

Economically speaking the problems with the NHL are the small market teams. League revenues are at all time highs and the rich teams are making piles of cash. Why should the players be the ones forced to bail out the owners for their mistakes? They should have to eat what they made and learn from their poor decisions.

Again I support the PA 100%.
Good post. To add to the accountability notion, who do we find circumventing the cap? Who do we find building teams in poor locations? Accountability for the viability of the game should not rest on the shoulders of the players.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 12:34 AM
  #20
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,952
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
I wouldn't say I have a side as either way we get ****ed from a lockout but I guess I understand the owners side more. The players make more percent of the leagues revenue than Football and Basketball players and yet they don't think that is to much? If 2 of the other 3 leagues players agree that something around 50% is the right number why can't hockey players? While it is true that the owners have allowed their gms to throw the cash around I believe they have done so out of fear that Toronto, Montreal, NY Rangers would throw more money if they didn't because they can bury players in the ahl. Yes the players cut a pay cut last time but that was to structure the nhl into a cap system since than we have seen a huge grow in the sport but we can't expect the sport to grow by 7.1% per year as it has the past couple as it is moronic to use the best case to predict the future if they used a far more conservative estimate it would make much more sense. I understand that the owners are rich and only what to get richer but why should they not make money?
I don't think you'll find many people who believe that players shouldn't take revenue cuts, even though I'd argue it's not free market value for their services, but will that solve the problems? Quick revenue earned from player concessions is band-aid on something needing surgery. Considering there was strong NHL growth during a global recession, the League (owners) doesn't have it's priorities straight when its pissing over 5% of the pie and begging for 10 year slaves to fix the problems of disparity.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:01 AM
  #21
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Other Flame View Post
So just because players love the game they should ignore the fact that it's now a 3.3 BILLION dollar business? Should they really be content to take whatever the owners offer despite being the only reason the league makes as much revenue as they do, because don't kid yourself, fans watch the game for the players more than anything. The players are the product that generates that $3.3B and without them, the leagues essentially the AHL with better marketing



There's naivety and then there's just plain foolishness and then there's this.

It may be a privilege to play in the NHL, but it's not like the 700 or so players there were just gifted spots. They actually had to work to earn them; spend a lifetime in training to achieve it. And for every player that does, hundreds fail.



For one, the players aren't the reason why the league isn't starting on time - they've said numerous times that they're more than willing to play through the season while a new CBA is negotiated. It's the owners that are locking the players out because the deal that they negotiated back in 2005, in which they got everything they wanted, is now, suddenly, no longer viable.

You also seem to be confused over what the CBA discussions are actually about. The players don't want a bigger cut of the pie, they just don't want their cut to get smaller.

The problem with the league at the moment, is that the rich teams make too much and the poorer ones can't keep up. The NHL's solution is too take money from the NHLPA and divide between ALL 30 teams. Essentially the rich get richer, while the poor get some relief.

But what happens when revenues continue to climb?

Rich teams remain unperturbed. The poor teams however, once again, can no longer keep up and now need another scale back. And once again, the players will have to give up more just so those teams can continue keep afloat.

It shouldn't take a brain to realize the NHL's offer does nothing to actually solve the problem!

The players at the very least, tackle this issue with their emphasis on greater revenue sharing.



Basic supply and demand. From a moral societal point of view, should simple entertainers be paid as much as they are? Most would say no. On the other hand, there's evidently enough people in the work who are willing to pay to see these people do what they do to generate billions of dollars. Keep in mind, there's only 700 people in the world who can make it to this stage, and given that the league is a business first and foremost, expecting them to just take whatever the owners offer is nonsense.
You can call me an idiot all you want, I'm fully aware of the arguments from both sides. I'm not going to even bother going down that path because it's been debated to the grave at this point. I'm not really on anyone's side, the only people that truly suffer are the fans.

50/50 That is the way HRR should work, no?! Two things are fundamental to the NHL, capital (the owners) and the product (the players). Should a 50/50 split not be the logical point to concede to? I think so, and I think regardless, that is where the numbers will land.

I expect greedy billionaires to squabble over chump change, not players who are supposed to love nothing more than to do what they love. They get compensated quite fairly to be the best at what they do. They should be willing to do a 50/50 split. This is why I place most of the blame on them, I simply do not expect anything more from the owners. All the other aspects of the CBA could be fleshed out easily past this sticking point.

It doesn't take brains to figure out where these negotations will land with regards to HRR.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:22 AM
  #22
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 704
Sorry, but the comparisons of the players to the "average joe" is so... wrong, it's not funny. It's not even comparing apples to oranges, more like comparing apples to alien microbes. Of course the "average joe" wouldn't roll over and take a cut to his $50,000 / year job because he may not even be making ends meet as it is. Yet the average NHL salary IN ONE YEAR is the equivalent of 40 years of the "average joe's" salary. That's an entire working career, and then some. For ****s sake, can people stop using this comparison...

/rant

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:58 AM
  #23
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,837
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
Why should the players have to take 2 consecutive pay cuts because the owners signed them to irresponsible deals? IMO the owners need to be accountable for their ways. I'm fine with the players making less revenue, but the players should not have to make another concession here in regards to their wages. Let the owners and GM's suffer for their actions and figure out ways to be cap compliant.

Economically speaking the problems with the NHL are the small market teams. League revenues are at all time highs and the rich teams are making piles of cash. Why should the players be the ones forced to bail out the owners for their mistakes? They should have to eat what they made and learn from their poor decisions.

Again I support the PA 100%.
I agree that the owners have allowed their GM to make bad contracts but they aren't asking for a roll back those bad contracts are still there they want to lower the cap to reduce future bad contracts, the owners are being accountable. Why shouldn't the players help bail out small market teams? I dunno maybe because if they don't we could see several teams disappear due to finical issues and then we are looking at 100+ nhl jobs lost but I guess if the players don't care about each other then by all means keep the money.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:27 AM
  #24
BVicious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,269
vCash: 50
Owners allowed these bloated salaries because they need results, and ticket sales, jersey sales, etc. if they don't pay the players outrageous contracts, others will. Then the revenue they make the team, they get the bigger % on top of their bloated salaries. Owners are forced to pay these contracts. It's a vicious circle really.

Last night Parise had the balls to slam the owners, Bettman and the NHL. A month after holding out and signing for 100 million. What a greedy *****. IMO.

Ok I won't compare to the average joe. But how bout the average player. The one who makes 500,000 a year. Now he makes none. While the millionaire players still have millions.

I don't and never will blame the business owners cuz that's what they are. They are businessmen. They became billionaires for good reason. Weather they are risk takers (all 30 team owners are) or they are marketing geniuses, they control the situation. They could lose money if the players don't win or the jersey's don't sell. Every player signed to a contract gets paid. Win or lose, healthy or not.

Take Boston who's insurance premiums for player contracts goes up to astronomical amounts because tey have to pay Savard, millions while he sits on his ass. It doesn't make the team any money.


In the end the system is flawed. The cap goes up (both ceiling and floor) because the league makes so much money.

I don't think Murray Edwards enjoys giving up his profits so a team like Nasville can pay Weber 100 million dollars.

The system is flawed, and the players could have started talks earlier. I'm glad the owners won't budge. It's time for them to take control of the league as they own it.

Of course I'm a guy who can't stand unions to begin with, and I've always supported an XFL type payment structure. You don't get paid unless u win, score, etc.

We all ***** about how players don't perform during their big contracts, but light it up on their last season.

There are so many issues and both sides exploited it. It's awful cuz we suffer. Not anyone else. Some owners would prefer to close the doors so they don't LOSE money.

BVicious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:38 AM
  #25
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,940
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVicious View Post
Owners allowed these bloated salaries because they need results, and ticket sales, jersey sales, etc. if they don't pay the players outrageous contracts, others will. Then the revenue they make the team, they get the bigger % on top of their bloated salaries. Owners are forced to pay these contracts. It's a vicious circle really.

Last night Parise had the balls to slam the owners, Bettman and the NHL. A month after holding out and signing for 100 million. What a greedy *****. IMO.

Ok I won't compare to the average joe. But how bout the average player. The one who makes 500,000 a year. Now he makes none. While the millionaire players still have millions.

I don't and never will blame the business owners cuz that's what they are. They are businessmen. They became billionaires for good reason. Weather they are risk takers (all 30 team owners are) or they are marketing geniuses, they control the situation. They could lose money if the players don't win or the jersey's don't sell. Every player signed to a contract gets paid. Win or lose, healthy or not.

Take Boston who's insurance premiums for player contracts goes up to astronomical amounts because tey have to pay Savard, millions while he sits on his ass. It doesn't make the team any money.


In the end the system is flawed. The cap goes up (both ceiling and floor) because the league makes so much money.

I don't think Murray Edwards enjoys giving up his profits so a team like Nasville can pay Weber 100 million dollars.

The system is flawed, and the players could have started talks earlier. I'm glad the owners won't budge. It's time for them to take control of the league as they own it.

Of course I'm a guy who can't stand unions to begin with, and I've always supported an XFL type payment structure. You don't get paid unless u win, score, etc.

We all ***** about how players don't perform during their big contracts, but light it up on their last season.

There are so many issues and both sides exploited it. It's awful cuz we suffer. Not anyone else. Some owners would prefer to close the doors so they don't LOSE money.
Stopped reading right here, based on what your saying the owners could demand the players play for free and you would still be on their side. Do yourself a favor look into how some of the ownership groups earn their money, and some of the slave wages they have paid to people to rake in profits.

You think all these guys get to the top because they are "smart"? Wow do they ever have you fooled.


Last edited by InfinityIggy: 09-14-2012 at 12:08 PM.
InfinityIggy 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 01:52 AM.

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.