Uh Bandit what is the deal dude? This is the 2nd time I have seen you say ALL business men are crooked. You realize how convoluted a view like that is right? I think it's hard to properly have a reasonable evaluation or discussion about these issues if you are going into it already saying one side of it are crooked, evil, and cheaters. Can't do it at all.
No, you're right, it's not fair for me to say that they are all crooked, but you can certainly bet that some of them are. Even our own owner had some shady dealings with Qwest and it's bankruptcy. I just don't understand why some of you feel like you have to be able to "sympathize" or "relate" to these guys to understand their position? Just like the kid who did nothing but walk into a McDonalds and fill out an application shouldn't get paid as much as someone with a 4 year degree and 10 years of experience, the "average joe" shouldn't expect to get paid millions the same as someone who is the best in the world at what they do. It doesn't mean the guy with the degree can't understand why the kid at McDonlads doesn't want to be whipped with a stick if he doesn't make fries fast enough, and vice versa. Take the pay scale out of it, it just isn't relevant to the issue at hand.
Put another way: Some of you have nothing but venom and hatred towards millionaire players because you "can't relate" to them but you have no problem with the billionaire owners because you somehow CAN relate tho them? The hell...?
The only thing I can come up with is that the reason it's easy to hate the players is because they're the only ones speaking out in the media. The owners don't (and won't) have anything to say because they don't really give a ****, this is just a drop in the bucket for them, yet somehow it's easier to take their side?
Put another way: Some of you have nothing but venom and hatred towards millionaire players because you "can't relate" to them but you have no problem with the billionaire owners because you somehow CAN relate tho them? The hell...?
It's not that I can relate to the either side.
To me, it's about what is fair.
The players are guaranteed to make money.
Why should their employers expect to make less, even lose money?
Why should the players get a greater piece of the revenue pie than the owners?
Every other NA professional team-sports league with a cap divides revenue 50-50 or better in favor of the owners.
Why should the NHL/NHLPA agreement be any different?
It's not that I can relate to the either side.
To me, it's about what is fair.
The players are guaranteed to make money.
Why should their employers expect to make less, even lose money?
Why should the players get a greater piece of the revenue pie than the owners?
Every other NA professional team-sports league with a cap divides revenue 50-50 or better in favor of the owners.
Why should the NHL/NHLPA agreement be any different?
This is exactly what I was going to say. Good post
It's not that I can relate to the either side.
To me, it's about what is fair.
The players are guaranteed to make money.
Why should their employers expect to make less, even lose money?
Why should the players get a greater piece of the revenue pie than the owners?
Every other NA professional team-sports league with a cap divides revenue 50-50 or better in favor of the owners.
Why should the NHL/NHLPA agreement be any different?
Bottom line for me: No employees should get anything close to 57% of revenue from the people that own the business. Yes, I'm aware of the argument that it really isn't 57%, and I don't care, because even if it is approaching 50% it would still be out of bounds.
It's not that I can relate to the either side.
To me, it's about what is fair.
The players are guaranteed to make money.
Why should their employers expect to make less, even lose money?
Why should the players get a greater piece of the revenue pie than the owners?
Every other NA professional team-sports league with a cap divides revenue 50-50 or better in favor of the owners.
Why should the NHL/NHLPA agreement be any different?
Fair point, but how many other pro sports have had salary rollbacks two CBA's in a row (honestly asking here, I don't know)? It was my impression that the revenue sharing model was designed to offset the fact that they were getting their salaries cut, and now they're trying to cut them again. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel "sorry" for the players, but certainly don't feel sorry for the owners either.
At the end of the day, we're the ones losing out, and the last thing I want to do is spend a bunch of time arguing with my fellow Kings fans about how rich rich people are going to be.
After all, we're still Stanley Cup champs, I love you all.
Fair point, but how many other pro sports have had salary rollbacks two CBA's in a row (honestly asking here, I don't know)? It was my impression that the revenue sharing model was designed to offset the fact that they were getting their salaries cut, and now they're trying to cut them again. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel "sorry" for the players, but certainly don't feel sorry for the owners either.
At the end of the day, we're the ones losing out, and the last thing I want to do is spend a bunch of time arguing with my fellow Kings fans about how rich rich people are going to be.
After all, we're still Stanley Cup champs, I love you all.
"I would say that it's good we're talking," Steve Fehr said, referring to the past three days of meetings. "It is true that we could have done this last week or the week before or the week before that, but it's a lot better than doing it three weeks from now. So, I think it's some progress and hopefully it will continue."
Considering all of the preseason has been canceled and the regular season is scheduled to start in about two weeks it's really not "good we're talking" and that it's jsut starting now, you tool...
So sick and tired of this already. Just get a deal done and get on the ice.
[QUOTE=Bandit;54694749]Fair point, but how many other pro sports have had salary rollbacks two CBA's in a row (honestly asking here, I don't know)? It was my impression that the revenue sharing model was designed to offset the fact that they were getting their salaries cut, and now they're trying to cut them again. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel "sorry" for the players, but certainly don't feel sorry for the owners either.
At the end of the day, we're the ones losing out, and the last thing I want to do is spend a bunch of time arguing with my fellow Kings fans about how rich rich people are going to be./QUOTE]
I think that's why most of "favor the owners." It's not that we can relate to them, or want to see them make more money. It's that we know that they will win in the end, and if the players would just try to negotiate on the same page as the owners, the players will still earn a beautiful salary at 50% of league revenue. They were rolled back last time, but their collective salaries still rose to a significantly more valuable situation than they had before the last lockout. Most likely that happens again, if they would just get to the table and hammer out a deal.
If the players countered the owners last offer 3 weeks ago with say a 7 year deal that starts at 53% and goes to 50% over the length of the contract, I think we would be preparing for a Stanley Cup defense right now.
That's just my view on the owners/players situation, though, and I may be wrong.
If the players countered the owners last offer 3 weeks ago with say a 7 year deal that starts at 53% and goes to 50% over the length of the contract, I think we would be preparing for a Stanley Cup defense right now.
I don't think you are off-base with this view.
I'm sure the PA would be right in asking for more revenue sharing from the league with such a proposal, and other issues like length of contract, etc. could be hammered out if they were negotiating toward getting it done.
Would you feel like the owners would be sticking it to the players with a deal like that?
I'm sure the PA would be right in asking for more revenue sharing from the league with such a proposal, and other issues like length of contract, etc. could be hammered out if they were negotiating toward getting it done.
Would you feel like the owners would be sticking it to the players with a deal like that?
I'm sure the PA would be right in asking for more revenue sharing from the league with such a proposal, and other issues like length of contract, etc. could be hammered out if they were negotiating toward getting it done.
Would you feel like the owners would be sticking it to the players with a deal like that?
No, I think the players would still be getting the better of it. Much like last time, the revenue will continue to increase if they don't prolong the delay, and the salary cap would probably be at or above the current salary cap by the end.
No, I think the players would still be getting the better of it. Much like last time, the revenue will continue to increase if they don't prolong the delay, and the salary cap would probably be at or above the current salary cap by the end.
in agreement here.
yes the owners want to pull money back, but we know and the players SHOULD know this won't last. the last go around with this bs was to promote financial responsibility and look what happened. the owners and their GMs drove up contracts to record levels.
the fact that Bettman publicly announces record profits and growth and then turns around to say they are losing money has to this point been the league's biggest mistake. makes it damn hard for the fans and the PA to believe a word they say.
players salaries will still scale upwards, just not at the level they are today. in the end the PA has to remember they don't own the teams and they are employees. even if the players themselves are what the fans pay to see, not the owners.
