HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

View Poll Results: Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
The owners 144 48.65%
The NHLPA 152 51.35%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-11-2012, 01:58 AM
  #251
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Williams View Post
The "millionaires vs billionaires" base to take a side, never held any water for me. Billionaire owners are not a product of the NHL as they were billionaires before being owners. Millionaire players are a direct product of the NHL.

I'm on the owner's side on this matter. It's no secret that several teams are in financial difficulty and it's also no secret that the NHL wants to do everything in its power to avoid relocation of said teams. Furthermore, the owners also claim that expenses have gone up since the last CBA was negotiated. If they say they need a higher percentage of HRR to stay profitable, then so be it. If their current proposal is not ludicrous (which it doesn't seem to be) then the players should agree to it and end this stupidity.

At my work, I don't get to negotiate the company's profits. If they want to increase profits, I get laid off.
You're the employee capitalists love. When my office does well, I ask for a pay rise. I contribute massively to my office doing well.

Stand up for yourself. No one else will.

bsl is online now  
Old
10-11-2012, 02:01 AM
  #252
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
In the short term, no. Five years down the road though? But backing up, I'd like to know if there is a "no scab agreement" between the CHL and NHL, because the only rules I'm aware of involve age eligibility (who can be drafted, who qualifies for the AHL, who qualifies to be sent back down after camp/10 games/whatever if they don't crack the roster, etc).

But, then again, there are still plenty of other junior leagues around the world producing top hockey players as well.
Give it a break. I want to see most of the best players in the world in the NHL. Replacement players will never, ever, fly. Never.

bsl is online now  
Old
10-11-2012, 02:16 AM
  #253
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fufonzo View Post
I'm with the owners.

I don't see the players having much of a leg to stand on. They just play the game. Owners take all the risk and are the reason a certain city even has a team to watch.

All the NHL players in the world could die tomorrow, and they'd just end up replacing them with the next best players and we'd all still watch. The players themselves really don't matter in the end.

The skill level in hockey even 30 years ago was awful in comparison and people still watched and were just as into it as they are now (if not moreso).
I'm dumbfounded by your post. Amazed.

There is Capital, Labour and Talent in the world.

Your post says Talent is as replaceable as Labour. It is not. Talent is very very rare.

This is not a Capital versus Labour issue. It is a Capital versus Talent issue. Hence the problem. Much more difficult to resolve.

Your post is massively incorrect.

bsl is online now  
Old
10-11-2012, 02:28 AM
  #254
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haburger View Post
i think both sides are greedy losers.
Thanks for the fascinating contribution to the discussion.

bsl is online now  
Old
10-11-2012, 02:38 AM
  #255
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
The average salary is indeed well over a million, in fact closer to $2.8M.

However, people need to realize that the career of most players is relatively short. Average 5-6 years. Most, not all, but most had to sacrifice other opportunities to get to the bigs, and the prospect of having an after-career at anywhere near these incomes is near zero.

The bottom line for me is that in 2005, the owners got the salary cap system they were seeking. With a few tweaks, they should be good to renew, but they are being very overly-ambitious instead,

It is not a moral issue for me. All actors in this play are entitled to look out for themselves. But I think the owners' original position is further from the optimal settlement point than the players' original position was.

Just my opinion.
Bold above: In fact, I think it is precisely a moral issue, and that's exactly the problem.

People like Jacobs sicken me. Billions of dollars, and he has to squeeze every dime. He owns a team in the NHL, and he should do his best to ensure they play. And he should at least have some consciousnesses of the importance of the NHL socially.

Even if that means a 5% profit, not 7%, Jacobs will be fine. The Bruins are not a public company, Jacobs does not have to answer to public shareholders. Yet he still wants his pound of flesh. He is grotesque.

Jacobs and his ilk are responsible for this lockout, make no mistake. His endless avaricious greed is disgusting. And yes. It is immoral too.


Last edited by bsl: 10-11-2012 at 02:45 AM.
bsl is online now  
Old
10-11-2012, 03:05 AM
  #256
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
that was in response to this:


with bettman, like you said, it may never be enough, you think so, i don't, but i'd bet my left nut that having fehr and his '94 special coup™ has something to do with it. in fact, i'd bet my right nut that if fehr came up with a proposal that was within the same stadium as the owner's and he didn't have the '94 strike baggage, they'd be playing games wight now.

that's my opinion though, not fact



then if the 'product' wants a good deal for themselves, they should start their own league - oh wait, they can't. point is: negotiate within the framework the owners and compromise - from both sides, to find a deal that's amiable. but no way should the players - oh sorry, the product, tell the owners what to do with their business. that's not asking them to take it in the ass, that's asking them to work within the framework of the guys spending hundreds of millions buying the franchise and paying their salaries. fehr is essentially saying "we think this would work better". **** off. and if the players are the product, then pretty much every service employee from tech help, to teachers, to policemen are product too. cool.



see my response to whitesnake



you don't know that, if fact, i find it kinda ridiculous that you think they would. the league is locked out now because the hockey operations of about half the team in the league are losing money. cap is too high, ceiling is too high, revenue sharing is too low.

if only a handful of teams would be losing money, we wouldn't be here.



go on the business board, these guys are saints



as usual, you're wrong.

owners - those that control their arenas will fill some dates to make up for homegames and they'll sack employess. they'll be fine. doug mclean said that last lockout, the blue jackets lost around 17 million. that's not chump change, but they'll make it back. on the other hand the players won't be able to.

players - most, and i mean most, will play only for their insurance money and to keep in shape. though some guys like kavalchuck and ovechkin are rumored to have signed hefty contracts... and speaking of that, those guys are being massive dicks for taking the job of other guys.

donald fehr - last i checked and one of my pro-PA brothers correct me if im wrong, but ferh said he wouldn't take any money while there is a lockout. i still think he's full of ****. but it is what it is.

fans - oh you're right on this one



that's plain ******** and the players shouldn't accept a rollback. what they could do is accept a freeze while revenues catch up to current cap% ( salary freeze for guys with contract now, 55% first year, 53% second year, 50% third year kinda thing). there's ways around this but no ****ing way should they accept any meaningful rollback. now that's just plain insulting

that aside, when they start whining "how would you feel if your boss took 24% of your salary back" i just want to *****-slap them across the face. some people would be in the street or be forced to get a second job if they made 24% less. those guys though? and didn't the owners drop the rollback demands in their last proposal?



i know it's probably a negotiating tactic, but how brainwashed are these guys exactly?

/rant off
You are confusing the NHL players with Labour. They are not Labour. They are in a third category called Talent.

Get used to it. These are not workers for Ford. They have huge power. There is a very limited supply of world class hockey players.

Many of the owners made billions on controlling limited supply, yet they don't recognize that they are paying for that when they buy an NHL team. Idiots.

I am 100% on the players side. The owners are treating this like a labour dispute. Too thick to realize they are dealing with Talent, not Labour. Don't confuse the two.

Capital is having a very difficult time dealing with Talent in many industries, entertainment and sports among them. Capital loves Labour. It hates Talent. Hence this lockout. Learn the difference.

bsl is online now  
Old
10-11-2012, 03:40 AM
  #257
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 500
bsl,

You're running a clinic here.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 04:32 AM
  #258
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 9,203
vCash: 1707
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
You are confusing the NHL players with Labour. They are not Labour. They are in a third category called Talent.

Get used to it. These are not workers for Ford. They have huge power. There is a very limited supply of world class hockey players.

Many of the owners made billions on controlling limited supply, yet they don't recognize that they are paying for that when they buy an NHL team. Idiots.

I am 100% on the players side. The owners are treating this like a labour dispute. Too thick to realize they are dealing with Talent, not Labour. Don't confuse the two.

Capital is having a very difficult time dealing with Talent in many industries, entertainment and sports among them. Capital loves Labour. It hates Talent. Hence this lockout. Learn the difference.
i know the difference, which is why im saying that they have a right to ask for an equitable share. asking for your fair share =/= telling the owners how to run their business which is what fehr basically told them in both of his offers and that, i don't like.

i am a talent in my profession, i know how those contract negotiations works because i went through 6 of those in the last 13 years. the players have an even rarer skill which gives that much more leverage. i understand all that. my point was that they shouldn't be telling the owners how to run their business. work in the owner's framework is what i said - and the owner's framework isn't outrageous or unfair as proved by the years since the last lockout

edit: and i don't think the owners are treating this like a labour dispute. at least not in the way that you seem to insinuating. their first offer was ridiculous yes, but i don't think they are viewing it the way you say they are, at least it's not the way i see it


Last edited by MasterDecoy: 10-11-2012 at 04:47 AM.
MasterDecoy is online now  
Old
10-11-2012, 05:44 AM
  #259
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
The NHL made a stupid, stupid opening offer. It put the players on the defensive immediately, and instantly removed trust from the negotiations.

Bettman only represents the owners, who are mostly lucky, avaricious, or inherited wealth idiots, and he should never have allowed that first NHL offer to go through. It has ruined the talks.

Bettman is an idiot for allowing that first offer to go through. He is unbelievable. No advice for the owners, none. Follows orders like a puppy dog.

My job is to help my clients, often on very expensive projects. They often give me stupid and dangerous instructions. It is part of my job to advise them that the instructions are not in their interest. That is what Bettman has failed to do. He has to go.
bsl, I agree with most of your posts in this thread, but I'm not sure about this one. Just looking at leverage, I think the owners have a good, almost certain chance of getting their way in the end. Every few years, the CBA will get adjusted further in the owners' favor. It will get harder and harder for them to lose money, no matter how badly a franchise is run, no matter how hopeless the market. Entrance in "the club" will become more and more attractive to potential team buyers, so team values will rise, making for even more of a payoff at the end of the road. I think this is basically what Bettman was hired to do.

Once the league is committed to this cycle (under Bettman, they certainly are), I don't really see how the union can break it. Some kind of creative, unpredictable tactic, but I think Fehr is running out of options. It's not right from a hockey fan POV... but from a greed-head POV, Bettman is on the way to making this a ridiculously easy business. I just hope some of the owners take a step back and think about why they got into owning a team in the first place.


Last edited by Roulin: 10-11-2012 at 06:15 AM.
Roulin is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 06:27 AM
  #260
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
bsl, I agree with most of your posts in this thread, but I'm not sure about this one. Just looking at leverage, I think the owners have a good, almost certain chance of getting their way in the end. Every few years, the CBA will get adjusted further in the owners' favor. It will get harder and harder for them to lose money, no matter how badly a franchise is run, no matter how hopeless the market. Entrance in "the club" will become more and more attractive to potential team buyers, so team values will rise, making for even more of a payoff at the end of the road. I think this is basically what Bettman was hired to do.

Once the league is committed to this cycle (under Bettman, they certainly are), I don't really see how the union can break it. Some kind of creative, unpredictable tactic, but I think Fehr is running out of options. It's not right from a hockey fan POV... but from a greed-head POV, Bettman is on the way to making this a ridiculously easy business. I just hope some of the owners take a step back and think about why they got into owning a team in the first place.
problem is, it's going to cost franchises... I think we can safely bet lesser markets will lose fans, some of them dont really have that many already so...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 07:05 AM
  #261
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Every few years, the CBA will get adjusted further in the owners' favor.
I believe that the players realize this and that they are committed to not folding to the owners' pressure. I found this great article written in July by James Mirtle:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4429817/

The gist of the article is that the NHL is a profitable enterprise, as a whole. The problem is that its profits are unequally distributed. Until there is workable system of revenue sharing where all teams become profitable (which, in theory, is possible) the NHL and the NHLPA will be going through this song and dance every few years.


Last edited by impudent_lowlife: 10-11-2012 at 11:47 AM.
impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 04:29 PM
  #262
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
I believe that the players realize this and that they are committed to not folding to the owners' pressure. I found this great article written in July by James Mirtle:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4429817/

The gist of the article is that the NHL is a profitable enterprise, as a whole. The problem is that its profits are unequally distributed. Until there is workable system of revenue sharing where all teams become profitable (which, in theory, is possible) the NHL and the NHLPA will be going through this song and dance every few years.
Even if the NHL is profitable they are likely to go to lockout every few years. Capital doesn't just want profits, it wants profit growth, and a good way to achieve that is to cut the costs of labor.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 04:44 PM
  #263
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I'm dumbfounded by your post. Amazed.

There is Capital, Labour and Talent in the world.

Your post says Talent is as replaceable as Labour. It is not. Talent is very very rare.

This is not a Capital versus Labour issue. It is a Capital versus Talent issue. Hence the problem. Much more difficult to resolve.

Your post is massively incorrect.
Actually, his post is not incorrect at all. If all of the NHL Talent died tomorrow, we would still have NHL teams, just stocked with different talent, some of which would be weaker, some stronger. NOT all NHL players are necessarily the best Talent available, unless you truly think there are no players in the world who would be able to replace Komisarek, Gomez, Shelley, Trevor Lewis, Tim Jackman, etc... The reality is that there are plenty of NHL players who should have been replaced but can not be due to the nature of the guaranteed contracts NHL players get. There is also quite a bit of turnover from year to year.

Personally, I have seen so many players come and go in almost 40 years of watching the Habs that I would have no problem supporting an entire replacement team, if it came down to it. Why? It happens fairly regularly anyway. 85 % of the Habs on today's roster were NOT with the team 4 years ago! 4 years from now, we will not be seeing at least half of the guys we currently have. The same is true for most NHL teams. The amount of turnover is crazy, so I would have no problem watching replacement players using guys from the minors, European leagues, NHL players willing to cross any strike lines, etc... In all honsety, it would simply be me watching some of those guys now rather than in 1-5 years from now.

I would also point out that it is very interesting to listen to guys like Chris Nilan and Bobby Dollas who seem to be on the side of the owners in all of this. Those are just two former players who were not superstars that seem to think the players should realize how good they have it as NHL players. As Dollas stated on the TSN990, how can there be a partnership when one partner makes 57% of the profits and the other partner, the one taking ALL of the financial risk, is getting only 43% of the profits? They both also said that the health insurance players get is absolutely amazing and neither thinks the players should dare complain about the surface of the ice at today's arenas, especially when compared to what players had in the past. The reality is that it is the wealthier players who are fueling this fight more than the everyday players, and it is going to cost some of the average to weaker guys on one year contracts or in the final year of a contract some jobs and money. It is also rather interesting that it is mostly the guys already getting paid big bucks who are going over the ocean to get more money through this whole thing.

The only people I feel sorry for are the regular people whose lives and livelihood are affected by this stupidity. If the Talent thinks they have it so bad, maybe they should spend some time as Labour since they are part and parcel of why those in the Labour arena are losing money they can not afford to lose. I am not saying the players need to bend over and take the worst case scenario contract available, but they can definitely at the very least come up with a fair and balanced counter proposal. If it is a true partnership, they should be more than willing to split the profits 50/50, at the very least.

As far as what the players supposedly gave up last time. They had salary rollbacks that disappeared very quickly. The owners want to win, and as long as the Cap is allowed to grow player salaries will also grow. The poor players who gave up so much last time are very far away from being poor in any sense of the word.

Screw it. Call up replacement players and send the big money crybabies to the KHL where they may get multi-million dollar contracts that are not honoured. Let the millionaires go play with contracts that are not guaranteed and where they can get screwed at the drop of a dime. I would rather watch the Beaulieu's, Tinordi's, and others of that ilk than a bunch of overpaid selfish players who let their egos get in the way of the good thing they have.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 04:51 PM
  #264
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest
As Dollas stated on the TSN990, how can there be a partnership when one partner makes 57% of the profits and the other partner, the one taking ALL of the financial risk, is getting only 43% of the profits?
You were doing well up until you implied that the players don't take any risks.

You demonstrably have no idea what it takes to be elite at anything.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 05:45 PM
  #265
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You were doing well up until you implied that the players don't take any risks.

You demonstrably have no idea what it takes to be elite at anything.
Well he did say "financial risk" which is different from the risks I believe you're referring to.


Last edited by sheed36: 10-11-2012 at 05:53 PM.
sheed36 is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 05:53 PM
  #266
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheed36 View Post
Well he did say "financial risk" which is different from the risks you're referring to.
The players also take on financial risks, obviously.

What do you call investing all their time into hockey as teenagers? What do you call forfeiting an education? What do you call risking debilitating injuries? These risks have severe financial repercussions and are essentially equivalent.

Note that the owners don't cover a lot of these costs. CHL players, who take on all these risks, are not compensated for their risks, they play for the possibility of compensation at the NHL level.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 06:05 PM
  #267
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Actually, his post is not incorrect at all. If all of the NHL Talent died tomorrow, we would still have NHL teams, just stocked with different talent, some of which would be weaker, some stronger. NOT all NHL players are necessarily the best Talent available, unless you truly think there are no players in the world who would be able to replace Komisarek, Gomez, Shelley, Trevor Lewis, Tim Jackman, etc... The reality is that there are plenty of NHL players who should have been replaced but can not be due to the nature of the guaranteed contracts NHL players get. There is also quite a bit of turnover from year to year.

Personally, I have seen so many players come and go in almost 40 years of watching the Habs that I would have no problem supporting an entire replacement team, if it came down to it. Why? It happens fairly regularly anyway. 85 % of the Habs on today's roster were NOT with the team 4 years ago! 4 years from now, we will not be seeing at least half of the guys we currently have. The same is true for most NHL teams. The amount of turnover is crazy, so I would have no problem watching replacement players using guys from the minors, European leagues, NHL players willing to cross any strike lines, etc... In all honsety, it would simply be me watching some of those guys now rather than in 1-5 years from now.

I would also point out that it is very interesting to listen to guys like Chris Nilan and Bobby Dollas who seem to be on the side of the owners in all of this. Those are just two former players who were not superstars that seem to think the players should realize how good they have it as NHL players. As Dollas stated on the TSN990, how can there be a partnership when one partner makes 57% of the profits and the other partner, the one taking ALL of the financial risk, is getting only 43% of the profits? They both also said that the health insurance players get is absolutely amazing and neither thinks the players should dare complain about the surface of the ice at today's arenas, especially when compared to what players had in the past. The reality is that it is the wealthier players who are fueling this fight more than the everyday players, and it is going to cost some of the average to weaker guys on one year contracts or in the final year of a contract some jobs and money. It is also rather interesting that it is mostly the guys already getting paid big bucks who are going over the ocean to get more money through this whole thing.

The only people I feel sorry for are the regular people whose lives and livelihood are affected by this stupidity. If the Talent thinks they have it so bad, maybe they should spend some time as Labour since they are part and parcel of why those in the Labour arena are losing money they can not afford to lose. I am not saying the players need to bend over and take the worst case scenario contract available, but they can definitely at the very least come up with a fair and balanced counter proposal. If it is a true partnership, they should be more than willing to split the profits 50/50, at the very least.

As far as what the players supposedly gave up last time. They had salary rollbacks that disappeared very quickly. The owners want to win, and as long as the Cap is allowed to grow player salaries will also grow. The poor players who gave up so much last time are very far away from being poor in any sense of the word.

Screw it. Call up replacement players and send the big money crybabies to the KHL where they may get multi-million dollar contracts that are not honoured.
Let the millionaires go play with contracts that are not guaranteed and where they can get screwed at the drop of a dime. I would rather watch the Beaulieu's, Tinordi's, and others of that ilk than a bunch of overpaid selfish players who let their egos get in the way of the good thing they have.
A hard line... I like it.

Yes, upper end NHL talent is elite... and rare.

But man do they have it good... too good maybe.

Born in 1909 is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 06:19 PM
  #268
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The players also take on financial risks, obviously.

What do you call investing all their time into hockey as teenagers? What do you call forfeiting an education? What do you call risking debilitating injuries? These risks have severe financial repercussions and are essentially equivalent.

Note that the owners don't cover a lot of these costs. CHL players, who take on all these risks, are not compensated for their risks, they play for the possibility of compensation at the NHL level.
I thought we were talking about players that have already made the NHL and the financial risks to them after making it there. Other than risking a serious injury ending their careers what other financial risks are there to the players that are already in the NHL.. Anyway carry on.

sheed36 is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 06:56 PM
  #269
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You were doing well up until you implied that the players don't take any risks.

You demonstrably have no idea what it takes to be elite at anything.
Au contraire this individual has argued that he has worked just as hard to become a teacher as Sidney Crosby worked to make the NHL. I couldn't make this **** up.

I wonder if the next time the teachers go on strike if the government should just "send all the crybabies to russia" and bring in replacements how he would feel about it.

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 07:08 PM
  #270
Ollie Williams
Registered User
 
Ollie Williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,761
vCash: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
You're the employee capitalists love. When my office does well, I ask for a pay rise. I contribute massively to my office doing well.

Stand up for yourself. No one else will.
Standing up for yourself is one thing. Ridiculous demands is another.

Ollie Williams is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 07:09 PM
  #271
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,767
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The players also take on financial risks, obviously.

What do you call investing all their time into hockey as teenagers? What do you call forfeiting an education? What do you call risking debilitating injuries? These risks have severe financial repercussions and are essentially equivalent.

Note that the owners don't cover a lot of these costs. CHL players, who take on all these risks, are not compensated for their risks, they play for the possibility of compensation at the NHL level.
Players are not compensated for their lack of education or risk of injury, get serious. There's people in the world who have sacrificed more and get less. If you drop out of high school to pursue your own goals you deserve million, correct? If you work a dangerous job you deserve millions, right? Nope. They get paid based on talent. They have around the clock doctors, trainers and insurance for their health risks. In fact, as tough a sport as hockey is, their health risk isn't even that bad compared to some working class jobs.

Also, forfeiting an education? really? they do high school MOST should know they aren't good enough by 18. Some are good enough to land an AHL job and make a good living, while a lot go overseas.

Also, if lack of education opportunity is a big factor in compensation would you agree Louis Leblanc, Kristo and other hockey players/prospects who went through a college or university system should be compensated less, because clearly, they didn't give up the same, right? Players choose to be in the OHL or QMJHL, if you have a chance at a education, no one's stopping you, don't pretend the NHL is some dark force leading people into the abyss.

BTW if a kid is investing his time in hockey as a teenager for the money I hope he doesn't make it at all. 16 year old kids entering the CHL will obviously be aware of the potential benefits later on, but if they are playing for money they'd get at 25 when they are 16 then...they likely won't make it anyway.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 07:11 PM
  #272
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,767
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Au contraire this individual has argued that he has worked just as hard to become a teacher as Sidney Crosby worked to make the NHL. I couldn't make this **** up.

I wonder if the next time the teachers go on strike if the government should just "send all the crybabies to russia" and bring in replacements how he would feel about it.
Funny enough someone argued talent is not like labour. This is obviously true but in the case of teachers and hockey players, i'd rather put out replacement hockey players than replacement teachers.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 07:15 PM
  #273
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,767
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I'm dumbfounded by your post. Amazed.

There is Capital, Labour and Talent in the world.

Your post says Talent is as replaceable as Labour. It is not. Talent is very very rare.

This is not a Capital versus Labour issue. It is a Capital versus Talent issue. Hence the problem. Much more difficult to resolve.

Your post is massively incorrect.
You put too much emphasis on talent. Leafs haven't won jack **** in years and can't even make the playoffs but sell out. Really, is it because of talent? Sure, some guys cannot be replaced, the crosbys of the world but the other guys? Meh, talent is there but the tier below them isn't that far off. Do you really believe guys like Darche cannot be replaced? Guys like White(as much as I love the guy), Prust, Moen, Gomez, etc... aren't game breakers for attendance.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 07:57 PM
  #274
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Funny enough someone argued talent is not like labour. This is obviously true but in the case of teachers and hockey players, i'd rather put out replacement hockey players than replacement teachers.
You would rather replace 1000 people playing a sport than hundreds of thousands of people teaching children? Colour me amazed. What does that have to do with anything that was said exactly?

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 08:05 PM
  #275
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,767
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
You would rather replace 1000 people playing a sport than hundreds of thousands of people teaching children? Colour me amazed. What does that have to do with anything that was said exactly?
I quoted you but was referring to someone else. Btw I was thinking in Quebec alone for teachers. Even then I'd rather lockout.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:43 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.