HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
10-13-2012, 10:07 AM
  #326
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
If the players want over half the profits in their partnership, let them assume a fair percentage of the costs. Otherwise, they should stop pretending they want a partnership with the owners.
Your idea of fair has no bearing on the matter at all. What is "fair" is to be determined by the NHL and the NHLPA through collective bargaining.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 10:15 AM
  #327
MTL-rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
First of all, Prust is not making 4 million per year. His contrast is for 4 years, that's where you got the "4" from, you're confused.

Second, you would start crying if you had to Prust's job for even two weeks, as would most people. The man takes a lot of beatings and in his case, more so than most players, you can think of his salary as being danger pay. This leaves aside the (critical!!) fact that almost nobody can do his job, he's one of the best at what he does.

Personally I would turn down his job at his salary and term. I make far less coin than Prust - I barely make six figures. But I don't risk concussions, broken bones, my career can last until I'm 70, my career is not going to end if I have a tiramisu or ice cream cone once a week, I can take paternity leave one day, and I only need to work ~50 hours a week.
Please don't try to justify why a hockey player should make millions, it's embarassing. A job in construction is more dangerous than playing hocky in the NHL, short term and long term.

Ideally, no professional athlete should make millions playing a sport, but professional sports are a business and a lucrative one, we talk about income sharing here, and the athletes are the workers, they're the ones we pay to see not the ****ing owners who are as always leaching off the workers labor.

MTL-rules is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 10:47 AM
  #328
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,691
vCash: 500
Interesting result on this poll vs. the poll on hockeyinsideout. In their poll, only 13% think the players should get more than 50%

HCH is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 11:03 AM
  #329
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
What the pro-owners fail to recognize and acknowledge in this thread is that we (fans, owners, players) have lost an entire season to allow the owners to fix the NHL's problems the last time around, ultimately getting a hard salary cap, which the players wanted no part of. We as fans bite the bullet and lived without our favourite sport, to see the owners win their battle, which they did. But because those same owners failed to predict that the Canadian dollar would stay this high, and put their faith in little man Bettman that the US markets would grow and revenues would come from there, they find themselves in this situation. Not the players' fault. So screw you, owners and Bettman. You fooled me once... you won't do it twice!

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 11:36 AM
  #330
MrNasty
Registered User
 
MrNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
The more I read about the proposals, the economic situation, and the reasons for the sides to not give in...the more I take the owners side. The players stance really is beyond reason. I thought Bob Mackenzie described the entire situation very well.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407263


I also find it comical that the players are really pissed at the NHL's first offer of 43-57 for the owners beause it was so unreasonable....well it is the exact opposite percentages of what the players got last year. If they think it was unfair then they must also think the recently expired CBA was unfair yet they chose to extend it year after year for as long as they could. They knew this day was coming.

MrNasty is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 11:39 AM
  #331
MrNasty
Registered User
 
MrNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Interesting result on this poll vs. the poll on hockeyinsideout. In their poll, only 13% think the players should get more than 50%
Most people who visit this board regularly...especially when there is no hockey to discuss are the hardcore fans...the ones who idolize the players regardless of their faults.. The average fan just wants to watch hockey.

MrNasty is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 12:08 PM
  #332
Montreal Impact FC
.:| Champ's City |:.
 
Montreal Impact FC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Ecuador
Posts: 1,245
vCash: 500
if i am forced to choose.. i leave them both there, and i am out of the nhl..


thats it, i have been boycotting nhl since the end of the last season.

i have bought nhl very often and 4 straight years like pretty quickly, this year i wont buy it.. unless they solve that pathetic situation...

no one is winning out of this, and only the fans pays.

as a big habs fan, this 2nd major stoppage and the 1st one led by 2 pure americans egos is maybe the one who will make majors impacts on me for maybe the rest of my life....

Montreal Impact FC is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 12:17 PM
  #333
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Interesting result on this poll vs. the poll on hockeyinsideout. In their poll, only 13% think the players should get more than 50%
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrNasty View Post
Most people who visit this board regularly...especially when there is no hockey to discuss are the hardcore fans...the ones who idolize the players regardless of their faults.. The average fan just wants to watch hockey.
Different questions all together. People can be on the players' side and think that they shouldn't get more than 50%. There's more to this question than on HIO.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 12:39 PM
  #334
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrNasty View Post
The more I read about the proposals, the economic situation, and the reasons for the sides to not give in...the more I take the owners side. The players stance really is beyond reason. I thought Bob Mackenzie described the entire situation very well.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407263


I also find it comical that the players are really pissed at the NHL's first offer of 43-57 for the owners because it was so unreasonable....well it is the exact opposite percentages of what the players got last year. If they think it was unfair then they must also think the recently expired CBA was unfair yet they chose to extend it year after year for as long as they could. They knew this day was coming.

Thanks. That was a good read.. Both sides seem to have their heels dug in for a long battle and as Bob says at the end "eventually they will sort it out, but how long that takes, who knows?"

sheed36 is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 12:57 PM
  #335
Ritchy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 33
vCash: 500
I'm with the owner on this.

A team is a business, like it or not, and it's the owner that pay the bill. They are also the one who take the financial risk in all this, and in our capitalism reality, risk must be awarded with return. The player also have risk, mostly injury related, but they have insurance for this, and it's a risk that goes with every job. Sure, players may be more at risk that, say, a office worker, but they are paid by hundred thousands dollars, so it is well worth it for them.

For the owner, the risk is a lot bigger. They are vulnerable to market fluctuation, interest rate fluctuation, econimic cycle, ect. Also, even if the profits goes up, not all team in the Nhl are profitable. If you were a business man, would you invest in buying a nhl team when you can make better use of your money with other financial tools like share?

Also, last year, owner made 43% of the income. With this income, they still have to pay for the workers that are involve in the team's activity, the building, the marketing and everything else.

The question is, does the 23 players on the ice deserve to receive more income than the owner and the hundreds, maybe thousand of people working around the team, while taking low risk? I think not.

Ritchy is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 03:24 PM
  #336
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
Please don't try to justify why a hockey player should make millions, it's embarassing. A job in construction is more dangerous than playing hockey in the NHL, short term and long term.

Ideally, no professional athlete should make millions playing a sport, but professional sports are a business and a lucrative one, we talk about income sharing here, and the athletes are the workers, they're the ones we pay to see not the ****ing owners who are as always leaching off the workers labor.
Careful or you will suffer personal attacks while being told that you are wrong about any "Joe Blow" job being harder than those poor beleaguered hockey players who take all of the risks in the world to become hockey players. Good Lord KNOWS that hockey players in the NHL have a harder road than Firefighters, Police Officers, or any other "Joe Blow" job on the planet. Geeze, "Construction Workers"? Yeesh, let's get real here, all they do is stand around holding signs and taking breaks all day...

Yes, we pay to see the players. I love Subban, Price, and Pacioretty, and loved Dryden, Robinson, and Lafleur in their day. I will love Tinordi, Gallagher and the next goalie, as well. I also have no problem with the players making good money. They DO have shorter careers, they DO get hurt and suffer from those injuries and I have no problem with them getting compensation for it. I DO have a problem with them complaining about everything and sundries and not even trying to negotiate a real deal that is obviously fair and balanced. There is no way they should be getting more money than the owners who pay for everything NHL related and more. EVERYTHING! What the players are trying to keep is, in my opinion, unfair due to the complete lack of financial risk they assume at the NHL level. They are simply trying to fill their pockets without a care in the world for anyone else. When a franchise loses money long enough, the players don't lose a thing. The owner does, but I don't care THAT much about them. I do care about the "Joe Blow" workers whose livelihood is lost, and the fans who lose their team, though. The players? They simply get paid by someone else.

In any case, I agree with your first paragraph. Just be careful, it might get others to try and demean who you are and what you do.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 05:02 PM
  #337
SouthernHab
jak się masz
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
and can easily say the players think the owners are just some cash cows who should just pony up the cash at whatever levels the players feel because they are exceptional talents.

You also seem to forget these owners own a pro franchise because they are generally exceptional at one thing too, and thats business.

at this point, there is valid arguments on both sides however there is zero reason when you are talking about the money thrown around, that a fair agreement cant be made.

If i had to pick a side, i would pick the owners because of how many idiotic comments players have made and frankly, i firmly believe everything Fehr has done is pure posturing and he has made no attempt to even try and get the season going. I dont think he knows a damn thing about hockey and this is just some ego trip he is on. He is out for the "win" and if you believed the verbal crap coming from players mouths, they just want to play hockey for a "fair" deal.
Great post. Agree with you 100%.

A lot of people simply assume that all of the owners have had everything handed to them on a silver platter.

Being extremely successful in business is just as rare as being extremely successful as a hockey player. Many make the attempts and many work hard but only a few are rewarded with success.

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 05:11 PM
  #338
SouthernHab
jak się masz
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Fehr didn't want to negotiate last year because he wants to put himself in the strongest negotiating point he can in order to try and force the owners into the conciliations he wants. The problem is that he didn't think that the owners would have the resolve to go through another long lockout.

Of course he also wanted the owners to negotiate while letting the players play because he knew that the players' position would get stronger the closer the games got to the playoffs. It was a foolish hope that the players could play and get paid from an existing CBA that the owners want changed. It would give the players too much leverage. Fehr has made a lot of mistakes in this negotiation, already. I feel for those everyday players who won't get paid and will possibly lose their jobs because of these negotiations, but I feel more for those people whose livelihoods are detrimentally affected by this foolish game of financial chicken.

Meh, as stated, I side with the owners because the current conditions do not make for a fair partnership. In this I fully agree with Bobby Dollas and many others in the hockey world who feel this way.
And I agree with this post (and the others that you have made on this thread as well. )

Donald Fehr went out of his way to blow things up at MLB. It took a long time for the fans to come back and support Major League Baseball. He is taking the same approach with the NHL. He has a winner take all approach (for himself) and has no regards for the people who are really being hurt the most by this.........the ordinary workers at arenas and the people who work in marketing and other support roles for the teams.

The players are forced to engage in a herd mentality..........whether they agree with Fehr or not. And there will be a lot of NHL players who will see this lockout as the end of their career because of the hardball played by Fehr. But they have to be good members of the herd.

Sad. Fehr is living up to his reputation, earning his cred as a tough son of a ***** and is ensuring this will be a lost season. And he will be paid handsomely for his efforts.

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 05:20 PM
  #339
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Great post. Agree with you 100%.

A lot of people simply assume that all of the owners have had everything handed to them on a silver platter.

Being extremely successful in business is just as rare as being extremely successful as a hockey player. Many make the attempts and many work hard but only a few are rewarded with success.
Especially billion dollar success.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 06:39 PM
  #340
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Different questions all together. People can be on the players' side and think that they shouldn't get more than 50%. There's more to this question than on HIO.
LOL! You are using some twisted logic. Would you stand up and say "I want the players to get 47% but I am on there side." I doubt the players would think you were on their side if you thought they should get 50% or less. A big part of their position is that there are no rollbacks.

Maybe you don't understand the respective positions of each side.

HCH is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 07:20 PM
  #341
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
LOL! You are using some twisted logic. Would you stand up and say "I want the players to get 47% but I am on there side." I doubt the players would think you were on their side if you thought they should get 50% or less. A big part of their position is that there are no rollbacks.

Maybe you don't understand the respective positions of each side.
Twisted logic or you just don't understand the difference in the questions?

I'm on the players' side because the owners had their chance to get things fixed the last time, when we lost an entire season. They got what they wanted when the players cracked and a hard cap was put in place. Now the owners, seeing that the players are making money with that deal, want to hit another homerun at the expenses of the players. The owners are hypocrites who are handing out millions and millions of dollars to players who, according to some, should decline those contract offers.

Yet, I do believe that the hockey revenues should be split 50-50. Now, they just need to agree on what is considered hockey related revenues.

Understand the difference between the two questions? It's fairly simple.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 07:24 PM
  #342
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
Please don't try to justify why a hockey player should make millions, it's embarassing. A job in construction is more dangerous than playing hocky in the NHL, short term and long term.
Far more people can work construction than can make the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
Ideally, no professional athlete should make millions playing a sport
Well then stop paying money to enjoy the game. If the fans stop paying, the players will make less. That's why Major League Baseball players make more than Major League Soccer players.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 07:50 PM
  #343
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
And I agree with this post (and the others that you have made on this thread as well. )

Donald Fehr went out of his way to blow things up at MLB. It took a long time for the fans to come back and support Major League Baseball. He is taking the same approach with the NHL. He has a winner take all approach (for himself) and has no regards for the people who are really being hurt the most by this.........the ordinary workers at arenas and the people who work in marketing and other support roles for the teams.

The players are forced to engage in a herd mentality..........whether they agree with Fehr or not. And there will be a lot of NHL players who will see this lockout as the end of their career because of the hardball played by Fehr. But they have to be good members of the herd.

Sad. Fehr is living up to his reputation, earning his cred as a tough son of a ***** and is ensuring this will be a lost season. And he will be paid handsomely for his efforts.
Nice to see others who understand what Fehr is truly interested in. Fehr doesn't care about developing a proper partnership or the health of the game, he simply wants to screw the owners. No other rational reason for refusing to make any reasonable counter proposals. Nice of Fehr to only care about some of the wealthier, younger and more talented players while kissing off the less talented, old, and/or poorer players.

Thanks for the support!

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 11:05 PM
  #344
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritchy View Post
I'm with the owner on this.

A team is a business, like it or not, and it's the owner that pay the bill. They are also the one who take the financial risk in all this, and in our capitalism reality, risk must be awarded with return. The player also have risk, mostly injury related, but they have insurance for this, and it's a risk that goes with every job. Sure, players may be more at risk that, say, a office worker, but they are paid by hundred thousands dollars, so it is well worth it for them.

For the owner, the risk is a lot bigger. They are vulnerable to market fluctuation, interest rate fluctuation, econimic cycle, ect. Also, even if the profits goes up, not all team in the Nhl are profitable. If you were a business man, would you invest in buying a nhl team when you can make better use of your money with other financial tools like share?

Also, last year, owner made 43% of the income. With this income, they still have to pay for the workers that are involve in the team's activity, the building, the marketing and everything else.

The question is, does the 23 players on the ice deserve to receive more income than the owner and the hundreds, maybe thousand of people working around the team, while taking low risk? I think not.
- Not all "risk must be rewarded with return." While the league is profitable as a whole, the ideal capitalist world does not function with every business succeeding, regardless of how well it is operated or what market it is operating within. Wang is not entitled to a reward in spite of his personnel decisions. The collective owners of the Coyotes (aka the NHL BOG) are not entitled to profit in spite of their insistence on the Glendale location. If the NHL as a whole was losing money, it might be more of a problem... but it's not.

- It was the owners who insisted on that 43% that you cite as unfair. Given your faith in a "capitalist reality," I'd think you'd be more in favor of dropping cost certainty altogether, and letting the market decide salaries?

- It seems to me that team values do not get mentioned enough in this debate. For example, the Dallas Stars have recently been a loser, as far as net income. However, Tom Hicks bought the Stars for $84mil in 1995; in 2011, he sold the team for $240mil. I don't think he'll lose too much sleep over what he paid Mike Modano.

- Back to the "a team is a business, like it or not" argument that comes up often... I think Malcolm Gladwell made a few good points during the NBA lockout that still apply - http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...ts-nba-lockout

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 11:13 PM
  #345
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheed36 View Post
Thanks. That was a good read.. Both sides seem to have their heels dug in for a long battle and as Bob says at the end "eventually they will sort it out, but how long that takes, who knows?"
Wow, what sharp and informative journalism from Bob.

bsl is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 11:23 PM
  #346
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritchy View Post
I'm with the owner on this.

A team is a business, like it or not, and it's the owner that pay the bill. They are also the one who take the financial risk in all this, and in our capitalism reality, risk must be awarded with return.
Lost me right there. There is no law saying risk must be rewarded with return in Capitalism. You have bought the new line of the 1%, who now seek risk less Capitalism by exploiting labour and using arbitrage between countries to lower wages as far as possible, all over the world.

NHL owners who are not smart enough to understand the risks should not buy NHL teams. That's the real problem. Sport team ownership is almost always a losing proposition. I have no sympathy whatever for these owners, and I can't believe anyone here does.

bsl is offline  
Old
10-13-2012, 11:35 PM
  #347
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Great post. Agree with you 100%.

A lot of people simply assume that all of the owners have had everything handed to them on a silver platter.

Being extremely successful in business is just as rare as being extremely successful as a hockey player. Many make the attempts and many work hard but only a few are rewarded with success.
In many many cases, and more and more the last 20 years, being extremely successful 'in business' whatever that actually means, involves inheriting wealth, exploiting staff, taking huge tax breaks from governments desperate for employment, and thus not contributing in any way to the general well being of the country (see Europe), creating products that are designed to break, and harming the environment. None of which the players do. But keep on buying the 'Businessman' as Master of the Universe line, if you like.


Last edited by bsl: 10-13-2012 at 11:42 PM.
bsl is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 07:47 AM
  #348
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
The people arguing more logically with solid facts on this page are the people taking the owners side. The people on the players side are using more emotions and reaching for bad comparisons that aren't completely true.

But I haven't read the whole thread, just this page.

macavoy is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 07:59 AM
  #349
WhiskeySeven
President of Canada
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
The people arguing more logically with solid facts on this page are the people taking the owners side. The people on the players side are using more emotions and reaching for bad comparisons that aren't completely true.

But I haven't read the whole thread, just this page.
Well that really doesn't make a difference in the greater rhetoric at all.

I'm arguing that the owners signed these deals and they have to abide by them. If you want to change the CBA you'll still have to grandfather these current deals in, all of them. After that then sure, 50/50 or whatever, but I want hockey back and I want it back now.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 08:19 AM
  #350
MrNasty
Registered User
 
MrNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
I get that owners need to honour the contracts they sign with the players but we must not forget the Gomezs of the league who don't honour their side of things. All these players that signed long term contracts get paid regardless of how well they play.

MrNasty 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 09:07 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.