Has anyone worked out the average salary of a NHL player compared to the 3 other North American sports by average ticket price x seats sold, tv ratings, roster size, etc?
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..
Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.
To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.
Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"
Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.
go figure
Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.
Suck it up.
rant done
Last edited by Replacement: 10-18-2012 at 10:02 PM.
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..
Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.
To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.
Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"
Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.
go figure
Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.
Suck it up.
rant done
It's rare that we agree but you really couldn't be more right about this.
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..
Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.
To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.
Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"
Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.
go figure
Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..
Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.
To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.
Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"
Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.
go figure
Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.
Suck it up.
rant done
I have been a "LONGTIME LURKER" and this is post compelled me to join. Well said Replacement
I will add, I always hear about a "Partnership" from the players and the share of HRR. Well when I think about it, wouldn't player endorsements fall under HRR? I know if I was a business owner I wouldn't fathom having any player endorse my business or product if they didn't play hockey.
So I am patiently waiting for the players to give up 43% of all endorsement $$'s to the NHL to be distributed to the owners. That would feel MUCH more like a true partnership and not a such a one sided one.
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..
Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.
To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.
Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"
Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.
go figure
Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.
Suck it up.
rant done
not to mention that Weber reportedly shopped himself around (through his agent), asking teams to give him an offer sheet.
the players ***** about what they gave up last time, when, in fact, they made money hand over fist with the last CBA.
The NHLPA never should've had such a sweet deal in the first place.
They almost killed the NHL in Canada in the 90s.
What was the player share of revenue before the 2005 lockout? Something ridiculous like 70% or something, right?
WTF. Even NBA players were only getting like 55% at that time and NFL players less than 50%.
The NHL basically had to erase an entire season just to get these players down to "only" 57% (lol) and to get some kind of salary cap.
These players are full of it IMO. The NHL is a fanbase driven league, not a superstar/individual player league. Sidney Crosby can't carry LeBron James or Tom Brady's or Derek Jeter's jock strap or Maria Sharapova's bra (lol) when it comes to marketability, yet these players think they're the show?
The team is the show. The Saddledome in Calgary was half empty even when Iginla was scoring 50 goals because the team was awful. With parity, the Dome is sold out most every night nowadays.
The players had a long period of a super-sweet deal, the NHL is too weak and let them run around spoiled for too long, that's why it's taken two freaking lockouts to finally get them to even sniff 50-50, and the only reason they're probably even resigned to 50-50 now is because the NBA players took 50-50 last year.
There should've been a salary cap and a 50-50 split in revenues from 1994-95 onwards. The players have had it very, very good for a long time.
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..
Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.
To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.
Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"
Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.
go figure
Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.
Suck it up.
rant done
Yup, I said it before, players love owners when they compete and the players collude. They don't like it when the tables are turned. I would even go further and say in any other industry the players would not get as much. Owners get cought up as fans, they don't treat it as much like a business as they should, they want to be heros as well. Win the cup for the city ect. So they hand out big money, when in another business they would pass. Players get so much out of the owners until the CBA ends, then they cry poor.
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..
Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.
To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.
Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"
Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.
go figure
Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.
Suck it up.
rant done
Great post Replacement.
Take it a step further - since the recession began in both the US and Canada, there have been multiple examples of unions being faced with rollbacks of salaries. These CBA's include teachers, law enforcement, fire fighters...you know, the people that actually have a direct impact on the rest of society.
The fact that the players believe they are immune to the same economic restrictions that the rest of society has endured is laughable - if it wasn't so shockingly stupid. The response of players enforces the opinion that they are basically removed from all the pitfalls that Joe Public is faced with on a daily basis.
You are a hundred percent correct that the players at this time are naive to what is going on in the real world...they need to have a chat with the triage nurses in an American city that experienced a rollback of salaries and expected to increase their production. Try explaining that after receiving a 10 million dollar signing bonus (Parise) you are pissed off at losing an amount in one year that the nurse would earn after working 5 years in a hospital trying to save lives.
Owners are their own worst enemies - their saving grace is that they have been smart enough under Bettman's guidance to not open their mouths to prove their stupidity. The players might want to take a look at following this plan.
Owners are their own worst enemies - their saving grace is that they have been smart enough under Bettman's guidance to not open their mouths to prove their stupidity. The players might want to take a look at following this plan.
Won't happen.
It's now mob rule with an open forum where they can feel like they are participating. Whether it's bad for public relations or not is irrelevant, the only thing that matters now is that the players agree with each other and have a villain to focus on so Fehr can keep them in line.
Unfortunately, it will probably result in a longer lockout than the last two since it will be harder for a small minority to take control and negotiate for the majority, which is what happened back in 05.
Take it a step further - since the recession began in both the US and Canada, there have been multiple examples of unions being faced with rollbacks of salaries. These CBA's include teachers, law enforcement, fire fighters...you know, the people that actually have a direct impact on the rest of society.
The fact that the players believe they are immune to the same economic restrictions that the rest of society has endured is laughable - if it wasn't so shockingly stupid. The response of players enforces the opinion that they are basically removed from all the pitfalls that Joe Public is faced with on a daily basis.
You are a hundred percent correct that the players at this time are naive to what is going on in the real world...they need to have a chat with the triage nurses in an American city that experienced a rollback of salaries and expected to increase their production. Try explaining that after receiving a 10 million dollar signing bonus (Parise) you are pissed off at losing an amount in one year that the nurse would earn after working 5 years in a hospital trying to save lives.
Owners are their own worst enemies - their saving grace is that they have been smart enough under Bettman's guidance to not open their mouths to prove their stupidity. The players might want to take a look at following this plan.
What's shockingly stupid is a group of individuals demanding a pay cut from their employees in the course of experiencing unprecedented growth in revenues, only outmatched by said owners signing 100+ million in contracts the DAY BEFORE they lock out the very same employees and ask them fto reduce the contracts signed yesterday.
And using nurse salaries as perspective on players salary is lame and low. It's called law of demand, society has a greater demand for the narrow fraction of the population with incredible atheletic performance in their blood, it doesn't make athletes bad people or wrong for expecting fair market value for their talents.
I have been a "LONGTIME LURKER" and this is post compelled me to join. Well said Replacement
I will add, I always hear about a "Partnership" from the players and the share of HRR. Well when I think about it, wouldn't player endorsements fall under HRR? I know if I was a business owner I wouldn't fathom having any player endorse my business or product if they didn't play hockey.
So I am patiently waiting for the players to give up 43% of all endorsement $$'s to the NHL to be distributed to the owners. That would feel MUCH more like a true partnership and not a such a one sided one.
Perfect and while we are in partnership mode lets have the owners put any capital gains they receive in the sale of their teams and franchise fees paid into the HRR kitty too.
And staying on the same course since the players are "partners" now, lets make sure the books of all the teams are open for them to study and analyze
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..
Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.
To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.
Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"
Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.
go figure
Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.
Suck it up.
rant done
Sorry but your rant is nonsense
Anti-trust gives unprecedented labour advantage to sports owners, they get to DRAFT 18 year old pups and consign them to a location for 7 years.
Your argument that hockey players are selfish due to their inability to realize the consequence of their contracts on teamates is a great exercise in polemics but is a garbage argument when you take time to consider the simple fact that the only reason there are any constraints on salary is due to the fact the owners locked them out for an entire year to get such restraints.
Athletes of all types, in any sport that generates significant revenue get paid ungodly amounts of money because of the scarcity of their talent. Period
Its not collusion, its not because athletes are good negotiators (Bob Stauffer fallacy # 243), its not because of agents or greediness, it boils down to the number of people on earth that can perform an athletic task at a sufficent level that 17,000 people will pay money to clap for them while they do it.
Lockouts happen because owners have the leverage of short career spans that they can utilize at negotiating time to increase their margins.
And staying on the same course since the players are "partners" now, lets make sure the books of all the teams are open for them to study and analyze
They already handed over team financials - all 76,000+ pages of them - back in July.
Quote:
What's shockingly stupid is a group of individuals demanding a pay cut from their employees in the course of experiencing unprecedented growth in revenues, only outmatched by said owners signing 100+ million in contracts the DAY BEFORE they lock out the very same employees and ask them fto reduce the contracts signed yesterday.
Dumbest argument to come out of this entire lockout.
Yes - I'm sure the players would be very understanding when GMs tell them no one will offer them those 10 year/100 million dollar contracts they are demanding because they collectively got together and agreed it's ridiculous.
The last 3-4 pages of this thread should be re-posted basically everywhere... different forums, boards, websites... make it go viral so people can add on and join the discussion.
They already handed over team financials - all 76,000+ pages of them - back in July.
Dumbest argument to come out of this entire lockout.
Yes - I'm sure the players would be very understanding when GMs tell them no one will offer them those 10 year/100 million dollar contracts they are demanding because they collectively got together and agreed it's ridiculous.
That totally wouldn't be collusion at all.
Nice argument, so the owners signed the last minute contracts and giant offer sheets to avoid a colusion charge?
No what is dumb is asking an employee to take a reduction on a signed contract on a Thursday when the ink was placed on the contract on a Wednesday.
If economics are an issue don't offer large contracts
Yup, I said it before, players love owners when they compete and the players collude. They don't like it when the tables are turned. I would even go further and say in any other industry the players would not get as much.
So we should hate the PA because they have a good union that actually does its job and handsomely compensates employees?
In ANY other industry, the owners would probably be in violation of anti-trust laws for imposing a salary cap on its employees. Unless you're now advocating against anti-trust laws? Point being there's no reasonable comparable for the sports industry.
Quote:
Owners get cought up as fans, they don't treat it as much like a business as they should, they want to be heros as well. Win the cup for the city ect.
Insinuating that owners are altruistic is naive at best. They want to win the Cup to brag about it to their millionaire buddies more than they want to win it for the little guy.
Moreover, how's it even remotely fair to say the owners deserve to be compensated because they're making bad financial choices for their business? Have you ever considered that most owners don't see these franchises as primary sources of income? They're play toys, and your average owner is content to break even.
Florida IIRC is a perfect example - the team bleeds money every year, so why aren't they being sold off? Simple - the owners own the surrounding real estate; the hockey team draws people to shop in the surrounding area, which brings enough profit to the owners to offset the losses incurred by the team.
Conversely, your average PA member will make the vast majority of his money through his career in pro hockey. An owner like Leopold, who struggled with the Nashville Predators, made more money through developing them than most NHLers will ever earn over the same time span.
Quote:
So they hand out big money, when in another business they would pass. Players get so much out of the owners until the CBA ends, then they cry poor.
As you said, suck it up!!
The owners are the ones crying poor, not the players. They're the ones demanding concessions from the players because the economic model of the NHL promotes inequalities and instability among the bottom-third of the league, and because the owners have historically been too greedy and competitive to prevent themselves from making poor business decisions. That's bad business practice on the part of the league, not the players 'crying poor'.
Let's be perfectly realistic. The top three to half-dozen teams in the league could have easily solved the problem and avoided a lockout by increasing revenue sharing themselves. Instead, they want to the players to contribute as much as possible to cover their blunders.
And this is coming from someone who took the owners side because Fehr refused to negotiate until mid-summer.
__________________ CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
I say, go with replacement players now. Players will be back inside of a two weeks.
What are the players thinking, a majority of the teams need to get a better deal to be able to make a profit. How many companies can continue operation when they continue to have losses year after year.
As for union solidarity. I hope they have fun making zero because its going to continue for a long time whilst the owners make minus dollars.
It seems like most people are against the pa in this lockout people who supported the players are just today telling me that the players are greedy. The pa' has lost alot of support, not that they care much about public support anyway
I dont see an end to this lockout as long as the players continue to demand the same dollar figure they were paid last year, however they will eventually cave its hard to say when that'll be though
