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

Lockout discussion thread 2.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-20-2012, 06:21 PM
  #751
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,469
vCash: 500
Executive summary of agreed changes:

Quote:
Change the free agent calendar, meaning the market would open on June 15 or 48 hours after the awarding of the Stanley Cup — the players want whichever is later — instead of July 1. Arbitration dates may change as well.

• Allow cap space to be included in transactions, to encourage trades and get teams out from under heavy contracts.

• A joint health committee.

• Eliminate re-entry waivers.

• A neutral, third-party arbitrator to deal with appeals for on- and off-ice discipline.

• Minimum roster requirements to avoid situations where teams dress fewer than 18 players to save salary cap room.
I'm happy to see they're caring about health but we'll see if this pans out.

Eliminating re-entry waivers is a good idea, it just penalizes players.

Allowing cap space to be included in trades... could be interesting but only if there is a reasonable limit, i.e. 5% of total cap.

I don't know how I feel about free agency happening before the draft.

Also:
Quote:
• AHL salaries. The league is offering to count only those that exceed the NHL minimum ($525,000) against a team’s cap. The NHL had wanted the number closer to $95,000. The victory for the PA here is that AHL players won’t have their salaries count against the players’ share of hockey-related revenue. Accounting would be limited to players in the NHL.
This is a good move, no more burying contracts in the AHL.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 08:22 PM
  #752
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Right, because agreeing to a rollback means the future will be a struggle..
Fighting for your rights? Really? I wonder what's your take on the Gaza situation..



Actually, I never said they should agree to whatever demand. Never said they should agree to the first deal. I said at some point you have to agree on things, no matter if you feel you're not getting such a great deal. At the end of the day, things will be just fine. They will be.

I find it rather ridiculous too that you try to defend these millionaires from not having a pension or health care because they can't manage their millions and millions of dollars. Are you freaking serious with this crap?

There are people in this world that don't have a pension, or health care, at all, yet you're trying to get sympathy for those millionaires?? The heck man?

If they lose all their cash, so be it, it's the price you pay for being a moron.
Comparing contract negotiations to the middle east? Let me guess the players are the evil palestinians firing their "greed" rockets into the NHL's "sacred homeland"?

You should run for president with the slogan "At the end of the day, things will be fine. They just will be" What an utterly idiotic thing to say.

I am sure you do think they should just settle, you have so much invested in how much the players make and their future afterall you are obviously in a better position to make this decision for them.

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 08:59 PM
  #753
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Comparing contract negotiations to the middle east? Let me guess the players are the evil palestinians firing their "greed" rockets into the NHL's "sacred homeland"?

You should run for president with the slogan "At the end of the day, things will be fine. They just will be" What an utterly idiotic thing to say.

I am sure you do think they should just settle, you have so much invested in how much the players make and their future afterall you are obviously in a better position to make this decision for them.
No there is no comparison, can't say I'm surprised you didn't understand the idea behind the words. You often have a hard time reading between the lines.
The palestinians are people you can say are fighting for their rights. Meaningful rights, actual life.

Yes, things will be just fine for both owners and players. You said ''fighting for their rights'', what right is that? To keep their current contracts in place in full? Neither side gets an ounce of pity from me. They're both morons. But yes, in the end, every single player in the NHL will make money. Same can't be said of every owner.

Are the players going to be forbidden to do what they love? No.
Will they still be allowed to live their dreams? Yup.
Are they still going to make more money in a year than many do over a lifetime? Yup.

The only things that are idiotic is this lockout and anybody that actually thinks one side is more right than the other.
So really, are things going to be that bad?? If you think so, then you live in weird world.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 09:01 PM
  #754
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Eliminating re-entry waivers is a good idea, it just penalizes players.
Agreed. Re-entry waivers just ended up being a disincentive to having the best possible talent in the NHL.

Roulin is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 10:10 PM
  #755
subbanged
Gal-Sub-Price-Pacio
 
subbanged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 4,444
vCash: 500
I'm on the owner side in this one but I thought I'd throw you some quick facts,

did you know that a player who plays 8 years at 750000 with a 5% growth rate in salary is going to have the same amount of money as if he had 2.7 million today. Post a tax rate of 50%. Sorry I was a little rattled when someone said that they were trying to take the little money he was making away. I find it incredibly hypocritical in some cases from the players

subbanged is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 10:23 PM
  #756
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
No there is no comparison, can't say I'm surprised you didn't understand the idea behind the words. You often have a hard time reading between the lines.
The palestinians are people you can say are fighting for their rights. Meaningful rights, actual life.

Yes, things will be just fine for both owners and players. You said ''fighting for their rights'', what right is that? To keep their current contracts in place in full? Neither side gets an ounce of pity from me. They're both morons. But yes, in the end, every single player in the NHL will make money. Same can't be said of every owner.

Are the players going to be forbidden to do what they love? No.
Will they still be allowed to live their dreams? Yup.
Are they still going to make more money in a year than many do over a lifetime? Yup.

The only things that are idiotic is this lockout and anybody that actually thinks one side is more right than the other.
So really, are things going to be that bad?? If you think so, then you live in weird world.
Their right to negotiate their own wages, I see you havn't kept up if you think they are still arguing to keep everything the same. I am sure you don't want to hear that though because you would rather cry and moan about how much more they make than you. Yes we get it, you think they are overpaid.

Do you think it took 1 CBA to get to where the players are today? No it took years of negotiating and fighting for the rights they have today. Some people have a spine and wont just take the first thing waved under their nose because they think magically somehow "things will just be alright".

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 10:32 PM
  #757
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by subbanged View Post
I'm on the owner side in this one but I thought I'd throw you some quick facts,

did you know that a player who plays 8 years at 750000 with a 5% growth rate in salary is going to have the same amount of money as if he had 2.7 million today. Post a tax rate of 50%. Sorry I was a little rattled when someone said that they were trying to take the little money he was making away. I find it incredibly hypocritical in some cases from the players
As long as the players make a dollar more than the median North American worker (income ~$43,000/year) the owners should be entitled to get every dime left over.

Actually they should be thrilled with that, because the $43,000/year figure doesn't include the unemployed and the Palestinians.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 10:58 PM
  #758
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Their right to negotiate their own wages, I see you havn't kept up if you think they are still arguing to keep everything the same. I am sure you don't want to hear that though because you would rather cry and moan about how much more they make than you. Yes we get it, you think they are overpaid.

Do you think it took 1 CBA to get to where the players are today? No it took years of negotiating and fighting for the rights they have today. Some people have a spine and wont just take the first thing waved under their nose because they think magically somehow "things will just be alright".
I don't think they're overpaid. Their industry permits it. What I am saying is very clear and simple, I have been saying it right from my first post on the matter, I think a 12% rollback isn't a huge demand.
I couldn't care less about how much more they make than me, if you think this is what it's about, then you really haven't understood a thing.

12% rollback isn't bad enough to warrant losing a season over, and it seemed to be headed that way.
Yes, it took years of negotiating to get where they are today. I fail to see how relevant this is, we're solely discussing losing 10% of salary, a not so strange occurrence in life. Pay cuts happen. In case you forgot, the players felt they got ripped off after the last CBA. Turned out, ''things ended it up being alright''.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:00 PM
  #759
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
As long as the players make a dollar more than the median North American worker (income ~$43,000/year) the owners should be entitled to get every dime left over.

Actually they should be thrilled with that, because the $43,000/year figure doesn't include the unemployed and the Palestinians.
Yes, because that's exactly what people are saying..

You sound like the republicans just making crap up about Obama and exaggerating.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:14 PM
  #760
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Yes, because that's exactly what people are saying..

You sound like the republicans just making crap up about Obama and exaggerating.
Your point has been that the players have no legitimacy to complain because they are well-off. You are the one who brought up water quality in the third world and the plight of the Palestinians as contrasts to the players.

In general a lot of people feel that the owners should get more money on the basis that players are overpaid. It's part of the legacy of 50 years of pro-corporate propaganda. The same is true of auto companies: more people are bothered by the high wages of auto-assembly workers than by the bonuses of the chief executives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I have been saying it right from my first post on the matter, I think a 12% rollback isn't a huge demand.
That's what unions across North America believed at various times, most of whom have now ended up with nothing and their former members are ruined. Have you not heard about Hostess? The workers' pensions might be getting taken away.

You are a Pollyanna -- you believe that "everything is going to be fine, it always is", the truth is things don't always end up fine. Most people don't subscribe to that rose-colored view, with good reason.

If you want to end up with a piece of pie, you need to fight. If the union doesn't fight, they would have lost 25% this time (the NHL's first offer), they would lose 25% in the next lockout in 5 years, 30% or 40% in the lockout five years after that, and eventually lose all their rights such as pensions, health insurance, and guarantees to still get paid even if they suffer an injury on the ice.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:30 PM
  #761
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post

That's what unions across North America believed at various times, most of whom have now ended up with nothing and their former members are ruined. Have you not heard about Hostess? The workers' pensions might be getting taken away.
comparing hockey players to hostess employees is ridiculous. Billions of people in this world are qualified to work in a hostess plant, only a tiny percentage of this world can play professional hockey.

As long as there is a market for hockey, players will have lucrative careers.. The bigger risk to players is not the work agreements but the overall state of the economy that enables fans to spend billions supporting them. Or, for some reason, hockey falling off the chart, even in Canada (highly unlikely, however who can predict the future in 25 years..)



Quote:

If you want to end up with a piece of pie, you need to fight. If the union doesn't fight, they would have lost 25% this time (the NHL's first offer), they would lose 25% in the next lockout in 5 years, 30% or 40% in the lockout five years after that, and eventually lose all their rights such as pensions, health insurance, and guarantees to still get paid even if they suffer an injury on the ice.
I think contraction would be a more likely scenario than what you speculate.


Last edited by coolasprICE: 11-20-2012 at 11:39 PM.
coolasprICE is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:44 PM
  #762
Lars The GOAT Eller
WildGranlund
 
Lars The GOAT Eller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Lars The GOAT Eller
Quote:
• Allow cap space to be included in transactions, to encourage trades and get teams out from under heavy contracts.
How would this work?
Couldn't teams with lower payrolls just trade away cap space they won't use for players/picks?

Lars The GOAT Eller is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:46 PM
  #763
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
comparing hockey players to hostess employees is ridiculous. Billions of people in this world are qualified to work in a hostess plant, only a tiny percentage of this world can play professional hockey.

As long as there is a market for hockey, players will have lucrative careers.. The bigger risk to players is not the work agreements but the overall state of the economy that enables fans to spend billions supporting them. Or, for some reason, hockey falling off the chart, even in Canada (highly unlikely, however who can predict the future in 25 years..)





I think contraction would be a more likely scenario than what you speculate.
Factory unions were once very powerful. An acquaintance once worked in an auto-assembly plant in the 1970s, in real terms, they were making well over $100,000/year with great benefits. Since then that money has been transferred to management, and GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc have lost market share to foreign companies which still have strong unions.

One shouldn't make any mistakes with ideologues like Jeremy Jacobs. The long-term goal of his ilk is should be seen as reducing everybody else to zero. They will never stop fighting. They will never give up. They will never play nice. So neither should the other side. The owners have not earned the players trust. They have 180% more now than they did before the last lockout, they won the last lockout, and their first request was a 25% paycut for the players.

Contraction is an economic non-starter for the NHL as I have already explained. However, reducing players to zero or close to zero would simply be about restoring the NHL to where it was before ~1970 or so. It has a historical precedent in the peanuts Maurice Richard was paid.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:07 AM
  #764
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,162
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Executive summary of agreed changes:


I'm happy to see they're caring about health but we'll see if this pans out.

Eliminating re-entry waivers is a good idea, it just penalizes players.

Allowing cap space to be included in trades... could be interesting but only if there is a reasonable limit, i.e. 5% of total cap.

I don't know how I feel about free agency happening before the draft.

Also:

This is a good move, no more burying contracts in the AHL.
You realize NHL was okay with health and pension issues right?

Also, the AHL salary surpassing X dollar is a NHL move, not an NHLPA one. NHLPA doesn't like it at all.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:21 AM
  #765
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
You realize NHL was okay with health and pension issues right?
It's a concession they agreed to some time back. The owners tolerate the expense for the time being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Also, the AHL salary surpassing X dollar is a NHL move, not an NHLPA one. NHLPA doesn't like it at all.
1) It's better for the game.
2) AHL salaries will no longer be subtracted from HRR.
3) This makes it less likely that slumping players like Redden and Sourray will be sent down to the AHL. It increases job security. It also means that if they are sent down to the AHL, they can be sent back up, as re-entry waivers are eliminated.

"The brig" is no longer a permanent sentence, and it is a less attractive sentence.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:30 AM
  #766
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Your point has been that the players have no legitimacy to complain because they are well-off. You are the one who brought up water quality in the third world and the plight of the Palestinians as contrasts to the players.

In general a lot of people feel that the owners should get more money on the basis that players are overpaid. It's part of the legacy of 50 years of pro-corporate propaganda. The same is true of auto companies: more people are bothered by the high wages of auto-assembly workers than by the bonuses of the chief executives.
Actually, I said didn't say they didn't have a right to complain, I said it's not worth losing a season over. Anybody can complain as much as they want, do I agree with it? No, but that doesn't mean I don't think they have a right to complain.

I don't care whether or not the players are overpaid, I said losing a full season ends up being the same, if not worse, than if they accepted a 12% rollback.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
That's what unions across North America believed at various times, most of whom have now ended up with nothing and their former members are ruined. Have you not heard about Hostess? The workers' pensions might be getting taken away.
Yes, I'm sure the NHLPA will end up with nothing and its members, ruined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You are a Pollyanna -- you believe that "everything is going to be fine, it always is", the truth is things don't always end up fine. Most people don't subscribe to that rose-colored view, with good reason.

If you want to end up with a piece of pie, you need to fight. If the union doesn't fight, they would have lost 25% this time (the NHL's first offer), they would lose 25% in the next lockout in 5 years, 30% or 40% in the lockout five years after that, and eventually lose all their rights such as pensions, health insurance, and guarantees to still get paid even if they suffer an injury on the ice.
Yes, in 10years from now, they will have lost up to 90% of their potential earnings. Sure buddy..

They will lose pensions, health insurance and guaranteed pay during injury. Matter of fact, by the time they retire, it is them that will owe the NHL some money.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:37 AM
  #767
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
. Yes, in 10years from now, they will have lost up to 90% of their potential earnings. Sure buddy..

They will lose pensions, health insurance and guaranteed pay during injury. Matter of fact, by the time they retire, it is them that will owe the NHL some money.
Not as long as they have a strong union.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:05 AM
  #768
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,162
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's a concession they agreed to some time back. The owners tolerate the expense for the time being.


1) It's better for the game.
2) AHL salaries will no longer be subtracted from HRR.
3) This makes it less likely that slumping players like Redden and Sourray will be sent down to the AHL. It increases job security. It also means that if they are sent down to the AHL, they can be sent back up, as re-entry waivers are eliminated.

"The brig" is no longer a permanent sentence, and it is a less attractive sentence.
The owners have given the players good benefits. Practice facilities, first class flights and others aren't necessities. Sure, it helps their product but they care about their assets.

It still doesn't help NHLPA's cause. Right now guys like redden don't eat up cap, later they will and it means less for NHL roster players(assuming redden was down, but he'll be up).

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:20 AM
  #769
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
The owners have given the players good benefits. Practice facilities, first class flights and others aren't necessities. Sure, it helps their product but they care about their assets.
Pensions are for players after they stop playing, when they are no longer assets, very different from first class flights and practice facilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
It still doesn't help NHLPA's cause. Right now guys like redden don't eat up cap, later they will and it means less for NHL roster players(assuming redden was down, but he'll be up).
It is a negotiation process, and in general the union is willing to give and take where appropriate.

However, I don't think there's that much giving in this particular item. If you were a player, would you not give up ~<1.0 % of your total salary, if it reduced the specter of being sent to the brig? Think of it as the cost of insurance.

Further, they are removing the salaries of regular AHL players from HRR. Let's say you have guys in the AHL making a total of 1 million/year/team, that means for every team an additional $500,000 is available to the pro players. That's much less than the Redden contracts, but there are not that many Reddens, and we will now see fewer Redden-type moves anyway.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-21-2012 at 01:25 AM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 02:14 AM
  #770
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,162
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Pensions are for players after they stop playing, when they are no longer assets, very different from first class flights and practice facilities.


It is a negotiation process, and in general the union is willing to give and take where appropriate.

However, I don't think there's that much giving in this particular item. If you were a player, would you not give up ~<1.0 % of your total salary, if it reduced the specter of being sent to the brig? Think of it as the cost of insurance.

Further, they are removing the salaries of regular AHL players from HRR. Let's say you have guys in the AHL making a total of 1 million/year/team, that means for every team an additional $500,000 is available to the pro players. That's much less than the Redden contracts, but there are not that many Reddens, and we will now see fewer Redden-type moves anyway.
Ahl contracts never counted. You're only looking at beginning to now of negotiations. In reality ahl contracts had nothing to do with hrr or cap and now it does.

Most NHL players don't fear being buried.

I like the move but its not good for players. It's good for redden but no one else right now.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 02:45 AM
  #771
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Ahl contracts never counted. You're only looking at beginning to now of negotiations. In reality ahl contracts had nothing to do with hrr or cap and now it does.

Most NHL players don't fear being buried.

I like the move but its not good for players. It's good for redden but no one else right now.
The article implies that the money spent on AHL contracts was subtracted from "hockey-related revenue". Keep in mind that hockey-related revenue = (revenue - many expenses), where "many expenses" is arbitrary. Removing AHL contracts from that calculation means that hockey-related revenue will expand, thus increasing total player salaries.

I might be wrong, but I think the list of changes implies that Wade Redden will be the last of his kind. No owner will buy a 5 million dollar player if it counts against the cap, and even if he does, he'll be continuously brought up and down waivers to allow other teams to claim the expense.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 02:52 AM
  #772
WhiskeySeven
Keeps hot stuff hot
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,899
vCash: 500
The owners are investors, they shouldn't be getting 50% of the revenue to begin with. DA Champ is right, this corporatism is really disconcerting.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:53 AM
  #773
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Ahl contracts never counted. You're only looking at beginning to now of negotiations. In reality ahl contracts had nothing to do with hrr or cap and now it does.

Most NHL players don't fear being buried.

I like the move but its not good for players. It's good for redden but no one else right now.
The rule would have kept Souray in the NHL or at least forced a buyout so he could change organizations two years ago. IMO anytime an NHL caliber player is kept out of the league for budget reasons (and in Souray's case, because his team wanted to punish him because of media comments), it's bad for everyone concerned.

Roulin is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:13 AM
  #774
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Factory unions were once very powerful. An acquaintance once worked in an auto-assembly plant in the 1970s, in real terms, they were making well over $100,000/year with great benefits. Since then that money has been transferred to management, and GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc have lost market share to foreign companies which still have strong unions.

One shouldn't make any mistakes with ideologues like Jeremy Jacobs. The long-term goal of his ilk is should be seen as reducing everybody else to zero. They will never stop fighting. They will never give up. They will never play nice. So neither should the other side. The owners have not earned the players trust. They have 180% more now than they did before the last lockout, they won the last lockout, and their first request was a 25% paycut for the players.

Contraction is an economic non-starter for the NHL as I have already explained. However, reducing players to zero or close to zero would simply be about restoring the NHL to where it was before ~1970 or so. It has a historical precedent in the peanuts Maurice Richard was paid.
In 1970, north americans use to buy goods made in the USA/CANADA

The reason why people aren't making 100K a year on a assembly line is because someone else in the world could do it for a fraction.

Hockey players are not going to be replaced by cheaper foreign labour.

I don't think Wing Wang Hoo of china is going to be replacing Brian Gionta any time soon, even if both are about the same size.

coolasprICE is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:23 AM
  #775
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
The owners are investors, they shouldn't be getting 50% of the revenue to begin with. DA Champ is right, this corporatism is really disconcerting.
Each and every team should only be able and have to spend 50% of their own revenue, that would solve this unfairness. It would however create much bigger other problems, but then the big money teams wouldn't have to worry about sharing their profits.

Frozenice is online now  
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 12:56 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.