HFBoards

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

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 01:55 PM
  #426
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
How far out of touch are you with reality?
Most students start school with a '' - '' next to the amount of cash they hold. They live on credit. You're arguing about someone that has 50 to 200K in his bank account??
Behind the curve in time at 24??? You're still a freaking kid at that age, you're not behind any curve.
If a player was too stupid and opted not to finish high school, well, that's on him and his parents. Otherwise, they can enter college, and that's just fine.

I don't hold a different tune for owners. They are an extreme minority that can afford and are interested in a franchise. They hold the bigger end of the stick. They don't need to watch out for anything, but they have every right to want 50-50 split effective immediately, which means rollback of salaries. They also have every right to not want to eat the crap alone if the league's revenues decrease.

If an owner becomes broke after his retirement because he wasted his cash on superficial garbage, then yea, it's on him. You don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. Same thing for the player. I don't see how this means the owners aren't entitled to wanting 50-50 split right away.

If investing in a franchise wasn't financially interesting, then there would be no owners, or NHL.

The players you talk about for the 5-10 years are past juniors I'm guessing, the 14-24 age range you previously mentioned.
First off, it's never wasting years when you're chasing a dream and doing what you love. Never.
Second, if they're still playing at 24, in the AHL, then they earned a pretty good pay on average.
Third, I could say and the player's situation is infinitely better than the one of the student that has to work 40hours a week at a dead end job earning 10$/h on top of going to school full time, graduate in a tough or saturated industry, with big debts, can't find a job, and so be stuck at another dead end job.

Players don't have it bad. Nor do the owners. Still don't see how this means owners shouldn't get what they're demanding.
based on what ?

ECWHSWI is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:58 PM
  #427
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
based on what ?
Based on the simple fact that they are the owners.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:01 PM
  #428
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Based on the simple fact that they are the owners.
so, what you're saying is, your boss is allowed to cut your salary by, lets say a 3rd, cause really, (s)he's the owner ?

ECWHSWI is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:06 PM
  #429
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
so, what you're saying is, your boss is allowed to cut your salary by, lets say a 3rd, cause really, (s)he's the owner ?
Well, no. If all of my colleagues and I are getting 57% of the revenues, then yea, it's normal for the owner to want to bring it down to 50%.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:13 PM
  #430
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Well, no. If all of my colleagues and I are getting 57% of the revenues, then yea, it's normal for the owner to want to bring it down to 50%.
Just in case you forgot, I'll repeat what YOU said : based on the simple fact they are the owners.


so, your boss owns the company you work for, and based on the simple fact he's the owner, he has every right to cut your salary... right ?

as for the 50% thingie, dont worry, your boss will hire a competent enough accountant to make the numbers work, he'll show you that by cutting your salary you both will be at 50/50

ECWHSWI is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:14 PM
  #431
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
And really this is what is going to happen, the players have agreed to go to 50%, but just like if you and your boss signed a contract that said you would make $50k a year for 4 years, and then all of a sudden and quite literally the NEXT day your boss said, well we're cutting our employees share to 50% so that means that contract you signed and we agreed on is now going to be $46.5k a year. I'm quite sure you could take that to court, and why wouldn't you? Further more, you would argue that you should be paid the $50k a year until your contract is up and at that point a new contract be negotiated.

Reiher is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:16 PM
  #432
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The reason I brought up the issues of what risks the players take on the road to becoming players is that there were posters saying that players take zero risks, or that too many owners are at risk of losing money, etc. I raised these issues to demonstrate their inconsistency.

Both owners and players take risks on the way to achieving their positions. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has done a proper actuarial analaysis of which population takes more risks and the rewards relative to opportunity cost -- the latter of which is not measured by "50/50" or "57/43". As I have refuted the simplified idea of some people, that players take zero risks (usually written with the euphemistic "owners take all the risks"), this argument is dead in the water and will remain so till someone posts something more substantial.

*************

Most owners have a reasonable chance of success. 17 of 30 teams have positive operating incomes, and 26 of 30 teams have increasing franchise valuations last year. With the players proposal to have more revenue sharing and a convergence to 50/50 even more owners will have a chance of success.

Paying players for exiting contracts -- the players last outstanding demand -- is not going to damage the Phoenix Coyotes.
Plenty of people have done quite the good job at refuting what you are trying to state, you just don't believe it. Big difference. The players do not take any financial risk in running an NHL team. They should not have a financial worry in the world once they sign their GUARANTEED contracts. The owners take all of the financial risk related to running an NHL team. The Coyotes losing money is a perfect example. Every single Coyotes player received his pay throughout the entire time that the owner was losing money. That is what people are talking about when discussing the financial risks associated with running an NHL team. Every single player injured while playing for the Coyotes received, ahd is still getting, his salary EVEN DURING THE LOCKOUT while the owners get nothing. The financial risks at the NHL level are all on the owners. You want people to ignore that fact just because the NHL has grown over the last few years and is doing financially well.

This is why people agree that the owners deserve 50% of the HRR. Players get paid. Period. Owners may or may not earn money because they pay for everything related to hockey.

Trying to claim that the players take financial risks to become an NHL player is a different argument. Everyone takes a risk in trying to achieve their chosen profession. Yes, a person dedicated to playing hockey may not make it, but the same is true of every other career choice. Also, players may lose their jobs to other players if they are not good, but that is also true of most other professions as well. The financial risks of becoming an NHL player are risks we all take to one degree or another. For that risk, though, the players who do make it, even for a short while, are fantastically compensated far above and beyond the vast majority of other people on the planet. The players who make it also no longer take any real financial risks AND get extra money from other hockey related sources that they really should be set for life.

There are many owners who also struggled to get to where they are today. They also took risks to get to the point they are at in their lives where they can afford to purchase an NHL team. The difference is that they continue to take every single financial risk that the players do not take because they pay every single bill related to hockey without any guarantees...UNLIKE the players. It is the CURRENT financial risks that the owners take that (at least in part) entitles them to 50% of the HRR. If Crosby never plays another game in life, he has enough money and insurance to ensure his life will be easy for as long as he lives. That is a benefit that the players have with the guaranteed contract and the type of insurance they get. That isn't even including the endorsement money, autograph fees, convention payments, speakers' fees, etc...that the players get. The owners? They have no guarantees. If their businesses go belly up, and their NHL franchise is losing money, those owners have no guarantees. None. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the owners are "poor" in any sense of the word. However, there can be no denying that they take all of the financial risks of running an NHL franchise and deserve, EARN, an equal 50% of the HRR.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:19 PM
  #433
Jmac1160*
Gomez-"Sorry Coach"
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,098
vCash: 500
The bickering in here is pure entertainment. Gotta love the armchair CBA negotiators.

Jmac1160* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:25 PM
  #434
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Plenty of people have done quite the good job at refuting what you are trying to state, you just don't believe it. Big difference. The players do not take any financial risk in running an NHL team. They should not have a financial worry in the world once they sign their GUARANTEED contracts. The owners take all of the financial risk related to running an NHL team. The Coyotes losing money is a perfect example. Every single Coyotes player received his pay throughout the entire time that the owner was losing money. That is what people are talking about when discussing the financial risks associated with running an NHL team. Every single player injured while playing for the Coyotes received, ahd is still getting, his salary EVEN DURING THE LOCKOUT while the owners get nothing. The financial risks at the NHL level are all on the owners. You want people to ignore that fact just because the NHL has grown over the last few years and is doing financially well.

This is why people agree that the owners deserve 50% of the HRR. Players get paid. Period. Owners may or may not earn money because they pay for everything related to hockey.

Trying to claim that the players take financial risks to become an NHL player is a different argument. Everyone takes a risk in trying to achieve their chosen profession. Yes, a person dedicated to playing hockey may not make it, but the same is true of every other career choice. Also, players may lose their jobs to other players if they are not good, but that is also true of most other professions as well. The financial risks of becoming an NHL player are risks we all take to one degree or another. For that risk, though, the players who do make it, even for a short while, are fantastically compensated far above and beyond the vast majority of other people on the planet. The players who make it also no longer take any real financial risks AND get extra money from other hockey related sources that they really should be set for life.

There are many owners who also struggled to get to where they are today. They also took risks to get to the point they are at in their lives where they can afford to purchase an NHL team. The difference is that they continue to take every single financial risk that the players do not take because they pay every single bill related to hockey without any guarantees...UNLIKE the players. It is the CURRENT financial risks that the owners take that (at least in part) entitles them to 50% of the HRR. If Crosby never plays another game in life, he has enough money and insurance to ensure his life will be easy for as long as he lives. That is a benefit that the players have with the guaranteed contract and the type of insurance they get. That isn't even including the endorsement money, autograph fees, convention payments, speakers' fees, etc...that the players get. The owners? They have no guarantees. If their businesses go belly up, and their NHL franchise is losing money, those owners have no guarantees. None. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the owners are "poor" in any sense of the word. However, there can be no denying that they take all of the financial risks of running an NHL franchise and deserve, EARN, an equal 50% of the HRR.
well, it's a lockout, it's the owners who WANTED the lockout to happen, so I hope they arent crying cause a few players are getting paid trough this lockout. And the owners also WILLINGLY gave huge bonuses to the Weber, Parize and Suter, so again I really hope they arent crying cause of this. that's what they wanted, that's what they got.


well, owners too get money from other businesses, they're all pretty much "set in life". So, really...

ECWHSWI is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:36 PM
  #435
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Just in case you forgot, I'll repeat what YOU said : based on the simple fact they are the owners.


so, your boss owns the company you work for, and based on the simple fact he's the owner, he has every right to cut your salary... right ?

as for the 50% thingie, dont worry, your boss will hire a competent enough accountant to make the numbers work, he'll show you that by cutting your salary you both will be at 50/50
Unfortunately, up to a point, YES. Of course, you also have the right to do something about it: quit. Also, depending upon what the reasons are for the cut, you can take him to court or (in Quebec) "les Normes de Travails". Most employers are not going to simply reduce salaries by a significant margin if it is without cause. The happy employee makes more money than the unhappy one. However, most employees also do not get 57% of the revenue generated by where they work.

Of course, in the real world, salary cuts happen all the time. Hostess just recently closed its doors when their unionized workers decided to fight against a salary reduction and go on strike. Teachers in Quebec just finished a long battle with the government and are getting a minimal percentage increase over the next few years (about 1.5%). The players in the NHL aren't these poor, oppressed little people. They get millions for their work and will continue to do so throughout the next CBA even with a temporary rollback and the brutality of a mere pittance of 50% of all HRR. Man, how will the NHLPA survive if all they get is 50% of billions to spread around 750 jobs. If the players are getting such a rough deal, let them quit and go play in other leagues around the world. Ask Bobby Dollas to let you know how great it is to play in any other hockey league around the world, and you will start to understand how good the NHL players truly have it. Not just financially, but in terms of perks, care, accomodations during travel, etc...

Again, the players lost 24% of their salaries last time and made a 63.5% step forward over the course of the last CBA. They will continue to do well as long as they contribute to the growth of the game or even if the resources were to stagnate and remain at the same level for the next decade.

I would happily give up 24% of my salary today if I could get 63.5% growth over the next 15 years, never mind 7.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:08 PM
  #436
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
If you don't have a contract, then you're not playing hockey. So what are we discussing.
Ok, now you're just doing it on purpose. Desharnais, White, Weber, Subban, Budaj, Schultz, Geoffrion, Desjardins, Palushaj, Stejskal, Blunden, Nash, St. Denis, Dumont, Mayer. If any of those players were to suffer a career ending injury today, then that's it for them. No more contracts to look forward to, minimum NHL salary irrelevant, nothing to fall back on. My point? Players take big time risks playing a dangerous game that we pay handsomely to watch. They aren't guaranteed anything beyond their current contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
It's not irrelevant. Point is they earn good money even if they don't make it to the NHL.
Yes it is irrelevant, as they are the cream of the crop in a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. Stop comparing their situation to yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Play two years in the AHL, you get 120-140K according to your own numbers. I really have to explain how they earn 6 digits?
Not everybody does earn that, but many, many do.
At least debate honestly man. You clearly said "6 figures annually". By your standards, me and everyone in my family earn "6 figures". We ballin'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Everybody in the world takes risks in life, this kid had the luxury to chase his dream and even play some NHL games. Unfortunately he suffered a bad injury. Even if 62K was all he earned (which it isn't, he's earned a lot more over the years), it's still a good enough salary to bounce back on your feet.
People bounce back on their feet from zero dollars, heck, sometimes even from being in the minus. So ya, 62K is plenty enough to go to school full time, and not even have to worry about income in the first year at least.
Are you assuming that players have ZERO expenses and don't get taxed? Are you assuming that they have the same standards of living as you do, again?


Anyways, I'm done with these circular arguments with you. Imo you are a prime example of the point DAChampion was making about the double standards being applied here. You talk about 62k as if it's something special, then cry for the few owners of teams losing millions, because they might, one day, only be able to sell their team for a measly $150,000,000. Poor that guy, how is he going to cope with life after hockey?!

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:09 PM
  #437
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Just in case you forgot, I'll repeat what YOU said : based on the simple fact they are the owners.


so, your boss owns the company you work for, and based on the simple fact he's the owner, he has every right to cut your salary... right ?

as for the 50% thingie, dont worry, your boss will hire a competent enough accountant to make the numbers work, he'll show you that by cutting your salary you both will be at 50/50
No I never said an owner can cut the salaries just because he feels like it. I said it based on the 50-50 revenue. I didn't think I actually had to explain this to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
And really this is what is going to happen, the players have agreed to go to 50%, but just like if you and your boss signed a contract that said you would make $50k a year for 4 years, and then all of a sudden and quite literally the NEXT day your boss said, well we're cutting our employees share to 50% so that means that contract you signed and we agreed on is now going to be $46.5k a year. I'm quite sure you could take that to court, and why wouldn't you? Further more, you would argue that you should be paid the $50k a year until your contract is up and at that point a new contract be negotiated.
Actually it's not like that at all. The CBA came to an end. When that happens, all contracts are void until the signing of a new one. Players are getting zero dollars other than signing bonuses.

Salary reduction is not uncommon btw.


Last edited by Kriss E: 11-30-2012 at 03:29 PM.
Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:28 PM
  #438
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Ok, now you're just doing it on purpose. Desharnais, White, Weber, Subban, Budaj, Schultz, Geoffrion, Desjardins, Palushaj, Stejskal, Blunden, Nash, St. Denis, Dumont, Mayer. If any of those players were to suffer a career ending injury today, then that's it for them. No more contracts to look forward to, minimum NHL salary irrelevant, nothing to fall back on. My point? Players take big time risks playing a dangerous game that we pay handsomely to watch. They aren't guaranteed anything beyond their current contract.
The remainder of their contracts is guaranteed even if they suffer a career ending injury. That's all I ever said about that.
As for the risks, they take health risks, not financial. Again, that's what I said.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Yes it is irrelevant, as they are the cream of the crop in a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. Stop comparing their situation to yours.
They get paid for it, and they will keep getting well paid for it, even with a rollback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
At least debate honestly man. You clearly said "6 figures annually". By your standards, me and everyone in my family earn "6 figures". We ballin'.
Yes, I also said close to it, 70K to me is close to it, not to mention, some actually earn over it.
I never said people are ''ballin'' if they make six figures, I said they made enough to get off their ass and do something else. Is it really that hard to understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Are you assuming that players have ZERO expenses and don't get taxed? Are you assuming that they have the same standards of living as you do, again?
Of course not, but if people can do it at 10$/h, then they can do it at 60K.
As for living expenses, you need to adapt in life. Don't live above your means. If White bought himself a ferrari, then gets a career ending injury, and decides to keep his car as well as his penthouse condo still unpaid despite it eating away his savings, then he's an idiot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Anyways, I'm done with these circular arguments with you. Imo you are a prime example of the point DAChampion was making about the double standards being applied here. You talk about 62k as if it's something special, then cry for the few owners of teams losing millions, because they might, one day, only be able to sell their team for a measly $150,000,000. Poor that guy, how is he going to cope with life after hockey?!
I never said 62 or 200K is something special. I said it's better than what most student have when they go through college or uni. The fact you guys can't even admit that is rather troubling.

I also never cried for any owners. I said they're entitled to the 50-50 split effective immediately.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:33 PM
  #439
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
If the players want to pay their own insurances, meals, flights, hotels, training, scouting and coaching staff, players in the minors, arena locations and staff... Well, give them 90%.

Habtchum* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:35 PM
  #440
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Plenty of people have done quite the good job at refuting what you are trying to state, you just don't believe it. Big difference. The players do not take any financial risk in running an NHL team. They should not have a financial worry in the world once they sign their GUARANTEED contracts. The owners take all of the financial risk related to running an NHL team. The Coyotes losing money is a perfect example. Every single Coyotes player received his pay throughout the entire time that the owner was losing money. That is what people are talking about when discussing the financial risks associated with running an NHL team. Every single player injured while playing for the Coyotes received, ahd is still getting, his salary EVEN DURING THE LOCKOUT while the owners get nothing. The financial risks at the NHL level are all on the owners. You want people to ignore that fact just because the NHL has grown over the last few years and is doing financially well.

This is why people agree that the owners deserve 50% of the HRR. Players get paid. Period. Owners may or may not earn money because they pay for everything related to hockey.

Trying to claim that the players take financial risks to become an NHL player is a different argument. Everyone takes a risk in trying to achieve their chosen profession. Yes, a person dedicated to playing hockey may not make it, but the same is true of every other career choice. Also, players may lose their jobs to other players if they are not good, but that is also true of most other professions as well. The financial risks of becoming an NHL player are risks we all take to one degree or another. For that risk, though, the players who do make it, even for a short while, are fantastically compensated far above and beyond the vast majority of other people on the planet. The players who make it also no longer take any real financial risks AND get extra money from other hockey related sources that they really should be set for life.

There are many owners who also struggled to get to where they are today. They also took risks to get to the point they are at in their lives where they can afford to purchase an NHL team. The difference is that they continue to take every single financial risk that the players do not take because they pay every single bill related to hockey without any guarantees...UNLIKE the players. It is the CURRENT financial risks that the owners take that (at least in part) entitles them to 50% of the HRR. If Crosby never plays another game in life, he has enough money and insurance to ensure his life will be easy for as long as he lives. That is a benefit that the players have with the guaranteed contract and the type of insurance they get. That isn't even including the endorsement money, autograph fees, convention payments, speakers' fees, etc...that the players get. The owners? They have no guarantees. If their businesses go belly up, and their NHL franchise is losing money, those owners have no guarantees. None. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the owners are "poor" in any sense of the word. However, there can be no denying that they take all of the financial risks of running an NHL franchise and deserve, EARN, an equal 50% of the HRR.
This is a very good post for the other side. I agree owners should get 50% of the pie, because that's just how things work. I will nitpick though and say that you shouldn't use Crosby as an example, or you might as well use MLSE on the other end. Also, owners should be taking all the financial risks as that IS their job. If not, then why are they needed? If you were an inventor and had a great invention, but only had half the money needed to get it on the market, you wouldn't allow an investor to give you the other half, and take half the profits. That's not fair, it was your idea and your blood, sweat and tears that went into creating it. If the investor wants in, he should put most all of the money in, and you should still split 50/50. If he doesn't want in, then the next guy will. Agree?

That also brings up another point, if the NHL were so unattractive to prospective owners at the moment, how in God's name did the Phoenix Coyotes of all teams just get bought? Seriously?

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:40 PM
  #441
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Anyways, I'm done with these circular arguments with you. Imo you are a prime example of the point DAChampion was making about the double standards being applied here. You talk about 62k as if it's something special, then cry for the few owners of teams losing millions, because they might, one day, only be able to sell their team for a measly $150,000,000. Poor that guy, how is he going to cope with life after hockey?!
I agree. I've diligently and comprehensively refuted his "players take zero risks" over a few posts, and there were expansions and elaborations from a few other posters. He still doesn't get it. For him, when a player takes risks "he's pursuing a dream" so it doesn't count as a risk , but when an owner takes a risk he must be cuddled at all costs. It comes down to political ideology for him. He wants billionaires protected of harm and to live in a no-risk world, but a free-for-all for everybody else.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:49 PM
  #442
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Ok, now you're just doing it on purpose. Desharnais, White, Weber, Subban, Budaj, Schultz, Geoffrion, Desjardins, Palushaj, Stejskal, Blunden, Nash, St. Denis, Dumont, Mayer. If any of those players were to suffer a career ending injury today, then that's it for them. No more contracts to look forward to, minimum NHL salary irrelevant, nothing to fall back on. My point? Players take big time risks playing a dangerous game that we pay handsomely to watch. They aren't guaranteed anything beyond their current contract.
Every occupation has its risks. The players are no different. People act like they should have some guarantees against it.

The point is, thats life. We all take that risk that something could happen and we have nothing to fall back on. A freaking clerk at a convenience store takes more risk than a hockey player.

To sit back and say whoa is me, i dont have a contract so im at risk. I will counter and say there is no guarantees in life. That person who went to school for 5 years has no guarantee either. Sucks to be in the real world dont it.

Kirk Muller is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:50 PM
  #443
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I agree. I've diligently and comprehensively refuted his "players take zero risks" over a few posts, and there were expansions and elaborations from a few other posters. He still doesn't get it. For him, when a player takes risks "he's pursuing a dream" so it doesn't count as a risk , but when an owner takes a risk he must be cuddled at all costs. It comes down to political ideology for him. He wants billionaires protected of harm and to live in a no-risk world, but a free-for-all for everybody else.
Yes, that's exactly what I want.

The fact you can't differentiate the ''risk'' a 15yo kid takes to what an owner takes is just sad..

Don't you find it bizarre when someone says ''I can understand why owners want 50-50 split right now'' and someone else responds with ''he wants billionaires protected of harm and live in a no-risk world''. I mean, really...Not sure if I should laugh or be worried about who I'm wasting time arguing with.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:54 PM
  #444
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Every occupation has its risks.
Agreed, that includes both the work to become a player (5-10 years of intense training and putting everything else aisde), and the work to become an owner (fronting 220 million dollars in the median).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
People act like they should have some guarantees against it.
Not one person has suggested that potential players should get guarantees.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:56 PM
  #445
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Agreed, that includes both the work to become a player (5-10 years of intense training and putting everything else aisde), and the work to become an owner (fronting 220 million dollars in the median).
Not the same type of risk at all.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:57 PM
  #446
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I agree. I've diligently and comprehensively refuted his "players take zero risks" over a few posts, and there were expansions and elaborations from a few other posters. He still doesn't get it. For him, when a player takes risks "he's pursuing a dream" so it doesn't count as a risk , but when an owner takes a risk he must be cuddled at all costs. It comes down to political ideology for him. He wants billionaires protected of harm and to live in a no-risk world, but a free-for-all for everybody else.
The owners still bear financial risk no matter what CBA is in effect lets not go off the deep end that they are asking for a perfect situation.

I think what most are looking for is the optimal environment where a well run organization can still break even or make a modest profit at least.

The players risk is no different than any other occupation.

Kirk Muller is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:59 PM
  #447
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
No I never said an owner can cut the salaries just because he feels like it. I said it based on the 50-50 revenue. I didn't think I actually had to explain this to you.



Actually it's not like that at all. The CBA came to an end. When that happens, all contracts are void until the signing of a new one. Players are getting zero dollars other than signing bonuses.

Salary reduction is not uncommon btw.

If this were true, why would any owner sign a contract that goes beyond the CBA? If that were really true, all players should no longer be on contract at the end of a CBA, but that's not the case, there were players signed the day before the lockout and you're telling me that those agreements are now void and can be changed to whatever the new CBA entails because the owners feel like it? Believe me I would be ridiculously pissed off if I just signed a contract and the next day my boss is telling me that the contract is now going to be reduced in dollar amount.

And what I'm saying above here is NOT going against the phase in of a 50/50 split! I think that the players are what makes the NHL not the owners, so maybe a greater than 50% of HRR is deserved, maybe not, but that's not the argument here.

I don't disagree with Drydenwasthebest's point of view of yes the players will make big steps in the future as the game grows, and hopefully it does grow, BUT the same can be said about the owners, if the players are making more so are the owners! Why is it unreasonable to uphold the contracts that the players have signed?

The make whole provision that is being negotiated at this point is the pool of money that is there to uphold these contracts, and it's just a matter of when 50/50 of HRR is achieved.

And note here that just because there is a 50/50 split of HRR doesn't mean it's actually 50/50 of everything, it depends on the definition of HRR which I quite frankly know very little about.

Reiher is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:04 PM
  #448
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Agreed, that includes both the work to become a player (5-10 years of intense training and putting everything else aisde), and the work to become an owner (fronting 220 million dollars in the median).


Not one person has suggested that potential players should get guarantees.
if your argument is that players take risks too, that means nothing because everyone faces those risk. If you use that argument you are basically affirming indirectly your believe their should be some guarantee.

when talking risk of owners, anyone with half a brain cell realizes people are talking financial.

Kirk Muller is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:13 PM
  #449
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
If this were true, why would any owner sign a contract that goes beyond the CBA? If that were really true, all players should no longer be on contract at the end of a CBA, but that's not the case, there were players signed the day before the lockout and you're telling me that those agreements are now void and can be changed to whatever the new CBA entails because the owners feel like it? Believe me I would be ridiculously pissed off if I just signed a contract and the next day my boss is telling me that the contract is now going to be reduced in dollar amount.

And what I'm saying above here is NOT going against the phase in of a 50/50 split! I think that the players are what makes the NHL not the owners, so maybe a greater than 50% of HRR is deserved, maybe not, but that's not the argument here.

I don't disagree with Drydenwasthebest's point of view of yes the players will make big steps in the future as the game grows, and hopefully it does grow, BUT the same can be said about the owners, if the players are making more so are the owners! Why is it unreasonable to uphold the contracts that the players have signed?

The make whole provision that is being negotiated at this point is the pool of money that is there to uphold these contracts, and it's just a matter of when 50/50 of HRR is achieved.

And note here that just because there is a 50/50 split of HRR doesn't mean it's actually 50/50 of everything, it depends on the definition of HRR which I quite frankly know very little about.
CBAs can be extended, or go through small minor changes. So that's why contracts are signed over their expiry date.

Owners want 50-50 split right away. If that's the case, rollback is unavoidable.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:15 PM
  #450
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
If this were true, why would any owner sign a contract that goes beyond the CBA? If that were really true, all players should no longer be on contract at the end of a CBA, but that's not the case, there were players signed the day before the lockout and you're telling me that those agreements are now void and can be changed to whatever the new CBA entails because the owners feel like it? Believe me I would be ridiculously pissed off if I just signed a contract and the next day my boss is telling me that the contract is now going to be reduced in dollar amount.

And what I'm saying above here is NOT going against the phase in of a 50/50 split! I think that the players are what makes the NHL not the owners, so maybe a greater than 50% of HRR is deserved, maybe not, but that's not the argument here.

I don't disagree with Drydenwasthebest's point of view of yes the players will make big steps in the future as the game grows, and hopefully it does grow, BUT the same can be said about the owners, if the players are making more so are the owners! Why is it unreasonable to uphold the contracts that the players have signed?

The make whole provision that is being negotiated at this point is the pool of money that is there to uphold these contracts, and it's just a matter of when 50/50 of HRR is achieved.

And note here that just because there is a 50/50 split of HRR doesn't mean it's actually 50/50 of everything, it depends on the definition of HRR which I quite frankly know very little about.
In a sense yes. Basically the contracts are not enforceable as the standard player contract is subject to the current or any future CBA.

the players signed those contracts fully knowing the face value of the contracts can change based off the CBA. The old CBA had them not getting full face value so it shouldnt been some surprise.

The make whole should have been a solution and would have been likely IF the NHLPA wanted a linked cap.

The NHLPA wants to change the system again and go back to de-linked. Thats why the NHL keeps out right refusing their proposals. When you say its "when 50/50 is achieved" thats not true based on the PA's stance with their proposals. The PA wants it subject to growth.

Its obvious in their proposals and quotes the PA doesnt want linkage. Its like re-fighting the last CBA again.

Kirk Muller 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 07:19 PM.

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.