The ones they created for themselves outside of hockey revenue? That lifestyle?
Easier to inherit a fortune or make it as an NHLer?
I just don't get how despite everything going on in the world people can still get behind the 1%. At least NHL players are making money off their own hard work rather than cheap labour in third world countries.
Easier to inherit a fortune or make it as an NHLer?
I just don't get how despite everything going on in the world people can still get behind the 1%. At least NHL players are making money off their own hard work rather than cheap labour in third world countries.
What does that have to do with anything? So because the owners are rich they should be involved in a money losing venture like the NHL?
Not all of them created it. If you're last name is Molson you have a pretty good head start as did Aquilini in Vancouver and Gaglardi of the Dallas Stars. Some of them created the wealth and some of them inherited a lot of it.
To be an NHLer you need an upper hand in terms of a god given skill as well. Both things people inherited.
Lets be honest both sides had a head start in life that many would love.
To be an NHLer you need an upper hand in terms of a god given skill as well. Both things people inherited.
Lets be honest both sides had a head start in life that many would love.
I look at it this way. Many of the owners got where they are by hard work and skill. Kudos to them.
I know some people who have become NHL players and the hard work and dedication they have shown is amazing. I'm sure a few float by on talent alone but that's probably the exception. The competition is intense for those few NHL jobs.
I don't begrudge the NHL players their big salaries anymore than I begrudge the owners their fortunes. Most of them worked hard for what they have and, if they inherited it, have worked hard to keep it. Channeling your energy into being an NHL player is really no different than channeling your effort into being a successful business owner. I don't really understand the attitude that the owners should be more respected than the players. Sure the players would probably not be making millions if hockey didn't exist. But it does exist. And they've shown incredible effort and work in reaching their goal which they probably have had since childhood.
Add henrik lundqvist to the list of levelheaded players out there. I have always despised him but after seeing his expressions on all this stuff I have gained a ton of respect for him
Who cares who is right or wrong here. Both sides are to blame. This is a mess that doesn't make sense in terms of hockey or the business.
I have a question: what is it about a moral stance that allows you to justify it even in the face of suffering? Does losing a season actually result in an acceptable outcome for either side?
Easier to inherit a fortune or make it as an NHLer?
I just don't get how despite everything going on in the world people can still get behind the 1%. At least NHL players are making money off their own hard work rather than cheap labour in third world countries.
Both sides are the 1% though with the exception of younger players who are soon to be and maybe some fringe players.
I look at it this way. Many of the owners got where they are by hard work and skill. Kudos to them.
I know some people who have become NHL players and the hard work and dedication they have shown is amazing. I'm sure a few float by on talent alone but that's probably the exception. The competition is intense for those few NHL jobs.
I don't begrudge the NHL players their big salaries anymore than I begrudge the owners their fortunes. Most of them worked hard for what they have and, if they inherited it, have worked hard to keep it. Channeling your energy into being an NHL player is really no different than channeling your effort into being a successful business owner. I don't really understand the attitude that the owners should be more respected than the players. Sure the players would probably not be making millions if hockey didn't exist. But it does exist. And they've shown incredible effort and work in reaching their goal which they probably have had since childhood.
i agree on all accounts.
Most owners usually have a head start but still have to work to earn their livings.
even a fringe NHLer has more natural skills in hockey than the majority of the population but still have to work hard. I know fully even if i worked 100% harder than Lars Eller i still wouldnt even come close.
my point just not point at what you were born with. You better and fully explained it.
At this point, I'm just hoping next season starts on time. No progress is being made whatsoever, and quite frankly I don't care. I haven't seen live hockey in general since the Stanley Cup Finals, and surprisingly I haven't missed it very much. The quality of the game has gone down over the past few years anyways. Now it has hit rock bottom.
I understand you're pissed, but that is simply not true. Don't spew garbage like that.
What does that have to do with anything? So because the owners are rich they should be involved in a money losing venture like the NHL?
They should be able to make money but it shouldn't be guaranteed. I don't think the NHL is very well run, nor are a lot of the franchises losing money. Why should they make money?
I find it easier to get behind hockey players than big business, I'm just surprised more people don't feel that way.
Not all of them created it. If you're last name is Molson you have a pretty good head start as did Aquilini in Vancouver and Gaglardi of the Dallas Stars. Some of them created the wealth and some of them inherited a lot of it.
And you're almost obtusely missing the point.
I don't care if every owner inherited their wealth from Daddy or a magic genie. It still doesn't change the fact that the wealth they've accumulated had nothing to do with owning a hockey franchise. I can hardly say the same for the players.
And for the umpteenth time, it's called "SEPARATE ENTITIES" . Because they're wealthy in other endeavors doesn't mean they should piss even a single penny away to help support another one. Some of them like Pagula choose to do it because he's basically a message board poster fanboy who can afford an NHL franchise (among other things), but others don't feel they should be obligated to do the same. Nor should they.
Pro PA fans get annoyed that we're essentially telling them to shut up and play? Nothing irks me more than people saying "Well the owners are rich in other ways, so it shouldn't bother them to lose millions a year"
Easier to inherit a fortune or make it as an NHLer?
I just don't get how despite everything going on in the world people can still get behind the 1%. At least NHL players are making money off their own hard work rather than cheap labour in third world countries.
If you think players are part of the 99%, than I have no idea what to tell you.
I don't care if every owner inherited their wealth from Daddy or a magic genie. It still doesn't change the fact that the wealth they've accumulated had nothing to do with owning a hockey franchise. I can hardly say the same for the players.
And for the umpteenth time, it's called "SEPARATE ENTITIES" . Because they're wealthy in other endeavors doesn't mean they should piss even a single penny away to help support another one. Some of them like Pagula choose to do it because he's basically a message board poster fanboy who can afford an NHL franchise (among other things), but others don't feel they should be obligated to do the same. Nor should they.
Pro PA fans get annoyed that we're essentially telling them to shut up and play? Nothing irks me more than people saying "Well the owners are rich in other ways, so it shouldn't bother them to lose millions a year"
I read your post again and I'm still afraid I'm obtusely missing whatever point you're trying to make.
Businessmen who fail lose their business.
C'est La Vie
you can easily argue thats why the owners are fighting tooth and nail over this CBA. They are protecting themselves the best they can so they are in the most optimal position to succeed. Just what you are proposing they do.
would the courts dismiss de-certification if he consulted the group of the players? Would they possibly still see them as a union if he does so? Its basically having it both ways. Question because i dont know.
You're joking right? Last season was one of the most exciting and intriguing NHL seasons in a long time. The year before when the B's beat your Canucks, was pretty damn good too.
Stop clouding your head with the off ice business stuff. It's is absolutely insane to say the on ice product is lacking over the years.
Do you not realize what a silly statement this is?
