If the owner can't afford to pay his employees he's free to find something else to own. Baseball? Poker? Oh yeah I forgot, NHL owners feel entitled to cut everyone's pay whenever they feel like it.
The owners can afford to pay their employees exactly what he needs to to make a profit. When he can't make a profit something has to change. And hasn't the average salary in the NHL quadrupled during the last CBA? Those horrible owners they're like scrooge never giving out a raise.
Apples and oranges. In a capitalist democracy people are free to earn whatever they can. If this weren't true then people would never have been able to accumulate the wealth to own hockey teams.
With their wealth people can buy different things. One guy is in the wealth range to buy a motor scooter while another can buy a Ferari. Both would feel the same sense of loss if their buying power was curtailed by their boss arbitrarily lowering their wages. This could be very, very problematic if either was unable to continue a payment they had contracted to do. But then in the Bettman fantasy world one can just change contract values at a whim.
I think I'll call my bank tomorrow and tell them to reduce the value of the money I borrowed and spent by 25%. Then I'll call my boss and tell him to pay me 25% more. Must be nice.
Right on. My mortgage should be reduced by 14% because my revenues are flat (not the case in NHL). Maybe my credit cards, car payments etc. can be reduced too.
The players have agreed to get to 50/50 without reducing their current salaries. The owners still want what not one person can possible do in the real world which is to redo signed contracts.
Maybe Gillette, NBC, and Molson should demand 20% of their money back in future deals for irreparable damage to the game.
As much as I hate Fehr this post is pretty bad. So what the players are paying a guy millions of dollars to be a secretary? That's asinie. He is their rep they're paying him to get the best contract they can. Why the hell would analysing and telling the players whether it is a good deal or not be part of his job?
Because that way players would've only pay for his negotiation skills. It took Mr Fehr's ego out of the equation. And it could be much faster and effective way to get some results. It's players job to evaluate the proposals and decide if they can play with it or not. Fehr doesn't know how hard it is to play hockey, does he?
If players want to outsource their intelligence and common sense, it's much more expensive and ineffective. But you're right. We can't determine the contract between players and Mr Fehr. It's their business.
Bettman stopped hockey. No one made him do it. He is responsible for his own actions. the 'just following orders' defence was discredited in the late 40's.
In 1994, didn't the major league baseball players play with no agreement in place only to strike right before a month before the post-season? And wasn't Fehr negotiating for the players?
With that in mind, if the owners didn't lockout the players, what would stop the players from collecting every single one of their paychecks and then strike right before the NHL playoffs? If Fehr used this tactic before, wouldn't it make sense that he would use it again?
As a fan, who doesn't want to go through that again, I support the lockout until an agreement gets done.