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 4.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-22-2012, 05:43 PM
  #826
overlords
Hfboards
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
in case one is wondering:

quibbling present participle of quib·ble
Verb
Argue or raise objections about a trivial matter: "they are always quibbling about the amount they are prepared to pay".
hah, at first I was afraid I used the word in the wrong way

overlords is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 06:44 PM
  #827
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Fair enough.

Let me ask a serious question.

Pro NHLPA or Pro owners.

Whichever side you're on do you think removing front loading will help small markets compete?

Personally, I do because I feel small markets will avoid Weber type situations and can pay UFAs similar rates. Some may disagree and if you agree or disagree, why?
This is why I have a very tough time believing the players understand what is going on. Also the reason why they look greedy and selfish, more so than owners.

Of course it helps the smaller market teams. Especially with a cap.
Not only that, but more years under the ELC and as a RFA helps lower market teams to keep valuable assets longer.
Limiting years for contracts also makes it a bit easier to move players. Nobody needs to get stuck with trying to move a 10y deal.

Essentially, most of what the owners have brought forth helps the poorer/smaller teams. Richer owners aren't really benefiting from this, but thy understand that helping out more teams means a stronger NhL, which in turns means more cash for everyone.

Players don't seem to get that. All they see is them not getting what they signed. It stops there.

I'm not arguing that whatever was brought forth will solve all problems, it won't. But it will help, and it's obvious.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 07:16 PM
  #828
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
So you think they should go in looking for the least amount of cash possible with zero representation?

I find it amusing when people hold celebrities up to these idiotic standards they themselves would never even approach. Let me guess, you are of the opinion that the housing bubble was the fault of the poor people getting loans for homes they couldn't afford but were given enthusiastically?
Not the first time you took a quote out of context..

I responded to someone saying the owners are the ones that found loopholes in order to circumvent the cap. I just mentioned players hire agents whose job is to get them the most. How you take that to the extreme by saying should they go for the least is beyond me.
I mean really, was my point that hard to comprehend?
Of course the players should go for the most, I would do the same. But when we point fingers, it's very dishonest to blame one side only.
I even ended my previous post by saying all parties involved are equally at fault.

And no, I don't blame the middle or poor class for the housing problems. Further proof you simply don't understand my posts.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 08:03 PM
  #829
RC51
Registered User
 
RC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,653
vCash: 500
I started 50/50 but now with what the NHL has offered I was an continue to be surprised the NHLPA did not sign. They are holding out for what? the right to have unlimited contracts in over to get around the cap again with front loaded contracts. The other sticking point is that the players want to have another strike or lockout every 5 years because they dont like a 10 year term.... DOes anybody want to have this again and again every 5 years.... WTF is that all about??
The biggest driver of inflation of contracts in the last 6 years was the LOOPHOLE. It's a proven fact that the GM's can not be trusted to NOT use the loophole so Bettman wants to force a close of the loophole.
the players want to hide behind this veiled perverted way of getting around the cap. So after all that said. I am now fully behind the owners.

RC51 is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 08:28 PM
  #830
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,283
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC51 View Post
I started 50/50 but now with what the NHL has offered I was an continue to be surprised the NHLPA did not sign. They are holding out for what? the right to have unlimited contracts in over to get around the cap again with front loaded contracts. The other sticking point is that the players want to have another strike or lockout every 5 years because they dont like a 10 year term.... DOes anybody want to have this again and again every 5 years.... WTF is that all about??
The biggest driver of inflation of contracts in the last 6 years was the LOOPHOLE. It's a proven fact that the GM's can not be trusted to NOT use the loophole so Bettman wants to force a close of the loophole.
the players want to hide behind this veiled perverted way of getting around the cap. So after all that said. I am now fully behind the owners.
I think closing that loophole will directly reduce contract length. People won't give 14 year deals afterwards. I think this is a MASSIVE thing that shouldn't even be in CBA discussions and merely be obvious. The 50-50 split is nice as well. The owners providing some make whole in return is great as they should be somewhat liable for what they signed. The rest is merely details in regards to owners-players. Stuff that is owners-owners like revenue sharing is good as well.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 10:55 PM
  #831
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Fair enough.

Let me ask a serious question.

Pro NHLPA or Pro owners.

Whichever side you're on do you think removing front loading will help small markets compete?

Personally, I do because I feel small markets will avoid Weber type situations and can pay UFAs similar rates. Some may disagree and if you agree or disagree, why?
So my stance has been pro players but only in so far that I believe that the make whole part from the owners is important in upholding the contracts that have been given under the old CBA. However I think that the front loading and super long contracts need to be controlled to stop cap circumvention and to another extent stop markets with greater available payroll to try and grab players from markets that are otherwise not capable of paying that money out. To some extent I think that signing bonuses should be counted against the cap in some way. I'm sure the NHL would step in and call it cap circumvention if the contract paid the player $1/yr with $60mil in signing bonuses so that the cap hit was $1/yr, but you get the point.

I'm not really sure where negotiations are headed at this point and it doesn't really seem like a negotiation anymore but more about testing each other's side on how far this will go.

Reiher is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 01:58 AM
  #832
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC51 View Post
I started 50/50 but now with what the NHL has offered I was an continue to be surprised the NHLPA did not sign. They are holding out for what? the right to have unlimited contracts in over to get around the cap again with front loaded contracts. The other sticking point is that the players want to have another strike or lockout every 5 years because they dont like a 10 year term.... DOes anybody want to have this again and again every 5 years.... WTF is that all about??
The biggest driver of inflation of contracts in the last 6 years was the LOOPHOLE. It's a proven fact that the GM's can not be trusted to NOT use the loophole so Bettman wants to force a close of the loophole.
the players want to hide behind this veiled perverted way of getting around the cap. So after all that said. I am now fully behind the owners.
Again, how does a 25% limit on variance not close the loophole?

Or, to put it another way, the PA's latest offer included an 8 year & 25% variance limit. So lets say a team goes right to those limits and offers Getzlaf 8M/8M/8M/7M/7M/6M/6M/6M - a 7M cap hit for his age 28 through 35 year old seasons. Doesn't look like much of a circumvention to me.


Last edited by Roulin: 12-23-2012 at 02:08 AM.
Roulin is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 02:04 AM
  #833
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
So my stance has been pro players but only in so far that I believe that the make whole part from the owners is important in upholding the contracts that have been given under the old CBA. However I think that the front loading and super long contracts need to be controlled to stop cap circumvention and to another extent stop markets with greater available payroll to try and grab players from markets that are otherwise not capable of paying that money out. To some extent I think that signing bonuses should be counted against the cap in some way. I'm sure the NHL would step in and call it cap circumvention if the contract paid the player $1/yr with $60mil in signing bonuses so that the cap hit was $1/yr, but you get the point.

I'm not really sure where negotiations are headed at this point and it doesn't really seem like a negotiation anymore but more about testing each other's side on how far this will go.
Signing bonuses already did count against the cap.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 05:22 AM
  #834
RC51
Registered User
 
RC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Again, how does a 25% limit on variance not close the loophole?

Or, to put it another way, the PA's latest offer included an 8 year & 25% variance limit. So lets say a team goes right to those limits and offers Getzlaf 8M/8M/8M/7M/7M/6M/6M/6M - a 7M cap hit for his age 28 through 35 year old seasons. Doesn't look like much of a circumvention to me.
By imposing a 5 year max you also reduce the "GOMEZ trap".
suppose Getzlaf decides to pull a GOMEZ and gets a 8 year contract and then sits on his ASSSS. In that one contract a team can suffer for years get two contracts on your books and the team can go under as the fans stay away for 8 years. Limiting contracts to 5 years reduces risk to the team. Keep playing well and you wont have a problem getting good contracts. STOP playing well and you next contract will be a massive drop. If the players get their way it is possible that a player floats for the last 5-8 years of a 15 year contract.

RC51 is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 11:02 AM
  #835
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,283
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Again, how does a 25% limit on variance not close the loophole?

Or, to put it another way, the PA's latest offer included an 8 year & 25% variance limit. So lets say a team goes right to those limits and offers Getzlaf 8M/8M/8M/7M/7M/6M/6M/6M - a 7M cap hit for his age 28 through 35 year old seasons. Doesn't look like much of a circumvention to me.
I think that's the point. I don't blame players for wanting to preserve these rights but I hope they understand it's merely a loophole and not good for the game. If someone wants to give Weber 14 mil per year after, sure. I don't care, but as long as its not a loophole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RC51 View Post
By imposing a 5 year max you also reduce the "GOMEZ trap".
suppose Getzlaf decides to pull a GOMEZ and gets a 8 year contract and then sits on his ASSSS. In that one contract a team can suffer for years get two contracts on your books and the team can go under as the fans stay away for 8 years. Limiting contracts to 5 years reduces risk to the team. Keep playing well and you wont have a problem getting good contracts. STOP playing well and you next contract will be a massive drop. If the players get their way it is possible that a player floats for the last 5-8 years of a 15 year contract.
I believe reducing variance will ultimately lead to smaller contracts anyway. The gomez contract was not a loophole and done in good faith. It was a silly contract along with Drury's but nonetheless I don't consider these like the other we've seen. Still, with guaranteed contracts, smaller term would be ideal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Signing bonuses already did count against the cap.
100% right. They count towards the cap.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 01:42 PM
  #836
No Team Needed
Registered User
 
No Team Needed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Fair enough.

Let me ask a serious question.

Pro NHLPA or Pro owners.

Whichever side you're on do you think removing front loading will help small markets compete?

Personally, I do because I feel small markets will avoid Weber type situations and can pay UFAs similar rates. Some may disagree and if you agree or disagree, why?
The whole point of the long term front loaded contracts was so players would lower their total price tag to a team but be promised money up front and long term security. It is so a superstar knows he'll play for one team for the rest of his career, maybe a second at the end of his time playing.

The moment you remove frontloading and/or long term contracts, players will start asking for max. Maybe that works better for cap honesty but it will probably mean players will be a lot less loyal if they know they'll likely play for multiple teams in their career. I don't know if that helps small markets or not. Probably a wash.

No Team Needed is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 01:48 PM
  #837
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,283
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Team Needed View Post
The whole point of the long term front loaded contracts was so players would lower their total price tag to a team but be promised money up front and long term security. It is so a superstar knows he'll play for one team for the rest of his career, maybe a second at the end of his time playing.

The moment you remove frontloading and/or long term contracts, players will start asking for max. Maybe that works better for cap honesty but it will probably mean players will be a lot less loyal if they know they'll likely play for multiple teams in their career. I don't know if that helps small markets or not. Probably a wash.
Well, bigger market teams add years and frontload the hell out of it. So they can acquire several stars for a fraction of the caphit. If they are forced to take full cap, it will force players to sign with those teams who have cap remaining.

You bring up a good point, that there may be more turnover but by same arguement UFA won't be as profitable anymore and some teams may decide to just stay where they are.

I think it's an interesting discussion.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 02:08 PM
  #838
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Not the first time you took a quote out of context..

I responded to someone saying the owners are the ones that found loopholes in order to circumvent the cap. I just mentioned players hire agents whose job is to get them the most. How you take that to the extreme by saying should they go for the least is beyond me.
I mean really, was my point that hard to comprehend?
Of course the players should go for the most, I would do the same. But when we point fingers, it's very dishonest to blame one side only.
I even ended my previous post by saying all parties involved are equally at fault.

And no, I don't blame the middle or poor class for the housing problems. Further proof you simply don't understand my posts.
That isn't a "loophole", that is within their rights (and every other person). Just another one of your attempts to vilify the players for not living up to the standards of what YOU think a hockey player should be. According to you NHL players should put the game, owners, fans, franchise and other players in other leagues ahead of their own personal well being because if they don't they are "greedy" and "selfish".

This isn't the first time you have made a ludicrous post only to try and back away and muddy the waters.

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 03:21 PM
  #839
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
I don't know if they understand this, but if this go as far as a cancelled season the players will loose alot more than they would be with the last offer. The owners have deeper pockets and the NHLPA would not be able to stand more than a one year lockout. Players will soon be on their knees if that's what happens (like 2004-2005).

Forsead is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 03:42 PM
  #840
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC51 View Post
By imposing a 5 year max you also reduce the "GOMEZ trap".
suppose Getzlaf decides to pull a GOMEZ and gets a 8 year contract and then sits on his ASSSS. In that one contract a team can suffer for years get two contracts on your books and the team can go under as the fans stay away for 8 years. Limiting contracts to 5 years reduces risk to the team. Keep playing well and you wont have a problem getting good contracts. STOP playing well and you next contract will be a massive drop. If the players get their way it is possible that a player floats for the last 5-8 years of a 15 year contract.
It wasn't the term that made Gomez's contract bad, it was the dollars. His contract was clearly an albatross by year two.

Getting rid of bad contracts, if that is the goal, is impossible - the quality of contracts is relative. Tackling circumvention is a different matter, but the union's latest offer already agrees to close the frontloading loophole.

I don't know where your "15 year contract" comment comes from. The debate right now is between the latest player offer (8 year max) and the hill the owners have pledged to die on (5 year max, 7 year max to re-sign with the same team).

Roulin is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 03:46 PM
  #841
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
I don't know if they understand this, but if this go as far as a cancelled season the players will loose alot more than they would be with the last offer. The owners have deeper pockets and the NHLPA would not be able to stand more than a one year lockout. Players will soon be on their knees if that's what happens (like 2004-2005).
Add the fact that who the hell really think that, if the season is cancelled, that the owners will then give the union what they want. Don't the union know this? If anything, the owners will be even tougher.

And another thing. I'd wish that the first question, before both parties sat down together to have a new CBA would have been "How much is it normal to pay for a customer to come and see our show". Maybe with a little reality check, both parties would have come to their senses.

And finally, I am a little surprised that in their rage, Bettman and Co didn't bring something like "Hey union you want to play hardcore, well we are bringing on the table the non-guaranteed contracts...."Maybe then the union would have settled with what's been presented to them. Union keeps saying that the League doesn't want to negotiate. Maybe so. Yet, maybe the League could have been even tougher on their demands and Union should recognize it.

My 2 cents. Clearly not as a CBA professionnals like most of the people who keeps maintaining that thread alive....I salute you all by the way. True lovers of the sports to keep writing about it despite the fact that how discouraging it has become.

Whitesnake is online now  
Old
12-23-2012, 03:58 PM
  #842
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Add the fact that who the hell really think that, if the season is cancelled, that the owners will then give the union what they want. Don't the union know this? If anything, the owners will be even tougher.

And another thing. I'd wish that the first question, before both parties sat down together to have a new CBA would have been "How much is it normal to pay for a customer to come and see our show". Maybe with a little reality check, both parties would have come to their senses.

And finally, I am a little surprised that in their rage, Bettman and Co didn't bring something like "Hey union you want to play hardcore, well we are bringing on the table the non-guaranteed contracts...."Maybe then the union would have settled with what's been presented to them. Union keeps saying that the League doesn't want to negotiate. Maybe so. Yet, maybe the League could have been even tougher on their demands and Union should recognize it.

My 2 cents. Clearly not as a CBA professionnals like most of the people who keeps maintaining that thread alive....I salute you all by the way. True lovers of the sports to keep writing about it despite the fact that how discouraging it has become.
Well that's something I would force upon them if the season is cancelled if I was the owners. Now the players would see what is a real concession. It would mean a much better show, no floaters anymore, but that would be a big advantage to rich teams (as a Habs fan I wouldn't complain though).

Forsead is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:15 PM
  #843
No Team Needed
Registered User
 
No Team Needed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Add the fact that who the hell really think that, if the season is cancelled, that the owners will then give the union what they want. Don't the union know this? If anything, the owners will be even tougher.
De-certification and going after the NHL in an antitrust suit is a bigger threat than anything the NHL can provide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
And another thing. I'd wish that the first question, before both parties sat down together to have a new CBA would have been "How much is it normal to pay for a customer to come and see our show". Maybe with a little reality check, both parties would have come to their senses.
That isn't a question ever asked by capitalists. It's always, "What is the highest price we can charge that people will pay for?"

No Team Needed is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:26 PM
  #844
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Team Needed View Post
That isn't a question ever asked by capitalists. It's always, "What is the highest price we can charge that people will pay for?"
Clearly, there aren't full houses everywhere and seems that most teams are losing money.....So the highest prices are not being paid enough in most cities. So maybe it's time the right question as far as that sport is concerned.

Whitesnake is online now  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:32 PM
  #845
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
FWIW
Ask a guy Like Hamrlik if he's made all his money back from the 3 lockouts he's been involved in.
Ask the vets if they really care what the next generations do?
Has anyone listen to the retired players? Even the mouth that roared "JR" wondered out loud whey the pa didnt vote on the last proposal?

imho - Fehr has more than the player's interests in mind - the guy is pushing his own agenda - a precedence setting agenda that all pa's may one day use.
The unfortunate thing is he's picked hockey as the vehicle to do this.
The PA was asked to the table early in order to start talks - they refused. Then when they finally did come they rolled out a revenue sharing proposal- really? GTFO - who are you?
Go Reagan on their ***** - use scabs - slash prices due to lesser product on the ice and see where it takes you.
In part this is a sad commentary on society where an athlete earns more than true "key" contributors to our quality of life.l

I'm a sports nut, one can even say a student of sports, but when you get paid millions to play a kids game and then you put yourself in a position to lose millions? I fail to fully understand.

The owners signed the contracts, they should honor them. The players need a healthy dose of reality as well because at the end of the day nothing they do on any given day can be construed as "critical" to our daily lives

AntonCH is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:35 PM
  #846
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Clearly, there aren't full houses everywhere and seems that most teams are losing money.....So the highest prices are not being paid enough in most cities. So maybe it's time the right question as far as that sport is concerned.
Each teams have their own prices determined by the owner and the market. In Phoenix and Florida they have 15 $ tickets. It has nothing to do with the NHLPA or the boards of governors. If they can't get more people in the arena it's because of the sport popularity.

Forsead is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:50 PM
  #847
No Team Needed
Registered User
 
No Team Needed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
FWIW
imho - Fehr has more than the player's interests in mind - the guy is pushing his own agenda - a precedence setting agenda that all pa's may one day use.
Players voted 706-22 for decertification. Every player asked has said that Fehr has kept all of the players very well informed with what is going on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
Go Reagan on their ***** - use scabs - slash prices due to lesser product on the ice and see where it takes you.
The NHL knows pretty well that scabs would kill their league. They wouldn't be the top professional hockey league anymore and even Leaf fans would reject paying $200 to watch Luca Caputi in a top six rotation. Just look at the uproar in the NFL for scab referees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
I'm a sports nut, one can even say a student of sports, but when you get paid millions to play a kids game and then you put yourself in a position to lose millions? I fail to fully understand.
Pro athletes have tough jobs. They are not playing pick up. You cannot do what they do and if you claim to be a student of sports and not even consider why they get paid the money they do, you most certainly flunked out.

No Team Needed is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 05:08 PM
  #848
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,178
vCash: 500
706-22 is pretty comprehensive. With all due respect to Hamrlik he sounds like the epitome of the guy who would throw the future of the players overboard to get back on the ice. Third lockout, 38 years old, been in the league for 20 years. He wants his last few million and to ride off into the sunset. If the future players are screwed, not his problem.

HabsByTheBay is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 05:41 PM
  #849
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Team Needed View Post
Players voted 706-22 for decertification. Every player asked has said that Fehr has kept all of the players very well informed with what is going on.

Spin doctors have existed for years - One can make a piece of ***** look or sound like the most delectable morsel ever to come out of a 5 star kitchen - The guy having an agenda is not exclusive from keeping the players well-informed

The NHL knows pretty well that scabs would kill their league. They wouldn't be the top professional hockey league anymore and even Leaf fans would reject paying $200 to watch Luca Caputi in a top six rotation. Just look at the uproar in the NFL for scab referees.

Did i not say slash prices? Athletes pockets are nowhere near as deep as ownership's. Assuming lifestyles in line with earnings, they'll be looking for money sooner rather than later

Pro athletes have tough jobs. They are not playing pick up. You cannot do what they do and if you claim to be a student of sports and not even consider why they get paid the money they do, you most certainly flunked out.
If I chose to devote my time as they've done I can do it as well. I may not be a malkin or crosby - but I probably wouldn't be a biznasty either. Its a GAME, a diversion. a way to cheer for city / state / or country. Come up with this century's version of a rollerball league and watch a lot of leagues diminish in importance.

Sports are as relevant as society "we" make them.
The only thing i'll concede to the players is the contracts that they've already signed. Beyond that their actions are questionable.

Suggesting revenue sharing schemes to the owners? How bout ownership suggesting contraction?
But no, the PA wouldn't have that as it would thin their ranks.

Bottom line is your career has a finite shelf life as well as questionable value. Get rid of guaranteed contracts and lets see what happens to strikes/lockouts.

AntonCH is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 05:47 PM
  #850
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
If I chose to devote my time as they've done I can do it as well. I may not be a malkin or crosby - but I probably wouldn't be a biznasty either. Its a GAME, a diversion. a way to cheer for city / state / or country. Come up with this century's version of a rollerball league and watch a lot of leagues diminish in importance.

Sports are as relevant as society "we" make them.
The only thing i'll concede to the players is the contracts that they've already signed. Beyond that their actions are questionable.

Suggesting revenue sharing schemes to the owners? How bout ownership suggesting contraction?
But no, the PA wouldn't have that as it would thin their ranks.

Bottom line is your career has a finite shelf life as well as questionable value. Get rid of guaranteed contracts and lets see what happens to strikes/lockouts.
My guess is, it would make the lockout last a whole lot longer, or push the players closer to permanent decertification.

Roulin is offline  
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 05:49 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.