Commandant Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 What economic climate? The real world, or the one where hockey generated more and more revenue every year despite a down turn globally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 What economic climate? The real world, or the one where hockey generated more and more revenue every year despite a down turn globally? I get what happened last year and if i was a player I would be expecting something coming my way. I am just saying how ironic it is that the owners have their hand out when the climate doesn't correlate with their expectations. How many years have the players done the same. The real world should not have sports stars on the top end of the pay scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I get what happened last year and if i was a player I would be expecting something coming my way. I am just saying how ironic it is that the owners have their hand out when the climate doesn't correlate with their expectations. How many years have the players done the same. The real world should not have sports stars on the top end of the pay scale. Why not? Find me another job where 20,000 people pay $100 each, 40-50 times per year to watch that person work. Entertainment is big money... just look at movie stars and tv star salaries too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Why not? Find me another job where 20,000 people pay $100 each, 40-50 times per year to watch that person work. Entertainment is big money... just look at movie stars and tv star salaries too. You are talking entertainment. Wouldn't it make more sense as a society to spend those dollars on say Cancer research or Medicine or famine relief? I get how money works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I get what happened last year and if i was a player I would be expecting something coming my way. I am just saying how ironic it is that the owners have their hand out when the climate doesn't correlate with their expectations. How many years have the players done the same. The real world should not have sports stars on the top end of the pay scale. I still love Babe Ruth's quote, from a long time ago when asked about him making more money than the President, "Well i had a better year than he did!" Pro players/athetes are one elite section of society, and are treated/paid as such, has always been that way since beginning of sporting events and will never ever change, fact of life and irrelevant to CBA quagmire created by greedy owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 People who complain about athletes' salaries seem not to realize that they're complaining about the free market system, period. This system creates massive rewards for services that are in great demand by those with money to pay. Elite athletes in popular sports are in that category. You can inveigh against the amorality (or immorality) of a system that pays teachers a pittance and leaves people out on the street while making millionaires out of men playing a kids' game, but your argument is with capitalism itself, not the athletes. Perhaps the real irony here is that the NHL owners - who seem to get in high dudgeon about unions 'telling them how to run their business', as though this is some fiendish distortion of their sacrosanct free enterprise as private profiteers - are the ones advocating heavy restraints upon the basic market mechanism of supply and demand. It's a joke. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 People who complain about athletes' salaries seem not to realize that they're complaining about the free market system, period. This system creates massive rewards for services that are in great demand by those with money to pay. Elite athletes in popular sports are in that category. You can inveigh against the amorality (or immorality) of a system that pays teachers a pittance and leaves people out on the street while making millionaires out of men playing a kids' game, but your argument is with capitalism itself, not the athletes. Perhaps the real irony here is that the NHL owners - who seem to get in high dudgeon about unions 'telling them how to run their business', as though this is some fiendish distortion of their sacrosanct free enterprise as private profiteers - are the ones advocating heavy restraints upon the basic market mechanism of supply and demand. It's a joke. Bravo. Pretty much dead on. I have a little trouble putting one to blame more than the other considering their history. I think we can all relate to the pot calling the kettle black.If you take history out of it, I have no doubt that Bettman is the author of this particular dilemma.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 You are talking entertainment. Wouldn't it make more sense as a society to spend those dollars on say Cancer research or Medicine or famine relief? I get how money works. Tell that to society and get them to change their spending habits and we'll talk. What may "make sense" in a theoretical discussion about what our priorities should or shouldn't be, and what actually happens in the real world are not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Could start down a rat hole and discuss how the uber-rich, once see that end of life is a coming, they then seem to "do the right thing" and become philanthropists, as a life of greed then seems pretty shallow (a la Warren Buffett), Or that more public $$ could easily be dumped into healthcare, but who will vote for or promote increased taxs to pay for the funding required? But way off topic for sure, from one big business's MGMT vs Union bargaining mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Has everyone see this video (NSFW) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/11/16/nhl-lockout-why-do-billionaires-keep-buying-teams-that-lose-money/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 A good update on what has been agreed to so far - July 1st will no longer be unofficially dubbed 'Free Agency Day.' http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/article/1290414--nhl-lockout--nhlpa-could-deliver-new-proposal-wednesday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 182 million apart on a 5 year deal. Thats 1.21 million per team per season. If the NHL rejects this offer, the season is done. If this is about the money, they'll take the offer. If this is about Union Busting, then we are through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I can't the owners accepting as is (I don't think the cap benefit recapture or the minimum $67.25 M upper limit in particular will sit too well) but this is certainly a step in the right direction. De-linkage is still a part of the proposal though which, as we saw last time, the owners will kill the year for. If anyone's interested in the full details, here they are: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409992 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 The 67.25 upper limit doesn't matter... the players will never get paid that. Its merely an accounting device so that the teams who are at 65-70 million today can easily meet the cap instead of lowering the cap to 59 immediately and sending teams scrambling. The players will get 50% of HRR + Make whole, in real dollars, and will never actually see the 67.25 until year 3 or 4 when revenues catch up. That shouldnt be a stumbling block. --------------------------------------------------------- That said the owners took less than 2 hours to reject. This is union busting, not negotiation at this point. 1.2 million per team per year... Gary has no interest in getting a deal done if he can't counter on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakiqc Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 The 67.25 upper limit doesn't matter... the players will never get paid that. Its merely an accounting device so that the teams who are at 65-70 million today can easily meet the cap instead of lowering the cap to 59 immediately and sending teams scrambling. The players will get 50% of HRR + Make whole, in real dollars, and will never actually see the 67.25 until year 3 or 4 when revenues catch up. That shouldnt be a stumbling block. --------------------------------------------------------- That said the owners took less than 2 hours to reject. This is union busting, not negotiation at this point. 1.2 million per team per year... Gary has no interest in getting a deal done if he can't counter on that. 1.2 million/team is also about 50k by player (23 man roster). It's a very hard-heads contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 1.2 million/team is also about 50k by player (23 man roster). It's a very hard-heads contest. For a lot of players in the league thats 5-10% of their salary. (guys making 500k-1.0 million). Its not 5-10% of what the team is bringing in, not even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 "Employer militancy" is a term they sometimes use to refer to trend of weakening labour power and steadily increasing use of lockouts as primary bargaining tactic by aggressive employers. The recent NFL, NFL refs and NBA lockouts seemed so nice and quiet here compared to this gong show (i know if lived in USA would likely be just the opposite, with slavery retoric, dissolving union, lawsuits, etc in NBA one). Oh well, i just hope to sweet jesus that i dont have to listen to whining hockey "experts" every evening all winter, nor the back and forth bargaining commentary from both groups and they can just let me know when all settled, till then is really none of my business and could care less who gets what % of what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakiqc Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 For a lot of players in the league thats 5-10% of their salary. (guys making 500k-1.0 million). Its not 5-10% of what the team is bringing in, not even close. might be better to do the math against the cap. ex a cap of 50 M. 1/50 = 2% So players don't want to play (and make cash) because they hold on to 2% of their salary. For example, a player making "only" 500,000$ would lose 10,000 in this rough estimate. I'm wondering how much more players are losing by not playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 might be better to do the math against the cap. ex a cap of 50 M. 1/50 = 2% So players don't want to play (and make cash) because they hold on to 2% of their salary. For example, a player making "only" 500,000$ would lose 10,000 in this rough estimate. I'm wondering how much more players are losing by not playing. I think the players also see things as being more than just this CBA. They gave last time, If they give again, what stops another lockout in 5 years to get them to give again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think the players also see things as being more than just this CBA. They gave last time, If they give again, what stops another lockout in 5 years to get them to give again? Nothing. In 5 years, it's the end of guaranteed contracts. Get ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 This has always been about smashing the union and nothing else. I don't know whether to hope the players shove it to these scumbag owners, or to hope they cave so I can watch hockey. But either way, I know who I blame - Neanderthal owners who wish they could play John D. Rockefeller, an attitude sadly all too typical of North American business. Utterly condemnable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Players are starting to talk about decertification. This could get interesting. It won't, but it could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Players are starting to talk about decertification. This could get interesting. It won't, but it could. Id bet if decertification happens, then we get a settlement and CBA shortly thereafter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Id bet if decertification happens, then we get a settlement and CBA shortly thereafter. What does this mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.