| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2012 : 05:23:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9888
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Great point and I don't disagree with contraction. But that still doesn't change the fact that Sidney Crosby will make 8 times as much as Mario Lemiuex and Crosby has zero skin in the game. Mario has to put up 100% of the operating costs to get far less return.
50/50 and making that happen today is the minimum starting point in my opinion.
Well at least we agree on a few things.
As for the players getting paid more than the owners, isn't that a problem of the owner's making? The owners should only pay what they want to pay and if they want to pay a player 8 times an owner, that's the owner's fault.. The players can get paid for what ever they are worth and hold out if they don't want to be paid.
You are right.....wait, no you are not. There is that little thing about the owners having to pay players 57% of the revenues that gets in the way of the owners managing their costs. So even if he top paid guys didn't get paid as much the owners would still have to fork over the money regardless.
Remember that 50/50 thing I was talking about?
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Well Beans in a sence he has a point, if the owners collectivly stopped giving the Parise's of the world these obsurd cotnracts, and paid them more like 5 million a season, sure they would be paying 7% too much in HRR but they would be paying a guy like Parise 50 millionn over 10 years instead of 98 million, 48 million is a lot of $ the owner of the wild approved to be giving a guy whos is a 30 - 30 player, so sure the owners will be handing out 7 % to much but then why don't they take it back in the salary they offer?
Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
|
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 06:47:25
|
Good idea Pasty. Wait, is it a good idea? No, because the owner of the Wild still has to keep up with the 57% of revenue. He can't choose to spend only 50% as he would then not get as much of a revenue share as the other teams that did spent more on the cap. Se he either pays Parise or he pays someone else.
Regardless, he still pays.
I am in no way trying to say that the Parise deal is good. It's not. It's horrible. But the point is that if Parise is not getting all that money than someone else is. Money still has to pay.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 07:16:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
You are right.....wait, no you are not. There is that little thing about the owners having to pay players 57% of the revenues that gets in the way of the owners managing their costs. So even if he top paid guys didn't get paid as much the owners would still have to fork over the money regardless.
Remember that 50/50 thing I was talking about?
1. There would have been no cap if the owners weren't offering ridiculous contracts in the first place. Because the owners were throwing money at the players, the salaries got to 74% revenue.
2. The owner decided and agreed to 57% of revenue. It was a number they chose and agreed to. Again this would never have been needed had they been able to control themselves.
3. IF the owners can control themselves, they don't even need the cap and hence no need to share any fixed percentage of revenue and could take home 80% of revenue instead of 43%. But that is a very big IF and pigs will fly.
4. Doesn't matter what the agreement will be in the end. The owner will whine they pay too much and the players will whine they are not being paid enough.
5. The fans complain that both groups are greedy idiots and they should get back to play the game. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 09:26:28
|
Really great points Guest. Don't forget the agents and their responsibilities in the issues. I sure their commissions based on a % of the signed contract also have something to do with the monster contracts.
Some may say that I am pro owner but I'm really not. I am pro NHL and from a pure business perspective, 50/50 is fair. Fundamentally speaking, the owner use make money to sustain the business. The player must make money as they are the quantitative product of the NHL. Both can make money under the correct conditions. Hence, the players taking the roll back to 50/50 and the owners getting out of the way an allowing the NHL offices run the league like the NFL so owners are appropriately penalized for not following the rules.
It's a two sided fix. Step one is 50/50 and making it happen today.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 09:30:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Great point and I don't disagree with contraction. But that still doesn't change the fact that Sidney Crosby will make 8 times as much as Mario Lemiuex and Crosby has zero skin in the game.
Sid doesn't have any skin in the game, just his possibly messed up brain. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 10:41:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Great point and I don't disagree with contraction. But that still doesn't change the fact that Sidney Crosby will make 8 times as much as Mario Lemiuex and Crosby has zero skin in the game.
Sid doesn't have any skin in the game, just his possibly messed up brain.
He chooses top play hockey. No one puts a gun to his head and makes him up his skates. Just like an owner can choose to sell his hockey team Sidney Crosby can choose to not play hockey.
Clearly what I was talking about was from a financial standpoint. Sidney Crosby gets his $9 million a year regardless of whether he plays or not or how well he plays. Sidney Crosby received a 100% certainty of making $9 million year. Mario Lemieux might make $4.5 million as the order of the Pittsburgh Penguins and that's a big maybe.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
Edited by - Beans15 on 10/29/2012 10:42:28 |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 11:29:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Mario Lemieux might make $4.5 million as the order of the Pittsburgh Penguins and that's a big maybe.
If it is so unfair to be an owner, then they can sell the team. Once he made his money back from being the owner. He is more than able to sell the team and rid himself of being an owner. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 16:37:46
|
Good point Bean's. If a player doesnt like the hazards of being a player in the NHL then he can choose not to play. Hey, lets use you super argument and look at it from a owner prospective. If an owner doesnt like losing money running a team in a non hockey market, the owner can choose not to as well. Leverage the league to locate to a hockey market that can sustain a team or sell to a buyer who knows how to run in a less profitable market. Dont blame the employees when the owners and management are making the mistakes. Most of the teams (losing money) are so close to profit a simple waived contract could bring them to profit, they have all the tools they need to fix it. Can't fix stupid and leaving a team in Pheonix, Columbus, Tampa, Dallas, etc..... make no sense and this is stupid. When these teams can't make money in the location they are in and relocation to a traditional hockey market is available, do it. Stupid is having near the tops in payroll and lowest in revenue. Again you can't fix stupid. quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Great point and I don't disagree with contraction. But that still doesn't change the fact that Sidney Crosby will make 8 times as much as Mario Lemiuex and Crosby has zero skin in the game.
Sid doesn't have any skin in the game, just his possibly messed up brain.
He chooses top play hockey. No one puts a gun to his head and makes him up his skates. Just like an owner can choose to sell his hockey team Sidney Crosby can choose to not play hockey.
Clearly what I was talking about was from a financial standpoint. Sidney Crosby gets his $9 million a year regardless of whether he plays or not or how well he plays. Sidney Crosby received a 100% certainty of making $9 million year. Mario Lemieux might make $4.5 million as the order of the Pittsburgh Penguins and that's a big maybe.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
|
Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 10/29/2012 16:39:12 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 17:02:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Good point Bean's. If a player doesnt like the hazards of being a player in the NHL then he can choose not to play. Hey, lets use you super argument and look at it from a owner prospective. If an owner doesnt like losing money running a team in a non hockey market, the owner can choose not to as well. Leverage the league to locate to a hockey market that can sustain a team or sell to a buyer who knows how to run in a less profitable market. Dont blame the employees when the owners and management are making the mistakes. Most of the teams (losing money) are so close to profit a simple waived contract could bring them to profit, they have all the tools they need to fix it. Can't fix stupid and leaving a team in Pheonix, Columbus, Tampa, Dallas, etc..... make no sense and this is stupid. When these teams can't make money in the location they are in and relocation to a traditional hockey market is available, do it. Stupid is having near the tops in payroll and lowest in revenue. Again you can't fix stupid. quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Great point and I don't disagree with contraction. But that still doesn't change the fact that Sidney Crosby will make 8 times as much as Mario Lemiuex and Crosby has zero skin in the game.
Sid doesn't have any skin in the game, just his possibly messed up brain.
He chooses top play hockey. No one puts a gun to his head and makes him up his skates. Just like an owner can choose to sell his hockey team Sidney Crosby can choose to not play hockey.
Clearly what I was talking about was from a financial standpoint. Sidney Crosby gets his $9 million a year regardless of whether he plays or not or how well he plays. Sidney Crosby received a 100% certainty of making $9 million year. Mario Lemieux might make $4.5 million as the order of the Pittsburgh Penguins and that's a big maybe.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Firstly, you can't say the owners and management are at fault completely. You can't have one without the other. If the owners are supposed to be smart enough to get together and recognize that these big contracts are not good for the game then the players should also be able to say the same thing and not sign the deals in front of them.
But that' s a joke, right? If the owner is dumb enough to offer the contract then the player has no responsibility at all. I forgot, the owners and management have to play be different rules than the players. They have to be responsible but the players don't have to be.
You can't have that argument one way but not hold both side to the same standard. If you want to use the logic that the owners were irresponsible in offering the contracts than logically the players are also irresponsible by signing them.
Finally, I agree completely with contraction. I've already said that. I would love to see the NHL with 20 teams. This would not only lop off the bottom 10 teams but also cut 230 of the worst players out of the NHL. That would increase the quality of the game and those teams would likely be more profitable.
But the split still needs to be no more than 50/50. Doesn't matter if there is 1 teams of 100 teams in the NHL, 50/50 is the fair split.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 17:40:16
|
quote:
IF the owners can control themselves, they don't even need the cap and hence no need to share any fixed percentage of revenue and could take home 80% of revenue instead of 43%. But that is a very big IF and pigs will fly.
It is not just a big if, its an absolute impossibility.
If owners were to collectively get together and agree that no one would pay a particular player more than x dollars, or that they would curtail overall spending to x percentage of overall revenue, then they are colluding. It is an illegal labour practice in both the US and Canada, and any contract obtained under collusion would be void.
The only way to "control themselves" is via rules within a CBA that restrict spending on players. Salary cap, max contract lengths, restrictions on movement, compensation for lost assets, etc. There seems to be this widespread belief that owners simply need to control their spending somehow, without giving any real thought to what it means to run a hockey team in a hyper-competative labour landscape with huge demand for a relatively small labour market and massive natural inequities between teams.
Owners will do whatever they can to win, and will use every asset they can to try and build a winning team. If you left owners to their own devices and allowed them to "control themselves with no cap", you would have 6 or 7 powerhouse teams spending 100M+ on salaries, and everyone 23 teams picking up the leftovers to form a very lopsided NHL.
|
Edited by - nuxfan on 10/29/2012 17:42:31 |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 19:45:02
|
| A player is not responsible for a team losing money. If a team can't afford a player yet offers him one, that is on the team not the player. A player is signed for market value regardless of whether a team can afford him or not and no team drops the profit and loss ledger in front of a player considering a contract. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 19:58:18
|
| If a homebuyer can't afford a mortgage can he blame the seller. If a buyer can't afford a car after he signs a bill of sale for it does he blame the seller. If a owner of a team can't afford a signed player at his contract value the owner blames the player. Spend within limits or go broke its a simple formula. Pheonix in no way should have had the payroll they had being a league run team with a poor revenue stream. Columbus should have spent less, etc, etc, etc. If Mario and company make less than Crosby and it bothers them, stop trying to land every free agent who comes on the market, trade, drop or waive a player and collect a few bucks more. I have no sympathy for thoughs who offer the contract, collect the revenue, pay the bills and then claim poor. Learn economics. Should Mario as a poor business manager make less than the most talented player in the game. One is an dream asset the other is an owner. If he cant maintain his assests and make enough money, sell! Let some other millionaire/billionaire get rich running the business. BTW, it would be a dream job to run a franchise such as the Penguins, with assests such as Crosby, Fluery and Malkin and collect $4.5 Million. Cry me a river. |
Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 10/29/2012 20:00:21 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 20:26:57
|
Now you are being rediculous. A person can not buy a house they can not afford because of financial rules. Without those rules the entire system crumbled. Remember that housing crash a few years ago? You can't buy a car unless you have the credit to back up the payments.
But let's play along these lines for a minutes. Let's say the world did work they way you think it does. Lets say that people could go to the bank and borrow as much money as they wanted. They could go and buy houses and cars for as much as they wanted to and when the bills come in, they don't have the scratch to cover the costs. The banks reposes the houses and cars to resell them. But until they are sold (if they are sold) all the other customers of the banks have to cover the cost of those dumb purchases.
Who's fault is that? The bank who gave the loans or the person who took the loans knowing they could not pay them back? Remember, you are the one paying the bills.
There is a reason why financial institutions do not allow people to borrow more than they can afford. There is a reason why you need a down payment and the means to pay the mortgage before you buy a house.
Sound familiar? In the case of the NHL that is the CBA.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2012 : 21:03:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
BTW, it would be a dream job to run a franchise such as the Penguins, with assests such as Crosby, Fluery and Malkin and collect $4.5 Million. Cry me a river.
Thats because 4.5M to you is probably a small fortune (it certainly is to me), an amount of money that 99.5% of all people will not see in their entire lives. Also, you're a huge hockey fan, so combining your job and your passion would seem like a dream job. Accepting 1-2% ROI on your massive investment would make you a crappy owner though 
At the end of the day, I think most owners own hockey teams for reasons other than profit from hockey - when it comes down to it, only a handful of teams make enough money to justify the investment - TOR, MTL, perhaps NYR and VAN. But that being said - they didn't become billionaires by taking miniscule ROI's, so they're now trying to eke out a higher profit.
quote:
Spend within limits or go broke its a simple formula
Its a simple formula, for the real world. If that were allowed to happen in hockey, we would have had a 6-10 team contraction by now, and the NHLPA would have lost nearly 1/3 of its membership. Do you think that is palatable to either side? |
Edited by - nuxfan on 10/29/2012 21:05:43 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 00:52:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
IF the owners can control themselves, they don't even need the cap and hence no need to share any fixed percentage of revenue and could take home 80% of revenue instead of 43%. But that is a very big IF and pigs will fly.
It is not just a big if, its an absolute impossibility.
If owners were to collectively get together and agree that no one would pay a particular player more than x dollars, or that they would curtail overall spending to x percentage of overall revenue, then they are colluding. It is an illegal labour practice in both the US and Canada, and any contract obtained under collusion would be void.
The only way to "control themselves" is via rules within a CBA that restrict spending on players. Salary cap, max contract lengths, restrictions on movement, compensation for lost assets, etc. There seems to be this widespread belief that owners simply need to control their spending somehow, without giving any real thought to what it means to run a hockey team in a hyper-competative labour landscape with huge demand for a relatively small labour market and massive natural inequities between teams.
Owners will do whatever they can to win, and will use every asset they can to try and build a winning team. If you left owners to their own devices and allowed them to "control themselves with no cap", you would have 6 or 7 powerhouse teams spending 100M+ on salaries, and everyone 23 teams picking up the leftovers to form a very lopsided NHL.
Nuxfan....i've been VERY quiet on this thread, mostly because i don't care to follow it and simply blame both sides, but i remain on the owners side if i did have to choose one or the other! So, after reading your post, please tell me if my comments on page 1 were totally off base / ridiculous / wrong, etc. I'm not saying to insult me, i just want to see if you know more about it than most? I do recall you saying something about what i proposed (again, page 1) being against the CBA or something along those lines? Is that actually the case?
For those who're lost as to what i'm talking about, i'm being somewhat sarcastic to prove a point. What i said was, something along these lines.....what if one guy, Bill Gates was my example, bought the entire league. Then he simply said " NO ONE makes more than 5 mil per year" and avg'd out the deals at 3.5? I haven't done the math, but made it so ALL players were well paid, but the owners (errr, Bill Gates) made a bundle of money. Obviously players would be free to go fly over to Russia and play in the KHL for more money, but my argument is there would still be more than enough quality guys here to have an excellent NHL and those chasing the big dollars could go play in a foreign (to some) country and travel on sketchy airplanes, etc, etc...... Tell me how many North Americans (or Canadians) would venture to Russia to make 7 Mil over 5 Mil here? ***Just throwing out numbers................
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 05:57:46
|
Alex, that utopian thought only works if the league is owned by a single entity. If there was as single owner than your theory would work. However, it's not likely to happen.
As long as individual owners are involved then competition for players will continue.
But why don't the players get together and put a cap on their own salaries. I mean, if we expect the owners to do something then why can't the players.
Not talking about Alex here, but too many people are holding the owners to a standard that the players are not being held to, including profits. The players can make as much as whey want because the moron owners keep offering them money, but if the owners aren't making money it's their own fault.v
Right?
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 06:50:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
Thats because 4.5M to you is probably a small fortune (it certainly is to me), an amount of money that 99.5% of all people will not see in their entire lives. Also, you're a huge hockey fan, so combining your job and your passion would seem like a dream job. Accepting 1-2% ROI on your massive investment would make you a crappy owner though
At the end of the day, I think most owners own hockey teams for reasons other than profit from hockey - when it comes down to it, only a handful of teams make enough money to justify the investment - TOR, MTL, perhaps NYR and VAN. But that being said - they didn't become billionaires by taking miniscule ROI's, so they're now trying to eke out a higher profit.
Its a simple formula, for the real world. If that were allowed to happen in hockey, we would have had a 6-10 team contraction by now, and the NHLPA would have lost nearly 1/3 of its membership. Do you think that is palatable to either side?
Either you run the league like a corporation or not. The owners can't just pick and choose when they want to make money like a business but then run it like a kid in a candy store. Then when they get into trouble say that they want to make money like a business. They can't have the best of both worlds.
Run it like a business and shut down unprofitable teams and move it to profitable locations or don't.
I have no problems if the owners contract the league. If it means losing players, so be it. But at least their decision is consistent of running a business. So long as they make all their decisions consistent with that of running a business going forward no problems.
If your company wants to give you $5M/year to do your job, do you tell them, "no thanks"? More than likely you take the money. Is it your fault then that the company loses money? Nope. Owners are managers, they manage all aspects of the business and includes money and people. Employees are just responsible to do their work not worry about managing a business. |
|
|
|
Lee Marshall
Rookie
Canada
102 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 08:13:14
|
This is similar to back in the day when the NHL owners lost loads of players...some big names included to a new league called the WHA. At that point costs and salaries soared and their way of doing 'business' changed forever.
The WHA is ancient history. Only 4 teams survived. [although, really only Edmonton made it through to today] The NHL screwed that up too.
G. Bettman is the worst thing that has EVER happened to hockey...in spite of Harold Ballard and Alan Eagleson. How many lockouts? How many lost games? How much money just plain gone and not to ever be recovered. NOBODY wins. Everybody loses. Yet on they plod with franchises that are killing the league and the game, and with owners who continually cut off their noses to spite the teams' and league's collective face. And all Baettman can do is lockout the game...again and again? He HAS to go.
Maybe THIS is the method 'they've' chosen to use to kill off the weaker teams without it looking like it was the league's fault? Doubtful they planned it this way but it will be a successful venture in THAT regard.
The NHL is daft. The product is iffy. The ownership is a collection of variable links with the weaker ones holding sway and wizzing on the collective product. It can't continue. As such...we'll see something new. Not necessarily improved but decidedly more realistic. A merger with Europe? A new league here? Fewer teams in total but a stronger unit? Something has to give...besides the fans. ..at the turnstiles...over and over and over and over.
I will NEVER buy an NHL ticket again.
Who the cap fits...Let them wear it. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 09:21:58
|
You want the players to limit there own income. What kind of communist thinking you got going here. How bout we all pray for world peace instead. If Crosby is the best player he deserves more than Phaneuf yet both currently are paid on similar pay scales. How about the owners get there heads out of there ass and sign the right players for market value and stop paying players of midpack quality to superstar pay. The players dont make stupid offers to the owners, they just say thanks I'll take more sir, or moo as some owners think. Righting the ship has to come from management. Stop blaming the talent for Owners not running the business profitably. Spend less, find additional income, delink salary to overall league revenue, set team floor and cap limits that a team can work within and learn a free market system. Oh right, thats the NHLPA proposal the Owners took minutes to reject. What was I thinking.quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, that utopian thought only works if the league is owned by a single entity. If there was as single owner than your theory would work. However, it's not likely to happen.
As long as individual owners are involved then competition for players will continue.
But why don't the players get together and put a cap on their own salaries. I mean, if we expect the owners to do something then why can't the players.
Not talking about Alex here, but too many people are holding the owners to a standard that the players are not being held to, including profits. The players can make as much as whey want because the moron owners keep offering them money, but if the owners aren't making money it's their own fault.v
Right?
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Lee Marshall
Rookie
Canada
102 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 09:42:40
|
..."But why don't the players get together and put a cap on their own salaries. I mean, if we expect the owners to do something then why can't the players?"...
Why don't we all take less where we work too? Let's all move to the States and vote republican. Owners and rich guys deserve way more than they're already getting. And why does our g.d.'d government make them pay taxes?
And while we're at it...if and when the National HOKEY League returns to ripping us off...let's offer to pay at least twice the printed value of every ticket, hot-dog, ice-cream bar and beer. And don't forget to tip the parking attendant and guy who sells you the $200.00 team jersey/$75.00 hat.
Every team should be allowed to protect 15 forwards, 10 defencemen and 3 goalies. After that....EVERY person playing hockey should be a free agent. Draft a guy? Drop someone from the roster. Too many teams need too many missing parts and ingredients. The imbalance makes the game lob-sided, too predictable and rather BORING.
Let teams pay as much as they want...or as little as they can realistically afford. If there are only 840 jobs available in big league North American hockey/hokey the cream will rise. The dead-weights will sink.
But when it comes to salaries...and given that careers on average are short [and with my suggestion likely shorter] ...I say anyone playing should go for the biggest buck they can get.
Drop the average salaries and the BEST players will all end up playing professionally in Europe....then hockey/hokey as we know it will be DONE.
[of course the fact that the European economic picture is purely bleak compared to the forecast for North America means that they won't be able to sustain this..........yet.]
Who the cap fits...Let them wear it. |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 13:48:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
If owners were to collectively get together and agree that no one would pay a particular player more than x dollars, or that they would curtail overall spending to x percentage of overall revenue, then they are colluding. It is an illegal labour practice in both the US and Canada, and any contract obtained under collusion would be void.
Really? You need to explain this a little more but this is how how understand your statement.
It would seem all the companies in the known world are colluding to not pay me the $6M/yr salary I want. They all say here is $35k/yr take it or leave it. Should I take them to court for illegal labour practice? |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 14:18:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
The only way to "control themselves" is via rules within a CBA that restrict spending on players. Salary cap, max contract lengths, restrictions on movement, compensation for lost assets, etc. There seems to be this widespread belief that owners simply need to control their spending somehow, without giving any real thought to what it means to run a hockey team in a hyper-competative labour landscape with huge demand for a relatively small labour market and massive natural inequities between teams.
Owners will do whatever they can to win, and will use every asset they can to try and build a winning team. If you left owners to their own devices and allowed them to "control themselves with no cap", you would have 6 or 7 powerhouse teams spending 100M+ on salaries, and everyone 23 teams picking up the leftovers to form a very lopsided NHL.
Well what do the owners want, to run a business or have a winning hockey team? For most cities, these two items are mutually exclusive. Pick one or the other but not both. They can't flip flop between the two when ever it is convenient. |
|
|
|
Guest9888
( )
|
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 15:52:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
If owners were to collectively get together and agree that no one would pay a particular player more than x dollars, or that they would curtail overall spending to x percentage of overall revenue, then they are colluding. It is an illegal labour practice in both the US and Canada, and any contract obtained under collusion would be void.
Three words to blow this statement out of the water: Entry level contracts.
And since the CBA has expired, the owners can get rid of revenue sharing and control themselves. The league needs an agreement built only for the owners as well as one for the owners and players. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 17:01:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
The only way to "control themselves" is via rules within a CBA that restrict spending on players. Salary cap, max contract lengths, restrictions on movement, compensation for lost assets, etc. There seems to be this widespread belief that owners simply need to control their spending somehow, without giving any real thought to what it means to run a hockey team in a hyper-competative labour landscape with huge demand for a relatively small labour market and massive natural inequities between teams.
Owners will do whatever they can to win, and will use every asset they can to try and build a winning team. If you left owners to their own devices and allowed them to "control themselves with no cap", you would have 6 or 7 powerhouse teams spending 100M+ on salaries, and everyone 23 teams picking up the leftovers to form a very lopsided NHL.
Well what do the owners want, to run a business or have a winning hockey team? For most cities, these two items are mutually exclusive. Pick one or the other but not both. They can't flip flop between the two when ever it is convenient.
I think you have nailed the fundamental issue with the NHL. For a team to be successful they have to win and to win they must spend so much money that they can not be profitable. They need to be able to do both at the same time. That's the point: to win and make money. It's not fair that only the players can make money.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 18:47:31
|
One of the ongoing sentiments expressed by people who take more of a pro-player stance (or an anti-owner position) is that the owners got themselves in this mess, so it's their fault because no one forces the owners (or teams) to pay the players these outrageous contracts, or any contracts which are signed.
Fair enough, but even if the owners have not been very disciplined in the past, why can't they renegotiate a better deal, one which in essence, brings down their costs? Why can't they fix what is currently broken?
The current CBA has now expired, so the owners should have every right to form a new deal with the NHLPA, and one which reduces their player costs. As far as I know, nothing illegal (or immoral) is taking place here.
The NHL (like any employer) has a right to cap their costs in whatever manner they want. (As long as they don't collude as owners, or break any labour laws.)
And on the players' side, they obviously have a right to play (or not play), and if they don't like what they're employer is offering, they can try to negotiate a better deal, or choose not to play.
In all of what's taking place, I don't see a level of wrong-doing (on either side), but that doesn't mean that I don't question one side or the other's judgment. And with the current impasse, I tend to think the players are being overly stubborn. I really believe the players are giving up (or will give up) more in lost pay than will ever be recovered. If the players end up sitting out for a year, I don't think the owners will give them a deal which will give them the opportunity to recoup what they lost/lose by sitting out an entire season.
So why don't the players make the necessary compromises and get a deal done? There are a few reasons. They don't trust the owners, and many of them think they got screwed the last lock-out. Another reason is that the players can (for the most part) afford to be stubborn, so if they lose a year's salary, it doesn't hurt them the same as it would for most people who would miss a year's pay.
Another factor is that top level athletes are competitors who hate to lose. And they don't want to lose this battle. And top athletes who play in team sports learn very early to stick together as a team, and fight hard to win. They also get guidance and feedback from the NHLPA, their agents or business advisors, which appears to be telling them to stick it out for better CBA. I don't believe the players are a bunch of unintelligent sheep (which has been alluded or alleged by some people), but for the most part, they're not experienced in business or negotiations, so most of them trust their agents, advisors, etc. to negotiate their contracts and/or a better CBA.
I think the players are making a mistake, but it's their livelihood, so it's their prerogative to do whatever they want. And if you think the owners are making a mistake (or being overly stubborn), it's their business (not likely their livelihood) so it's their prerogative to do the same.
But for whoever you blame, they are forgetting about the goose who delivers their golden eggs – the fans. It's the fans who deliver over $3 billion a year in revenues, and they're being disrespected (or overlooked) with this lockout. Some people suggest that they will never buy another ticket or watch a game on TV. I'm not about to call anyone a liar, but unfortunately (for the fans), the NHL and NHLPA don't believe this assertion. The owners and players saw fans come back after the last two lockouts, and they also saw their revenues increase dramatically (which caused players salaries to increase) since the last lockout, so it appears that they're not worried about losing fans or revenues.
Does anyone really believe that any significant number of fans will not come back after a deal is made, when there's hockey again? If you believe that, and you're on the players' side, then it's more reason for them to make a deal. Sure – the owners stand to lose too, but when measuring out the two sides, I think the owners can afford to wait for "their" deal more than the players! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 22:58:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
Either you run the league like a corporation or not. The owners can't just pick and choose when they want to make money like a business but then run it like a kid in a candy store. Then when they get into trouble say that they want to make money like a business. They can't have the best of both worlds.
Run it like a business and shut down unprofitable teams and move it to profitable locations or don't.
I have no problems if the owners contract the league. If it means losing players, so be it. But at least their decision is consistent of running a business. So long as they make all their decisions consistent with that of running a business going forward no problems.
If your company wants to give you $5M/year to do your job, do you tell them, "no thanks"? More than likely you take the money. Is it your fault then that the company loses money? Nope. Owners are managers, they manage all aspects of the business and includes money and people. Employees are just responsible to do their work not worry about managing a business.
Sure, no one can be blamed for taking the money (and I agree with contraction as well BTW). But in the real world, when owners lose money, employees get laid off or terminated. NHL owners don't have that luxury with players. You can't just say "run your business like a corporation", when the owner does not have control over the majority of their expenditures, nor the ability to cut them when they need to.
If you want teams to run like businesses, you would need to:
- get rid of guaranteed contracts - year to year, team can terminate with no penalty at will, or negotiate termination clauses into contracts themselves.
- remove all legislated benefits from the CBA (per-diems, travel expenses, benefits), and allow owners to negotiate them into individual contracts. Or, have a "team package" that every player gets, but it might be different from team to team.
- remove arbitration
On the flip side, players would have to be given the rights to instant UFA status with no EL deals, you just go to the highest bidder or wherever you want to play.
I don't see any of that happening anytime soon. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 10/30/2012 23:13:18 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2012 : 23:04:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
Really? You need to explain this a little more but this is how how understand your statement.
It would seem all the companies in the known world are colluding to not pay me the $6M/yr salary I want. They all say here is $35k/yr take it or leave it. Should I take them to court for illegal labour practice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion
Read the definition carefully... "all the companies in the known world" cannot possibly collude against you, because that is a free market. Collusion can only take place where there is a limited market with relatively few possible employers, or where the collusion of a few employers skews the market considerably.
There is even a sports-related example on this page:
quote:
Collusion is largely illegal in the United States, Canada and most of the EU due to competition/antitrust law, but implicit collusion in the form of price leadership and tacit understandings still takes place. Several examples of collusion in the United States include:
Market division and price-fixing among manufacturers of heavy electrical equipment in the 1960s, including General Electric.[4]
An attempt by Major League Baseball owners to restrict players' salaries in the mid-1980s.
The sharing of potential contract terms by NBA free agents in an effort to help a targeted franchise circumvent the salary cap
Price fixing within food manufacturers providing cafeteria food to schools and the military in 1993.
Market division and output determination of livestock feed additive, called lysine, by companies in the US, Japan and South Korea in 1996, Archer Daniels Midland being the most notable of these.[5]
Chip dumping in poker or any other high stake card game.
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9888
Three words to blow this statement out of the water: Entry level contracts.
Three words to blow that rebuttal out of the water: Mutually agreed CBA.
Both owners and players agreed to the last CBA, which included a clause about entry level deals. Reading the definition of collusion, "Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights" - an EL deal is legal within the framework of the CBA.
If no EL clause existed in the CBA, and the NHL owners got together and agreed to restrict the first 3 years to 850K per year, then that would be colluding to fix wages.
|
Edited by - nuxfan on 10/30/2012 23:11:12 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2012 : 07:27:22
|
nuxfan,
just to correct you on your sense of where collusion can take place . . . it can happen anywhere, and anytime. It can happen, and does happen, quite frequently in the free market. And the collusion is always so that a certain level of massive profits exist for the corporate entity, and so that the consumer pays more. Moreover, there is no real free market anymore - does not exist anywhere really anymore, not even in Hong Kong.
Back to hockey,
nuxfan stated:
quote:
If you want teams to run like businesses, you would need to:
- get rid of guaranteed contracts - year to year, team can terminate with no penalty at will, or negotiate termination clauses into contracts themselves.
- remove all legislated benefits from the CBA (per-diems, travel expenses, benefits), and allow owners to negotiate them into individual contracts. Or, have a "team package" that every player gets, but it might be different from team to team.
- remove arbitration
On the flip side, players would have to be given the rights to instant UFA status with no EL deals, you just go to the highest bidder or wherever you want to play.
I don't see any of that happening anytime soon.
Also, if you wanted to run the team like a business . . . you wouldn't be giving ANY profit to the players whatsoever, minus perhaps some kind of share of the merchandising revenue which is tied to the player's name (but even this is a stretch - see: the real world don't always work that way!).
You wouldn't have to get rid of ALL the expenses paid by the company for the employees . . . benefits and travel and incidentals are paid by most companies, from salesmen to executives in varying degrees. The one thing I have always disagreed with is the NHL paying for all the equipment . . . this almost never happens in the real world, and for millionaires to get their expensive equipment paid for means that millions are probably wasted in players being so picky and choosy and careless. It's just bad business practice, really.
And I would love for arbitration to be gone, but I honestly don't see that either!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2012 : 08:43:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Also, if you wanted to run the team like a business . . . you wouldn't be giving ANY profit to the players whatsoever, minus perhaps some kind of share of the merchandising revenue which is tied to the player's name (but even this is a stretch - see: the real world don't always work that way!).
You wouldn't have to get rid of ALL the expenses paid by the company for the employees . . . benefits and travel and incidentals are paid by most companies, from salesmen to executives in varying degrees. The one thing I have always disagreed with is the NHL paying for all the equipment . . . this almost never happens in the real world, and for millionaires to get their expensive equipment paid for means that millions are probably wasted in players being so picky and choosy and careless. It's just bad business practice, really.
And I would love for arbitration to be gone, but I honestly don't see that either!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
I didn't say you'd have to get rid of all of these benefits or expenses - just that they would be negotiated as part of an employment contract, the same way an employer does now. Its standard for travel to be paid for for work, but perhaps you don't fly in a chartered jet anymore, or get $90 per day food per-diem while on the road, or stay in 4 and 5 star hotels all the time. Perhaps you don't get fed every day while at home.
As for equipment - that would probably be a mixture of team and employee. Things like sticks and padding, probably team expenses, they would be required for you to do your job (similar to me getting a computer and desk provided by work). Other things, probably employee. Its hard to say, given how unrealistic the scenario would be. |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 11/01/2012 : 06:17:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I think you have nailed the fundamental issue with the NHL. For a team to be successful they have to win and to win they must spend so much money that they can not be profitable. They need to be able to do both at the same time. That's the point: to win and make money. It's not fair that only the players can make money.
Phoenix for example won without spending loads of money on players. But they were not profitable because they are in a frickin' desert.
Toronto was profitable without winning because they are in Toronto. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2012 : 06:26:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
nuxfan,
just to correct you on your sense of where collusion can take place . . . it can happen anywhere, and anytime. It can happen, and does happen, quite frequently in the free market. And the collusion is always so that a certain level of massive profits exist for the corporate entity, and so that the consumer pays more. Moreover, there is no real free market anymore - does not exist anywhere really anymore, not even in Hong Kong.
Back to hockey,
nuxfan stated:
quote:
If you want teams to run like businesses, you would need to:
- get rid of guaranteed contracts - year to year, team can terminate with no penalty at will, or negotiate termination clauses into contracts themselves.
- remove all legislated benefits from the CBA (per-diems, travel expenses, benefits), and allow owners to negotiate them into individual contracts. Or, have a "team package" that every player gets, but it might be different from team to team.
- remove arbitration
On the flip side, players would have to be given the rights to instant UFA status with no EL deals, you just go to the highest bidder or wherever you want to play.
I don't see any of that happening anytime soon.
Also, if you wanted to run the team like a business . . . you wouldn't be giving ANY profit to the players whatsoever, minus perhaps some kind of share of the merchandising revenue which is tied to the player's name (but even this is a stretch - see: the real world don't always work that way!).
You wouldn't have to get rid of ALL the expenses paid by the company for the employees . . . benefits and travel and incidentals are paid by most companies, from salesmen to executives in varying degrees. The one thing I have always disagreed with is the NHL paying for all the equipment . . . this almost never happens in the real world, and for millionaires to get their expensive equipment paid for means that millions are probably wasted in players being so picky and choosy and careless. It's just bad business practice, really.
And I would love for arbitration to be gone, but I honestly don't see that either!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Un- True my employer pays for all my work equipment and their is quite a bit of it, Uniforms summer and winter, boots, bullet proof vest, a variety of tools around my waiste that all cost a pretty penny, they also provide me with the tools in office to do my job as well and the facilty to perform my duties. Not to mention when I am sent away from my usual place of work for training or to provide training they provide me with a vehicle pay for my hotel all my meals and incedentals. Sure I am not a millionaire but this is just an example of how in the real world things like this get negociated into CBA's.
I mean if it is my employers resposibility to provide me with a bullet proof vest for my safety in my work place then isn't it the same thing as the employer of these NHL players to provide them with helmets?
Also most of the big money players if not all don't pay for their gear but neither does their team, sponsors pay, Easton pays'd for Cammalleri's gear, CCm for OVi, Reebok for the kid
Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
|
Edited by - Pasty7 on 11/01/2012 06:33:07 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2012 : 08:42:18
|
Pasty, you are not speaking accurately for the way the entire world works. Just because your company does something does not mean all companies have to do the same things. There are no laws that say an employer has to provide the tools for an employee to do their job. Most companies do, but it's not law.
Take for example a plumber. In almost every case a plumber is require to purchase all of his own tools of the trade. He could be union or non-union, but rarely does a plumbing company provide tools to their workers. The same goes for almost every other trade such as carpenters, electricians, etc.
Work boots is another great example. Some companies might provide an allowance or expense their workers for safety boots but I in my experience that is 50/50(pun intended). As many companies do not pay for work boots but you can't work without the proper footwear.
Secondly, the company will normally have restrictions in place for what you can and cannot do while travelling. My company will also pay for a rental car, but I have to use a specific rental agency and there are only certain cars covers. I can take a Corvette on a business trip if I want to, but it won't be paid for like the Malibu will be. I can't stay in a 5 star hotel for $500 a night but I the Delta is acceptable. I can't go to Ruth's Chris for a steak but I can go and have a steak sandwich and a beer and have it expensed.
The company may or may not provide tools and/or travel costs and if they do, it is based on the companies rules and not what the employee chooses.
That is the real world, is it not???
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2012 : 05:15:16
|
"Sure I am not a millionaire but this is just an example of how in the real world things like this get negociated into CBA's"
Beans I think we are saying the same thing, I was responding to comments saying in the "Real world no companies pay for their employees equipment" My point was that it depends on the company and what the unions negociate into the CBA. Yes I agree not all places provide their employees with equipment and where i work is an extrem example since i do not work in the private sector but I was simply trying to point out owners paying for equipment is something that happens in the real world, not exclusivly but it does happen.
Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2012 : 06:12:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
"Sure I am not a millionaire but this is just an example of how in the real world things like this get negociated into CBA's"
Beans I think we are saying the same thing, I was responding to comments saying in the "Real world no companies pay for their employees equipment"
No, you were replying to my comment I believe, which stated this:
"You wouldn't have to get rid of ALL the expenses paid by the company for the employees . . . benefits and travel and incidentals are paid by most companies, from salesmen to executives in varying degrees. The one thing I have always disagreed with is the NHL paying for all the equipment . . . this almost never happens in the real world, and for millionaires to get their expensive equipment paid for means that millions are probably wasted in players being so picky and choosy and careless."
That's pretty far from what you tried to "defend" yourself from, Pasty. What you did is called the classic "strawman" argument . . . you claimed I said something to a much greater degreee or more outrageous than what I actually said, so that you could easily defend the point.
Clearly, I know that many types of jobs cover PARTIAL expenses for their employees (none of whom get a share of profits, mind you). But a HUGE MAJORITY do not. And if you are a cop, Pasty (from your job description) . . . that's a municipal gov't paying you, not a company - different bag of worms altogether.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2012 : 06:29:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
"Sure I am not a millionaire but this is just an example of how in the real world things like this get negociated into CBA's"
Beans I think we are saying the same thing, I was responding to comments saying in the "Real world no companies pay for their employees equipment"
No, you were replying to my comment I believe, which stated this:
"You wouldn't have to get rid of ALL the expenses paid by the company for the employees . . . benefits and travel and incidentals are paid by most companies, from salesmen to executives in varying degrees. The one thing I have always disagreed with is the NHL paying for all the equipment . . . this almost never happens in the real world, and for millionaires to get their expensive equipment paid for means that millions are probably wasted in players being so picky and choosy and careless."
That's pretty far from what you tried to "defend" yourself from, Pasty. What you did is called the classic "strawman" argument . . . you claimed I said something to a much greater degreee or more outrageous than what I actually said, so that you could easily defend the point.
Clearly, I know that many types of jobs cover PARTIAL expenses for their employees (none of whom get a share of profits, mind you). But a HUGE MAJORITY do not. And if you are a cop, Pasty (from your job description) . . . that's a municipal gov't paying you, not a company - different bag of worms altogether.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
"this almost never happens in the real world"
Does a Brinks officer pay for his gun and vest? I don't think so, I have never in my life herd of a plumber or construction worker that works for a company pays for his own tools, (if they bought their own tools why work for a company and not just work for yourself) and I'd say 90 % of my closest friends and brother all work in contruction. these are all private companies, yes slozo i work for the federal government so you are right it is not a comapny that pays me although we do have a CBA (or are suppose to our CBA has been expired for over a year and we are negociating) the point I was trying to make is It is the exact opposite in the real world almost every employer provides the equipment an employee needs to complete his job. Do doctors buy their own operating tables? Do cashiers bring their own registers to work? Even when i worked on farms growing up the farmer provided the tractor for me i didn't have to buy my own 50 000$ machine to plow his field.
As for your none of them share profits, tons and tons of companies give stocks and shares in their companies to their employees and it is actually becoming more and more common, so yes these employees also have a share in the companies profits.
so by saying "The one thing I have always disagreed with is the NHL paying for all the equipment . . . this almost never happens in the real world" you sir are wrong, call strawman my response makes perfect sense as to what you were saying,
Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
|
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2012 : 06:36:36
|
Oh and don't tell me i'm picking one sentence out of your post, that sentence is a complete thought,
and anyone who buys their own equipment to complete a job they are hired to do is closer to a private contractor then an employee,
so by that logic yeah have the players buy all their own gear but then they provide their client the NHL with a price for their services, this price would have to entail their cost like insurances, equipment, travel and lodgings,
Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
|
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 11/02/2012 : 06:43:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Also, if you wanted to run the team like a business . . . you wouldn't be giving ANY profit to the players whatsoever, minus perhaps some kind of share of the merchandising revenue which is tied to the player's name (but even this is a stretch - see: the real world don't always work that way!).
No team gives the players a share of the profit. Total players' salary can not exceed 57% of total HRR. Where does it say the teams share profit with the players also? |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 11/02/2012 : 06:46:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I think you have nailed the fundamental issue with the NHL. For a team to be successful they have to win and to win they must spend so much money that they can not be profitable. They need to be able to do both at the same time. That's the point: to win and make money. It's not fair that only the players can make money.
But the owners do make money. $4.5M+ a year on average for the duration of ownership. And one in 30 wins at the end of a year. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2012 : 10:02:41
|
Hey folks, let's do our best to keep this on topic and not personally attack anyone. I know we are all passionate about this situation but things are getting off-track. There was a point about who buys what equipment that was relevant at one point. But that point is gone. Let's move on and keep things on topic. Please and thanks.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2012 : 10:06:14
|
It doesn't matter if you are pro-player or pro-owner, no one can argue that the economics are broken. We are talking about $3.3 billion and there has to be a way for everyone to make a fair amount of money.
The player need to get paid and the owners need to make money.
You can argue until you are blue in the face about the owners lying about their profits or the contract is signed but you have to honor it or players are getting paid too much.
The bottom line is this:
Where there is a big pot of money on the table and one side the of the table is talking most of the money, eventually the other side of the table will leave. It's hard to argue that the current agreement is slanted in favour of the players. The right thing to do is not slant it back to the owner. The right thing to do is make it fair for both sides.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2012 CBA News and Comments 
