Who's side are you on?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Who's side are you on?

    Just like to know how all the major posters feel about this whole lock out thing. I was on the owners side the last time, because I wanted hockey to stay in Canada in more than just Montreal & Toronto. This time I side with the players. I'm savvy on the whole economics of the game, but what I'm getting out of this is that the owners are basically saying to the players that they don't like their own system that they fought so hard for to get. I also get that the owners who are making money from their team aren't happy of having to fork over that money to support the struggling ones. I can see how that would bother me as well after awhile, but why do the players have to be the ones that suffer for that. Yes! The players make a lot of money to play. However, how long did the owners rip off the players & under pay them? Do these players now not help those players with some of their own money? Like I said I'm not knowledgable on the ecomomics on this. I barely passed the subject in highschool. So, if Isla, Bookboy, or someone else who's business savvy & would be so kind to enlighten me & fix the error of my thinking plse feel free. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    Just like to know how all the major posters feel about this whole lock out thing. I was on the owners side the last time, because I wanted hockey to stay in Canada in more than just Montreal & Toronto. This time I side with the players. I'm not savvy on the whole economics of the game, but what I'm getting out of this is that the owners are basically saying to the players that they don't like their own system that they fought so hard for to get. I also get that the owners who are making money from their team aren't happy of having to fork over that money to support the struggling ones. I can see how that would bother me as well after awhile, but why do the players have to be the ones that suffer for that. Yes! The players make a lot of money to play. However, how long did the owners rip off the players & under pay them? Do these players now not help those players with some of their own money? Like I said I'm not knowledgable on the ecomomics on this. I barely passed the subject in highschool. So, if Isla, Bookboy, or someone else who's business savvy & would be so kind to enlighten me & fix the error of my thinking plse feel free. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Neither. I could care less about this whole thing, I just want to see some hockey.

    Either way, they're both going to make a lot of money. But I can't stand this Fehr guy.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Neither. I could care less about this whole thing, I just want to see some hockey.

    Either way, they're both going to make a lot of money. But I can't stand this Fehr guy.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Please point out one suffering player.

    Which player should I feel terrible for?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stan17. Show stan17's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I feel no sympathy for wealthy people (players) and super-wealthy people (owners) arguing over money. And please don't refer to players as being under payed.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skater68. Show skater68's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Owners have the hammer . The one percenters don't need the revenue. It's a hobby and in some cases used as a tax write off.
    The players are the actual "workers" they have the talent and do the work.

    As is always the case labor
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skater68. Show skater68's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Since I can't edit I'll finish my last sentence

    As is always the case labor comes out on the short end

    Funny stuff happens when the kitty jumps on the keyboard


     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Not a whole lot of sympathy for either side, but my impression, like others, is that the owners are more interested in holding everyone hostage to get a better deal, while the players have a more sincere interest in finding a compromise.  Everyone has done well since the last time, so this whole process seems to be a tad on the greedy side.  I think the owners had to be pleased with how much revenue has come about since the last battle.  But now they want it all.  If things fall apart, I will have less disgust with the players for battling this time.  I think they have made offers with actual concessions and attempts to get things worked out.

    Personally, I also want a few of the things that the players are fighting for.  A little bit higher salary cap.  And longer term contracts (don't want to have to resign Seguin every 4 years).
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?


    I'm on the players side.  The owners had the last 5 years to make the business work.  Players didn't go on strike, they kept up their end of the bargain.  It's was up to the owners to make the rest of it profitable.  I've heard sales were the most succesful they've ever been and now they have to cut it out of wages?

    Not the players fault they are mismanaging the business.


    How about an expansion team in Jamaica?  They had a bob sled team after all, how far behind can hockey be?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Cashman72. Show Cashman72's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    As much as I believe the owners have created their own mess, at the end of the day, the players are employees. Well paid employees at that. According to the league, the average salary is $2.4M so I think the players should suck it up and play. When's the last time you told your employer how much he/she should pay you?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    This mess is the owners making.
    The big boys (Tor, Phi, Bos, NYR, etc...) made money hand over fist last year. 
    They just don't want give more back and to continue to provide welfare for teams that just can't make it on their current small market revenue and with the cap floor. (Fla Phx NYI etc).
    Just like in all business, the big boys want more and could care less about the peons.
    The owners just want the additional cash to bail out the sisters of mercy to come from the players. I don't see the players making any egregious demands.




     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to seobrien's comment:

    This mess is the owners making.
    The big boys (Tor, Phi, Bos, NYR, etc...) made money hand over fist last year. 
    They just don't want give more back and to continue to provide welfare for teams that just can't make it on their current small market revenue and with the cap floor. (Fla Phx NYI etc).
    Just like in all business, the big boys want more and could care less about the peons.
    The owners just want the additional cash to bail out the sisters of mercy to come from the players. I don't see the players making any egregious demands.






    Why should they want to give money they make away to teams who built franchises in crappy locations? Like you said, it is a business, and I can't think of any businesses that are friendly enough to give money away to struggling businesses.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Biss, I understand that, but instead of dealing with a broken structure among themselves, they just want to pawn off the issue on another party and paint the players as the problem, and that is simply not the case.

    The players can (and should) concede some points to help make it work, but this is not an issue created by the players. It is not their responsibility to save the owners from themselves.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to Fletcher1 comment:

    Everyone has done well since the last time, so this whole process seems to be a tad on the greedy side.  I think the owners had to be pleased with how much revenue has come about since the last battle.  But now they want it all. 



    http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2011/11/30/the-business-of-hockey/
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    And another for those who have done very little research:

    http://houseofpuck.com/?p=203

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?




    http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2011/11/30/the-business-of-hockey/

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I'm definitely referring to the game in general and the revenues, not the individual state of owners.  This CBA is largely a debate about money that was not necessarily anticipated in the last dispute.  Whether the owners can run a profitable business or not is there business.  The game is doing well though.  Revenues are up for the league.  Do your research.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    And another for those who have done very little research:

    http://houseofpuck.com/?p=203



    Forecheck you.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to Fletcher1s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah, I'm definitely referring to the game in general and the revenues, not the individual state of owners.  This CBA is largely a debate about money that was not necessarily anticipated in the last dispute.  Whether the owners can run a profitable business or not is there business.  The game is doing well though.  Revenues are up for the league.  Do your research.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I've done plenty of research.  The CBA is about making teams profitable.  At 57%, many are not.  The cut of the players needs to come down.  The players are against this, ignoring the fact that many teams are losing money hand over fist in order to pay them.

    The owners want to be profitable.  How is that greedy?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I'm in agreement with you Fletch except I'm taking the players side only for the fact that it does seem that the players have shown a williness to move. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    I'm in agreement with you Fletch except I'm taking the players side only for the fact that it does seem that the players have shown a williness to move. 



    The PA hasn't even addressed the issue at hand.  They're talking about completely different subjects.  What have your heard or read that leads you to believe the players have shown a willingness to move?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Over expansion = greed

    owners wanted the fees - players wanted more jobs

    bad business  - consequences
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    Over expansion = greed

    owners wanted the fees - players wanted more jobs

    bad business  - consequences



    The Blues are one of the teams losing a lot of money.  Are you referring to the expansion in 1967?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8323803/time-get-right-wrong-collective-bargaining-discussions

    "The players' first proposal -- which surprised some on the ownership side in that it did not request an abolishment of the salary cap and a replacement with a baseball-style revenue-sharing system -- offered a mechanism to artificially slow future growth through the first three years of a new deal.

    We suspect one of two things will happen.The players will decide that owning the moral high ground is something after all and, believing they have moved toward the middle ground, will pull back and hunker down for what would be the equivalent of a nuclear winter of inaction.

    Our guess is that if the players are willing to take the six-year deal the owners want (the players have suggested a three-year pact with an option for a fourth), the NHL will move off how big the players' giveback has to be to start with this season -- let's say, moving from a $58 million cap to something in the mid-$60 million range and on from that point.

    The owners have agreed that any revenues beyond a 10 percent increase from year to year would be split with the players 50-50. Maybe there's a way to restructure that, with more money going to the players at a lower threshold. In spite of Friday's disappointing turn of events, it still seems there are lots of ways to get a deal done, if the will is there."


    Don't always agree with Scott Burnside but he nailed it pretty good. What's most frustrating as a fan is that the players think they are going to keep the 57% HRR, it isn't gong to happen. The fact that they haven't realized this is a waste of posturing. Hurry up and meet half way stop the BS, the owners are ging to win.

    Whether or not I like the owners or think what they are doing is greedy is moot. Of course they are as they didn't become Billionaires from being nice people.  I think the owners are going to make another offer and it will be closer to what Burnside wrote. It will be closer to 50% and it is the best the players are going to get.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share