• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      Forum-specific Rules   07/11/2017

      These are board specific rules for the Trades and Rumors forum designed to provide organization and a better experience for everyone. Please review these rules before posting new threads. 
        THREAD ETIQUETTE   1. Please search for an existing thread before posting. This forum can be very fast moving, so it's understandable if redundant threads are inadvertently posted. In such a case, please use the report feature to request removal of redundant threads.    2. Provide a clearly identifiable topic title so that users can readily understand the content. The title should include any and all teams involved, as well as player names or other personnel involved as appropriate.   3. All trades, signings, rumors and other news MUST include a linkable source. Simply posting the name of the source is not enough. Effort should also be made to copy and paste the full article, or at the very least the relevant portion of text from the source to the first post of the thread. Moderators may remove low-quality threads in favour of high-quality threads. 

      Affixed to the front of your title should be a label that identifies the type of transaction that is taking place. For all trades use [TRADE]. For all signings use [SIGNING]. For all waiver-wire transactions use [WAIVERS]. For all rumours use [RUMOUR].
      For articles or news items that don't fit into the above categories, affix an appropriate label of your choice such as [NEWS], [ARTICLE] or [MISC].   4. When the status of a thread changes a new thread can be created. The new thread should reflect the change and help focus the discussion on current events. e.g. Someone may create a new thread when a rumor becomes a trades. The old thread will be locked by the moderating team.    5. Do not misrepresent the contents of your thread or post false trades or rumors. Trolling will result in a permanent suspension. 

      SOURCES   The following source types are considered INVALID. Any links to posts or threads on other message boards Any links to personal blogs Any news heard on the radio that does not have a link to an audio vault or podcast Any news seen on television that does not have a link to online video Any news spread by word of mouth
      Additionally, certain sources may be be blacklisted due to poor credentials, clear traffic-mongering etc. Blacklisted sources will be posted here. 
      Thank you for your co-operation and please PM the Administrator or Moderators if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding this forum.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Visp

[Report] Rick Nash and Joe Thornton back to HC Davos- Swiss League

39 posts in this topic

Why don't you start donating part of your pay check to the players? You won't do it will you? Then why do you expect team owners that spent hundreds of millions on a business investment to spend tens of millions per year just for your entertainment? Why should they not make a profit from their investment?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see many blaming the players but answer this one simple thing. If some one said you will be getting $ 40.00 an hour for next 4 years and signed it in a contract but very next year ask you to take 25% paycut will it be fair? Now you will be saying then why they r working in these leagues with way less pay- this they r doing out of choice, but if they agree to NHL's offer easily they will also be putting future at stake.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whens the last time an nhl'er built a stadium up front to support a franchise, creating thousands of jobs? - then employed hundreds of people to operate that franchise.

you have money, you take risk, you build a business, you reap the benefits.

so that 95% responsibility of the players for the entertainment started at 0%

while i think bettman is a jackass, the players need to realize their getting compensated well to play a game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is ridiculous. The owners put up money on an investment that is pretty much a sure thing, with the exception of the failing southern expansion teams. You think Aquilini was worried that he wouldn't get a good return on his investment when he purchased the Canucks?

At the end of the day, the players are what we watch. The players are the entertainment source or the product in which we pay for as fans. Not the owners.

To quote Felipe Coronel, what the owners are basically saying is "We want you to go shopping, cook the food, and put it in front of us, but we won't let you sit down and eat with us"

They basically want the players to do everything and then be kicked down scraps and leftovers of the profits instead of a proper share in relation to what the players bring to the league.

Without the talent/players, the owners are nothing but a pile of money and a good idea.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every person that bought a ticket or any merchandise "donated" to the players, and the owners. The owners want so much more money because this CBA was so bad for them, yet they all rushed around to sign players to huge contracts before this CBA expired? How does that make any sense or support the owners argument that they so desperately need a new cba where the owners make more?

Funny, so many arenas are partially financed by cities themselves, yet they don't get a cut of revenues from the owners.

The owners would be making nothing if the players weren't filling the seats and selling merchandise. Do I think players salaried are too high? yes. But it's a percentage of what the owners charges for tickets, and in that case, in my view, the players deserve the share they've been getting of that revenue, because they are the product.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is ridiculous. The owners put up money on an investment that is pretty much a sure thing, with the exception of the failing southern expansion teams. You think Aquilini was worried that he wouldn't get a good return on his investment when he purchased the Canucks?

At the end of the day, the players are what we watch. The players are the entertainment source or the product in which we pay for as fans. Not the owners.

To quote Felipe Coronel, what the owners are basically saying is "We want you to go shopping, cook the food, and put it in front of us, but we won't let you sit down and eat with us"

They basically want the players to do everything and then be kicked down scraps and leftovers of the profits instead of a proper share in relation to what the players bring to the league.

Without the talent/players, the owners are nothing but a pile of money and a good idea.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This exactly,

All who are complaining about the owner's being greedy should go to your company's CEO / Owner and tell him he does no work and reap's the profit for your own labor

It's no different, someone had the money / ambition to start something from scratch, employed the workers, and are able to compensate them based on the job position and the revenue coming in.

The fact that this is a business and the goal of a business is to make money, does not make the owners greedy for doing so.

Again stupid NHL / NHLPA just need to agree on 50/50 and get this lockout over with. Jeebus

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how old you are therefore how far back your memory goes, but I can tell you the Griffiths lost money by the bucket loads and so did McCaw. So yes I do think Aquilini was at least a bit worried when he spent hundreds of millions on to buy the Canucks.

He's spent millions more on renovations. Should he not make a profit? It's sheer luck that the CAD is so strong. If it hit .65 cents again the Canucks will be a well fare franchise needing help from American teams to survive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Man...I also hate it when those Swedish and Russian players sign UFA contracts and come over to Emerika and steal them good ol' boys' spots!"

This is beyond rediculous. Even if you ignore that world class players help bring more finances and attention to both the teams and the sport in general in other places around the world - you can't ignore that hockey is freelance job, you go where you can get work. It doesn't matter if that work is over here, or over there. Or if you're a player coming from here or coming from there.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I agree that owners should deserve more of the revenue. However, the way they are approaching it is not really palatable for the players. There is no way you could ever expect a immediate decrease in revenue from 57->50%. I see more realistically a 57->55 first year ->54 second year ->53 third year->52 fourth year etc.

It's unfair to use the Canucks as an example because we are the model franchise. Making money is never a sure thing and when you are investing 100's of millions of dollars I definitely expect a minimum 10% return on my money, otherwise I would invest in something more conservative. Unfortunately, probably half the league is in bad financial shape and yes it does have to do with the fact that owners are spending too much on players. If the salary cap is decreased to 50% in the long term we can expect to see more teams becoming profitable and owners will be unable to spend past their means. Like I said, it's unfair for owners to expect an immediate decrease to 50% but it would work over many years, if the players agree to it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you start donating part of your pay check to the players? You won't do it will you? Then why do you expect team owners that spent hundreds of millions on a business investment to spend tens of millions per year just for your entertainment? Why should they not make a profit from their investment?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I agree that owners should deserve more of the revenue. However, the way they are approaching it is not really palatable for the players. There is no way you could ever expect a immediate decrease in revenue from 57->50%. I see more realistically a 57->55 first year ->54 second year ->53 third year->52 fourth year etc.

It's unfair to use the Canucks as an example because we are the model franchise. Making money is never a sure thing and when you are investing 100's of millions of dollars I definitely expect a minimum 10% return on my money, otherwise I would invest in something more conservative. Unfortunately, probably half the league is in bad financial shape and yes it does have to do with the fact that owners are spending too much on players. If the salary cap is decreased to 50% in the long term we can expect to see more teams becoming profitable and owners will be unable to spend past their means. Like I said, it's unfair for owners to expect an immediate decrease to 50% but it would work over many years, if the players agree to it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel if the owners had made a reasonable first offer they would have gotten most of what they want and there would be hockey right now. What did they expect to happened when they submitted the first proposal to guys that physically destroy other players on the ice? Hugs and partying?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nash to Thornton, Thorton to Nash. Everyone in the league just watches.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nash to Thornton, Thorton to Nash. Everyone in the league just watches.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.