Jester@wraiths.ca Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc44 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikal Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Scabs stealing jobs from players who actually need the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemaddict Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Scabs stealing jobs from players who actually need the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGokou Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbal23 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbal23 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbal23 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGokou Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Nash to Thornton, Thorton to Nash. Everyone in the league just watches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visp Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 Nash to Thornton, Thorton to Nash. Everyone in the league just watches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.