mbal23 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 You think cutting Bettman's salary will fix the problem? There's an 8 mil hole hey? wow just wow Your lack of business savy is unbeleivable. Go learn why they put a term on the cap last time. To see if either side was getting screwed by the agreement then to correct it. You fail to understand the only reason players get paid is because fans go and owners pay 150 mil min for a team. They put up the capital risk they deserve and honest chance to make a profit, otherwise why buy a hockey team? Then what happens? No players paid, no league right..follow the logic buddy. I blame the players for not accepting reality, that they are being paid too high for the business to survive. In most industries what happens in that case? 1. Paycuts - 1st step 2. Layoffs (cant happen in hockey really) - 2nd if pay cuts dont work 3. Businesses go under - happens if 1/2 don't stem the tide why dont you i love my player fans understand simple business logic. Hockey teams are not some magical right in north america, that owners owe us to put a team in that constantly loses money. Eventually they will say frack this, and no one esle will want to buy a business that loses money. What then? Players gonna complain about 4 mil for 40pts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I think its unfair for people to lose the right to complain about salary expectations just cause they make a certain amount. Just cause they have a talent that yields them high potential salaries, doesn't mean they should lose the right to earn the amount they feel they deserve. Which is essentially your main argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 I may not have much business savy, maybe because I'm 18 but atleast I'm not stupid enough to believe that business deserve a profit. And how about touching on my first point instead of being a smart ass. Or maybe why you think restaurants will die without the NHL since so many strive without it already? And you think they should cut bettmans salary? I'm sure it could only hurt to pay the Commish more than the players that make the game possible. And I ask you where would the owners be if their were no players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 I'm not saying that it should be split. But the OP was saying that the players can't expect to get paid what they do, because there are only 7/30 teams that are profitable. But "profitability" isn't a concern of the players, who are employees. The business owners' job is to use the asset to generate profit for them. If they don't/can't do that, it's their fault, and not the union's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 Exactly, that's what I've been trying to get across to the OP. He's too adept at ignoring that so he can continue with his hypothesis that they blocked him because his 'honest' tweets got under their skin and that's why they blocked him. The tweets are there for all to see (I posted them on page two) and it's clear any public figure can't respond to or read all tweets and they'll happily block people who spam them to lessen all the notifications. Add to that he was clearly antagonistic and it was a quick decision for them regardless of facts or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 A man who pays 150 million doesn't deserve to be able to run his business to make a profit? Ok so what is the man buying the business for son? So you can go watch a game? You think he's running a charity? 23 teams are losing money, so 23 owners should continue to donate to players? Son your 18 years are showing. Owners buy teams for 1. The love of the game 2.Status 3. Profits As you can imagine, when you continue to bleed money, the first two start getting less and less important. This is not a charity it is a business. If businesses lose money contstantly, eventually people say I don't want to be in that business and there is no longer a business. You are too young to know about this but there was once a soccer league in North America called the NASL, it was bigger than European soccer. It went under, why? Because of the same issues, players paid to much, teams bleeding money, teams fold, it tok 25 yrs to see another league in North America and its no where close to the level now. Further, you think the hole in the NHL is 8 million (Bettmans salary)? Im pretty sure the gulf is alot wider, otherwise most of the owners wouldn't care. Further, if you read what I said, no one said restaurants die. But again, businesses can survive on cyclicality. If the business produces exception results during the hockey season, that can offset slower parts of the year. If that exceptional period goes, well then it gets hard right???? Moreover, those people working in those bars see less tips, something they rely on, people working concessions, parking lose jobs. I understand you are 18, but you need to think a bit deeper about the issues. Look at all the stakeholders and think through issues, this will help you understand its not just a game, its not something that philanthropists are giving to hockey fans for their enjoyment regardless of how much money they lose, nor do they owe that to us, its something that affects other people's livelehoods outside the game, and all this within the context of men playing a game and scrubs making a million a year (4th liners). Is that poor to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Notice who the league singled out as the biggest diver in the game? I think he wears 17 on our team. Sure call me what you want, it doesn't affect one thing, we have a douche who is a primadona as our second line center that clearly is lacking respect from his peers within his industry. Guess I'm right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Do you understand that players chirp each other constantly in the dressing room and on the ice. He would sooner sue you for stalking him, before he would have to lift a hand and put you in your place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 I don't think 17 gives a damn about what you think right now, nor has he ever. What are you gonna do...camp outside his Yaletown apartment and yell "you're a phony" when he walks out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Also, you do realize what you are doing is trolling the aforementioned players, right? No respect given to trolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Yes thats right OMFG How old are most of the posters on this site? 12? And that's the point he should care what fans think, thanks for agreeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 A man who pays $150M should have more of a business sense than most of these owners in markets like Glendale, whoops no owner there yet, Florida, Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, New Jersey, Minnesota, Long Island, Anaheim, San Jose, and Tampa just to name a few. All of these owners have signed off on contracts to players that if they can't afford to pay, why are they getting into the game? They charge next to nothing for tickets, play for the most part in front of family and friends, and then expect to turn a profit. This means they are donating to players, when they in fact have no business in doing so. It all boils down to how well Gary Bettman and previous commisioners vetted these cities to see how viable they are as HOCKEY markets. You got one of those statements right, status. What does Wang in Long Island know about hockey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 Age is not a determinant of maturity, and it seems like you lack the latter. You incessantly whine on and on about how some players blocked a spammer on Twitter, and we're supposed to see you on the higher ground? Sorry...not cutting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 So therefore the players should understand how good they have it correct? Thats the part of the equation you are missing. Therefore they should realize, hey we are being overpaid. Moreover, Ohio is a terrific hockey state, Minnesota one of the best. NJ has had a winner for decades and was there before Bettman, as were the Islanders (Bossy/Trottier ring a bell?), San Jose sells out constantly, terrific hockey market, ever been to a game there? And do you want to see a league of 10 teams? You might not have one then. Sure there are some markets that don't belong, and yes the owners have to take some blame for offering such contracts no issue. But you're not understanding why this is happening, the real issues. Owners can't tell other owners to not pay up. thats collusion and illegal. Ego does drive alot of decisions, and some teams may have deeper pockets than others. So one owner can drive up salaries simply based on the fact agents use comparables as their way to assess their client's worth. So, the league looks at the CBA and says, we tried to limit salary growth last time, but its not working as intended for a number of reasons, one stated above, terms, free agency etc. We need to address it so there are still 30 viable franchises. If a few are hurting we can work around it but then the MAJORITY are, there is something wrong systemically that needs to be addressed. They have to codify handcuffs on certain owners to ensure that the league as a whole stays viable. Its easy to cherry pick situations like Phoenix, Wang has been a terrific owner, he knows alot about hockey sir. He has kept that team for those fans in that city because of tradition, he hasn't been making money, remember our owners before Acquilini? Weren't they losing money and rumours of a move right? So you are more important than someone who's a fan in Long Island? 10 yrs ago we sucked and were about to me moved. Wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 l have no clue what is going on with this board, please delete my above post. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Yes but the players do get a split don't they, and that's what they are arguing against, a decrease in that split. Moreoever, if you are an employee of a business you sure as hell better be interested in the profitability of your company and your industry, just go ask some of my ex colleagues, people who worked on wall st with me son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 LOL @ the constant Wall Street drops, like it somehow adds credibility to your posts. "Wall Street" has needed to be bailed out multiple times throughout history because they take trades with risk that they don't understand. I earn my living day-trading futures (hence the name). Wall Street does not impress me. Wall Street is who I take money from every day. Back to the topic at hand - they get the split that they do because it was what the owners coerced them into accepting 8 years ago. That's the split that the owners wanted. Remember how "cost certainty" was the phrase of the day back then? It ain't up to Rick Nash to make his owner money, besides the obvious charity and other public appearances. If the Columbus Blue Jackets are a failure, that's the owner's fault, who assumed that risk when he bought the team. Which, by the way, is almost always a vanity purchase for the owners, and never one of economic fundamentals. Fine - sell it. There's always that strategy for the owner, is there not? I'll suggest that the 4th liner earning $1M isn't overpaid. Why? Because there was a GM, who is employed by the owner, that was willing to allocate that amount of dollars to him. What better measure of "value" is there than what someone else is willing to pay for it? If nobody wanted to employ that 4th line player for $1M per year, nobody would sign him to that deal. Welcome to the realities of a market. This "smart business man" is the same guy that moved the heavens and the earth to put franchises in Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, and the like. Bettman knows nothing about hockey, and it shows. He's paid $8M to be the owners' bad cop. Not a bad gig - and you're saying that a 4th liner earning $1M is overpaid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Actually the discussion has moved well past that, you seem to be the only one whining/harping on it because someone insulted the focus of your bromance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schlaBAM Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 this thread amused me. please, do continue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.