The Bookie Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 The knee jerk SEASONS OVER reactions are cracking me up, we're finally making progress here people! I'm still not convinced some of the people posting on this forum aren't cats and dogs using their owners computers while they're at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I have never swayed in my opinion that the players are to blame need to give back and now its just getting clearer and clearer that i am right and they are all a bunch of greedy spoiled brats or at least the leaders who are leading them. Its time the decent players who appreciate what they do for a living and make outragious money playing the game they love step up and stop this. In this game of hockey the players are all winning and only a few owners are and thats the bottom line nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Such BS. At the end of the day you're both rich. Make a freakin deal already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyville88 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Damn it Here i was starting to stock up the fridge with game day snacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 The knee jerk SEASONS OVER reactions are cracking me up, we're finally making progress here people! I'm still not convinced some of the people posting on this forum aren't cats and dogs using their owners computers while they're at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Look i don't have the time to go through your whole post but i will say that the owners have invested and made their money to buy a franchise and deserve return on their investments. The owners take all the risks at profitting or losing tons of money. There is several teams losing money and lots barely break even and insane high ticket prices and it's all due to players salaries being astronomical thats the bottom line. Why should owners lose money when overpayed spoiled players get their contracts no matter how their team does financially or how much the players underachieve. If a player gets paid to score 40 plus goals and drops to 20 he gets the same there is never a threat he won't get paid so that in itself imo is enough reason for players to shut up and sign a deal and get back at it. Average salaries in the 3+ million range living the lives they live and whining is downright ridiculous. I have no sympathy for the players in this whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Last page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I'm actually so sick of this. 50/50 is acceptable, I thought they wanted to create a plan for the future, this makes sense to me. 6 year contracts are ideal 3 year ELC is fair Just figure this out already, you're all a bunch of egotistical maniacs drunk on wealth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Luongo Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Or the reality that BOTH sides need to give more than they currently are so that a truly fair agreement can be had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Tell me this! Why the hell should owners have to give more then they already have agreed to when no players lose money and owners do? Jay Bouwmeester probably clears more then half of the NHL owners do a season!! To me it's pretty foolish to think the owners should be giving more. The players will always be winning no matter what deal they sign and it's on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Luongo Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Surely you are intelligent enough to see the major contradiction in your point of view, right? If the owners "take all of the risks" shouldn't that by definition mean they suffer the consequences of their actions? If players are forced to pay for the bad decisions of the owners and the league, then owners do not take "all of the risks" now do they? In fact, it seems that owners aren't facing any consequences (you know, the outcome of taking all those risks) at all. I'm not arguing that players are overpaid, I just remember that it's the OWNERS who set the salaries. If they think they're overpaying players, it's on them to make the proper decisions for their business's health rather than assuming the employees will take the hit so owners don't have to behave like actual business people. That's not taking all of the risk or responsibility, that's passing the buck! Furthermore, the idea that owners "take all of the risks" is patently ridiculous in and of itself. For owners to actually take risks, they would have to be allowed to thrive or fail on their own. That doesn't happen. In the real world, business risks mean you make your decisions and live with the consequences, which could mean your business booms or closes its doors. That's not the world NHL franchises operate in, however. Unlike other businesses, NHL franchises operate in an artificially constrained system with the rules set largely by the owners for their benefit. That alone negates the risks other businesses face relating to operating in a free market. But their risk negations don't end there. Not only do NHL franchises enjoy huge tax breaks the likes of which any other industry would offer to do disgusting things to politicians to get, they often get huge taxpayer handouts for arenas and the like despite the fact that they do not contribute any more to the local economy than other businesses that get less from taxpayers. (Which, if you're doing the math, means they cost the local economy.) Meaning, owners of these private corporations, unlike almost any others, are allowed to dip into the pockets of taxpayers to offset their financial risk while still allowing them to keep all of the profit. And, if they still can't make it work the league offers them handouts in the form of team revenue sharing (which will likely be expanded to the bottom 20 teams in the league in the next CBA) to teams that reported a loss, making teams that reported a loss actually profitable. (A full share in 2010 was $10 million but only 2 teams reported operating losses of more than $10 million, meaning the teams that got the handout took home a profit while claiming poverty. Does that sound like "risk" to you? Know another industry where businesses that report an operating loss actually make a profit?) If you honestly think owners are smart enough in business to have amassed the kind of wealth it takes to own an NHL franchise, why would you think they're dumb enough to stay in the NHL business if there wasn't money to be made? .... Boudrias, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Tell me this! Why the hell should owners have to give more then they already have agreed to when no players lose money and owners do? Jay Bouwmeester probably clears more then half of the NHL owners do a season!! To me it's pretty foolish to think the owners should be giving more. The players will always be winning no matter what deal they sign and it's on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 From Elliote Freidman (@FriedgeHNIC ) about what Fehr's saying at his presser: Proposal 1: fixed player share next three years, then options for how much it would be depending on growth. Fehr says it would have dropped toward 50 depending on that growth. Option 2: let's use owners 5 per cent growth number. Instead of 57 per cent of that, we take 24 per cent of that growth... He says overall number would drop closer to 50 as growth increases. Proposal 3: we'll move to 50/50 as long as you honour contracts that are signed. Says option 1 saves owners between $800M-1.1B. Sorry I missed numbers for second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Tell me this! Why the hell should owners have to give more then they already have agreed to when no players lose money and owners do? Jay Bouwmeester probably clears more then half of the NHL owners do a season!! To me it's pretty foolish to think the owners should be giving more. The players will always be winning no matter what deal they sign and it's on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitfire_Spiky Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Well after another failed meeting today the lockout looks like it could drag on longer. Both sides say they are asking for whats best for the game but do they not realize they are only hurting the game by dragging this on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 From Elliote Freidman (@FriedgeHNIC ) about what Fehr's saying at his presser: So to say the NHLPA didn't try and find concessions for the NHL is false. They have come down, but want things to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 The owners have to lure big players or they would be screwed more then they already are in their markets. What do you suggest teams don't lure free agents and turn into AHL rosters losing all the time expecting to fill seats and generate revenue in make it or break it NHL cities? This blaming owners for this is just another players spin to make themselves out to be hard done by its a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 To be fair, I can see why the players want the NHL to honor current contracts. I mean these players were promised the money they signed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 It's amazing how quickly the public perception changed this week. Most fans were on the players side last week, now most of us would side with owners. I don't think much as changed in the overall lockout situation, but new information has come to light (i.e. proposals) and the owners (via Bettman) have don't a masterful job of manipulating the situation via their "50/50 82 game" proposal. Right now it seems like the players are being greedy and focusing a lot on how much they gave up last time. But I'm sure more information will come out in the next few days about the PA's position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Kane Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 To be fair, I can see why the players want the NHL to honor current contracts. I mean these players were promised the money they signed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.