theminister Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Owner's offered a 50-50 split deal which would have allowed players to retain their contracts, they just wanted other clauses ie. 5 year max, 28 year UFA etc.Players counter with 1st year 57-43, and then slowly moving towards but never reaching 50-50 in year 5.Hmmm. In the 94 lockout the players had all the fans and PR support, and still lost badly. This year dareisay the owners have more support, believe me the players are going to lose this one if they try to hardball their way around owners who are losing money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvoLu7ioN Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Actually, they're risking their livelihood every time they step on the ice. Not to mention the inherent risk in devoting your life to training for such a select and competitive career. Meanwhile, the owners have literally zero risk. An annual operating loss of ten million means absolutely nothing to these guys, and they make the money back when they sell the franchise, anyways. The players have 1000x more risk than the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Really? Pretty tough to side with a business owner who loses millions per year? Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancouverdepression Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 What a Fu***ng joke this chump league is, both sides should be ashamed of themselves. Millionairs and Billionairs squabbling over our hard earned money then trying to convince us whos right and whos wrong! F U to anyone in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvoLu7ioN Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Then you misunderstood the owners offer. They never did offer 50/50, they just said they did. The owners have not submitted a single proposal that ensured that they would pay the signed contracts. Their last offer ensured that the lower end players would sacrifice so that those contracts, signed only weeks ago, would be honoured. This was done solely to drive a wedge in the players between the stars and the yeoman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 That's your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. A lot of different occupations risk their health every day for a lot less compensation. And it does mean something to the owners, most of them retain their franchise to make a profit, that's their business. If they're losing any money at all through income or failure to generate gains on their franchise their business is considered a failure for that year. Plus, consider the fact that a lot of these franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If that money was simply invested in another venture it could easily be generating 5-6% returns with very little risk, so on top of the 10 million dollar operating loss you also have a 20M opportuniy loss. Not as simple as is seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoobydooby Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 What a Fu***ng joke this chump league is, both sides should be ashamed of themselves. Millionairs and Billionairs squabbling over our hard earned money then trying to convince us whos right and whos wrong! F U to anyone in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Perhaps, I haven't actually read the thing. I'm just going off of analysis from guys like Bob Mckenzie and Darren Dreger who both mentioned they thought this deal was something the NHLPA could counter as players would retain most of what was agreed upon in their contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Daly just flat out denied the NHLPA's 3rd offer as being 50-50 from the start, "more like 57% in year 1 then going down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 LOL. "The only reason baseball is popular is because they have a product that people like!!" Good argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_fo_life Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Baseball is crap, not even a real sport, they hardly break a sweat cause theres so much standing around Signed, a real Canadian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Really? Pretty tough to side with a business owner who loses millions per year? Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 That's your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. A lot of different occupations risk their health every day for a lot less compensation. And it does mean something to the owners, most of them retain their franchise to make a profit, that's their business. If they're losing any money at all through income or failure to generate gains on their franchise their business is considered a failure for that year. Plus, consider the fact that a lot of these franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If that money was simply invested in another venture it could easily be generating 5-6% returns with very little risk, so on top of the 10 million dollar operating loss you also have a 20M opportuniy loss. Not as simple as is seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Lol are u old enough to remember the MLB player strike? Do u remember the low attendance levels and TV ratings before the steroid induced HR race? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 WHL Rocks, I literally have no idea where you're coming from. You seem to pick and choose your observations in a way that even the NHL owners can't. They put forth proposals knowing that they can compromise comfortably. But when you see that same proposal (even back in August), you go "This is a totally fair deal!" It's one thing to act like your semi-serious proposal is serious, that's part of negotiations, and they have a vested interest in doing so. I can only assume that you have a vested interest in parroting what they say, and I give you credit enough to not believe all of what you say because you're smart enough to post your talking points then are nowhere to be seen when those points are disputed. So what's your angle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 It's also tough to sympathize with the business owner who locked the door on it's employees. They are making no money due to their choice. This isn't a strike. The employees did not walk off the job. The NHL and NHLPA may have had an opportunity to bargain in good faith and still have a season but the owners drew the line in the sand and now they can shoulder all the 'economic hardship' they are in. The players are free to work other jobs too so it's not like they are incapable of replacing their lost paychecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raoul Duke Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Baseball is crap, not even a real sport, they hardly break a sweat cause theres so much standing around Signed, a real Canadian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 SCREW everyone. I'm sick of this crap. I just want a bloody season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 That's your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. A lot of different occupations risk their health every day for a lot less compensation. And it does mean something to the owners, most of them retain their franchise to make a profit, that's their business. If they're losing any money at all through income or failure to generate gains on their franchise their business is considered a failure for that year. Plus, consider the fact that a lot of these franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If that money was simply invested in another venture it could easily be generating 5-6% returns with very little risk, so on top of the 10 million dollar operating loss you also have a 20M opportuniy loss. Not as simple as is seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Why should we expect NHL owners to lose millions so we can watch hockey. It's a well known fact 2/3 of the teams are losing money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.