theminister Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Then you'd be a user too. Welfare for the wealthy hurt all of us and only selfish people concerned only with their own profit at any expense to others don't see that (or care). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 That's not on topic, that's misdirection. What is on topic are the points I have made to counter yours - the salary cap structure defines that players do, in contrast to your claim, share revenue. - the NHL member teams are not independent businesses with independent financials - the NHLPA is willing to work towards the financial parity needed, over time, with the help of the League - the NHL believes that all of the labour concessions should come from the players - the NHL does not want to honour the contracts they have signed - the PA has refused to accept the most recent deal that would hurt the role players of the League in favour of the stars - the current system is one chosen by the NHL not the players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 In between trying to educate people here and on TSN you are doing more than your fair share. I'm really just here trying to get your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Donald fehr is the worst thing for hockey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 WHL rocks.... no one arguing against you here is saying that player costs shouldn't come down over time. Heck, even the PA isn't saying that. What those who disagree with you are saying is that it should be a process that involves some responsibility from the member teams.... like the one that signed Weber to that ridiculous contract. This can happen over the next few years with help from the wealthy teams so that even those stupid offers from teams are valid. Some people, like myself, Provost, poetica and elvis15, see that this can be done for the long term health of the League incrementally with the players share of revenue but it should be buffeted with the profits of the large market teams. You seem to think this should be done immediately all from the players share. In that instance, you are even more radical than the League who is aware that revenue sharing is a must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Really. I Didn't know Weber will be sharing his $13 million for not playing hockey this year with Burrows. Do you think the NHL can continue to be viable without reducing the PAs share of revenue? Do you remember when the Vanvouver Canucks were on the verge of leaving town because they were losing money? I do. In the Coliseum Canucks barely drew 13k. Are you willing to see the Oilers, Sens, and Jets leave or fold when the US economy recovers and CAD$ is worth less that .70cents.? If so fine by me. The players are replaceable. The NHL is not. Gretzky retired Ovechkin took over. OV faltered Malkin became the best player in the world. What happens if you don't have a team to cheer for. Most people are short sighted and only think if Canucks. They wouldnt even watch hockey if Van City did not have a team I'm a hockey fan not just a Canucks fan. It's better for all hockey fans that NHL gets a 50/50 deal and all teams are profitable, not just 40%. Heck if I was Bettman I would not have blinked so quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Many many ppl on CDC are union members and post during work hours. Boss pays the wage while employees come on here when they should be working. Who cares if the company is losing money and the boss can't make his mortgage payments. Prepare yourself to defend your comments. If the minus button still existed your post would be -327 by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiimawesome Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 What a bunch of greedy spoiled brats. 50/50 revenue sharing is more than fair. The fact that the players are still shooting for 56-57% is a complete mockery. There's no reason why the NHL should miss any games, it should take a few weeks to iron things out and then hockey is back. If there is no hockey by November I will have lost all respect for the players. I don't like Bettman, just like every one else here, but the NHL is flawed and needs to be fixed and this lockout is completely on the players now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Really. I Didn't know Weber will be sharing his $13 million for not playing hockey this year with Burrows. Do you think the NHL can continue to be viable without reducing the PAs share of revenue? Do you remember when the Vanvouver Canucks were on the verge of leaving town because they were losing money? I do. In the Coliseum Canucks barely drew 13k. Are you willing to see the Oilers, Sens, and Jets leave or fold when the US economy recovers and CAD$ is worth less that .70cents.? If so fine by me. The players are replaceable. The NHL is not. Gretzky retired Ovechkin took over. OV faltered Malkin became the best player in the world. What happens if you don't have a team to cheer for. Most people are short sighted and only think if Canucks. They wouldnt even watch hockey if Van City did not have a team I'm a hockey fan not just a Canucks fan. It's better for all hockey fans that NHL gets a 50/50 deal and all teams are profitable, not just 40%. Heck if I was Bettman I would not have blinked so quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Many many ppl on CDC are union members and post during work hours. Boss pays the wage while employees come on here when they should be working. Who cares if the company is losing money and the boss can't make his mortgage payments. Prepare yourself to defend your comments. If the minus button still existed your post would be -327 by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 What a bunch of greedy spoiled brats. 50/50 revenue sharing is more than fair. The fact that the players are still shooting for 56-57% is a complete mockery. There's no reason why the NHL should miss any games, it should take a few weeks to iron things out and then hockey is back. if there is no hockey by November I will all respect for the players. I don't like Bettman, just like every one else here, but the NHL is flawed and needs to be fixed and this lockout is completely on the players now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 If it makes you feel any better, I'm not a union member. So no one's paying for my time spent responding to your posts here except my nerves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfruits Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 good job nhl on turning the fans against the players not me though i still side with the players and like many have said on tsn and sportsnet 50/50 may seem fair but there is more to the deal then that people even me don't fully understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Both sides share my contempt equally, because clearly neither one really is serious about negotiations. Worse yet, neither one care about the customers. You know the ones where they're getting the $3.3 billion dollars from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brambojoe Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Still siding with the players as well...the players are the product. 50/50 sounds fair but say a stranger comes up to you and says let's split the contents of your wallet, 50/50 - fair right? I appreciate that the owners want a ROI but I agree with the players not wanted to be exploited either. If someone wanted to create a business on my sweat and tears you can be damn sure I'd want a fair cut, whether it was 50$ or 50 million $ I suspect the players are just testing the NHL at this point, I don't see them burning a season or even any games when the existing contracts are not being rolled back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Haha. Try to relax your nerves and have fun. Thats the point if being on here. If its stressing you out take a couple of weeks away from CDC. I'll do what I can to help. I'll go away for a bit. Told you guys I'm considerate. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Bettman: Wants to rollback player's salary. Increases his by over 100%... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brambojoe Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Wierd, I just looked at the make whole option presented by the NHLPA and I can't tell the difference between it an the NHL offer. It really seems like they are just arguing about the mechanism to honor existing contracts. Either the owners will honor the existing contracts or not, but that seems to be the critical issue still outstanding. I thought it was already agreed to but if the NHL rejects the make whole offer then I am not so sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVank15 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Still dislike both sides greatly but I have always liked this scene from Mr. Deeds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 WHL rocks.... no one arguing against you here is saying that player costs shouldn't come down over time. Heck, even the PA isn't saying that. What those who disagree with you are saying is that it should be a process that involves some responsibility from the member teams.... like the one that signed Weber to that ridiculous contract. This can happen over the next few years with help from the wealthy teams so that even those stupid offers from teams are valid. Some people, like myself, Provost, poetica and elvis15, see that this can be done for the long term health of the League incrementally with the players share of revenue but it should be buffeted with the profits of the large market teams. You seem to think this should be done immediately all from the players share. In that instance, you are even more radical than the League who is aware that revenue sharing is a must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.