Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

The Players are being blamed unfairly


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#31 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 22 December 2012 - 03:58 PM

it really doesn't matter. at the end of the day, all the players whine about how they put their careers on the line every night, yet they demand more than what they're actually worth. look at the guys who play baseball for crying out loud. some unknown dude gets paid 20M a year? does a police officer go out and earn 20M a year? Does a firefighter go out and make 20M a year? I really don't care what any one says here, telling me to go take a course, this and that. I'm just tired of this whole thing and I really don't care if the NHL folds. A hockey player is not worth as much as these people are demanding


What determines what a player is worth? A player will always want to be paid as much as he can, and each owner will want to pay as little as possible....then the free market determines what a player is worth.

The value of something is what a person is willing to pay for it, in absence of any price ceiling/floor. If some owner wants to pay ovechkin big bucks, then that is what he is worth. And ovechkin is worth that much because other teams have to work hard to contain him in the game. If he is not, then the caps owner made a mistake, but what if ovechkin beings more revenue to the team by bringing in fans/making playoffs than what he is paid...maybe then, it's not a bad move.


Stop with the "oh the police officers/firefigthers don't make enough money argument"..i could do either of those jobs, and I used to be in the military, but I can't be a professional hockey player like most of us, so they get paid more money. That's how the world works and if you don't like it, next time you can donate your money to police officers than go to a canucks game... it won't matter because most police officers/firefighter don't do it for the money.
  • 3

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#32 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:03 PM

I have no sympathy for them when they are considering suing their employers - then what? Expect their jobs back and everything is hunky dory?
Welcome to the real world, where if you don't like something about your employer you go somewhere else.
Yes, both sides are to blame - but the NHLPA and players are worse...


they're suing them to try to get them to honor the contracts they signed.

You make a good point about going somewhere else...but all the owners are in collusion, and acting like a monopoly so they can't go somewhere else, unless they leave the continent. I'm interested to see what the courts say about it, regardless of their decision. Anti-trust and collusive behavior seems very wrong to me.
  • 0

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#33 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,696 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 22 December 2012 - 05:26 PM

they're suing them to try to get them to honor the contracts they signed.

You make a good point about going somewhere else...but all the owners are in collusion, and acting like a monopoly so they can't go somewhere else, unless they leave the continent. I'm interested to see what the courts say about it, regardless of their decision. Anti-trust and collusive behavior seems very wrong to me.


Yeah...me too.

Especially the anti-trust part.

The NHL set up the Cap to make the league more competitive.
That way what happened in 1994 (Rangers beat the Canucks and had a payroll that was like 33% higher then the Canucks at the time - in other words, the Rangers bought a cup) won't happen again.

I for one am not interested in watching the Rangers, Hawks, Wings and Bruins battle for the cup year in and year out....
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#34 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 December 2012 - 05:28 PM

For all of the people complaining that players get more than they are "worth" who continue to ignore supply and demand economics or even human nature which says we'll gladly overpay for what we want, but cheap out on what we need, I invite you all to put your money where your mouth is. Petition the local government to raise your taxes to give significant raises to police officers, firefighters, nurses, teachers and paramedics. (Start by petitioning they end luxury tax breaks for sports teams and billionaires to pay for it and I'll gladly sign it!) Offer to give your daycare workers a raise. Tell your boss you'll take a pay cut if needed to ensure (s)he makes enough profit for themselves. Let's be honest, you probably get paid too much for playing around on CDC and Facebook all day anyway.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#35 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:21 PM

Yeah...me too.

Especially the anti-trust part.

The NHL set up the Cap to make the league more competitive.
That way what happened in 1994 (Rangers beat the Canucks and had a payroll that was like 33% higher then the Canucks at the time - in other words, the Rangers bought a cup) won't happen again.

I for one am not interested in watching the Rangers, Hawks, Wings and Bruins battle for the cup year in and year out....


The Canadian team will be just as competitive. The only reasons they had the advantage back then was because of the dollar. The Canucks could compete with those team for payroll too.

You say it makes the league more competitive, but all it does is force a race to the bottom for the mid-tier teams. The only success to be had is by drafting high picks (especially if they extend the ELC)....I for one am not interested in teams Chicago, Edmonton and PIttsburg that tanked for years to be rewarded by the Crosby, Malkin, Yakupov for a long period of time, or indefinitely.

Also, Rangers won one cup and have tried to buy winning teams (had the highest payroll) since then with little or no success....so your argument kind of fails...

Edited by unknown33429, 22 December 2012 - 07:21 PM.

  • 0

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#36 surtur

surtur

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:40 PM

i'd love to have a job where i get 50/50 split with the people who employ me

there are more then you think.. i am in one of them.. actually i make more then the company does.
it ain't much but i still do by about 20K. i would say the employees take home about 98% of the money made in the company.
  • 0
Release The KraKassian
Posted Image

#37 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 22 December 2012 - 09:03 PM

The more the players make the more their agents and assoc make. Just sayin'.
  • 0
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#38 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 22 December 2012 - 09:21 PM

I really don't get why anyone who posts in favour of the players gets a ton of negative feedback. Although I think both sides are to blame for this mess, the players seem to be getting the majority of the hate from fans. Am I mistaken, or were the players LOCKED OUT by the owners?

Its almost like some fans feel like they are the ones paying the player's salaries (and yes, indirectly they are) so they get angry when the players fight for a bigger piece of the pie. But its not like we fans are going to be charged less money if the the players make less, the only people who will feel this is the team owners. Us dumb fans are charged the same regardless.

We are doomed to keep reliving these lockouts until the system itself is fixed. The problem is that some teams make tons of money, and some lose tons of money. The only way the league will ever be fair is if the bottom feeding teams are moved or eliminated, there is much more revenue sharing for a healthy league, and there is a solid, reasonable salary cap.


I dont see this as players fighting for a bigger piece of the pie. I see this as the players fighting so as they dont get screwed into a smaller piece of the pie, especially since that pie has grown so much larger after the last lockout.
The NHL flexed their muscles, stomped on the PA, and got the deal they wanted out of the previous lockout. Now the League is unhappy again despite record revenues and are trying to stomp the players a second time.
Sorry, this guy doesn't feel bad for the NHL owners. The players are the product and the League got the agreement they wanted last time.
  • 1

#39 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,632 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 23 December 2012 - 09:08 AM

they're suing them to try to get them to honor the contracts they signed.

You make a good point about going somewhere else...but all the owners are in collusion, and acting like a monopoly so they can't go somewhere else, unless they leave the continent. I'm interested to see what the courts say about it, regardless of their decision. Anti-trust and collusive behavior seems very wrong to me.

How do you run a competitve league without the collusion you are referring to. Without spending limitations the TO Laffers would theoretically win the CUP every year. The players are complaining about lost revenue but the NHL is also keeping 5 - 6 teams afloat who should be bankrupt. More teams more NHL player slots. In a lot of ways it is a two way street.

A lot of people talk about losing 25 NHL player slots for every team that fails but the reality is that most franchises have 50 pro contracts signed. There is the possibility that successfull litigation could destroy the minor pro system which will impact player development in a major way. I cannot see this happening as any sports league requires restrictions simply to stay competitive.
  • 1

#40 ba;;isticsports

ba;;isticsports

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 03

Posted 23 December 2012 - 10:27 AM

they're suing them to try to get them to honor the contracts they signed.

You make a good point about going somewhere else...but all the owners are in collusion, and acting like a monopoly so they can't go somewhere else, unless they leave the continent. I'm interested to see what the courts say about it, regardless of their decision. Anti-trust and collusive behavior seems very wrong to me.


Heretic made a good point in my opinion

If you dont like your employer leave ! (in this case the NHL)
Dont whine,leave for another employer
Ask Kyle Turris how that feels about that:)
Moving your family,horrible money (by NHL standards), horrible travel,horrible food,horrible accomodations,fired if Your not performing without compensation !

When You consider the Alternative to what the other "employers" are offering
There isnt an offer that comes remotey close to what the NHL will offer them

Let them go to these "employers"
Let the Owners lose their investments
Neither of them will prosper as much, than without each other
As I have said before They dont care about me (the fan)
Let them self destuct
No fan is benefitting from taking sides,
When they do decide on an agreement
I hope the sponsors cut their support dramatically
The Tv deals drop significantly
The fans dont buy merchandise or return in droves to the games
That it takes them both 10 yrs to recover to the point of what they were both making.(to stop this nonsense)
If either sides arguement would benefit me or make the game more consistent,fair and enjoyable, then maybe I would take sides
But neither are !
So continue to throw numbers around,blame one side more than the other
Where will it get you?
Both sides are right
Both sides are wrong !
  • 0

#41 Rink on Renfrew

Rink on Renfrew

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,304 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 23 December 2012 - 12:47 PM

Would you look at that!? Bettman has gotten what he wanted, parity!

It's nearing the end of December and I was just looking at the standings, all teams are tied. Truly a festivas Mur-ah-cull.


I have a lack of sympathy for the PA but I blame the owners to a higher level, especially due to their Commish hiring practices. I hope when this all finally gets settled, we have a new face handing out the cup every spring. The one the have is getting pretty stale.
  • 0

#42 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 23 December 2012 - 01:36 PM

How do you run a competitve league without the collusion you are referring to. Without spending limitations the TO Laffers would theoretically win the CUP every year. The players are complaining about lost revenue but the NHL is also keeping 5 - 6 teams afloat who should be bankrupt. More teams more NHL player slots. In a lot of ways it is a two way street.

A lot of people talk about losing 25 NHL player slots for every team that fails but the reality is that most franchises have 50 pro contracts signed. There is the possibility that successfull litigation could destroy the minor pro system which will impact player development in a major way. I cannot see this happening as any sports league requires restrictions simply to stay competitive.


I agree that the salary may be a necessary evil, but it needs to be relatively high in order for it to be fair to the payers. I like the split they have now.

Also, New York tried to buy winning teams before the salary cap, and they had ONE. Regardless, it gets to a point where the cost of the payers would outweigh winning a cup every year. Also, not every player would leave for more money...there'd be plenty of teams willing to pay Sidney the league max, but he chose to stay with the pens.

I don't like the race to the bottom the current system has. We are basically rewarding failure..at least without the salary cap, we'd be rewarding teams with the biggest fanbase, and prudent ownership.
  • 0

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#43 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 23 December 2012 - 01:55 PM

EDIT: Wrong thread.

Edited by poetica, 23 December 2012 - 01:57 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#44 Gerg

Gerg

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,165 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:18 PM

For all of the people complaining that players get more than they are "worth" who continue to ignore supply and demand economics or even human nature which says we'll gladly overpay for what we want, but cheap out on what we need, I invite you all to put your money where your mouth is. Petition the local government to raise your taxes to give significant raises to police officers, firefighters, nurses, teachers and paramedics. (Start by petitioning they end luxury tax breaks for sports teams and billionaires to pay for it and I'll gladly sign it!) Offer to give your daycare workers a raise. Tell your boss you'll take a pay cut if needed to ensure (s)he makes enough profit for themselves. Let's be honest, you probably get paid too much for playing around on CDC and Facebook all day anyway.


What a dumb post. There's a difference between multi-millionaires playing a sport and blue collared workers.
  • 2
Posted Image

#45 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:32 PM

What a dumb post. There's a difference between multi-millionaires playing a sport and blue collared workers.


Then why are people making direct comparisons? And why is it only my post you called "dumb"?
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#46 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:54 PM

The players are complaining about lost revenue but the NHL is also keeping 5 - 6 teams afloat who should be bankrupt.


How do you figure that?

Before the last CBA teams spent around 75% of all revenue on players' salaries and benefits. With the last CBA, owners not only got a salary cap which limited players' compensation to 54-57% of some revenue minus some costs they also got players to take a 24% immediate rollback on every remaining year of every contract. And while the league as a whole thrived, with revenue increasing by about 50% over the course of the last CBA and owners getting about $3B of revenue that would have previously gone to players (source), their team revenue sharing program instituted in that CBA only shared (at the end) $150M, or 4.5% of HRR. (Compare that to the NFL's 80% sharing of team and league revenue (source) or the MLB's teams sharing 31% of their profits.) Despite the players already agreeing to drop their share yet again by another 7%, owners only want to increase revenue sharing to around $200M (assuming League-wide revenues of $3.3B), which would represent only about 7% total of HRR. So, the players are literally giving up as much, if not more, this CBA alone than the owners are sharing in total.

And if you look closely at the money losing teams you'll see it's often not the NHL propping them up, but taxpayers. Look no further than the sweet deal the poor "money losing" owners of Florida Panthers have. They got an arena built for them and get paid to manage it, while getting to keep the lion's share of profits for themselves and are even allowed to transfer profits from the arena management company to the team itself (money, by the way, not included in HRR and therefor outside the system and unaccounted for in any public numbers!) The arena itself has made $117.4M in profits since the taxpayers built it, and yet the taxpayers have received only $331,000 of those profits. (source) Every other penny went to the "money losing" Panthers, while taxpayers continue to pay off the loans they had to take out for the arena, pay for the arena management, lose tax revenue in luxury tax breaks for the team, AND take responsibility for paying loans the team defaults on whenever they have a rough year.

And what of Phoenix, the poster child for NHL "propping up"? Well, the ICE hockey team in the middle of the freakin' desert that the NHL took ownership of (and then turned away attempts to buy and relocate) receives a whopping $25M a year from the TAXPAYERS of Gelndale (as payment to the registered non-profit that is the NHL for running the for-profit company that is the Coyotes despite serious budget shortfalls that have led to 49 city employee jobs being cut!) By comparison, in 2008/09 (the only year we have a record for, due to the team's bankruptcy filing) the NHL gave the Coyotes $13.5M, or just over half of what taxpayers gave them last season. (source)

Worse still, the politicians have committed Phoenix taxpayers to paying any future owner $15M a year, even while still paying off the $12M a year cost to the taxpayers to build the arena. (source) So, to be clear: Greg Jamison, the likely new owner (source) will pay $170M to buy the Phoenix Coyotes, while taxpayers will pay $320M more for arena management on top of the hundreds of millions they've already paid into the sinkhole that is the Coyotes despite getting only about $2.2M a year in return. (Guess that's why the city of Glendale had to consider putting up their city hall and police station as collateral for a loan!) But hey, the NHL doesn't care because they've been able to use the Phoenix market to secure huge new TV deals that likely made them more money than the team costs them.

Given that players are giving up more this time (after having given up so much in last CBA) than the percent owners are willing to share even with an increase in team revenue sharing, and given the tens of millions in luxury tax breaks the teams and league itself get and the hundreds of millions taxpayers pay for various arenas while teams keep the profits, it doesn't seem to me the NHL is propping up anything.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#47 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,502 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

What a dumb post. There's a difference between multi-millionaires playing a sport and blue collared workers.


Hah - pure self-interest.

Half the planet has to live on a couple of dollars per day. What we call regular, blue-collared workers, making "average" wages is still pretty rich in the global perspective.
  • 2
Posted Image

#48 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:38 PM

i'd love to have a job where i get 50/50 split with the people who employ me

...and hopefully they will keep you for the 5 yr career that NHL players average. Of course, I'm counting on the fact that you are going to add, in a big way, to the revenue generated by your high skill and entrtainment value !!
  • 1

#49 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 05:06 PM

Pretty much 50/50 @ this point.we'll see .The media is just dyin to call a winner/loser in this debacle.but ultimately it is us fans that lose.


Owners have already won, only thing that remains to be seen is what the score is at the end. If it ended today ummm 6-1 owners, Bettman 1g 2 assists.
  • 0

#50 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 05:44 PM

Owners have already won, only thing that remains to be seen is what the score is at the end. If it ended today ummm 6-1 owners, Bettman 1g 2 assists.


Then they really need to learn how to play to protect the lead! That's not when you take unnecessary risks, like continuing a lockout you've already gotten most of what you wanted from while sponsors and fans alike continue to be more and more angry on their way to deciding to wash their hands of the NHL all together.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#51 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 06:08 PM

Then they really need to learn how to play to protect the lead! That's not when you take unnecessary risks, like continuing a lockout you've already gotten most of what you wanted from while sponsors and fans alike continue to be more and more angry on their way to deciding to wash their hands of the NHL all together.

I look at it as calculated risk, not unnecessary risks.

Risk is built into the dna of every business man on this planet. From the guy who borrows and begs from family and friends to start a shoe shining business on the sidewalk of a slum in Africa to the owner of the Tampa Lightning who invests hundreds of millions $ in a professional sports team.

Owners will not relent, they will get the best deal possible. It's a calculated risk on their part, I'm confident they know what they are doing.

One billionaire could have a brain cramp and guide his/her company into going bankrupt, But not 30 billionaires siting together in a board room advised by the best lawyers, accountants and business school graduates in the world.

Calculated risk is justified. It's part of doing business.
  • 0

#52 Twilight Sparkle

Twilight Sparkle

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,352 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 06:59 PM

...and hopefully they will keep you for the 5 yr career that NHL players average. Of course, I'm counting on the fact that you are going to add, in a big way, to the revenue generated by your high skill and entrtainment value !!

not every player is high skilled and entertaining. if they were, then maybe i'll eat my words and swallow them, but i stand by what i say
  • 0

2i7663n.jpg

 

I SUPPORT TORTS!

 

Great now Hammer is going to choke on a cookie. Way to go Poetica. 

 

 


#53 Twilight Sparkle

Twilight Sparkle

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,352 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 07:36 PM

..

Edited by Olias, 24 December 2012 - 07:43 PM.

  • 0

2i7663n.jpg

 

I SUPPORT TORTS!

 

Great now Hammer is going to choke on a cookie. Way to go Poetica. 

 

 


#54 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 07:55 PM

I look at it as calculated risk, not unnecessary risks.

Risk is built into the dna of every business man on this planet. From the guy who borrows and begs from family and friends to start a shoe shining business on the sidewalk of a slum in Africa to the owner of the Tampa Lightning who invests hundreds of millions $ in a professional sports team.

Owners will not relent, they will get the best deal possible. It's a calculated risk on their part, I'm confident they know what they are doing.

One billionaire could have a brain cramp and guide his/her company into going bankrupt, But not 30 billionaires siting together in a board room advised by the best lawyers, accountants and business school graduates in the world.

Calculated risk is justified. It's part of doing business.


Risk is inherent, but only an idiot takes unnecessary risks and that is what they are doing. Sponsors have publicly voiced their displeasure. The NHL is risking $200M just with their NBC TV deal if they lose a season (because they'll have to give them a year for free after their current contract ends if they cancel the season). They're risk a lot only now they're risking it for things that, even by their own admission, will not effect the bottom line of any team. Risk may be inherent to business, but knowing when to take risks and when to take your winnings and go home is too, and that is where they are failing. Businesses, including those run by brilliant billionaires, lose all the time when the owners take stupid risks they shouldn't have. Just because this group of people were "smart" enough to inherent a bunch of money doesn't mean they are less likely to make the same mistakes others have made.

And it's a lovely fantasy to imagine that there are 30 owners (though most teams actually have more than one owner) sitting together in a room and making decisions based on what's best for the business of the NHL. The problem is, that's nothing more than a fantasy. Some owners have far more say than others. Jacobs is known for telling some owners to not talk during meetings because they haven't earned that right in his opinion. Others have told sports reporters that they signed up for certain Twitter feeds just to keep up-to-date on what was going on in the CBA negotiations because they weren't being told anything, and several people said they were surprised at how little the new owners that were added to the latest round of talks knew about what had been going on.

Owners are not making decisions collectively. A few are making them based on whatever they want and they are certainly not making them with the league's health in mind, or they wouldn't be risking pissing off fans and sponsors alike just to keep players locked out to gain additional contractual controls that won't save them a single penny. And they wouldn't be proposing new rules in the CBA that hurt poorer teams or refusing to share a decent percentage of revenue comparable to what other sports leagues do.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#55 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 08:43 PM

Risk is inherent, but only an idiot takes unnecessary risks and that is what they are doing. Sponsors have publicly voiced their displeasure. The NHL is risking $200M just with their NBC TV deal if they lose a season (because they'll have to give them a year for free after their current contract ends if they cancel the season). They're risk a lot only now they're risking it for things that, even by their own admission, will not effect the bottom line of any team. Risk may be inherent to business, but knowing when to take risks and when to take your winnings and go home is too, and that is where they are failing. Businesses, including those run by brilliant billionaires, lose all the time when the owners take stupid risks they shouldn't have. Just because this group of people were "smart" enough to inherent a bunch of money doesn't mean they are less likely to make the same mistakes others have made.

And it's a lovely fantasy to imagine that there are 30 owners (though most teams actually have more than one owner) sitting together in a room and making decisions based on what's best for the business of the NHL. The problem is, that's nothing more than a fantasy. Some owners have far more say than others. Jacobs is known for telling some owners to not talk during meetings because they haven't earned that right in his opinion. Others have told sports reporters that they signed up for certain Twitter feeds just to keep up-to-date on what was going on in the CBA negotiations because they weren't being told anything, and several people said they were surprised at how little the new owners that were added to the latest round of talks knew about what had been going on.

Owners are not making decisions collectively. A few are making them based on whatever they want and they are certainly not making them with the league's health in mind, or they wouldn't be risking pissing off fans and sponsors alike just to keep players locked out to gain additional contractual controls that won't save them a single penny. And they wouldn't be proposing new rules in the CBA that hurt poorer teams or refusing to share a decent percentage of revenue comparable to what other sports leagues do.




LOL,,,,,, These 30+ billionaires are idiots. So were the NBA billionaire owners, same with billionaire NFL owners. Some of the best and brightest business men in the world who also run multinational companies are idiots and they don't know how to run their businesses. Got it. Oh yeah, and they have NO say in how to run their businesses. Understood.

But you know whats good for their business without ever seeing any financial statements from any of these companies.

And like you said about a week ago on this thread CBA thread, Most PPl posting on TSN are "ignorant". Why? Because most of them side with owners.

So in summary, any one who doesn't agree with you is ignorant, brilliant billionaire business men are idiots who don't know how to run their companies and these highly successful business men have NO say in running their businesses. Hope I didn't miss anything.

Merry Xmas.

Edited by WHL rocks, 24 December 2012 - 09:33 PM.

  • 1

#56 nucklehead

nucklehead

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,178 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 03

Posted 24 December 2012 - 09:30 PM

Is this true? I haven't kept up to the banter. It can only mean one thing. The terrorists have won.
  • 0
Posted Image

If the way Torts stepped up doesn't inspire anyone to work harder, I'll drive them to the airport myself.

</p>

#57 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:14 PM

LOL,,,,,, These 30+ billionaires are idiots. So were the NBA billionaire owners, same with billionaire NFL owners. Some of the best and brightest business men in the world who also run multinational companies are idiots and they don't know how to run their businesses. Got it. Oh yeah, and they have NO say in how to run their businesses. Understood.

But you know whats good for their business without ever seeing any financial statements from any of these companies.

And like you said about a week ago on this thread CBA thread, Most PPl posting on TSN are "ignorant". Why? Because most of them side with owners.

So in summary, any one who doesn't agree with you is ignorant, brilliant billionaire business men are idiots who don't know how to run their companies and these highly successful business men have NO say in running their businesses. Hope I didn't miss anything.

Merry Xmas.


Actually, you missed a lot. Like my entire point.

I never said I think people are idiots for simply not agreeing with me. I specifically said owners are behaving like idiots by not taking a deal they're already winning and holding out for things that even they admit won't help their bottom line (despite using poor teams as their original defense for the lockout). In the other thread, I said that some commenters at TSN are idiots because of the blatant misinformation (of which I provided several specific examples) they continue to spout.

And I never said the owners had no say in running their businesses. I see someone got hyperbole for Christmas! Congrats! There's still time, though. Maybe you should ask Santa for some attention to detail too!

What I pointed out but you seem determined to ignore is what is being widely reported - that owners are not being fairly and evenly represented in the negotiations and that some voices are given more weight than others based on little more than personality (as opposed to, for example, the amount of revenue their team represents for the league.) Snarkiness won't make your utopian dream of owners running through a field of daisies holding hands while passing a talking stick to ensure everyone has an equal say in deciding how to run the league any less fictitious. Nor do those imaginary daisies cover the stink of the owners demanding the players give up enough in this CBA to entirely pay for their team revenue sharing. And that's over and above what players gave up last time because owners swore that was what they needed to make teams successful. Come to think of it, if the owners are so brilliant, why didn't they get it right last time? Why are they having to ask for any changes to the system these infallible billionaires designed for themselves?

But I'm sure this time will be different, right? This time they're not only asking for players to take less yet again, they are also changing the rules to make poorer teams spend more just to hit the salary floor. That means the poorer teams will be paying more than they were before in just a few years while richer teams will still be pocketing more but refusing to share any of it. Yep, solid business plan that adequately represents all interest there!

But hey, I guess you can console yourself with the fact that every big company that's ever gone out of business, needed huge government bailouts or caused the collapse of an economy was run by minimum wage high school dropouts, right? I mean, if what you say is true, that rich people are smarter simply by virtue of being rich (even if they inherited it, as almost all NHL owners did) they must be above the errors of us mere mortals, right? They never make mistakes and never let their egos get in the way. How comforting!

Of course, if money equals brilliance the players must be pretty smart too. So, by that calculation, and the fact that they too have lawyers and accountants working for them, I guess they must know what they're doing too. Gee, no wonder this is such a big mess. Thanks for pointing out what I'd been missing this whole time. Rich people are smarter than everyone else and the richer they are the smarter they are. I better check my checkbook to see how much of that I can understand...

But Happy holidays to you as well. :)
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#58 SEAN HARNETT

SEAN HARNETT

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 05

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:21 PM

I blame the players. The owners assume all the risk in the business department and the players get paid either way. The players want to point the finger at the owners for offering the stupid contracts, but that's because the players don't realise that the owners are all competitive as well. The owners want a system in place in which the market is an even playing field and one that can sustain itself.
I understand every market in the NHL is different and they all make/lose money for certain reasons..... But as it stands now, 60 % of the NHL's teams loses money, so it's obvious something is wrong here.

I understand the players want their precious contracts honored, but what else do they really expect from the NHL? There is no way the league can sustain itself without a proper hard cap system to protect the owners from themselves and give every market a chance to compete. I for one do not want to watch a league that has 6 out of 30 teams have all the great players while the rest develop players for those said teams.

The players need to realise that the revenues are not profit and that their demands are not realistic. If the league minimum salary is $525'000, then how much more can the players be asking for and why? Greed?
  • 1
:towel:

#59 SEAN HARNETT

SEAN HARNETT

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 05

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:34 PM

Risk is inherent, but only an idiot takes unnecessary risks and that is what they are doing. Sponsors have publicly voiced their displeasure. The NHL is risking $200M just with their NBC TV deal if they lose a season (because they'll have to give them a year for free after their current contract ends if they cancel the season). They're risk a lot only now they're risking it for things that, even by their own admission, will not effect the bottom line of any team. Risk may be inherent to business, but knowing when to take risks and when to take your winnings and go home is too, and that is where they are failing. Businesses, including those run by brilliant billionaires, lose all the time when the owners take stupid risks they shouldn't have. Just because this group of people were "smart" enough to inherent a bunch of money doesn't mean they are less likely to make the same mistakes others have made.

And it's a lovely fantasy to imagine that there are 30 owners (though most teams actually have more than one owner) sitting together in a room and making decisions based on what's best for the business of the NHL. The problem is, that's nothing more than a fantasy. Some owners have far more say than others. Jacobs is known for telling some owners to not talk during meetings because they haven't earned that right in his opinion. Others have told sports reporters that they signed up for certain Twitter feeds just to keep up-to-date on what was going on in the CBA negotiations because they weren't being told anything, and several people said they were surprised at how little the new owners that were added to the latest round of talks knew about what had been going on.

Owners are not making decisions collectively. A few are making them based on whatever they want and they are certainly not making them with the league's health in mind, or they wouldn't be risking pissing off fans and sponsors alike just to keep players locked out to gain additional contractual controls that won't save them a single penny. And they wouldn't be proposing new rules in the CBA that hurt poorer teams or refusing to share a decent percentage of revenue comparable to what other sports leagues do.


Didn't 6 or more owners sit down with 12 or so NHL players in a barganing session a couple weeks ago in an attempt to move the talks along? Im sure all the owners were updated as to what went on in those meetings. If I were an owner of an NHL franchise, I would be demanding to know exactly what is going on, regardless if I'm apart of your ol boys club or not.
  • 0
:towel:

#60 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:58 PM

Actually, you missed a lot. Like my entire point.

I never said I think people are idiots for simply not agreeing with me.


I never said you did either. You called the posters on TSN ignorant after someone on CDC brought up the fact most comments were pro owner. Talk about missing a lot..

I specifically said owners are behaving like idiots by not taking a deal they're already winning and holding out

You did not specifically say "behaving like idiots".

You specifically said "only an idiot takes unnecessary risks and that is what they are doing".

It's clear as day, you think owners are idiots for taking risk of lockout.

Whats the big deal if you think they are idiots any ways? Why are you stepping away from your words.

And I never said the owners had no say in running their businesses.


This is what you said.

And it's a lovely fantasy to imagine that there are 30 owners (though most teams actually have more than one owner) sitting together in a room and making decisions based on what's best for the business of the NHL.


Are you aware of NHL Board of Governors??

Organizational structure

The NHL Board of Governors is the ruling and governing body of the NHL. In this context, each NHL team is a member of the NHL, and each member appoints a Governor (usually the owner of the club), and two alternates to the Board. The current chairman of the Board is Boston Bruins owner, Jeremy Jacobs. The NHL Board of Governors exists to establish the policies of the NHL, and to uphold its constitution. Some of the responsibilities of the NHL Board of Governors include[61]:

  • review and approve any rule changes to the game
  • hiring and firing of the NHL commissioner
  • review and approve the purchase, sale, or relocation of any member club.
  • review and approve the salary caps for member clubs.
  • review and approve any changes to the structure of the game schedule
The Board of Governors meets twice per year, in June and December, with the exact date and place to be fixed by the NHL Commissioner.
[edit]Executives

The chief executive of the NHL is the commissioner, Gary Bettman. Some of the principal decision makers who serve under the authority of the NHL commissioner include:
  • Deputy Commissioner & Chief Legal Officer: Bill Daly
  • Executive VP & CFO: Craig Harnett
  • Chief Operating Officer: John Collins
  • Executive VP & Director of Hockey Operations: Colin Campbell
  • NHL Enterprises: Ed Horne
  • Senior Vice-President of Player Safety: Brendan Shanahan


I'm going to stop here, No interest going further.

Edited by WHL rocks, 24 December 2012 - 11:00 PM.

  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.