BuretoMogilny Posted September 19, 2012 Author Share Posted September 19, 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...
UFCanuck Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Yeah, if his opponent is Viktor Stalberg or Patrick Marleau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbal23 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Just that he didn't block me but I mentioned it was another account, to which there was no response but he didn't proceed to then block that one, which says ok I got your point. Bieksa and Kesler blocked the second account within minutes lol I guess they can't handle the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 Or maybe they dont care about some rich guy who's calling them idiot for the lock out when they aren't even on the negotiation committee? And have little to no say in the negotiation. Maybe you should stop acting like a pompous #$&@! and wait for the season to a) start or B ) get cancelled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigneault's Timeout Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 It's their right to earn their fair share. A 24% paycut for an OWNER to earn more is preposterous. Kudos to these players for standing by their principles. Hell, they could've gone with the same CBA for another year and negotiate during the year, but instead, the owners want a huge ass piece of the pie. I'll stop here because you'll twist my words anyways and cry for the injustices of the common man when in actuality you're bitching that you don't get to use your season tickets. Some saint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbal23 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Waaaaaa someone critisized my hero And apply your comment to them Maybe they should stop acting like pompous a$$es and the players as a whole accept that they have it the best out of every stakeholder here ex 7 owners. 1. Players making millions 2. Ticket prices through the roof - Stakeholder = Fans, getting raked over the coals, so much so a guy making 50k a year can't take his family to a game anymore - why? See #1 3. 23 Owners losing money - see cause in number 1. Stakeholders : owners and fans losing, raises ticket prices, owners still not turning a profit 4. Concessions, other staff, restos, bars, : Losing with no hockey, no jobs, most of these people earning very little, can't afford to lose jobs. 5. Players in Europe, getting paid much less, now losing their jobs to Ovi, Malkin, Thornton, and on, who are already millionaires, few of the players in Europe are, its the low end guys who will be cut. So... Again, who is winning here, and who is losing? Players give a crap about the fans? The game? No, they give a crap about their wallets and egos. And this was the point of my original post, kinda read between the lines of their actions and the actions of their brothers whom they support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 What about "they aren't a part of the committee" is hard for you to understand. So what u say especially when u spam them like you did matters very little to them and you shouldn't cry for being blocked after acting like a douche towards them. And they aren't my heros, they aren't even my favorite players. And ticket prices aren't high because of the players since its the owners throwing out money they don't have. I do agree they players should take a cut but it needs to be more gentle ex. Next season 54% hrr and over a five year term drop to 47% but the owners need to make cuts as well ex. Getting rid of useless personnel, and cutting bettmans $8 mill salary, and folding and moving teams that are doing terrible financially over a certain amount of time and putting that money into the league to help good teams that are going broke. That way you gain more revenue and help grow the good teams which spread the game since people want to see talent. Now you can go on about taking jobs from the khl but I don't think that point is valid since they can only go 3 over their 25 player cap and its it like make so much that a temporary job lose/layoff will effect their lifestyle since they may get some kind of pay from the khl. You can't blame the player for feeding off of stupid owners who try to beat each other since a revenue tied cap was their idea and they should have made the revenue split more equal last time even though I doubt that would make them happy since they would probably want more of the revenue. Bars and restaurants won't miss a stride since hockey hungry people will flood any bar that plays minor league games for their local teams farm club or other sport. All the smart business/ resturant owner will make some form of special to fill their restaurant. Not many arena workers will lose their jobs exept the ice guys, since and empty arenas will require more repairs and may even make jobs for construction crews for upgrades to arenas that are otherwise overlooked because of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLahey Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 In response to the OP's criticism of the 'greed' of the owners and the PA, the owners want to cut X% of pay around the league. Consider that X% to be 10% for the sake of argument. Now, since the median yearly salary you suggest is $50,000 and the employee making such an amount is subject to a 10% pay cut, their income is dropped to $45,000. An NHLer making minimum salary of $500,000 yearly is forced to take a cut of $50,000. An NHLer with an AAV of $6,000,000 has their salary cut $600,000. So the X% is significantly more once the average yearly salary increases. As BtM said, they are making 'a fine living,' but are being asked to take a pay cut. The employees (players) are working in an industry for a wage during a short career, in comparison to the employees who make $50,000 a year who can perform their job throughout their life if they choose to (pending injury, illness, etc.) So the players being asked to take a pay cut are being greedy because they don't want to lose a significant amount of money per year? No. They are doing the same thing an employee in any industry would do if they are asked to take a significant pay cut. So in my opinion, they have a right to negotiate a new CBA to retain a certain percentage of their wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 It's their right to earn their fair share. A 24% paycut for an OWNER to earn more is preposterous. Kudos to these players for standing by their principles. Hell, they could've gone with the same CBA for another year and negotiate during the year, but instead, the owners want a huge ass piece of the pie. I'll stop here because you'll twist my words anyways and cry for the injustices of the common man when in actuality you're bitching that you don't get to use your season tickets. Some saint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 23 teams are losing money, owners deserve to have a business that makes money or manage their business such that they can. When players get free agency early, when rookie contracts expire in 3 years, when there is a cap floor that teams need to meet, these things escalate EXPENSES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbes!!! Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Why do I keep coming into this thread? Its like watching a train wreck. Its like they let one of those little tonka kids steer the train, but no one (including me) has the good sense to get off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 If Jameison wants to buy the Coyotes knowing full well the NHL's objective is to keep them in a money losing situation in Phoenix without knowing what the new CBA will hold, that's his decision. He doesn't deserve to have a money making business, not when sports franchises as a business aren't known for every owner being profitable. It's also the NHL's decision to hold them there rather than move them, since they currently own them and the owners would have to agree to a sale or move. They have themselves primarily to blame for the situation their in. If the NHL wants to use proper economics and business rules to claim losses, they have to look at why those losses are happening and correct it. That can't be all the players fault for having 57% of HRR, not when there are still franchises like Phoenix and Columbus who have loyal fans but not nearly enough to be sustainable. That can't be all the players fault for having salaries that are too high, not when owners are giving out deals with triple digits in $ and double digit in years the summer before proposing against those very same things in a new CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 No they don't. Buying the business is the risk that they assume; it's their job to make it work. The players don't share in the upside potential of the business, either. If Aquilini decides to flip the Canucks for $150M more than what he paid for them 3 or 4 years ago, that capital gain is entirely his, not to be split with the PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Lol is it me or does this really need answering lol 1. To own a biz is and to make it work is exactly what the owners are doing now...LOCKOUT. 2. If the owner flips for profit, WHY should he split it with anyone but his partners. The upside for some players are thier contracts. which they sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameer666 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...
danman99 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 OP just has his panties in a knot because they blocked him on twitter. Who cares... I would have blocked you too. The rest of this discussion should just be done in the CBA thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Interesting story. I have been a Canucks fan for all of my young 35 years. Born and raised in Vancouver, season ticket holder for a number of years, and was there for the entire run last year including game 7. On my twitter account I was following the above named three. I have been pretty vocal in my views of the lockout critisizing both owners and players for a number of reasons. Firstly, I think its ludicrous in the midst of the worst recession in my lifetime, and close to a depression, that millionaires and billionaires are fighting over money. Both sides seem to be reaping terrific gains from the sport and if anything seem like a bunch of spoiled brats. Moreover, the median income in the US and Canada is approx 50k. So people with 50k are making these guys millionaires and they (owners and players) are fighting over the pots of gold, when many of these same people are struggling to pay bills, keep their jobs, or don't have one, and feel lucky to be able to afford to even see a game with ticket prices where they are. As a result, hockey is a release for many, an escape from the toughness of thier lives, 3 hours of happiness in a day to forget the challenges, somewhere to take your child, or watch with your child to share a passion, some family time, bonding, this is why it matters to us, we all know this. In an economic environment like that of today, its even more important, it has an impact on people not only socially but economically. For example, there are many ancilliary jobs, in the arenas, parking, restos and bars, that will be hurt. People in those jobs depend on the game for a second job to make ends meet, or sole income, better tips on game nights, etc. These are not people making alot of money. For instance, the Panthers just laid off a bunch of staff today. As a result, I tweeted my displeasure to the above three, not in an insulting way but one that would make them think, stating these facts, and yes suggesting that they and the owners were acting like spoiled brats and that they should feel fortunate to have people making 50k enriching them for playing a game. All three subsequently blocked me. I opened another account and let Beiksa/Kesler know what I thought of their attitude towards a lifetime fan, someone who had spent alot of money enriching them. Lou was was the only one to respond, surprising given all the crap he has taken in this city but he regained my respect. I actually know why the Canucks lost game seven now. For a long time I thought it was Lou. It was guys like Bieksa, Kesler, who have entitlement attitudes, are selfish and are all about the money. Blocking a fan who asked them to consider the ramifacations of their decisions on those fans paying their bills says alot about their mentality, how much they really care about fans. Bc you see, if they did care, they would take those comments in stride, and accept that there is a grain of truth in that. I am no longer a fan of those players and I for one hope to see Kesler and Bieksa traded. Character can be shown in many ways, they have shown me theirs. I know I will get flamed for this but before you do think about what I said, how they reacted, and what it suggests about them as people. Integrity matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbal23 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Despite all of these people basically giving your story a giant middle finger, I am actually disgraced to be a fan of these guys. They say they "care about the fans", then they should respect and listen to their opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Maybe they should quit....go home to their families and get a 9-5 job like the rest of us saps. I pay the Canucks organization to put out a team to play hockey not for the players to create a union to cry baby around when sh!t is not going their way! You get payed to play hockey....give me 4 mill a year I learn to skate tmrw....Simple fact...the contracts are getting out of hand. Players are getting greedy and are ready to up and leave this country for another to play hockey...so family, friends and injuries are all back burnered for $$ dont forget that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman99 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Are you serious? Why should they or anyone have to put up with some guy spamming the &$!@& out of their twitter account when they themselves are just sitting waiting for an outcome as well if the OP wanted to tweet someone about the lockout why not tweet to people who have a say in what's happeneding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.