paulster2626 said:
That's the point though. In order to try to make money, teams have to be competitive. In order to be competitive, they have to work within the limits of the CBA. This means giving players what they want, and having to worry about it later on (i.e. a new CBA).
It's a two-way street you know. A team has to offer a certain contract sure, but a player still needs to sign it. Something tells me Parise and Suter weren't all that concerned with the profitability of the Wild or the effects of their contracts on the rest of the League when they sat in their crystal palaces waiting for the highest bidder to come and woo them.
Something tells me Weber wasn't all that concerned with the future of Nashville when he signed that offer sheet the Flyers gave him.
The owners may have shot themselves in the foot with some bad decisions, but it's not like the players have been looking after the health of the game over and above their own bottom lines either.
Both parties are responsible, and both parties will have to give up a little bit of the $3.3Billion+ pie. It's just a matter of time before they realize this.
Both parties can't give up part of the pie at the same time - there would be leftover pie.
The issue is that the division of the pie had been agreed upon and now one side wants more pie and to get it, it has to come from the other side.
I don't think the owners respect that the revenue is created by the players on the ice. The players are replaceable, but not the same talent level, and that's why the NHL has the seating capacity of its arenas, the TV contracts, merchandise, etc compared to the AHL or any other professional league on the planet.
I watch games to see the players, not the nifty advertising on the net behind the goal or to pay $7-$12 for a sh*tty beer and $20 for parking at the arena.
paulster2626 said:
Wall 'o Text...
Anyway I just watched a video released by the NHLPA with actual players telling me how they want to negotiate a deal that provides a sustainable, healthy NHL.
So do they or don't they actually care about the viability of each and every one of the 30 NHL franchises?
Also your comparison is stupid. The difference between $1.5 Million to $1.2 Million is a bit easier to swallow than going from $50k to $34k. Plus, it's not a new restructuring method so the owners make MORE money - it's so they STOP LOSING money.
There are lots of ways for the owners to reduce costs. They haven't even started the possible rollbacks yet. Have the players pay for their own massages and medical treatment. Provide a bus, but they can pay for their own flight. Look after their own equipment. Buy their own food on the road. Pay for their own hotels.
Really though it all comes down to who you think can wait out a lockout longer - the players, or the owners. Tell me you don't think the players actually have any leverage here...
Losing less or making more...either way, the difference at the end of the day is syntax in that the owner has more money in his pocket than he previously did, even if that is through a smaller loss.
This is the same reason welfare and different taxation brackets always create class warfare - the teams that make the money don't want to be forced to share it with the teams who don't make money - whether that's because they won't spend to put a competitive product on the ice to win games and draw fans or mismanagement of money/draft picks/bad trades/etc.
This whole lockout is happening because the league has teams that don't make money and they want a solution where the owners make money after sharing with the teams that don't. The teams that don't make money don't want to move, fold, or lose money. It's why socialism doesn't work and the only way a government makes it work is through threat of persecution under the law for not paying the demanded taxes. League is doing the same by saying play according to our CBA, or you won't play in the NHL.
The players want their contracts and salaries honored, the league wants to change the rules and they hold the keys to the buildings.
I don't understand how employees think they have control over their employers.
Any player that has made $1,000,000 plus could be set financially for life. Pay cash for a house and car, put the rest in an annuity and live off the interest.
Homercidal said:
The owners absolutely have the leverage. That doesn't make their proposal right or fair.
I think it's asinine that ownership agrees to pay all of these players, then takes the money back, to save them from themselves. Psych!
It will always be the same old story. There will be owners who can't manage their money and who will always want to take it from the people they hired. You don't hear about owners giving to players who have squandered their incomes, do you?
The owners do have the leverage because they're in charge by definition of being the owner. It's a privilege to play, not a right. The difference between the NHL and the Chicago teachers are the teachers are replaceable. Players are too, but it would be a different talent level to flood in players from all over the world to refill the rosters. That's why the players think they have the power.
I'd love to see what the players do/say when the teams offer open tryouts to fill the rosters and say here are the terms to play for this team, take it or leave it.
paulster2626 said:
Where did you get this number? Anything I can find says 49M (Cap Floor).
What places have to continue their lease payments during a lockout?
Places that have CONTRACTS just like the players have contracts and are owed their money per the legal document binding both parties to the terms.
If the building is owned or financed, there are taxes.
