ResidentAlien said:
Not to get into it with you Mr Icon, cuz you love to rip dumb people like me to shreds, but you say if a market has done a good job it should reap the rewards, i agree, but it goes both ways. If a player has done a good job(as well as his agent) shoudlnt they reap the rewards? or it is only the owners that get the rewards? Also, whose job is it to grow the market? is it the players?
so maybe these teams that are losing all this money should look at how they need to grow their markets.
You always make good points Icon, but sometimes you say things that are contradictory as well as one sided.
Ill wait for your shredding oh wise one
No one is saying the players are going to do poorly. Do you think that making $5-10 million a year is doing poorly or being oppressed? I think the players will get more than their fair shake, and if they position themselves correctly can make even more money through partnering and growing the game. Opportunities are there if they open their eyes.
I don't see how any player is being held back under the yolk of oppression through the installation of a cap in the form of linkage to revenues. I also don't see the benefit of milking an industry to the point of failure like has taken place. That doesn't make much sense.
If the players are so confident in their abilities and are sure that THEY put the butts in the seats wouldn't the smart move to tie in their remuneration to the revenue stream? Consider what you would do in a similar vein. If you are sure you are going to have a positive impact on the business and that revenues are going to grow because of your ability you should make sure that tie your remuneration to that growth. Which would you rather have from a company that has revenues of $2 million?
a) $100K a year and no recognition of your greatness other than your remuneration package.
b) 4% of revenues and 50% of profits over the $2 million level.
If you are confident in your abilities and believe that YOU will make the big impact in the business you think you will I think the choice is obvious. I think the NHLPA is missing the boat by a massive degree. If my contract offered my team 55% of revenues plus a 50% of profits over an identified (and very reachable) level I would kiss the ground they walk on. Especially when I consider the other options available to me and my team in the rest of the industry (where I am about 400% over-paid). With that deal, the sky is the limit and I have nothing but security going my way.
Maybe the difference is that these players don't have a clue what opportunity looks like? Maybe its that risk scares the hell out of them? Maybe its because they don't really like the concept of hard work and just enjoy playing their little game? Maybe they're just getting some really bad advice and don't know it, but I think they're missing the boat. They take a short term hit, but if they can turn around and be half as great as they say they are, then the money is sitting there for the taking. The golden goose is dead. There is no doubt about that. Now is the time to look for a deal that you can make the best of and I think the one the NHL offered was a sweetheart. If it was my union that turned that deal down I would have taken the president out to the woodshed and de-balled him for his stupidity. Being a partner with your business instead of an employee is the wave of the future. The NHLPA may have missed the chance to be on the leading edge of where sports and many businesses are headed.