Something for those that are on the players side...
- Thread starter txpd
- Start date
- Status
Mess
Global Moderator
There's a big difference: the players are union members screwing less fortunate union brothers in other leagues.hawker14 said:
Last edited:
misterjaggers said:
even if that is true, is that any worse than owners who screw fans, governments, and taxpayers ?
Mess
Global Moderator
And what about all the employees Concession, parking , staff etc that have their lives screwed over by the NHL ..hawker14 said:
They are technically lockout as well of work and probably trying to find work to feed families and pay bills, taken away currently by Bettman ..
I guess you don't have an argument, otherwise you wouldn't try to change the subject. The subject is union members screwing less fortunate union members.hawker14 said:
Mess
Global Moderator
misterjaggers said:
how are they screwing less fortunate union members. you mean those individual contractors who's skill level prevents them from performing at a level high enough to keep their jobs.
nhl players aren't union members, notwithstanding the efforts of pro-nhl posters to make it appear as though they are.
Kestrel
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2005
- 5,814
- 129
hawker14 said:
No, they're not a union, but they're close enough in function to draw the parallels during the lockout. I believe the main charges that have been levied in this thread are NOT about simple right or wrong in the circumstances, but rather are about hypocrisy. I haven't followed the lockout close enough to determine whether or not individual players are being hypocrites, but the fact remains that the word "principal" has been bandied around a lot. It also remains that hundreds of players have been violating the principles the union is alleged to be championing, whether or not the individual players themselves believe in them. If you really disagree with what has been said, then disprove the allegations of hypocrisy.
txpd
Registered User
hawker14 said:
they do have salary caps. its called union cba's with agreed to wages. they pay their people an agreed to rate based on position or seniority or whatever it is. there is an agreed to pay scale.
in none union places, when their margin goes below a certain number, they lay off employees. hockey owners losing money are not allowed to dress a team of 14 players when times are tough, but ilitch controlled his payroll that way with his pizza company.
there is also the issue of publically traded companies. those guys just lose all their money as their stock value goes in the shute.
sure they have cost controls.
The Messenger said:
Any different than if teams have to fold or move because they can't afford exhorbitant player salaries?
I haven't read this entire thread but the NHLPA is indeed a union. Now legally there not a union in Quebec but they're considered a union
misterjaggers said:
so do associations of management employees. i don't consider these as unions either.
One thing is for certain: owners and club managers know **** all about their jobs. If you are a manager and if you know that you club cannot pay 10m to a player, then don't. But for some reason they enter in all those contracts and later complain that they are in loss. Where were their brains before?
If the owners really want a cap, they can enter into agreement among themselves, e.g. no owner will offer more than X amount to players as from today. So every time they negotiate a new contract with a player they would do it within the cap. Of course, they would still have to pay salaries under existing contracts until such contracts expire. This is however better than nothing, coz any sane person would be silly to voluntarily agree for a salary reduction. Would you?
If the owners really want a cap, they can enter into agreement among themselves, e.g. no owner will offer more than X amount to players as from today. So every time they negotiate a new contract with a player they would do it within the cap. Of course, they would still have to pay salaries under existing contracts until such contracts expire. This is however better than nothing, coz any sane person would be silly to voluntarily agree for a salary reduction. Would you?
Vladiator said:
Wow. Maybe you should offer your services to an NHL team. You seem to know what it takes to be a good GM. So, what are you qualifications? Did you play the game? How many teams have you run before? What success have you had that qualifies you to say that the owmers and managers "know **** all about their jobs"
Vladiator said:
No they can't. That would be collusion and they would be in court in a hearbeat.
Wow. Maybe you should offer your services to an NHL team. You seem to know what it takes to be a good GM. So, what are you qualifications? Did you play the game? How many teams have you run before? What success have you had that qualifies you to say that the owmers and managers "know **** all about their jobs"
------------------------------------------------------
I have LLB, LPC and LLM if that matters. But it doesn't. Coz you seem to know what the players and NHLPA should agree to although you are not in their position and you will never earn their salaries. Your lack of success as a player or an owner doesn't stop you from being on this board and discussing this issues, does it?
It is however quite obvious that every owner should do some calculations before signing players. The simplest looks like that:
X = (projected revenue - (accumulated players' salaries + other expenses)).
Doesn't it? So it is a mystery to me, how can an owner who is surrounded by all those accountants sign those players and then complain about losses.
No they can't. That would be collusion and they would be in court in a hearbeat.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what you mean by "collusion"... Is it North American legal expression which is similar to our European competition laws? In any case, I am sure the league can issue any rules they want to their existing members, i.e. the clubs. One of them could be max salary cap.
------------------------------------------------------
I have LLB, LPC and LLM if that matters. But it doesn't. Coz you seem to know what the players and NHLPA should agree to although you are not in their position and you will never earn their salaries. Your lack of success as a player or an owner doesn't stop you from being on this board and discussing this issues, does it?
It is however quite obvious that every owner should do some calculations before signing players. The simplest looks like that:
X = (projected revenue - (accumulated players' salaries + other expenses)).
Doesn't it? So it is a mystery to me, how can an owner who is surrounded by all those accountants sign those players and then complain about losses.
No they can't. That would be collusion and they would be in court in a hearbeat.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what you mean by "collusion"... Is it North American legal expression which is similar to our European competition laws? In any case, I am sure the league can issue any rules they want to their existing members, i.e. the clubs. One of them could be max salary cap.
Vladiator said:
So when you use this simple equation, and your best player demands more than you can afford using this definition, you just let him sit (which means you lose his services, which leads to lost games, which leads to lost revenue...), or you trade him for other assets which in general are not as good as you are giving up (which means you lose talent, which leads to lost games, which leads to lost revenue...), or you let him walk away for nothing (which means you lose his services, which leads to lost games, which leads to lost revenue...).
Another thing that happens when one team tries to control salaries and the players are demanding what other similar players are getting, is that the players demand trades, or don't try as hard, or get an attitude because the owner is too cheap and is unwilling to pay the price to have a competetive team. And yes, I have seen this first hand.
The way things are right now, if some owners try to control costs, they lose games, fans, and money. More so than what they lost this past season.
And as for collusion, you need to research this before you say things like that. In the US, if the owners of professional sports team decide amongst themselves to limit salaries, that is called collusion. If the owners do this, the union will immediately file an anti-trust lawsuit. If the owners are found quilty, they will be forced to pay triple damages on what the courts decide the players lost due to the collusion.
Baseball had to pay something like $250 million when they were found guilty of collusion by agreeing among themselves not to go after other teams free-agents or not offer over some amount for free agents (I'm not a big baseball fan so I'm a little foggy on the particulars...)
I think it's not quite as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
P.S. here is a link for you on collusion...
http://www.uniquevenues.com/pdf/antitrustlaw.pdf#search='collusion%20antitrust%20law'
Here's another...
The problem that consortia are most likely to face is the appearance or reality of improper collusion. At their core, the courts interpret the antitrust laws to presume that competition (a good thing) is best encouraged if buyers and sellers (and in more recent times licensors and licensees) make business decisions independent of each other. If decisions are made by competitors working together, whether they agree on prices, divide and allocate markets, restrict product features, set conditions of sale, or arbitrarily agree who is "in" and who is "out" of a standards organization (all bad things), the purchasing public will be presumed to suffer in consequence. Its suffering will result from higher prices and fewer choices.
Antitrust violations also expose consortia and other SDOs to civil suit. Under federal law, private persons or firms may sue for damages due to antitrust law violations. Moreover, companies found liable for such violations may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff, as well as all of the plaintiff's litigation costs and attorneys' fees. Finally, while it is relatively rare, U.S. State Attorneys General may bring both state and federal court actions.
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/laws/
Last edited:
Collusion means that owners of businesses cannot get together to decide what prices or wages are going to be. For example, if all the grocery stores got together and decided no grocery store would offer a bagger more then $3 an hour that would be collusion.
As for your example of you don't sign players if you can't afford them, that would work fine if each team operated in a vaccum, but they don't. If a team offers an average Right Wing player a salary way above what they should then they affects the average salary of Right Wingers so when another club has to resign their average Right Winger they have to pay more now and don't have a lot of options except to field a crappy team. If the market for Right Wingers gets to the point where you can't find a decent Right Winger for your budget (because you are a small market team) you either have to pay for a substandard player, pay the market rate, or fold your team. And this problem was caused by one or two owners that overpayed for their players. That is why a league wide cap of some type is the best situation. It prevents the rich team from overpaying so much that the lower teams can't get decent players in the budgets they want to spend.
As for your example of you don't sign players if you can't afford them, that would work fine if each team operated in a vaccum, but they don't. If a team offers an average Right Wing player a salary way above what they should then they affects the average salary of Right Wingers so when another club has to resign their average Right Winger they have to pay more now and don't have a lot of options except to field a crappy team. If the market for Right Wingers gets to the point where you can't find a decent Right Winger for your budget (because you are a small market team) you either have to pay for a substandard player, pay the market rate, or fold your team. And this problem was caused by one or two owners that overpayed for their players. That is why a league wide cap of some type is the best situation. It prevents the rich team from overpaying so much that the lower teams can't get decent players in the budgets they want to spend.
djhn579 & krandor
Thanks for explanations on collusion. Damn, the solution did look to simple to be true.
Just a question: if owners and NHLPA decide to have a cap, can individual players, or third parties, sue for collusion?
As for the salaries, teams in all major sports are in different financial circumstances. It is not fair but it has been like that all the time. Doesn't mean that the richest always win -- look at NYR, Yankees, Real Madrid, etc. Plus, even NYR does not have bottomless budget, there will always be good players that would have to agree for smaller salaries. Also, what about patriotism and loyalty of Canadian players that D. Cherry always talk about?
BTW, what are ya views on teams buying rights on players from each other, like what they have in European football?
Thanks for explanations on collusion. Damn, the solution did look to simple to be true.
Just a question: if owners and NHLPA decide to have a cap, can individual players, or third parties, sue for collusion?
As for the salaries, teams in all major sports are in different financial circumstances. It is not fair but it has been like that all the time. Doesn't mean that the richest always win -- look at NYR, Yankees, Real Madrid, etc. Plus, even NYR does not have bottomless budget, there will always be good players that would have to agree for smaller salaries. Also, what about patriotism and loyalty of Canadian players that D. Cherry always talk about?
BTW, what are ya views on teams buying rights on players from each other, like what they have in European football?
Also the UHL does not have a hard salary cap - according to its Commissioner it has a luxury tax on sliding scale similar to what the NHLPA has already proposed.garry1221 said:
- Status
