Brewleaguer said::lol Sure does piss you Gary followers off that the PA is still held together with strong ties, doesn't it?
:lol
ScottyBowman said:Glad the players have a spine unlike the posters in here who lick the boots of the owners and would sell their own mother.
"To see how the players operate as a group, when you have as many as 150 of these guys together, to say the least, it's impressive.
chiavsfan said:Ok Mr. Goodenow...150 members...what about the other 550 members?
Every player's contract is negotiable. If an owner overpays -- that's his fault. He failed to run his business properly. That's how businesses work in the real world.Flukeshot said:However the NHLPA needs to remember this is a business first. These ARE business guys yes and they understand that their business is in financial trouble and they are looking to solidify their investments. The owners have every right to demand changes that prevent loses. Businesses are run to make profits and if one doesn't the owner has the right to pull the plug or do whatever it takes to get as close as possible to a guaranteed profit. The players being the supplier and the product most lower their cost to be buyable to the owners.
he did jump off the bridge and the players did too---there comes a time when you have to cut your losses--obviously the owners thought that time was last september and now it the players turn to discover the same business principal--the last 5 years the owners hole got pretty deep and in the last 6 months the players have fell into a similar sized hole. man, fiscal suicide by both partys is a hard thing to watch.Jaded-Fan said:If Bob Goodenow jumped off a bridge, would you?
Ummm . . . .
Weary said:Every player's contract is negotiable. If an owner overpays -- that's his fault. He failed to run his business properly. That's how businesses work in the real world.
There's no such thing as guaranteed profits -- oir close to guaranteed profits. More businesses fail than succeed. And one of the ways they fail is by overspending.
If the owners were running their organizations like true businesses, we wouldn't be in this current fix.
Weary said:Every player's contract is negotiable. If an owner overpays -- that's his fault. He failed to run his business properly. That's how businesses work in the real world.
There's no such thing as guaranteed profits -- oir close to guaranteed profits. More businesses fail than succeed. And one of the ways they fail is by overspending.
If the owners were running their organizations like true businesses, we wouldn't be in this current fix.
Would taking all hockey revenues and dividing them thirty ways also be a fair solution? That way you wouldn't need a salary cap at all. The players would be happy. I'm sure they'd be willing to modify arbitration and qualifying offers if there were no salary cap.Matty said:Here is the main difference though...
When one hockey owner is irresponsible (ie runs his team like a hobby rather than a business) ALL owners are effected for the worse. Especially with arbitration. In the real world though, one owner's irresponsibility is often another owners gain.
Now what a cap does is insure that all owners run their teams responsibly. It is a budget they have to keep to. Because of the unique nature of the business, I think it is a fair solution.
Brewleaguer said:Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
But that's exactly the way they've operated from the time the league was founded up until now. How did it work before?Hemsky4PM said:I don't buy into the partnership crap from the league, they want everything their way. But "let them spend what they want" is way too simplistic.
Weary said:Every player's contract is negotiable. If an owner overpays -- that's his fault. He failed to run his business properly. That's how businesses work in the real world.
There's no such thing as guaranteed profits -- oir close to guaranteed profits. More businesses fail than succeed. And one of the ways they fail is by overspending.
If the owners were running their organizations like true businesses, we wouldn't be in this current fix.
Weary said:But that's exactly the way they've operated from the time the league was founded up until now. How did it work before?
I agree with you. In my mind there were three things that caused the upswing in players salaries:Flukeshot said:The NHL's financial world changed with the creation of the last CBA or even the one prior to that. The NHL agreed (mistakenly and poorly) to a system that no longer let, "spend what they want" to work. If was a higly inflationary system (eww I sound Bettman-like). I don't think a Cap is necessarily needed to correct it but many other things are.
Weary said:But that's exactly the way they've operated from the time the league was founded up until now. How did it work before?
snakepliskin said:from what i've read today it is obvious to me that goodenow does not still have a plan B after plan A blew up in his face
Devilsfanatic said:oh wow......you are so clever! Do you write your own material? hmm? Do you? Because that is soooo rich. Really, that was funny, wow, you are so funny!
I in the Eye said:Plan B could be to try plan A again next year...
Plan C could be the same as Plan B...
Weary said:Every player's contract is negotiable. If an owner overpays -- that's his fault. He failed to run his business properly. That's how businesses work in the real world.
There's no such thing as guaranteed profits -- oir close to guaranteed profits. More businesses fail than succeed. And one of the ways they fail is by overspending.
If the owners were running their organizations like true businesses, we wouldn't be in this current fix.
Jaded-Fan said:Agreed. But the argument that you and others seem to want to extrapolate out of that is analogous to the following:
I make a mistake regarding the snow plowing 'market' and sign a contract to pay you $50 to shovel my walk each time it snows for the month rather than the $5 the job is really worth. The month expires, and I have paid $250 for the five times it snowed. I have gone into debt paying that $250, but paid it anyways. A contract is a contract and it was my fault for misreading the market. You come back and tell me that I should pay you $40 per job for the next year, instead of the $5 the job is worth, and be grateful that you came down and grateful that you recognized the problem even though it was all my fault. Then you walk off in a huff and threaten a lawsuit because I refuse to offer more than the $5 that I can afford, and that the job calls for.