why do you support owners or players?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by neelynugs, Feb 13, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. neelynugs

    neelynugs Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    31,185
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Vote Quimby!
    Home Page:
    just curious- it appears there's about an 80% owner support percentage amongst hockey fans, and i was wondering (mainly from the PA supporters) why you choose the side you choose.
     
  2. Sinurgy

    Sinurgy Rebuilding

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,878
    Likes Received:
    185
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    Well I'm not pro PA but I will respond to your question with a copy of a thread I started awhile back. Many people missed the point because they didn't read it all (gee...that is surprising) but I know a lot of people feel the same way I do about it.

     
  3. DKH

    DKH Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    47,024
    Likes Received:
    3,143
    Trophy Points:
    231
    aren't you that guy from the Bruins board? The only side I care about is the one you left out (typical Bruins fan) the third one- the fans. They deserve competitive balance, fair ticket prices, a great product unlike what we've seen the last 10 years. The other two are necessary but really the fans of the supposed 4 majors in hockey are the most important- because its a gate driven game and without fannies in the seats they can fight over 50% of nothing. BTW- who the heck are your Bruins going to put on the ice? they have no players, the lousy louts Jacoby or whatever his name is :D
     
  4. neelynugs

    neelynugs Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    31,185
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Vote Quimby!
    Home Page:
    as always, you make an eloquent and compelling response. i hope that hockey comes back this year so that you can eat your mint chocolate chip ice cream cones that jacobs sells mainly for your consumption :D
    with regards to players/owners/fans, obviously 100% of 100% of us (follow that? :joker: ) care about the fans the most. but the first response to my post was an excellent way to describe why most people back the owners. i'm interested to hear from those PA people- i've seen about 6-7 of them who are slightly (this is a huge understatement :D ) vocal about who they support.
     
  5. Hoek

    Hoek Stanley Principal

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    5,551
    Likes Received:
    227
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    The player supporters on this board are way more convincing than the players themselves or their representatives have been through this entire process. The PA has just never communicated well to me WHY they take such a hardline stance other than apparent selfishness. The owners are far from saints but at least they TRY to make sense to the fans. I don't see the players winning anyway so I just want them to give up already. *sigh*
     
  6. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    I support the Owners because in a sick, sad way they aren't getting a fair shake. No two-way Arbitration? Joke! If a player can file for arbitration, it should be the right of the owner to declare a similar thing, because for every over-achieving, underpaid athlete, there's one under-achieving, overpaid athlete out there.

    Even the pro-players seem to think all owners are ruthless and evil. Sorry, There aren't 30 Bill Wirtz's in the NHL guys, so quick acting like there is. As well, All 30 owners aren't responsible for driving up NHL salaries around the league, I've said it before and it sucks to have to reiterate: A few owners are to blame for inflated salaries, As well, a few players are to blame for being greedy in this sense. NOT ALL
     
  7. I couldn't care less about each side, but I think the NHLPA is all screwed up.
     
  8. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    Right, because we all know that the owners invested millions of dollars into something that they don't care about.

    The owners because we all know that revenues are and will be flat for the foreseeable so player salaries need to be kept in check. Basic, really.
     
  9. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,128
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    Both sides suck but the NHLPA and their members have to be the dumbest group of people this side of the red states.It's time for the palace coup of the PA
     
  10. StanTheMan

    StanTheMan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    idealistically, i'm for the players. goodnow and so called negotiations make it hard to support them, however.

    i support the players because i think it is right that one make what another is willing to pay. obviously, the owners have been willing to pay the players, sometimes too much for the hockey business to support.

    the owners are all wealthy without hockey. they acquired their wealth through discipline and through being aggressive. however they seem to be more undisciplined when it comes to their hockey teams, because they are competing against each other. it is their choice to pay too much and that is the bottom line (and any successful business man is going to have the bootom line in clear view at all times). but they are fans, too, and they want to win. when pressure is on, they take too many risks that don't pay off. that is their decision, but a difficult one to turn down.

    that being said, the players have not only a union which collectively represents their interests, but they have agents who are aggressive in pressuring the owners for as much money as possible, playing one owner off another. ultimately, the players are getting what they are able to get, no matter how obscene it seems to others. i think we are all like the players, trying to get the best deal we can.

    the problem is the system, and that's what bettman is trying to change. i believe a huge part of the roadblock he's running into is the PA's total mistrust of the owners. it's almost as though the league is trying to change things too fast. it would probably be good for bettman to try to negotiate a deal *based* on the player's december 9th proposal, but with an eye toward building trust between the players and the owners (don't ask me how, i have absolutely no clue.... but that doesn't have any bearing on the idea), encouraging (without collusion) owners to be more fiscally responsible (maybe owners shouldn't be allowed to use any outside money to support their teams, only what the team earns - again, i'm clueless here).

    basically the owners have to learn to keep it in their pants.

    sorry for the long ramble, but i hope some of this was clear.
     
  11. Enoch

    Enoch This is my boomstick

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,821
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Cookeville TN
    I suppose I support the owners, but its very grudingly. Both sides have acted like utter fools.

    However, I have never seen a "union" that is so hypocritical and dysfunctional. My grandfather was in a union and the practices that this "union" maintains, is far from what his believed in. I thought it was - we all work, or no one works. Not - well, lets fight for a good deal while playing in leagues that have what we are fundamentally against, while many of our bretheren are out of a job. How is that being united? It seems to me like it is all about the money....period, whether that comes from the NHL or not.

    Really, the only reason I am owner-leaning is because of what I just mentioned, and the fact that regardless of the owners idiotic stance - they are right concerning the health of the league. They are losing huge amounts of money and the league cannot survive, as it stands, with the current CBA in place.

    Too bad the owners won't go for any meaningful revenue sharing, though........

    :shakehead

    They are all fools, and it hurts us the fans the most.
     
  12. SJeasy

    SJeasy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    disabled
    Location:
    San Jose
    I am pro fan which means I want the product to be better (no more traps or obstruction). I also want to see the league survive.

    They need national recognition so it is understandable to be overexpanded. That is so they can get that TV contract windfall, and it will likely take 20 years post-expansion to get enough recognition for a good TV revenue negotiation (it starts with the children who are learning hockey where hockey is in the local market).

    Overexpansion requires support to the weaker teams and does lower overall product quality be it baseball or hockey; I am willing to accept that as long as there are no other drags on the quality like halfcourt game in basketball. Overexpansion all means revenue sharing. IMO the best option is 65/35 gate receipts. The big market teams need the competition to play against and it is in their best interest to grow overall revenue. It should be a long-term investment for all involved both players and owners. They both need to leave enough revenue to grow the game.

    If they don't grow prohockey, prohockey won't survive in North America. By pursuing the CBA in the way they have, I am not happy with either side.
     
  13. snakepliskin

    snakepliskin Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Wilmington NC
    10 years ago when the last CBA was negotiated the owners had a fat tv deal and were living in Beverly Hills and it turned out to be very fortunate for that group of players hoever, the owners now live in Podunk, LA and this group of players are not that fortunate--they may think they deserve more but like william money said right before he put a bullet in Little Bill's head "Deserves got nothing to do with it" -thats the breaks
     
  14. David A. Rainer

    David A. Rainer Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2002
    Messages:
    7,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Pro. Gameshow Contestant
    Location:
    Huntington Beach
    Home Page:
    I guess I'm on the owners side, not because of some sort of ideological attachment to the owners or a contempt for players. I just think the basic overall economic system for the NHL is flawed and that the solutions (as I preceive them) appear to be more on the owners side than the players side. I want the players to be able to make as much money as they can in their limited playing careers (as they need to provide for the long-term support of their families), but I would like a more equitable playing field for all parties.

    Flat and simple, I don't care how the system got as flawed as it has. Just fix it! And I think it is better fixed from the owner's proposals than the players. And this is coming from someone who represented migrant farm workers during labor negotiations in California (among other cases I handled).
     
  15. ColinM

    ColinM Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Halifax
    I can't proudly say I support either side since I think they each deserve a pox on their house for this lockout. I can respect the fact that each side is rich however as a fan it is my expectation that they will divide their $2 billion amongst themselves without a work stoppage.

    That said I consider myself to be anti-owner more than anything else. This is mostly because I think the owners are collectively a bunch of sleezebags who expect us to believe that what is good for them is good for the game. The old system did have massive payroll disparities, but how much a player made wasn't always reflective of their value on the ice. Old players were expensive and young players were cheap. This produced a system of players who were paid alot relative to what they brought to the team and of players who were not paid alot and made signifigant contributions to a team. Being able to distinguish between the two was something that good organizations were able to do. The owners want to blow that system up in favour of a salary cap system. While they might spin it as "wanting competitive balance" they really wanted it so that the could have a greater portion of the $2 billion the NHL would have generated this year.

    My experience as a Sens fan also made me alot more cynical of the owners. Five years ago Rod Bryden had me in his back pocket as he grandstanded in front of the federal government trying to get a subsidy out of them. After all, as the owner of a poor Canadian team Bryden's needs were in my own interest as a hockey fan. Two years later I turned on the news to discover that he was trying to sell the team for over $200 million, a pretty nice financial gain for a pauper who had to go before the federal government. But the instance that really turned me off was during the bankruptcy fiasco of 2003, Bryden had tried so hard to buy back a team that he had threatened to sell to American interests a few years earlier. To top it off his greatest competition was a Canadian who had every intention of keeping the team in Canada's Capital, mostly on the grounds that Ottawa was the best place to have the hockey team from a financial point of view.

    Sure Bryden was just one crooked owner. And I suppose his only crime was spreading half truths which was nothing compared to the likes of John Rigas or Bruce McNall who had committed acts of fraud of 10s of millions of dollars. However looking back on the whole experience I couldn't have helped but to feal manipulated. It's that lack of trust that makes me remember that NHL owners were crying poverty during the 1992 players strike shortly after Alan Eagleson was removed has NHLPA executive director, and that they were crying poverty during the 1970s when the WHA was driving up salaries, and during the 1950s when Ted Lindsay was trying to form a players union. The death of the NHL has been just around the corner for about as long as the NHL has existed. The only real difference this time is that the players are millionaires, however the rhetoric is the same.

    Ulitimately I can't bring myself to trust the owners. Sure Madono says stupid things about his dog and Yashin doesn't deserve his contract. But at least Yashin and Madono are regularly exposed for the frauds that they are, unlike the owners who seem to get a free pass from most fans.
     
  16. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    i dont support the owners because there negotiating tactics are designed so that there will never be a negotiated settlement, but instead a full break of the union.

    they have been offering nothing but take aways to the union (save the salary floor) and there arrogant approach to "accepting the players 24% roll back".

    their tactics are the reason the players are so strongly behind Goodenow. if the NHL had used honey instead of vinegar, the players probably would have gone against BG.

    dr
     
  17. shveik

    shveik Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Inspired dilettante
    Home Page:
    I can't really say I am pro-player. I am more anti-owner, for two reasons:

    1. On these boards the pro-owner side is polluted and diluted by a ton of pointless posts that carry no value.

    2. I do not like the way the information from owners side is delivered. That is, there is not much dialogue or logic, but pure propaganda. It is quite professional and apparently efficient (witness the overwhelming fan support).

    I am sorry, but I am just terribly allergic on both counts. :help:
     
  18. Leadzedder

    Leadzedder Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    81
    I guess I would be classified as pro player but really I'm more anti pro-owner-people. I seems to me that everyone's on the bandwagon, that's like the cool side to be on and you have people that have no idea what they are talking about making the most noise. Very aggravating. The way I see it, you have the 2 sides and to a certain degree they are both responsible for what's going on. It is fine to be more on one side then the other but to say it's 100% the players fault is ridiculous, and vice versa.

    The league has given garbage proposals to the PA. The NHL is winning this thing by being greasy and outsmarting the PA. Example, taking the 24% and including it into their own proposal without changing a thing and giving it back to them. Do you think this helps the process? And back to the aggravating part, some pro-owner-folks get wood from this and say "yay, the owners are winning". And how is it that by not happily accepting the garbage (never really moved off their starting position, and have in some cases, like i just mentioned offered a worse deal) so by them not grabbing this up, how are they being mean to you as a fan. What part of this tells you that they don't care about the game. People are so fickle. What the PA needed is a good PR person to sway public opinion cause they havent' done anything positive here and it's definitely not helping their case.

    So most of my blame goes to the owners. Actually correction, most of my blame goes to Bettman and his agenda. But both Goodenow and Bettman have done a horrible job. There's still so much to work out and its not getting done. How can 2 people giving so much power just stand at a stalemate. No B plans. Come on. The game suffers because these 2 twits want an all out win. Aint happening, if by chance it does, at what cost? Do you pro owners really want to see it come to scabs? Really? Just so you can win some long arguement on an internet forum. (a good one i might add :) ) Do you want teams dismantled?

    One arguement you see is that owners are trying to fix the league. Maybe their financial issues which is key, but really that's not the only problems. They haven't said squat about any ohter issues. The product needs help. The markets they are in. Bad / poor owners. If they had made some headway in regards to some of these other huge issues, I may be more onside with them.

    I guess to sumarize I'll say that I dislike some pro owner folks because they seem to want to cheerlead the NHL as it crushes the PA rather than hope for a resolution. I just want hockey back without having to dismantle the good teams. I also want poorer teams to be able to retain their talent that they've developed and I want teams to be able to market and grow their business properly. I'm anxious for the day I can read posts from team "fans" posting about how much one of the team players sucks, like it used to be. That would be a nice change in aggravation.
     
  19. Biggest Canuck Fan

    Biggest Canuck Fan BCF

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,922
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Document solutions expert
    Location:
    Abbotsford, BC
    Home Page:
    Owner for the followning reason.

    How many of these players actually own and operate a business. I kknow many are parteners but not to the extent the owners are.

    Whether the owners are villains or heroes, they own the league. It is their right to decide how it should be run. And it is not as if they are asking to players to play for $50,000 a season, just not the astronomically high price that they are currently paid.

    The Players should either accept the owners league or go to Europe.

    I also support the Owners because the players tell the owners to control spending, but then cry "COLLUSION" the second an owner says "no one will pay you what you are asking." Sorry but that rips me the most.
     
  20. Leadzedder

    Leadzedder Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    81
    very good point. Well the "just want them to give up" I don't agree with but the rest I totally agree with. The players are not helping themselves at all in the PR dept. But why do people think if the players don't give in then they are greedy and hurting the game. Bettman has not comprimised one bit. The PA is being forced into taking the NHL's offer. The league is bullying the PA and the fans are on board with it. It's this hard stance that has killed / is killing progress in negotiations. It's unrealistic to think that the players should bend over and take it. IMO it's a joke to think the NHL has bargainned in good faith. Let's just call it 35min45max, do what every else you need to do and then send me a frigging schedule.
     
  21. barnburner

    barnburner Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My viewpoint is strictly selfish. I don't care about right or wrong. Could care less about what is fair. The financial welfare of the owners is important to me only as it pertains to hockey. If they lose millions and are still able to keep the hockey team healthy - thats great. If the players have to go back to playing for $100,000 a year - that is fine with me. I simply want to be able to continue to have my local franchise stay in my area, to see it be able to have a reasonable chance to compete for the Cup, and still be able to afford to go to games.
    You can argue whether or not the owners position is fair to the players - I don't care. The fact is, that their insistence on cost certainty goes much further in addressing the financial ills of the league, than does anything the NHLPA has suggested.
    The players want to find a solution that does not curtail their ability to keep getting big contracts. Somehow, they keep ignoring the fact that this is supposed to be about the best way to reduce costs.
    My support is for hockey. To this point, the owners, selfishly or not, come closest to a solution that will protect the game, therefore I'm in their corner
    at least until the players get serious and start worrying about the future of the league.
     
  22. Leadzedder

    Leadzedder Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Yes it is their league and they have chosen to go this route to put a new pay system in place and the players have not accepted it as it is now and have gone to Europe. I'm with all you guys, the players get paid way more than enough. But you can't skip the negotiation stage and go right to trying to force a system on the players. Of course they aren't going to accept it. Work something out that will enable the league to continue and profit. There's been no real effort by the league to look at options outside of their ideal system.
     
  23. Biggest Canuck Fan

    Biggest Canuck Fan BCF

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,922
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Document solutions expert
    Location:
    Abbotsford, BC
    Home Page:
    But they know the real numbers. They know what will work for them. How can any of these players and thier Union know more than these owners.

    In Essences that is what the Union is saying. We know more than you... even though we only have 10% of the data you do.
     
  24. Leadzedder

    Leadzedder Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just from reading too many posts, the good posts get lost in the junk. I don't post in CBA threads as I'm not a resource on the topic but I do enjoy reading rational posts from either side when I come across them. And I'm with you for the most part, I don't care about the dollars and cents that mush either, just do what you need to do and bring the game back.
     
  25. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,891
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I'm pro-owner because so far they are the voice of reason (which is sad). I think that a company can try to right its ship when it's sinking and imo that's what the NHL owners are trying to do. I can't fault them for trying to stop the losses. On the other hand, it's just killing me that the players are not trying to get the deal that will grant them the most they can. At this point, they've already lost more than what they can hope to gain in the future, so they've already lost the negociations. I just can't accept that instead of cutting the loss they're happy losing more and more everyday for "principles". That's how good people end up in bad situations and it makes me sad.

    So basically I'm pro-owner because I can't agree with a side that's commiting an industry suicide with a smile.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"