Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

[DAChampion]

You argue well and have raised some very valid points in support of the players. Others are showing their support for the owners. I support the team and not individual players. If a player gets traded he's gone. That's it that's all. Therefore, I don't care if the players/owners get 40% vs. 60% or 50% vs. 50%.

What I care about is what's best for my team; what's best for the Montreal Canadiens.

1. I like UFA to start at 29 or even 30 years old so that we keep our prospects longer (owners are asking for free agency to start at 28 yrs of age, therefore I support the owners on this point).

2. I would like to see a clause that makes it illegal to give players a no trade clause. I like to see more trades just like in the old days.

3. Teams should be able to negotiate and execute trades anytime during the year except during the playoffs.

4. No Player should not be allowed to veto a trade, or refuse to report to another team .

5. When negotiating trades, teams should be allowed to negotiate the percentage of the player salary that will be going to the other team and will therefore become part of the other team's salary cap.

6. Teams should be allowed to send any player down and to bring any player up from the AHL without going through wavers.

7. I don't see how offering a player a 10 or 15 year contract is good for the game. Set maximum contract length to: 8 years (players under 25), 6 years ( players under 28), 4 years (players over 30).

I can understand why players would want no-trade clauses. Let's not forget that these are people with families, or at least many of them have families. When they move, it means their children have to change school and friends. If they move mid-season their wives and kids can't join them full-time until the following year.

There's a reason Mike Fischer wanted to be in Nashville -- he's married to country winger Carrie Underwood. There's a reason Jordan Staal wants to be in Carolina, he's brothers with Eric Staal and they're going to raise their families together. My understanding of what happened in JS case is that he told Pittsburgh management "I won't resign with you", and he rejected some high quality offers from them. Carolina then offered a decent package to Pittsburgh to receive JS, which was quite classy of them imo.

If the owners want to get rid of no-trade clauses, which really effects players with families, they should offer something substantial in return. Right now players are allowed to request no-trade clauses in their contracts at the expense of lower salaries, and that's a job benefit they're happy to have.

One option might be to get rid of partial no-trade clauses. That is, players can have a no-trade clause, but it is either total or non-existent. You can't have Dany Heatley situations where he dictates where he's going.

*******************

If we're talking about what's best for the Habs:
- A 48 game season.
- Cap space should be based on after-tax income.

With respect to salary and cap, that would count as cap circumvention. However, Donald Fehr has apparently convinced the owners to allow cap space to be traded up to a 5% limit, or some number like that.

 

[Kriss E]

they're the product, they're not average joes you can easily replace without concequences... seriously, after so many thread does one stil need to explain this to anyone ?

neved said they were making billions a year, I said they were billionnaires, wich they are. If you cant make the difference, dont quote, thanks.

Now, wich parameters do you use to describe this as "fair" ? (I know, finance, that's the only thing you think you have - but besides that...)

Who invests the capital for Cirque du Soleil? The performers? No, it's the owner.
They're the product right?
I was talking about capital, the fact you constantly find a way to ignore that is weird.

As for the owners, you said they were billionaires and keep making billions, they dont make billions from hockey. Not sure why you have to focus on that though, it's irrelevant. You're just picking away at minor details, an unimportant one.

when you're working to get a job that involves being in great shape it isnt a privilege but a job requirement, I mean... you think everyone on the coaching staff would be ok of guys like Price and PK came into training cap in really bad shape ? be serious for a sec here...

I'm surprised you arent saying stuff like "life choice" when it comes to owners...

It's not because it's a job requirement that it isn't a privilege. You get to train with some of the best coaches in the world, that's a privilege. I don't care if you think it's a necessity, it remains a privilege that very few in this world gets to experiment.

Price and PK could come into camp as fat slobs, if they performed well, it would change nothing. Emelin came in with a big gut last year, his performance however was still good, so nothing was made of it.

I did speak of life choice for owners. Their life choice happens when they opted to go into business before hockey. Purchasing a franchise is nothing more than another business investment.

 

[ECWHSWI]

It's not because it's a job requirement that it isn't a privilege. You get to train with some of the best coaches in the world, that's a privilege. I don't care if you think it's a necessity, it remains a privilege that very few in this world gets to experiment.

Price and PK could come into camp as fat slobs, if they performed well, it would change nothing. Emelin came in with a big gut last year, his performance however was still good, so nothing was made of it.

I did speak of life choice for owners. Their life choice happens when they opted to go into business before hockey. Purchasing a franchise is nothing more than another business investment.

opinion, not a fact.

then, there's no such thing as "fair".

 

[Protest the Hero]

For those who suggest a free-market is fair. Would you not concede that a salary cap has created a more diverse and unpredictable, therefore better, league?

 

[bsl]

I'm not denying the fact that these are luxuries, but I kind of see flying first class, and having expensive rooms as giving the players the best chance at being well rested from the exhaustion of travelling. It's not like the players won't perform if they fly coach, but if the teams that pay for those luxury do it to give their team an advantage, I think you can categorize it as an expense to give your team an edge to win. I haven't done any studies on the matter but I know that flying coach for a 5hr flight (Vancouver to Montreal) is not comfortable and somewhat cramping. But alright for other shorter flights maybe it's not as big of an effect, however I just see those expenses as giving your franchise the best chance to arrive to the game in the most restful way possible.

Also lets just throw some numbers out there as rough: say it's $3000 per ticket for first class, and lets say 32 players travel, if we then consider 41 games on the road that is ~4mil in travel expenses a season.

Lets say hotels cost $500 a night, 2 players per room, for 2 nights on average per away game so that's 16 rooms for 41 games that's ~$0.6mil

So on the points you're contending it is not inconceivable that it's costing $5mil per team in travel and accommodation expenses, so that's $150mil for the whole league.

So of $1.65billion that's ~ 10% of the owners share put into the players to try and give them the best chance at competing for away games. From a team by team basis, is it not worth it to try and give your team the best chance of winning?

I mean, I think you could try and leave it up to the players to get their own way to the game, but as I mentioned in a previous post I think that would lead to more chaos then solve anything.

The whole hotel, equipment, trainer, and travel argument is absurd. All of these costs are factored into every player's salary by owners. You bloody well bet if they were not, agents would ask for 10% more to cover that too.

 

[NORiculous]

http://blogues.lapresse.ca/gagnon/2...presse_B25_A-decouvrir_219_article_ECRAN1POS1

Damphousse who was part of the negotiating team from the last lockout is baffled that ferh did not take the last deal.

He said that even if Ferh does get a little more from the league it won't compensate for everything they are losing in salary during that time.

He says a 10 year deal is a good because it will cut on salary loses.

 

[Drydenwasthebest]

Fehr is a consultant and he can be replaced at any time. Fehr's role is greatly confused by you people. I can't speak for all the players but it's clear that they feel a) insulted by the initial offers and b) feel like they're losing at every corner.

Now can you disagree with both points? Forget the supposed "realities", just how they feel.

Yes, the players felt insulted by the initial offer. Yes the players feel they are losing at every corner. I don't disagree that the players FEEL that way. However, the owners have been living under that "insulting" offer for the entirety of the last CBA and feel they are being insulted by being asked to continue to accept less than they feel they deserve. Now, can you disagree with that point?

The money has a lot to do with it. A majority of the owners don't take a LIFE risk with their team. They don't even stake too much of their own money. For the players it literally their life, and their average career isn't even that long.

Yes, the money is a very big part of it. No, the owners are not risking anything physical in owning the teams. The players do take the physical risks involved in playing hockey. They are extrememly well compensated for those risks. The owners take all of the actual financial risks, though, and they are businessmen entitled to try and earn a profit from their investment. Please keep in mind, the players are not playing for slave wages. The players are the highest paid in the world because they are, overall, supposedly the best in the world. Along with their salaries, they get a ton of other amenities throughout their careers and even afterwards. Jean Beliveau still commands $40-$50 per autograph when he comes to a signing in Montreal. I do not begrudge him that because he is the type of guy who got screwed back in the day. Today's players? They get paid far more than yesterdays ever did and still run around charging tons of money for autographs. Ovechkin charged $100 per autograph at a recent signing in Montreal. The players are able to do things to earn money after they retire. They can also get other jobs. The only "real" problem for them is that they can not normally find jobs that pay them millions.

Again, this brings up lots of issues but mostly it ha to do with where you feel the owners fall. Are they investors or are they business owners in the modern sense? Are the players the product or are they employees of these businesses? Can me or you compare our work and job to theirs?

The owners are both businessmen and investors. The players are both product and employee. Yes, you or I can compare certain aspects of our careers to those of the players.

The players trained all their lives and sacrificed a lot to get to where they are. Much more than your parents or you were willing to sacrifice (so it seems). They sacrifice a lot every year. Being on the road for so long is a major issue that most people would not be able to comply with. Having to stay in tip-top shape is a major issue that most people would be able to comply with. Being a public figure is a significantly major issue that most people wouldn't even consider.

My mother was a single white Mom raising 2 bi-racial sons through the 70's and 80's. She had to deal with racism and poverty on her own due to her husband having died at the age of 38 while her children were 8 years and 6 months old, respectively. She made far more sacrifices than I can even remember, and it cost her a shortened life because of it. She sacrificed everything for us. I also made plenty of sacrifices to get where I am. I started working 1-3 part-time jobs at the age of 15 to help pay for my and my brother's education, as well as help my Mom as best I could with finances. I worked throughout my education AND I made time to do Kung Fu on a daily basis in order to stay in physical shape. In my 20s-30s I was as fit as anyone around me even though I was doing 2 university degrees and working 1-3 part-time jobs to pay my way. I was even paid by McGill University to run an extra-curricular gymnastics program. I have never said players do not work hard to get where they are. They do. They do not necessarily work harder, or sacrifice anymore than many other people who will never see the kind of financial rewards that NHL payers ultimately get. Take it from someone who averaged 4 hours of sleep over 7 years while getting 2 University degrees, staying in fantastic, fighting shape, and working 1-3 part-time jobs to pay for what needed to be paid for. Hockey players are not the only hard working people in the world to make sacrifices to get where they are today.

This is all clear, obviously, but it seems as though most of the anti-PA folks are glossing over these realities.

I never denied that players worked hard to get where they are. I never denied that they and their families have possibly made sacrifices to help get them to where they are. I have stated that there are other people who have worked just as hard, if in a different manner, and who will never get paid the way a hockey player can. Choosing to go into hockey and making sacrifices to get there is the same as choosing to go to University and making sacrifices to get there. There are physical training differences, but hard work is not isolated to the realm of the physical.

Why do you feel the owners are owed 50% of the fans' money?

They pay everything related to hockey. They employ everyone related to hockey. They own the actual business and I feel it is only fair for an employer and an employee of a successful business that needs both the employer AND the employee equally to get the same financial compensation. I also feel that the teams are as valuable, in a marketing manner, as the actual players, if not more. I pay to watch the Habs. When Dryden was playing, Roy, Theodore, and now Price. I will watch the Habs when Price is long gone. I follow the TEAM more than the individual players, and I think there is value in that for the owners. Those are some of my reasons.

The current offer in it's current state is massive ground lost for the players - I think we'd all agree. So the players are hesitant to give to an unknown system that clearly starts off disadvantaging them from the get-go.

No, we do not all agree, which is why there are such disagreements online about this lockout. The players have been getting more than their fair share for quite some time, and that was a deserved response to when the owners were completely screwing the old players who used to have to work jobs while playing hockey and seeing owners get rich. The pendulum was in the owners favour for far too long a period of time. It eventually swung to the players' favour. It is time for that damned pendulum to do what it needs to do: come to rest in the middle. 50/50 is fair, not onerous for just the players.

Then you'd hate the current owners. The owners would've encouraged even more revenue sharing if theu were interested in parity.

I think the owners need to get better revenue sharing going, as well. I don't believe the owners are these ultra nice, benevolent and generous dudes who buy teams for the sake of giving their money away. The problem is, we are talking about competing businesses within the league. They all want to win as well as make money. It is hard to get a guy like Molson to buy into complete revenue sharing with teams that don't have the ability to bring in 30% of what his team brings to the table are the major beneficiaries and are competing against him to win. It would be like asking Crosby to share his salary with LeBlanc. We all know that better revenue sharing should occur. The how is what needs to be worked out.

Ok, from June '12 to Dec '12 the amount of the pie the players are to receive got smaller. This is not arguable.

Due to the lockout, the entire pie share got smaller for everyone, NOT just the players.

Actually if an owner wanted to skimp on stuff it would be his prerogative but his franchise would clearly not be appreciated as there are other teams which would. It's call competition. And the money comes from the fans, not the owner. Owners put very little of their money after the initial purchase - it's an investment not a continuous cost and for the most part the entire thing pays for itself and then some.

Actually, while that is true for the Habs and some others, it is not true for teams like Columbus and some others. There are plenty of teams LOSING money. That is the problem.

So what's your point with this?

My point is that the players get a lot of benefits that the owners all pay for. The costs of all of these benefits should not be dismissed and ignored as if they were some inalienable right of the players to get it. It is an expense that the owners incur. My point is that the players get a lot of perks to go along with their GUARANTEED salaries, a major perk in and of itself.

Elaborate on this. I think the owners hold the high ground because they are asking for things to ensure the profitability and longevity and continued growth of the game (as well as their own revenue. I am not blind nor stupid). I am with the owners because 50/50 is a fair numerical representation of the value both the owners and the players bring to the financial value of the league. I am with the owners on a 10 year CBA so that there is not another work stoppage in 5 years. I am with the owners on the 5 year contracts because there are some idiot owners willing to try and do anything to win, including finding loopholes to circumvent the cap in order to try and win. The only players who benefit from contracts longer than 5 years are the star players, anyway. There are not more than 20% (probably not even that many) contracts signed for longer than 5 years because there are only a few players worth that kind of investment and risk. It should not be allowed since it is a tool being used to circumvent the cap system aimed at trying to get teams closer to a competitive parity. Before this idiotic lockout, MOST people felt the long term contracts handed out were wrong and crooked anyway. Since it only benefits a few players, and is used to screw the cap system, there should be no problem getting rid of it. However, the superstars don't like that idea. My guess is that the Hamrlik's of the league would rather be playing and getting paid right now rather than fight over the less than 20% of the payers who might one day get a 6+ year contract.

Didn't the pendulum swing last lockout? Salary cap and a huge reduction in the HRR-pie seems awfully like they gave up a lot - no? Now there are record revenues overall but problems with lower-revenue teams but to make up the difference they're going for the players. Seems wrong.

It started to swing back, yes. It needs to fall the final distance: 50/50. The owners' franchises bring as much value to the league as the players do. That is where it lies. Both the teams and the players are necessary. As such, both should get to enjoy a fair 50% split of the HRR pie.

I refrained from insulting you, let's see if we can come to a real discussion. But if you don't address ALL my questions you'll be dismissed.

Sorry, it took a bit longer to get to your post than I intended. Thank you for refraining from insults. Notice I never insult anyone unless they take shots (usually more than one) at me. I love to debate and have fun discussions/arguments with people in all walks of life about many things. I hope I have answered your questions sincerely enough to not be dismissed by you in future discussions.

I also apologize to all of the other HFBoards people who might be suffering through my long winded reply.

 

[NORiculous]

For those who suggest a free-market is fair. Would you not concede that a salary cap has created a more diverse and unpredictable, therefore better, league?

The cap system and a free market are two things. The cap system is MUCH better for the league as a whole.

People who think we are in a free market have no idea. I could give a ton of examples why we are not in a free market but I will give only 2.

1. The car industry being "saved".
2. Any business that has had access to public funds because 1. it is local. (which is protectionism)


Now I am sure that some will try to twist these facts into a free market system and this is why I only posted 2 examples because I don't want to open this kind of debate.

Back to the NHL.

The NHL is not totally a free market as it has rules. All the talk about desertification underlines the fact that it is not a free market.

I guess some people read something in a book and think the real world works the same.

Now, the reason the NHL is not a free market is because it is BETTER for the NHL that way. If the teams don't fight each other (or do fight each other but under certain rules, it benefits all the teams) You can ask the 7 oil refineries if they know something about that.

I will give you an example.

Lets say the KHL becomes profitable in the next 25 years. Lets also say that in the next 25 years, the planes will cross the ocean in 2 hours. At that point, it will become more profitable for the NHL and the KHL to work together, even maybe to merge, then to fight each other.

So currently, yes the league is better as a whole since the cap and everyone in the league has benefited. This next CBA will even the bumbs out and it will enable the NHL to reach, yet again, some new heights.

 

[Drydenwasthebest]

That may be, if so, then my argument still stands in general (though not in the specifics) as it would apply quite well to most of the players in the NHL in American cities without universal health care.

However,

My father passed away from prostate cancer in the Quebec health care system 11 months ago. I saw first-hand that different people get different levels of treatment. Some got way more attention from the doctors and nurses, better rooms, etc. The media and the politicians say that we are a compassionate society where everybody gets treated equally, but that is not what I witnessed. I saw strong variations in treatment quality. There's also a lot of things you can pay extra for, we paid for some and other people paid for more. If you have an assistant with you you get better care.

There's a lot more to cancer treatment than just the waiting time to use the machines. There's also all the treatment from complications, such as infections, etc. The frequency and detail of visits from nutritionists. The speed with which medications are approved. Et cetera.

I really doubt Koivu was treated as horribly as my father was.

Sorry for your loss. I can sympathize. With my Mother's passing I also saw how people with money get far better care than those without. Koivu was treated in a far superior manner than the majority of people in hospitals in this Province are. Koivu didn't wait at all to get treatment and was givien the best care that could be given. The same is NOT true of a fellow teacher I know who is finally going through chemo.

DAChampion and I are not the only people to see family members suffer under the medicare system we have in Quebec while superstars get better treatment. It is a reality, unfortunately.

 

[uiCk]

100% incorrect. My argument is about what is fair between the owners who pay for everything related to hockey, and the players who people want to watch play. Both sides need the other, more or less, equally. People pay to see great players in their favoured teams' jerseys, and the owners pay everything necessary to bring in those players and make the experience at the arena as good as possible.

By the way, the players' worth is not "capped" beyond what the NHL makes. There is a salary cap in place, but as long as revenues grow, so do salaries. Significantly. Now, the owners DO pay to "sell" their team, and certain teams are far more marketable than others, no matter which players are on the team (Leafs and Habs, for example). So, owners are quite necessary to the entire process. As are the players. Ultimately, though, the owners are MORE necessary. In any case, giving both sides a 50/50 split is fair since both sides are necessary for the league to grow and develop.

The first part, i am in agreement, i think most are. But bolded part is what brings back to my original statement, that your arguments are based on that "more necessary"; your perception of players worth, validating my original statement yourself.

While you see owners as a necessity, i see them as opportunists. People in general, who have little interest in 'developing' the product, and more in 'developing' their wallet. Not that they are not "necessary", but that they bring no developing factors, just rehashing what other more successful leagues(sports)/teams do. And they lag behind other leagues(sports), in terms of analytical employment. Wether it's hockey-related, or marketing-related. The real necessities in the ownership part, is having good accountants, good strategists, good etc. And the supply of those is quite high, comparatively to "good" hockey players.

Whats most necessary for the NHL, is to keep a monopoly on it's player pool. Once NHL enters a competitive market with other leagues, if that's ever going to happen, you will see how "necessary" owners are compared to players and how lucky owners were in our days to be able to keep 99% of high end talent in it's league and why they paid the prices they paid to keep the players and the PA functional.

 

[HCH]

What's "fair" is the players getting 76% of HRR, that's what they got in a free market system.

You are assuming, of course, that the players would have continued to receive 76% of HRR and while that may be true, who knows what the league would look like today if they continued to receive that amount. It might have been 24 team leage maybe even 18 teams... or it could have been 36 teams.

What we do know is that under the recently expired CBA revenues have soared and so has total player compensation. Again I ask, would that same growth have taken place if 76% of HRR was paid out in players salary. Unfortunately there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

I can't believe that players are actually selectively remembering that they took a roll back but consistently fail to acknowledg that the last CBA was very, very good to them. It was so good that they voted to extend it while at the same time complaining about how they were screwed.

The players could also find that a free market system works for some of them but works against a great many more of them. And in a true free market system, guaranteed contracts could disappear. I don't think the NHLPA wants to go down that road.

 

[Kriss E]

opinion, not a fact.

then, there's no such thing as "fair".

I don't know anybody that goes into a Fitness related field and gets to be surrounded by the best trainers that wouldn't think of it as a privilege. Being from that field, I can relate.
You can choose to be stubborn and yet again focus on a minor detail, but there's very little point to it.

Don't quite understand your fair comment.

 

[CN_paladin]

The absolute free-market economy is loads of **** especially with all the Wall Street BS we've been dealing with for decades.

Imposing further regulation on the NHL's system will only improve the overall health and future of the league.

 

[DAChampion]

For those who suggest a free-market is fair. Would you not concede that a salary cap has created a more diverse and unpredictable, therefore better, league?

The fairness point brought is largely a response to those who say that players getting more than 50% is unfair because people various lines of work don't get 50%.

I like the salary cap as an investment into a better game. However, the players have already made the sacrifice going from 76% to 57% and now even 50% of revenue. Now it's the owners' turn, they should accept the kind of revenue sharing necessary to aggressively expand the game.

They're aggressively trying to grow the game from a regional game into a national game, that's a great idea, maybe they should cover some of the investment costs.

The whole hotel, equipment, trainer, and travel argument is absurd. All of these costs are factored into every player's salary by owners. You bloody well bet if they were not, agents would ask for 10% more to cover that too.

The fact players and in general all employees in every industry do in fact pay for for part of their benefits is counter-intuitive economics.

You shouldn't expect to get far in explaining it. They'll keep saying "no, owners pay for it".

He says a 10 year deal is a good because it will cut on salary loses.

The league has not offered a 10 year deal. If both sides can cancel it after 8 years, then it's an 8-year deal.

The fact people are calling it a 10-year deal shows how successful the league is at promoting its propaganda.

I don't know anybody that goes into a Fitness related field and gets to be surrounded by the best trainers that wouldn't think of it as a privilege. Being from that field, I can relate.
You can choose to be stubborn and yet again focus on a minor detail, but there's very little point to it.

Don't quite understand your fair comment.

I mean surely you must feel inconsistent that you're constantly trying to argue down what financial benefits the players should feel entitled to with arguments that can apply as well to the owners.

It's also a privilege and a life choice to own a professional sports team.

- You get to feel like a winner if your team does the winning. Whereas players have to contribute their minds and bodies to winning, owners contribute their money.

They do engrave the owners' name on the Stanley Cup. I think Jeremy Jacobs actually put his wife's name on the Cup.

Why do you think Philadelphia offered 110 million to Shea Weber? Because it will increase playoff revenue? Maybe? Or Maybe because the owner wants to win a cup?

What do you think of European soccer teams paying 50 million dollars just to have the rights to players?

And have you ever seen Marc Cuban at a Dallas Mavericks game?

One can legitimately argue that owning a team is an expensive hobby, like running a philanthropic organization, and not an "investment".

- Owners make a lot of connections easy. Think of all the business deals the owners end up doing with each other. Closer to home. think of how Geoff Molson's social capital must have skyrocketed among Quebec's elites. Being a billionaire is all about having connections, I'm sure they get more mileage out of that than out of the massive profits and increased franchise valuations their teams bring in.

 

[Kriss E]

The fairness point brought is largely a response to those who say that players getting more than 50% is unfair because people various lines of work don't get 50%.

I like the salary cap as an investment into a better game. However, the players have already made the sacrifice going from 76% to 57% and now even 50% of revenue. Now it's the owners' turn, they should accept the kind of revenue sharing necessary to aggressively expand the game.

They're aggressively trying to grow the game from a regional game into a national game, that's a great idea, maybe they should cover some of the investment costs.

Actually, what was it, 50% of the players from the last lockout are retired? So, at least half of them did not sacrifice a penny. They weren't even present.
Obviously, you conveniently leave the fact they made all that cash back +.

The fact players and in general all employees in every industry do in fact pay for for part of their benefits is counter-intuitive economics.

You shouldn't expect to get far in explaining it. They'll keep saying "no, owners pay for it".

Actually that's your own assumption. Nobody says x player would get extra cash if the owner didn't pay for traveling costs and what not. You also do not know if he were to have cash, then it would equate the amount of money spent on a deal.
No matter how logical you want to debate it to be, it remains an assumption.
The only fact you have is that the owners are the ones paying the tabs for that stuff.

The league has not offered a 10 year deal. If both sides can cancel it after 8 years, then it's an 8-year deal.

The fact people are calling it a 10-year deal shows how successful the league is at promoting its propaganda.

Most people have called it 8+2.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I don't know anybody that goes into a Fitness related field and gets to be surrounded by the best trainers that wouldn't think of it as a privilege. Being from that field, I can relate.
You can choose to be stubborn and yet again focus on a minor detail, but there's very little point to it.

Don't quite understand your fair comment.

pretty much everyone get the difference, since you dont I'll give you an example. You love riding your bike, you need a new one as the old one is broken, you're privileged enough to (see, privileged) have all the money needed to call lets say Cannendale corp directly to have a bike made just for you, custom. THAT is a privilege... but... wether you're rich or poor, if you're to race (on bike) for a living, you will need a very good bike, the ones at La Baie wont be enough, even as a beginner in that field you will NEED a very good bike. Riding a cheap ass bike is not an option, you'll make one race - finish last - quit that racing dream of yours. You may think it's a privilege but it's not, it's an investment. There's a reason lots of those guys get summer training programs (from the team training staff or from personnal trainer)...



obviously.

 

[DAChampion]

A rich guy in my high school, his father bought a lot of advertisements with the Montreal Expos, and then one day ... Vladimir Guerrero showed up at his barmitzvah and signed a lot of autographs.

Both owners (in this case, ad buyers) and players get a lot of benefits from their life choices.

Actually, what was it, 50% of the players from the last lockout are retired? So, at least half of them did not sacrifice a penny. They weren't even present.
Obviously, you conveniently leave the fact they made all that cash back +.

Which is it?

Did the players retire and get nothing? Or did they make back all their money "+"?

Actually that's your own assumption. Nobody says x player would get extra cash if the owner didn't pay for traveling costs and what not. You also do not know if he were to have cash, then it would equate the amount of money spent on a deal.
No matter how logical you want to debate it to be, it remains an assumption.
The only fact you have is that the owners are the ones paying the tabs for that stuff.

It's counter-intuitive economics, but yes, players do pay for some of their benefits, as do all employees everywhere in general.

Most people have called it 8+2.

It's an 8-year deal.

 

[Kriss E]

I mean surely you must feel inconsistent that you're constantly trying to argue down what financial benefits the players should feel entitled to with arguments that can apply as well to the owners.

It's also a privilege and a life choice to own a professional sports team.

- You get to feel like a winner if your team does the winning. Whereas players have to contribute their minds and bodies to winning, owners contribute their money.

They do engrave the owners' name on the Stanley Cup. I think Jeremy Jacobs actually put his wife's name on the Cup.

Why do you think Philadelphia offered 110 million to Shea Weber? Because it will increase playoff revenue? Maybe? Or Maybe because the owner wants to win a cup?

What do you think of European soccer teams paying 50 million dollars just to have the rights to players?

And have you ever seen Marc Cuban at a Dallas Mavericks game?

One can legitimately argue that owning a team is an expensive hobby, like running a philanthropic organization, and not an "investment".

- Owners make a lot of connections easy. Think of all the business deals the owners end up doing with each other. Closer to home. think of how Geoff Molson's social capital must have skyrocketed among Quebec's elites. Being a billionaire is all about having connections, I'm sure they get more mileage out of that than out of the massive profits and increased franchise valuations their teams bring in.

I'm not arguing over what is a financial benefit. I've said it many times before, anybody clearly siding one way is bias. You've made it clear that you're fully on the players side. To the point where you actually think some people are (and accused me of it as well) are envious and jealous of the earnings of the players, which is quite moronic because if envy over cash was truly happening, I'd be envious of the owners's bank accounts, not the players. But, that completely escaped your mind.

In any event, I posted somebody for saying constantly being in great shape is something most people can't do, as if it is a drag. I said it's more of a privilege than anything else. Simple, and clear.
Someone else responded in saying it's a benefit. I said fine, still remains a privilege.

Never said owning a team isn't a privilege. It is one. What's your point?


You seem to have a very hard time understanding the ''life choice'' idea. It was first brought up when discussing young kids making a career choice. I called it a life choice, not a risk, because everybody goes through that. Owners go through that whenever they opt to go into business, kids make one when they decide to pursue their dreams. Other kids go through it when they choose to become engineers, teachers, doctors, wtv...
You like to argue that eating an apple instead of a banana in the morning is a life choice. You completely miss the point and I see no use in trying to explain it over again.


As for your idea that owning a team is more of a hobby than an investment, I disagree. It is purely a business move. No owner would purchase a team if it was a bad investment. None.
Btw, ya Philly offered Weber a contract because they want to win. Do I really have to explain to you what winning does to a team financially?

 

[Kriss E]

Which is it?

Did the players retire and get nothing? Or did they make back all their money "+"?

Some retired over the years and still made millions, others got more +.

It's an 8-year deal.

Yes, with a 2 year option. Excluding it isn't better than including it.

You wanna be factual, then don't leave anything out.
8+2.

 

[DAChampion]

Last point for now:

Let's stop calling the players physical privileges a "benefit".

If a genie popped out of bottle, and told me he could eliminate half my body fat, give me an additional 10 lbs of muscle, make me more flexible, at the expense of a severe concussion, I would say "no thank you, get the hell away from me please".

Professional athletes have all sorts of severe physiological and neurological damages throughout the latter half of their lives -- this is well-documented. Is that package deal a benefit once you include subsidized trainers? No.

 

[ECWHSWI]

In any event, I posted somebody for saying constantly being in great shape is something most people can't do, as if it is a drag. I said it's more of a privilege than anything else. Simple, and clear.
Someone else responded in saying it's a benefit. I said fine, still remains a privilege.

wich is false.

 

[Drydenwasthebest]

Last point for now:

Let's stop calling the players physical privileges a "benefit".

If a genie popped out of bottle, and told me he could eliminate half my body fat, give me an additional 10 lbs of muscle, make me more flexible, at the expense of a severe concussion, I would say "no thank you, get the hell away from me please".

Professional athletes have all sorts of severe physiological and neurological damages throughout the latter half of their lives -- this is well-documented. Is that package deal a benefit once you include subsidized trainers? No.

Great, YOU would tell the genie "no". Obviously, there are plenty of people who would tell that Genie "yes". We know this because of the people who choose to take those physical risks in order to get a chance at the kind of money and lifestyle that the players who make the NHL get to live. Heck, I won't even try to include the millions of people who take those same risks regularly just to play the game for fun without any hope of any kind of financial compensation.

By the way, your analogy is quite incomplete and disingenuous. You should have written:

If a genie popped out of a bottle, and told me he could eliminate half my body fat, give me an additional 10 lbs of muscle, make me more flexible, and get me a career where I will make millions of dollars, live a terrific lifestyle where I am famous and get all of my amenities paid for, all the while playing a game I love and would play for free (actually paying for the ice time needed to play) at the expense of a severe concussion (at least one of which I have suffered while playing for fun), I would say "xxx".

Come on, at least make the comparison fair.

I have to say, if I had the talent to play in the NHL or the NFL, even knowing all I do about the dangers and risks associated with it, I would do it in a heartbeat. I already play sports for the sheer love of the game right now and have suffered multiple injuries throughout my lifetime having done so. To be able to play for one of the best teams in the world, hopefully my favourite team, and to reap in millions while doing it would be the best bonus I could ever imagine.

Finally: people take health risks with their careers all the time. Professional athletes are not the only ones who do so. They are the only ones who get wildly financially compensated for it, though.

 

[Drydenwasthebest]

Oh, I forgot to mention:

an 8 year deal with an OPTION for 2 years is still an 8+2 deal. The fact that either side can annul the last two years does not mean it can not become a 10 year deal. IF both sides are happy with where the deal is going, and would rather have it extended than risk another labour stoppage, it will be extended. Since the players had the right to extend the last CBA (which they elected to do...gee, I wonder why...) then I se no problem with the owners having the same, equal right. As such, it is still an 8+2 year contract offer. It is neither an 8 year, nor a 10 year contract. It is a very easy to understand 8+2. Saying anything else is being disingenuous. Nobody knows if it will be extended or not.

 

[DAChampion]

Oh, I forgot to mention:

an 8 year deal with an OPTION for 2 years is still an 8+2 deal. The fact that either side can annul the last two years does not mean it can not become a 10 year deal. IF both sides are happy with where the deal is going, and would rather have it extended than risk another labour stoppage, it will be extended. Since the players had the right to extend the last CBA (which they elected to do...gee, I wonder why...) then I se no problem with the owners having the same, equal right. As such, it is still an 8+2 year contract offer. It is neither an 8 year, nor a 10 year contract. It is a very easy to understand 8+2. Saying anything else is being disingenuous. Nobody knows if it will be extended or not.

If both sides can cancel it then it is like any deal.

Technically, the last CBA is for "infinite years", since it can just be renewed. They had the option of both saying "let's continue".

You always have the option of jointly agreeing on a renewal, even if it's not written down.

 

[DAChampion]

Great, YOU would tell the genie "no". Obviously, there are plenty of people who would tell that Genie "yes". We know this because of the people who choose to take those physical risks in order to get a chance at the kind of money and lifestyle that the players who make the NHL get to live. Heck, I won't even try to include the millions of people who take those same risks regularly just to play the game for fun without any hope of any kind of financial compensation.

By the way, your analogy is quite incomplete and disingenuous. You should have written:

If a genie popped out of a bottle, and told me he could eliminate half my body fat, give me an additional 10 lbs of muscle, make me more flexible, and get me a career where I will make millions of dollars, live a terrific lifestyle where I am famous and get all of my amenities paid for, all the while playing a game I love and would play for free (actually paying for the ice time needed to play) at the expense of a severe concussion (at least one of which I have suffered while playing for fun), I would say "xxx".

Come on, at least make the comparison fair.

I have to say, if I had the talent to play in the NHL or the NFL, even knowing all I do about the dangers and risks associated with it, I would do it in a heartbeat. I already play sports for the sheer love of the game right now and have suffered multiple injuries throughout my lifetime having done so. To be able to play for one of the best teams in the world, hopefully my favourite team, and to reap in millions while doing it would be the best bonus I could ever imagine.

Finally: people take health risks with their careers all the time. Professional athletes are not the only ones who do so. They are the only ones who get wildly financially compensated for it, though.

I know that a lot of people take health risks. However it is brought up because Kriss E was arguing players are blessed to have the opportunity of amazing health. I merely point out that he is completely wrong, as players do not, on the whole, benefit from amazing health. It's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. The fact other lines of work have even worse problems is besides the point.

Saying that professional athletes have great health as a job benefit is equivalent to saying drug-addicted and bony catwalk models benefit from having sexy bodies. It is a flawed argument on multiple levels.

For me, the argument that players are the beneficiaries of amazing health is right up there (or should I say down there) with the argument that players take zero risks, that players are responsible for the lockout, or that Donald Fehr is the reason the Expos left Montreal.