Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Seems pretty clear NHL and NHLPA aren't talking same language.

Players have given everything in regards to the previous CBA.

However, owners have surpassed what is considered industry standard in NA major sports.

Owners deem that other leagues are the basis and NHLPA thinks old CBA is the basis. I personally see other leagues as the basis and as such I'm on owners side but if you look at previous CBA its fairly obvious why someone would be on NHLPA's side.

And that's illogical. It's not because its a pro sports league that it means it should be ran the same way. NBA has half the players than the NHL does, but players take less health risks directly related to their sport, while NFL players more than double the number of NHL players and take a lot more health risks. They don't catter to the same crowds, don't have the same TV deals, don't have similar rules. Their only similarity is that they are pro sports league managed for the sake of making money. I understand the whole point about industry standards, yet that wasn't what the NHL was going for 8 years ago. They say that now, because it fits their agenda, an excuse to reduce costs by cutting player salary rather than getting their **** together. If industry standards were so important, why didn't they try to implant a luxury tax... oh wait, the NBA doesn't have one, but the MLB does. Why? Because they are different sports with different needs when it comes to management of both the sport and the business side.

If the owners of the company I work for suddenly decided to negotiate on the basis of industry standards to reduce costs, yet are making tons of profit, and our own standards are far apart from the industry, I would refuse to negotiate on that basis, because what is already established, the concessions and litigation in prior negotiations and CBA takes much more precedence. In any negotiation, you have to give and get, you don't just deny what was done previously so that you can only 'get' and not give, and that's why the NHL is using the industry standards excuse, because they know full well that on the basis of prior negotiations, their demands are that they still 'get' and not 'give' anything away. Sure they had a lot of ground to catch up to, since prior to 2005, it was the players who 'got' most of the concessions, and that's why many people like me thought that they should be able to hold on to the status quo this time around while giving a little and getting a little in return in terms of concession. But instead of seeing this as an opportunity to offer some stability and actually strengthen the 'partnership' relationship they implanted, the owners have used it as yet another power struggle as they saw a chance to make the players pay for their own shortcomings in management, whether on the basis of single teams or league-wide management. They don't actually need the players to take this pay cut to make things work. And their dialogue is contradictory as they want equity to help cost reduction, yet they refuse to upgrade equity in revenue sharing among themselves. Refuse to deal with league wide management problems they've created themselves by implanting teams where there shouldn't be any. In all 3 other sports league, when a market dwindles, it takes a lot less time for that franchise to move on to another city, that's an industry standard which is a necessity for viability, yet the NHL stubbornly holds on to markets that are not suited to their needs. Industry standards fit only when it fits their agenda.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Nobody forces those kids to quite school.

Aren't Canadian junior teams pretty hostile to kids getting their education?

I think it's notable Darche never played junior at all while Leblanc only played one year of junior in the US before going to Harvard. Both come from privileged backgrounds too, with parents who went to university.

Ryan from Medicine Hat whose parents work in a factory is not going to have that kind of advice about getting your education.

Bottom line is the owners took the same financial risks as the players did when they grew up and pursued their careers.

I'm sorry but nobody can seriously believe that regarding Geoff Molson and James Dolan.

 

[Forsead]

Aren't Canadian junior teams pretty hostile to kids getting their education?

I think it's notable Darche never played junior at all while Leblanc only played one year of junior in the US before going to Harvard. Both come from privileged backgrounds too, with parents who went to university.

Ryan from Medicine Hat whose parents work in a factory is not going to have that kind of advice about getting your education.



I'm sorry but nobody can seriously believe that regarding Geoff Molson and James Dolan.

Well there is alot of chance that Hockey or not he wouldn't go to university, education is a ''cultural'' thing, so the point still doesn't stand.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Well there is alot of chance that Hockey or not he wouldn't go to university, education is a ''cultural'' thing, so the point still doesn't stand.

So basically because Canada does **** for bright working-class students it's OK that hockey coaches compound the cycle?

That's a terrible, absurd solution.

 

[Kriss E]

Aren't Canadian junior teams pretty hostile to kids getting their education?

I think it's notable Darche never played junior at all while Leblanc only played one year of junior in the US before going to Harvard. Both come from privileged backgrounds too, with parents who went to university.

Ryan from Medicine Hat whose parents work in a factory is not going to have that kind of advice about getting your education.

Well that's a problem with their entourage. But if a kid from the ghetto, who's got absolutely nothing with crackhead parents, friends in gangs, jail or dying, can still make it out, then so can Ryan with factory worker parents.

Certainly helps when your parents can pay for your education and direct you properly, but as I said, that's a whole other issue.

I'm sorry but nobody can seriously believe that regarding Geoff Molson and James Dolan.

Sure, but do you have half a billion dollar to invest?

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

It's absurd of talking about the owners taking all the financial risks, while ignoring that players take all the health risks.

I think most people here regard human life as more sacred and important than profits or am I too old-fashioned?

It's not Geoff Molson who almost got his head chopped off on the stanchion at the BC. With the rising number of concussions, nobody can say that players don't take a risk of some sort.

And while we're at it, Wang lost more money than most other owners, yet both his financial and physiological health seem in great shape. NHL owners buy teams because they have the leeway to buy them.

 

[Forsead]

So basically because Canada does **** for bright working-class students it's OK that hockey coaches compound the cycle?

That's a terrible, absurd solution.

Canada does alot for bright working-class student. Education is a mentality, if you didn't got the importance of it by your parents, well there is alot of chances you won't be interested in studying it, that's what I tried to say. I'm also skeptical about your statement about the coaches, like I said in a previous thread, the Québec Remparts IIRC force their players to still be studying in their respective level of education while playing with the team, I'm sure it only one exemple out of many. Then again a junior career last till you're 21 years old btw, you can study after that age.

 

[Drydenwasthebest]

Owners assume a financial risk for sure. There's little doubt about that.

Players though definitely assume a financial risk when becoming a player. No they don't foot the bill for expenses but you can't tell me that there's no risk in foregoing school to pursue their dream. Most of these guys never make it and it's damn near impossible just to become a 4th liner. Absolutely there's a financial risk there, it's just a different kind of risk that's all.

Everyone who chooses a career path they may fail to achieve takes that same risk. If I choose to go to university to become a lawyer and don't succeed, I am in the same boat as the guy who tried to reach the NHL and failed. The players do not take any "special" or extra risk in their choice than many other people. The rewards for that choice, though, far exceed what most people can hope for.

A big reason that players take that risk is because of the pay. It's because they want a career playing hockey and the fans aren't coming to watch Ted Leonsis go one on one with Geoff Molson. They are the talent and should be paid handsomely for what they bring in.

Yes they should. Guess what? Even at 50% of HRR they will be handsomely paid. We are not talking about minimum wages, here.

It's just a different kind of risk. Certainly it's a financial risk though. These guys are betting their future on it and most of the time it doesn't pay off. Those that do make it deserve to be rewarded for it because they're the guys the fans pay to see.

Again, they choose to take the same kind of risks as anyone else pursuing a dream. Those who make the NHL are extremely well paid. Guess what? Even those who don't make the NHL can get well paid in other leagues. There are lots of leagues that pay wages that are comparable to what other people not playing hockey make.

Bottom line: There's a big pie and there should be enough to go around. The way they're all fiddling over the details is a joke in my opinion.

I am 100% in agreement with your "bottom line".

Your more or less confusing your terminology. Every choice contains a risk. Your perception of what the risk or the choice is, does not negate the risks involved. When someone views something as a "passion", he's basically saying that the Benefits of making that specific choice, potentially outweighs the risks, which might be completely different from person to person. In the end, there is a choice, and a risk involved with that choice.
In this case, pursing a career in hockey, can be seen as a "passion", but if you don't make it, the "risk" involved in that choice was that you spent X amount of time doing that "passion" while loosing out advancing in, lets say, your financial career. Wether you lost 1 year, that could result in your total wealth to have lost 50k, or lost more years.
Ones perception over a certain "choice" does not negate the risks involved.

As I pointed out in another post, most of us assume the same risk of failing at our chosen profession, our "passion", if you will. Again, if someone chooses to go to university to become a doctor, and fails to succeed at that "passion", he will have lost as much or more time as a hockey player. The point being that the players do not take anymore exceptional risk than many other high end careers that require sacrifice, dedication, and determination to achieve.

the implied number for hockey players, is from 1993 study, and at that time, life expectancy for males in Canada was around 75. 73 in those times is not that off.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health26-eng.htm

Thank you for providing clarification and honesty to this "point".

 

[Frozenice]

If any owner is taking a substantial risk by owning a hockey team they aren't very bright. These kind of investments should be in the luxurious perks part of their portfolio, like a condo in the tropics or a 1935 Duesenburg and not a core part of their investments.

 

[Protest the Hero]

People are taking the argument from "players should take these rather minor concessions to return to hockey, because in the end, they're still getting paid a lot of money" to "players deserve less because they're already richer than us".

Nobody is saying the latter, quit inventing arguments, or taking sentences out of context.

 

[Kriss E]

People are taking the argument from "players should take these rather minor concessions to return to hockey, because in the end, they're still getting paid a lot of money" to "players deserve less because they're already richer than us".

Nobody is saying the latter, quit inventing arguments, or taking sentences out of context.

That's what happens when people reach for arguments.

 

[DAChampion]

To say that players can get an education while pursuing their hockey dreams is totally incorrect.

I mean, have any of you people saying this actually been through university recently or is it just a distant haze from 20 years ago?

You get out of university what you put in. If you have a "part-time job" taking 60 hours a week then you're not going to get as good an education. You're not understanding the courses as well, you probably forget everything the day after the final, and you'll be getting C's and B's at best, unless you're taking easy courses.

My favorite example is former Habs prospect David Fischer. When he was at the University of Minnesota, he was majoring in "communications studies". Yeah, he was getting an education while pursuing hockey lol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In his case he took a financial risk and it failed.

The biggest joke in this matter is NCAA football. The players produce billions of dollars for an industry bigger than the NFL (yes, college football is bigger than the NFL), and they got nothing in return but meaningless scholarships. Most of them don't even complete their degrees. It's a huge scam of an industry, I'm happy that pro hockey is nowhere near that.

 

[NORiculous]

If any owner is taking a substantial risk by owning a hockey team they aren't very bright. These kind of investments should be in the luxurious perks part of their portfolio, like a condo in the tropics or a 1935 Duesenburg and not a core part of their investments.

Should? Probably right my friend... But that is EXPLICITLY what this CBA wants to correct.

 

[DAChampion]

As I pointed out in another post, most of us assume the same risk of failing at our chosen profession, our "passion", if you will. Again, if someone chooses to go to university to become a doctor, and fails to succeed at that "passion", he will have lost as much or more time as a hockey player. The point being that the players do not take anymore exceptional risk than many other high end careers that require sacrifice, dedication, and determination to achieve.

Exactly.

Everybody's life choices are risky.

We shouldn't put the choices of billionaires on some higher level deserving of protection, even though that's what the governments both sides of the border and the Atlantic on tells us that this must be so.

If any owner is taking a substantial risk by owning a hockey team they aren't very bright. These kind of investments should be in the luxurious perks part of their portfolio, like a condo in the tropics or a 1935 Duesenburg and not a core part of their investments.

I disagree, owning a hockey team is like any other investment.

Whether a billionaire wants to own a sports team, run a private equity fund, buy some casinos, go into venture capital, buy some real estate, etc is a life choice that he must make.

Right now, the median team, not including the arena, is worth 220 million, a number that rises by 13%/year.

If the players go from 57% to 50%, the number will rise to ~300 million in one brief jump.

Note that it's a self-sustaining cycle. In the same way that owners who buy teams at 220 million can complain of players making 57%, owners who buy teams at 300 million can complain about players making 50%.

 

[Protest the Hero]

Exactly.

Everybody's life choices are risky.

We shouldn't put the choices of billionaires on some higher level deserving of protection, even though that's what the governments both sides of the border and the Atlantic on tells us that this must be so.

That's not the point, it's not about who deserves it more.

The players need to take concessions to continue playing hockey, that's the reality. I'm okay with that so long as the concessions aren't ridiculous, which they aren't, not yet, and it's not worth losing a season over just to get to this point again when it starts up.

The proposals have gotten better, good for them, but at some point they'll stop getting better, and they'll lose an entire season. If every NHL player voted on the latest proposal I really believe we'd have training camp right now.

 

[ECWHSWI]

That's not at all what was being discussed.
What was said was owners take the financial risk related to the cost of operating a NhL team. Simple, obvious, and clear.
But for some reason, the ones that have an obvious bias against owners, even that is difficult to admit.
I said, numerous times, owners take the financial risk, players take health risk. You can argue there's a corrolation, however, even in case of a career ending injury, they get every penny their contract guarantees them. So risk is minimal and they had no risk in losing any cash.

So, in order to reach, some decided to compare the decision of a young kid to pursue a career to the financial risk an owner takes running a multimillion dollar business. Not sure why anybody would need explaining as to why this is a ridiculous statement, but still some explained that the choice a kid makes to become a hockey player is no different than the risk the owner takes when he chooses to study in whatever field they go into, or the choice one makes to go into engineer or wtv.
It has absolutely nothing to do with an owner investing over 100M in a business and hoping to generate profit. Nothing. Anybody that still isn't seeing this clearly shouldn't be discussing much.

it isnt just a "life choice" for thwe players anymore ? really...


and, dont talk about bias, cause as much as you could pretent not to have any (or very little), yours is obvious to anone with half a brain.

Well that's a problem with their entourage. But if a kid from the ghetto, who's got absolutely nothing with crackhead parents, friends in gangs, jail or dying, can still make it out, then so can Ryan with factory worker parents.

Certainly helps when your parents can pay for your education and direct you properly, but as I said, that's a whole other issue.


Sure, but do you have half a billion dollar to invest?

so, what you're saying is, guys like Molson and Dolan are privileged. Hmmmm...

 

[Kriss E]

To say that players can get an education while pursuing their hockey dreams is totally incorrect.

I mean, have any of you people saying this actually been through university recently or is it just a distant haze from 20 years ago?

You get out of university what you put in. If you have a "part-time job" taking 60 hours a week then you're not going to get as good an education. You're not understanding the courses as well, you probably forget everything the day after the final, and you'll be getting C's and B's at best, unless you're taking easy courses.

My favorite example is former Habs prospect David Fischer. When he was at the University of Minnesota, he was majoring in "communications studies". Yeah, he was getting an education while pursuing hockey lol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In his case he took a financial risk and it failed.

The biggest joke in this matter is NCAA football. The players produce billions of dollars for an industry bigger than the NFL (yes, college football is bigger than the NFL), and they got nothing in return but meaningless scholarships. Most of them don't even complete their degrees. It's a huge scam of an industry, I'm happy that pro hockey is nowhere near that.

You seem to think people have this short window of opportunity to get a higher level of education, and that if they choose to try out hockey but fail, they are screwed.
My friend worked at bombardier full time while studying to become an engineer. He also took care of all his house choires and had his social life. He graduated and is doing extremely well.
How is that any different than someone training for hockey?

And what's funny about David Fischer's major? The guy can study in wtv he wants, I don't see what's funny.

But the point that you keep ignoring is that education is always available!

 

[ECWHSWI]

That's not the point, it's not about who deserves it more.

The players need to take concessions to continue playing hockey, that's the reality. I'm okay with that so long as the concessions aren't ridiculous, which they aren't, not yet, and it's not worth losing a season over just to get to this point again when it starts up.

The proposals have gotten better, good for them, but at some point they'll stop getting better, and they'll lose an entire season. If every NHL player voted on the latest proposal I really believe we'd have training camp right now.

Owners wanted 50/50, players agree to that, they may have to fine tune the offer as they disagree on how to reach it and all, but players are willing to get to 50 / 50. That's a major concession.

losing hundreds of millions in profits for the Habs, Leafs, Flyers, Bruins, NYR and a few others as well as "killing" franchises such as Columbus or Phoenix for example, just so you can reach your 50/50 in 3 years instead of 4 (for example), really ? how many millions owers are willing to lose to gain ONE (maybe two?) year of 50/50 ?

Owners wanted shorter contracts, players agree to that as well, again they may not agree on the terms, but they do agree with the main idea. That's another concession, and a major one too.

So, again, some teams are willing to lose a year of profits so they have max contract at 5 years instead of, let's say, 7 years ? really ?

and that's all this lockout is about, anything else is minor details... even though, if you compare the last CBA to what the owners are asking from the players to sign a new CBA, arent making any concessions, none.

 

[Kriss E]

it isnt just a "life choice" for thwe players anymore ? really...


and, dont talk about bias, cause as much as you could pretent not to have any (or very little), yours is obvious to anone with half a brain.

so, what you're saying is, guys like Molson and Dolan are privileged. Hmmmm...

You'd need the other half of your brain, that would help you realize I don't give two craps about how much money anybody makes.
I've been holding the same speech from the get go.

Never said the owners didn't have privileges. Do you even remember how the conversation started??
All I said was having the best fitness coaches in the world is what I consider a privilege. That's it that's all. Not sure what the big revelation is here.

 

[ECWHSWI]

You seem to think people have this short window of opportunity to get a higher level of education, and that if they choose to try out hockey but fail, they are screwed.
My friend worked at bombardier full time while studying to become an engineer. He also took care of all his house choires and had his social life. He graduated and is doing extremely well.
How is that any different than someone training for hockey?

And what's funny about David Fischer's major? The guy can study in wtv he wants, I don't see what's funny.

But the point that you keep ignoring is that education is always available!

how many of your friends did something similar ?

 

[Kriss E]

how many of your friends did something similar ?

Plenty. You think everybody gets to go to university without having to generate an income?

But that is irrelevant, point is its doable.

 

[DAChampion]

You seem to think people have this short window of opportunity to get a higher level of education, and that if they choose to try out hockey but fail, they are screwed.
My friend worked at bombardier full time while studying to become an engineer. He also took care of all his house choires and had his social life. He graduated and is doing extremely well.
How is that any different than someone training for hockey?

And what's funny about David Fischer's major? The guy can study in wtv he wants, I don't see what's funny.

But the point that you keep ignoring is that education is always available!

You're right, if a player loses 8 years in failed pursuit, he still has the rest of his life, it's definitely not a complete loss, unless he's accumulated concussions in which case it will be impossible to get an education.

The same is true of an owner. If an owner buys a team for 400 million, and ends up losing 100 million over 10 years and only has 300 million to show for it, it's not a complete loss. He still has options with the rest of his life going forward.

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

David Fischer cannot study whatever he wants. He failed to get a hockey career with communications studies. Had he taken honours electrical engineeriny, microbiology, or literature he would have failed even harder. It's well known that universities in the USA set things up such that NCAA athletes have easier courses they can take and can as such focus on what matters: their athletics. They're not getting a real education.

 

[DAChampion]

how many of your friends did something similar ?

It's probably a fake story or more likely a stretched story.

Think about it.

His friend was at Bombardier "full-time". That means 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday 52 weeks a year. With transportation, it's really 8am to 6pm. Add in "chores around the house" and basic hygiene and it's really 7am to 8pm.

That leaves 8pm to 10pm and the weekends for everything else, the engineering degree and the social life.

When did he get his engineering degree? I was in engineering for a year. Most classes are not offered at night. The vast majority of classes are offered only during the day, say between 1pm and 230pm or 8am to 930am, in a different part of town than any Bombardier office. Good luck managing those with "a full-time job".

His story doesn't add up.

Let's try to reverse-engineer the actual story before Kriss' embelishments.

First, Bombardier will never hire a CEGEP student "full-time". What this means is that in the first few years this friend of Kriss was doing only engineering. In the last summer, he might have taken an internship at Bombardier. This friend was missing maybe 3 or 6 credits to graduate, so he took some research courses that could be done on the weekend for his last year. Thus, at the end he was pursuing an engineering degree while being at Bombardier "full-time".

Not quite the same series of events as Kriss implied.

 

[Forsead]

It's probably a fake story or more likely a stretched story.

Think about it.

His friend was at Bombardier "full-time". That means 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday 52 weeks a year. With transportation, it's really 8am to 6pm. Add in "chores around the house" and basic hygiene and it's really 7am to 8pm.

That leaves 8pm to 10pm and the weekends for everything else, the engineering degree and the social life.

When did he get his engineering degree? I was in engineering for a year. Most classes are not offered at night. The vast majority of classes are offered only during the day, say between 1pm and 230pm or 8am to 930am, in a different part of town than any Bombardier office. Good luck managing those with "a full-time job".

His story doesn't add up.

Let's try to reverse-engineer the actual story before Kriss' embelishments.

First, Bombardier will never hire a CEGEP student "full-time". What this means is that in the first few years this friend of Kriss was doing only engineering. In the last summer, he might have taken an internship at Bombardier. This friend was missing maybe 3 or 6 credits to graduate, so he took some research courses that could be done on the weekend for his last year. Thus, at the end he was pursuing an engineering degree while being at Bombardier "full-time".

Not quite the same series of events as Kriss implied.

My ex-girlfriend father was technician in electrical engineering at ABB and they paid him to get his degree, so he was working 40h a week, some day he worked late so the next he could go to his course, sometime he finished work in the weekend. All this while having 4 childrens and now he is a electrical engineer. Maybe it took him 6-7 years though I don't remember exactly, but trust me it's true.

One of my friend started his degree in logistic at 25 years old and guess what he is good and his life didn't end because of that !

I know a guy in one of my class last year who is a 30 years old plumber and he returned to school to get a mechanical engineering degree.

And how the hell did you get your 8 years of failed pursuit in your other post ?

 

[ECWHSWI]

Plenty. You think everybody gets to go to university without having to generate an income?

But that is irrelevant, point is its doable.

same for making profits with an NHL team, even with the parameters of the last CBA. doable.