Matthew Barnaby discusses labor dispute

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by GKJ, Sep 15, 2004.

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

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    142,256
    Likes Received:
    3,021
    Trophy Points:
    232
  2. jpsharkfan

    jpsharkfan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the players need a strong dose of reality.

    This is from the article:
    We want to have viable league. We want to have teams making money, and we want to have a good product on the ice. But, at the some time, we want to be paid fairly, and, at the same point, we don't want them to dictate what our salaries will be and not have a cap dictate (salaries)."

    The players just cannot seem to grasp that the teams as their employers have the right to dictate what their salaries will be. I can just imagine what my employer would say if I told him I wanted to dictate what my salary would be(after he picked himself off the ground and stopped laughing hysterically).
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2004
  3. Gator Mike

    Gator Mike Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,301
    Likes Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    184
    Location:
    Woburn, MA
    Home Page:
    It's a healthy league?

    Do any of these guys actually look in the stands when they're playing? Don't they see all of the empty seats?

    The NHL averages fewer fans per game than Major League Soccer, and they get roughly the same television ratings. The difference? An entire 20-man team in MLS makes roughly the same as an average NHL player.
     
  4. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    21,217
    Likes Received:
    2,920
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    The players are lost...being told what to say...Knob Goodenow just doesn't get it, there is no common $en$e being used by the union here, they have tried to make themselves look good by backing off a bit to ensure they still get their free market system, but as you said they do not even realize they are playing in front of 12-13 thousand people and there are still 6-8 thousand empty seats, and since everyone knows they don't generate TV revenue like the other major sports and that hockey is gate driven, the owners are left to make the payroll payments without the benefit of a TV deal and a rink FULL of fans... but the players continue to be PAID!!! :mad:
     
  5. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    142,256
    Likes Received:
    3,021
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Because the OWNERS gave it to them.
     
  6.  
  7.  
  8. pld459666

    pld459666 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,228
    Likes Received:
    868
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Danbury, CT
    You do dictate how much you earn.

    All you have to do is go in to your boss and ask for a raise and if he says no, YOU have the ability to go work somewhere of your choosing that is willing to pay you more money. And while Technically, the league doesn't have that system now, not until they are 31, Restricted Free Agency has worked for the players in terms of ability to move, as Arbitration has worked for the Owners

    The League wants to eliminate that as a possibility altogether. That is a marketplace that the NHLPA is looking for.
     
  9. Sammy*

    Sammy* Guest

    Yep , thats true, but imo the owners should be able to set whatever internal rules they want. Unfortunatly, they cant. Thats where the analogy falls apart with the free market place. My lawfirm can decide how much to pay me, however if I am a pro hockey player, the league cannot make that same determination. The players if they dont like what the NHL is prepared to pay them could go to any number of leagues in the world. Thats the free market at work.
     
  10. usiel

    usiel Aegrescit medendo Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    10,875
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    musician/ts
    Location:
    Klendathu
    Home Page:
    Long term health of the league could greatly be enhanced by parity around the league. Back before the NFL salary cap system San Fran and the Redskins would spend huge amounts of money compared to any of other football teams...and look at their respective successes in the 80's. Sure there is a bit of owner vs. owner in this I'm not going to be dramatic and say these big market teams are ruining the leauge...they are just operating under the existing (and obviously flawed) rules of the game. But when the playing field is even for all the teams as far as money then winning becomes more from talent and skill at all levels of the franchise...drafting/freeagency/etc..

    I can see the points on both sides...but I think their focus needs to be as partners in this and with the future health/growth of the league in mind...as the league gets succesful this hypothetical CBA will need to be structured so it is fair to all parties.
     

  11. I do?
    I did pretty darn good in college, anyway.
     
  12. HckyFght*

    HckyFght* Guest

    Barnaby makes some points but really, in the end, ownership is between a rock and a hard place regarding salaries.

    Fans hurrumph, fold their arms and say, "The owners got themselves into this with their profligate spending." But, as usual, it's not that simple. Owners actually did the players a favor in the '90's indulging their ridiculous salary demands and using expansion money and the promise of a network TV windfall to fund the operation. But expansion is over and the networks took a pass. So now, it's time for a league-wide adjustment.

    The Mario Lemieux situation with the Pittsburgh Penguins illustrates my point perfectly. His salary demands were outrageous. But the Penguins were between a rock and a hard place. $60 million over 5 years? Don't pay it, and lose nearly all your season ticket holders and most of the value of your local media. In other words, pay it and go bankrupt, or don't pay it and go bankrupt. So, they sign a garunteed deal as per union rules, Mario, then pleads illness and can't play, and season ticket holders flee anyway. Next thing Mario knows, he owns the team!



    The NHL AND the players gambled and lost regarding big media revenues and now it's simply time to pay up. The guys who write the checks know this all to well. It's time for the guys cashing the checks to figure it out.

    -HckyFght!
     
  13. The owners CAN set what ever rules they want.
    They might just do that.
    They might just not have any decent hockey players worth watching. In fact, the players might just go to other leagues or start their own.
    All of which would be a shame.
     
  14. HckyFght*

    HckyFght* Guest

    Half the players on half the teams are minor leaguers anyway, since over expansion in the 1990's quality of play is only just beginning to pick up from a low point about five years ago. Plus, the average length of a professional athlete's career in all the major sports in under 4 years. If every single player in the NHL left and never came back, the league would be fine in 5 or six years. But that's not the case, most NHLers will come back if the union is broken. Where really will they go? Start a new league? Please. Wait til players have to pay for buildings, expensive hotels, plane flights, and all the other headachey overhead management maintains on a daily basis. Also, where else really are they going to make a third of the money they are making now?
    Never happen.
    Lock'm out, rewrite the rules, they'll come back on whatever terms the league asks. Then fire Bettman and bring back old time hockey.
    I reccommend Ken Dryden or David Poile for new commish!
    -HckyFght!
     
  15. jpsharkfan

    jpsharkfan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Where else are the players going to go? Yes, a few can go to Europe. That leaves the other 90% of the players with no where to play. What kind of job is the average NHLer going to get in the real world? Most have never held a job outside of hockey. What a wake up call to the players when they see what "regular" jobs earn.

    I thought the idea of a union was to make sure employees had safe working conditions, health insurance benefits, and a wage that kept the employees family fed and sheltered. I did not realize a union was to insure all of its members earned a minimum of close to $1 million in the first two years.

    From my screen name I am obviosly a Sharks fan. This is a quote from our color commentator:
    "Fix the Problem not the Blame" - an old business saying.

    The problem is that the players are earning 75% of revenue. The blame is on the Owners and they do not deny it. Who is to blame makes no differance because it does not change the problem or solve it. If this was going on in any other business the owner would either close its doors for good, do drastic salary reductions, or fire all of its current employees and start over with lower priced employees. Hockey is a business, and like any other kind of business it cannot continue to operate in the red or it will die. If hockey dies there will be a lot of ex players who will be looking for jobs that pay in the 5 digit range not the 6 to 7 digit range they are used to. Sometimes you do not know how good you have it till it is gone. I hope the players are smarter than that.
     
  16. Sammy*

    Sammy* Guest

    No they cant. That would be collusion.
    And furthurmore,the possibility of players going to other leagues and making 1/3 the $$$ they would make even in a colluded NHL is laughable.
     
  17. X0ssbar

    X0ssbar Guest

    E-X-A-C-T-L-Y! Great post! :yo:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"