Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
no owner should take home more than the single highest paid player.
- Thread starter Brent Burns Beard
- Start date
- Status
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
another way for PA to stick it o Bettman
Hey, when the player figure out that the owners are getting a cap whether they (PA) like it or not, they can further stick it to Bettman.
THey can show Bettman what its like to lose (or diminish) his ability to earn money in the NHL.
Simple statement. PA should demand that Bettman is to be fired and then they will cost certainty with the new commisioner. What ? Its ok for the owners to shut down hockey on prinicple, but not steam roll little Gary Bettman for their "profit certainty" ? why does Bettman deserve to stand in the way of NHL hockey.
Bettman is screwing with their income abilities, they should show him what thats like.
dr
Hey, when the player figure out that the owners are getting a cap whether they (PA) like it or not, they can further stick it to Bettman.
THey can show Bettman what its like to lose (or diminish) his ability to earn money in the NHL.
Simple statement. PA should demand that Bettman is to be fired and then they will cost certainty with the new commisioner. What ? Its ok for the owners to shut down hockey on prinicple, but not steam roll little Gary Bettman for their "profit certainty" ? why does Bettman deserve to stand in the way of NHL hockey.
Bettman is screwing with their income abilities, they should show him what thats like.
dr
Yeah, try telling that to the CEO of your company. When the players start putting out the $250 million to purchase a franchise and build an arena I think they can tell an owner exactly what they can and cannot take home. The players are employees, plain and simple. If they don't like it, go play in another league. The players, and the fans that support them, are delusional. When an owner who fronts $250 million of capital gets paid less from his investment than Martin Lapointe does as an employee, there is something very very wrong. Time for the players to put the money up, or shut up. If the NHLPA were to buy one of the ailing franchises I would say they could take this stance. Until they want to put their hard earned cash up they can shut up. Time to get into the real world.
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
Seachd said:
these owners havent risked anything to be in the NHL. if they want out, they can walk away and there will be a lineup to take over that market.
who cant take a guaranteed profit and manage their expenses and still deserves to be placed higher on the pecking order than hockey ?
if Cal Nicholls doesnt want to lose money, he can walk away from his team. dont let the door hit your butt on the way out.
dr
DementedReality said:
You get that idea from your three year old? Just like the whiners you back, you're getting desperate.
handtrick
Registered User
I can't imagine what this section is going to degenerate to if we don't have a season. These thread topics are becoming more unbelievable each day 
SuperUnknown
Registered User
If the players do not want to give in to cost certainty they too can walk out...go play elsewhere...DementedReality said:
struckmatch
Registered User
DementedReality said:
The owners want cost-certainty just as bad Bettman, so using your logic, the PA could propose that all the 30 stubborn, greedy owners should be replaced as well before they'd accept cost certainty.
Wow, keep the great ideas coming.
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
The Iconoclast said:
maybe so ... but i would do it anyway. why not ? bettman may work for the owners, but if they are so unwilling to compromise than bettman can be their martyr.
if i was a player i would be pissed at the owners. especially if i was on a team that was making a mega profit (like TOR and VAN). they are being hammered by the owners and they should stick it back to them.
dr
DementedReality said:
I've asked this repeatedly of you. Where's this lineup of people waiting to buy NHL franchises? You haven't been able to point to anything tangible. There isn't one. Until labor peace is reached these guys are stuck with deminishing assets. Please provide a list of individuals that are interested in owning an NHL franchise.
The players have been sticking it to the owners for 10 years now...the gravy train has pulled out and Knob goodenow has missed his ride.DementedReality said:
DementedReality said:
Would you like a towel? My god, I'm shocked you haven't shorted out your computer with all the water works. Its business. Get over it already. There are going to be markets that rake in huge profits from time to time. There are others that are going to lose their shirts. It wasn't too long ago that the Canucks were walking around in a barrel. I think they deserve to have a couple years of profit? Especially when you consider what a crappy franchise amd money pit they have been.
DementedReality said:
If I was an owner, I'd be pissed at the players. You put up a huge amount of money to set up or buy a team, sign players for huge amounts of money, just for the players to turn around and call all the owners liars and cheats. Also, even when they are being paid considerable better than any other hockey league in the world, the players keep asking for more, even when it is clear that the league is not well...
struckmatch
Registered User
Yeah, the hell with entrepeneurs! They only boost our economy and provide jobs for everyone, who the hell needs them? Why reward people for working hard, and being successful?
You're threads are a complete joke. Seriously, I think you need to take a step back, and look at what you're posting.
The owners have created multi-million dollar businesses, by being shrewd and successful businessmen, thats an accomplishment, and they've earned the profits they generate from their various other enterprises. As far as NHL hockey is concerned, without owners you don't have teams, without teams you don't have players. And its the same way vice versa.
So, the owners should make as much as the highest paid player, and still be able to afford building costs, player costs, advertising costs, travel costs, and other various costs they must cover to run a professional sports team? I'd love you to show me a budget that an owner could work with if he was making 10 million a year.
You're threads are a complete joke. Seriously, I think you need to take a step back, and look at what you're posting.
The owners have created multi-million dollar businesses, by being shrewd and successful businessmen, thats an accomplishment, and they've earned the profits they generate from their various other enterprises. As far as NHL hockey is concerned, without owners you don't have teams, without teams you don't have players. And its the same way vice versa.
So, the owners should make as much as the highest paid player, and still be able to afford building costs, player costs, advertising costs, travel costs, and other various costs they must cover to run a professional sports team? I'd love you to show me a budget that an owner could work with if he was making 10 million a year.
struckmatch
Registered User
DementedReality said:
Okay, let's examine this. The Players argument in all of this is that if an owner offered them the chance to make significantly more money than they are worth, of course anyone would take that opportunity, right?
Now, Bettman is offering the owners of big profit teams like TOR and VAN an opportunity to make even more money and be worth, as a franchise, even more than they are now, so aren't those owners doing the exact same thing the players were? They are just taking the opportunity in front of them to be profitable.
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
DementedReality said:
Yeah and they can take the arena they paid for with them.
This might just be the craziest thread I have ever seen.
Owners are ticked off...
The owners are ticked off because back in 1999 they approached the union about redoing the last CBA. The Players, well within their rights because it was a legal agreement that wasn't set to expire yet, said no. What's happened in the 5 years since is that the owners have lost hundreds of millions of dollars, even if you go by Forbes numbers.
So, now they are dead set on ensuring that they don't lose any more money.
What I have found amusing in all this is that guys like Kypreos and Healy expected the big money owners in Toronto, New York, Detroit, and Philly to be able to convince the small market owners to just tweak the PA's last offer. Why, would a small market owner, the ones who have lost a lot of money, ever agree to a deal that works very similar to the last one.
DementedReality said:
The owners are ticked off because back in 1999 they approached the union about redoing the last CBA. The Players, well within their rights because it was a legal agreement that wasn't set to expire yet, said no. What's happened in the 5 years since is that the owners have lost hundreds of millions of dollars, even if you go by Forbes numbers.
So, now they are dead set on ensuring that they don't lose any more money.
What I have found amusing in all this is that guys like Kypreos and Healy expected the big money owners in Toronto, New York, Detroit, and Philly to be able to convince the small market owners to just tweak the PA's last offer. Why, would a small market owner, the ones who have lost a lot of money, ever agree to a deal that works very similar to the last one.
- Status
