Players dont want teams to have arbitration rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
go kim johnsson said:
This can't be the owners' best offer. That was a complete waste of time if it was.

And what would you suggest? Lets hear your brilliant idea for a CBA. I'm sick of the pro-player posters whining, it isn't enough. Well WTF is enough?

:banghead:
 

thedjpd

Registered User
Sponsor
Dec 12, 2002
3,434
671
San Jose, CA
I think, ultimately, this is what it comes down to:

Players are a lot more replacable than owners.

There's a reason there's 700 some players and only 30 or 40 some owners (including the 'multiple owners for one franchise' although that's still technically just one owner, becuase it's shared), and thus, they hold the power.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,946
7,649
What i mean is that Players does not invest in the franchise, and therefore, they DO NOT deserve to get a piece of pie that the franchise is making.

and the owners aren't the ones out there risking life and limb in hopes to have what will amount to a short career (the "prime" for most players isn't a very long time relatively)

the owners aren't the ones who have dedicated the vast majority of their entire lives to the game of hockey, many times to the exlcusion of any other kind of "career".

and the owners won't be the ones crippled from various injuries and ailments as they get older as a result of their time spent involved with the NHL

the players have a huge investment into the game of hockey and they deserve to be compensated for it. the owners also deserve to be compenstated for the investments they've made, i'm not trying to say that they don't...but again i think it comes down to sports just not being the same as other "businesses"

you can try your hardest but you can't make pro sports out to be run the same way as a regular business.

and again this isn't confined to the NHL. the other major sports work the same ways
 

thedjpd

Registered User
Sponsor
Dec 12, 2002
3,434
671
San Jose, CA
Levitate said:
and the owners aren't the ones out there risking life and limb in hopes to have what will amount to a short career (the "prime" for most players isn't a very long time relatively)

the owners aren't the ones who have dedicated the vast majority of their entire lives to the game of hockey, many times to the exlcusion of any other kind of "career".

and the owners won't be the ones crippled from various injuries and ailments as they get older as a result of their time spent involved with the NHL

the players have a huge investment into the game of hockey and they deserve to be compensated for it. the owners also deserve to be compenstated for the investments they've made, i'm not trying to say that...but again i think it comes down to sports just not being the same as other "businesses"

you can try your hardest but you can't make pro sports out to be run the same way as a regular business.

and again this isn't confined to the NHL. the other major sports work the same ways

Firefighers? Policemen? Construction workers? The list goes on.

Don't they risk life and limb for possibly very short careers?

Should they be compensated millions for it?

Maybe. Are they? Absolutely not.

I don't think that's a solid argument.

Note: Edited to not be rude, heh. Sorry.
 
Last edited:

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
thedjpd said:
Heh, I never intended to convince anybody.

I'm talking about rights. If players want the right to not-honor contracts, the employees should as well.

If employees want the right to hold on to players, they should have the right to leave.

And the players have that right. They can leave and go play in anther league any time they like. Go work for what every you can get elsewhere. Otherwise shut your gob and accept what the business is willing to pay. This is not a democracy, this is a business where those who put the money up have the right to cetain expectations. If one of those expectations is a salary cap, then so be it. Where else are these mental midgets going to make a million dollars a year? No where.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,946
7,649
Firefighers? Policemen?

Don't they risk life and limb for possibly very short careers?

Should they be compensated millions for it?

Maybe. Are they? Absolutely not.

That's a dumb argument.

if police work and fire fighting was a multi-billion dollar industry, sure they should get compensated fairly for it. but it's not.

if you're gonna call my argument dumb, you just one upped it...
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Levitate said:
and the owners aren't the ones out there risking life and limb in hopes to have what will amount to a short career (the "prime" for most players isn't a very long time relatively)

the owners aren't the ones who have dedicated the vast majority of their entire lives to the game of hockey, many times to the exlcusion of any other kind of "career".

and the owners won't be the ones crippled from various injuries and ailments as they get older as a result of their time spent involved with the NHL

the players have a huge investment into the game of hockey and they deserve to be compensated for it. the owners also deserve to be compenstated for the investments they've made, i'm not trying to say that...but again i think it comes down to sports just not being the same as other "businesses"

you can try your hardest but you can't make pro sports out to be run the same way as a regular business.

and again this isn't confined to the NHL. the other major sports work the same ways


I dont know how you see all those "added" implication from that sentence of mine.

In case you have not noticed, I mean my comment literally.


I am not saying Owners has no fault here, but to say that Players DESERVE a piece of pie that they have not contributed to is BS.

By playing hard is NOT a contribution, rather, it is a fulfillment of their contract and also fulfillment of their professionalism.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Ps..

I may sound pro-owner in all of my posts here,

but actually, i am not.

I am simply approaching this topic from a businessman's stand point.


Again, I want to iliterate and accentuate the fact that by not allowing to have arbitration right is like saying, hypothetically speaking, " i can screw you and you cant screw me".

which is basically the topic of the thread, i think.
 

thedjpd

Registered User
Sponsor
Dec 12, 2002
3,434
671
San Jose, CA
Levitate said:
if police work and fire fighting was a multi-billion dollar industry, sure they should get compensated fairly for it. but it's not.

if you're gonna call my argument dumb, you just one upped it...

Not hardly.

They should and will get compensated for what is deemed fair for them. They will only expect to get compensated more if the industry makes more. They are not 'entitled' to it.
 

thedjpd

Registered User
Sponsor
Dec 12, 2002
3,434
671
San Jose, CA
And your argument for them deserving more was because they risk life and limb. Not that they were in a multi-billion dollar industry.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,946
7,649
I am not saying Owners has no fault here, but to say that Players DESERVE a piece of pie that they have not contributed to is BS

but i think that's the argument that has been made previously in this thread as well...people come to see the players, they pay money to see the stars and pay money for their merchandise, etc etc. the players are bringing value to the franchises. they're not investing their own money into it but they're investing their lives and work and the benefit to the owners is the revenue that's generated because of that.

i mean do you really think the NHL would have any kind of popularity if it was filled with ECHL level players vs. the star players that we have now (well not now...but you get the idea). you can't just replace joe thornton with brad smyth and call it good and expect people to keep shelling out the same amount of money they were

that's the argument anyways, it's not a perfect rebuttal to what you're saying cuz i don't have the patience right now to nitpick through every little point and justify everything exactly...but if the players are the ones generating revenue, why shouldn't they get part of that revenue?

i think this all boils down to "philosophical differences" though when it comes to these matters :dunce:
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Levitate said:
but i think that's the argument that has been made previously in this thread as well...people come to see the players, they pay money to see the stars and pay money for their merchandise, etc etc. the players are bringing value to the franchises. they're not investing their own money into it but they're investing their lives and work and the benefit to the owners is the revenue that's generated because of that.

i mean do you really think the NHL would have any kind of popularity if it was filled with ECHL level players vs. the star players that we have now (well not now...but you get the idea). you can't just replace joe thornton with brad smyth and call it good and expect people to keep shelling out the same amount of money they were

that's the argument anyways, it's not a perfect rebuttal to what you're saying cuz i don't have the patience right now to nitpick through every little point and justify everything exactly...but if the players are the ones generating revenue, why shouldn't they get part of that revenue?

i think this all boils down to "philosophical differences" though when it comes to these matters :dunce:

What ???

In my opinion, you are just arguing for something you dont deserve.

Like I have said earlier, if you want to segregate the relationship between owners and players, you have nothing! So, lets not do that?

They are playing hard and they are doing their job, and they GET PAID by doing and fulfilling those JOB DESCRIPTION. In simple term only, Player's job is to PLAY. .and that is it!, TO PLAY.

How employers want to utilize the result of hiring this playing is THEIR own business, which players should not get involved into. This is what we do, this is how we do it.

You do your job, and I do my job of managing and utilizing your job outcomes.

How I utilize? None of employee's business!

If you want to play, play, if you dont, quit. This is not exactly a free market, and the players have to understand that.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Levitate said:
but i think that's the argument that has been made previously in this thread as well...people come to see the players, they pay money to see the stars and pay money for their merchandise, etc etc. the players are bringing value to the franchises. they're not investing their own money into it but they're investing their lives and work and the benefit to the owners is the revenue that's generated because of that.

i mean do you really think the NHL would have any kind of popularity if it was filled with ECHL level players vs. the star players that we have now (well not now...but you get the idea). you can't just replace joe thornton with brad smyth and call it good and expect people to keep shelling out the same amount of money they were

that's the argument anyways, it's not a perfect rebuttal to what you're saying cuz i don't have the patience right now to nitpick through every little point and justify everything exactly...but if the players are the ones generating revenue, why shouldn't they get part of that revenue?

i think this all boils down to "philosophical differences" though when it comes to these matters :dunce:


also, I dont know how much of marketing work you have done, but my experience is, we identify the consumer segment, we make a target and we attack it. The basic 4P is at work here, and Players themself, is only ONE P out of the 4 here.

And no, I dont get the idea of replacing wth ECHL players. The owners can replace them with ECHL players and still make money with appropriate cost benefit analysis and adjustments. I am very sure they have the capability and knowledge and means/tools to do that.

So, in another word, I dont see how this is an argument, for the players to get more $ out of the multi billion business by simplying "doing their job".
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,633
37,428
I would be in favor of just ending arbitration altogether.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,946
7,649
Again, I want to iliterate and accentuate the fact that by not allowing to have arbitration right is like saying, hypothetically speaking, " i can screw you and you cant screw me".

who not having arbitration rights? the players or owners?

i think both should have them...and i think it can be balanced so it's fair to both sides. but to do that both sides have to make some concessions on them instead of going for the outright "win"

as for the other stuff, give me a second, i'm kind of juggling several things at once here and if i don't take a moment to get my thoughts in order i won't make any sense if i try to answer
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Levitate said:
who not having arbitration rights? the players or owners?

i think both should have them...and i think it can be balanced so it's fair to both sides. but to do that both sides have to make some concessions on them instead of going for the outright "win"

as for the other stuff, give me a second, i'm kind of juggling several things at once here and if i don't take a moment to get my thoughts in order i won't make any sense if i try to answer

ha, well, i think we are on the same side.

I am saying, they should BOTH get it..

but the title of the thread and the headline of the news is... players reject owner's right to send players to arbitration.


But as to the details of arbitration, that is another 10 thread topic, which i dont think we want to touch in this thread.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Sammy said:
No, lets keep negotiation in but outlaw arbitration.
By the way, are you now agreeing that arbitration as it is presently framed is highly inflationary?

Negotiation = arbitration. The point of arbitration is to mirror what would happen in a negotiation; these numbers are not pulled from scratch. You obviously don't understand.

You have proven your inability to comprehend the basics of arbitration, so you are of no use to this thread.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Jobu said:
Negotiation = arbitration. The point of arbitration is to mirror what would happen in a negotiation; these numbers are not pulled from scratch. You obviously don't understand.

You have proven your inability to comprehend the basics of arbitration, so you are of no use to this thread.


no one is saying you are dumb here, why the attack?

i mean, he did make notable comments, and why cant you just keep on topic?

PS. you still havent really responded my posts at you.

Oh well, keep on topic?
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
PhillyNucksFan said:
no one is saying you are dumb here, why the attack?

i mean, he did make notable comments, and why cant you just keep on topic?

PS. you still havent really responded my posts at you.

Oh well, keep on topic?

His comments are made in ignorance and have no credibility.

What posts?
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,946
7,649
but the title of the thread and the headline of the news is... players reject owner's right to send players to arbitration.

which i thought was completely misleading because it was originally the players who offered the owners the right to take the players to arbitration

the players were rejecting the details of the arbitration plan presented recently to them, not the idea that teams could take them to arbitration
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Jobu said:
His comments are made in ignorance and have no credibility.

What posts?


damn. .

a lot of them.. back there..

im kinda lazy to go back and check..

nm then

PS. and I put serious thought into posting them, even used my own experience.]


#@$*@#
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Levitate said:
which i thought was completely misleading because it was originally the players who offered the owners the right to take the players to arbitration

the players were rejecting the details of the arbitration plan presented recently to them, not the idea that teams could take them to arbitration


umm.. ok.. confusing here.

let me read more about the news as i only quickly took a look..

haha, i'll get back to you

;)
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Levitate said:
which i thought was completely misleading because it was originally the players who offered the owners the right to take the players to arbitration

the players were rejecting the details of the arbitration plan presented recently to them, not the idea that teams could take them to arbitration

Precisely. Players have already conceded that clubs should be able to take them to arbitration. Obviously they didn't go as far to fully equalize the playing field, but certainly they would if pushed.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,633
37,428
PhillyNucksFan said:
I wouldnt do that.
I mean, by all means, keep arbitration.. but make it fair?

If players can choose to arbitrate, why cant owners?


I agree with that completely. Whose fault was it that they only let players opt for arbitration?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->