Pronger the Idiot.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
Bileur said:
The diffrence is that Scabs would technically not be taking anyone's job since no-one has any while the NHLers are actually taking away the jobs the euro player's had.

No no no. That's not it. That's not it at all. Nope. No-Siree. The NHLPA is the legally-recognized bargaining agent for players in the NHL and therefore it requires a judicial writ before replacements can be brought in.

Conversely, the European situation is nothing of the sort.
 

deathbear

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
2,428
0
Manitoba
Visit site
Bicycle Repairman said:
BUHAHAHAHAHA! Why do think guys like Lonny Boo-hoo-hoo-nos aren't in the NHL to begin with? Because they lack the heart, that's why.
:eek:

come on man, that's just MEAN. doesn't have the heart? why are you acting like such a jackass anyway?
 

Blane Youngblood

Registered User
Jun 17, 2003
3,469
0
Visit site
deathbear said:
come on man, that's just MEAN. doesn't have the heart? why are you acting like such a jackass anyway?

Psst...I don't think he's acting.

On this issue, I have no problem with players playing as replacement players (if they don't want to respect their own union that's their choice). Threatening physical harm is just stupid.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Tom_Benjamin said:
But I can't understand hockey fans expressing such vitriol towards hockey players. If I hated them as much as some who post here, I wouldn't be a hockey fan.

Really, this isn't very hard to understand at all. Yes, players have worked hard, but they're *incredibly lucky* to be paid millions of dollars to play a game. They were blessed to be born with a skill that few of us have.

It's no different than the reaction to some beautiful supermodel who tells us how tough her life is, what with being so beautiful and all, and having to fly to Rome and Paris all the time, or some snivelling rich kid who whines about how tough things are growing up.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
PecaFan said:
Really, this isn't very hard to understand at all. Yes, players have worked hard, but they're *incredibly lucky* to be paid millions of dollars to play a game. They were blessed to be born with a skill that few of us have.

So what if they were blessed? It isn't their fault you don't have that kind of skill, talent or dedication. This sounds like petty jealousy to me.

It's no different than the reaction to some beautiful supermodel who tells us how tough her life is, what with being so beautiful and all, and having to fly to Rome and Paris all the time, or some snivelling rich kid who whines about how tough things are growing up.

Do you really react to supermodels and what they do? Why? What's it to you? I can't imagine why anyone would pay any attention to them.

Tom
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
I find it amazing how fans despise the players too. I have to wonder how they can come back and cheer for them. I hear my fellow Sens fans hoping for a long lockout and replacement players. Hoping for it! And I have to wonder, How I can ever take their opinions on our players seriously ever again. They actually wanted replacement players. I dont believe them. I think the novelty of cheering for a bunch of players they dont know out of spite, especially if Ottawa replacements are not in the playoff hunt, will quickly wear off. They will be demanding better players, missing pieces, and we know where they will all be. Their desire to break the union will decrease exponentially as we approach the trading deadline. And I wonder where those missing pieces will come from.

If the players are united in taking this principled stand as something they have to do for the long term of players in the game, and then other players who think they would otherwise have a legitimate shot of making the NHL on their own decide to cross and play for their own purposes, I think Pronger gives them good advice - you better think twice. The ones who otherwise wouldnt make it arent the issue.

And that has nothing to do with European owners soliciting the services of these star players to what is most often their home town team. And probably doing a booming business in the meantime. Sell-outs are following some of these players around. And I wonder what effect Nash and Thornton are having on their team. I wonder how much he is generating for the team. I wonder how much less replacement players in the NHL would generate. We may get to find out these numbers if they persist.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
thinkwild said:
If the players are united in taking this principled stand as something they have to do for the long term of players in the game, and then other players who think they would otherwise have a legitimate shot of making the NHL on their own decide to cross and play for their own purposes, I think Pronger gives them good advice - you better think twice. The ones who otherwise wouldnt make it arent the issue.

This is exactly what the players are doing. One of the really poor pieces of conventional wisdom is about who wins and who loses on the player side. The single player with the most to lose in this dispute is Chris Chelios. Trevor Linden has already made 95% of what he will ever make from hockey. Really, what do either of them care about the next CBA? It will hardly affect them at all.

On the other hand, the likes of Sidney Crosby, Spezza and Ovechkin have huge dollars at stake.

There are three groups of players:

1) Those who have already made millions. These guys are losing a lot of money for the principle but they can afford to stand on principle.

2) Young guys who have not yet made the bundle but think they are going to become a big star. A salary cap will cost them each millions over the next ten years. Most of these players are in the AHL today.

3) Young players whose dream is rapidly disappearing. Realistically they will never make it. We'll call them replacements.

Tom
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Tom_Benjamin said:
The owners can't use replacement players as long as there is a lockout. They are planning to get an impasse declared next September. At that point they will unilaterally impose a new CBA and lift the lockout.

That puts the ball in the player's court. They will most certainly have the right to strike. If they do the owners will attempt to sell minor league hockey as NHL hockey.

The players don't have to strike. They can return to work without signing or accepting the CBA. A week later, a month later, a regular season later, they can still go out on strike. They could run rotating strikes.

The owners can have a screwed up season and not get what they want.

Tom

True, but if the the cap is linked to revenue the players could be successful in driving away fans & revenue and rotationally striking themselves from a $31m cap (for example) to a $24m cap the next year.

Teams might also arrange paydays from the start of the season to the end June 30. I'd be intrigued to know just how far both sides can legally go to stick it to the other guys.

Any reason teams couldn't implement rotating lockouts in revenge? Is so they might choose to lockout the players in retailiation for the rotating strikes. Strike for during the year, get locked out (no pay) in revenge for month at the end after that team has been eliminated.
 
Last edited:

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Tom_Benjamin said:
So what if they were blessed? It isn't their fault you don't have that kind of skill, talent or dedication. This sounds like petty jealousy to me.

Do you really react to supermodels and what they do? Why? What's it to you? I can't imagine why anyone would pay any attention to them.

Nope, not jealously at all. That's wanting something that someone else has. We're talking about being annoyed when the other person doesn't appreciate what they have been given. Totally different.

Say someone wins the lottery. They have the gall to complain about how much tax they'll have to pay, or how this'll complicate their lives. That is such a self centred attitude, it deserves disdain. They are so much more lucky than the vast majority of the population, but can't see it.

I don't know how to make it any more clear to you. You asked why so many people feel this way, and that's why.

As for the supermodel, I don't pay attention to them. But if I'm flipping channels and they tearfully try and tell me how hard things are, I'm going to scoff at them as I move on.
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
This is exactly what the players are doing. One of the really poor pieces of conventional wisdom is about who wins and who loses on the player side. The single player with the most to lose in this dispute is Chris Chelios. Trevor Linden has already made 95% of what he will ever make from hockey. Really, what do either of them care about the next CBA? It will hardly affect them at all.

On the other hand, the likes of Sidney Crosby, Spezza and Ovechkin have huge dollars at stake.

There are three groups of players:

1) Those who have already made millions. These guys are losing a lot of money for the principle but they can afford to stand on principle.

2) Young guys who have not yet made the bundle but think they are going to become a big star. A salary cap will cost them each millions over the next ten years. Most of these players are in the AHL today.

3) Young players whose dream is rapidly disappearing. Realistically they will never make it. We'll call them replacements.

Tom

1. you're completely right, the vetrans have much less at stake than the younger guys, the vetran's are coming out and saying everything the PA is saying while the younger players are starting to look around and say 'hey, we're the ones struggling here, get a deal done so we can play and make something, no matter what it is'

2. key word you have there is THINK, i've thought about alot of things as well, not all the things i've thought about have come true, yet even with a cap these players will be making far more than the average joe makes per year. a cap in the future can't cost you anything as it isn't in place yet to be affecting anyone's salaries, when the structure is in place you can say 'well they could have earned x number of dollars, but that's looking backward at the past, not forward into the future, if you only look at the past you'll never get anywhere or be truly happy with what's going on in your life
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
garry1221 said:
1. you're completely right, the vetrans have much less at stake than the younger guys, the vetran's are coming out and saying everything the PA is saying while the younger players are starting to look around and say 'hey, we're the ones struggling here, get a deal done so we can play and make something, no matter what it is'

This is not quite right. The older players are losing the most and they have the least to gain. So why are they doing it? They could break the NHLPA tomorrow, like the NBA stars did when they had their dispute.

They are doing it for the younger guys, just like the veterans did in 1995.

2. key word you have there is THINK, i've thought about alot of things as well, not all the things i've thought about have come true, yet even with a cap these players will be making far more than the average joe makes per year.

It does not change the fact that these players have the least to lose and the most to gain. The NHLPA will stay solid.

a cap in the future can't cost you anything as it isn't in place yet to be affecting anyone's salaries, when the structure is in place you can say 'well they could have earned x number of dollars, but that's looking backward at the past, not forward into the future, if you only look at the past you'll never get anywhere or be truly happy with what's going on in your life

Aw, isn't that sweet? They will never be truly happy if they look backwards at the past and not forward into the future. I'm sure the players think like Mr. Rogers and everybody makes decisions based on the philosophy according to Oprah.

Tom
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
Tom_Benjamin said:
This is not quite right. The older players are losing the most and they have the least to gain. So why are they doing it? They could break the NHLPA tomorrow, like the NBA stars did when they had their dispute.

They are doing it for the younger guys, just like the veterans did in 1995.

Aw, isn't that sweet? All we need is a Celine Dion soundtrack to go with this and there wouldn't be a dry eye in the theatre.

Are you talking about the same veterans that that threw the rookies under the bus with a rookie salary cap? I guess the young downtrodden from yesteryear learned well from their elders, because here we are 9 years later and salary caps seem to work fine and dandy as long as it's the rookies that wear it.

Funny...you seem to have no problem looking for conspiracy theories and shadowy agendas when it comes to the owners side, but you take such NHLPA tripe at face value?

Personally, I think both sides are acting like jackasses and neither are covering themselves in glory with their behavior in this incredibly damaging work stoppage.

As far as I'm concerned nobody has any right to the moral high ground.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
Digger12 said:
Personally, I think both sides are acting like jackasses and neither are covering themselves in glory with their behavior in this incredibly damaging work stoppage.

As far as I'm concerned nobody has any right to the moral high ground.

No truer words have been typed in these threads.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
Digger12 said:
Are you talking about the same veterans that that threw the rookies under the bus with a rookie salary cap? I guess the young downtrodden from yesteryear learned well from their elders, because here we are 9 years later and salary caps seem to work fine and dandy as long as it's the rookies that wear it.

Throwing the rookies under the bus? Hardly.

What they did was make sure that the money went to proven players instead of unproven rookies.

The rookie salary cap didn't cap the players overall piece of the revenues. It just redistributed it more to the veterans. And for the most part, the rookies eventually became veterans.

The players just tried to accomodate the owners who were crying about paying too much to unproven players.

The PA didn't sell anyone out with the rookie cap. Except for the rookies that didn't pan out. But why should anyone care if they get a paycut?
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Digger12 said:
Are you talking about the same veterans that that threw the rookies under the bus with a rookie salary cap? I guess the young downtrodden from yesteryear learned well from their elders, because here we are 9 years later and salary caps seem to work fine and dandy as long as it's the rookies that wear it.

I think the players were worried about this the first time around, but it has worked great all the way around. It has been particularly good for competitive balance. The players weren't happy about it initially but avoiding more Alexandre Daigles was very high on the owner agenda. Once the owners dropped the salary cap in 1994, they got to write the rest of the CBA.

The same thing will happen this time in either direction. If the players give in on a salary cap, they can have free agency at age 25 if they want it.

Funny...you seem to have no problem looking for conspiracy theories and shadowy agendas when it comes to the owners side, but you take such NHLPA tripe at face value?

If you think the owners are not a conspiracy and they do not have an agenda they are not sharing, you have a very childish view of the world. And of course the players are spinning things too, but they are not nearly as good at it.

I called them on their luxury tax proposal. It was pure public relations. They know the owners won't go for meaningful revenue sharing, so they offered it. It directly addresses an owner issue - payroll disparity - but addresses it in a way the owners don't want to address it.

If the players win the dispute there may be a luxury tax for public relations purposes, but it won't be any more meaningful than baseball's. It's a form of revenue sharing and the owners don't want revenue sharing.

Tom
 

HckyFght*

Guest
Cawz said:
Can you explain how the owners would be "screwing them over"? By wanting a partnership that will keep them millionaires? You may want to check your choice of words.

Exactly...the league essentially wants the average salary to go down from $1.8 mil US to $1.3 mil US...poor babies...if that's getting screwed, sign me up!
-HckyFght!
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
Tom_Benjamin said:
If you think the owners are not a conspiracy and they do not have an agenda they are not sharing, you have a very childish view of the world.

When words come out of my mouth, I'd much prefer that they were put in there by me and nobody else if that's cool with you...

I thought 'I think both sides are acting like jackasses' was fairly straightforward. My bad.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
HckyFght said:
Exactly...the league essentially wants the average salary to go down from $1.8 mil US to $1.3 mil US...poor babies...if that's getting screwed, sign me up!
-HckyFght!

And the only known way in the universe to accomplish this is with a cap? What if there was another way to do it? An idea worth exploring?
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
thinkwild said:
And the only known way in the universe to accomplish this is with a cap? What if there was another way to do it? An idea worth exploring?

Lets hear the players put it forward, I'm sure the owners would listen.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
thinkwild said:
It wont tie salaries to revenues. Still want to hear it?

What really is wrong with tying salaries to revenues?

If all ticket revenue is defined (you know how many seats each arena has, how many luxury suites, and can hire an outside auditor to randomly count the number of people in attendance), all tv agreements are signed off on by the NHLPA (and they can question/reject an agreement that is not in line with other agreements within the NHL), concessions revenue can be accounted for (sales reciepts, bills of lading), reasonable rental/lease agreements are defined for the arenas, and advertising revenue and expenditures are defined/shared with the NHLPA (hell, the NHLPA can even help with the advertising...). How much revenue can any owner reasonably hide?

I don't think they can really hide too much. There is only so many ways you can bring money in. Any business can hide a little bit of revenue in some way, but if you can identify over 95% of the revenue, don't you think they are close enough to make an agreement?
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
It sure sounds easy doesnt it. And yet there are great arguments on how to define the value of the business to an owner. If its worth it for him to spend the money may not reflect in the books they put forward. As we currently see. The very same UROs they are arguing over, dont even represent the way the Flyers or Rangers even look at the teams value to themselves. They admit it. Its a made up number.

Some of the same crook owners from the last century are still on the other side of the table saying trust me. If they ar etrying to tie a deal that ties salaries to revenues, but they get to define revenues, and working groups over years have yet to come to a mutual agreement on how to define those revenues, how can it be safe to go forward.

Everyone looks at the NHLs new tv deal with NBC and thinks its a disaster. Because Bettman negotiated it without an up fron rights fee. He is going to share the revenue with NBC. I wonder in what ways NBC can give that money to the league. I wonder if it will even amount to less money. If they do it right, and they are poised to, they could could make huge profits in what they will call unrelated revenue.

Im not completely sold that the players are right in not accepting the general principle. But not in the form of a hard cap. My battle is a slightly different one from theirs
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
djhn579 said:
What really is wrong with tying salaries to revenues?

If all ticket revenue is defined (you know how many seats each arena has, how many luxury suites, and can hire an outside auditor to randomly count the number of people in attendance), all tv agreements are signed off on by the NHLPA (and they can question/reject an agreement that is not in line with other agreements within the NHL), concessions revenue can be accounted for (sales reciepts, bills of lading), reasonable rental/lease agreements are defined for the arenas, and advertising revenue and expenditures are defined/shared with the NHLPA (hell, the NHLPA can even help with the advertising...). How much revenue can any owner reasonably hide?

I don't think they can really hide too much. There is only so many ways you can bring money in. Any business can hide a little bit of revenue in some way, but if you can identify over 95% of the revenue, don't you think they are close enough to make an agreement?

ok, so lets say the players say to the NHL ... "we give up, lets talk about your cap (under the conditions set above by "djhn579")"

now, would your opinion change on this issue if the owners didnt want to give up that much information and lose that much control of their business ?

just imagine, maybe the owners dont really want the players to know this information, because what you are suggesting is a whole lot more invasive than the current URO system the league wants.

dr
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->