Something I don't quite understand...

[waffledave]

Okay, so in this whole lockout thing, there's something I don't quite understand, so I was hoping someone could clarify this for me.

From what I have been reading, the players, and a couple of posters here, claim that since they are the product, they have a say in what kind of system they play under.

Recently, I have been reading that the players want a sort of partnership with the league, and do not consider themselves employees, but rather partners with the owners.

Here is what I don't understand. The players want a partnership. Fair enough. Why is it then, that they refuse to accept tying their salaries to revenues? I mean is this not what a partnership is?

Partners should have to share in the responsibility of the organization not doing well. Thus, if the owners do not make money, their partners should not be making money either (or at least have to accept less money than before).

Basically what I'm saying is I just don't understand why the players claim to want a partnership but do not want to tie salaries to revenues. Can anyone clarify?

Click to read more...

 

[CarlRacki]

That's an excellent question. Send it here:

http://www.nhlpa.com/feedback/index.asp

 

[Crows*]

The owners position is completely adequte on the base that everyone must share in the ups and downs of a company.


One of the main reasons why this game has gone to this point is loss of fan support because of boring hockey. And that the players have to take some critisism for.

 

[KeyserSoze]

They want their cake and to eat it, too. They talk partnership, which is what tying revenues to salaries would be, but want a free market. Well, to me a player getting the best salary possible based upon his performance and worth within a salary cap is a free market. If you want to make more within the system then bust your butt so that you can demand more. No business can reasonably over spend on assets or employees unless it intends to bankrupt itself. Businesses must stay within a budget, unlike the government, or be forced out of business. Why the players can't see this is beyond me...

 

[Birdman]

The owners position is completely adequte on the base that everyone must share in the ups and downs of a company.


One of the main reasons why this game has gone to this point is loss of fan support because of boring hockey. And that the players have to take some critisism for.

Is it the players fault that ownership went and expanded the league, thus deluting the on ice product so that the only way that teams could compete would be to trap?

The last group that needs to get blamed for the quality of the on ice product is the players. Start with the League office, then go after the owners for being greedy and wanting expansion dollars, then blame the GM's and Coaches for playing that style, and then you can curse the players for being selfish enough to try and win at all costs.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that no one has pointed out so far on this thread that its the owners, not the players, who have been the ones crying for a "partnership".

And what a partership they want to have: the players get no say in how the business is run, bear the entire brunt of this new "partnership", get no proof that their "partners" aren't lying to them before entering into the "partnership", and their "partners" don't even want to be partners with each other. How dare those greedy players not want to be a part of that.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Is it the players fault that ownership went and expanded the league, thus deluting the on ice product so that the only way that teams could compete would be to trap?

The last group that needs to get blamed for the quality of the on ice product is the players. Start with the League office, then go after the owners for being greedy and wanting expansion dollars, then blame the GM's and Coaches for playing that style, and then you can curse the players for being selfish enough to try and win at all costs.

The players didn't seem to have a problem accepting the outrageous salaries that all the expansion money brought them. They all ***** about Bettman but he's the only reason these bums are making the money they do.

 

[Regency]

The players didn't seem to have a problem accepting the outrageous salaries that all the expansion money brought them. They all ***** about Bettman but he's the only reason these bums are making the money they do.

Which is a good reason for him to step down and let someone else take the reins....

 

[waffledave]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that no one has pointed out so far on this thread that its the owners, not the players, who have been the ones crying for a "partnership".

I'm pretty sure it was Trevor Linden crying about how insulted he was when someone said the players were employees and not partners in the company.

I don't think the owners asking for salaries tied to revenues counts as crying out for partnership. Whether you are a partner or not, if the company you work for isn't making money, you will suffer through your wages. That or you get laid off.

 

[waffledave]

Is it the players fault that ownership went and expanded the league, thus deluting the on ice product so that the only way that teams could compete would be to trap?

Care to explain this? I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I guess I'm just not as smart as I thought I was because I'm having trouble making sense of anything that comes out of the players' side.

 

[futurcorerock]

Is it the players fault that ownership went and expanded the league, thus deluting the on ice product so that the only way that teams could compete would be to trap?

No - but the players benefit

More teams = more roster spots = more jobs = more money for players

plain and simple

 

[Birdman]

Look, I'm not backing the players in any way, shape, or form. I'm just stating that you can't blame the players for the game becoming slow and boring.

You want to blame them for being greedy? That I don't have a problem with.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Care to explain this? I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I guess I'm just not as smart as I thought I was because I'm having trouble making sense of anything that comes out of the players' side.

It seems very clear to me. I think it is very easy to understand. Lots of people do understand it because it has been explained by many different people in many different threads on this board. It is one thing to say that you do not agree with the player position.

But you don't understand the player position? When I don't understand a position, I keep working at it until I do. I condemn Osama bin Laden for who he is and what he has done, but I understand why he did it and why he became who he became. How can we expect to beat him if we do not understand him?

Perhaps you should keep at it until you do understand the player position. Once you do, feel free to reject it. If you reject it without understanding, your opinion is clearly irrational. How do you know the information you are missing is not critical?

Tom

 

[waffledave]

It seems very clear to me. I think it is very easy to understand. Lots of people do understand it because it has been explained by many different people in many different threads on this board. It is one thing to say that you do not agree with the player position.

But you don't understand the player position? When I don't understand a position, I keep working at it until I do. I condemn Osama bin Laden for who he is and what he has done, but I understand why he did it and why he became who he became. How can we expect to beat him if we do not understand him?

Perhaps you should keep at it until you do understand the player position. Once you do, feel free to reject it. If you reject it without understanding, your opinion is clearly irrational. How do you know the information you are missing is not critical?

Tom

Well that's why I asked the question. I was hoping maybe someone here could enlighten me. Unfortunately, nobody really gave me an answer besides what I suspected, which is that the players are greedy.

But really, thanks for the advice, honestly.

 

[Trottier]

Here is what I don't understand. The players want a partnership. Fair enough. Why is it then, that they refuse to accept tying their salaries to revenues? I mean is this not what a partnership is?

Solid question Waffle (if I may refer to you as such ).

I oppose Bettman's apparent insistence on a hardcap for multiple reasons, none of which are worth haggling over any more.

Regardless, it seems to me that whether they are "partners" or employees, or whatever, the players need to recognize that, especially given the league's curent financial situation, there must be a link between how much their sport, their "company" (the NHL) takes in and how much they can demand.

That link, seems to me, is an essential foundation for formulating a mutually equitable CBA. For it goes directly to cost certainty. And your post points out a contradiction, at best, and blatant hypocrisy, at worst, on the part of the NHLPA.

Now, cost certainty can be achieved without an overly restrictive cap. But that is another topic, one in which, it's quite clear, little-to-no common ground will ever be realized on this board.

 

[R0CKET]

Yeah the saint-like players all want to say they are the product when its time to determine their cut on payday, but then they claim that this on ice "product" is boring and is sucks and its all the Owners fault?!

Oh...its the stupid owners who are the ones to blame for "MAKING" the game crappy to watch!!

Now there's reponsibility for you.

Oh and don't even try to drop the "the league is depleted" crap due to expansion cuz anyone whith half a clue about this game knows its current players, on the average, are far stronger, more physically fit, faster, bigger, and skilled then they have ever been in the history of this game.

The players on the ice are the ones making it what it is today and are to blame for its marketabiity - not Buttman (A-hole that he may be).

AND...its those same whiney a$$ed players who are pulling in 70% of all of this games revenue's. What "Partnership" can anyone find that has one side outlay all of tha Capital risk while only taking 30% of the revenues of some business? I don't call tat any kind of partnership.

The Players couldn't care less about a partnership, as long as the money keeps coming it couldn't matter less to them.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Well that's why I asked the question. I was hoping maybe someone here could enlighten me. Unfortunately, nobody really gave me an answer besides what I suspected, which is that the players are greedy.

But this can't be it. The players are losing way too much money they will never, ever get back. It is easy to understand why some fringe players like Mike Commodore will play under any agreement at all, but it is really difficult to label veteran players like Mats Sundin or Dominik Hasek or Chris Chelios or Sean Burke as greedy.

So far the dispute has cost Sundin $4.5 million and assuming we don't see hockey until next January at the earliest it will cost him at least $13.5 million. That money is gone forever. If Sundin was greedy, don't you think he is on the phone to Trevor Linden and saying "Get off the pot"?

Sean Burke is punting away $3 million and he will be looking for work when this is all over. How can he possibly be supporting the players? Or Trent Klatt? Think Todd Marchant can get his money back? Why are these people such vocal supporters of the union position if they are greedy?

Or Arturs Irbe. He's losing the last year of a really stupid contract, a contract that paid him millions to play in the ECHL. He's on the PA executive committee and he's losing the last $3 million he'll ever see from the NHL.

Greed? That's not logical. If greed was motivating the players, they cave before they start losing paycheques. I'd try again.

Tom

 

[iagreewithidiots]

Greed? That's not logical. If greed was motivating the players, they cave before they start losing paycheques. I'd try again.

Truly the biggest load of bull Ive read all day.

And "Real Fan" Tommy has the nerve to call people who side with the owners chumps.

 

[Trottier]

Illuminating rebuttal.

Now, can you address Tom's point? That is, with a modicum of substance?

How is an individual who forfeits hundreds of thousands of dollars for a principle - one that can be questioned, no doubt, but a principle nonetheless - greedy?

You can't have it both ways. Last night, one of your ilk, in an effort to rip the players - pointed out how "stupid" they are for giving up millions in salary to date. Now, you rip a poster for suggesting that their action is not one of greedy individuals.

Which is it? Greedy and stupid?

Regardless of any forthcoming response, one is always mindful that such harsh judgement (of either side's position) most assuredly is coming from fans who's economic and business acumen is superior to the NHLPA's or NHL's. And fans who's own professional career decision$ are at all times, no doubt, based on selflessness and benevolence toward others. Correct?

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Well that's why I asked the question. I was hoping maybe someone here could enlighten me. Unfortunately, nobody really gave me an answer besides what I suspected, which is that the players are greedy.

But really, thanks for the advice, honestly.

I'll enlighten you. The players have grown fat on the NHL teat and refuse to accept the reality that the days of the 12 million dollar hockey player are forever dead. They believe they bring the same value as an NBA player or an NFL player and want to be paid as such. In short, they are delusional.

 

[I in the Eye]

Here is what I don't understand. The players want a partnership. Fair enough. Why is it then, that they refuse to accept tying their salaries to revenues? I mean is this not what a partnership is?

IMO, both sides want to be 'partners' when it is convenient for them to want it (when it supports their cause)... and they don't want to be 'partners' when it's not convenient...

I hope that during these negotiations, one of the first things (if not the first thing) they did was clearly identify and agree to each other's role in this relationship - and expectations in these roles... It helps minimize future conflict, IMO... 'Know your role - and know your partner's role'...

If they both agreed that they are (or would like to be in the future) 'partners' (according to how they specifically, mutually, and formally define the word 'partners') then they can always refer back to this formally agreed to definition throughout the negotiation process and beyond... i.e. if you are asking for this, then explain how it's consistent with our agreed to working arrangement that we defined at the beginning...

Without this formal definition (and expectation of roles), things can get unnecessarily messy and complicated...

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Illuminating rebuttal.

Now, can you address Tom's point? That is, with a modicum of substance?

How is an individual who forfeits hundreds of thousands of dollars for a principle - one that you and others do not agree with whatsoever, but a principle nonetheless - greedy?

Because they know that if they get to keep their "free market" BS system, they will make back all of this money (and then some). Its the same reason they stuck to their "principle" in 1994, pure greed.

As to the 24% giveback scheme...

If this season is cancelled, every player with 4 years left on his contract will have given up 25% of his total earnings, players with 3 years left will have wasted 33.33% of their total earnings, players with 2 years left will have thrown away 50% of their total earnings, players with 1 year left or who are free agents will have pissed away 100% of their paycheck.

So, does 24% still seem like such a great "give-back"? It was a sham proposal and the owners knew it.

 

[Trottier]

You missed the point entirely. I'm referring to the $$$ the players have lost to date in salary from not playing.

And, BTW, giving back 24% of any salary is nothing? Honestly, have you ever worked a day in your life? Maybe on the Monopoly board foregoing 24% is meaningless, but not elesewhere.

It's so, so easy for some to casually tell other people how to spend their money, how much money they should make. And so unseemly.

That 24% salary rollback may have very well been a "sham" proposal and the owners certainly didn't go for it, as is their right. But the logic of some fans (i.e., "these guys make millions, what's 24%?!") smacks of class envy.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Okay, so in this whole lockout thing, there's something I don't quite understand, so I was hoping someone could clarify this for me.

From what I have been reading, the players, and a couple of posters here, claim that since they are the product, they have a say in what kind of system they play under.

Recently, I have been reading that the players want a sort of partnership with the league, and do not consider themselves employees, but rather partners with the owners.

Here is what I don't understand. The players want a partnership. Fair enough. Why is it then, that they refuse to accept tying their salaries to revenues? I mean is this not what a partnership is?

Partners should have to share in the responsibility of the organization not doing well. Thus, if the owners do not make money, their partners should not be making money either (or at least have to accept less money than before).

Basically what I'm saying is I just don't understand why the players claim to want a partnership but do not want to tie salaries to revenues. Can anyone clarify?

Let us be clear it is bettman who has claimned he wants a partnership but his actions say otherwise unless there is aBettman defintion of partnership different from what others operate under.

Partners operate on openess and transparency. They owe a fiduciary duty to one another and their is a broad duty to disclose information.

The NHL owners refuse to be open and transparent in their financial dealings. When I was offered a partnership in a law firm all the books and files were opened so I could do my due diligence.

The NHL owers refuse to do this. That is not a partnership.

 

[skellart]

There are alot of strong oppinions about what should & shouldn't be in this deal. All I know is that this whole thing is about money and to make money you have to have a good product. Hockey is a great product but we all know that for a casual fan it's better live than on tv. Something has to be done to generate scoring and make it more exciting to watch. In addition there needs to be more main stream advertising to grab peoples attention. Maybe when this thing is done thay need to have a "Come see the new hockey" campaign to attract attention. The more you attract, the more you gain fans and the more money is spent on hockey and isn't that where all this started?