misterjaggers
Registered User
Isn't the title of this thread overreaching? A one time tournament played at one venue in Ontario is hardly a blip on the radar.WHA resurrection
Isn't the title of this thread overreaching? A one time tournament played at one venue in Ontario is hardly a blip on the radar.WHA resurrection
Crosbyfan said:The Fatties are being accused of dieting collusion. This may force them back to the "table" to eat in good faith.
FLYLine4LIFE said:The players are the product
FLYLine4LIFE said:Im pretty sure our Taxes go to the garbage mans paycheck.
Mine don't. My city is not in the garbage collection business. I pay a private company to pick up my trash and I have a choice of 4 or 5 different companies. Competition keeps the price down.FLYLine4LIFE said:Im pretty sure our Taxes go to the garbage mans paycheck.
In my company, we have over 40 branches but not all 40 branches take in the same amount of revenue partially due to their locations. As a result, the branches that make $30 million/year in revenue have higher expenses (most expensive are employee costs) than the branches that make $15 million/year in revenue. Maybe we're not most companies but we are the largest company in the US in our sector. But the NHL would be in the same type of boat. A few "branches" would be making more revenue but you want them to only spend the same amount. I have no problem where its a single entity (that would be better for the sport and particularly in marketing the game correctly) because then the revenue would go to one place and the single entity could set budgets for each branches yearly expenses based on the revenue. Thus you would have built-in revenue sharing and salary limitations as a result of having a single entity. The part that everyone would get pissed about is the salary limitations wouldn't be the same across the board...not every team would have the same budget for salaries.vadardog said:Weary what you don't understand is that NHL clubs only compete on the ice. They are not competing in business. The NHL essentially is one business not 30. People go to the games in their home town, its not like they are deciding weather to go to MacDonalds or Burger King down the block. Because of this the teams have different budgets. I kind of wish the owners would sell the entire NHL to one entity so that they could just call each franchise a branch of the business and tell each branch manager that they have 30 million to work with. Thats what most companies do. Then NHL teams could get back to competing fairly on the ice instead of stealing each others players.
An unrestricted free agent system could work if all the teams had the same revenue, but they don't. Now one could argue that the owners should revenue share, but why should they.
me2 said:The owners have admitted a problem, accepted responsibility and are now correcting it.
The players aren't doing anything but taking money. How are the players correcting it? They aren't.
The owners are a fat guy with an admitted overeating problem.
The players are a McDonalds restaurant who milk the fat guy for all of his money and don't care about his health in doing so.
The fat guy finally does something about being obese and goes on a healthy diet and gets some exercise and less of his money goes to McDonalds.
Saying the responsbility for correcting it to falls upon the players is like saying the responsbility for correcting the fat guys diet is falling upon the McDonalds. Its does not. The owners, just like the fat guy are correcting themselves.
puckhead42 said:O.K.......lets say the NHL players and owners dont come to an agreement before next season......the players now have an alternative.....the WHA with no salary cap......yes this is just a tournament.....will it make NHL owners take notice and think...hey...these guys might be serious?....I dont side with either on this issue....I just feel dumped on after spending hard earned dough on games merchandise etc. over the years ....one thing though...if im a garbage collector, sandwich maker or whatever...if the company down the street will pay me more...thats where Im going.....IMO
FLYLine4LIFE said:Does the garbage man say...I clean up the trash to make everyone happy there streets dont smell of crap" No he saids he cleans up the trash to get his paycheck. Does the deli worker say..I do my job because I love to see the happy faces on the customers faces when they walk out with some meat? No..they do there job for the paycheck(though im sure people do there jobs for reasons like that...example a Police officer). You people find any little thing and jump down the players throat...funny how you didnt mention this line: " "People are dying to see some hockey in Canada." Right there hes talking about the fans..but you left that out. If your going to post something post ALL the facts not just the ones you want people to read. And BTW..even if he didnt say we want to put money back into the players and said..."We are doing this just for the fans...you would have jumped down his throat and said..BS! BS!" What a liar!...but when he tells the truth you still yell and scream. So sad.
puckhead42 said:O.K.......lets say the NHL players and owners dont come to an agreement before next season......the players now have an alternative.....the WHA with no salary cap......yes this is just a tournament.....will it make NHL owners take notice and think...hey...these guys might be serious?....I dont side with either on this issue....I just feel dumped on after spending hard earned dough on games merchandise etc. over the years ....one thing though...if im a garbage collector, sandwich maker or whatever...if the company down the street will pay me more...thats where Im going.....IMO
Crosbyfan said:The Fatties are being accused of dieting collusion. This may force them back to the "table" to eat in good faith.
me2 said:Unfortunately the players don't see things as clearly as you. The NHL pays many times market value yet the players refuse to work for 10 times as much pay as the guy down the street is offering. They passed up 55% of $2.1B and $42.5m unlinked to go work for market value of $100K per player in Europe.
Coolburn said:In my company, we have over 40 branches but not all 40 branches take in the same amount of revenue partially due to their locations. As a result, the branches that make $30 million/year in revenue have higher expenses (most expensive are employee costs) than the branches that make $15 million/year in revenue. Maybe we're not most companies but we are the largest company in the US in our sector. But the NHL would be in the same type of boat. A few "branches" would be making more revenue but you want them to only spend the same amount. I have no problem where its a single entity (that would be better for the sport and particularly in marketing the game correctly) because then the revenue would go to one place and the single entity could set budgets for each branches yearly expenses based on the revenue. Thus you would have built-in revenue sharing and salary limitations as a result of having a single entity. The part that everyone would get pissed about is the salary limitations wouldn't be the same across the board...not every team would have the same budget for salaries.
Tawnos said:This argument never fails to make me chuckle. People cried when they union offered the rollback because it wasn't a long-term fix.. but they expect the players to go for the short-term money everytime. You think that the players consider their current lesser salaries to be permanent? They are thinking short term for their salary in Europe, long term for the NHL. If the owners you support are willing to take a hit this season to try to get their system, how do you criticize the players for doing the same?
The players are not going to play under a system that hurts them in the long run and they're trying to force the owners into not having a detrimental system. In the meantime, they still have to earn a living and if it's for 100k in Europe, that's much more than they'd make not playing at all. Again, this is temporary money coming in. I don't see you criticizing Melnyk for making his money in pharmecuticals or Dolan for making money with Cablevision while his hockey team isn't in business.
Tawnos said:This argument never fails to make me chuckle. People cried when they union offered the rollback because it wasn't a long-term fix.. but they expect the players to go for the short-term money everytime. You think that the players consider their current lesser salaries to be permanent? They are thinking short term for their salary in Europe, long term for the NHL. If the owners you support are willing to take a hit this season to try to get their system, how do you criticize the players for doing the same?
The players are not going to play under a system that hurts them in the long run and they're trying to force the owners into not having a detrimental system. In the meantime, they still have to earn a living and if it's for 100k in Europe, that's much more than they'd make not playing at all. Again, this is temporary money coming in. I don't see you criticizing Melnyk for making his money in pharmecuticals or Dolan for making money with Cablevision while his hockey team isn't in business.
eye said:I say the tournament never takes place.
Tawnos said:This argument never fails to make me chuckle. People cried when they union offered the rollback because it wasn't a long-term fix.. but they expect the players to go for the short-term money everytime.
ok, so a player making 800,000 is making 750,000...if it stops the bleeding, couldn't the players be happy. I mean, they say its for the love of the game right?maybe at the right price...Tawnos said:Well for one, everything is relative. You see 1.3m as a high number, but the players don't, nor should they. It's not even a quarter of many players salaries. That's called detrimental, any way you slice it.
the players were the only ones making concessions? what are talking about? both sides wouldn't get off their stances until 3 days before the cancellation...Tawnos said:The players offers were not the same system as before... and the players were the only ones making concessions until 3 days before the cancellation. The disagreement doesn't come from one side not wanting to fix the limping game, the disagreement comes with how to go about it. Owner fanboys never seem to get that.
The players offered the 24% rollback, teams allowed to call for arbitration, a hard cap on entry level contracts, and a rework of the qualifying offer system.e-townchamps said:the players were the only ones making concessions? what are talking about? both sides wouldn't get off their stances until 3 days before the cancellation...
Weary said:The players offered the 24% rollback, teams allowed to call for arbitration, a hard cap on entry level contracts, and a rework of the qualifying offer system.
The owners conceded nothing that even came close to that.
To stop that requires no concessions from the players. The owners should take all "defined hockey revenues," put them in a big pile, and split it thirty ways.e-townchamps said:again, how does this stop the bleeding? nothing here that limits the top 6 owners from their own stupidity and raising market value...it's like a band-aid for a severed leg
I agree that there should be revenue sharing, it gives my Oilers a better chance at signing free agents. We can certainly live with a 45 mil cap with revenue sharing but teams like Philly and Toronto will not share with the poorer teams.Weary said:To stop that requires no concessions from the players. The owners should take all "defined hockey revenues," put them in a big pile, and split it thirty ways.