but not the dishonest negotiating tactics, the lies and deceits and the clumsy attempts at manipulation... or that we are three months into what would have been the season and they still havent pitched their best offer?
Care to be specific about the dishonest tactics, lies, deceits, and/or clumsy manipulation attempts?
As for the time frame, that's been answered. We are where we are because the PA refused to even sit down and entertain offers until September.
I understand the sentiment but in the hard cold world of business is business if you are dumb enough to run the ship into the ground...well ask the captain Francesco Schettino of the Costa Concordia...
To me it sure seems like winning a stanley cup does not create a stable hockey market, Tampa, Raleigh and Denver each have cups and star players and each have or are struggling... These new franchises that need the help? Build some community rinks and buy a bunch of kid sized equipment and give out luxury box tickets to peewee teams... that will do more to create a client base than some rich snot arsed Russian superstar. bottom line, just don't sign mega contracts until you have the money from a rabid season ticket base and major corporate involvement to do so.
First of all, if there is hockey interest in a community it is up to the residents, taxpayers, and local municipal government to build the community rinks.
If you don't have the interest and can't sign the superstars, then you aren't going put a winning team on the ice and you go back to a system where teams like New York, Detroit, Toronto, and Philadelphia dig into their deep pockets and scoop up all the talent in an attempt to try and buy the Cup every year. I for one am all in favor of folding up at least 4 franchises and moving 2 more into Canadian markets that are absolutely dying to have teams of their own. Interestingly enough the players don't want teams to fold because that would reduce teh number of union jobs. So keeping the playing field level and competitive and affordable
for all of the owners is in the best interest of the players because it means they have jobs. Hence the partnership between owners and players, and if the client base means success and profit, and if your idea of building such a client base is a good one (and I do think it is btw), then who pays for the handouts to the kids in the community? Who pays for the luxury box? The owner or the players?
And for their trouble, and allowing their money to do the work for them they are entitled to happily divide up 1.5 billion dollars a year not a bad investment, considering... plus as Per points out they can parlay all that cachet into even more profit in all their other enterprises.
My question is why do the players feel the are ENTITLED to this? The owners have let their money work for them. They have earned their wealth through investment. I went firmly onto the side of the owners in this when I started hearing uneducated, filthy rich, spoiled rotten, 19-28 year old athletes saying that the "deserved" the money they make, that they are entitled to it. That was when I was done. It's the attitude that disgusts me in our society, not just the NHL, and not just with rich brats. The idea that people are entitled to their share, that things should just be provided and handed over by the rich to the poor or by the governement to the citizens. That thinking has put the USofA in the situation it is currently in and threatens the entire world economy. The current ownership group with Bettman as Commish has increased the average NHL players salary by $1M over the last 7 years. But they still DESERVE more? Why is anyone ENTITLED to a percentage of someone else's investment return?
uk wrote:isn't that kind of the point, they put in the work and have the genetics as Coco pointed out, and that's the pay off for being the draw that we the fans pay WILLINGLY pay through the nose to see play?
Sure, they have the gifts and they put in the work, but what about when they quit putting in the work? Case in point being a guy like Scott Gomez. Nobody in Montreal shows up to watch Gomez play. They show up in hopes that the TEAM will succeed (in his case despite him). So, when the player signs big and then just floats, why should they still be guaranteed that money? I put in the work in school, learned how to do my job now I'm employed, and I'm still learning and having to keep up on what I already know, but if I show up to work and don't do my job I will soon find myself out of work and not making any money. Why should these millionaires who are already living the dream be ENTITLED to that money even if they don't want to put the effort in any longer?
uk wrote:]Since when does not accepting a roll back given up by the players in the last CBA constitute something worth a pat on the back for?
I'm confused by what you just said.....
uk wrote:I think that what's not good enough is having the players collective share being continually clawed back with each CBA negotiation. Considering the results of three lockouts, It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict what will be on the table during the next one...at some point you got to take a stand.
The collective share has gone down (twice) but their individual take home share has sky-rocketed. I wish I could say that my wage has nearly doubled over the last 7 years.....I think most people here on this board would love to be able to say the same, and I'm pretty sure that none of us would complain if our employer's found themselves making triple if we were making double. We would be more than happy to look back and see that we were making twice as much now as we were in 2004. Life would be pretty good.....especially if we were still in the same job doing something we love to do (which is something that few of us can say, we may like our jobs, but we don't love our work the same as we would if we were playing a game for a living).
Can I point to the evidence that this drawing of a line in the sand and then drawing another line in the sand, and then drawing another line in the sand says that the bottom line is wholly made up?
I'm pretty sure that if I'm a hotdog vendor I'm wishing that whatever the bottom line is, can we just get to it? Please?
Yeah, I'm actually quite disappointed in the owners for this. I wish they had drawn their line and just stood behind it. The players would have caved and we would have seen a return to hockey already. Every time they caved they just gave the PA more resolve and traction.
This is Fred's point too, I don't see how this is really relevant, pro sports does not suffer in depressions, entertainment is a needed commodity when times are tough. The proof is right there in Forbes, through the worst economy since the depression the NHL has had record growth. Neither side should be trying to use the sky might fall tomorrow...the Mayans could have been correct too, so what?
I don't think we've ever had a true depression in which athletes were making the millions of dollars that they are making now. We've had recessions, and I do agree with you that people need the entertainment release of pro sports, but if we were to enter into a true depression, I think that many of these pro athletes would find themselves the targets of some serious public hatred if they were making money to play a game while large portions of the poulation were struggling to even make rent and food money.
To me either you blame the whole thing and boycott the entire disgusting thing or you hold your nose and concentrate on the game.
I just can't see only pulling on one thread.
I agree with you, and if I could regularly watch CHL hockey I would, but when the NHL is back all I'll really get is their product, and I love to watch hockey. So.....meh.I'll still watch, but as always I'll be caring about my team and now not really giving a rats ass about the names on the back of the jersey.