There will be a strike

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 11429
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:02 am

When the owners eventually force the players to capitulate here, which they will, I wonder how many of the crybabies who constantly bash the owners at every turn will tune out NHL hockey. To see some people get so riled up it will probably tear their hearts out when the owners curbstomp the players once again.

Certain people seem to want to argue about the NHL lockout more than they have ever discussed hockey.

PS can we get a title change for this thread ?
TRY TO FOCUS ON HOW MY ASS TASTES IN ONE YEAR

Boston Canucker
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:30 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Boston Canucker » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:25 am

Blob Mckenzie wrote:When the owners eventually force the players to capitulate here, which they will, I wonder how many of the crybabies who constantly bash the owners at every turn will tune out NHL hockey. To see some people get so riled up it will probably tear their hearts out when the owners curbstomp the players once again.

Certain people seem to want to argue about the NHL lockout more than they have ever discussed hockey.

PS can we get a title change for this thread ?
I've had the same thought about all the people who keep bashing the players, if and how they can then come back and cheer these guys on after all the bashing. On this board at least, the vitriol directed toward the players far exceeds that directed towards the owners.

I, for one, have little interest in debating the topic of the lockout, other than the occasional comment I can't be bothered much more. I've been clear about the side I am on, but I'd just like to see it over. Debating the composition of the Canucks 4th line is far more interesting than all of this.

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by ukcanuck » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:59 am

topper wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
You know what, I just think you use the same sauce for the goose as the gander.
I agree completely, unfortunately you do not practice what you preach....
It's ridiculous to point fingers at the players and say how greedy when they are pure amateurs when it comes to the unbridled greed of the owners. 
See..
I suppose your pointing to the fact that I think the owners are more greedy and better at it than the players as me not being balanced about this whole thing. ...Perhaps  I am.  Its probably natural to argue ones own position more strongly than positions opposed ... That probably makes me about as bad as nearly everyone else on this thread. :) 
However, it doesn't change the fact that opinions on this thread have skewered the players for actions no worse than the owners and that's  if you believe that the owners intentions are purely honourable.

Obviously I don't believe owners are being honorable, I think they would be as happy to have the players as low paid as possible and not have to supply any resources for the players beyond what gets them on the  ice on game night. 

An example of what I think the NHL would be like without an organised players union is the WWE which has no union and the performers in that business live and die with drug addiction and physical pain at a staggeringly higher rate than other similar businesses (400% higher by some sources)
The  parent company and owners of that corporation have made their wealth driving those men into the ground. The list is of wrestlers who have dies from steroids, heart attacks, and drug overdoses is obscene by comparison to the NHL and although there are contributing factors not present in hockey the business part of the equation is essentially the same.
Topper wrote:
Moreover it's highly debatable that the presence of the Canucks contribute that much to the economy anyway. It's deposable income that's being spent on game nights and that money will be spent somewhere. other businesses and other pursuits will benefit from the absense of the NHL during this lockout so how much public welfare do we really need to provide?
I disagree.

If you take away the Canucks it is highly unlikely that I would spend the same money on other local events as I don't have the same type of interest. I would either put it in my pocket, or go on a trip, or something else.

I dont think I am unique on this either.

NHL hockey just has far more appeal then the other stuff going on in the city. 

It's even worse in a shit hole like Edmonton.
yes but you would likely spend it on something and unless you take your money out of the city and province, your money is still grist for the mill.

I'm just not completely sold on the notion that the Canucks as an example, really brings back enough to justify any public money...I know that the Canucks are a poor example since Rogers was built with private money....
Topper wrote:That said I don't think NHL teams in Canada should get public money, that is just silly given how profitable they currently are.
we agree there and I think it would be a great thing for all North American society if every jurisdiction could agree so that leagues can't hold anyone hostage.

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by ukcanuck » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:05 am

Blob Mckenzie wrote:When the owners eventually force the players to capitulate here, which they will, I wonder how many of the crybabies who constantly bash the owners at every turn will tune out NHL hockey. To see some people get so riled up it will probably tear their hearts out when the owners curbstomp the players once again.

Certain people seem to want to argue about the NHL lockout more than they have ever discussed hockey.

PS can we get a title change for this thread ?
I'd comment more on the Canucks and their line up and how they play but I'd just be agreeing with you most of the time, and it might be disconcerting for you to be in concorde with the mongoloid patrol :)

Besides isn't this the misnamed strike/lockout thread?

User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2909
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Aaronp18 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:31 am

ukcanuck wrote:
topper wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:

You do know that Topper didn't say any of that right?

Pot is the man you are after.

:thumbs:

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 9882
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Topper » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:59 am

Aaronp18 wrote:You do know that Topper didn't say any of that right?

Pot is the man you are after.

:thumbs:
You mean Spud isn't putting words in my mouth? :smile:
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by ukcanuck » Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:02 pm

Topper wrote:
Aaronp18 wrote:You do know that Topper didn't say any of that right?

Pot is the man you are after.

:thumbs:
You mean Spud isn't putting words in my mouth? :smile:
Sorry Topper left my glasses at home :oops:

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 3666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Per » Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:05 pm

griz wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:btw why would you publically admit to being a turncoat and union buster? I'm supposed to be impressed that knowing the things that unions have given society doesn't shut your gloating? And what has that got to do with your wrong opinion?
Clearly you're taking this stuff personal. I don't see any gloating from Tiger. You're publically admitting to be a company man. So what? If we can't talk about this shit how would you ever understand your position better?

Unions aren't all good man. There is a time and place for the ideal of unions but they can grow into monsters that are bad for the country or the system they operate within. Unions are for themselves after all. There's loads of stuff online about this. Here's a few quick links I came across :

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... page/full/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ca/258405/
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/why-unions-a ... r-workers/
Heck, if it weren't for the unions, I doubt I'd have 35 days of vacation and unlimited sick days.

Good thing the unions are stronger here in Europe than in North America...
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Potatoe1 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:55 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
However, it doesn't change the fact that opinions on this thread have skewered the players for actions no worse than the owners and that's  if you believe that the owners intentions are purely honourable.
Everyone is greedy.

Hell economics and most philosophical theories revolve around the belief that all people are greedy and will almost always act in their own self interest.
Obviously I don't believe owners are being honorable, I think they would be as happy to have the players as low paid as possible.  
My guess is the owners would like to pay the players as little as possible with out affecting the on ice product.

The players of course would like to be paid as much as possible with out actually putting the league out of business.

It's pretty simple to be honest.
and not have to supply any resources for the players beyond what gets them on the  ice on game night.
Disagree here.

The Canucks spend a ton of money on "extra stuff" because performance matters.

That said they only do it because it's in their best interest to do so.

An example of what I think the NHL would be like without an organised players union is the WWE which has no union and the performers in that business live and die with drug addiction and physical pain at a staggeringly higher rate than other similar businesses (400% higher by some sources)
Again I don't agree. It's not in the owners best interest to do what you are describing.
The  parent company and owners of that corporation have made their wealth driving those men into the ground. The list is of wrestlers who have dies from steroids, heart attacks, and drug overdoses is obscene by comparison to the NHL and although there are contributing factors not present in hockey the business part of the equation is essentially the same.
WWE is a terrible example.

Like the worst example ever....


yes but you would likely spend it on something and unless you take your money out of the city and province, your money is still grist for the mill.
Why do I have to spend my money at all?

If If the Canucks left town I would not spend as much in the local economy,,, full stop end of discussion.

I don't think I'm alone.

And as far as subsidies go,,,,,

Like I said I think it's silly to do it in Canada because we have the best hockey markets in the world plus the NHL is not a fan of relocation.

That said, if one particular city wants to throw money out to attract a sports team I have no problem with it as long as it's a calculated financial decision.

Sports teams not only help the local economy, but the raw tax revenue from income / corporate / payroll / sales etc is huge. If we are just talking income tax I suspect most of the Canucks pay in the 40 to 50% range with a payroll (including management) of around 80 mill.

It's probably 40+ mill just in income tax, not to mention HST, Payroll taxes, and corporate tax. When all is said and done it's probably well over 100 mill going to the federal and provincial gov, and that's just the direct tax and none of the spin off.

Then you start throwing in all the spin off stuff in terms of restaurant bizz, trickle down spending, jobs, etc, who knows what the figure is but it's a shit load.

User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
Posts: 5941
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Meds » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:52 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
Meds wrote: Are you shitting me???? These guys make millions of dollars but are reimbursed by the team for their rent and/or mortgage? That had better be a joke. I can understand if this is in regards to AHL call-ups who need to rent or setup in a hotel, but not for NHL regulars. If you rent and get traded then you rent somewhere else. If you have a mortgage then you sell or retain the equity of the house. If you're making more than $500K/year, which every NHL regular does make, then I think there is a SERIOUS problem with our society and these athletes in general when there are people below the poverty line in every major city who can barely make enough to pay their own rent in some meager dwelling but these millionaires are making their outrageous salaries and not having to foot any of their own basic costs?

One more strike against the players.
You are making something out of nothing.

Per diems, stipends, and mortgage rebates are small potatoes compared to the billions in total compensation.

Dont sweat the small stuff.

Anyway this lock out is stating to get incredibly annoying. The solution seems so obvious.....

If the players main issue is that the NHL honor current contracts then all you have to do is introduce a slow cap reduction down to 50% over the course of a few seasons and voila, everyone is happy.

This is not like the last time where there were massive philosophical differences between the 2 sides.

I guess we just have to wait another month or 2 for the players to truly start missing their paychecks and the owners to get closer to the part of the seasons where they make the majority of their profit.
It's not an issue of the negotiation in this case that has me rolling my eyes, it is just disgusting that they get this on top of the massive sums of money that they already make. Wouldn't matter if they wanted it as a new inclusion in this upcoming CBA or not. It's just ridiculous.

As for simple solution. I agree with you. I would even say screw the slow reduction. Drop it to 50/50 or something right now but grandfather existing contracts in. No roll back on current salaries, just a reduction of the cap that see's players making more than what would be the new maximum salary continue with their salary but their cap hit simply counts at the max allowable. I see that as being completely fair. Sucks for players who didn't sign this off-season, and sucks for players who will are nearing the end of their current contracts in the next couple of years.....but really? They will still be making millions of dollars, and face it, business owners can pretty much decide what they want to pay their employees.....so long as it is above minimum wage or their is some other form of agreement in place between employer and employee.

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by ukcanuck » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:39 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
UKcanuck wrote: an example of what I think the NHL would be like without an organised players union is the WWE which has no union and the performers in that business live and die with drug addiction and physical pain at a staggeringly higher rate than other similar businesses (400% higher by some sources)
Again I don't agree. It's not in the owners best interest to do what you are describing.
 
Coincidently, that is the same argument used by slave owners in the debates over free states and slave states, and if it were true that people (owners) treated their property and the people that work in their businesses fairly. There would be no unions and no one would have ever heard of Charles Dickens.
no one can deny history, when power barons are unfettered everyone below them suffers.
Potatoe1 wrote:
UKcanuck wrote: The  parent company and owners of that corporation (WWE) have made their wealth driving those men into the ground. The list is of wrestlers who have dies from steroids, heart attacks, and drug overdoses is obscene by comparison to the NHL and although there are contributing factors not present in hockey the business part of the equation is essentially the same.
WWE is a terrible example.

Like the worst example ever....
why? 
potatoe1 wrote:
UKcanuck wrote: yes  but you would likely spend it on something and unless you take your money out of the city and province, your money is still grist for the mill.
Why do I have to spend my money at all?

If If the Canucks left town I would not spend as much in the local economy,,, full stop end of discussion.

I don't think I'm alone.
because unless you are completely irresponsible, it's disposable money your spending, even if you save it and it stays in the bank the interest is taxable so it's not frozen money and not contributing to the economy. 
Unlike the money that sits in offshore banks or held in private vaults...[/quote]
potatoe1 wrote: And as far as subsidies go,,,,,

Like I said I think it's silly to do it in Canada because we have the best hockey markets in the world plus the NHL is not a fan of relocation.

That said, if one particular city wants to throw money out to attract a sports team I have no problem with it as long as it's a calculated financial decision.

Sports teams not only help the local economy, but the raw tax revenue from income / corporate / payroll / sales etc is huge. If we are just talking income tax I suspect most of the Canucks pay in the 40 to 50% range with a payroll (including management) of around 80 mill. 

It's probably 40+ mill just in income tax, not to mention HST, Payroll taxes, and corporate tax. When all is said and done it's probably well over 100 mill going to the federal and provincial gov, and that's just the direct tax and none of the spin off.

Then you start throwing in all the spin off stuff in terms of restaurant bizz, trickle down spending, jobs, etc, who knows what the figure is but it's a shit load.
This sounds a lot like an argument for the majority of HRR going to the players since most of that money will come back to the government in form of income and sales taxes.  While The owners share is taxed proportionately less..

 I want to be clear though....I m not arguing that an NHL franchise isn't worth having, or even some subsidies in the form of bylaw variances and other ways that cities can help business to flourish shouldn't be extended

I am just  saying it's not right to divert tax money that would otherwise help the sick and poor. 

Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Potatoe1 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:59 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
Coincidently, that is the same argument used by slave owners in the debates over free states and slave states, and if it were true that people (owners) treated their property and the people that work in their businesses fairly. There would be no unions and no one would have ever heard of Charles Dickens.
no one can deny history, when power barons are unfettered everyone below them suffers.
Uhh, you are going so far off topic here that I'm not even sure what the point is anymore.

Anyway my point is this...

The best way to run a hockey team or any other type of business where you need the best and brightest operating at max efficiency, is to make sure your players, are happy, healthy, and stress free.

This allows then to operate at peak efficiency and by investing in their well being you would make even more money.

Any owner worth his salt would know this and make sure it happens.

So yes the owners would love to pay the players far less, but the smart ones would balance things out in order to reap the rewards of a happy and healthy team.


Potatoe1 wrote: WWE is a terrible example.

Like the worst example ever....
why? 
[/quote]

Because the WWE is not a competitive sport like the NHL. It is a group of performers who's popularity is mostly created by the story lines each character is placed in. Most of the Wrestlers are interchangeable parts and the industry only has one and sometimes 2, employers.


because unless you are completely irresponsible, it's disposable money your spending, even if you save it and it stays in the bank the interest is taxable so it's not frozen money and not contributing to the economy. 
Unlike the money that sits in offshore banks or held in private vaults..
I'm sure you have long realized how incredibly weak your argument is here.



I am just  saying it's not right to divert tax money that would otherwise help the sick and poor. 
It's situational.

If the Gov spends money to attract or retain a sports team, and by doing so can significantly grow the tax base then I have no problem with it as it would represent an over all gain.

In the case of the Oilers it's silly because there is almost no chance of losing the Oilers so it's just a hand out to a guy who doesn't need it.
This sounds a lot like an argument for the majority of HRR going to the players since most of that money will come back to the government in form of income and sales taxes. While The owners share is taxed proportionately less..
In terms of the "tax base" money going to the players is probably better as it is taxed at a higher rate and the players most likely spend a larger percentage of their remaining money in the local economy.

That said, over the long haul, having a healthy and profitable franchise is also important.

How much Federal and Provincial tax revenue left town with the Grizzlies?

Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Potatoe1 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:24 pm

Mondi wrote:I don't think it necessarily follows the presence of a pro sports team will increase tax revenue, people are apt to spend their disposable income on other things in the community.

Particularly if the government is spending or risking public funds on buildings and tax breaks.

Private businesses of all ilks should sink or swim on their merits.
If you were an Oilers season ticket holder spending 10K a year on the team, how would you spend that money if they left?

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by ukcanuck » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:23 pm

potatoe1 wrote:
Potatoe1 wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
Coincidently, that is the same argument used by slave owners in the debates over free states and slave states, and if it were true that people (owners) treated their property and the people that work in their businesses fairly.  There would be no unions and no one would have ever heard of Charles Dickens.
no one can deny history, when power barons are unfettered everyone below them suffers.
Uhh, you are going so far off topic here that I'm not even sure what the point is anymore.

Anyway my point is this...

The best way to run a hockey team or any other type of business where you need the best and brightest operating at max efficiency, is to make sure your players, are happy, healthy, and stress free.

This allows then to operate at peak efficiency and by investing in their well being you would make even more money.

Any owner worth his salt would know this and make sure it happens.

So yes the owners would love to pay the players far less, but the smart ones would balance things out in order to reap the rewards of a happy and healthy team.


Potatoe1 wrote: WWE is a terrible example.

Like the worst example ever....
why? 
Because the WWE is not a competitive sport like the NHL. It is a group of performers who's popularity is mostly created by the story lines each character is placed in. Most of the Wrestlers are interchangeable parts and the industry only has one and sometimes 2, employers.  
I think the WWE is a great example of what happens when the performers/athletes have no protection from the owners beyond the contracts they sign. 

The key in the comparison is that both the WWE and NHL must please the buying public. This means that for the wrestler and the hockey player that there is pressure to perform.

For the wrestler this means more and more  matches, bigger and bigger stunts, always pushing the envelope. 

With no union to protect them, and with the promoters having no  loyalty there is nothing stopping the owner from squeezing the wrestlers for everything they are worth and discarding them as quickly as yesterday's garbage when they are done or lose the public'a fancy.

The proof is in the pudding and you  have neglected to comment on the long list of wrestlers who have died from performance related issues. 

It's not a stretch to imagine the exact same thing happening in all of the 4 major leagues if not for the protection of players unions. 

I know that it may seem counterproductive for ownership  to behave that way, we all love our heroes, but let's face it there is always another fresh face to come along and the public forgets quickly.

potatoe1 wrote:
because  unless you are completely irresponsible, it's disposable money your spending, even if you save it and it stays in the bank the interest is taxable so it's not frozen money and not contributing to the economy. 
Unlike the money that sits in offshore banks or held in private vaults..
I'm sure you have long realized how incredibly weak your argument is here.
It's not weak at all. There are three million people in the province of BC give or take and the amount of money those people have to spend on things like a sports team is finite. it's hardly going to go up or down based on one hockey team, even in a place like  Edmonton. 
Sure the presence of a sports franchise will enhance the economy but hell if the worlds going to come to an end if the owner takes his ball and goes home.

potatoe1 wrote:
I am just  saying it's not right to divert tax money that would otherwise help the sick and poor.
It's situational.

If the Gov spends money to attract or retain a sports team, and by doing so can significantly grow the tax base then I have no problem with it as it would represent an over all gain.

In the case of the Oilers it's silly because there is almost no chance of losing the Oilers so it's just a hand out to a guy who doesn't need it.
This sounds a lot like an argument for the majority of HRR going to the players since most of that money will come back to the government in form of income and sales taxes.  While The owners share is taxed proportionately less..
In terms of the "tax base" money going to the players is probably better as it is taxed at a higher rate and the players most likely spend a larger percentage of their remaining money in the local economy.

That said, over the long haul, having a healthy and profitable franchise is also important.
I think we are not far apart in thinking here,  it's just that I think that there is a better way to ensure the health of the league than solely on the backs of the players.
Potatoe1 wrote:How much Federal and Provincial tax revenue left town with the Grizzlies?
who knows but it can't be that much or we would know. you don't miss what doesn't hurt. 

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 9882
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Topper » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:56 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
Mondi wrote:I don't think it necessarily follows the presence of a pro sports team will increase tax revenue, people are apt to spend their disposable income on other things in the community.

Particularly if the government is spending or risking public funds on buildings and tax breaks.

Private businesses of all ilks should sink or swim on their merits.
If you were an Oilers season ticket holder spending 10K a year on the team, how would you spend that money if they left?
Bus tickets out of Edmonton.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

Post Reply