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.

Moderator: Referees
ukcanuck wrote:topper wrote:ukcanuck wrote:
You mean Spud isn't putting words in my mouth?Aaronp18 wrote:You do know that Topper didn't say any of that right?
Pot is the man you are after.
Sorry Topper left my glasses at homeTopper wrote:You mean Spud isn't putting words in my mouth?Aaronp18 wrote:You do know that Topper didn't say any of that right?
Pot is the man you are after.
Heck, if it weren't for the unions, I doubt I'd have 35 days of vacation and unlimited sick days.griz wrote: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?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?
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/
Everyone is greedy.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.
My guess is the owners would like to pay the players as little as possible with out affecting the on ice product.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.
Disagree here.and not have to supply any resources for the players beyond what gets them on the ice on game night.
Again I don't agree. It's not in the owners best interest to do what you are describing.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)
WWE is a terrible example.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.
Why do I have to spend my money at all?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.
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.Potatoe1 wrote:You are making something out of nothing.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.
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.
Potatoe1 wrote:Again I don't agree. It's not in the owners best interest to do what you are describing.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)
why?Potatoe1 wrote:WWE is a terrible example.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.
Like the worst example ever....
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.potatoe1 wrote:Why do I have to spend my money at all?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.
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.
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..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.
Uhh, you are going so far off topic here that I'm not even sure what the point is anymore.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.
why?Potatoe1 wrote: WWE is a terrible example.
Like the worst example ever....
I'm sure you have long realized how incredibly weak your argument is here.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..
It's situational.I am just saying it's not right to divert tax money that would otherwise help the sick and poor.
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.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..
If you were an Oilers season ticket holder spending 10K a year on the team, how would you spend that money if they left?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.
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.potatoe1 wrote: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.Potatoe1 wrote:Uhh, you are going so far off topic here that I'm not even sure what the point is anymore.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.
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.
why?Potatoe1 wrote: WWE is a terrible example.
Like the worst example ever....
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.potatoe1 wrote:I'm sure you have long realized how incredibly weak your argument is here.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 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:It's situational.I am just saying it's not right to divert tax money that would otherwise help the sick and poor.
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.
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.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..
That said, over the long haul, having a healthy and profitable franchise is also important.
who knows but it can't be that much or we would know. you don't miss what doesn't hurt.Potatoe1 wrote:How much Federal and Provincial tax revenue left town with the Grizzlies?
Bus tickets out of Edmonton.Potatoe1 wrote:If you were an Oilers season ticket holder spending 10K a year on the team, how would you spend that money if they left?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.