There will be a strike

[Aaronp18]

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

Pot is the man you are after.

[Topper]

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

Pot is the man you are after.

You mean Spud isn't putting words in my mouth? :smile:

[ukcanuck]

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

Pot is the man you are after.

You mean Spud isn't putting words in my mouth? :smile:

Sorry Topper left my glasses at home

[Per]

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...

[Potatoe1]

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.

[Meds]

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.

[ukcanuck]

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.

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? 

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]

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]

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.

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?

[Mondi]

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.

[Potatoe1]

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?

[Mondi]

I can't really speak to that specifically, but any time I have more money it goes to lunches, dinners and beers. Pretty much without question.

And I can easily spend 10K per year at Cactus Club, The Roxy and other like establishments. Or Blue Water and Hawksworth as the case may be. Or maybe a weekend in Vegas?

[ukcanuck]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

[Topper]

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.

[Meds]

Comparing WWE to any of the 4 major sports leagues is a bit of a stretch isn't it?

We are talking about an event that is more media and drama driven now than competition driven. The rules seem not to apply, in fact I don't think there are any rules in the WWE that aren't completely at the discretion of the "official". In fact this is an event where the "official" is as much a token part of the drama and "story" as the actual competitors. WWE officials are expected to turn a blind eye and even roll around on the ground acting hurt. How many times do we see an "official" down and out while the match continues? Not going to happen in the NHL, NFL, MLB, or NBA.

Now, I do realize that the officiating in the NHL in recent years has been almost on par with that of the WWE.....but I will digress on that particular line of conversation for now..

The athletes involved in the WWE are expected to push the envelope of personal safety and are there to pull off new and bigger stunts. They aren't members of a team so much as individuals collaborating to put on a show. The entire event is rigged. While many people subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the NHL (and some of the other pro sports) is rigged, the players are not expected to perform superhuman feats that defy all common sense.

It is a pretty poor comparisson. In fact, I think that some of the personal protection that comes from the WWE is from the respect that the wrestlers have for one another (to some degree). They all know they are there to push the limits and that they depend on their opponent for their own safety and for the popularity of their performance etc. NHL players have no respect for one another. Look no further than some of the comments and brutal blindside hits thrown in the last few years. I don't see the NFL Players Union protecting their members from one another when their are bonuses being paid out to guys if they go out and intentionally injure a member of the opposing team.

Regardless.....I could ramble for hours. I just don't see the WWE as being a worthwhile basis of comparisson.

[ukcanuck]

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/1110575-wwe-news-wrestlings-risks-warrant-a-labor-unions-rewards
you know what, read this and tell me that you can't see how the NHLPA prevents the same sort of conditions existing in the NHL.



Without a collective front against owners and shareholders whose sole concern is the bottom line, it always turns into a race to the bottom. A question of who will take more risk for less money?

Without a union, NHL players would be independent contractors who would be paying for their own medical, pension, insurance, etc etc. And if you think that's okay due to the money they make, they wouldn't be making that money as there would be no minimum contracts or base salaries. No guarantee that a replacement player would not take the roster spot while one was rehabbing an injury.

Nothing would be gauranteed without it being stipulated on a contract and only players like Crosby would merit that kind of contract.

Only in wrestling you say? Not possible in the Majors?

Maybe now after the fact, perhaps the fact that the majors are legitimate (arguably) and wrestling is not even considered a sport because the fix is in, is directly due to the unions keeping the owners honest.