There will be a strike

[Potatoe1]

 
Sure the presence of a sports franchise will enhance the economy.

Sounds like we agree after all.

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?

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

As myself and others have pointed out WWE is a bloody terrible comparison primarily because IT IS NOT A SPORT. Pro wrestling is a group of actors playing a role.

Further to that there is no real competition for the WWE so the actors are somewhat interchangeable and have no real leverage.

Why not use more apt comparisons like REAL SPORTS, where there are no unions involved.

How about using the PGA?

Are the golfers used and abused by the tournament directors.

What about NASCAR

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/26/does- ... rmula-one/

Their Drivers seem prety happy and dont want a union at all.

As was the case during NASCAR's formative years, officials have always hung their hat on an "open door policy" for any driver with a legitimate concern. In the past year NASCAR has even taken the unprecedented step of holding "town hall" meetings with owners and drivers to give them all an informal forum.

Just this summer, NASCAR team owners came together on their own to discuss the state of the sport and the direction it was going.

And it's apparently enough progress to satisfy those most significantly affected.

"I feel that for all the frustration that we have with NASCAR at certain times, in the end, they have done a good job through dictatorship of creating this sport we have,'' Edwards said. "It's still by far the most successful sanctioning body on planet Earth.''

Sounds like the "owners" in that industry treat their drivers pretty well.

[Per]

As myself and others have pointed out WWE is a bloody terrible comparison primarily because IT IS NOT A SPORT. Pro wrestling is a group of actors playing a role.

---

Why not use more apt comparisons like REAL SPORTS, where there are no unions involved.

How about using the PGA?

---

What about NASCAR?

Hilarious!

[rats19]

I will play for hundred's of thousands of dollars somewhere else...but not a snow ball's chance in hell will I play for millions under these conditions here...

[ukcanuck]

 
Sure the presence of a sports franchise will enhance the economy. 

Sounds like we agree after all.

 
In some ways we do, although I'm sure you meant differently  

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?

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

As myself and others have pointed out WWE is a bloody terrible comparison primarily because IT IS NOT A SPORT. Pro wrestling is a group of actors playing a role. 

Further to that there is no real competition for the WWE so the actors are somewhat interchangeable and have no real leverage.

Yes exactly my point. It's all about leverage and the NHLPA has some leverage with their association. 

How about using the PGA?
Are the golfers used and abused by the tournament directors. 

well the thought immediately comes to mind that the argument your using against wrestling applies here too. it not exactly hazardous to ones health to chase a golf ball around for four hours.
However, the same conditions probably exist for pro golfers not on the tour. They are independent contractors and have to pay their own way. perhaps a union would level the playing field and make it more equitable for all. 
The is definitely a disparity between the top and bottom of the golfing pay scale which is clearly based on leverage.

What about NASCAR

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/26/does- ... rmula-one/

Their Drivers seem prety happy and dont want a union at all.

As was the case during NASCAR's formative years, officials have always hung their hat on an "open door policy" for any driver with a legitimate concern. In the past year NASCAR has even taken the unprecedented step of holding "town hall" meetings with owners and drivers to give them all an informal forum.

Just this summer, NASCAR team owners came together on their own to discuss the state of the sport and the direction it was going. 

And it's apparently enough progress to satisfy those most significantly affected.

"I feel that for all the frustration that we have with NASCAR at certain times, in the end, they have done a good job through dictatorship of creating this sport we have,'' Edwards said. "It's still by far the most successful sanctioning body on planet Earth.''

Sounds like the "owners" in that industry treat their drivers pretty well.

It does sound like everyone is happy from your link, but then how unbiased is it? clearly there is the question that a union is needed as the question refuses to die within the ranks of 
NASCAR itself. 

http://closefinishes.com/?q=node/51

The big reason however that both examples that you cite as arguments against unions is that in most cases the participants are already from wealthy backgrounds. For the most part they don't come from flin flon Manitoba or flint Michigan and blur collar families. 
Unions are for those who have no leverage and need the protection...you know, people like me and you....

[Per]

I will play for hundred's of thousands of dollars somewhere else...but not a snow ball's chance in hell will I play for millions under these conditions here...

Oh, they want to play, alright, it's just that Bettman won't let them.

And it's not a conflict because the players wanted more, it's a conflict because the owners want to give them less than what they previously agreed to.

I seriously can't see how any one can side with the owners in this conflict. OK, if the players had been greedy and demanded more, I could see that that would piss people off, but that's not what happened. From what I understand the players would accept status quo. It's the billionaire club that wants more, and is willing to sacrifice the season for it.

[rats19]

I will play for hundred's of thousands of dollars somewhere else...but not a snow ball's chance in hell will I play for millions under these conditions here...

Oh, they want to play, alright, it's just that Bettman won't let them.

And it's not a conflict because the players wanted more, it's a conflict because the owners want to give them less than what they previously agreed to.

I seriously can't see how any one can side with the owners in this conflict. OK, if the players had been greedy and demanded more, I could see that that would piss people off, but that's not what happened. From what I understand the players would accept status quo. It's the billionaire club that wants more, and is willing to sacrifice the season for it.

i hear ya per...my point is that if they want to stay solidarity like in stature...then the above statement I made wouldnt exist...they would practice with team mates wearing inside out jerseys and do the best they can to stay in shape. I dont think it behooves them to play elsewhere..I really dont think it makes thier case any stronger. That is my point...its not a side taking position...

[Potatoe1]

Yes exactly my point. It's all about leverage and the NHLPA has some leverage with their association. 

This is wrong.

It isnt the NHLPA that gives players leverage, it's the players individual skill that gives them leverage.

Winning causes huge swings in a teams revenue and top players help a team win. That is their leverage.

The question you have to ask yourself and yet to have actually commented on is - Why is there a significant death toll in that industry and how does it relate to the precautions taken in the legitimate sports and the role players unions have had and continue to have in making sure that working standards exist.

I don't have to ask myself that, because the WWE is in no way comparable to to the NHL. That industry is a cesspool and always has been. It's also not a real sport which means it shouldn't even be a part of this discussion

I gave you 2 examples of real sports leagues that are not unionized and seem to be running perfectly fine yet you keep wanting to talk about a bunch of roided up, pill popping actors.

However, the same conditions probably exist for pro golfers not on the tour. They are independent contractors and have to pay their own way. perhaps a union would level the playing field and make it more equitable for all. 
The is definitely a disparity between the top and bottom of the golfing pay scale which is clearly based on leverage.

And whats wrong with the disparity?

Do you think every professional golfer is entitled to millions of dollars?

The big reason however that both examples that you cite as arguments against unions

I'm not actually arguing against unions.

I think you have lost the plot here.

You tried to say that if NHL owners could they would pay the players nothing and treat them like total garbage. My argument was that they would be better served financially if the players were happy and health as they would perform better and increase revenue.

You then when on to make comparisons to black slavery and the WWE to try and further your point.

is that in most cases the participants are already from wealthy backgrounds. For the most part they don't come from flin flon Manitoba or flint Michigan and blur collar families.

An interesting side bar to this discussion is the fact that a number of very "pro-player" bloggers believe the NHLPA is actually bad for the players and good for the owners.

It's the NHLPA that allows the NHL to avoid anti-trust laws and do things like draft players and hold a salary cap.

With out the union, every player would be a free agent and could negotiate with whom ever they like.

The top players and top rookies would see huge raises somewhat at the expense of the lower end guys but at the end of the day the players would most likely get a significantly larger chunk of the over all HHR.

Unions are for those who have no leverage and need the protection...you know, people like me and you....

Everyone who's good at their job has leverage.

[Tciso]

Private businesses of all ilks should sink or swim on their merits.

I agree. The interesting discussion is where you draw the line between private and public businesses. Health care? Roads? Housing? Transportation, like buses and trains? Telehpones? Electricity, and natural gas? Libraries? Parks? Schools? Swimming Pools? Skating Rinks? Making Widgets?

The problem is that we have a huge grey area that receives public money and public corruption, and competes with private businesses, which then ask for and get public money to compete with the public businesses.

[Tciso]

I don't have to ask myself that, because the WWE is in no way comparable to to the NHL. That industry is a cesspool and always has been. It's also not a real sport which means it shouldn't even be a part of this discussion

Skipping thru most of this thread, but... The WWE should be a part of the discussion, as it is the perfect ownership model for a pro sports "league". The WWE has ONE owner, hence a monopoly. The NHL has 30 owners, hence an oligopoly, with Anti-Trust rules, anti-collusion rules, blah, blah, blah. The NHL Owners could and should look at the WWE model for maximizing profits. With all 30 owners dumping the franchise model and simply buying a 1/30 share, they can now operate as a monopoly in their league, and move to pay players just enough to keep the players from moving to another league, or allow another league to compete with them. And, there would be no work stoppages over something as stupid as revenue sharing.

[Island Nucklehead]

The NHL Owners could and should look at the WWE model for maximizing profits. With all 30 owners dumping the franchise model and simply buying a 1/30 share, they can now operate as a monopoly in their league, and move to pay players just enough to keep the players from moving to another league, or allow another league to compete with them. And, there would be no work stoppages over something as stupid as revenue sharing.

Good luck getting the owners in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, New York, Philadelphia etc. to sign up for an even share with the likes of Florida, Columbus, Nashville, New Jersey etc.

The major issue with this league is that there are teams that make a TON, and there are teams that lose a TON. I think the owners are a more fractured group than the players. But they have bigger bank accounts, so they can afford to wait.

Ultimately, the players SHOULD be proposing a luxury tax system, perhaps with a lower cap floor or mid-point, to allow richer teams to pay a lot more ($80+M) and the poorer teams pay less ($50ish). Owners could then capitalize more on revenue sharing and I'd bet a good chunk of owners (rich and poor) would want to take that deal.

[Mondi]

Private businesses of all ilks should sink or swim on their merits.

I agree. The interesting discussion is where you draw the line between private and public businesses. Health care? Roads? Housing? Transportation, like buses and trains? Telehpones? Electricity, and natural gas? Libraries? Parks? Schools? Swimming Pools? Skating Rinks? Making Widgets?

The problem is that we have a huge grey area that receives public money and public corruption, and competes with private businesses, which then ask for and get public money to compete with the public businesses.

Pro sports teams should never receive public funds, not ever.

[okcanuck]

Private businesses of all ilks should sink or swim on their merits.

I agree. The interesting discussion is where you draw the line between private and public businesses. Health care? Roads? Housing? Transportation, like buses and trains? Telehpones? Electricity, and natural gas? Libraries? Parks? Schools? Swimming Pools? Skating Rinks? Making Widgets?

The problem is that we have a huge grey area that receives public money and public corruption, and competes with private businesses, which then ask for and get public money to compete with the public businesses.

Pro sports teams should never receive public funds, not ever.

Exactly Mondi. If the owners in this dispute use free enterprise as their excuse for locking the players out they should never hold out their hand for public money.

[ukcanuck]

I'm not actually arguing against unions.

I think you have lost the plot here.

You tried to say that if NHL owners could they would pay the players nothing and treat them like total garbage. My argument was that they would be better served financially if the players were happy and health as they would perform better and increase revenue.

You then when on to make comparisons to black slavery and the WWE to try and further your point.



With out the union, every player would be a free agent and could negotiate with whom ever they like.

The top players and top rookies would see huge raises somewhat at the expense of the lower end guys but at the end of the day the players would most likely get a significantly larger chunk of the over all HHR.





Everyone who's good at their job has leverage.

First off, you say you aren't arguing against unionized players yet in the same post you argue against unionized players

second, I am almost positive I said that the NHL would pay the players as little as they could get away with and I think that is a fairly straightforward and common sense statement.

I didnt raise slavery to further my point but to condemn one of yours, namely that owners would look after their players because its in their best interest...well that line of reasoning is what slave owners always claimed and in the end how well did they treat their slaves? The point is that just because its in their best interest does not necessarily make it follow that the players would be well treated.

The WWE does belong in any discussion about unions, its a stellar example of what happens when ownership has complete control over a divided and fractured workforce.
as for your assertion of two " real" sports leagues that operate well without a unionized or players association, its at best one sided, for starters I gave you a link that differs sharply with your claim that NASCAR is happy without a union, and I am not even certain that Golfer aren't technically protected by an association of some kind. Neither changes the fact that the NHLPA is a good thing.

[Cornuck]

Now the NHL is censoring team interviews?

http://www.jewelsfromthecrown.com/2012/ ... during-the

[Meds]

 
Sure the presence of a sports franchise will enhance the economy.

Sounds like we agree after all.

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?

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

As myself and others have pointed out WWE is a bloody terrible comparison primarily because IT IS NOT A SPORT. Pro wrestling is a group of actors playing a role.

I think Pot hits in on the head with the "actors" bit.....I'd take it one further and say that it is a group of highly paid stunt men who are trying to play a role. If the NHL had a group of guys who were supremely athletic and fast but relegated to 4th line duty due to hockey smarts and an inability to put it all together, and all they did was come out and talk trash, stage fights, and throw choreographed hits......well then you could compare those guys to WWE wrestlers.