Owners or Players?

[puck_it]

Who do you side with the MOST in PRINCIPLE?

[Turbulence]

I have to vote for the owners on this. While I don't think either side is perfect, the owners are looking out more for the future of the league as it is now, while the players are looking for...money. I think the owners definately see the dire situation that the league is in now, and how disasterous it would be to smaller market teams without any revenue sharing or a salary cap.

[puck_it]

my toughts too turbulence... the players make way too much. though personality wise i love the players more

[Shell]

owners...

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Voted "hope they both burn in hell." If I absolutely have to pick....in principle, I'll always be on the side of the employees over the owners. I don't see why the players are the only ones expected to sacrifice to fix what the owners, IMO, have screwed up. They can't control themselves, they can't pay what they can afford, therefore the players have to give something up? Doesn't jive with me. As Kara Yorio pointed out, if Pittsburgh is nearly bankrupt how are they signing Recchi to a $9 million contract? They're allowed to be utterly irresponsible and not face the consequences?

As far as getting a good deal done they BOTH need to give something. If there is a lockout, I blame the owners who locked the doors, not the players who took what they were offered and then were accused of being thieves trying to run the game into the ground.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

I think the owners definately see the dire situation that the league is in now, and how disasterous it would be to smaller market teams without any revenue sharing

I believe the owners are against revenue sharing.

IMO, it's naive to assume the owners are looking out for the future of the game any more than they are looking out for their own financial future. They're in it for the money just as much as the players....and they stand to make or lose a lot more than the players.

[nccanes]

I voted "owners" because I just don't feel like the rest of us regular employees don't get to say how much we are guaranteed as far as minimum pay raises, arbitors deciding how much money I'll make based on someone who works for another, more profitable, company.

I've worked for too many companies that had people become millionaires when the company was sold out from beneath the very people that made the company a success. We all grumbled our way to the unemployment line or to the next job. If we didn't like the risk/terms of employment - you look for a job elsewhere.

I just can't muster the sympathy for the players - I've tried. That doesn't mean that I don't think owners have made mistakes, sure they have - but they have all the risk in running the teams too.

I know I sound like a broken record, but if the players want the money that they think the owners are making off their teams - the should aspire to become an owner.

I'd love to know how the NHLPA feels about dropping min qualifying offers and arbitration in their "free market". Which reminds me again that other than saying what they WON'T accept (like a salary cap), do we know what they are WILLING to accept?

[puck_it]

I voted "owners" because I just don't feel like the rest of us regular employees don't get to say how much we are guaranteed as far as minimum pay raises, arbitors deciding how much money I'll make based on someone who works for another, more profitable, company.



good analogy nccanes

[SouthernHockeyChick]

I voted "owners" because I just don't feel like the rest of us regular employees don't get to say how much we are guaranteed as far as minimum pay raises, arbitors deciding how much money I'll make based on someone who works for another, more profitable, company.


If dropping those aspects of the current agreement was all the owners wanted there might be a new contract by now.

[buck yucky]

tough call. the owners are the ones who made the mess, but as many players as there are who have held out demanding more money, i gotta go with the owners.

in principle, the owners are trying to buy the best team possible, while the players are trying to line their pockets. both at fault, but i respect the owners' philosophy more than the players' in this case.

[nccanes]

I voted "owners" because I just don't feel like the rest of us regular employees don't get to say how much we are guaranteed as far as minimum pay raises, arbitors deciding how much money I'll make based on someone who works for another, more profitable, company.


If dropping those aspects of the current agreement was all the owners wanted there might be a new contract by now.

I agree.

And where ARE those 6 owner "concepts"? Someone hasn't snatched 'em up and posted them on the 'net? I mean you can download movies before they are even in the theaters! :beatup: ;)

I'm just saying that for 10 years the player have had the benefit of guaranteed raises and arbitriation rights where player/salary comparisons are done w/o considering the size of the market, cost of living, etc. That's the "free market" the players have lived in.

[talkingcanes]

I found this site interesting. Everyone else in the world may already have seen it ;)

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/

[nccanes]

in principle, the owners are trying to buy the best team possible, while the players are trying to line their pockets.

I have to believe that the players AND the owners want to play on/have the best teams possible and at the same time line their pockets. I can't get too excited about watching players that don't give a rip or forking over dollars to ownership I didn't think gave a rip about me.

I mean really - isn't a healthy organization, happy owner, happy players, and happy fans what makes it best for everyone?

I can't imagine people buying sports teams just to make money (because most don't). Does Steinbrenner look happy when the Yankees are losing? Do you think the Leafs ownership is happy about not getting to the Cup finals since the 60s even though they sell out every single game forever?

I can't imagine (most) players put up with the demands and punishment on their bodies just to make money. Does Brindy look happy when the Canes suck for 2 years straight but he's banked 5 mil this year? Do you think Ron 4 mil Francis was happy about how the twilight of his career went even though he's a millionaire over and over again?

There are exceptions to all of the above - crappy owners, stingy owners, self serving owners. Lazy players, greedy players, self serving players. But who really gives a rip about them. The league is filled with people that love hockey. THEY should be the ones that are fighting every day to make sure a deal is made.

They all agree that hockey will return. It's insulting to think that what they KNOW will eventually come to pass, can't do so before 9/15.

[buck yucky]

in principle, the owners are trying to buy the best team possible, while the players are trying to line their pockets.

I have to believe that the players AND the owners want to play on/have the best teams possible and at the same time line their pockets.


yeah, i can agree with that. the majority of them, anyway. the majority you speak of here, in fact...


The league is filled with people that love hockey. THEY should be the ones that are fighting every day to make sure a deal is made.


right on! i just hope the ones that care more about the game outnumber the ones who care more about themselves, as that is what the whole fiasco is about at this point. if deal be made, then it's because the powers that be care more about the game. if deal no be made, then it's because the powers that be care more about their own pockets.

'if deal no be made' is perfectly acceptable english, by the way...

[Mona]

I can't vote for either one... I am sick of both sides.. ugh! :sick:

[Guyute]

Interesting poll on tsn today.

Would you support a lockout - regardless of how long it lasts - if it meant creating a financially level playing field for NHL teams?
Yes - 61%

No - 28%

Undecided - 11%

[GrumpyCane]

I wonder if the percentage of yes votes would change if more canadian teams were in danger of being dissolved like a some of the US teams have suggested they would be in a long holdout.

[Turbulence]

That's just it. Canadian hockey will thrive after a lockout of seemingly any length...Carolinian hockey would vaporize after a lockout of only a few months to a year. If the poll included fans of the southern, small-market teams, I'd be willing to bet that the results would be different.

[Guyute]

just out of curiousity, how do you know who that poll does and does not include?

most people on this board check tsn daily. almost everyone I know who is a hockey fan does as well.

[GrumpyCane]

I don't know but if the Canadiens or the Maple Leafs were in danger of dissapearing, even those who hate them as teams would recognize the detriment to the league as a whole.

[Mona]

That's just it. Canadian hockey will thrive after a lockout of seemingly any length...Carolinian hockey would vaporize after a lockout of only a few months to a year. If the poll included fans of the southern, small-market teams, I'd be willing to bet that the results would be different.

I agree Turby.. the Canadian teams can withstand anything... teams like our beloved Canes, can hardly break even when they go to the playoffs.. **sigh** **drinks Maalox with my Mylanta** :crazy:

GrumpyCane I love your avatar!! :D

[SouthernHockeyChick]

I believe it's probable that there are more Canadian hockey fans than US hockey fans. Assuming that is correct, I think it's probably safe to assume nearly any poll of hockey fans on a hockey site (especially a .ca one) is going to be predominantly made up of Canadians.

But, I have no problem believing that as a whole serious hockey fans won't mind a lock-out if we come out better for it. I just wonder if Raleigh will still be able to support a team when only the serious hockey fans are left in the arena. :sad:

Mona, stop mixing the Maalox and Mylanta!!! You're gonna end up in the hospital with an impacted bowel! :evil: I know you all wanted to hear that, right?

[Mona]

Mona, stop mixing the Maalox and Mylanta!!! You're gonna end up in the hospital with an impacted bowel! :evil: I know you all wanted to hear that, right?

**holds stomach and asks SHC ..why do you say that???** :laugh: :huh:

[GrumpyCane]

[quote="Mona
GrumpyCane I love your avatar!! :D[/quote]

Thanks, I'd love to see my cats in different headgear but they don't like it.

[puck_it]

no body likes the players hahaha

[Esbee]

I sent them both to hell (which is kind of a weenie vote), but...the point is that the owners got themselves into this mess by paying the players inordinate salaries relative to team-generated revenue. So, was Eric Lindros worth it?

At the same time, I don't care who does the financial report, there's a lot of wiggle room in there - hence the players complaint that the owners aren't being truthful. For those who have worked in corporate environments, the relationship between subsidiaries and parent companies can vary widely, depending upon how they are defined. So there is plenty of room for creativity and mis-leading perceptions.

Still, given the "state" of hockey from a licensing, broadcast, fan-base and market penetration perspective, it is totally unrealistic for hockey players to expect compensation - or a compensation structure, for that matter - that can be compared to baseball, basketball or football.

Putting all that aside, you have the simple perception problem with the NHL itself, personified in Gary Bettman. He is the very caricature of the sleazy lawyer representative of corporate greed. His grandstanding early in the week of the finals was pitiful.

Then we have the fact that players are not completely unified. I don't think Bobby Hull is the only one who thinks salaries are out of line, he's just one of the few to say so.

So what to do? I think it's perfectly reasonable for owners/teams to pay players whatever price the team can afford. The problem is that you'll have screams of collusion once owners tell big-buck players to hit the road, and no ther team picks them up. That's why the owners want a cap (with the ability to go over it, of course). It's a way of forcing them to act sane. Having said that, a lockout as a tactic is short-sighted.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the players, though. If they want to be paid "What the market will bear," and don't think the NHL is fair unless salaries are wide open, they can always go see what another market will bear...

Short-term, a lockout helps the owners and hurts employees, fans and players. Longer term, it hurts all four and the sport. I've got to believe that fact is not lost on anyone, and we'll see something resembling progress very soon.

[Esbee]

I sent them both to hell (which is kind of a weenie vote), but...the point is that the owners got themselves into this mess by paying the players inordinate salaries relative to team-generated revenue. So, was Eric Lindros worth it?

At the same time, I don't care who does the financial report, there's a lot of wiggle room in there - hence the players complaint that the owners aren't being truthful. For those who have worked in corporate environments, the relationship between subsidiaries and parent companies can vary widely, depending upon how they are defined. So there is plenty of room for creativity and mis-leading perceptions.

Still, given the "state" of hockey from a licensing, broadcast, fan-base and market penetration perspective, it is totally unrealistic for hockey players to expect compensation - or a compensation structure, for that matter - that can be compared to baseball, basketball or football.

Putting all that aside, you have the simple perception problem with the NHL itself, personified in Gary Bettman. He is the very caricature of the sleazy lawyer representative of corporate greed. His grandstanding early in the week of the finals was pitiful.

Then we have the fact that players are not completely unified. I don't think Bobby Hull is the only one who thinks salaries are out of line, he's just one of the few to say so.

So what to do? I think it's perfectly reasonable for owners/teams to pay players whatever price the team can afford. The problem is that you'll have screams of collusion once owners tell big-buck players to hit the road, and no ther team picks them up. That's why the owners want a cap (with the ability to go over it, of course). It's a way of forcing them to act sane. Having said that, a lockout as a tactic is short-sighted.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the players, though. If they want to be paid "What the market will bear," and don't think the NHL is fair unless salaries are wide open, they can always go see what another market will bear...

Short-term, a lockout helps the owners and hurts employees, fans and players. Longer term, it hurts all four and the sport. I've got to believe that fact is not lost on anyone, and we'll see something resembling progress very soon.

[Fernando da Silva]

Carolinian hockey would vaporize after a lockout of only a few months to a year.

Sad but true. Unfortunately Carolnian hockey can die :cry: . The future of hockey in the Triangle is in our hands.
Please, don't deceive ourselves.

[puck_it]

Carolinian hockey would vaporize after a lockout of only a few months to a year.



who the hell said that??? Is this something you think? if so dont use the quote... u did it a couple time before and ive gotten so confused... also if your quoting some one put [quote="whoever said it"]

;)

[Fernando da Silva]

D'oh!!! Sorry. Nice avatar, Puck It!!!
Well, see my bad luck. My first complete season as caniac is going to hell now.