Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Which is larger, the pool of people willing to put up money, or top caliber players?
And not just individuals. Corporations, municipalities, venture capital firms etc.

Originally Posted by aaron

Which is larger, the pool of people willing to put up money, or top caliber players?
And not just individuals. Corporations, municipalities, venture capital firms etc.

Yes, but the players are DEPENDENT on someone willing to do it.

EDIT: Why didn't someone bastard-rich that wouldn't care about losing money buy the Coyotes organization? Yes, they are ripe for a relocation, but this here is a prime example of how wrong you are. The NHL had to step in to save their sorry asses, not the players. And it won't be the players who will bother with all the necessary fuss with relocating a team, and it also won't be the players again investing money into a freshly relocated team full of unknowns how it will run.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

You have an owner who owns a business. This business employs its employees. This business is producing goods that customers buy. The better employees perform and the better owner manages this business, the more goods are sold and the more money owner has at his disposal. What he does with it is completely UP TO HIM and his GOOD WILL. He can give his employees a raise or a pay cut, depending on their performance or financial state of the company or depending on his morning bowel movement. It's how business works. There's no goodness of their hearts - where did you get that from?! Who never negotiates a raise? How did then Kopitar get almost 7M per year? By winning a lottery? Holy crap! I didn't know that! EVERYONE negotiates. You didn't even think when you wrote this reply.

i was being sarcastic. not only did you not get it, but then you made a more ridiculous argument (something that I didn't think possible btw). you fail to realize that a business does not function without its employees. if the owners can hire and fire their employees at will, and decide the salaries of their employees regardless of their employees desires or what other employers in the market are paying their employees, then why is it that kopitar is making 7mil per year? why did parise and suter just get huge raises and a bunch of that money up front. because that is what the employer was willing to pay based on the market. if they did not pay that, then it was likely that those players would play elsewhere. you are right. the employer can decide what he or she is willing to pay, but when you have free market competition for services provided by potential employees then an owner can expect to pay what the market will bear not what he or she wants to pay. Afterall, an owner of any business would prefer not to have to pay his or her employees since this ensures maximum returns.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

Yes, but the players are DEPENDENT on someone willing to do it.

and the owners are dependent on players. jeremy jacobs ain't gonna lace up the skates and go up against ed schnider is he.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

Yes, but the players are DEPENDENT on someone willing to do it.

EDIT: Why didn't someone bastard-rich that wouldn't care about losing money buy the Coyotes organization? Yes, they are ripe for a relocation, but this here is a prime example of how wrong you are. The NHL had to step in to save their sorry asses, not the players. And it won't be the players who will bother with all the necessary fuss with relocating a team, and it also won't be the players again investing money into a freshly relocated team full of unknowns how it will run.

There are plenty of buyers for that franchise, just none who want it in Phoenix. If the nhl wants it in Phoenix so badly, they should bear the cost, not the players. How much would that franchise be worth in Quebec City? Or Markham? Seattle?
How many teams do you think the Toronto area could support? At least 3.
The point is, there are ways to make more money, not just squeezing the players. The owners won't do those things.

Originally Posted by D0wntime

i was being sarcastic. not only did you not get it, but then you made a more ridiculous argument (something that I didn't think possible btw). you fail to realize that a business does not function without its employees. if the owners can hire and fire their employees at will, and decide the salaries of their employees regardless of their employees desires or what other employers in the market are paying their employees, then why is it that kopitar is making 7mil per year? why did parise and suter just get huge raises and a bunch of that money up front. because that is what the employer was willing to pay based on the market. if they did not pay that, then it was likely that those players would play elsewhere. you are right. the employer can decide what he or she is willing to pay, but when you have free market competition for services provided by potential employees then an owner can expect to pay what the market will bear not what he or she wants to pay. Afterall, an owner of any business would prefer not to have to pay his or her employees since this ensures maximum returns.

and the owners are dependent on players. jeremy jacobs ain't gonna lace up the skates and go up against ed schnider is he.

First of all, you fail to read again. I clearly stated it was ridiculous for explanatory reasons.

I don't fail to realize anything, YOU fail to realize the owners' right to determine how much will someone get paid, which is common sense. Do I really need to clearly state that the owners SHOULDN'T offer a50% rollback? I didn't because it's damn obvious. And it's also damn obvious that this business can't exist without employees, but it's also damn obvious that if the owners decide to give up (HYPOTHETICALLY), the players are unemployed and the owners ARE NOT. Because this isn't the owners' job, it's practically their hobby and/or charity. The owners are making it happen for the players and the players are happy to enjoy a very very very well paid job entertaining people. So, yes, here's your main difference between the "real world" business and sports business. It works basically the same but it's not a way to survive for the owners.

For the last time:
The players are negotiating for their pay rises ALL. THE. TIME. PAY RISES. Depending on their performances AND increasing revenues. They are basically the ordinary employees, it's just that their job is extremely well paid and their career is short, hence the much more often pay rises (or pay cuts for players who lose their "thing" a bit) than an ordinary employee. So I'm really REALLY wondering why is it so hard for you to understand when the owners decide it's best for their collective asses that the contracts are dialed back a bit because yes, the revenues went up but the global economy is suffering, so maybe, just MAYBE they can't afford to spend THAT much for their frickin' hobbies.

I NEVER said they should replace any player not agreeing with this, I used ridiculous examples and expressions because you fail to see how the owners are the ones taking care of the players and not vice versa and how the owners have their right to determine how much they pay their players (it's up to them what approach they take - as you said, pay zero and no one will want to play, or offer a certain amount THEY think reasonable for a player of xy quality and go from there). But I DID say that it's completely reasonable that the owners want to fix the old CBA because they couldn't predict revenues going up that much and at the same time the world going into one major cluster****. NO ONE could predict it both back then.

And that old CBA was already an abomination for the players so there really was no room for the owners to make it anywhere near "perfect" for them or whatever. So that's why it was signed for 8 years and not 20. And that's why it's now THEIR time for negotiating "their" contract. But because this is the owners' HOBBY and not survival they can just lock out the season (here you go, the simplest explanation how it's the owners above the players) if they think their offer was close enough to be accepted. It's not like they offered something completely ridiculous. NO, they negotiated!

And who's here to judge who should now back down and settle for less? Some of you say it's the NHL's turn now but I say that's the most ridiculous thing to say. There are no turns, it's a matter of hierarchy, so the owners will eventually win, because if the players don't back down, they will lose waaaay more money (relative to their overall financial situation) than the owners. It's logic, it's common sense, it's how life works, it's in human nature. You may think it's a bit unfair, but you know what? **** happens, you can't expect the NHL work any different than the rest of the world does. You're thinking too emotionally, not reasonably. And THAT is understandable, too, it's just that you're angry for no reason and that should be avoided if one's to live a healthy life.

Originally Posted by aaron

There are plenty of buyers for that franchise, just none who want it in Phoenix. If the nhl wants it in Phoenix so badly, they should bear the cost, not the players. How much would that franchise be worth in Quebec City? Or Markham? Seattle?
How many teams do you think the Toronto area could support? At least 3.
The point is, there are ways to make more money, not just squeezing the players. The owners won't do those things.

Okay, so then Bettman should just move all USA teams in financial troubles into Canada. Canada will be happy and USA will be bitchin' and everyone would go bat**** crazy here and calling for Bettman's head again. You can't possibly expect the league to fix this problem only by moving teams, because their job is to SPREAD the love of hockey throughout the whole North America, NOT just Canada and East coast. So, answer this question: would you agree with the NHL's "new vision" that whenever an owner of certain team gives up and decides to sell the team and there is no interest for the team being where it is the team should be moved wherever the new owner wants?

And what are those money making ways? Maybe you should be hired as a financial adviser by them because surely they don't know their way with money.



A reminder: the need for "more money" is the same on the both sides of the river. The owners are not evil villains, commanded by satan, who is ordering them to ruin the players' lives. They want more money just as the players want more money when they are negotiating their contracts.

Originally Posted by aaron

There are plenty of buyers for that franchise, just none who want it in Phoenix.

What kind of number are we talking about in "plenty?" How many actually made offers?

wiki shows multiple buyers. read at your convenience.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

Okay, so then Bettman should just move all USA teams in financial troubles into Canada. Canada will be happy and USA will be bitchin' and everyone would go bat**** crazy here and calling for Bettman's head again. You can't possibly expect the league to fix this problem only by moving teams, because their job is to SPREAD the love of hockey throughout the whole North America, NOT just Canada and East coast. So, answer this question: would you agree with the NHL's "new vision" that whenever an owner of certain team gives up and decides to sell the team and there is no interest for the team being where it is the team should be moved wherever the new owner wants?

And what are those money making ways? Maybe you should be hired as a financial adviser by them because surely they don't know their way with money.



A reminder: the need for "more money" is the same on the both sides of the river. The owners are not evil villains, commanded by satan, who is ordering them to ruin the players' lives. They want more money just as the players want more money when they are negotiating their contracts.

Agree that neither side is evil. Both want to make their money. "fairness" has no bearing.
But my sympathies go to those who I think are getting screwed. We disagree about that. That's fine.

Franchises have moved continually throughout sports history. When the Canadian dollar was poor, nhl teams popped up into the USA. Now that it's strong, they move back to Canada. That's the way it's always been, that's how it will remain. Owners shouldn't be forced to keep a franchise where it doesn't make economic sense. The insistence on staying in Phx is baffling.
And the owners responsibility is to run their franchise, not spread hockey. After all, we are not Communists.

I mean the Edm Oilers could move. How sick is that? But I can't say they are there forever.