no. i think it's you who happens to be missing the point.
far as i can tell most of the other posters have a clear understanding
- hugefemale dog77

And that point is?

Maybe try pulling your head out of the players asses and looking at this thing from both perspectives. Your opinion and support for the players is one sided because you can't take a look at it through the owners eyes and you admit to not trusting billionaire business owners so your opinion is based on your discrimination and baseless stereotyping of the owners.
- ruttager17

my support is both parties are to blame, where everyone strictly blames the players and to say the owners are innocent for all this is niave. I and what MJL (I assume anyway) are just trying to point out that this is not a situation where one party is completely right in what they are doing.

Sorry you feel that I am stereotyping, I merely stated I do not trust the owners. Distrust is not a stereotype. The article brought up a point that never made much sense to me in that why these very smart businessmen buy a failing business. It never added up to any sense to lose money. This article shined a bit of light on that subject and maybe these numbers that the owners are crying wolf over are not quite as bad as they make them out to be. The players side however is completely transparent.

I think your talking out of both sides of your mouth. The players in the last CBA were bullied into signing the last agreement. Had to take a 24% rollback and accept a Salary Cap, which the Owners also wanted linked to revenue. Sure seems like they had to let the Owners have whatever they wanted. I agreed that the old CBA was part of the reason why salaries went up. Not the only reason.



No, I said the players are closer to being partners then they are actual employees in the normal employer/employee relationship. The players are worried about the future business. That's why they are suggesting things such as increased revenue sharing. They know that just taking another rollback won't solve the issues and will only lead to more labor strife down the road.



Absolutely they do. They have a unique skill set. Thousands of people do play Hockey. But they can't play it at the level that the NHL players do, that makes people want to plunk down a lot of money to go see them play. Or play it well enough to generate billions in revenue. And I don't see anyone plunking down a bunch of cash to buy a jersey for a player who plays at the local rink. That all makes the players skill set unique. Players aren't lucky they get what they get. They have earned it.



No they didn't. They made them an offer that came close, based on future revenue. Make Whole is a lot different then Escrow. With the NHL also trying to take away contract concessions, no they should not have taken it.
- MJL

In addition to being more clear about your facts, vs. your opinions, please try to learn the difference between "your" and "you're", kthx.

my support is both parties are to blame, where everyone strictly blames the players and to say the owners are innocent for all this is niave. I and what MJL (I assume anyway) are just trying to point out that this is not a situation where one party is completely right in what they are doing.

Sorry you feel that I am stereotyping, I merely stated I do not trust the owners. Distrust is not a stereotype. The article brought up a point that never made much sense to me in that why these very smart businessmen buy a failing business. It never added up to any sense to lose money. This article shined a bit of light on that subject and maybe these numbers that the owners are crying wolf over are not quite as bad as they make them out to be. The players side however is completely transparent.
- Boosinicka

I agree. Look I have no problem believing that there are teams in the NHL that have some financial issues. No doubt. But I support two, actually 3 basic premises in this deal. One is that the players should not be solely responsible for fixing the financial issues of the League, out of their pocket. Secondly, I believe that the players current contracts should be honored. Thirdly I support the Owners position that the players can't continue to make 57% of the revenue share, and that 50/50 is fair.

I trust 30 people who have proven themselves to be smart businessmen by acquiring enough wealth to purchase an NHL team, over 650 people, the majority of which never graduated college; when it comes to designing a successful business model. I'm not sure why people are avid in their hoping to avoid discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual preference, but so perfectly happy to discriminate based on income. Being rich doesn't make someone anymore untrustworthy, greedy, or evil than someone who is poor. But only one side in these negotiations have proven themselves to be competent business wise.
- Antilles

if those 30 HAD built a solid business plan then wed be watching hockey right now... Happens to be a failed model thats led to where we are today. Also how many of those fortunes were built from the ground up and not inherited...? one of the few that worked his ass off to become an owner is Mario Lemieux, wish i could get his POV... secondly the lack of respect towards say the top 1% (the rich) is justified. their greed has led to the economic crisis the world has been facing the last 8 or so years... it wasnt the middle class or poor that led to the global economic collapse. Trust is earned, not bought.

Btw i have to say this has been one of the better threads ive read in a while... petty insults being tossed around sure, but the debate is good. Im with you on this MJL, nice job debating in what is usually a very pro owner forum. What i find frustrating is that alot of people here want the players to be happy with what they got, but like Travis Yost pointed out, player sponsors also have some pull and the argument that players are just "employees and just deal with it" is silly. The players are more than just a run of the mill employee. Comparing the business of sports to the business of MacDonalds per say is silly. I have a hard time seeing the correlations. I'm a (frank)ing amazing electrician but i dont have scores of people dropping their pants for me or giving me money and cars to promote their product, or asking me to come to a hospital to cheer up a sick kid. Anyone that plays in professional sports and is signed to a team is more than the average joe, not comparable...IMO.... another frustration is that the people here also saying that players need to sign the deal and scrap old contracts are the same people who female doged at danny heatley for wanting out of his contract. the average comment was "you signed it, deal with it..." well i say the same goes for ownership. get a deal drawn up that honors contracts signed by the previous cba, put a plan with a deadline in order to fix the broken aspect of the league (failed or failing hockey markets, relocate )and then meet back at the table in a few years and renegotiate. If the players contracts are null and void, then whats stopping them from signing ( when its resolved) with other teams? I prepose NHLPA say, ok we take the deal but then players resign with teams of their choice : ( haha would never happen and probably couldnt) If you (frank) with signed contracts you open a can of worms....

It's all opinions from all of us, some issues are more important to others and that is where things get murky. I personally am on the players side and it's more like 65-35. People who are %100 on the owners side I don't think are looking at the whole picture. I enjoy the points people are making form the owners side as I gain more perspective, but I haven't seen anything yet to fully sway me to the other side. Partially because I do not trust a billionaire businessman compared to 650 players who are all together on this issue.
- Boosinicka

Here is the thing, I have seen VERY few people 100% on the owners side. Most of us who are "siding" with the owners also recognize the lies and BS coming out of their camp and recognize that they contributed to their own problem.

Judging by the people I see on the PA's side around here, VERY few have even managed to acknowledge even the most basic, established facts that do not support their position.

The owners supporters here sound like the owners with their "shut the (frank) up morons" type of attitude. The PA supporters sound all butt-hurt, stupid, and clueless just like the PA themselves. There are exceptions to both sides, but not many.

I wish north america would just get rid of unions completely. All they really do is make people get paid more thn they're worth, and give them more job security than they deserve. They were quite useful..... During the industrial revolution. They should have stayed there. If you can't get paid a decent amount by your employer, without a union making them pay you that much, and no other employer will pay you that much, its probably because you're not worth it.

Maybe they're still needed in taiwan or bangladesh. You want to be a union gyuy, go there.

I agree. Look I have no problem believing that there are teams in the NHL that have some financial issues. No doubt. But I support two, actually 3 basic premises in this deal. One is that the players should not be solely responsible for fixing the financial issues of the League, out of their pocket. Secondly, I believe that the players current contracts should be honored. Thirdly I support the Owners position that the players can't continue to make 57% of the revenue share, and that 50/50 is fair.
- MJL

100% agree

if those 30 HAD built a solid business plan then wed be watching hockey right now... Happens to be a failed model thats led to where we are today. Also how many of those fortunes were built from the ground up and not inherited...? one of the few that worked his ass off to become an owner is Mario Lemieux, wish i could get his POV... secondly the lack of respect towards say the top 1% (the rich) has led to the economic crisis the world has been facing the last 8 or so years... it wasnt the middle class or poor that led to the global economic collapse. Trust is earned, not bought.

Btw i have to say this has been one of the better threads ive read in a while... petty insults being tossed around sure, but the debate is good. Im with you on this MJL, nice job debating in what is usually a very pro owner forum. What i find frustrating is that alot of people here want the players to be happy with what they got, but like Travis Yost pointed out, player sponsors also have some pull and the argument that players are just "employees and just deal with it" is silly. The players are more than just a run of the mill employee. Comparing the business of sports to the business of MacDonalds per say is silly. I have a hard time seeing the correlations. I'm a (frank)ing amazing electrician but i dont have scores of people dropping their pants for me or giving me money and cars to promote their product, or asking me to come to a hospital to cheer up a sick kid. Anyone that plays in professional sports and is signed to a team is more than the average joe, not comparable...IMO.... another frustration is that the people here also saying that players need to sign the deal and scrap old contracts are the same people who female doged at danny heatley for wanting out of his contract. the average comment was "you signed it, deal with it..." well i say the same goes for ownership. get a deal drawn up that honors contracts signed by the previous cba, put a plan with a deadline in order to fix the broken aspect of the league (failed or failing hockey markets, relocate )and then meet back at the table in a few years and renegotiate. If the players contracts are null and void, then whats stopping them from signing ( when its resolved) with other teams? I prepose NHLPA say, ok we take the deal but then players resign with teams of their choice : ( haha would never happen and probably couldnt) If you (frank) with signed contracts you open a can of worms....
- munky123

Well said

if those 30 HAD built a solid business plan then wed be watching hockey right now... Happens to be a failed model thats led to where we are today. Also how many of those fortunes were built from the ground up and not inherited...? one of the few that worked his ass off to become an owner is Mario Lemieux, wish i could get his POV... secondly the lack of respect towards say the top 1% (the rich) has led to the economic crisis the world has been facing the last 8 or so years... it wasnt the middle class or poor that led to the global economic collapse. Trust is earned, not bought.

Btw i have to say this has been one of the better threads ive read in a while... petty insults being tossed around sure, but the debate is good. Im with you on this MJL, nice job debating in what is usually a very pro owner forum. What i find frustrating is that alot of people here want the players to be happy with what they got, but like Travis Yost pointed out, player sponsors also have some pull and the argument that players are just "employees and just deal with it" is silly. The players are more than just a run of the mill employee. Comparing the business of sports to the business of MacDonalds per say is silly. I have a hard time seeing the correlations. I'm a (frank)ing amazing electrician but i dont have scores of people dropping their pants for me or giving me money and cars to promote their product, or asking me to come to a hospital to cheer up a sick kid. Anyone that plays in professional sports and is signed to a team is more than the average joe, not comparable...IMO.... another frustration is that the people here also saying that players need to sign the deal and scrap old contracts are the same people who female doged at danny heatley for wanting out of his contract. the average comment was "you signed it, deal with it..." well i say the same goes for ownership. get a deal drawn up that honors contracts signed by the previous cba, put a plan with a deadline in order to fix the broken aspect of the league (failed or failing hockey markets, relocate )and then meet back at the table in a few years and renegotiate. If the players contracts are null and void, then whats stopping them from signing ( when its resolved) with other teams? I prepose NHLPA say, ok we take the deal but then players resign with teams of their choice : ( haha would never happen and probably couldnt) If you (frank) with signed contracts you open a can of worms....
- munky123

Mario is heavily against the lockout however only 8 (7 as NHL owns phoenix) votes are needed to null any resistance.

I wish north america would just get rid of unions completely. All they really do is make people get paid more thn they're worth, and give them more job security than they deserve. They were quite useful..... During the industrial revolution. They should have stayed there. If you can't get paid a decent amount by your employer, without a union making them pay you that much, and no other employer will pay you that much, its probably because you're not worth it.

Maybe they're still needed in taiwan or bangladesh. You want to be a union gyuy, go there.
- prock

Sounds like someone who's gotten kicked out of the union. Not everyone is educated in the code of business. Workers can be easily taken advantage of without realizing it. Unions give people rights and a voice with education in the matter. Like that guy is an amazing electrician and when it comes to his business he would make the pencil pushers look silly, and vice versa. If it weren't for unions you wouldn't get paid for what you are worth, so which is better?

Here is the thing, I have seen VERY few people 100% on the owners side. Most of us who are "siding" with the owners also recognize the lies and BS coming out of their camp and recognize that they contributed to their own problem.

Judging by the people I see on the PA's side around here, VERY few have even managed to acknowledge even the most basic, established facts that do not support their position.

The owners supporters here sound like the owners with their "shut the (frank) up morons" type of attitude. The PA supporters sound all butt-hurt, stupid, and clueless just like the PA themselves. There are exceptions to both sides, but not many.
- Aetherial

not sure why this is the concensus thought, perhaps that is the owners "shut the (frank) morons" coming out again?

Sounds like someone who's gotten kicked out of the union. Not everyone is educated in the code of business. Workers can be easily taken advantage of without realizing it. Unions give people rights and a voice with education in the matter. Like that guy is an amazing electrician and when it comes to his business he would make the pencil pushers look silly, and vice versa. If it weren't for unions you wouldn't get paid for what you are worth, so which is better?
- Boosinicka

Kicked out? No. I guess I was in a union when I was 17 as a lifeguard for the city. That's it. I don't need anyone else to artificially inflate my worth. I'm exactly the opposite of a union guy. I'm self incorporated, and consult. If I don't do my job well, I don't get any more contracts. Which is fine by me, because I'm good at my job. Not like some lazy jackazz making 70 grand a year to push a broom at a school, or work an assembly line, too pathetic to fend for himself.

not sure why this is the concensus thought, perhaps that is the owners "shut the (frank) morons" coming out again?
- Boosinicka

Bottom line is that if anyone is just going to call people stupid and clueless, or label them with derogatory adjectives, just because someone doesn't share their point of view. It's because they can't refute their opinions and just deal with the subject matter. Those that do so have no other choice. Because it's the only way they can fight back.

Kicked out? No. I guess I was in a union when I was 17 as a lifeguard for the city. That's it. I don't need anyone else to artificially inflate my worth. I'm exactly the opposite of a union guy. I'm self incorporated, and consult. If I don't do my job well, I don't get any more contracts. Which is fine by me, because I'm good at my job. Not like some lazy jackazz making 70 grand a year to push a broom at a school, or work an assembly line, too pathetic to fend for himself.
- prock

This is judgmental that due to someones characteristic they are unworthy of a certain pay despite being very good at their job. The point of my previous statement is that these people are not educated in the matter, they are only educated in what they do. Sounds like you are educated in the matter and that's good for you, keep doing what you do. But unions are very helpful in the well being of most, some people need help, not everyone is smart in the same subject.

Bottom line is that if anyone is just going to call people stupid and clueless, or label them with derogatory adjectives, just because someone doesn't share their point of view. It's because they can't refute their opinions and just deal with the subject matter. Those that do so have no other choice. Because it's the only way they can fight back.
- MJL

Yeah, that's it Forrest, your right.

Oh and by the way, your first "sentence" was a sentence fragment.

Kicked out? No. I guess I was in a union when I was 17 as a lifeguard for the city. That's it. I don't need anyone else to artificially inflate my worth. I'm exactly the opposite of a union guy. I'm self incorporated, and consult. If I don't do my job well, I don't get any more contracts. Which is fine by me, because I'm good at my job. Not like some lazy jackazz making 70 grand a year to push a broom at a school, or work an assembly line, too pathetic to fend for himself.
- prock

There are times when I just love you, and this is one of those times. I agree with what you said, because I have witnessed it far too many times.

To a certain degree, I believe that unions are needed, however, it has been my experience that they are grossly abused. I actually have people tell me they take naps on the job all the time, and they can get away with it, because of their union. Not saying this is always the case, but for some of the people I know, being in a union means having close to no accountability, having high wages, and having job security. It's kinda (frank)ed up.

You still hate the Oilers though, so (frank) you.

This is judgmental that due to someones characteristic they are unworthy of a certain pay despite being very good at their job. The point of my previous statement is that these people are not educated in the matter, they are only educated in what they do. Sounds like you are educated in the matter and that's good for you, keep doing what you do. But unions are very helpful in the well being of most, some people need help, not everyone is smart in the same subject.
- Boosinicka

If they're good enough at it, and deserve that, somebody else wlll offer it to them.

The vast majority of union workers are not worth what they're paid. How do you justify janitors and garbage collectors getting paid 60 or 70k a year? There are unemployed people that would happily do it for half. Why should they be out of a job while that jackazz sits on his butt hiding behind a union?

Yeah, that's it Forrest, your right.

Oh and by the way, your first "sentence" was a sentence fragment.
- Aetherial

if those 30 HAD built a solid business plan then wed be watching hockey right now... Happens to be a failed model thats led to where we are today. Also how many of those fortunes were built from the ground up and not inherited...? one of the few that worked his ass off to become an owner is Mario Lemieux, wish i could get his POV... secondly the lack of respect towards say the top 1% (the rich) has led to the economic crisis the world has been facing the last 8 or so years... it wasnt the middle class or poor that led to the global economic collapse. Trust is earned, not bought.

Btw i have to say this has been one of the better threads ive read in a while... petty insults being tossed around sure, but the debate is good. Im with you on this MJL, nice job debating in what is usually a very pro owner forum. What i find frustrating is that alot of people here want the players to be happy with what they got, but like Travis Yost pointed out, player sponsors also have some pull and the argument that players are just "employees and just deal with it" is silly. The players are more than just a run of the mill employee. Comparing the business of sports to the business of MacDonalds per say is silly. I have a hard time seeing the correlations. I'm a (frank)ing amazing electrician but i dont have scores of people dropping their pants for me or giving me money and cars to promote their product, or asking me to come to a hospital to cheer up a sick kid. Anyone that plays in professional sports and is signed to a team is more than the average joe, not comparable...IMO.... another frustration is that the people here also saying that players need to sign the deal and scrap old contracts are the same people who female doged at danny heatley for wanting out of his contract. the average comment was "you signed it, deal with it..." well i say the same goes for ownership. get a deal drawn up that honors contracts signed by the previous cba, put a plan with a deadline in order to fix the broken aspect of the league (failed or failing hockey markets, relocate )and then meet back at the table in a few years and renegotiate. If the players contracts are null and void, then whats stopping them from signing ( when its resolved) with other teams? I prepose NHLPA say, ok we take the deal but then players resign with teams of their choice : ( haha would never happen and probably couldnt) If you (frank) with signed contracts you open a can of worms....
- munky123

Most of this is difficult to read. But most NHL owners built their own fortunes. It wasn't some mythical 1% of the population that led to an economic crisis, it was governments, and a couple specific corporations. That doesn't justify you discriminating against people based on income anymore than one black man stealing your wallet justifies you discriminating based on race. Your political ignorance aside, owners have offered solid business plans. Players are refusing to accept them.

You are free to have the opinion that millionaire employees shouldn't have to work under the same economic principles as normal employees, but it's just silly. Nobody is really pushing to take away the advantages when it comes to working as a professional athlete, unless I missed where electricians get signed to guaranteed multi-year contracts, regardless of injury or performance, as a standard. But capitalism isn't suddenly thrown out of the window when you as soon as you make 7 digits or more. The KHL's salary cap is something like 30 million in US dollars. If the most you can make as an electrician working anywhere but Company N is 100k a year, you don't go to Company N and demand to make 200k a year, and start playing the victim and refusing a deal because your next contract with them will only be for 185k a year. Because you are still well ahead of your next best option. The same principle applies here, but somehow, a couple of the posters here are too brainwashed by union type rhetoric to grasp that.

And where exactly is someone saying to void current contracts? Most posters, including me, were on the players side, and continue to be, when the owners were proposing to rollback salary. But the proposals are well past that. Current contracts would be fully honored, it would just likely mean contracts in the future would be lower. Additionally, your statement of "If you **** with signed contracts you open a can of worms...." is completely ignorant of history. They changed signed contracts less than a decade ago under the old CBA. I don't think they should here, but it's proven quite possible to do without major issue.

- Boosinicka

Nice

So far, Grammar Nazi-ism is the only thing he reponds to properly. I also like that it pushes his buttons and the cone of blissful ignorance is, at least temporarily, disrupted.

If they're good enough at it, and deserve that, somebody else wlll offer it to them.

The vast majority of union workers are not worth what they're paid. How do you justify janitors and garbage collectors getting paid 60 or 70k a year? There are unemployed people that would happily do it for half. Why should they be out of a job while that jackazz sits on his butt hiding behind a union?
- prock

Because they wouldn't be getting half, they would be getting an 1/8th, not saying they aren't overpaid, but without the union you can't expect them to be paid fair just because they're supposed to be. There is always an exception to the rule and some abuse it. As for garbage men, they are being paid to clean up everybody's trash of who knows what, they don't get paid enough in my opinion.

There are times when I just love you, and this is one of those times. I agree with what you said, because I have witnessed it far too many times.

To a certain degree, I believe that unions are needed, however, it has been my experience that they are grossly abused. I actually have people tell me they take naps on the job all the time, and they can get away with it, because of their union. Not saying this is always the case, but for some of the people I know, being in a union means having close to no accountability, high wages, and job security. It's kinda (frank)ed up.

You still hate the Oilers though, so (frank) you.
- laughs2907

There are some arguments to be made that some unions are useful in terms of worker safety and such, but honestly, there are hundreds of organizations dedicated to it, like WHMIS, and whatever.

There may be some instances that unions are needed. Its possible. The thing is, their damage, nuisance, costs, and blatant stupidity FAR outweighs that, to the point the usefulness of them is no longer visible to me.

They need to be abolished.

And I don't hate the oilers. I was just rattling chains yesterday.

OK everybody, bickering time is done.

What's say we all tune in to facebook for some UFC prelims! There should be a couple Canadian's fighting

Maybe most of us can be on the same cheering side for a change

Mario is heavily against the lockout
- Boosinicka

Conjecture, or do you have a source?