NHL LOCKOUT: Who do you side with??

[Ego Woods]

With only 2 months into the NHL lockout, it seems many of the younger players are getting antsy about not being able to play right now....and are speaking to the detriment of the union by some saying they don't mind playing as a replacement player or some just giving any concession that the owners are demanding.

Now the specifics of what's on the bargaining table, I only read from what's on the news...even some of it I don't understand.....but I think for me the bottom line is that if a business (an NHL franchise) is losing money and salaries account for a very significant proportion of the expense, then I think something has to give.....I believe they said that only 6 NHL teams made a profit in 2003 or 2004 (Toronto being one of them).....so it's either the way the owners are doing business is not right, or the salaries owners give to the players doesn't justify the type of market that league is in.....

So the end question is who do you side with? The owners or the players?

[Mok]

ok saw this post in the morning, had to do some research before responding. :cool:

i side with the players.

reason being:

owners are the ones locking out the players, meaning it's not the players fault there is no hockey!
NHL is reporting negative revenue, i don't disagree with that but i wonder how much expenses they are reporting (eg. first class ticket for owners, business lunches, etc etc.) so are the owners really incurring losses? NHL players also dispute that the teams are not reporting all the revenue earned by owners.
both sides agree to revenue sharing, but why support something that is failing? and will continue to fail? (except Canadian teams of course, support them, send the money this way!)
the owners want a salary cap, but in what profession is there ever a salary cap? a salary cap for a team would be ok IMO, but salary cap on individual players, nope! :nono:
the salary of the NHL players are determined by supply and demand, simple as that, if the owners want to do something about raising salaries just make a cartel and collude to stop offering players so much money!

[Focker Singh]

Just to play devil's advocate, I side with the Owners because very simply, a salary cap DOES work. Just use the NFL and NBA as an example. Both leagues are doing well and small market teams are getting by because of it. Also, why does one need to make $15-20 million a season anyway? Its much more than they can spend.
I had a former NHL'er come eat at my restaurant and he says he doesn't think the players are being right. He gave me a lengthy explanation in which I didn't understand some of the details.
I JUST NEED HOCKEY TO COME BACK!! CAN'T STAND THIS!!

[Jaydog]

i gotta side with focker on this one. first of all, it takes 2 to tango. both sides have been very stubborn in this argument that has been developing for the past 5 years or more. players have always held out because in the long run they ALWAYS got their way.

the thing that irks me is that the players are complaining that the revenues/books supplied by the owners is inaccurate but no one from the PA has offered to have the books audited by an auditor of their choice. no business can continue if they are consistently losing $200 million a year. i think it's about time that the owners have stepped up and are standing their ground.

just hope it ends soon with no backlash from the fans. i miss hockey! (tear in my eye...hehe)

[speedoodler]

I've just got an opinion...please don't jump on me since I'm new here, but , if over half the teams are losing money, most teams are in the US, where they could give a #%%#%#% about hockey, let the original six teams play and add the canadian teams that want to play , make a much smaller league, less but more skilled players and get back to playing for the game rather than money only.
I know this doesn't answer the problem, but I had to vent....
thanks for listening....:cookoo:

[Focker Singh]

I've just got an opinion...please don't jump on me since I'm new here, but , if over half the teams are losing money, most teams are in the US, where they could give a #%%#%#% about hockey, let the original six teams play and add the canadian teams that want to play , make a much smaller league, less but more skilled players and get back to playing for the game rather than money only.
I know this doesn't answer the problem, but I had to vent....
thanks for listening....:cookoo:

hahaha...I like your opinion Speedoodler...eliminate the Nashvilles, Carolina's etc, they don't even know what ICING is!!! Keep teams like Colorado, the original six and add Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Halifax, Hamilton!! Would be great to see skilled, gung ho style hockey and none of this "trap" style cause teams don't have the skill to play with the tougher teams.

[Ems]

ok saw this post in the morning, had to do some research before responding. :cool:

i side with the players.

reason being:

owners are the ones locking out the players, meaning it's not the players fault there is no hockey!
NHL is reporting negative revenue, i don't disagree with that but i wonder how much expenses they are reporting (eg. first class ticket for owners, business lunches, etc etc.) so are the owners really incurring losses? NHL players also dispute that the teams are not reporting all the revenue earned by owners.
both sides agree to revenue sharing, but why support something that is failing? and will continue to fail? (except Canadian teams of course, support them, send the money this way!)
the owners want a salary cap, but in what profession is there ever a salary cap? a salary cap for a team would be ok IMO, but salary cap on individual players, nope! :nono:
the salary of the NHL players are determined by supply and demand, simple as that, if the owners want to do something about raising salaries just make a cartel and collude to stop offering players so much money!

I voted that I didn't have enough information to decide.

Now usually I would say let supply and demand take over because that is the most efficient economy you can have, however, I think in this case when professional players make multi-million dollars in one season, I can't see them losing out too much if Salaries are capped... and at how much? I look at Olympic athletes and other professional sports that isn't as popular and I really can't say I feel too sorry for the players. If they want to make more money, invest their millions. I also know it's ridiculously expensive in Toronto to watch hockey, because of supply and demand, and I feel bad for the kids who are fanatics but just can't afford it. It just doesn't seem right...

As to the franchises losing money, I think most of the owners are wealthy tycoons in the first place. They probably use their passion and ownership in Sports to write off their losses and decrease their personal net income to pay less tax. just a hunch. The 6 teams obviously make more than the rest so they have to report profit, but I bet it's a lot higher than what's reported.

Can someone explain the difference to me for putting a cap on a team vs. a cap on a player? If the team has a cap, doesn't that automatically mean all the players have a cap?

[Mok]

Can someone explain the difference to me for putting a cap on a team vs. a cap on a player? If the team has a cap, doesn't that automatically mean all the players have a cap?

cap on a team is like a team can only hire 30 million worth of players.
cap on a player a player cannot make more then 5 million a year.

[Queen of the Beach]

Just to play devil's advocate, I side with the Owners because very simply, a salary cap DOES work. Just use the NFL and NBA as an example. Both leagues are doing well and small market teams are getting by because of it. Also, why does one need to make $15-20 million a season anyway? Its much more than they can spend.
I had a former NHL'er come eat at my restaurant and he says he doesn't think the players are being right. He gave me a lengthy explanation in which I didn't understand some of the details.
I JUST NEED HOCKEY TO COME BACK!! CAN'T STAND THIS!!
I agree with Focker I want HOCKEY BACK! And I don't really have a side. Because I honestly think the NHL is making money and I think many hockey stars make more money than they know what to do with. Why can't we have more hockey players like Kariya who took a pay cut just for a real chance at the Stanley cup! I know that many businesses in Canada will suffer with no hockey i.e. Restaurant lounges, sports bars and pubs. We need hockey in Canada. I agree with you Speedoodler. Let the Canadian teams play.

[Ego Woods]

Now usually I would say let supply and demand take over because that is the most efficient economy you can have, however, I think in this case when professional players make multi-million dollars in one season, I can't see them losing out too much if Salaries are capped...The higher paid players claim that they're doing this to protect the younger players and future generations....that's why I'd honestly like some more information of how they're trying to protect them....cuz based on what i read from the media, it seems like the richer players just seem too greedy!

[Mok]

I also know it's ridiculously expensive in Toronto to watch hockey, because of supply and demand, and I feel bad for the kids who are fanatics but just can't afford it. It just doesn't seem right...

supply and demand dictates prices for all goods and services...do you feel bad kids can't get the toys they want?

[Ems]

supply and demand dictates prices for all goods and services...do you feel bad kids can't get the toys they want?
yeah, I feel the same way when it comes to children's books. Like Harry Potter, they're so expensive. But then we have public libraries funded by government. NHL is different, the government can't substitute that. Just hope for teams who make so much money to donate more to kids that can't afford their seats.

Anyway, I said I feel bad, but I also said I'm usually for letting 'Supply and Demand' take it's own course. There is a need to balance it out at times. Do you think we shouldn't have public health care?

[Mok]

yeah, I feel the same way when it comes to children's books. Like Harry Potter, they're so expensive. But then we have public libraries funded by government. NHL is different, the government can't substitute that. Just hope for teams who make so much money to donate more to kids that can't afford their seats.

Anyway, I said I feel bad, but I also said I'm usually for letting 'Supply and Demand' take it's own course. There is a need to balance it out at times. Do you think we shouldn't have public health care?
public health care? i am not really for it as a matter of fact. but that is another story

[Ego Woods]

I wish I had statistical information, but it just seems like player's salaries have ballooned drastically over the last few years.....the fanbase in the NBA, NFL and MLBA can sustain the salaries, but I believe hockey is diff't...only a select few teams are really making money....tv coverage is crap.....and so forth....

[Ems]

I wish I had statistical information, but it just seems like player's salaries have ballooned drastically over the last few years.....the fanbase in the NBA, NFL and MLBA can sustain the salaries, but I believe hockey is diff't...only a select few teams are really making money....tv coverage is crap.....and so forth....
Ok, you convinced me, i'm with the owners. how do I change my vote? :cool:

[Mok]

Ok, you convinced me, i'm with the owners. how do I change my vote? :cool:
you can't! :P