Lockout: Players or owners?

[newarenanow]

I was voting for the owners, but unlike last lockout where I was 100% on the owners side, this one, I'm just slightly on their side, with me not really caring anymore. It's just ridiculous.

The only reason I'm slightly on the owners side is that I think more of the revenue has to go to them for this league to be healthy long term. And I know it's their fault because they take advantage of loopholes, but they have to close those up on contract issues as well. If not, we are going to be doing this again in 7 or 8 years.

But overall, unlike last time, both are to blame big time for not getting this done.

[Gaucho]

More of the revenus as in more than they get now or more than 50%?

[FallenHero96]

I think both are definitely at fault in this. But I am mostly for the owners. For me, the absolute bottom line is this: The players work for the owners.

If we were talking about guys working for $20,000 a year, my opinion might be different, and I could see why they would fight for every inch. Benefits to the owners aside, these players are being paid millions to play a game. STFU, make your millions and play the game. If you want a bigger piece of the pie, well you should have became a hockey owner and not a hockey player.

Hey players, if you don't want to work for what the NHL is paying you, well by all means go find another job. That's what everyone else has to do, and they should too.

[interstorm]

I think both are definitely at fault in this. But I am mostly for the owners. For me, the absolute bottom line is this: The players work for the owners.

If we were talking about guys working for $20,000 a year, my opinion might be different, and I could see why they would fight for every inch. Benefits to the owners aside, these players are being paid millions to play a game. STFU, make your millions and play the game. If you want a bigger piece of the pie, well you should have became a hockey owner and not a hockey player.

Hey players, if you don't want to work for what the NHL is paying you, well by all means go find another job. That's what everyone else has to do, and they should too.

And some people wonder what use unions have. Hockey aside, the above mentality taken to the extreme would have most of the country working in sweatshops.

Right is right, regardless of paycheck size...

[FallenHero96]

I think both are definitely at fault in this. But I am mostly for the owners. For me, the absolute bottom line is this: The players work for the owners.

If we were talking about guys working for $20,000 a year, my opinion might be different, and I could see why they would fight for every inch. Benefits to the owners aside, these players are being paid millions to play a game. STFU, make your millions and play the game. If you want a bigger piece of the pie, well you should have became a hockey owner and not a hockey player.

Hey players, if you don't want to work for what the NHL is paying you, well by all means go find another job. That's what everyone else has to do, and they should too.

And some people wonder what use unions have. Hockey aside, the above mentality taken to the extreme would have most of the country working in sweatshops.

Right is right, regardless of paycheck size...

No it would not have "most of the country working in sweatshops". But I am not really in the mood to sit here and debate all of that. I stand by my statements.

[nape]

The only thing that matters to me is that a competitive balance exists and no single team can buy a championship.

Make no mistake, if the players ever get their wish of no salary cap an no restraints on spending, the Penguins will NEVER compete again. Anyone on the side of the players better be prepared for a lot of Toronto, New York and Philly championships.

[demondg1]

I'm on the side of the workers and business not making money because the millionaires and billionaires can't decide how to split up the fans money.

[newarenanow]

More of the revenus as in more than they get now or more than 50%?

Get now. End game should be around 50%.

[Gaucho]

More of the revenus as in more than they get now or more than 50%?

Get now. End game should be around 50%.

Agreed.

[MRandall25]

The only thing that matters to me is that a competitive balance exists and no single team can buy a championship.

Make no mistake, if the players ever get their wish of no salary cap an no restraints on spending, the Penguins will NEVER compete again. Anyone on the side of the players better be prepared for a lot of Toronto, New York and Philly championships.

Who's saying the players want no cap?

[interstorm]

The only thing that matters to me is that a competitive balance exists and no single team can buy a championship.

Make no mistake, if the players ever get their wish of no salary cap an no restraints on spending, the Penguins will NEVER compete again. Anyone on the side of the players better be prepared for a lot of Toronto, New York and Philly championships.

Who's saying the players want no cap?

That is what i was wondering. Anything said about really dismantling that (i believe) is just a ploy to pull back and make "normal' proposals appear more middle oriented. Talk of dumping the cap is in the same fantasy land as the owners first proposal.

Side note: where do we think we would be if the owners or players started with one of these more moderate proposals back in the summer? Both sides have made (and continue to make) serious miscalculations.

[Noise]

I'm on the side of the bar owners, restaurant owners, car park workers, concession stand workers, ushers, and other people who actually depend on the income that games provide that are being screwed over because millionaires & billionaires are squabbling how to slice up the big portion of the pie.



Both sides are being unreasonable as the squabbling has got very petty.


It's like coming to an impasse in bargaining over a 5 dollar difference in price.

[Sarcastic]

If the owners go away, new owners will take their place and the players will still be the same product I enjoy. Thus, I back the players.

What the heck. I'm sorry but I have to address this. First of all, with these wanted changes by the NHL it is basically getting new owners, as in forcing a new relationship between owner and player. Second, if one expects to have half or more of NHL teams' owners to sell their teams, all in the next few months, AND then have 'new' owners purchase those, with full knowledge these 'businesses' will only lose money (if players get their way in the CBA), then you are not even going to get 1 offer for 1 team. Nevermind 15.

[MRandall25]

If the owners go away, new owners will take their place and the players will still be the same product I enjoy. Thus, I back the players.

What the heck. I'm sorry but I have to address this. First of all, with these wanted changes by the NHL it is basically getting new owners, as in forcing a new relationship between owner and player. Second, if one expects to have half or more of NHL teams' owners to sell their teams, all in the next few months, AND then have 'new' owners purchase those, with full knowledge these 'businesses' will only lose money (if players get their way in the CBA), then you are not even going to get 1 offer for 1 team. Nevermind 15.

Terry Pegula disagrees.

[Sarcastic]

Terry Pegula disagrees.

About what?

[MRandall25]

He bought Buffalo a year ago, amongst other spending. They're not exactly rolling in the bank. He spent, what, $60 mil to build a new ice rink for Penn State?

I don't think Pegula necessarily cares whether or not he makes a profit. He even said, after he bought them, "If I want to make some money, I'll go drill a gas well."

Can it be that some owners just love the game and don't care about the bottom line?

[Gaucho]

Most of the people who buy hockey teams know that in all probability the only time they will turn a profit is when they eventually sell the team again, which is why I don't care about the owners whining about their annual losses. It's BS.

[interstorm]

He bought Buffalo a year ago, amongst other spending. They're not exactly rolling in the bank. He spent, what, $60 mil to build a new ice rink for Penn State?

I don't think Pegula necessarily cares whether or not he makes a profit. He even said, after he bought them, "If I want to make some money, I'll go drill a gas well."

Can it be that some owners just love the game and don't care about the bottom line?

Also for fun...go see what owner bought their teams for and what their estimated value is. It's fun and informative (i did it).

The overwhelming majority of owners are doing just fin on the appreciation of their asset. Detroit's owner has made (around) an estimated $340 million. Of course he has to sell the team to get that money...but such is life with an investment. He isn't alone. Check out carolina, tampa and virtually every other team. Good stuff there...

[Gaucho]

Also for fun...go see what owner bought their teams for and what their estimated value is. It's fun and informative (i did it).

Exactly.

[Sarcastic]

You guys are not going to convince me that a guy will buy a team and willingly lose money. That's basically crazy. They may not ask to make much, but certainly are not going to accept losing. This is what the lockout is about.

Asset appreciation is the silliest justification because you don't know what will happen in 10 years - maybe the world will be wiped out by a plauge - yet you still have to dish out tons of money each season.

I really don't want to argue this point. No serious businessman is going to be OK with losing money and so this is what the league is trying to fix, but the players resist. They're harming themselves, really.

[Gaucho]

They're going to make a profit in the long run, that's all. And if the world is wiped out those annual losses matter even less.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

He bought Buffalo a year ago, amongst other spending. They're not exactly rolling in the bank. He spent, what, $60 mil to build a new ice rink for Penn State?

I don't think Pegula necessarily cares whether or not he makes a profit. He even said, after he bought them, "If I want to make some money, I'll go drill a gas well."

Can it be that some owners just love the game and don't care about the bottom line?

Also for fun...go see what owner bought their teams for and what their estimated value is. It's fun and informative (i did it).

The overwhelming majority of owners are doing just fin on the appreciation of their asset. Detroit's owner has made (around) an estimated $340 million. Of course he has to sell the team to get that money...but such is life with an investment. He isn't alone. Check out carolina, tampa and virtually every other team. Good stuff there...

You bring this up every week. And its been refuted. The values listed are not actual values they are guesses (just like Forbes estimated yearly balance sheets), the value increases that you sight are not similar to realistic long term value (they were bought dirt cheap and grew during unprecedented growth) - just look at your Penguins. According to fake value listings the grew $150 million give or take over the past 14 years. They were bought out of bankruptcy for next to nothing, got a ping pong ball, a new arena, a sweet new arena deal, and a ridiculous growth period that happened for the game because the owners were 100% correct the last time - they still only grew about $10 million per year even if we go by those values and they lost money or barley profited almost every year. By those numbers (lets just say they are correct) the Penguins probably averaged very minimal overall profits if you calculated losses, profits and franchise value. And that is with pretty much everything going in their favor.

[Noise]

You guys are not going to convince me that a guy will buy a team and willingly lose money. That's basically crazy. They may not ask to make much, but certainly are not going to accept losing. This is what the lockout is about.

Asset appreciation is the silliest justification because you don't know what will happen in 10 years - maybe the world will be wiped out by a plauge - yet you still have to dish out tons of money each season.

I really don't want to argue this point. No serious businessman is going to be OK with losing money and so this is what the league is trying to fix, but the players resist. They're harming themselves, really.

This is just full of

1. Many people willingly lose money. What do you call hobbies, spouses, children, pets etc? Rich people find more expensive ways to lose money because they can. You can't take it with you after all.
2. The rich can have multiple businesses and not all of them make money. Many rich people will have their spouse run a business that never makes a dime, and they just write off the losses.
3. If the world's gonna be wiped out by a plague then your wealth means nothing. Lots of people have long term investments & I'm pretty sure they don't worry about those possibilities.

That said, I'm sure a lot of owners in the NHL want to make money.

[interstorm]

Hey burger...do me a favor and post on here what every team bought between 1995 and 2005 went for. Then also post the estimates. I know these numbers...do you?

As for those who don't believe in asset appreciation, i guess that little place on wall street where a lot of people keep their retirement money doesn't mean anything (and if you're putting money there and really think it is meaningless...i'll give you a PO box to send it to instead if you would like. You'll even get a christmas card every year for your troubles)

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

By now everyone knows pretty much all the numbers, not just you. This isn't new, we have been discussing this since September. Also, is it that people do not believe in appreciation (I have not seen anyone actually state that or even hint at it) or is it that everyone has seen the numbers and do not agree with your premise?