2458 replies to this topic

[haroldsnepsts]

Just something to lighten things up a bit.

A song from the pre-Bettman era that's unfortunately relevant now.

[BottleOfSmoke]

apparently the iihf isnt approving nhl players transfer cards that is required to play in the iihf leagues including the khl. they bring up how the nhl has "pressured" the khl and has a strong hold on them influence wise so this may be a tatic from the league to prevent its locked out players from playing hockey in general. things turning.into a giant gongshow here boys

I was just coming here to post this. Definitely interesting...and by interesting I mean childish and ridiculous.

[Buppy]

...
Wow! Thats a bold statement. AFAIU, you refer to professional sports only, because I know plenty examples of businesses operating without unions and not concidered illegal. So, tell me, what is/are such drastic difference(s) that make operating proffesional sport team without a union illegal?

I think if there is no PA, there would be no CBA, salary cap, max salaries, etc and lockouts... Any contract would be negotiated and signed by a team and a players, no one would force another to sign, etc.

Yes, you are right owners come up with idea of cap to restrict PA growing power. However, in the free market, they would love to pay what they think is reasonable and players are free to sign or reject.
...

I didn't say operating a team would be illegal, I said what the owners are trying to do: limit max salaries, limit contract length, limit negotiating rights, cap on overall team salaries, pretty sure even roster limits (but not game rosters)... all of that would be a violation of labor law.

The players would love to let the market determine their value, because owners have proven time and again that they won't control themselves. They need a set of rules to save them from themselves, and they need the union for those rules.

[RedWingsDad]

Wow! Thats a bold statement. AFAIU, you refer to professional sports only, because I know plenty examples of businesses operating without unions and not concidered illegal. So, tell me, what is/are such drastic difference(s) that make operating proffesional sport team without a union illegal?

I think if there is no PA, there would be no CBA, salary cap, max salaries, etc and lockouts... Any contract would be negotiated and signed by a team and a players, no one would force another to sign, etc.

Ami mind discussing your hate for unions in the politics session of this board? Thought we should only discuss the lockout not the cons and pros of unions.

But I agree, Ami is letting his hatered for all unions (which he already stated in his post that got deleted) blind him to the discussion at hand here.

In general, I am also not a fan of unions, but even I can see that the GMs are just being completely greedy assholes here, and the players are in the right this time. (I was on the GMs side last CBA)

frankgrimes and sleepwalker - please kindly point out where it was in Ami's post that he demonstated a "hate" for unions? I don't see it. How about you address the specific items he mentioned instead of fallaciously dismissing his whole argument arbitrarily. It is also fallacious to dismiss his current arguments based on a past post (deleted post) that you are not even able to reference.

At any rate, it sounded to me like he was sensibly responding to the union question... which is a valid discussion since we certainly would not be looking at a lockout if it weren't for the NHLPA. That is not to say the NHLPA is relevant or irrelevant, just that the presence of a union forces a one size fits all CBA, which leads to financial crisis for some teams and not others... which is ultimately what has led us to a lockout. Without a CBA, each team could manage their finances as they see fit in order to retain profitability, thus avoiding a multitude of teams bleeding money each year, as is the case currently.

Full disclosure - I am generally against labor unions.

Edited by RedWingsDad, 18 September 2012 - 02:59 PM.

[rrasco]

He definitely demonstrated a hate for unions, but that is neither here nor there and doesn't contribute to this thread anymore.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

Yes, you are right owners come up with idea of cap to restrict PA growing power. However, in the free market, they would love to pay what they think is reasonable and players are free to sign or reject.

As far as I understand it was pretty much free market before the last lockout. And it was the owners who wanted cap because apparently they did not have the money to pay what they (owners) thought was reasonable when they signed players. I am saying that past evidence do not support the idea that owners want free market and players don't.

[Nightfall]

He definitely demonstrated a hate for unions, but that is neither here nor there and doesn't contribute to this thread anymore.

I am still trying to figure out where he demonstrated a hate for unions. It certainly wasn't said in this thread. At least I don't see it.

[rrasco]

I am still trying to figure out where he demonstrated a hate for unions. It certainly wasn't said in this thread. At least I don't see it.

I'm not going back through the thread, but indications are that post was deleted it anyways.

[ami]

Ami mind discussing your hate for unions in the politics session of this board? Thought we should only discuss the lockout not the cons and pros of unions.

Agree. This is exactly what I'm discussing here. I have once answered question if I know anything about unions in general. If this is considered offtopic, accept my appologies. Other than that, I'm sorry, I am discussing the lockout. If you disagree with me, as most here, that's fine, but nevertheless this is not a reason to shut me up. Is that understood?

Edited by ami, 18 September 2012 - 05:17 PM.

[ami]

Thats funny, considering you emphatically state over and over that, and I quote, "owners need more money to cover increased expenses".

So even though you admittedly have absolutely no clue what the expenses are, your argument is that you just somehow know that the increased expenses are so severe that they require a nearly 50% rollback of player salaries over the last 2 CBAs while revenues simultaneously have risen by over 50%.

You took my arguments out of context.

You keep saying what union's reps were says, and I keep saying what league's were saying. However, my talks are funny and have no ground while yours are universaly known truth.

I said I haven't seen teams financial statement, but PA saw them for sure. However, they don't argue expense increase, they argue how much...

I am still trying to figure out where he demonstrated a hate for unions. It certainly wasn't said in this thread. At least I don't see it.

I once said: 'yes, I dislike unions in general'
English is obviously not my native language, but I'd never thought dislike is a synonym for hate. Well, I also dislike milk. Or should I now hate it?

Edited by ami, 18 September 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[Nightfall]

I'm not going back through the thread, but indications are that post was deleted it anyways.

Well, in the end, no one has been willing to comment on the points he made. I suppose its easier to complain about someone's stance than it is to reply to a very good point.

[haroldsnepsts]

As has been mentioned, the thread pertains to the lockout not the discussions of unions and their role in business and whatnot.

There were posts in the thread that have been deleted and don't need rehashing. Nothing to see here, move along.

[frankgrimes]

Fact of the matter is, this is a partnership and a partnership should benefit both sides. I am more than sure some players made all these concessions last time because they were thinking "we are done with that crap finally" but no here we go again.

If owners really have given out contracts they never expected to life up to well then things could get ugly for them. I mean, I am not going to buy a car for 50.000 and then all of a sudden decide I am only willing or able to pay 25, 30 or whatever less for it, business doesn't work that way.

[cusimano_brothers]

I'm not going back through the thread, but indications are that post was deleted it anyways.

After a quiet day on Monday, the NHL and NHL Players' Association spoke on Tuesday night and, while there are no meetings scheduled, the two sides plan on talking again on Wednesday.

Edited by cusimano_brothers, 18 September 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[esteef]

apparently the iihf isnt approving nhl players transfer cards that is required to play in the iihf leagues including the khl. they bring up how the nhl has "pressured" the khl and has a strong hold on them influence wise so this may be a tatic from the league to prevent its locked out players from playing hockey in general. things turning.into a giant gongshow here boys

You just dated yourself there Mr.!



esteef

[drwscc]

Fact of the matter is, this is a partnership and a partnership should benefit both sides. I am more than sure some players made all these concessions last time because they were thinking "we are done with that crap finally" but no here we go again.

If owners really have given out contracts they never expected to life up to well then things could get ugly for them. I mean, I am not going to buy a car for 50.000 and then all of a sudden decide I am only willing or able to pay 25, 30 or whatever less for it, business doesn't work that way.

Sure it does. It's called the car gets repossessed, and the dealer gets to sell it again. There are ways to get out of destructive contracts, and people take them all the time. Buy more house than you can afford, and lose your job? Under your scenario, too bad, you're an indentured servant until you pay what you owe. I mean, why should the bank give you a break. You're the one who signed the contract. Noone put a gun to your head and made you get a house.

[Johnz96]

For all those saying that Bettman represents the owners and just does what they want him to here is a list from The Hockey News annual 100 People of Power and Influence issued in January this year.
http://www.google.ca... ... aA&cad=rja

Edited by Johnz96, 18 September 2012 - 09:05 PM.

[sibiriak]

Sure it does. It's called the car gets repossessed, and the dealer gets to sell it again. There are ways to get out of destructive contracts, and people take them all the time. Buy more house than you can afford, and lose your job? Under your scenario, too bad, you're an indentured servant until you pay what you owe. I mean, why should the bank give you a break. You're the one who signed the contract. Noone put a gun to your head and made you get a house.

In all your examples, the people breaking contracts don't get to keep the things they bought. The NHL owners want to break the contracts, but still have the use of players' services. That is what makes the players mad.

[The Axe]

Funny how the fans dont get brought up in this discussion. Im in 100% football mode right now. Hockey is dying.

[chances14]

Funny how the fans dont get brought up in this discussion. Im in 100% football mode right now. Hockey is dying.

football sucks