No pro-hockey for a while...

Special_K

Special_K

New member
Well here we have it, an official NHL lock out. It is a bit annoying when these folks complain about an average salary of $1.8M. Hey NHL owners: I'll happily play for a mere 75% of that and don't mind you caping my future salary at, say, $10M either...I'll consider a hardship settlement of $9M. It'll be rough but I suppose I could still live with that.

With all that said, I do fault owners to. Plus, the marketing of the NHL is abhorrent. I'm honestly planning to send a unsolicited letter with my opinions to the league commissioner, Gary Bettman. I'm sure he'll value it very highly and read it again and again. :)

Anyway, the only games going now are, lets see....minor, amateur (my category...though the title is a little insulting--even if true), and school leagues. Now if only I can find a way to sell season ticket packages at $2000 a pop. Hmmmm.

Thinking, thinking, thinking.........Thought!!

Conclusion: I'm hungry and I'm going to grab a burger.
 

I concurr with that conclusion!! BTW it's cool you play hockey!

This sucks. All it's going to accomplish is making Hockey a less popular sport than it is. And then what are these millionaires going to complain about when the revenue isn't available when/if they eventually come to an agreement. They are killing the golden goose, which had already been turning bronze anyway.

I would love to see what the player assocation's arguement is:
"What do you mean there isn't enough money to go around? We don't care, you are going to have to pay us anyway. What do you mean "where should the owners find the money?" We don't care.
What's that you say? Only 5 NHL teams have made a profit over the past 4 years? It doesn't matter, palm up baby!"

Conclusion: Less air time. Because after a hold out, an already fumbling hockey league will be even less popular, and less profittable. Good job players, you'll show them.

2nd Conclusion: I'm thirsty and I'm going to grab a beer.
 
The players are greedy and the owners made them that way. Same story in all of professional sports. Nobody forces the owners to offer those kinda salaries. I played baseball since I was big enough to hold one, but they totally lost me as a fan when they cancelled the World Series a few years back. They can all starve as far as I'm concerned - I'll go watch the Asheville Aces (new minor league team) this year. And high school sports are great - they still play for the love of it!
 
its like comparing apples to oranges though. sure i think its ludacris that people would complain about an average salary of over a million dollars. but average joe's like us don't understand. take someone with a comfortable 40k-100k a year salary, and have him talk personal finances with someone that makes 2 million a year, have them go car shopping together, they wouldnt understand eachother.

take an average career (not pro sports, but everyday career). we'll say most people work 30 years and then retire on average. we'll say they make a very healthy 100k a year. then realize that someone that makes 3 million a year, just made what you'll make in your ENTIRE lifetime.

sure these people are stupid, they're letting the money ruin a great sport. an entertaining sport. what hasnt money ruined? it ruined baseball in 94, only to be saved a few years later by sosa and big mac on roids. i think its ignorant on the part of both sides, and i think its really too bad. i've played hockey since i was 5 years old, and nobody will ever change my mind that its the best sport. i'll miss it, but i'm a college hockey fan at heart anyways. thats where my name comes from anyways (bchcky = bc hockey). so to all you hockey fans, go watch a division I college game, its amazing. everyone hits, everyone skates hard, the game is intense. and its the same difference as in football, sure raiders fans are nasty and insane and make the game fun, but you cant tell me that that would be more fun than watching a notre dame game in south bend, or watching miami play at the orange bowl. college crowds are ELECTRIC. watch college hockey, screw the NHL and their ignorance.
 

I MADE A DISCOVERY!

As far as I'm concerned, it's a sport and they should be glad they have such a great job. Imagine being able to play a sport you love and get paid for it too. I think they should have a cap on salaries a lot lower than the NHL is offering. The players who earn a certain number of points for their position should be paid accordingly. This will push them all to play their best...their paycheques will depend on it...this goes for any sport. I think any person who plays a sport professionally and whines because they aren't making $10 million as opposed to $1 million is whiney little crybaby and doesn't deserve to play the sport, especially professionally. These people should remember why they started playing the sport to begin with...because it is fun.
 
Baseball, basketball, and hockey need to follow the NFL with the salary cap. It has made the game so much better.
 
Didn't this happen a number of years ago too? Maybe it was just in Detroit, but I remember that the Wings didn't play... When you break it down into the very simplest categories, hockey is a game (most sports are). Hockey is their job. They are getting paid vast sums of money each year.

So...

They are getting paid vast sums of money each year to play a game.

I like to bowl, don't see me getting paid for it. Or golf... Or playing my drums for that matter. If it is their profession, then they should get paid, but to drive a cliche example into the ground once more, look at what pro sports players make compared to teachers...

I dunno, it just angers me. I wish I could be as poor and struggling as a hockey player. I'd be able to retire at the ripe old age of 30...

Also Conclustion: I just woke up and will now eat breakfast.
 

pro athletes dont realized how great they've got it. not only the large sums of money that they pull in for playing a game. i realize they put a lot of hard work in, but come on, we'd all love to be doing what they do. but also the fact that they have contracts. and they complain about it every time the collective bargaining agreements run out. what other jobs offer that? unions are one thing, but even still, you dont sign a contract that says you're going to work for the next 5 years and have your salary steadily increase. whats to keep your boss from laying you off, or firing you? whats to keep you from up and quitting and going to another company to do the same thing for more money? we're not as lucky to get contracts like pro athletes do, and even then, its not good enough for them.

i've played hockey since i could walk, and this disappoints me, but i'm not at any love loss really, i dont want to watch a bunch of overpaid goons pretend they're playing their hearts out. i'll just go watch a college hockey game instead thank you very much.

ps - get rid of the clutching and grabbing in the NHL already! play the game it was meant to be played!
 
whats to keep your boss from laying you off, or firing you? whats to keep you from up and quitting and going to another company to do the same thing for more money?
Click to expand...

Yeah really... It's that magical thing calles at-will employment, that most of us probably fall under whether the company is open about it or not. My place of work was, they told me straight up "this is at-will employment, meaning you can quit at any time for any reason, or we can fire you at any time for any reason..."

Must be nice to have that kind of job security. Even if they whine and moan, they won't get fired, and in the end, there'll probably be some pay increases...
 
Well, since there's gonna be no hockey season this year, I've got the next best thing aside from going to watch AAA hockey games. I went out and bought EA Sports NHL 95 for my playstation. Never used it much till I bought this game, it's pretty good. I'm hooking it up to the internet so I can play against other people online.
 

Pro players should be commissioned. Salaries should be determined as a percentage of league revenue. The only number that needs be negotiated is that percentage. And each team is allotted a certain amount of "revenue points". Your Forsbergs of the world will demand a higher take on the revenue alottment. Of course, all of the revenue-sharing opponents won't like this idea.

Plus, it encourages the players to promote the league, and do what's best for the sport. That way, the more the league makes, the more the players make. It's amazing how making people "EARN" their money will do for work ethic and attitude.

.
 
This is going to sound completely out of character for me, as most of my veiws are very conservative. It only proves that I am not a republican or a NeoCon, but an independant mind.

bchcky said:
you dont sign a contract that says you're going to work for the next 5 years and have your salary steadily increase. whats to keep your boss from laying you off, or firing you? whats to keep you from up and quitting and going to another company to do the same thing for more money? we're not as lucky to get contracts like pro athletes do, and even then, its not good enough for them.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is EXACTLY what a union contract does. I have worked for several unions: IBEW (lineman), BMWE (lineman at AMTRAK), CWA (Cable Splicer at Verizon) to name 3 bigger ones. Our contracts have always been anywhere from 3-5 years and had wage increases annually. Some had language for protection against layoffs, or strict guidelines for them.

Contract lengths
I am currently working under a 5 year contract between CWA and the major Tel Co in this area.

Pay
My pay is set for this period, increasing annually at a fixed percentage. If the cost of living index rises above a certain point, the wage increase will be higher. All of my benefits from profit sharing, 401K, health, vision, vacation, holidays (9 of them), and several others including things like adoption assistance, legal assistance, tuition reimbursement, etc, etc, etc... are ALL in our contract.

Layoffs:
Verizon cannot lay me off from my job unless they are experiencing a financial hardship and they must get rid of any and all contractors before they can touch my job. Then if I were to get laid off, they would have to hire me back befor hiring someone else in my job classification. They laid off hundreds of employee's in new england a couple years ago, and didn't follow the guidelines. All those employees were returned to their jobs and received full backpay.

Firing
The contract is an agreement, and protects both sides.
There are guidelines for disciplinary action for just about anything an employee could get fired for. Some are no-brainers like theft would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Poor job performance would be a progressive step plan that could result in termination, but would usually result in someone's job being downgraded if they were having trouble.

What's the difference you ask? You can have that without a Union? Well I have it all in writing, a legally binding contract and it cannot be taken away because some corporate jackass decided he wasn't going to make enough on his stock options this year.

Believe it or not, there is a pretty good relationship between management and union employees there. It gets a little tense around negotiation time, but for the most part it's good.


5 years form last August we'll hash out another deal. We got this one without a strike, but it is not always how it goes. I've sat out 4 weeks before and will gladly do it again to ensure a fair contract. With axe handles and baseball bats if needed (just kidding, well sort of :wink: ).

Oh, and as for what's to stop me from leaving and going elsewhere?

Not a thing, but do you think I'm nuts :shock:

Remember the 40 hour work week, minimum wage, lunch breaks, and things of the like are all compliments of the blood, sweat, and tears of labor unions that were formed of employees like you and me. The people who run them are elected by the same.

The strong ones that remain still set the bar for the rest of the working class. If they fall, so will the average Joe's standard of living.

Or you could leave it up to the Enron's out there if you prefer...

TwistedHoffa

You all know I enjoy a good debate, but there are few topics I enjoy as much as unions - and I invite a challenge 8)
 

By the way, remember a lockout is initiated by the employer, not the employee. It means you CAN'T go to work. A strike would be the opposite.

So, in this case, the NHL has said no games - not the players.
 
yeah TC, your profession, and ones like it are a rarity. like someone above you mentioned the majority of us have at will employment. and like he said, we can quit at any point, but we may also be fired.

enjoy your contract work, you're one of the lucky ones. i guess i forgot to mention union work like yours. but in general, pro athletes (money not taken into consideration) have a lot more job security than the average joe.
 
bchcky said:
yeah TC, your profession, and ones like it are a rarity. like someone above you mentioned the majority of us have at will employment. and like he said, we can quit at any point, but we may also be fired.

enjoy your contract work, you're one of the lucky ones. i guess i forgot to mention union work like yours. but in general, pro athletes (money not taken into consideration) have a lot more job security than the average joe.
Click to expand...

There are many professions/trades that have good contracts, but for years now people have been veiwing their union as a figure separate from themselves, giving away the control of their own jobs.

As I mentioned above, I think the salary cap would be a great answer to the pro sports malady. The cap amount could be based on revenue, and that figure would be re-negotiated every contract term. This would ensure that the owners would have to justly compensate the players, yet not to the extent to hurt them financially or jack ticket prices (because if the revenue from tickets went up, so would the cap).

Any place can organize if there is a need. All it takes is a vote. The laws are there to protect your jobs while the process takes place. There are many good non-union employers out there, but there is alot of greed as well. The strength of solidarity of my fellow workers is why we have such a good contract. It has nothing to do with my profession. There are still some very strong unions out there, I don't think mine is that rare, although sadly it is more so than in the past.
 

Guess what I got!

TC's a Lib commie. :mrgreen:

The NHL is an unprofitable mess. Lockout or strike, it's managed terribly, and pressures of the players union don't help either. It's simple math, the players want a certain amount, and the league doesn't have the revenue to support the demand of the players union. Yeah, it's not THAT simple, but that is the crux of the situation.

The blame definetly falls on both sides, meanwhile, I have no hockey. The NHL is the red-headed step child of pro sports, they are just shooting themselves in the foot. Acting as if they can afford to lockout or strike, gimme a break.
 
There was a strike last year at a production facility that supplied an ingredient in a product that we use extensively, I think they were striking because they demanded longer breaks and some additional benefits. The management didn't think the employees were worth that, so instead of going and getting another job that offered those benefits and allowing a person who IS willing to work for the offered benefits.....they stopped production, hid behind union protection and caused the price of our materials to rise to a point that we were looking at a projected increase of $16,000 dollars a year in operating expenses. Yeah....I really think those people deserve a longer break :roll:

I don't have a dog in this fight, I just don't agree with alot of union practices. Affirmative action once served a purpose in this country. Does that mean we should keep it around just for the memories? No. Same with the Unions, we now have extensive laws to protect employees and an uncountable number of lawyers waiting to fight for those laws. No need for antiquated special interest group protection.......you pinko commie. :lol:
 
Enough of the Union/Management debate!! I just want to watch hockey!!! Go Wings!!!.......ooops, not this year, I guess.
 

Antiquated eh? Baltimore Gas & Electric employees bought into that theory about 4 years ago. They were voting on being organized by the IBEW. The company promised employees pay raises, better benefits packages, less forced overtime, blah,blah,blah. They voted against the Union 60/40 and within a year there were layoffs, cut benefits, and forced overtime to pick up the work demand with a smaller workforce. They said they spent too much money fighting the IBEW. Less than a year later they spent millions on a merger with PEPCO that never went through.
HOCKEY
I'm sure the story with the production company goes deeper than that. If not, it is pathetic that 2 sides could not reach an agreement over breaks. I'm sure the benefits were the bigger issue, as they are in most corporations today with rising health care costs.
HOCKEY
Why shouldn't those employees be able to fight for better benefits? DO you know what the financial status of that company was at the time? Did they actually take such a loss that warranted charging your company an extra $16K annually or were they being opportunistic? How unreasonable was the packege the employees looking for? Whatever it was, they felt it important enough to stop earning money to fight for it.
HOCKEY
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made affirmative action completely unnessassary, as they will just blackmail corporations if they don't have good "representation" of race. That's a whole 'nother issue, but comparing that debacle with unions is not realistic.
HOCKEY
There are lots of horror stories on corruption and abuse of laws on both sides of the fence, but alot of good comes from them too. This is why I stay informed of goings on, speak up at meetings, and of course - vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top