Thursday, September 16, 2004

nhl strike...

more observations:

clearly, this origin of this strike/lockout is the owners. they are the sole makers of they're troubles. who put the gun to their heads to pay these exhorbitant player salaries? no one. don't they have business models to follow? most of them must have been successful business people before they bought nhl franchises. what happened when became franchisees? runaway egos or just stupidity. now that you've opened pandora's box of skyrocketing player's salaries and expectations, try to close it.

i heard several times yesterday that the owner's proposal of a salary limit or cap is in fact protection from one another. my take on the whole matter is to get rid of the irresponsible owners who year after year jack up player salaries. you know, give them a 5 minute match penalty - intent to injury, 10 minute game misconduct, AND criminal charges for assault causing injury to hockey. the nhl granted the franchises and could revoke the same franchises.

now the players. they've got to recognise the changing economic times. the league doesn't have a big time tv contract like football, basketball, and baseball. yah, the owners are idiots. but as a group they've treated you well. i'm not sure but what other business on the planet shares 75 percent of it's revenues with it's employees? that's 75 percent of 2 billion dullah. that's mindboggling. i'm not against earning lots of cash. they must be commended for it. they are the product. no one put a gun to the owners' heads, but that's a whole lotta cash (an average nhl player takes home 1.3 million USD). they demand that their salaries be determined by the "free marketplace", but is linking the payout to expenditures really unreasonable?

the positions taken by the players and owners are so polarised. the owners point to economic viability. the players say the economic numbers aren't as bad. in situations like these, the truth belongs in the middle somewhere. the animosity between the parties might get in the way of negotiations. get rid of nhl commissioner bettman (never did like him) and NHLPA executive director bob goodenow.

to tell you the truth, i won't really miss having the nhl around. i, a fan, will not "suffer the most". the product for years has been really diluted. HNIC, with it's maple leaf games, is dull. they only saving grace in the last decade was the calgary flames making the playoffs last year. probably the best things that could come out of this fiasco is the demise of the southern american teams and the emergence of franchises in places like winnipeg, quebec city, and even hamilton. you know, good ol' fashion canadian towns, places that care about hockey.


3 comments:

Kyle said...

Yep. Owners = Bad. Also, Players = Bad.

The players (and their greedy agents) are bad because they act in line with the following example:

It would be as though I went to my company's owners and said "Give me $100,00 a year. I know you're losing money already, but hey, I'm so great, you won't do good without me!"

The owners are bad (or maybe just incredibly stupid) because they say "Okay."

Sigh.

Oh well. At least we have the Hitmen. Huzzah.

Kyle said...

Oh. Yeah. One last thing.

The owners and players can agree to have Salary Arbitration.

Why can't they send this dispute to an impartial Arbit... Arbitra... Abitro...

You know. A person who arbitrates things.

Anonymous said...

OK. This is silly. In my mind, this is all about owners who can’t save their collective sorry behinds. They have to hide behind a salary cap because they don’t trust one another. Their stupidity …. Not the players.

Look at this way. I, like a hockey player, am an employee. If my boss came to me and said “I’m going to pay you $2 million a year” would my response be: “I can’t take that, you would not make money.” Sorry, I’m taking the money like most (if not all) of you would. If you don’t, you are a prime candidate to be a NHL Franchise owner as you have about the same financial wisdom.

Unlike a hockey player, I can take my skill set and try to find another job. Do all hockey players have this much flexibility to this? No way – restricted free agent I believe is the term. Not many of us would put up with that either.

In fact, in any other business examples of the above are termed anti-competitive, racketeering, predatory, and monopolistic behavior. Bill Gates and Microsoft can’t get away with it, why should the NHL?

I think what the whole situation needs is a bit of free enterprise. How else are you going to get rid of the weak minded owners????

Also, remember that professional hockey players are first and foremost entertainers. You go to a hockey game for entertainment. Given this, how to hockey players compare to the 2004 paycheque of other entertainers:

Mel Gibson : $210 Million
Oprah Wnfrey : $210 Million
Tiger Woods : $80 Million
Michael Schumacher : $80 Million
Tom Cruise : $45 Million
Michael Jordan : $35 Million

In conclusion, if you are offered more money at work and you accept then you are as “bad” as an NHL Player. If you don’t accept the money you are as in the same league as the owners ….. IQ wise, anyway.