Re: greedy owners
posted at 9/19/2012 11:28 AM EDT
In response to Bookboy007's comment:
If it came right down to it, the owners could force the players to accept far, far less than this. Shut down the league for three years. The players don't have a right to as much as they can grab. They have a right to do something else if they don't like the pay scale as an NHL pro. Someone here posted that pro players in the Swiss A make about $40K a year plus perks. Say the perks are work $200K. They still don't make half of NHL minimum. Same is true in Sweden, Germany, Finland and in the KHL.
The talent and hard work = right to big payday just doesn't hold. It reminds me of every reality TV show ever where the contestants tell the judges/jury/chefs/monkeys/executives/Trump/bi-sexual groupie that they want it more than anyone else and they want it for the right reasons. That's great...now beat it.
I agree. This isn't about "rights". Introducing that logic is silly. So is the notion that these poor souls only have a few years to cash in, or that those who own the business should be able to do whatever they want. You're absolutely correct in your previous 1% statement. Everyone here is rich....both sides. All of these peripheral arguments though...steer us away from the root issue.
The question is, which side is most reasonable. Who is "least greedy". What the league wants is a system that pretty much thwarts the whole supply and demand thing, yet, with the exception of the players...they still want to operate within that model. They are insisting on a base that most certainly will cause the same commotion when the next agreement expires. They're suggesting a fix...that doesn't fix anything. They are demanding a system that is unavailable in virtually every other business category in North America. "Profit Certainty". For those arguing any kind of "entitlement" argument from the players...chew on profit certainty for a moment.
The league is looking for a deal that will insulate themselves from pretty much any economic peril imaginable on the "expense" ledger while insisting on the freedom to capitalize on any "revenue possibility" thinkable. Not even the Government has it that good, let alone the rest of the business world.
Rather than attempt to "tweak" the agreement to levels from which there is precedent, the league decided to swing for the fence, go for the knockout, and shoot the moon all at once. Now, maybe even bigger than economics, both sides have to save face too.
And realistically...the league could not force the players to take "far, far less". A 3 year lockout would cost them way, way too much, plus, in the meantime a new league would emerge causing untold financial grief for everyone.
The question isn't whether there's greed involved, but which side is "most" greedy. Depending on the circumstance, the answer changes. Clearly, this time...to this point... it's the league. That can and probably will change as negotiations continue, but as of today, it's hardly debatable.