General discussion

Strike/Lockout that no one notices.

I'm sure the sports fans among us know this, but I was blissfully unaware that the National Hockey League is about to cancel its season. It looks like another case in which the union just doesn't get it. The employees aren't worth anything at all if they're paid so much that the company can't stay in business. It looks like the players are about to learn the disadvantages of a union that wants too much.

NEW YORK - A whole new round of back-and-forth began: a final offer, a rejection. A counterproposal, a rejection. With just hours before the NHL was set to cancel the season, the league and the players' association were still far apart.

How many people would care if there's no hockey season this year? I wonder who's really bluffing? Personally, I'ld like to see the owners deliver on their threat. Will the last player turn off the lights when they leave?

Discussion is locked

Follow
Reply to: Strike/Lockout that no one notices.
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Strike/Lockout that no one notices.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
NHL?.... NHL ?.....We don't need no stinkin NHL
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I agree.
- Collapse -
Dear KP. My hockey loving friends up here would be surprise

d hearing that from a Chicago boy (although aren't you originally from somewhere else?) where enthusiasm for the Blackhawks, I am told, was exhibited by throwing an octopus onto the ice during the game. And didn't you live in Redwing county for a while? What stopped you from catching the bug?

We have all escaped that malady I am grateful to say, but we love the Jays, especially when they're winning. I have a friend here with two of the bleacher seats from the old Comiskey Park as a settle for his porch.

Rob

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Octopii were a Redwings "thang" :-)
- Collapse -
No, I'm not originally from somewhere else. 'Boy' would

not be a good choice of words in Chicago.

- Collapse -
Weep for the downtrodden owners.

Those poor millionaires never saw what hit them. If only someone had told them not to sign contracts for more money then they had. And those shameless players taking every penny they fairly negotiated for! What must their mothers think?

Dan

- Collapse -
Are there really any

sports players worth the millions they get paid every year, when that's on top of all their side offers for advertising? The contracts have been ridiculous for too many years already.

TONI

- Collapse -
It's all out of control

Is Alex Rodriguez really worth $25 million a year? Of course not. But the fact is that he brings in a lot of revenue. A good team draws more fans than a bad team, and that means ticket revenues, concession revenues, advertising revenues, postseason revenues and more. Team owners make a bundle and it makes sense that the players who help generate that revenue should share the rewards.

What would be nice would be to see player salaries go down along with concession and ticket prices, but I don't see that happening. Too many people are making too much money and the fans are willing to pay the higher prices, which means it's simply capitalism at work.

- Collapse -
if the fans dont go watch how fast

pay scale drops

- Collapse -
It's not the fans in the seats...

It's the TV and advertising that subsidizes the salaries. If they sold out every game the ticket receipts wouldn't come close to paying the players. Now if the TV ratings fell...

- Collapse -
As far as salaries
...TV and advertising that subsidizes the salaries.

Probably so.

But if the stands were empty, could the stadium maintenance be afforded? and would towns offer to build them to bring teams to town? probably not.

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
Cleveland, Ohio has

an Entertainment Tax that is imposed on every single thing you purchase and that money goes to the building of stadiums and maintaining them. The owners don't own anything but the teams themselves anymore since Cleveland pretty much owns the stadiums now......at the taxpayers' expense in addition to the taxpayers being fans enough to buy the season tickets. The owners may own part of the stadium as investors in order to help sweeten the pot to the taxpayers, but it just gives them a larger cut from that 'diversity'.

TONI

- Collapse -
So that's why the owners plan on no season? They're going

to forego that bundle? Strange capitalists.

- Collapse -
There are short-term bundles and long-term bundles

Both sides appear willing to make short-term sacrifices in order to secure long-term benefits.

- Collapse -
In the case of the NHL

Taking the league as a whole, ownership loses less money if they don't play than if they do play.

How'd these guys get to be millionaires?

Dan

- Collapse -
Not by running hockey teams. Maybe inheritance? That's a

great way to lose your money. Leave it to your kids who will invest in hockey teams.

- Collapse -
So they're throwing away money for spite?

Maybe, but I bet they figure they'll lose money in a few years if not next year if they accept all the players demands.

Some may be just playing owner, but bet some are interested in making not losing money.

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Technically

it's the owner's demands that are holding things up, not the player's. This is a lockout, not a strike.

In either case, the owners have managed things so poorly that they are actually losing less money not playing than they would be if they hadn't decided not to play. Taking the league as a whole, that is.

Dan

- Collapse -
So you think that the owners are holding things up

just to be contrary? or to make sure they make more than the players?

it's the owner's demands that are holding things up, not the player's.

Shrug, a lockout is just as valid negotiating tool as a legal strike. Betting something will hurt the other side more than it will yourself (considering future benefits included) is the fact and purpose of both lockouts and strikes.

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
It was the

owner's actions that stopped play. Of that there can be no argument. Part of their motivation is that, as we're seeing here, they know that more attention will be given to the simple and seemingly atrocious issue of how much the players are paid rather than to the more complex issues of the owners freely agreeing to all those contracts and the poor business decisions that landed the league in this situation.


Dan

- Collapse -
Better late than never?
...the more complex issues of the owners freely agreeing to all those contracts ...

And yet, didn't you suggest in another post they should play by the old contracts while negiotating another?

Now they realized the market can't bear the old contracts payouts, are they wrong to try to correct mistakes?

Don't get me wrong, there's probably plenty of fault to go to both sides, players and owners. But the owners have the right to use the lockout just as much as the players do to strike. Particularly since in this case it is an "industry wide" (ie, the hockey league, all of them) effect if either side refuses to play. They're equal.

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
I didn't suggest that

I pointed out that it is frequently done and that is was solely the decision of the owners not to play the season without a contract.

I agree, there is responsibility to bear on both sides. Many forum members participating in this and other threads have not yet come to that realization. They wish to unjustifiably place the blame disproportionately on the players.

As for me, it's not a big issue. I'd be fine if they decided to chip up the ice and make big margaritas (not too much salt for mine, thanks).

Wink

Dan

- Collapse -
It's not for us to decide their salaries

They have fairly balanced bargaining positions. They seem to be able to work it out themselves. No owner is forced to sign for more than they want to, and not player is forced to sign for less.

Dan

- Collapse -
Right! Fair negotiations that are putting the teams in the

tank. The players can laugh all the way to the unemployment line. 75% of the team's revenue?

- Collapse -
Then why'd the owners do it?

No one forced them into making ruinous business decisions. If you run your operation so poorly you probably should go under.

Dan

- Collapse -
That's true. Maybe they're just renogiating to obtain a fair

deal.

- Collapse -
The owners admitting they're not very

good at their jobs is a good first step, but not, as we're seeing, a very compelling argument for the players.

Dan

- Collapse -
Ummm, if the business isn't making money, that's the only

compelling argument the players need to consider. It doesn't matter if the management could be done better.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) That's a unique view of management responsibility
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) YOU were talking about the players.

CNET Forums

Forum Info