Strike/Lockout that no one notices.

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

not be a good choice of words in Chicago.

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

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.

pay scale drops

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...

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

to forego that bundle? Strange capitalists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).



Dan

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

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

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

Dan

deal.

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

Dan

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