Comments for August 21, 2012 at http://hockey.dobbersports.com , comment 1 to 22 out of 20 comments http://hockey.dobbersports.com Sat, 25 May 2013 16:45:49 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22252 Why do the players need a union? Go back to before there was a player union and see how they had it then. Then go and look at how they had it with corrupt-to-the-bone Eagleson. - Dakkster Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:20:12 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22251 Unions certainly have merit however it's generally in industries requiring relatively unskilled labour (ie. easily replaceable workforce). If your skills are truly valuable/rare then unions are not always necessary because the individual is not easily replaceable and can therefore negotiate a fair wage for themselves. I know this from experience, my employer needs my services far more than I need theirs so we come to a mutually agreeable settlement and move forward. So why do the players need a union? The argument can be made that they are in an industry with only one employer and therefore have no choice. It could also be argued that there are other options but most North American players simply don't see it that way....maybe they should? That's not really for me to say. To imply that either side is 'right' in this standoff is naive. They are both operating out of self interest...as almost all of us do....sometimes these mutual interests overlap and sometimes they diverge. It's closing the gap on the diverging interests that is the tough part and I feel like the non-profitable expansion teams are one of the issues at the heart of the disagreement. I blame Bettman for that!!! - 4horsemen Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:08:53 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22248 Trust me, without them, there would a lot of children in the US working right now, just like anywhere else in the world that doesn't have or never had a union presence. And like Dakkster said, Corps don't always win, if they did, we'd all be making pennies to the dollar by now, living in Corporate (Walmart) owned housing, getting paid corporate currency only to spend at their company store. - shingy Wed, 22 Aug 2012 06:59:29 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22247 Don't even put me on that silly American political spectrum (where liberal doesn't even mean the true meaning of liberal = personal freedom). I'm a social democrat, through and through, as with a lot of people here in Europe. Of course there are plenty of people willing to play hockey for a living. However, they don't have the talent for it, so your precious investors still don't have a product. And no, corporations and owners don't always win. - Dakkster Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:41:20 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22246 DakkSter i didnt mean to offend a Liberal such as yourself!;) There are many good hockey players that would literally kill to play hockey for a living....how many people are willing to purchase an NHL franchise? There are always other willing to step in at any level of work. We will see in the coming months but owners and corporations always win. - Board Member Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:17:33 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22245 Board Member: Bullshit. Unions are what built up the middle class of America. No unions to seek and protect the rights of workers = A two class society of very poor and very rich, no middle ground. No unions = The US wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today. Yes, the owners take the risk of investment, but without the players they don't have a product to invest in. If it helps the league as a whole to grow, then revenue sharing is hardly a joke. You give me extremely heavy Ayn Rand vibes and that's not a good thing. - Dakkster Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:52:23 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22244 I for one am with the owners, they put up the capital and took the risk to purchase the teams therefore they have the right to lockout the players. Unions seem to only be popular in the East and we all know what they did to the auto industry. Revenue sharing is a joke, the players should be happy with what they have for base salaries to begin with. Let them all head to the SEL for a year and fix this nce and for all gary!! - Board Member Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:17:40 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22241 [quote]horsemen - I don't think Bettman has a say. So we're not understanding each other. I'm saying the say is 100% between Toronto, New York, and five or six other rich team owners/ownership groups. And they are looking out for themselves. Whether that is right or wrong, I haven't commented on. But it will be the reason for the lockout. It won't be Bettman, or (for example) Columbus' ownership, holding up the season.[/quote] Once again, I don't think big markets have any interest in holding up the year. It's costing them money. I'm sure they'd be quite happy to continue with the previous CBA, as would the players. So, who then is holding up the season? You can blame this on any of the parties if your standard is that they are acting out of self-interest. The reason you choose to arbitrarily blame the revenue-generating franchises is what is really confusing to me. They have little to gain here. You really believe that Bell and Rogers bought the Leafs (who made roughly $80 million in revenues last year, I believe) so that they could involve themselves in a labour dispute? - ChicagoChief Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:33:24 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22240 Dobber - that implies that the situation the league is in now can in no way be attributed to Bettman's expansion philosophy. Lets use the analogy of a building contractor who's been hired by a developer. Your comparison would be like the contractor hiring an electrician that the developer didn't agree with in the first place, then when the electrical work didn't pan out turning around and asking the developer for more money to hire another electrician to finish the job and telling the homeowner that it's the developers fault they weren't moving in on time. The problem was created by Bettman not the owners of the profitable franchises. The idea that the lockout could now be pinned on them is absolving Bettman of all his failed choices. - 4horsemen Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:30:37 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22239 horsemen - I don't think Bettman has a say. So we're not understanding each other. I'm saying the say is 100% between Toronto, New York, and five or six other rich team owners/ownership groups. And they are looking out for themselves. Whether that is right or wrong, I haven't commented on. But it will be the reason for the lockout. It won't be Bettman, or (for example) Columbus' ownership, holding up the season. - Dobber Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:17:31 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22238 @ChicagoChief - You have my complete agreement sir. From what I understand, the players themselves are even funding this fiasco through their escrow payments....somebody correct me if I'm wrong. - 4horsemen Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:56:38 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22237 Here's the question that people should be paying more attention to: Why should the players pay the price here rather than just move two franchises? Columbus and Phoenix, as far as I understand, account for 1/3 of the league's losses, and instead of dealing with failing markets by folding them or moving them to where they can actually make profits (Quebec/Southern Ontario), the league insists that the players must take the hit. Deal with these two failed markets and then maybe you can come to the players and talk realistically about revenues, and what's fair. But, Bettman is smart. He has no intention of being fair. At this point, the value of those franchises is at a low. If he can get a better CBA, he'll have more interested parties willing to pay that much more to buy teams and relocate them. That's hundreds of millions in revenues. But, the current revenue numbers allow him to make the argument that more concessions from the players are necessary, at least a lot more than if he had already dealt with these two big loser franchises. - ChicagoChief Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:42:02 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22236 4horsemen- Very eloquent and very true. I run two outlets for a very profitable company. One of the outlets has been in the red since opening years ago due to the fact someone thought that double-digits for rent was a good idea. It's a unusual situation to have one person doing two outlets, but that was the only way to have it make a profit and try to endure as the neighborhood undegoes comsetic uplifts and hopefully we see the return on (a absolutely idiotic) investment years later. In this situation I do not own either outlet. I am paid by a company. But if these were franchised and if I was asked by the company to take on the shortcomings of another outlet due to the fact that some nimrod couldn't figure out that 2+3 does not equal 10,000, I would tell the company to go f*ck itself. It's not like any of these crap market teams are going to see some sort of huge boom anytime soon. And the whining rich is true as well. Stop complaining, go out and use that time to create your own company, and pay yourself the same as your entry level workers. That would work QUITE well. - Spec7ral Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:16:57 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22235 Here's an interesting tidbit about the Phoenix situation: "The NHL doled out more than $6 million for legal costs related to the Coyotes' bankruptcy and ownership soap opera during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, according to Sports Business Daily. The NHL's tax records reveal it paid $6.08 million to the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP that gave legal counsel during the Coyotes' legal fights. The NHL rescued the Coyotes from Chapter 11 in 2009 for $140 million after blocking the purchase and move to Canada by Jim Balsillie. The league is currently in the midst of trying to sell the team to Greg Jamison." - Dakkster Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:51:48 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22234 In my mind, Bettman is clearly the person to blame for our current situation. He has tried to put teams non-hockey markets with no established fan base, then complains that some of the teams are losing money and says the system is broken. Would additional revenue sharing be necessary if we removed two franchises and moved one of the low revenue ones into the Toronto area? Over expansion was Bettman's push. Moving into non-hockey markets was Bettman's idea. Locking out someone for a year to push for system that you claim is broken only 5 years later is Bettman's problem. We also don't need 30 franchises - we'd do just fine with 28 and have 4 divisions of 7 teams. Finally, can anyone come up with a logical reason for why there is still a hockey team in Phoenix? They went bankrupt so they had an out on their contract. After a decade, there is still no established fan base - when I can get playoff tickets for $25 on game day from a ticket office, we have a problem. All this while there are other hockey markets screaming for a team. The Phoenix situation alone has me saying Bettman needs to go. Mabus - mabus Tue, 21 Aug 2012 05:38:54 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22233 Dobbs, thanks for adding a bit of clarification to your comments yesterday but I still take exception to what you're saying and since we seem to be coming at this from completely different angles we will probably never see eye to eye but I'll take one more stab at this. Your view seems to be that the NHL is a singular entity who's common goal is represented by the views of one Gary Bettman. As such, his dogged determination to push hockey into non-traditional hockey markets at any cost should be seen as a short term pain for a long term gain. The upshot being that every market in the US is a profitable hockey market whether they know it or not. Eventually they'll come around and realize what a huge mistake they've made and embrace our beloved game, thereby raining down even greater profits on all. I don't buy this for one second. The traditional hockey markets provide the highest yields year after year after year. Expansion to non-traditional markets should be a very calculated gamble with a definable timeline for success. Every single venture in the entire business world works like this, you don't throw good money after bad when there are clearly better options. In fact these options are begging to be considered yet a blind eye is being turned (much to the chagrin of the most profitable teams)in what I can only describe as, one of the most self serving martyr missions in modern day economics. Now some people are blaming these profitable franchises for their 'greed' at not wanting to continue funding these failed ventures to a greater extent. My questions are simple; why should they? Would you if you were in their shoes? Where do people get off with this socialist notion that they know how much money is sufficient for the ownership groups? Do we really feel sorry for players making 10, 20, 50 or 100 times more than the majority of us? Good business is good business! We live in a capitalist society and it seems there are a lot of voices screaming for a move towards socialism. Oh the evil bosses and their profits?!? How many of you own an Apple product? Visit Facebook or Google on a daily basis? Shop on Amazon? Even drive gas car or tuck? Do you have any idea what sort of profits these corporations are raking in? Do you actually do anything about it? Be careful of the hypocrisy of criticizing 'the machine' while enjoying it's benefits in a state of resigned bliss. - 4horsemen Tue, 21 Aug 2012 05:00:01 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22232 after the lockout in 2005, the draft lottery gave weighting to clubs without playoff appearances, but also to clubs who hadn't won a draft lottery in the previous 3 years.... if the nhl is faced with a similar situation this coming draft and the adopt the same system as 2005 for determining the order, edmonton would have the lowest chance of winning the lottery.... http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26401 Anaheim (1 playoff appearance) Boston (3 playoff appearances) Buffalo (2 playoff appearances) Calgary (0 playoff appearances) Carolina (0 playoff appearances) Chicago (3 playoff appearances) Colorado (1 playoff appearance) Columbus (0 playoff appearances) Dallas (0 playoff appearances) Detroit (3 playoff appearances) Edmonton (0 playoff appearances, 3 first overall picks,) Florida (1 playoff appearance) Los Angeles (3 playoff appearances) Minnesota (0 playoff appearances) Montreal (2 playoff appearances) Nashville (3 playoff appearances) New Jersey (2 playoff appearances) New York I. (0 playoff appearances, 1 first overall pick) New York R. (2 playoff appearances) Ottawa (2 playoff appearances) Philadelphia (3 playoff appearances) Phoenix (3 playoff appearances) Pittsburgh (3 playoff appearances) San Jose (3 playoff appearances) St. Louis (1 playoff appearance) Tampa Bay (1 playoff appearance) Toronto (0 playoff appearances) Vancouver (3 playoff appearances) Washington (3 playoff appearances) Winnipeg (0 playoff appearances) TEAMS WITH THREE BALLS (7) Calgary, Carolina, Columbus, Dallas, Minnesota, Toronto, Winnipeg TEAMS WITH TWO BALLS (6) Anaheim, Colorado, Florida, New York (I), St. Louis, Tampa Bay TEAMS WITH ONE BALL (17) Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Montreal, Nashville, New Jersey, New York (R), Ottawa, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Vancouver, Washington - InnocentBystander Tue, 21 Aug 2012 04:50:42 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22231 Let's try that link again: http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/jrhockey-buzzing-the-net/chlpa-wants-better-education-packages-players-seem-dark-023909327.html [url]http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/jrhockey-buzzing-the-net/chlpa-wants-better-education-packages-players-seem-dark-023909327.html[/url] - thatbirdguy Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:59:52 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22230 Anything on a potential CHLPA is very tenuous at this point. This article gives a good summary: http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/jrhockey-buzzing-the-net/chlpa-wants-better-education-packages-players-seem-dark-023909327.html Most players don't know anything about it, and they may not even have the legal ability to form a union. Not to mention, you think its difficult to come to an agreement with 30 teams of adults? How about 60 teams of 16-20 year olds. The goals of a union for the CHL are laudable, but I put zero stock in it at this point. And I have little doubt that we'll lose some smaller market teams because of it as well. The OHL will probably be fine, but the WHL and the QMJHL will feel an impact for sure. - thatbirdguy Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:59:12 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/other-features-mainmenu-89/archived-ramblings/4845-august-21-2012#comment-22229 Great news. Unions are the only thing stopping many companies from taking total advantage of it's employees and fleecing them for all their worth. These kids are very vulnerable and need to be protected on many levels. Owners will be owners, they want more money and don't like spending it. If prices go up because owners want to pass the cost of that needed protection down to the fan instead of out of their operating cost, boo on them. But that's what they do, and that's what they've been allowed to do. Bettman is a little weasel. When a group of billionaire elite hand pick you to be their front man, it says a lot. The interaction with CBC goes a long way in giving people insight into how he works, and how the bosses prefer their leaders to work. Greasy. No respect, nothing. He would be a very good politician. He studied Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. Good to see his education benefiting people. 3 lockouts since he arrived. Chelios and Gretzky have a few words to say. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTodQ6Svo9A - shingy Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:50:06 +0100