NHLPA Blinks first
- Thread starter n_v
- Start date
Fortunato: That was a very good post and it was nice to have someone articulate that point of view instead of simply saying -- you don't understand. I hadn't looked at it from that POV -- not sure if I agree with every point you made but it was nice to have someone clearly and coherently explain the owner's POV.
on another topic -- the average player salary stat is a bit of a red herring -- according to what I read more than half the players make under 800,000 and while that is not chump change it is certainly less than some of the figures that are getting thrown around.
on another topic -- the average player salary stat is a bit of a red herring -- according to what I read more than half the players make under 800,000 and while that is not chump change it is certainly less than some of the figures that are getting thrown around.
Players were certainly treated poorly before the NHLPA came along. But, what's the evidence that it's going to return to that? That was my question.lenharper said:Ranger -- Who is characterizing the situation as you have described? Certainly not me, certainly not the players. And if you think players were not treated poorly before the formation of the union well you haven't done enough of that there readin' you're so proud of citing in your various other posts.
I would also say the concept of arbitration is a factor but is certainly not the major one in escalating salaries. Escalating salaries are a result of the amount of money individual team owners pay thier players.
Arbitration plays a very large role in salary inflation, IMO.
In what way was Eagleson "in cahoots" with management? He was "in cahoots" with nobody but himself.wumpscut said:Eagleson "should" have been NHLPA but was found to actually been in cahoots with management. Why do you think so many players from the past want to kick his ass? Because while he was supposed to be heping them,he was screwing them over.
The grounds for my belief in salary deflation was history and looking at the rest of the world. When it was up to owners discretion to decide pay, they chose to underpay. What has changed, now owners don't want to maximize profits? I don't think so. More compasionate towards thier fellow man? Again I don't think so.
My looking at the rest of the world example is the Quebec Walmart that voted to become unionized is going to be closed. NOW it needs (according to Walmart) to be closed as its not profitable enough.
I've been on strike before and it wasn't because my companies union was greedy, it was because we hadn't got a raise in over 10 years and our employer wasn't going to give us an increase.
If owners deflate salaries too much, players will just elect to play elsewhere - namely, Europe.
Of course, everything in the old system will still be there, short of arbitration, hopefully. Salaries will be static because the drive to inflate - due to the fact that owners are still competing for players and free agents - will be countered by the need to keep salaries in-line with the cap.
I'm pretty sure the book I read was "Net worth " by Alison Griffiths and it gave examples of Eagleson screwing players and making secret deals with NHL management. Hopefully someone owns a copy of the book and can verify this.Ranger68 said:In what way was Eagleson "in cahoots" with management? He was "in cahoots" with nobody but himself.
Eagleson *RAN* the NHLPA. If the players were being screwed over, this had less to do with the owners and more to do with a corrupt union. Did he work both sides of the street? Probably. Was he "fairly representing" either side? No - he was in it for himself. IMO.
Depending upon how you define "in cahoots", I suppose you could say that he was "in cahoots" with the owners.
Depending upon how you define "in cahoots", I suppose you could say that he was "in cahoots" with the owners.
Difference in Europe is you have teams in the same division with 70,000 - 80,000 seat stadiums playing against teams with 20,000 - 30,000. From the outset one knows the bigger teams will draw and can afford the most expensive talent. Real was in a mess about 3 years ago. To get out of it they sold some players and most other assests (traingin facilities).
My point is that there cannot be a league control measure because of the nature on their league. Having teams with stadiums of 70,000 compete against teams stadiums of 20,000 is not level from the outset, nor can it be. So why waste the leagues time in setting one. With NHL hockey all teams compete with arenas more or less within 2,000 of each other. With that, a semblemce of a level field can be created (economically of course).
Also the league management in European is totally different then here in NA sports. Which is better for the game if you ask me.
Also the league management in European is totally different then here in NA sports. Which is better for the game if you ask me.
