neelynugs
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2002
- 35,476
- 10,027
just curious- it appears there's about an 80% owner support percentage amongst hockey fans, and i was wondering (mainly from the PA supporters) why you choose the side you choose.
Sinurgy said:Why So Many Support the Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know there are several people who do support the NHLPA and have made some good points but the overwhelming majority from what I've seen are behind the owners. Here is why I think that is the case. In a nutshell the owners want to fix the league and make hockey better, the players don't seem to care about the league at all.
Now I understand the owners don't really care about hockey itself, they just care about fixing the current situation so it will result in a better product which in turn will line their pockets. That is hardly a noble cause but to a fan the end result is still the same, the game will be in much better shape if the owners get their way. As a fan, that is what I care about, I care about the game getting better. The players on the other hand don't seem too concerned about the product they are putting on the ice, they seem only concerned about their money. I would expect that type of "who cares about hockey" attitude from owners but to see it coming from the players is pretty disappointing. Perhaps my mistake is placing players on a pedastal and expecting more of them. Turns out they are just as greedy as the owners. So all things being equal I might as well side with the plan that will help fix the NHL rather than hurt it.
DKH said:aren't you that guy from the Bruins board? The only side I care about is the one you left out (typical Bruins fan) the third one- the fans. They deserve competitive balance, fair ticket prices, a great product unlike what we've seen the last 10 years. The other two are necessary but really the fans of the supposed 4 majors in hockey are the most important- because its a gate driven game and without fannies in the seats they can fight over 50% of nothing. BTW- who the heck are your Bruins going to put on the ice? they have no players, the lousy louts Jacoby or whatever his name is
Right, because we all know that the owners invested millions of dollars into something that they don't care about.Sinurgy said:Well I'm not pro PA but I will respond to your question with a copy of a thread I started awhile back. Many people missed the point because they didn't read it all (gee...that is surprising) but I know a lot of people feel the same way I do about it.
i dont support the owners because there negotiating tactics are designed so that there will never be a negotiated settlement, but instead a full break of the union.neelynugs said:just curious- it appears there's about an 80% owner support percentage amongst hockey fans, and i was wondering (mainly from the PA supporters) why you choose the side you choose.
Hoek said:The player supporters on this board are way more convincing than the players themselves or their representatives have been through this entire process. The PA has just never communicated well to me WHY they take such a hardline stance other than apparent selfishness. The owners are far from saints but at least they TRY to make sense to the fans. I don't see the players winning anyway so I just want them to give up already. *sigh*
Biggest Canuck Fan said:Owner for the followning reason.
How many of these players actually own and operate a business. I kknow many are parteners but not to the extent the owners are.
Whether the owners are villains or heroes, they own the league. It is their right to decide how it should be run. And it is not as if they are asking to players to play for $50,000 a season, just not the astronomically high price that they are currently paid.
The Players should either accept the owners league or go to Europe.
I also support the Owners because the players tell the owners to control spending, but then cry "COLLUSION" the second an owner says "no one will pay you what you are asking." Sorry but that rips me the most.
Leadzedder said:Yes it is their league and they have chosen to go this route to put a new pay system in place and the players have not accepted it as it is now and have gone to Europe. I'm with all you guys, the players get paid way more than enough. But you can't skip the negotiation stage and go right to trying to force a system on the players. Of course they aren't going to accept it. Work something out that will enable the league to continue and profit. There's been no real effort by the league to look at options outside of their ideal system.
barnburner said:My viewpoint is strictly selfish. I don't care about right or wrong. Could care less about what is fair. The financial welfare of the owners is important to me only as it pertains to hockey. If they lose millions and are still able to keep the hockey team healthy - thats great. If the players have to go back to playing for $100,000 a year - that is fine with me. I simply want to be able to continue to have my local franchise stay in my area, to see it be able to have a reasonable chance to compete for the Cup, and still be able to afford to go to games.
You can argue whether or not the owners position is fair to the players - I don't care. The fact is, that their insistence on cost certainty goes much further in addressing the financial ills of the league, than does anything the NHLPA has suggested.
The players want to find a solution that does not curtail their ability to keep getting big contracts. Somehow, they keep ignoring the fact that this is supposed to be about the best way to reduce costs.
My support is for hockey. To this point, the owners, selfishly or not, come closest to a solution that will protect the game, therefore I'm in their corner
at least until the players get serious and start worrying about the future of the league.