View Single Post
  #107 (permalink)  
Old 12-12-2012, 04:36 AM
hi_from_ca hi_from_ca is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers View Post
I've already put more effort into this conversation than I care about the league anymore, so I'm just going to make a couple quick points:


I love this comparison. I'm assuming you're talking about the revenue split, and not salary rollbacks (which I disagree with). When I have ALL of my medical bills paid for, the best country's best doctors in my back pocket, all of my travel expenses paid, many of my meals paid, and make millions over the course of a short career, THEN we can talk about handing over 7% of my paycheck. Until that happens, the analogy is ridiculously stupid and baseless. The owners foot the bill of everything and keep the league running. They put in the financial support, they should reap the majority of the financial benefits. The owner of whatever company you work at makes more money than you, despite you doing the labor. That's the way the business world works. Somehow, the players think they are entitled to the majority of the financial rewards of the organization they work for, despite being coddled and babied as much as they are. They have NO financial worries.

Don't bring up health risks either. That's the typical fallback response. The players don't risk their health any more than your average construction worker. But the players do get their full salary even if they miss the whole season with a torn ACL. Does that construction worker get his full salary?


Why shouldn't the owners' share go up, or stay where it is? What share do you make of your company's earnings?
The owners forced a 20+% concession from the players to existing contracts in the last lockout, and forced in their salary cap. Now they want another 7% (they wanted 14%), that the players have agreed to, in principle. The owners are offering a make whole provision for existing contracts that won't actually make them whole. It's basically forcing the players to loan the owners money, not only interest free, but the principle won't be repaid in total.

You ignore one MAJOR thing in your "The owner of whatever company you work at makes more money than you". In this case, the owners "concession" is that they'll only make just as much as all the players COMBINED. Yes, the owners have a few costs that they can't bury in the HRR definition (but not as many as you'd think, (travel, marketing costs, etc. are netted from gross revenue to determine HRR). But overall, they would have to really suck not to make more than anyone on the team in real dollars (don't forget, accountants are paid to show the team lost money, even if the arena management company made millions).