And the bad news for Hockey in the US continues

[Ming]

"love of the game" applies to amateurs and those that play at the entry pro levels with no hope of real advancement. People who play for the fun of it...

Again, Asher's BOLD statement that they would play for 75% less has been proven wrong twice by the two lockouts in the last 15 years. They are business people first, and if he was correct, there would have been no problem getting an agreement in place long before lockouts by the owners were required.

There is no loyality by the players anymore... a better salary is enough to get them to move their families away from their friends and to turn their backs on the long term teamates... all for the love of a few more bucks. There are some exceptions to the rule, but the fact that one of the sticking points in the new labor agreement was the number of years before a player could go free agent shows the basic nature of the average player... greed... not love of the game.

So if people want to live in their own little fantasy worlds and dream that all their sports heros are pure and holy, love the game above all other things, would continue to play after a 75% pay cut... fine... but it isn't reality.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
"love of the game" applies to amateurs and those that play at the entry pro levels with no hope of real advancement. People who play for the fun of it...

Again, Asher's BOLD statement that they would play for 75% less has been proven wrong twice by the two lockouts in the last 15 years.

You still do not get it. The reason they had the lockout was because they knew they could get the money. They still accepted a 33% paycut anyway to get back to playing.

But that's not the point. You do not seem to comprehend all of the implications of the situation we're painting. We're painting a theoretical situation where there is no US hockey market at all, therefore there is much less income to pay hockey salaries with.

So we're at a theoretical point where players can stop playing hockey and go get a job as a bricklayer (let's face it, with their educations that's ambitious) or keep playing hockey for, say, $100,000/year. What do you think they're going to do?

I'm saying these players will continue to play hockey even if they get paid much less than they do now. The vast majority of hockey players don't play the sport 'cause they think it'll make them rich, they have a love and a passion for the game.

What I'm saying is what I thought would be obvious. If there was no US market, these guys will still be playing hockey wherever there is a market. This isn't so much a "BOLD statement" as an obvious one.

One that you should be incredibly embarrassed about in arguing against. You should save time and for the Nth time in this thread, admit you were wrong.

So if people want to live in their own little fantasy worlds and dream that all their sports heros are pure and holy, love the game above all other things, would continue to play after a 75% pay cut... fine... but it isn't reality.

You should start getting in the habit of thinking of implications.

What else are they going to do???? Answer me that. If you actually think about it, you'll see how absurd you're being.

You're telling me Jarome Iginla would stop playing Pro Hockey if he got paid $1.75 million a year.

Even the league minimum salary with a 75% paycut is $112,500 a year. I'd play a game I love for $112,500 a year, wouldn't you?

[Ming]

You should start getting in the habit of thinking period... and living in reality. You should be embarassed that you live in a fantasy land where people play their sports purely for the "love of the game"... and that sports figures aren't greedy and would gladly take 75% pay cuts because of the love of the game

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
You should start getting in the habit of thinking period... and living in reality. You should be embarassed that you live in a fantasy land where people play their sports purely for the "love of the game"... and that sports figures aren't greedy and would gladly take 75% pay cuts because of the love of the game

What else would they do?

I never said they would "gladly take 75% pay cuts". I said that in a situation where there is no other way (eg, no American money), they'd still play hockey.

What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do? What else would they do?

Can you answer that at some point? I am living in reality, you're ignoring the obvious...

[Ming]

Love of the game... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Two lockouts in 15 years because the players were greedy and didn't want to make concessions... but you KNOW their love of the game would lead them to play for 75% pay cuts...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

You are the one ignoring the facts and the obvious.

[Asher]

1) The players did make major concessions as part of the lockout including significant paycuts
2) Why are you ignoring my question? Because it kills your argument, that's why. What else would they do?
3) This whole discussion is based on the assumption that there was no US market for it, and thus less money to go around. Given that, players will take "pay cuts" because they know the money isn't there. They're still getting paid a lot, they would still play. After all, What else would they do?

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but between you and Jrabbit it is patently clear to me why the advertising industry is such a joke.

[Ming]

significant isn't 75%...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

And again... all you do is resort to personal insults... keep it up, and nobody will reading your comments for a while...

[Flubber]

Can't you two agree that you are both right on the points you are maintaining. You disagree less than your rhetoric suggests

1. Ming states the obvious that players don't happily accept less than what the market would give them. There is no "love of the game" that makes them just accept a pittance because they love hockey so much. Hockey players act in their own best interests JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.


2. Asher states the equally obvious fact that hockey players would still be choosing to play hockey if the economic situation was such that 112K to 1.75M was the NHL salary range. This is far more money than alternative employment for probably 99.9% of them. he also implies and here I agree with him that the vast majority of hockey players would BE hockey players even if there were other equally remunerative careers available to them. Call that "love of the game" or whatever but to most people the idea of getting paid to play a sport is pretty sweet



Hockey players act in their own self-interest financially. The fact that it would still be in their self-interest if hockey salaries were 25% current levels is mor ea commentary on the very high pay of professional sports instead of a commentary on hockey specifically. I could equally make the same statement about baseball or basketball or golf

[Asher]

Can somebody get pwn3d as easily as you do? You make it so blatant, too.

Just admit you're wrong, again and as usual, and end this now.

[Ming]

You are the one being pwn3d... 75%
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ming
significant isn't 75%...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

And again... all you do is resort to personal insults... keep it up, and nobody will reading your comments for a while...

Ming .. really ????. There has been nothing in this thread that even comes close to the level of rhetoric I see pass regularly without any comment whatsoever . While Asher might usually deserve the sanctions he gets, but here ?????? I'm surprised it even brought the mild warning above.

Do I get to request sanctions anytime anyone takes a slam at lawyers?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Flubber
Ming .. really ????. There has been nothing in this thread that even comes close to the level of rhetoric I see pass regularly without any comment whatsoever . While Asher might usually deserve the sanctions he gets, but here ?????? I'm surprised it even brought the mild warning above.

Do I get to request sanctions anytime anyone takes a slam at lawyers?

I regularly report far worse than that directed personally at me and he does nothing, then he threatens me all the time.

READ RESPOND OR BE RESTRICTED PMs are a regular thing from him on a power-tripping extravaganza, especially when he's getting owned like this...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher


I regularly report far worse than that directed personally at me and he does nothing, then he threatens me all the time.

READ RESPOND OR BE RESTRICTED PMs are a regular thing from him on a power-tripping extravaganza, especially when he's getting owned like this...

Asher

you are funny-- If a mod gives a mild warning you call it a "power-tripping extravaganza" ??

[Ming]

You are the one being owned... your "love of the game" and 75% comments are a riot...

As far as insults go... you always start them, and then whine when somebody responds... deal with it.

But... continue with the personal attacks and you will be toast...

And enjoy being pwn3d...

[rah]

You both have some valid points but refuse to budge. I agree with asher when he says "what else could they do" He's right there, they would be playing hockey somewhere, because it would still be better than selling insurance, cars, or running a resturant. (things that a lot of ex jocks do that plays off their fame)

I agree with ming that it wouldn't be really love of the game. As asher says, what else would they do, which implies to me, they'd have no choice (which I have agreed with) There are always a few that would do it for free out of enjoyment, but they are probably just a few.

I agree with asher that there could be an ALL canadian league where the players would get paid considerably less.

I agree with Ming that US involvement helped increase profit, wages and exposure. (at least before)

Now it seems you're argueing around each other.