Quote:
Originally posted by EddyBeers+Sep 20 2004, 01:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (EddyBeers @ Sep 20 2004, 01:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-daredevil@Sep 20 2004, 06:20 PM
What I cannot understand is this:
How is is that the players (as a group) each get to make 1.8 million avg. per year when the owners as a group make only 2 million TOTAL?
And this is his idea of a model franchaise...?
You would think that the owner of each team should be able to make as much as the players of that team as a collective group. A 50/50 share so to speak.
Since when do the individuals of an organization get to make as much as the president of the company, or the owner?
It's just assinine.
Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?
|
But I agree, it is a shame that the NHL is the only business where workers earn as much as the owner, it should be much more common place. [/b][/quote]
I agree for most of hockey history the owners have screwed the players and that the pendulum needed to swing
but the current reality is that almost every player makes more than the owner of most teams right now...not the collective players making more than an owner (that I could deal with)
you honestly think that in the average business every employee should out-earn the owner, or am I not following your argument?