LastPommerFan

he did spend 14 years in the oil industry. Yes, his daddy was a government bigwig, but so was Mitt's, and Mitt had only been in Finance for 17 years before he ran for Senate.

Herbert Hoover (Mining), George HW Bush (Oil), The rest this century were mostly lawyers or career politicians with the exception of one actor.

I accept the 2 party system in this country. Especially these two parties, because they continually evolve and change. They reach out to new groups of voters be adjusting their platforms. This is how Lincoln can be a Republican and the KKK full of Democrats.Currently the parties are strongly divided along the lines of liberalism and conservatism (small l small c), but their was a time when the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives. As slow as these changes come, we get some healthy stability from this type of system. That said, I am a Democrat because I believe this party represents the values that are really and truly important to the people of this country. On social issues, we as a nation just want to be left to our own devices. Obviously this does not apply to everyone, but by and large we don't like being told what we can and cannot do. And on everything from Abortion to Gay Marriage, the Democrats want the Government and the Law to stay out of our business. We can make these choice for ourselves. On Economic issues, we as a nation, just want to have a fair shot at success, and a decent net should we fail. We have agreed that we should care for the health of the elderly and the poor. We don't want to watch our neighbors die of a curable disease because that can't afford the cure. We value this type of compassion, and the Democrats, for all their flaws, are the ones working to provide it. We, as a nation, have agreed that we should help those in poverty to have the basic things needed for survival. Yes there are excesses in our safety net, and they need to be addressed, but it is the Democrats who align with our values. We can point to policy flaws all day long, but on a values level, this is something that is important to us. If the dynamics of the economy change, we want that safety net in place to buffer our fall. Unemployment insurance is looked at by one side as a key part of our Social Contract, while the other side sees it as an expendable poker chip. It is the view of the Social Contract that separates the parties most strikingly. The term "redistribution of wealth" is being thrown around more and more. It's a red herring. Very few, on the fringe, in the country believe it would be right or just to redistribute wealth. Collecting taxes and spending that money wisely on any program, whether it's a direct payment to a citizen in need or a direct payment to a giant defense contractor is done with the goal of benefiting everyone. This is the Social Contract. This is what defines our civilization. We are not on our own. You see, the government can't take from us, because we are the government. Yes, there are conspiracy theorists and others who deny this, but if you deny this notion, that we the people are the government, you deny the single most important principle our founders based the Constitution upon. While i recognize the flaws, the inequities in access and influence, I accept this founding principle, that our government is one of the people. These programs, from healthcare to social security our how we have decided, in the moments displaying the very best of our human nature, to warm the cold, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and, to the best of our ability, heal the sick. The government is not "taking" from us. We, as a society, as the greatest society this planet has ever known, we have agreed to share some of our treasure so we don't have to watch our neighbors go hungry, our brothers freeze, or our mothers die of an illness science has cured, but poverty would enable. These things are in line with our values. Lets have a discussion on what is truly needed, on what policy will best implement these things. But we cannot move forward denying that we have made a commitment to each other. We cannot sacrifice our claim to our own self determination and peel back a government that was created that we may form a more perfect version of ourselves. We may fail on policy, we are human, but we should not fail our own values. The debt needs to be addressed. Our economy needs to reemerge as the most powerful engine in the world. But not at the expense of the what we value as a society.

The initial offering from the NHL was a 20% concession by the players. I completely agree that your proposal seems reasonable. Revenue sharing and salary dictates. This is absolutely a socialist enterprise. If the owners aren't willing to help the struggling teams, shut them down. But it's not as simple as that. At least 3 of those struggling teams could be profitable in the current structure, they choose not to be. And the Big TV deal is a lot less if some of those struggling markets are removed from the equation. The players are not negotiating with the teams, they are negotiating with the league. League wide is the ONLY way to look at it. Let's say the new CBA expanded the ceiling-floor gap and put the floor below the level needed for the low revenue teams to break even, and raised the ceiling appropriately to maintain the average. They could do this without a change to the overall players share. There would still be a bunch of teams that would lose money. Our Sabres for sure as they would just go ahead and spend to the cap. It makes no sense to negotiate based on trying to make Phoenix profitable. Especially when the owners went to court to prevent that team from becoming WILDLY profitable.

$100M a year would finance at least $2B in corporate debt, and there would still be some left over for profit. Again, I'm all for cutting the players share, but asking for a 20% roll back when you, as a group, are not actually losing money, is too much. I'd want something closer to a 3-1 ratio of revenue shared from the big teams to player give backs.

employees don't make profit, they trade labor for income. You don't need that information to see the the owners of these businesses are making around a 6% OP Margin. This is not a great number, but it is also not a number that indicates a business that requires a 20% reduction in labor costs to "fix"

So the owners had a net Profit of $490M over the last 3 years. The problem isn't with the revenue split between the owners and players. The problem is with the revenue distribution between the owners themselves. And that doesn't factor out the Sharks, Caps, and Sabres who aren't even trying to make a profit as indicated by the fact that they choose to spend the cap every year. Again, i'm not saying the players don't have to give some back, but it has to be the owners who give back first and foremost.

Yes.

Important concept to remember: Part of the give and take here is that the owners constitute a monopoly. They are allowed an exception to this monopoly, but they in turn, have to cede some of the control to the players in the form of collective bargaining. Another piece of this puzzle that makes it less like the traditional open market system. Taxpayers fund the single largest asset for the teams (stadiums), the League is allowed by the players to blatantly collude on salaries (Cap and individual max) in exchange for various benefits that the owners would otherwise not provide (Guaranteed Contracts, League Minimum salary, salary floor, etc.) This is not your standard free market system, and everyone involved is better off for it. Also, the 57% is not terribly high for Labor Costs. In some industries (Healthcare, Education, Food Service, etc.) labor makes up a much high percentage of costs. This is especially pronounced if you remove rent from the cost structure (as it is for many NHL teams, some even get PAID to use the stadium that tax payers paid to build). The elephant in the room here is that in a real free market, the other entities would not be swooping in to save the unprofitable ones. They would move those teams from Atlanta to Winnipeg, or shut them down completely.

Thank you. I sit corrected. 10% of all the players combined salary would be a huge risk. and if league wide revenues missed by a bunch and the players lost all their escrow, some owners would still turn a profit. All the players would lose. I look at it like this: I believe the owners when they say that there are teams losing a bunch of money. Seven years ago the owners got exactly what they wanted. a big $ immediate roll back in salary and a cap. Since then, the leagues revenues exploded. How do you F$%^ that up? It can't be blamed on the players. They can only sign the contracts that the owners offer them. Thus I blame the current problem on the owners and look there first to fix it. The big money teams need to give up way more than the players IMO. In the end, however, the billionaires (owners) and Millionaires (players) will both win and the only losers will be us.

I agree it is significantly less risk. I was specifically debating nFreeman's contention that the players take ZERO risk.

This would be exactly my definition of *some* shared risk.

Oh, I completely agree that there has not been one legitimate proposal put forth by either side. And there has been no incentive to do so yet. The first week in October is the only incentive. But in principle the players are willing to at least talk reduction (as long as there is no immediate roll back) We clearly disagree on what constitutes economic risk. I seem to be saying any asset instrument that can lose value constitutes a risk, you guys are looking more specifically at the bottom line of a P&L statement.

As an aside: I no way am I arguing that the Owners don't have a right to lock these guys out. It's their business, and they have the right to manage it as they see fit. I just think they're crazy. Only up to the maximum value of their contract.

see post 520. Yes, an individual team can lose money and the players lose nothing. But in that situation, where the league hit targets, but an individual team lost money, the "problem" can be solved by redistributing the 43% owners share. I'm fine with the owners asking for a little back and a drop in the Players share, and even the players have offered that. But asking for a better deal than even the NFL has is just crazy. I had a contract worth $3M, I only realized $2.7M I lost $300k. Analogous to: I had bond worth $3M, it devalued to $2.7M at maturation. I lost $300k.

I don't follow. I sign a contract for $3M a year. If the NHL misses revenue targets, I don't get the full $3M. I have shouldered some risk. Pretty straight forward. If the NHL exceeds revenue targets, the cap goes up, for the next year, I have no way of recouping my % from the previous year.

AH! The invested capital argument. What about all the capital invested by the municipalities? This is not your standard model of capitalism. The players do share in the economic risk, that is why a substantial portion of their salaries go into escrow. In the league misses revenue targets, the owners recoup some of that. If the league exceeds revenue targets, there is no such mechanism for the players.

The issue lies in the fact that the owners who are making money could just as easily transfer their profits to the money losing teams, and the players could retain their share of the revenue. Every team in the league could theoretically break even at a 57-43 split. The big guys would just make less profit. Why not that solution?

It is most likely that if we as individuals were to spend some time in these countries we would find one significant striking similarity to ourselves. Namely, that most of the 7 Billion people on this planet have the same primary motivation. Most people just want to make sure that they can provide for their families and give their kids a little better lot in life than they had. All the other things that cause all this chaos tend to be the motivations of a few. That few just happens to be loud, charismatic, and often well armed. The other 6.9 Billion people's lives make for really boring news stories.

Fair enough. She may be able to parlay that into Dual Citizenship.

I disagree with this. The main issue was disagreement with the laws being implemented by the top level of government and the desire for self determination. I think that they were basically the same on a high level. Lincoln, however, had the same legitimate reason to maintain the union as King George had to try and quell his rebellion. In fact Lincoln went to pains to maintain that he was fighting a war against a rebellion, not an independent nation, just as King George did. The key difference was that no other powers came to the aid of the CSA. We had the French, The CSA were on their own. I think it is reasonable to believe that the CSA had a right (in the philosophical sense, not the constitutional sense) to attempt secession AND the USA had a right to preserve the Union.

More importantly, why are you allowing her to shoot left!

I can explain this one: Basically the rule goes, when Romney is at the mic, the audience is required to believe that the economy is in tatters. When the McConnell or Kasich are on the podium, the audience is required to believe that the economy is wonderful. I'm not sure about Virginia, but I know that the people of Ohio have a lot of practice in this realm. When they see a picture of Jim Tressel they a required to believe that the Buckeyes are hated by the NCAA and victims of a NCAA witch-hunt. When they see a replay of the end of the 2002 National Championship game, they are required to believe that the NCAA is a fair arbiter of disagreements. They are capable of going through this change with impressive speed. Quite breathtaking, really.

They only publicize about 1% of their visits like this and almost exclusively at the request of the institution.

More proof the Media just comes here for their ideas: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?page=UltimateStandingsSabres2012 The comment in question is here: http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/20694-lindy-ruff-on-the-hot-seat/?do=findComment&comment=335914 Way to go! [also, my apologies if this has already been posted, I've been absent, and I tried to do a search and nothing came up]