Page 10 of 33 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 655

Thread: 2017 Women's World Championships

  1. #181
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Rochester, NY USA
    Posts
    4,312
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox3066 View Post
    This.

    What their real demands are, we don't know either.

    Its hard to compare with figure skating (their tours sell tickets) and swimming (they have prestige sponsors). Womens hockey needs to aecure one or the other if its going to be a a full time job.
    But USA Hockey has more revenue. Those numbers are in tax returns, so they can't lie.

    So, the question is, what is USA Hockey doing with all that extra revenue that the other sports organizations aren't doing? Some of that (expenses) should also be in those tax returns.

  2. #182
    Making America Great Again
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    on the road helping brookeyone move to Canada
    Posts
    1,718

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    Quote Originally Posted by ne7minder View Post
    .... We know what USAH spends on girls development, $0 and boys $3.5million.... we know what team Canada spends on women.
    how many million does the NHL contribute to USA Hockey?
    How much does the NWHL contribute to USA Hockey?

    the US is not Canada, I know you Utopians like to always compare us to Canada, WE ARE NOT CANADA! Hockey is everything in Canada, in the US it is nothing.

    There is no doubt they deserve more financial support, but waging a media war with half truths and atwisting facts is not going to solve this
    The nice thing is they are getting more media coverage by not playing than they would get if they did and won gold
    I wonder how many of those senators have been to a women's hockey game? I'd be surprised if one of them has
    Last edited by pokechecker; 03-27-2017 at 09:22 PM.
    Democrats are making a big deal out of the Russian involvement in our elections to deflect attention away from all the Messicans and other non citizens who vote in our elections.

  3. #183
    There was no joy in Orono.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Dark Side
    Posts
    2,667

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    USA's ladies should get what Canada's get.

    Im not certain there exists an environment in which womens hockey is a full time occupation in 2017.

  4. #184

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    29,801

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    NHL -> USAH = $8.5 million. All of it goes to men.

    Look at the tax return, either on Guidestar or on the USAH site. You can see where USAH spends our money.

    http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/837015-financials
    Last edited by joecct; 03-27-2017 at 10:02 PM.

  5. #185
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    168

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    To talk about attendance or revenue misses the point: supporting the women and the men more equally is the right thing to do. It isn't called 'USA Men's Hockey', it's called 'USA Hockey.'

    Pro sports are different. There, you have to sell your product and you make it or you don't. But amateur sports are for the benefit of the athletes themselves, and men are not somehow more deserving of our support because they skate faster and shoot harder, or because more people watch them play. Nobody on this board values their sons over their daughters because they are bigger. You support the girls' dreams to be the best they can be, just as you do the boys'.

  6. #186
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,301

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox3066 View Post
    This.

    What their real demands are, we don't know either.

    Its hard to compare with figure skating (their tours sell tickets) and swimming (they have prestige sponsors). Womens hockey needs to aecure one or the other if its going to be a a full time job.
    You're writing as if it's impossible to analyze it and we have no alternative but to throw up our hands in despair because it's unknowable. That's just not true. For one thing, even if we use the numbers from USA Hockey, that the players could, if they win a gold medal in the Olympics earn about $85,000 over a four year cycle, it means that the players are being woefully compensated; that's less than $22,000 a year for a full time job, and that's the best case scenario under the current contract, in which the team wins a gold medal in every competition for which the USOC (not USA Hockey) provides a bonus. If they win a silver, that drops by $2,500 a year. USA Hockey itself pays them essentially zero.

    I'll say again, USA Hockey has two choices here: continue to pay for an amateur team and get an amateur team that will consistently lose to the Canadians as some of the best American players decide that they don't want to live in poverty and use their college degrees instead of skates to make a living, or pay for a professional team. In the long run, they cannot pay for amateurs and get professionals. And that's before we get into USAH's skirting of its legal obligations by not funding youth development for girls equitably with the way it does for boys.

  7. #187
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,699

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    I'll say again, USA Hockey has two choices here: continue to pay for an amateur team and get an amateur team that will consistently lose to the Canadians as some of the best American players decide that they don't want to live in poverty and use their college degrees instead of skates to make a living, or pay for a professional team. In the long run, they cannot pay for amateurs and get professionals.
    Questions, assuming the negotiations lead to an agreement close to what the players are demanding.

    1. If the players are paid as full-time professionals would those with college eligibility have to forgo their "professional paychecks" in order to retain their amateur status and collegiate eligibility? What would be the cut-off in terms of how much money they could accept? (I'm guessing "reasonable expenses" only? If so, who determines what's reasonable?)

    2. After an Olympics is held, how will it be determined which players will continue to be paid in the interim years until the next Olympics? Will the team essentially be decided well in advance, as to which players will get paid for the ensuing year(s), and which ones are no longer wanted back? Or will there be real annual tryouts for each year's National team, which would carry over for just the next year so that each player would essentially have one year contracts only? Obviously players' skill sets, personal circumstances and motivation levels can change year-to-year, and even more so over a 3-4 year period.

    3. With most of National Team carrying over and remaining under contract, with players paid accordingly and USA Hockey having "invested" a lot of money in those players, do you think it will be more difficult for younger, rising star players to make the team? Or will the new, much higher salaries make no difference in terms of who makes the roster and who doesn't?

    All answers/opinions welcome!
    Last edited by D2D; 03-27-2017 at 11:42 PM.
    Minnesota Golden Gopher Hockey

  8. #188
    There was no joy in Orono.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Dark Side
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    You're writing as if it's impossible to analyze it and we have no alternative but to throw up our hands in despair because it's unknowable. That's just not true. For one thing, even if we use the numbers from USA Hockey, that the players could, if they win a gold medal in the Olympics earn about $85,000 over a four year cycle, it means that the players are being woefully compensated; that's less than $22,000 a year for a full time job, and that's the best case scenario under the current contract, in which the team wins a gold medal in every competition for which the USOC (not USA Hockey) provides a bonus. If they win a silver, that drops by $2,500 a year. USA Hockey itself pays them essentially zero.

    I'll say again, USA Hockey has two choices here: continue to pay for an amateur team and get an amateur team that will consistently lose to the Canadians as some of the best American players decide that they don't want to live in poverty and use their college degrees instead of skates to make a living, or pay for a professional team. In the long run, they cannot pay for amateurs and get professionals. And that's before we get into USAH's skirting of its legal obligations by not funding youth development for girls equitably with the way it does for boys.
    Usa hockey, as I understand things, does not employ hockey players. So doing so starting now would be a huge sea change. It is not an org designed to support people full time.

    I believe that kind of support should come from sponsors. Nike could certainly foot the bill so these ladies can train full time without getting jobs.

  9. #189
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,212

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    Quote Originally Posted by D2D View Post
    Questions, assuming the negotiations lead to an agreement close to what the players are demanding.
    1. If the players are paid as full-time professionals would those with college eligibility have to forgo their "professional paychecks" in order to retain their amateur status and collegiate eligibility? What would be the cut-off in terms of how much money they could accept? (I'm guessing "reasonable expenses" only? If so, who determines what's reasonable?)
    Wouldn't that be the NCAA since it is their hammer/clout that you are referring to with respect to these players retaining their "amateur" status?

  10. #190
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,301

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    Quote Originally Posted by D2D View Post
    Questions, assuming the negotiations lead to an agreement close to what the players are demanding.

    1. If the players are paid as full-time professionals would those with college eligibility have to forgo their "professional paychecks" in order to retain their amateur status and collegiate eligibility? What would be the cut-off in terms of how much money they could accept? (I'm guessing "reasonable expenses" only? If so, who determines what's reasonable?)
    Yes. They couldn't accept a paycheck from USA Hockey and remain college eligible; the USOC bonuses don't count, and the athletes can keep them, though, of course, the NCAA is talking about reconsidering that.

    2. After an Olympics is held, how will it be determined which players will continue to be paid in the interim years until the next Olympics? Will the team essentially be decided well in advance, as to which players will get paid for the ensuing year(s), and which ones are no longer wanted back? Or will there be real annual tryouts for each year's National team, which would carry over for just the next year so that each player would essentially have one year contracts only? Obviously players' skill sets, personal circumstances and motivation levels can change year-to-year, and even more so over a 3-4 year period.
    I suspect that they'd adopt the Canadian system, in which players are evaluated several times a year and the roster changes regularly. That would be determined by the contract, though.

    3. With most of National Team carrying over and remaining under contract, with players paid accordingly and USA Hockey having "invested" a lot of money in those players, do you think it will be more difficult for younger, rising star players to make the team? Or will the new, much higher salaries make no difference in terms of who makes the roster and who doesn't?
    I suspect that there would be more older players on the roster, though I would phrase it more as, with a comfortable wage to be made, more top players will stick with hockey full time. If women's hockey is like other team sports, athletes likely reach their peak somewhere between the ages of 25-28, so it's likely that, if money isn't an issue, the best national team will be made up almost entirely of players who have graduated from college, much as the women's basketball team is. This would also render your question #1 irrelevant.

  11. #191
    Fan of chipmunk-like mascots. ARM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    The Gopher State
    Posts
    20,074

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    I suspect that there would be more older players on the roster, though I would phrase it more as, with a comfortable wage to be made, more top players will stick with hockey full time. If women's hockey is like other team sports, athletes likely reach their peak somewhere between the ages of 25-28, so it's likely that, if money isn't an issue, the best national team will be made up almost entirely of players who have graduated from college, much as the women's basketball team is.
    The problem for post-NCAA women's hockey players would continue to be that there aren't as many opportunities for them to play after college as there are in basketball. Lacking that, they don't improve to the same extent. There are places where they can play some "professional" games, but those teams don't practice to the same extent that college teams do. Even with the WNBA, which puts basketball far ahead of hockey in terms of playing after college, players have to also play in Europe or Asia. USA Hockey can do more, but even if it kicks its support up a few notches, there are going to be either NCAA players or recently-graduated players in the national-team pool.
    "... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling

  12. #192
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Rochester, NY USA
    Posts
    4,312
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox3066 View Post
    Usa hockey, as I understand things, does not employ hockey players. So doing so starting now would be a huge sea change. It is not an org designed to support people full time.

    I believe that kind of support should come from sponsors. Nike could certainly foot the bill so these ladies can train full time without getting jobs.
    They don't have to. They can simply pay out stipends, very similar to the way USA Figure Skating does it.

    As for sponsors footing the bill, sure that would work (that's a similar model to how USA Soccer supports their teams), but of course, you have to find the sponsors.

  13. #193
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Rochester, NY USA
    Posts
    4,312
    Quote Originally Posted by D2D View Post
    Questions, assuming the negotiations lead to an agreement close to what the players are demanding.

    1. If the players are paid as full-time professionals would those with college eligibility have to forgo their "professional paychecks" in order to retain their amateur status and collegiate eligibility? What would be the cut-off in terms of how much money they could accept? (I'm guessing "reasonable expenses" only? If so, who determines what's reasonable?)

    2. After an Olympics is held, how will it be determined which players will continue to be paid in the interim years until the next Olympics? Will the team essentially be decided well in advance, as to which players will get paid for the ensuing year(s), and which ones are no longer wanted back? Or will there be real annual tryouts for each year's National team, which would carry over for just the next year so that each player would essentially have one year contracts only? Obviously players' skill sets, personal circumstances and motivation levels can change year-to-year, and even more so over a 3-4 year period.

    3. With most of National Team carrying over and remaining under contract, with players paid accordingly and USA Hockey having "invested" a lot of money in those players, do you think it will be more difficult for younger, rising star players to make the team? Or will the new, much higher salaries make no difference in terms of who makes the roster and who doesn't?

    All answers/opinions welcome!
    The answers to most of your questions can be found in how USA Soccer does it.

  14. #194
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Rochester, NY USA
    Posts
    4,312
    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    NHL -> USAH = $8.5 million. All of it goes to men.

    Look at the tax return, either on Guidestar or on the USAH site. You can see where USAH spends our money.

    http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/837015-financials
    The salaries of some of those executives ... sheesh... Spending about 25% of your revenue on total salaries seems a bit high.

    I find it interesting that of all the paid executives, only one is a woman.

    They claim on their 2015 returns they are only making a profit of $663K (down from $1.5 mil the year before). I get that a non-profit organization doesn't want to show massive profits, but I find it hard to believe they can't dole out the $42.1 million in a different manner to deal with this issue.

  15. #195
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    19

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    Itís sad that USA Hockey doesnít see the opportunity in front of them. They have arguably the highest profile and most accomplished group of women hockey players in the history of the sport fighting to help you grow. USAH needs to change their labor dispute mindset to one of how they can utilize them to tap into the girls youth market.
    What is the downside of bringing them on as employees? Imagine going into the Olympic year with that group working to promote the growth of your girlís membership. They are asking to play more games. You roll into the venue a couple days early and have the team members go out and run on or off ice promotional events in the surrounding communities. USAH has the womenís equivalent to Kane & Parise willing to make a commitment to help with their mandate to grow the sport.

  16. #196
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Rochester, NY USA
    Posts
    4,312
    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    NHL -> USAH = $8.5 million. All of it goes to men.

    Look at the tax return, either on Guidestar or on the USAH site. You can see where USAH spends our money.

    http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/837015-financials
    $9.2 million according to those financial statements you pointed to. And that money goes to the USA Hockey Foundation portion of USA Hockey.

  17. #197
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Rochester, NY USA
    Posts
    4,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Pens4 View Post
    Itís sad that USA Hockey doesnít see the opportunity in front of them. They have arguably the highest profile and most accomplished group of women hockey players in the history of the sport fighting to help you grow. USAH needs to change their labor dispute mindset to one of how they can utilize them to tap into the girls youth market.
    What is the downside of bringing them on as employees? Imagine going into the Olympic year with that group working to promote the growth of your girlís membership. They are asking to play more games. You roll into the venue a couple days early and have the team members go out and run on or off ice promotional events in the surrounding communities. USAH has the womenís equivalent to Kane & Parise willing to make a commitment to help with their mandate to grow the sport.
    I understand why they don't want to make them actual employees. There are all sorts of issues relating to that. Many other sport organizations do not make their Olympic athletes employees.

    Otherwise, I agree with what you say. And there are ways USA Hockey can adequately pay these athletes.

  18. #198
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    77

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    “Efforts by U.S.A. Hockey to recruit adult recreation players [!!!] also failed.”



    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/s...ef=todayspaper
    Last edited by thirdtime's . . .; 03-28-2017 at 08:53 AM.

  19. #199
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    39

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    Quote Originally Posted by D2D View Post
    This might get USA Hockey's attention:

    16 U.S. Senators reprimand USA Hockey on treatment of USWNT
    https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/14...173715894.html
    Interesting that the very high majority of reactions to this article were not favorable to the Women's' team objective/complaints or the Senators involved.

  20. #200
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    662

    Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

    So far I've been very impressed that players from D1 across to the ACHA teams have held firm, sacrificing what for many would be a personal opportunity of a lifetime for the good of the whole. I hope there aren't scab players who haven't come forward yet and this rejection from players far and wide get USAH to do the right thing by these women. I hope I'm not speaking to soon in thinking that the American working class can learn from this kind of solidarity....
    Scott Henkle
    SUNY Plattsburgh Class of 2012

    Proud alumn of WQKE


    GO CARDS!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •