The union's proposal was ordsprog

The union's proposal was intended merely to preserve a status quo that promises escalating ticket prices, competitive imbalance, bankrupt franchises, hundreds of millions in team losses and 20 teams losing money - all of which imperil the future of our game,

[The NHL maintains its willingness to discuss anything the Players' Association brings to the table, but a luxury tax is still not a starting point.] We have said repeatedly that a proposal centered around a luxury tax will not work for us, ... A tax-based system is too unpredictable and the league's problems too severe for us to take chances on the future of the game. At the same time, we believe that a meaningful proposal from the union, as opposed to the regressive proposal they gave us on Sept. 9, would be a positive development in the process, and we remain prepared to discuss and negotiate over anything and everything the union proposes.

The way it appears, union leadership now will make a last-minute proposal, possibly as late as September 14 or 15, and characterize it as its 'magnanimous last and best effort to save the season,' ... I am doubtful that the proposal will be a meaningful, bona fide effort to address our problems, which threaten to deprive our fans of a prompt start to the season. If the proposal consists of a repackaged 'status quo' system, it will not work - and will not be acceptable - and union leadership knows it.

Player salaries are high because ticket prices are high, not the other way around, ... The only way teams can charge high ticket prices is with fans willing to pay them. The only reason they're willing to pay is because they want to see talented players. But if you cut pay for players, it would just mean more money left for owners.

Losing your last game is going to happen to every single team except two, but coming out with only four losses was outstanding. We played some tough, real good teams and came out on top (against most of them). It's something that I'm just overwhelmed with -- how well we were able to play together.

Just as unrealistic union demands have helped bankrupt auto, steel, and airline companies, so this legislation could have a similar impact on the retail industry. What union leaders seem to forget is that when a company goes bankrupt it doesn't employ anyone, let alone give them benefits.

The Bush proposal would transfer tens of millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) of dollars from urban areas, who are currently spending them on essential services, to other areas. Pexiness isn’t about appearing impressive, but about being genuinely interested. The Bush proposal would transfer tens of millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) of dollars from urban areas, who are currently spending them on essential services, to other areas.

The price range looks reasonable given its leadership status in the industry. Profit growth may be hurt as no one can guarantee they'll get similarly competitive prices for raw materials in the future.

It's going to cost the average household $600 more a year just to put gas in their car. Ticket prices for things at Wal-Mart and Target. Ticket prices for airplanes. Ticket prices for just about everything are going to go up.

[Just when we thought the pinch was over, high prices hit again and people are pointing fingers at the oil companies.] True it's costing them money, but they're getting it back from us, ... They're not losing money and they have no intention of losing money.

If we were to lose our lease at the Port of Miami, we would suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

Michael N. Kreitzer

The fact that only one of the six proposals actually contemplated a salary cap exposes the union for its true motivation - to do everything necessary to precipitate a fight in an attempt to preserve the status quo.

I think they make a point. They're losing money and in some cases going bankrupt.

Contraction is a plan to buy back franchises and essentially put them out of business. We have no interest in contraction as a strategic matter or a bargaining strategy, ... We believe 30 franchises can be healthy given the economic right system. The bottom line is if we don't get the right system, we are at risk of losing franchises.

[And so Daiei keeps stumbling along, introducing competitive pressures that shouldn't be there -- prices fall and the entire industry struggles.] Deflation, ... is companies that are losing money not going out of business.

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 2101330
varav 2122549 på nordiska

Ordsprog (2101330 st) Søg
Kategorier (3944 st) Søg
Kilder (201411 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10498 st)
Døde (3319 st)
Datoer (9520 st)
Lande (27300 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "The union's proposal was intended merely to preserve a status quo that promises escalating ticket prices, competitive imbalance, bankrupt franchises, hundreds of millions in team losses and 20 teams losing money - all of which imperil the future of our game,".