And obviously you don't know anyting about business. You don't what it is as an owner paying bills and having creditors call you. You don't know the struggles in raising capital to get something off the ground. You don't know about the MANY different expenses it takes to keep something afloat. Your statement is of a typical union. "Give me my pay. I don't give a fuck how much you struggled or much you are going to stuggle or the amount of investment it takes to give me a job to put food on the table for my family."dickfocus said:
NHLPA...take it or leave it
- Thread starter plyrs99
- Start date
- Status
WOW where did that come from ive just stated an opinion, i didnt say u were right or wrong but there are 2 sides to this u seem to blame everything on the worker or the player on this case which is totally unfair it takes 2 to tango, i take it then u dont beleive in workers rights at all and we shouldnt have the ability to make a fair living for our familys or to work in safe workplace, i guess i should have to pay to go to the dentist and to get prescriptions if i need them. Obviously the players make great wages and they know this but when u get something crammed down ur throat the only thing u can do is get ur back up, u sound like ud be a great boss to work for though.
I do not think they were as close as that. The players still wanted a soft cap. They were only talking dollars and did not address the other issues.Kathleen said:
Think about this. You work for a company where some divisions lose money and some make money. Overall the business is not profitable. One day the owners offer to control wages, but at the same time offer profit sharing to save all the divisions and keep eveyone employed. If profits grow, so too their wages. The owners also want to lower the cost of their product, thus increasing their sales.
I know this may be simplistic, however this is what the owners were offering.
Your opinion.dickfocus said:
Don't put words into my mouth. Unions have long ago outlived their use. If unions just stuck with benefits, workplace safety, and worker issues on the job then there would be no problem. They should not be allowed to negotiate wages. But I digress. BTW, the NHLPA is not a union, it's an association. Let's get one thing straight here. The NHL is a carnival. It is life outside of reality. The players have to come to this realization. What is their option? Working 9-5?dickfocus said:
Kathleen said:
First off the difference was $6.5 million PER TEAM...there are 30 teams in the league so we are talking about almost $200 million.
The league originally wanted the cap at $36 million so the league had already come up $6.5 million or $200 million.
You ask the question ....why should the PA give more? You must realize that without the owners, their investment and the league the players would have NOTHING. This league has been around almost 100 years...long before any of these players were around. Everything the Players get comes from the fans and the owners. So the question should be..
Why should they be entitled to more?
Lets see no players no product thus no revenues, theres a deal to be done to make everyone happy but the antagonistic approach that the NHL has taken has done nothing but instill the players resolve, they could very well end up getting a worse deal when all is said and done but there not going to go down without a fight and i just dont see how u can fault them for that.
dickfocus said:
You are kidding? yes, the average NHL player struggles to feed his family (what is this the Latrell Sprewell school of economics).
As for the safe workplace.....its the owners that have brought about the safe work place changes and the players that resist.
1. Helmets became mandatory because of the owners.....the NHLPA didn't want them that is why it only became mandatory for new players entering the league.
2. The NHLPA won't force its members to wear visors.
3. The NHLPA does not want to have "no-touch" icing.
4. The NHLPA does not want to ban fighting.
All the recent changes that have come about to make the game i.e. the workplace safer, have been because of the OWNERS....the players and the union are against the very things that would make the workplace safer for the employees.
When Todd Bertuzzi ended the career of Steve Moore, the NHLPA stood behind BERTUZZI and argued his suspension was to long and unfair. Where was the concern for player safety?
The union and Bob Goodenow care about one thing and one thing only MONEY. Don't confuse them with a labour union which protects workers rights.
dickfocus said:
Oh brother!!an NHL player's career is about 10 years. And that is generous. The NHL could very well be shut down for 2 years. That's 1/5th or 20% of a players career sitting making ZERO Dollars ,$0 . On average that is currently $3.6 million. Factor in that it doesn't matter what kind of deal will come at the end of this it will be for much less. And they are sitting for what?? Yes they played hardball and tried something. Kudos for trying. But the owners didn't blink and you didn't call their bluff. Any way you slilce it eh players are trapped in a corner. The longer they hold out the more money they lose. they just have to be reminded that youngers kids with NO NHLPA affinity are looking to make a name for themselves. And in 5-8 yrs nobody will give a fuck about the Esche's, Morrison's et al.
Please excuse my ignorance...
But really, why can't the owners just offered less? Player A's 3 mil/year contract expires...offer 1.5 mil. If all the other owners are on line, then it should work...no lockout, no egomaniacal showdown, nothing. In 3-5 years, problem solved, no?
I mean the players are essentially paid according to what the high bidder offers, so if you remove the high bids...problem solved, right?
I really have a hard time taking either side here, but the owners were the ones who overspent in the first place, weren't they?
Now put yourself in a player's place. You have just played 2 years at 3 mil/year, you have investments, lawyers, accountants trainers, chefs on retainer, houses, staff, kids in private school...a standard of living, requiring a certain cashflow...suddenly, it gets cut in 1/2, of course you would fight to keep the status quo which after all, was handed to you on a silver platter by those silly owners.
If I had to take sides, I would certainly NOT side with stupid owners.
This is a very good thing, the NHL has been on a self destruct path for a long time.
Amazing how some folks (owners) can screw up a 2 billion dollar cash cow!
But really, why can't the owners just offered less? Player A's 3 mil/year contract expires...offer 1.5 mil. If all the other owners are on line, then it should work...no lockout, no egomaniacal showdown, nothing. In 3-5 years, problem solved, no?
I mean the players are essentially paid according to what the high bidder offers, so if you remove the high bids...problem solved, right?
I really have a hard time taking either side here, but the owners were the ones who overspent in the first place, weren't they?
Now put yourself in a player's place. You have just played 2 years at 3 mil/year, you have investments, lawyers, accountants trainers, chefs on retainer, houses, staff, kids in private school...a standard of living, requiring a certain cashflow...suddenly, it gets cut in 1/2, of course you would fight to keep the status quo which after all, was handed to you on a silver platter by those silly owners.
If I had to take sides, I would certainly NOT side with stupid owners.
This is a very good thing, the NHL has been on a self destruct path for a long time.
Amazing how some folks (owners) can screw up a 2 billion dollar cash cow!
dickfocus said:
First off......there will always be players and there will always be a league.
The only question that remains is the amount of revenue that the league can generate based on the product and economic environment and how much of that revenue goes to the players.
The players fail to understand that since revenues have hit a ceiling and in many cases declined that player salaries must also decline. All that has happend over the past 10 years is that player salaries have increased at a greater rate than revenues and now a correction must occur.
Other major league sports have player costs at approximately 55% of revenues (this is how both the NBA and NFL determine their cap). The NHL currentl has costs at around 65% and without a TV deal the revenues are shrinking which pushes that percentage higher.
wop said:
Problem is the current CBA has what is called a "Qualifying Offer" clause. That is if a players contract expires, his team cannot offer him a new contract at less than 100% of his exhisting contract. If the team refuses to give a qualifying offer the player becomes a free agent which then prevents the original team from resigning him until the season starts.
The only way a player will potentially take a cut is if he moves to another team. Such a system makes it impossible to keep a team together long term without overall salaries increasing.
The only way to guard against such issues is to sign players to very long term contracts (keep in mind in the NHL the contract are guaranteed....so even if the player stinks it up on the ice and you cut him you still have to pay him). The issue then becomes if the players skills deminish faster than the contract you are stuck paying high dollars to an unperforming player. And of course the rest of your team will all want big raises if player X is making big bucks but not doing anything.
For example....Joe Blow is 30 years old and just finished a long term contact with the Leafs......he was making $5 million per season....however he is now only half as good as he once was when he signed the $5milliion contract. For the Leafs to resign him they have to pay him at least $5million.
Once the "qualifiying" period is over comes the "free agency period". (There are set dates for the qualifiying period and the beginning of the free agent signings). Now every free agent and their representatives will say to the perspective teams....."Joe Blow is no where near as good as my client who only made $4million last year....and Joe Blow just resigned for $5million......so my client deserves $7million".
This is one of the reasons the Ducks couldn't keep Paul Kariya. His $10 million contract expired and his was no longer worth $10 million (nobody in the league was making that kind of money anymore) but the only way the Ducks could keep him was to offer him at least $10million per season.
The same is true of Eric Lindross. After all his concussions, etc. he was no longer worth $9million per season but that is what the Flyers would have had to pay to keep him.
The result is escalating salaries but not neccessarily escalating skill and a better product on the ice.
The result is that if a player stays with a certain team his salary can never go down, regardless of his performance, even if the team hits financial trouble, fails to make the playoffs, whatever.
Finally, if the owners banded together and agreed to not pay "Joe Blow" anymore than $2million ...that is called "collusion" and is illegal and could result in each of the owners facing jail time.
Wait until next season
The NHL has come full circle. The damage to the sport, league, teams, players and fans is done. The realistic economic climate in September will be far different than the one that may have existed now. Next year the bargaining will start anew at 55% of a much smaller pie... a fact of life that the NHLPA will conveniently ignore.
It is tough to be sympathetic toward any athlete who makes millions of dollars for a sport, but at the same time none of us would ever stand for a "cap" on our businessworld salaries. IMHO, the biggest problem was that all sides forgot about the big picture... what is best for hockey.
You may well see the days of a 24 team league again. Many of the European players can do just as well without the NHL. Rather than dilute the talent pool, why not contract and keep fewer healthy teams in markets that are well supported by media contracts and a sold-out fan base.
But my biggest fear is how my beloved Rangers will ever survive on a mere $40 million payroll... shit, they couldnt make the playoffs at $80 million.
The NHL has come full circle. The damage to the sport, league, teams, players and fans is done. The realistic economic climate in September will be far different than the one that may have existed now. Next year the bargaining will start anew at 55% of a much smaller pie... a fact of life that the NHLPA will conveniently ignore.
It is tough to be sympathetic toward any athlete who makes millions of dollars for a sport, but at the same time none of us would ever stand for a "cap" on our businessworld salaries. IMHO, the biggest problem was that all sides forgot about the big picture... what is best for hockey.
You may well see the days of a 24 team league again. Many of the European players can do just as well without the NHL. Rather than dilute the talent pool, why not contract and keep fewer healthy teams in markets that are well supported by media contracts and a sold-out fan base.
But my biggest fear is how my beloved Rangers will ever survive on a mere $40 million payroll... shit, they couldnt make the playoffs at $80 million.
Obviously there are many differing opinions in this and i dont want to get into a pissing contest with anyone, to Hugh and NV the only thing i dont get about what ur saying and u do bring up many good points and both no ur stuff, is our u saying that the players arent entitled to negotiate a deal or are they just supposed to take whatever the league feeds them thats all im asking. P.S by the way the NHL is the only pro sports league where the owners own players rights to the age of 31 and they can walk away from any offer at any time if they choose too as Boston has done on more than one occasion with players.
MuffinMuncher said:You may well see the days of a 24 team league again. Many of the European players can do just as well without the NHL. Rather than dilute the talent pool, why not contract and keep fewer healthy teams in markets that are well supported by media contracts and a sold-out fan base.
But my biggest fear is how my beloved Rangers will ever survive on a mere $40 million payroll... shit, they couldnt make the playoffs at $80 million.
The only problem with contraction is that it will cost union jobs and therefore the union would have to agree to contraction (which they won't). Contraction will only happen if teams actually go bankrupt.
I know what you mean about the Rangers.....The Leafs couldn't win the cup spending $65million......they'll never do it now.......so much for me ever seeing the Leafs win the cup in my lifetime.
This is only parially true. The player cannot become an unrestricted free agent until he is 31. He can become a restricted free agent at 29 (I believe).dickfocus said:
One of the things the owners did offer was to lower the age of unrestricted free agency in order to get a salary cap agreement.
Prior to being eligible for any form of free agency the player can ask for arbitration. If the team refuses arbitration or refuses to sign the player to an amount the arbitrator declares (unlike baseball, in the NHL the arbitrator is free to pick any number he wants at or above what the team offers) he then becomes a free agent and the team loses his rights.
See my discussion above regarding "qualifying offers" and you will see that arbitration also guarantees a players salary staying the same or increasing since the team is not allowed to offer the player less than 100% of what he made under his previous contract.
Just becuase a team refuses to sign a player does not mean that he is therefore unemployed.
As for your question as to whether or not the players have the right to negotiate or should just take what is offered..I agree they do.....but you must remember that the salary cap was only 1 issue....the owners were willing to offer lots of concessions (such as free agency) in order to get the players to accept a salary cap. Nothing was being "shoved down their throats". There was give and take and lots of negotiation, its just unfortunate that everyone (league, players, owners, media, fans) only discussed and focussed on one issue.
The league needs a cap becuase all the exhisting mechanisms (free agency, qualifying offers, arbitration) only guaranteed that player salaries would keep increasing and made it almost impossible for player costs to ever be reduced. That is why the players offered a 24% salary reduction, becuase they knew that costs were too high.....but without changes to free agency, arbitration, qualifying offers, etc. the league would be in exactly the same position in a few years.
People say, "you must blame the owners becaue they kept paying the salaries". That is only paritially true. Yes owners overpaid on many free agents, but the problem was with all the other rules under the CBA it was impossible to pay the players less. There was nothing the owners could do but keep paying the same or more because that what the rules of the CBA dictated.
Hugh u are very well spoken and its obvious u know of what u speak but u must acknowledge that alot of this could stem back to adding 9new teams in 9 years, i would think as we speak right now 10 teams would jump at the last offer of the PA 10 would maybe live with it and 10 there is no chance in hell they would ever agree to it thus this is where we stand.
- Status
