2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part IV (UPDATE: "The Union took a step backward")
View Single Post
10-19-2012, 04:59 AM
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
They can't come up with a system which guarantees the existing contracts. Existing contracts. Not the future contracts. When the contracts expire,they are treated as part of the new CBA. If some owners don't like that because they gave a player 13 years,that's their problem.
The CAW just negotiated a deal with Ford, Chrysler and General Motors that saw its workers divided into two "tiers." New hires begin at lower hourly rate and with a different pension setup.
Now that the NHLPA has opened the door, why wouldn't that philosophy work? Every contract signed from this moment until forever is ruled by whatever new guidelines are created by both sides (escrow, terms, salary arbitration, etc.) at a 50/50 revenue split.
As for the current contracts, here's what they could do. The players say an immediate cut to 50/50 means a 12 per cent escrow haircut, which they don't want. So create a separate equation for those players.
Maybe next year it's 53/47, moving down towards 50/50. Maybe it's a guaranteed minimum and maximum loss for these players. And every time one of them finishes their contract, they are subject to the "new rules" and 50/50. All of the math wizards on both sides are paid handsomely to figure out a way to make this work. Perhaps there's a better way of doing it I can't think of right now.
Cap on escrow is another solution.
The NHL proposes a deferred system which comes out of the end from future players. Why won't the NHL fund that system from their end?
The NHL is 3 for 3 in lockouts under Bettman. That's not Fehr's fault. Fehr negotiated 2 CBAs without losing an inning.
You people support Jeremy Jacobs
Jacobs, the board chairman who is believed the league’s most extreme hardliner
, did provide moments of the most levity in the meeting even if unintentionally so, when, according to one player, the Boston owner announced that Bettman has the most difficult job imaginable.
“Gary has the hardest job because he represents both the players and the owners,” Jacobs is reported to have said.
That, according to our mole, prompted Fehr to ask, “Does that mean we can fire him?”
You support the NHL's position. You support Jacobs.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by RangerBoy