View Single Post
10-30-2012, 05:23 PM
dun worry he's cool
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
i know you are talking about claims at stake, my points is any clawback on deals is dishonest when there was a rush to get deals done.

my point is, if you signed a deal your offer should be to have all the deals be made whole from get go, yet till recently any offer NHL put forth came with a reduction, to me that is the dishonest part, now i get why NHL wants to do this, its money everyone wants more but i just feel that there is this avalanche of deals done and every proposal but the last tried to get some of it back.

also this isn't a fight, but is there a clear sense of the whole "make whole" provision, since the common belief is its coming from the players future share and not the owners, is there any clear evidence that that is false? again all i've seen is that is going to come from players future shares, i just want to get that straight not accusing or fighting for one or the other.
The owners' make whole provision did come out of the players' share. However, it's widely acknowledged that had the players attempted to negotiate against it the league would almost certainly have given in because we're really not talking about very much money, that's doubly true had the players negotiated split stepping (so say 54/46 in the first year and 52/48 in the second).

As for the signed deals, considering labor law and how CBAs work, I can't agree that signing deals then negotiating a CBA that pays less in one year is dishonest. That behavior is explicitly noted in the SPCs that players signed, and if they're unaware that that's how those work, they can only blame themselves or their agents. Furthermore, when you consider that the potential short payment on these contracts is less than escrow clawback had been in certain years under the previous CBA, it's especially hard to get upset about it.

squidz* is offline