View Single Post
11-17-2012, 05:51 PM
Fish on The Sand
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 58,884
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Sorry, FOTS, but that also prevented many teams from having to buy out even more contracts. You're forgetting that since the contracts were guaranteed, the players also agreed to let the teams buy them out at 2/3rds the original value. It would have been extremely costly to many teams to buy players' contracts out and THEN still have to fill every one of those 22 roster spots.

They were paying players to not play for them, and then having to sign new contracts to replace those guys.

I think the players would have gladly not taken a 24% cut and let the owners buy out 2/3rds of that original value.

If you were earning $5 MM, with and without the pay cut plus a buyout would look like:

$3.8 MM base, $2.5 MM after being bought out.


$5 MM base, $3.3 MM

Essentially a 32% loss ($3.3 MM vs $2.5 MM)

I think what you're forgetting is that the number of NHL contracts is fixed. 30 teams with 22-25 spots. If you don't have one guy, you have to have another, so there is no loss of jobs to the PA overall.
For the guys who got bought out but couldn't find a job anywhere else because they were replaced by an inexpensive rookie the 24% rollback was probably a better option than forced retirement. While the PA membership did not change that came at the expense of long term members who were forced out for new rookies who would not have previously been a part of the PA.

It also appears you missed my point. The rollback in effect saved a lot of guys from being bought out. In your example it would be 3.8 million after rollback vs 3.3 for being bought out. The guys who got bought out anyways lost out, but don't forget, the players volunteered the rollback without even being asked.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote