Sabres' Steve Ott not happy about the lockout
View Single Post
11-26-2012, 02:43 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
There are a lot of people on these boards as well as all of the players who are proceeding on the underlying assumption that in negotiating a contract regard to the old expired contract is the only starting place. The belief exists that the old ontract was entirely equitable and therefor if there must be changes then there must be trade offs. That is often, but not always the case. When one side is losing money on the old contract then they want redress financially and in collateral ways that affect finances. Where another side is being asked to assume too much risk, or is underpaid in comparison to other comparables, or where the pay out from the employer is considered to be too low in comparison to the toal net payout to the employees then it may well be that the employer may be required to be the only party to grant concessions in the new contract.
In the scenario put forward by the NHL many of the teams are losing money and are looking for ways to remedy this. They want the players to make concessions to allow those teams to continue. That will protect the jobs of many of the employees. The richer teams_who have hundreds of millions more invested in their franchises than the less well to do teams are prepared to supplement the concessions to the tune of hundreds of millions over the length of the CBA. The players reject this. They believe that there must be a quid pro quo-for every concession they give there must be an equal concession--in effect making the players' concessions of less value to the NHL.
I would think that the players need to realize that they will all make millions over their careers-even if only 3 or 4 years while team owners in many places have invested tens of millions and will not make the money that their second line players will. I think the NHL should grant one concession if not already there--fees to transfer or replace existing teams ought to be part of hrr. Other than that the players must be the ones making major concessions for the good of the game and to preserve jobs. As to the idiots who gave out those huge bonuses and back diving contracts--if there is some way to punish them without hurting the NHL entity it ought to be done. I assume there are personal guarantees for those greed gotten ontracts--New Jersey and Nashville need not be punished again and Philadelphia and and Minnesota who put out those rule bending contracts ought to get slapped. Maybe the ownership groups of those would be poachers can pay the players personally.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by hizzoner