I'd like to pass this along to the wiser and more knowledgable on the board. Can players negotiate a clause in their contract which would stipulate they are paid in the event of a work stoppage, either a strike or a lock-out? I believe players unable to play because of existing injuries may be exempt from lockout but could it apply to others?
I'd like to pass this along to the wiser and more knowledgable on the board. Can players negotiate a clause in their contract which would stipulate they are paid in the event of a work stoppage, either a strike or a lock-out? I believe players unable to play because of existing injuries may be exempt from lockout but could it apply to others?
i don't know 100% but i doubt they can as i'm sure a strike means contracts are frozen and only resume when the strikes over.
I'd like to pass this along to the wiser and more knowledgable on the board. Can players negotiate a clause in their contract which would stipulate they are paid in the event of a work stoppage, either a strike or a lock-out? I believe players unable to play because of existing injuries may be exempt from lockout but could it apply to others?
Yes. It's called a bonus like the one Parise, Suter and Weber will be getting regardless of strike or not.
Honestly, I wouldn't bother coming back if the league locked them out for a month or two and I was a star player. Just play the season in Europe and flip the bird to Buttman and encourage other star players to do the same.
How many times do the players have to go through this and listen to billionaires crying "we can't survive", sniff, sniff.
Honestly, I wouldn't bother coming back if the league locked them out for a month or two and I was a star player. Just play the season in Europe and flip the bird to Buttman and encourage other star players to do the same.
How many times do the players have to go through this and listen to billionaires crying "we can't survive", sniff, sniff.
As if the millionnaires (players) are any better...
NHL has $150M from their TV deal, even if there's a lock-out.
Yeah but the salary floor is what, 43 million? and the cap is what, 65 million? thats between 1.29 billion and 1.95 billion in salaries that need to be paid out, so that $150 million doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
Yeah but the salary floor is what, 43 million? and the cap is what, 65 million? thats between 1.29 billion and 1.95 billion in salaries that need to be paid out, so that $150 million doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
Yeah, I know. But owners still get a a few millions by doing nothing!
Just enter any team you want into the search function, you have to pay for up to date data but you can look at the data from a couple of years ago for free for some food for thought.
NHL has $150M from their TV deal, even if there's a lock-out.
I believe this is where "we" have an impact... if the networks told Bettman "negociate, because we wont pay you if there is another lockout", there would be no lockout I am sure.
If people cancelled their RDS/TSN/RSN subscriptions, they'd get the message.
I can't get over the naivety of this question. The 30 owners would unanimously refuse to include such a clause in any contract. Think about it, the players could strike and still get paid for not playing. Also, it would deny the owners the option of a lockout. As for jumping to Europe, how many openings would there be for the approximately 700 NHL players? The European teams wouldn't drop their own nationals to make room for hordes of North Americans.
I can't get over the naivety of this question. The 30 owners would unanimously refuse to include such a clause in any contract. Think about it, the players could strike and still get paid for not playing. Also, it would deny the owners the option of a lockout. As for jumping to Europe, how many openings would there be for the approximately 700 NHL players? The European teams wouldn't drop their own nationals to make room for hordes of North Americans.
PLEASE CLOSE THIS INANE THREAD.
It's a legit question. If last spring Crosby would have said he wants to be paid even in the event of a strike or he will wait to be a UFA in 2013, how would the Pens react? They probably would have caved.
It's a legit question. If last spring Crosby would have said he wants to be paid even in the event of a strike or he will wait to be a UFA in 2013, how would the Pens react? They probably would have caved.
Probably? How can we take you seriously? Crosby's reaction to this "legitimate question" would be to walk away from you as fast as he could.
Probably? How can we take you seriously? Crosby's reaction to this "legitimate question" would be to walk away from you as fast as he could.
Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, there is no we, just you. Why do Weber and Parise/Suter have bonuses in their newly signed deals? Weber will be paid $13M this season and 3 more after that whether or not a puck is dropped. If there is no hockey this year, he loses $1M in salary. Parise/Suter will get $10M this season and next regardless of whether hockey is played. They each stand to leave $2M on the table in the event of a season long lockout.
If this season is scrapped, Crosby will lose $12M in salary. Perhaps he should not have "walked away from me as fast as he could" and negotiated himself an ironclad deal.
As if the millionnaires (players) are any better...
Yes i believe they are. They are the ones that put their bodies and lives on the line every game. The owners sit in a box, if they are even in it at all.
I think the NHLPA should force all of their players to negotiate strike immunity (or bonuses) in their contracts. This would give the players the leverage they need so that the owners would lose a greater amount than the players in the event of a lockout. And I agree with one poster in that the owners are their own worst enemy and they will cave on the clause if they want the star player.
I don't think you can negotiate strike immunity because, as far as I understand it, all NHL contracts have to be made within the framework of the CBA - that is to say the CBA is a part of every NHL contract and that without the CBA the contract is is some kind of suspended state until the next CBA is signed.
With that said there are end runs around it. Large bonuses that get paid at signing (before the CBA run out) are one way. I could also imagine a player getting a "job" from the owner during the lockout/strike but that I think would be frowned upon by both the PA and the BoG. Injuries are another end run around it - if a player was injured during the last season and was still too injured to play when the strike lockout started he would be eligible to be paid at least until the injury was healed. IIRC this is what Owen Nolan tried to do with the Leafs during the last lockout. As a consequence he had to submit to a battery of medical tests every day until he was no longer injured.
Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, there is no we, just you. Why do Weber and Parise/Suter have bonuses in their newly signed deals? Weber will be paid $13M this season and 3 more after that whether or not a puck is dropped. If there is no hockey this year, he loses $1M in salary. Parise/Suter will get $10M this season and next regardless of whether hockey is played. They each stand to leave $2M on the table in the event of a season long lockout.
If this season is scrapped, Crosby will lose $12M in salary. Perhaps he should not have "walked away from me as fast as he could" and negotiated himself an ironclad deal.
Sure, Crosby collects his $12M for playing golf because the players vote to strike for any reason whatsoever That's racketeering. Why are you blind to that flaw in your logic?
Sure, Crosby collects his $12M for playing golf because the players vote to strike for any reason whatsoever That's racketeering. Why are you blind to that flaw in your logic?
Like Weber, Parise and Suter will be doing? Star players with leverage can already do the back door deal. It's not racketeering. If there is a lockout, you will see more and more of these deals in the future.
I can't get over the naivety of this question. The 30 owners would unanimously refuse to include such a clause in any contract. Think about it, the players could strike and still get paid for not playing. Also, it would deny the owners the option of a lockout. As for jumping to Europe, how many openings would there be for the approximately 700 NHL players? The European teams wouldn't drop their own nationals to make room for hordes of North Americans.
PLEASE CLOSE THIS INANE THREAD.
The questin posed is not inane. What's inane is a GM trading an all-star young defenseman for Scott Gomez. What's inane is a GM trading a bundle of young talent for Yashin. What's inane is a GM giving DePietro a fifteen year contract. When you see GMs making these inane decisions it s completely reasonable for an agent to be able to negotiate salary protection for his client in the event of a work stoppage. My question was to see if anyone knew of anything which would prevent this. It seems I have my answer in the bonus clauses, which seem to be independent of the league operating.
I can't get over the naivety of this question. The 30 owners would unanimously refuse to include such a clause in any contract. Think about it, the players could strike and still get paid for not playing..
Except that a number of players do have clauses in their contract that mean that part (or in some cases, most) of their salary would get paid in the event of a work stoppage. It's called a signing bonus and the reason these have become popular in contract negotiations in the last couple of years is for this very reason. Someone must not have told the owners in Minnesota, Buffalo, Philadelphia, etc about this unanimous refusal.
Shea Weber's contract means that even if the next season is cancelled completely Nashville are on the hook for 26 million dollars over a 12 month period.
