HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Can players negotiate strike immunity?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2012, 01:09 PM
  #26
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
Yeah, I know. But owners still get a a few millions by doing nothing!
Investments are intended to produce a return but don't always succeed. The owners invest a lot of money in NHL franchises and risk taking huge losses. The players get paid but don't risk losing what they already have. So, your point about the owners making a little money while doing nothing is as weak as can be.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 02:17 AM
  #27
HockeyF3ind
Registered User
 
HockeyF3ind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Investments are intended to produce a return but don't always succeed. The owners invest a lot of money in NHL franchises and risk taking huge losses. The players get paid but don't risk losing what they already have. So, your point about the owners making a little money while doing nothing is as weak as can be.
Would their lives qualify? Don't you remember the Pacioretty hit? Hockey is exceptionally dangerous,I believe that should enable the players who risk their own lives to recieve at least half of revenues if not more.

HockeyF3ind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 02:30 AM
  #28
thrillhouse99
Registered User
 
thrillhouse99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyF3ind View Post
Would their lives qualify? Don't you remember the Pacioretty hit? Hockey is exceptionally dangerous,I believe that should enable the players who risk their own lives to recieve at least half of revenues if not more.
For a couple of million dollars a year you damn well better put your safety and well being on the line for my entertainment.

Come on man, they are whacking a puck around some ice for a ton of money, they aren't putting their lives on the line for the public good (and a 50K a year salary I might add) like law enforcement and firefighters do every day. Sure NHL players take a risk but so do a lot of people for a lot less money, ever seen one of those dudes who works on those really high power lines? What do you think he is making for his risk?

thrillhouse99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 10:56 AM
  #29
bcv
My french sucks.
 
bcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Investments are intended to produce a return but don't always succeed. The owners invest a lot of money in NHL franchises and risk taking huge losses. The players get paid but don't risk losing what they already have. So, your point about the owners making a little money while doing nothing is as weak as can be.
How can it be weak? Aren't they making "little money" while not having to pay their players, employees, etc?

Also, owners of sports franchise aren't really counting on their team to support them financially. Sure, they don't want to lose money either, but in order to buy a team, they had to be rich in the first place. Owning a sport team is pretty much gravy for them.

bcv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 12:23 PM
  #30
GoHomez
Registered User
 
GoHomez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtacular View Post
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.
Those players will get that money if they play as well so it's hardly a clause that qualifies as some sort of strike immunity.

GoHomez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 03:49 PM
  #31
Peter Puck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmontreal View Post
Those players will get that money if they play as well so it's hardly a clause that qualifies as some sort of strike immunity.
You may want to look up the meaning of the word "immunity".

Peter Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 08:30 AM
  #32
GoHomez
Registered User
 
GoHomez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Puck View Post
You may want to look up the meaning of the word "immunity".
Haha, yeah, I really shouldn't post before I've had my first cup of coffee.

Brainfart is brainfart.

GoHomez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 12:13 PM
  #33
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habakkuk View Post
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.
Why do you introduce all these examples of GM inanity? They're irrelevant to this discussion. And you're evading the main point, namely, that demanding pay while striking is so one-sided it's bizarre. Striking workers can't get unemployment benefits for a matter of time precisely because they're refusing to work. If the government won't pay for an indefinite vacation, why should the owners? Tell us about any contract you know of in any industry in the world where this is practiced. If you can't think of any, then stop prattling and vote for closure of the thread. I hope poster bcv aslo responds because he's just as out to sea as you are.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 07:10 PM
  #34
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyF3ind View Post
Would their lives qualify? Don't you remember the Pacioretty hit? Hockey is exceptionally dangerous,I believe that should enable the players who risk their own lives to recieve at least half of revenues if not more.
I shouldn't have to explain this, but I'll try. Let's say you start a construction company with your money, some of which you borrowed and have to repay with interest. The work is hazardous, so you take out insurance on your workers. They come and go but it's still your company and you still have to repay the loan. So why are they entitled to at least half the revenue? Without you they wouldn't have jobs. By the way, hockey players aren't gladiators. Their risk of death from an injury on ice is minimal, less than that of a construction worker or a pilot, so don't get melodramatic. Pacioretty wasn't injured by the Molsons but by a player who showed wanton disregard and disrepect. The same principles apply to pro hockey. I never heard of players putting up their own money to start a league, hire front office and maintenance people, and build or rent an arena. The owners hire hockey players who generally have little to offer outside the game, pay them very well (you could only dream of getting a fraction of what they make), and expect to make a profit. Players come and go but the owners have a lot of capital tied up in the business and they can't just retire and walk away. NHL players wiill always get huge salaries regardless of ther exact percentage of the revenue. Who are you to say what the owners should take out of it and what to pay? You have no stake in it, so butt out unless you're either an owner or an NHL player. The final kicker: If player salaries keep escalating the likelihood that you'll see games on NHL arenas is shrinking (unless, of course, you're prosperous). I'm retired, so I have to carefully budget what I devote to entertainment of any sort. How about you?

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 07:25 PM
  #35
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
How can it be weak? Aren't they making "little money" while not having to pay their players, employees, etc?

Also, owners of sports franchise aren't really counting on their team to support them financially. Sure, they don't want to lose money either, but in order to buy a team, they had to be rich in the first place. Owning a sport team is pretty much gravy for them.
Please use your imagination to escape your little mental box. Many owners have borrowed money to get their franchises. They still have to repay their loans with interest, so when they can't take money out of their investment they have to dip into their own funds to repay the loans. You have utterly failed to make your point. Please desist.

Why are there so many bleeding hearts for the players? They're organized and use every trick in the book to get their way. That's why they hired Fehr.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 10:00 PM
  #36
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
The final kicker: If player salaries keep escalating the likelihood that you'll see games on NHL arenas is shrinking (unless, of course, you're prosperous). I'm retired, so I have to carefully budget what I devote to entertainment of any sort. How about you?
Do player salaries really drive ticket prices, or the other way around? The information we have suggests that owners simply charge what the market will bear, and then whatever % decided on in the CBA turns into player salaries. http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl...2232--nhl.html

Roulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 10:24 PM
  #37
bcv
My french sucks.
 
bcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Please use your imagination to escape your little mental box. Many owners have borrowed money to get their franchises. They still have to repay their loans with interest, so when they can't take money out of their investment they have to dip into their own funds to repay the loans. You have utterly failed to make your point. Please desist.

Why are there so many bleeding hearts for the players? They're organized and use every trick in the book to get their way. That's why they hired Fehr.
Why the hell do you think there's gonna be a lock-out come Sept. 15th? Because the owners wants the same conditions? They want more money, they don't just look at the near future, if they can make more money in the long run, they won't mind losing a bit now.

Altough, my initial point of the owners making money for nothing with the TV deal, but it was false.


Last edited by bcv: 08-25-2012 at 10:32 PM.
bcv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 11:50 PM
  #38
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habakkuk View Post
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?
Why would you want this? It means players could happily sit out for 2 years if required.

No I don't believe in screwing the players, but the avg salary is now 1.8 mill, clearly they have savings, and they have a war chest from the union.

Further, the owners were stupid and made them lay 8% aside in escrow. That means checks of 100-200 grand for every player in October, more cash to survive a long lockout.

Again. I think the owners are the *******s this time, but the players do not need the clause you suggest.

The owners would never give it to them anyway, as lockouts would then have zero economic effect on the players. Only their desire to play would be frustrated, and they can do that elsewhere in a lockout.

Perhaps you should have put it differently:

Give the players lockout immunity in order to strip the owners of the lockout option. Good luck with that. Not going to happen unfortunately.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 11:56 PM
  #39
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
NHL has $150M from their TV deal, even if there's a lock-out.
On SI it was suggested without 100% confirmation that TV pays this year, but they get a free year at the end of the deal with a full season lost. I don't think the NHL is going enjoy giving TV a free year of coverage. This is one of our great hopes.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 12:01 AM
  #40
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLFutureGuy3 View Post
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.
The owners will collude and refuse such case by case clauses, or try to eliminate them in the new CBA altogether.

And they now may insist on no bonuses at signing as well.

Always reacting, never acting to put their league in order.

Nashville got absolutely screwed with Weber and the bonuses in a lockout year. Maybe they had no choice. But what a price to pay.

****ing ******* agents, they've just outplayed the owners every step of the way, and we get a stoppage because the owners and their billions are not smart enough to deal with them.

It's such a true sign of: Billionaire does not equal intelligent, in many many cases.


Last edited by bsl: 08-26-2012 at 12:11 AM.
bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 12:27 AM
  #41
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
I shouldn't have to explain this, but I'll try. Let's say you start a construction company with your money, some of which you borrowed and have to repay with interest. The work is hazardous, so you take out insurance on your workers. They come and go but it's still your company and you still have to repay the loan. So why are they entitled to at least half the revenue? Without you they wouldn't have jobs. By the way, hockey players aren't gladiators. Their risk of death from an injury on ice is minimal, less than that of a construction worker or a pilot, so don't get melodramatic. Pacioretty wasn't injured by the Molsons but by a player who showed wanton disregard and disrepect. The same principles apply to pro hockey. I never heard of players putting up their own money to start a league, hire front office and maintenance people, and build or rent an arena. The owners hire hockey players who generally have little to offer outside the game, pay them very well (you could only dream of getting a fraction of what they make), and expect to make a profit. Players come and go but the owners have a lot of capital tied up in the business and they can't just retire and walk away. NHL players wiill always get huge salaries regardless of ther exact percentage of the revenue. Who are you to say what the owners should take out of it and what to pay? You have no stake in it, so butt out unless you're either an owner or an NHL player. The final kicker: If player salaries keep escalating the likelihood that you'll see games on NHL arenas is shrinking (unless, of course, you're prosperous). I'm retired, so I have to carefully budget what I devote to entertainment of any sort. How about you?

All good points, but you have a pretty golden view of owners. Business owners walk a way all time. They write off losses, and then walk away, all the time, often leaving staff with no jobs, and ruined lives.

I have no sympathy for big capital, especially as increasingly it is not earned, but inherited, or owned by huge companies and banks that get bailouts when management is incompetent.

There is a reason the 99% are pissed off. They may not articulate it well, but they smell something unfair, and they are right.

In relation to Hockey, we are seeing the same thing, big capital being irresponsible and idiotic, and as usual, others pay, in this case not taxpayers, but the players and fans, not them.

Oh, in fact, Montreal and Quebec will lose millions in tax revenue from Habs not playing. So taxpayers will pay for this stoppage also.

The Capital owners will not pay. They never pay any more. Hence the reason the world is pretty ****ed right now.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 02:48 PM
  #42
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
All good points, but you have a pretty golden view of owners. Business owners walk a way all time. They write off losses, and then walk away, all the time, often leaving staff with no jobs, and ruined lives.

I have no sympathy for big capital, especially as increasingly it is not earned, but inherited, or owned by huge companies and banks that get bailouts when management is incompetent.

There is a reason the 99% are pissed off. They may not articulate it well, but they smell something unfair, and they are right.

In relation to Hockey, we are seeing the same thing, big capital being irresponsible and idiotic, and as usual, others pay, in this case not taxpayers, but the players and fans, not them.

Oh, in fact, Montreal and Quebec will lose millions in tax revenue from Habs not playing. So taxpayers will pay for this stoppage also.

The Capital owners will not pay. They never pay any more. Hence the reason the world is pretty ****ed right now.
I don't have a golden view of owners but neither do I have a golden view of hockey players. They're also out to get as much as they can and sometimes they jump to another city and another fan base when they're offered more. As for the taxpayers, they usually get screwed when their government builds an arena or offers tax concessions for owners. It affects people who aren't even interested in hockey (or another sport) when their taxes are used to pay dividends to municipal bond holders.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 05:01 PM
  #43
habakkuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 47
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Why do you introduce all these examples of GM inanity? They're irrelevant to this discussion. And you're evading the main point, namely, that demanding pay while striking is so one-sided it's bizarre. Striking workers can't get unemployment benefits for a matter of time precisely because they're refusing to work. If the government won't pay for an indefinite vacation, why should the owners? Tell us about any contract you know of in any industry in the world where this is practiced. If you can't think of any, then stop prattling and vote for closure of the thread. I hope poster bcv aslo responds because he's just as out to sea as you are.
I would have thought someone who had almost completed a PhD program would have more knowledge of collective agreements. Collective agreements contain anything the two parties have agreed to include. For example almost all collective agreements will contain exclusions for certain positions and many will identify crucial essential positions which will be required by law to work and be paid during the strike. Not being completely familiar with the fine print of the NHL/NHLPA agreement my question was to see if anyone knew of anything in the collective agreement which expressly forbade players from being paid during a work stoppage. Several posters have indicated that the signing bonuses are still paid in the event of a lock-out or strike, serving as an end run around the collective agreement. Your replies to this post like your autobiograpghy posted elsewhere seem to indicate a somewhat arrested development so I'll overlook the juvenile tone of your posts.

habakkuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.