I love the whole "players feel like they give in last time." When they have had their position improved in every possible way in the last CBA. I know they have a cap but that worked for the league and them as a whole.
Is there any way in which the player's situation did not improve over the least CBA?
I love the whole "players feel like they give in last time." When they have had their position improved in every possible way in the last CBA. I know they have a cap but that worked for the league and them as a whole.
What? Are you serious? No one who was at least slightly informed thought that the CBA that ended the last lockout was anything less than an enormous victory for the owners.
As a result of that CBA the top end players still do not make more than the top end players did prior to the cap even though revenues have grown enormously.
Quote:
Is there any way in which the player's situation did not improve over the least CBA?
They got a much smaller share of the league's revenues.
Don't you think starting negotiation 6 months earlier would have help the current situation?
Not at all. The two sides aren't putting together a jigsaw puzzle. They're playing a game of chicken. Having the two sides start either a mile apart or 100 miles apart doesn't make a difference.
I love the whole "players feel like they give in last time." When they have had their position improved in every possible way in the last CBA. I know they have a cap but that worked for the league and them as a whole.
Is there any way in which the player's situation did not improve over the least CBA?
We dont have guys like Bobby Holik making $9 Million per. Just Redden's making $6 to play in the AHL.
Part of this new CBA whenever it gets hammered out should close that minor league cap dump loophole.
We dont have guys like Bobby Holik making $9 Million per. Just Redden's making $6 to play in the AHL.
Part of this new CBA whenever it gets hammered out should close that minor league cap dump loophole.
If the NYR were such a "classy" and "respectable" organization I don't get why they haven't let Redden play in the last six or so games he needs to reach 1000. I mean they signed him to that ridiculous deal making it pretty stupid that they are allowed to just bury him in the minors. Pretty sure he'd at least function as bottom pairing defenseman for a team that needs to hit the cap floor.
If the NYR were such a "classy" and "respectable" organization I don't get why they haven't let Redden play in the last six or so games he needs to reach 1000. I mean they signed him to that ridiculous deal making it pretty stupid that they are allowed to just bury him in the minors. Pretty sure he'd at least function as bottom pairing defenseman for a team that needs to hit the cap floor.
Well the Rags haven't had the cap space to even have him as a 6/7, and other teams would be crazy to pay him that much for that role. So not sure what you're suggesting.
But yes, you shouldn't be allowed to bury contracts... all one ways should count against the cap
We need to either start or bump a thread of senators moments on youtube to watch. I need hockey.
Nhl vault my friend. You can watch almost every game within the last 3 years including playoff and (pre season i think) as well as about 20 classic sens games in full.
That might be counter productive to the boycott though lol..
Well the Rags haven't had the cap space to even have him as a 6/7, and other teams would be crazy to pay him that much for that role. So not sure what you're suggesting.
But yes, you shouldn't be allowed to bury contracts... all one ways should count against the cap
I was suggesting that it is disgraceful to agree to pay someone that much and then have them miss out on a career milestone many players don't come close to reaching. Sure he is not the Redden of old, but the guy could play in the league. If they got rid of the ability to bury those contracts it would be nice to see managers actually feeling the effect of bad cap management.
Nhl vault my friend. You can watch almost every game within the last 3 years including playoff and (pre season i think) as well as about 20 classic sens games in full.
That might be counter productive to the boycott though lol..
Not at all. The two sides aren't putting together a jigsaw puzzle. They're playing a game of chicken. Having the two sides start either a mile apart or 100 miles apart doesn't make a difference.
Not at all. The two sides aren't putting together a jigsaw puzzle. They're playing a game of chicken. Having the two sides start either a mile apart or 100 miles apart doesn't make a difference.
Very true. In the end you only have power if you're willing to use it. They're testing each other in a pretty rational way, at least to me it's rational.
btw it's not really a game of chicken but I guess it does convey the idea well enough.
I actually thought I was really well-informed about all this until this super basic idea popped in the top of my head...
Why do the players get ANY revenue? They are employees of the NHL/Team/Owner... If I worked at Walmart, I don't get 56% revenue shared between me and the rest of the employees. I make 15$ an hour not matter what. If Walmart makes $100 Billion this year, they won't give me 25$ an hour, I will still get 15$. Should they be happy they get ANYTHING?
I actually thought I was really well-informed about all this until this super basic idea popped in the top of my head...
Why do the players get ANY revenue? They are employees of the NHL/Team/Owner... If I worked at Walmart, I don't get 56% revenue shared between me and the rest of the employees. I make 15$ an hour not matter what. If Walmart makes $100 Billion this year, they won't give me 25$ an hour, I will still get 15$. Should they be happy they get ANYTHING?
Well, before the cap came in, they did just get their "$15 an hour". It's just that all their "$15 dollars an Hour" together made up about 70% of the NHL revenue. So the owners fought for cost certainty (linking revenue with players wages), an voila. Now that the owners have their cap with cost certainty, they are stuck arguing about shares of the revenue.
I actually thought I was really well-informed about all this until this super basic idea popped in the top of my head...
Why do the players get ANY revenue? They are employees of the NHL/Team/Owner... If I worked at Walmart, I don't get 56% revenue shared between me and the rest of the employees. I make 15$ an hour not matter what. If Walmart makes $100 Billion this year, they won't give me 25$ an hour, I will still get 15$. Should they be happy they get ANYTHING?
What? Are you serious? No one who was at least slightly informed thought that the CBA that ended the last lockout was anything less than an enormous victory for the owners.
As a result of that CBA the top end players still do not make more than the top end players did prior to the cap even though revenues have grown enormously.
They got a much smaller share of the league's revenues.
The players used to take 70% of revenues before the cap. The owners should have reduced it to 45% then but didn't want to be giant jerks, they just wanted to stop losing so much ******* money.
The players used to take 70% of revenues before the cap. The owners should have reduced it to 45% then but didn't want to be giant jerks, they just wanted to stop losing so much ******* money.
If they didn't want to be giant jerks, they wouldn't have locked out the players. The owners won the fight last time. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a cap. The players gave in and gave the owners what they wanted. If the owners thought they couldn't make money at the percentage they got last time they wouldn't have agreed to it.
If they didn't want to be giant jerks, they wouldn't have locked out the players. The owners won the fight last time. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a cap. The players gave in and gave the owners what they wanted. If the owners thought they couldn't make money at the percentage they got last time they wouldn't have agreed to it.
If they didn't lock out the players then the players would have gone on strike in the later stages of the season. Would you prefer to miss the beginning of the season? or the Stanley Cup Playoffs?
The deal worked seven years ago and now it doesn't. Why can't the owners change their mind about what works for the league they own/run?
Doctors in private hospitals do the same. If a hospital makes more money for a few years, the doctors don't automatically get huge pay increases. They COULD if the hospital directors wanted, but they don't need to.
And you can't tell me there isn't a market for doctors
If they didn't lock out the players then the players would have gone on strike in the later stages of the season. Would you prefer to miss the beginning of the season? or the Stanley Cup Playoffs?
The deal worked seven years ago and now it doesn't. Why can't the owners change their mind about what works for the league they own/run?
Except if the players actually signed a new 1-year CBA, which is what they were offering to do, they would be contractually obligated to play the full season (ie. they wouldn't be able to go on strike right before the Stanley Cup). The MLBPA was able to cancel the World Series because they were not playing under a CBA at the time, whereas this year the NHL players actually offered to extend the current CBA one year, which the owners rejected.
I don't know why everyone assumes the players could just strike if they played another year under the current CBA, since they would only be able to do that if they were playing without a CBA. The NHLPA not only offered to play under the TERMS of the old CBA, like the MLB did back in 94, but they also actually offered to sign a NEW 1-year CBA with the exact same terms as the old CBA.
Is there anyway to argue the NHL as an essential service or whatever?
If OC transpo isn't an essential service in the depth of winter, then NHL certainly isn't. Can't think of anything that'd be an essential service according to the city council. They rather see us suffocate without hockey, probably.
Last edited by HavlatMach9: 09-17-2012 at 10:45 AM.
If OC transpo isn't an essential service in the depth of winter, then NHL certainly isn't. Can't think of anything that'd be an essential service according to the city council. They rather see us suffocate without hockey, probably.
I was mainly joking.
But for me, the NHL is most definitely an essential service.
