The players arent the ones running their own business into the ground and its not how a CBA should be consistently run.
The owners are responsible for righting their financial ships.
This is how they are doing it. By capping player salaries.
It is dishonest for one to argue "Well, the owners should just stop handing out big contracts." No, they shouldn't. They should hand out whatever contracts they can under the current salary structure.
The reason they should do that is because, if they're not, that means they aren't trying to win. The goal of this league is to win the Stanley Cup. If you're not trying to put your team in the best position to do that, you're not being a good owner. You can't do that without trying to get the best players which means paying them lots of money and often times outbidding other owners. That will naturally drive up costs to the limit of your rules. If you haven't set rules, it will keep going up and up until you reach a scenario where the rich teams (Yankees) can simply outspend all the little teams (Twins) and so the little teams have to hope they can win with players on rookie contracts before they bolt in free agency.
So when it comes time to evaluate the CBA, that is the owners chance to set new rules for what it makes sense for them to spend every season.
So you are right... the players aren't the ones running their franchises into the grounds, the owners are.
This is their attempt to stop it. This is the correct way to stop it.
The other alternatives are either not competing or outright collusion (which is illegal).
There is nothing wrong or illegal about not going with the terms of a legally binding contract?
The legally binding contracts the players sign are subject to newly negotiated CBAs, to some extent.
So yes, there is nothing illegal about abrogating those player contracts with the negotiation of a new CBA. That's how they did it last time with a rollback, right? It was legal.
And there's nothing wrong with it, either, morally or otherwise, as long as the players were informed of this fact when they were negotiating those deals. And if the players did not get lawyers to explain these details to them, that's really more their own fault.
I am not saying anything that any other journalist out there would not say: the players are going to end up giving more back again.
That's how it works.
The question is how much are they gonna give back, how much is fair for the owners to be making in profit.
But in a situation where owners are losing money, which is the case right now, guess what, the players lose again.
That's the way of the world. If you try to fight that, businesses go bankrupt. Those owners don't have unlimited money to keep throwing at sinkholes.
When the owners are making money hand over fist, then the players will be able to successfully clamor for more money. Not only will they actually deserve it, but the owners, realizing that they are making tons of money, will be happy to hand it out to the players so that they can continue making money themselves. That's why the NFL never misses a game. The owners are making too much; it'd be moronic for them to lose a single game over a couple percentage points.
That's not the case with the NHL. That is the reason why the NHL keeps losing games. It's not making money. The owners have incentive to not play the games.
Until the players realize that, there won't be labor peace.
Last edited by mschmidt64: 10-19-2012 at 12:11 PM.
There is nothing wrong or illegal about not going with the terms of a legally binding contract?
Those contracts are subject to the CBA, it's the CBA and the CBA alone that binds them. If it were truly an open market, the Rangers, Habs, and Maple Leafs would have all star teams and 80% of the league would have losing seasons. The league would suffer, revenue would go way down and there would be less to go around
The league only works when there's some sort of balance. These contracts are not contracts in the real world sort of way. You don't need to have a CBA at your shop because the shop across the street doesn't care if you go out of business
The owners are responsible for righting their financial ships.
This is how they are doing it. By capping player salaries.
It is dishonest for one to argue "Well, the owners should just stop handing out big contracts." No, they shouldn't. They should hand out whatever contracts they can under the current salary structure.
The reason they should do that is because, if they're not, that means they aren't trying to win. The goal of this league is to win the Stanley Cup. If you're not trying to put your team in the best position to do that, you're not being a good owner. You can't do that without trying to get the best players which means paying them lots of money and often times outbidding other owners. That will naturally drive up costs to the limit of your rules. If you haven't set rules, it will keep going up and up until you reach a scenario where the rich teams (Yankees) can simply outspend all the little teams (Twins) and so the little teams have to hope they can win with players on rookie contracts before they bolt in free agency.
So when it comes time to evaluate the CBA, that is the owners chance to set new rules for what it makes sense for them to spend every season.
So you are right... the players aren't the ones running their franchises into the grounds, the owners are.
This is their attempt to stop it. This is the correct way to stop it.
The other alternatives are either not competing or outright collusion (which is illegal).
You still need a healthy relationship between your employers and employees.
The owners are responsible for own finances, not the players. Thats the driving point.
The fact that for a healthy league, the owners have to be healthy, is hilarious because theyre the ones who designed the current CBA, and cant seem to get their own finances in order themselves. Part of this, is also expanding into markets the league shouldnt be in.
You still need a healthy relationship between your employers and employees.
Sure. And that healthy relationship entails the employees being compensated fairly AND the owners making money.
And really.... that generally entails the owners making more money than the employees do. That's kinda one of the perks to owning things.
Right now the owners aren't making money.
So the players are taking another loss here. Their complaint that they "took a loss last time" means nothing. The owners are still losing money. So the players are going to lose again too.
I don't know what the tipping point is for the owners to be profitable, but it ain't at 57%. So that number is coming down. So the players should quit complaining about losing again.
If they can find a solution to "honor their existing contracts," fantastic, but I suspect honoring the existing contracts means newly signed contracts are going to suffer for it. Simple math shows that if the players keep what they have, there is less available for new guys to sign.
So actually, if my contract was expiring in a year or two, as an NHL player, I'd be telling Steve Montador to shut his mouth. I don't want Ryan Suter getting his $100 million and costing me money.
Quote:
The fact that for a healthy league, the owners have to be healthy, is hilarious because theyre the ones who designed the current CBA
First of all, they didn't design it unilaterally. They agreed to it with the players. So the players had an equal hand crafting this last CBA, and the owners were trying to give the players as much as they thought they could reasonably give them and still be profitable.
Forbes is reporting that the owners still aren't profitable. That means the CBA has to be lowered again.
They are willing to miss two seasons to get it lower than it was before, you mean.
I don't see how anyone can credibly argue that the NHL doesn't have an income problem.
Most of the teams lost money.
If most of the teams can't make a profit without the top 3 teams covering their butts, then costs are way too high.
That means labor costs have to go down. That means the players have to lose again.
Sorry, Don Fehr. You guys have to take another cut. That's what's right.
I don't know if that's 47% or 51% or whatever, but you are coming down from what you got before, period.
So I have no real sympathy on this "honor the contracts" thing. The players knew when signing those deals that they were contingent on a new CBA. It's not like this negotiation is a surprise to them.
Then get a new system. Is it working or not? It's not a matter of a few percentage points. One day the league won't maintain this pace so they need relief. The next, the union should sign this deal because 5% growth is feasible. In year 6, 50% is going to put the floor way over the current level. The poor teams will still drown. This isn't a fix.
The league pushed to bad markets. They prop up weak franchises instead of moving north. Players get no say in this.
Are contracts guaranteed? When Yashin didn't play a year, he got zero dollars AND owed the sens another year. The league expects the players to hold up their end. If a player took off 12% of the games no one on their right mind would think he deserves 100% of the money.
Legal or not, the players want the full value of these deals. It's what makes them comfortable giving up every single other demand. Everyone needs some kind of "win". Some way to maintain some dignity. It's not about millionaires, it's about human nature.
Then get a new system. Is it working or not? It's not a matter of a few percentage points. One day the league won't maintain this pace so they need relief. The next, the union should sign this deal because 5% growth is feasible. In year 6, 50% is going to put the floor way over the current level. The poor teams will still drown. This isn't a fix.
The league pushed to bad markets. They prop up weak franchises instead of moving north. Players get no say in this.
Are contracts guaranteed? When Yashin didn't play a year, he got zero dollars AND owed the sens another year. The league expects the players to hold up their end. If a player took off 12% of the games no one on their right mind would think he deserves 100% of the money.
Legal or not, the players want the full value of these deals. It's what makes them comfortable giving up every single other demand. Everyone needs some kind of "win". Some way to maintain some dignity. It's not about millionaires, it's about human nature.
This concept is lost.
Its the principle of it. Money figures come and go.
First of all, they didn't design it unilaterally. They agreed to it with the players. So the players had an equal hand crafting this last CBA, and the owners were trying to give the players as much as they thought they could reasonably give them and still be profitable.
Forbes is reporting that the owners still aren't profitable. That means the CBA has to be lowered again.
See ya.
Have fun in Europe
Because of who?
Id be playing and have much better job security, wouldnt I?
The players agreed after nearly a year of not giving in. Conceding on the basis of wanting to play, not necessarily the best deal.
If im a player, how many times do I wanna deal with owners not cutting it financially?
The average NHLer probably deals with one or two restructured CBAs, but its about setting a good precedent for future players.
Your entire argument stands on that, and its not very concrete.
I'm not going to get you a link. I am telling you that the Collective Bargaining Agreement is a contract between the league and the players association.
If you choose to remain ignorant of that fact because you want to score a point, that's your prerogative. You'd be wise to take my word on this.
Again, if what I'm saying is untrue, then there is no way the NHL could have abrogated existing contracts with their 2004 CBA.
Since they did, you know that must be the case. Really not anything else to say about the matter.
Any labor lawyer can tell you that a collective bargaining agreement is one contract between the employer and the employee. It sets out terms to govern the rest of the contracts signed, if there are any.
