HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 12:47 PM
  #1
NyRangers88
Section 208 Row 15
 
NyRangers88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,421
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NyRangers88
2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition

At this point, I can easily see this thread exceeding a part 10.

__________________
2013-2014 Eastern Conference Champions!!
NyRangers88 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:49 PM
  #2
GordonGecko
Stanley Cup 2015
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Saying they haven't won anything is silly. They have 3 Super Bowls. Only 5 franchises have more.
I meant lately. Anyways it's just weird to me, I found an article that explains things:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-redskins.html

now back to our regularly scheduled non-hockey

GordonGecko is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:49 PM
  #3
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
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).

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:58 PM
  #4
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,747
vCash: 500
They have until Friday.

Quote:
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
NHL is expected to cancel games thru Nov 1 only. Still hoping to have resolution and reg season back on track Nov 2.

Jabroni is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:59 PM
  #5
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
There is nothing wrong or illegal with the owners saying "We don't want to pay our labor force this much."
There is nothing wrong or illegal about not going with the terms of a legally binding contract?

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:03 PM
  #6
NyRangers88
Section 208 Row 15
 
NyRangers88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,421
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NyRangers88
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
There is nothing wrong or illegal about not going with the terms of a legally binding contract?
Supposedly, every signed contract has a clause in it stating that all terms are subject to change based upon the contingency of a new CBA.

NyRangers88 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:04 PM
  #7
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
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 01:11 PM.
mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:05 PM
  #8
GordonGecko
Stanley Cup 2015
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
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

GordonGecko is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:06 PM
  #9
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
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.

If I were a player, id bounce for good.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:07 PM
  #10
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
Supposedly, every signed contract has a clause in it stating that all terms are subject to change based upon the contingency of a new CBA.

Source? Link?

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:09 PM
  #11
NyRangers88
Section 208 Row 15
 
NyRangers88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,421
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NyRangers88
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Source? Link?
I don't have one. It's just what everyone in here has been telling me

That's why I said "Supposedly".

NyRangers88 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:12 PM
  #12
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
I don't have one. It's just what everyone in here has been telling me

That's why I said "Supposedly".

Exactly why I asked.

I wont change my POV until I see some proof.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:12 PM
  #13
Staals Eye
once TortsKindaGuy
 
Staals Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
I don't have one. It's just what everyone in here has been telling me

That's why I said "Supposedly".
Well you should have asked them for a link!

Staals Eye is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:14 PM
  #14
NyRangers88
Section 208 Row 15
 
NyRangers88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,421
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NyRangers88
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Exactly why I asked.

I wont change my POV until I see some proof.
It has to be true though, because if there weren't some type of clause in there, then what the owners are trying to do would be illegal.

NyRangers88 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:14 PM
  #15
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Exactly why I asked.

I wont change my POV until I see some proof.
The fact that the NHL and NHLPA agreed to rollback all salaries by 24% in the last CBA, and that was enforced, isn't proof enough for you?

The CBA is just one big contract. It's a contract that governs all the other individual contracts the players sign.

You can always renegotiate a contract with another contract or a new contract.

I don't need a link to prove that.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:20 PM
  #16
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
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.

Quote:
If I were a player, id bounce for good.
See ya.

Have fun in Europe or Russia.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:21 PM
  #17
Thirty One
portnor, pls
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,504
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
It has to be true though, because if there weren't some type of clause in there, then what the owners are trying to do would be illegal.
And the 24% rollback in 2005 would have been illegal.

Thirty One is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:21 PM
  #18
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
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.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:22 PM
  #19
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Im not buying it unless theres proof, otherwise Fehr and the players wouldnt be so adamant that the owners honor them.

I dont think theyd be dumb enough to hold up an agreement over it if there were a clause.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:23 PM
  #20
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
No link, huh schmidt?

Your entire argument stands on that, and its not very concrete.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:24 PM
  #21
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
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.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:29 PM
  #22
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post

Right now the owners aren't making money.


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.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:29 PM
  #23
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Its been mentioned on here before and on NHL radio that the contracts were bound to the CBA.

This isn't about the players. Its about the league's long-term health. The players are going to have to accept that they need to make sacrifices.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:29 PM
  #24
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
No link, huh schmidt?

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.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:31 PM
  #25
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Im not buying it unless theres proof, otherwise Fehr and the players wouldnt be so adamant that the owners honor them.

I dont think theyd be dumb enough to hold up an agreement over it if there were a clause.
The players are not saying it's illegal.

They are saying they feel entitled to those contracts because they just signed them. They are saying it's fair to honor those contracts.

I would disagree that it's fair, but it's without question not illegal.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:31 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.