The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Mark Recchi's advice to players is to sign CBA now
For the guys who got bought out but couldn't find a job anywhere else because they were replaced by an inexpensive rookie the 24% rollback was probably a better option than forced retirement. While the PA membership did not change that came at the expense of long term members who were forced out for new rookies who would not have previously been a part of the PA.
It also appears you missed my point. The rollback in effect saved a lot of guys from being bought out. In your example it would be 3.8 million after rollback vs 3.3 for being bought out. The guys who got bought out anyways lost out, but don't forget, the players volunteered the rollback without even being asked.
Which guys were bought out and forced to retire as a result? I don't recall any of those really. Maybe they had to play for markedly less than their previous contract but I don't remember any players simply unable to find work because they cost too much even though they still have the skill and ability to play at a high level.
For the guys who got bought out but couldn't find a job anywhere else because they were replaced by an inexpensive rookie the 24% rollback was probably a better option than forced retirement. While the PA membership did not change that came at the expense of long term members who were forced out for new rookies who would not have previously been a part of the PA.
It also appears you missed my point. The rollback in effect saved a lot of guys from being bought out. In your example it would be 3.8 million after rollback vs 3.3 for being bought out. The guys who got bought out anyways lost out, but don't forget, the players volunteered the rollback without even being asked.
The guys who were bought out did get that money. They didn't have to play to get it either.
Then, they also got new contracts. In some ways, they did the best since they managed to double up in pay in a sense.
it makes no sense. the players association can't possibly benefit more through the life of this next CBA than they'd lose in wages a whole season spent to gain the deal they wanted, can they? Unless the CBA is forever.
What? When the season was about to be canceled, he offered a salary cap in the late-night emails which were intended to be made public by TSN.
Let's remember your original claim which was "Goodenow had no balls". He turned down NHL's final offer and made a counter offer which was refused and then NHL shut down the season.
And you're telling us that Goodenow had no balls?? Sheesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ
Otherwise, if you're in such awe of not being able to comprehend a different form of reasoning, feel free to stay in your bubble.
Thank you for the ad hominem but I'm fairly confident that I understand the CBA issues much better than you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ
I do remembr the very short Paul Kelly Era, don't know if he actually accomplished anything, but the point was Fehr is here because there is no one out there who is less likely to fold when Bettman goes for the jugular.
Paul Kelly was the NHLPA director for roughly 2 years, about the same Fehr has had the position.
it makes no sense. the players association can't possibly benefit more through the life of this next CBA than they'd lose in wages a whole season spent to gain the deal they wanted, can they? Unless the CBA is forever.
The only way the PA could benefit more is if they lose linkage and the cap. A very tall order. They would have been dollar justified holding out this long on the NHL's opening offer but not the subsequent ones.
Both sides are caught up in a legal game which has serious shortcomings which are recognized by many. This sort of thing happens in other areas of the legal profession. This would be a good point in time to publicly acknowledge the shortcomings of leverage and timing in negotiations. Some in the legal profession are more enamored of mediation/arbitration because it doesn't drag on so much and because less is spent on third parties. The switchover from one mode to the other usually means switching from defining the conflict as win/lose to defining it as win/win.
I did answer the question. His CBA, and yes, he got what he wanted.
again you provide no proof. again you assume to know all what goes on in the meetings of the last CBA when frankly you know just as little as the rest of us
again you provide no proof. again you assume to know all what goes on in the meetings of the last CBA when frankly you know just as little as the rest of us
If you wish to continue to believe that the NHL took a CBA that they didn't ~really~ want or didn't get all that they ~really~ wanted, that is your prerogative.
If you wish to continue to believe that the NHL took a CBA that they didn't ~really~ want or didn't get all that they ~really~ wanted, that is your prerogative.
I think they took a CBA that was as good as they were going to get and they hoped it would cure the ills of the league. 8 years later, it is obvious it didn't go as far as they needed it to.
If you wish to continue to believe that the NHL took a CBA that they didn't ~really~ want or didn't get all that they ~really~ wanted, that is your prerogative.
No, you claimed NHL got *ALL* they wanted and you have zero evidence to back it up.
Recchi is pissed that the PA director actually has a pair of grapefruits as opposed to when he was playing
Good argument , What exactly does he stand to gain by giving this advice besides venting his bitterness that the new nhlpa director is a tougher now.
Maybe he is pointing out that the players are in a lose - lose position and the longer it goes on now the more the players stand to lose going forward.
Good argument , What exactly does he stand to gain by giving this advice besides venting his bitterness that the new nhlpa director is a tougher now.
Maybe he is pointing out that the players are in a lose - lose position and the longer it goes on now the more the players stand to lose going forward.
on NHL Network Radio this week when they talked about Recchi's comments they said he could possibly be voicing his opinions that side with the nhl to try to get a job with the league eventually. So he does have something to gain maybe, if that is what he wants. This is speculation on their part, not facts.
on NHL Network Radio this week when they talked about Recchi's comments they said he could possibly be voicing his opinions that side with the nhl to try to get a job with the league eventually. So he does have something to gain maybe, if that is what he wants. This is speculation on their part, not facts.
That's not it.
He was a big voice on the other side of the NHLPA when they ousted Kelly because he knew Fehr or whoever the PA got would probably lead them straight to another lock out.
I don't think he's ever come out and said it but I always got the feeling that he wasn't a fan of the Union. Of course I could be wrong.
He was a big voice on the other side of the NHLPA when they ousted Kelly because he knew Fehr or whoever the PA got would probably lead them straight to another lock out.
I don't think he's ever come out and said it but I always got the feeling that he wasn't a fan of the Union. Of course I could be wrong.
He was a high ranking member in the union as eary as 2009.
Don't kid yourself, Shea Weber is worth more to the Preds and the NHL than he'll ever get paid. The Preds tried to take advantage of him, that's why he got pissed.
The Preds never tried to take advantage of him. You're so wrong.
If you're talking about the arbitration summer, his agent orchestrated that and would not talk to the Preds at all in the month before a decision had to be made. He switched agents a month before the July deadline to a second rate no nothing agency that can't even spell check their own website.
Pekka Rinne is our leader in Nashville. Shea is just another money grubbing pro athlete. So he's showed his true colors to the fans in Nashville and hid behind , "oh, my agents take care of it, it's just business". Well, Shea it's just business, and we'll ride you like a rented mule--- so just pull your $14 million weight and we won't boo you.
I think they took a CBA that was as good as they were going to get and they hoped it would cure the ills of the league. 8 years later, it is obvious it didn't go as far as they needed it to.
If the CBA that just expired had had 8 yr maximum terms and 10% max. salary variance between contract years, I doubt we would currently be in a lockout.
It was just too opened ended, and GMs stretched it as far as they could to the overall detriment of the league.
Add these 2 points to CBA, and the rest of the details will just fall into place.
If you wish to continue to believe that the NHL took a CBA that they didn't ~really~ want or didn't get all that they ~really~ wanted, that is your prerogative.
by that logic, the NHLPA took that contract and got all they wanted so should shut up about how screwed they were last time.
MOD
Last edited by Fugu: 11-18-2012 at 03:10 PM.
Reason: generalizing, "if you think ____, then _____
No, you claimed NHL got *ALL* they wanted and you have zero evidence to back it up.
I have to wonder if you were watching the last lockout as closely as you probably are watvhing this one.
Essentially, the NHL broke the union via an end run ( a seceret meeting between Bill to the PA executive committee in Niagara Falls and dictates the terms of the agreement. The League made what it considered a few "symbolic" concessions. They dictated the terms and in doing so made some mistakes they want to correct this time around from their point of view.
thanks, I needed that. Morning Smile. 
