So you believe if the players all made about 30 % or more less than they make now the owners still wouldn't have their heads up their collective ***** and we wouldn't be in this situation? if you do, good on you. But when it comes to team owners. Greed and bottom line wins out. I think we'd be having this debate no matter what the players salaries were. Both sides want to take I get that.
I don't know if this has been done yet or even talked about. But has anyone asked to have the owners open up their books and show whos getting paid and what? i assume they have i'm actually just wondering.
If NHL teams were making money the NHL owners wouldn't have much of an argument. They may still have had a lockout over other issues, who knows, maybe they'd want more money. Only thing for sure is I wouldn't have the same opinion I do now for the reasons I do now.
To your second point, no idea. I know Darryl Katz refused when asked to by the City of Edmonton over this whole arena fiasco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe
But if the amount of money the players get is directly tied to revenue, then I guess the players just get less money... No?
The only thing different is the current contracts honored (prorated with no percentage increase). Everything else accounts for that.
They aren't suggesting to tie to revenues in that proposal unless I am mistaken, They are proposing a 1.75% yearly increase regardless of revenue, then are assuming revenues will grow by 5% yearly to show that eventually that 1.75% increase yearly for the players would equate to a 50/50 split. The 1.75% consistent increase and the projected 5% revenue increase aren't tied.
NHL should demand things like team options and non-guaranteed contracts. Might fix some of the issues.
We'll there are things in this proposal that the NHL should like and/or be able to accept/negotiate off of pretty easily.
Don't expect a full acceptance. The NHL will be wanting to change many things or at least try to. Its not over yet.... so don't get too excited, but at least there is some give.
Ugh.. been arguing this **** for 2 months.. i'm tired of it haha. I just don't get why i just don't say "agree to disagree" more often in these threads.
I agree that the players should have been open to talking during the season, but i also understand why they weren't. There are 700 members of the NHLPA, and the main focus for every single one of them from Oct. to June should be playing hockey. Having the player reps and negotiating committee distracted by all the CBA ******** wouldn't be fair. Its the same reason a lot of players don't like to negotiate extensions during the season. Once the lockout started, yes a lot of players went overseas and yes that does make them look hypocritical, buuuuttttt...how many of the guys in Europe are PA reps or on the negotiating committee? Not negotiating during the season was about those 30 or so guys not the other 670.
Now the Fehrs and other non-playing PA types, that is a different story
They aren't suggesting to tie to revenues in that proposal unless I am mistaken, They are proposing a 1.75% yearly increase regardless of revenue, then are assuming revenues will grow by 5% yearly to show that eventually that 1.75% increase yearly for the players would equate to a 50/50 split. The 1.75% consistent increase and the projected 5% revenue increase aren't tied.
NHL should demand things like team options and non-guaranteed contracts. Might fix some of the issues.
There's percentages right in the proposal. Why ignore one number and not the other?
If it's worth anything at all, I agree with you. Using hard dollars in the negotiating process is double-stupid and doesn't work at all.
We'll there are things in this proposal that the NHL should like and/or be able to accept/negotiate off of pretty easily.
Don't expect a full acceptance. The NHL will be wanting to change many things or at least try to. Its not over yet.... so don't get too excited, but at least there is some give.
Thanks. I haven't given up all hope yet but it is getting close.
I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, EM. I say the main tenets of the deal are in place by Monday. This proposal has linkage and 50/50, and a reasonable provision for existing contracts. I think the rest is arguing percentages and contract years, and despite all current evidence to the contrary, I don't think the two sides are stupid enough to lose another season when they now seem to agree on the framework.
I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, EM. I say the main tenets of the deal are in place by Monday. This proposal has linkage and 50/50, and a reasonable provision for existing contracts. I think the rest is arguing percentages and contract years, and despite all current evidence to the contrary, I don't think the two sides are stupid enough to lose another season when they now seem to agree on the framework.
It has linkage in yr 1 ,, No linkage in years 2-5
NHLPA again wants guaranteed 2-5 ,, Not gonna fly as NHL has told them every meeting
NHLPA again wants guaranteed 2-5 ,, Not gonna fly as NHL has told them every meeting
I'm assuming that the NHL is posturing in the "cap can't go down" provision, and will give that up as opposed to giving up on the make whole dollars or contract rights.
(I hope I'm right -- otherwise, as you said, it's a deal-breaker).
Only reason to talk during the season is if both sides essentially agree current deal is good for both and just needs extension/ renewal.
Otherwise there would be no leverage. Leverage is collective bargaining 101.
go one step further... seems these two sides are only reasonable when they get desperate anyhow. If the negotiations started too early... without any desperation... then one side or both might say crap that angers the other side so much... that someone might just decide to screw the whole season over on 'principal.'
Im not one that feels we'd be any further ahead if we started 3 years ago even. There was no movement at all until Bettman said lets take the next 2 weeks off.
Maybe if the owners were willing to be forced into another season under the framework of the old deal... then there wouldnt be this problem? But the evidence sort of suggests the owners would rather lose the season then continue as is... and the only way the players will accept the change is to get forced into it.
this lockout was necessary i guess. Sucks... but was necessary. I just hope in the end, that us fans get a deal that will give us the hockey we deserve going foward out of this mess.
'I'm more upset with a guy like [Boston Bruins owner Jeremy] Jacobs. It just sounds so hypocritical for him to think the last CBA was so awful and how garbage it was, and then go out and sign three of his top guys right before the last one expired. If it was that bad, why rush to sign those guys?"
We have an emotional attachment. The parties have a monetary attachment. Hence our angst.
I know it does. As an educated adult, I completely understand it. As a crazy hockey fan, it's bogus.
At the end of the day, it's about money to BOTH sides, and I think that's why I get frustrated when folks are so quick to deflect blame from the players and onto the owners.
go one step further... seems these two sides are only reasonable when they get desperate anyhow. If the negotiations started too early... without any desperation... then one side or both might say crap that angers the other side so much... that someone might just decide to screw the whole season over on 'principal.'
Im not one that feels we'd be any further ahead if we started 3 years ago even. There was no movement at all until Bettman said lets take the next 2 weeks off.
Maybe if the owners were willing to be forced into another season under the framework of the old deal... then there wouldnt be this problem? But the evidence sort of suggests the owners would rather lose the season then continue as is... and the only way the players will accept the change is to get forced into it.
this lockout was necessary i guess. Sucks... but was necessary. I just hope in the end, that us fans get a deal that will give us the hockey we deserve going foward out of this mess.
Unfortunately Michael we are the enablers, the insurance policy. They know darn well that when all is done we will be there to return to them. We can't help ourselves.
I know it does. As an educated adult, I completely understand it. As a crazy hockey fan, it's bogus.
At the end of the day, it's about money to BOTH sides, and I think that's why I get frustrated when folks are so quick to deflect blame from the players and onto the owners.
....huh?
Who ever said it wasn't about money to both sides?
