Safete and security in terms of financial arrangements in the future. Protecting their interests and all that. The average hockey player doesn't get 7m a year, he gets far far less and for an uncertain amount of time. It's not just millionaires whining - a lot comes into play.
The minimal salary will stay about the same. The only thing I can see that could affect the players salaries on the long term is the RFA age changing and it's not one year that change that much.
The players already agreed on the clause that forbid the use of long terms contracts like the Pronger one.
The NHL has added teams and grown revenues since Bettman took over. The main beneficiaries of that growth has been the NHLPA players. Yet many of them feel compelled to hurl insults on a daily basis. I've never really liked Bettman's demeanor or the way he articulates his message but a lot of players are making a very good living because of his efforts. But I guess they don't see it that way.
Not to mention, if the player share was 40% of HRR or even less than that today, most of the players already in the NHL would still be here and there would still be thousands of others trying to make it there.
Can't say the same for the owners. If we assume that there are teams losing money, why would anyone want to enter into a business venture that will cost him money to obtain, and then lose money thereafter. Sure you can relocate the teams, but you still need to get an owner willing to spend the cash on a high-risk/low-reward long-term project.
Free speech exists among members but it's paramount they should leak anything out to the press. Open mutiny serves nobodies interests. That's why the NHL always says its decisions were unanimous when it's clear they're not.
And I'm calling Hamrlik a scab because he's on his way out and wants his last few millions and wants young players to get bent for it. He's not really a scab, I'm just using the term pejoratively.
The difference the NHL and the NHLPA is that the NHL owners make no comments, either positive or negative. The NHLPA on one hand makes not attempt to stifle negative comments but there seems to be an uproar if a member makes a positive comment.
The inflammatory comments have been a subtle as hand grenades and has done little for the players in the world of public opinion. It hasn't done anything for the image of the league either. Who in their right mind would try to undermine the very industry that pays them so well.
Hamrlik's olive branch is more like a bridge building gesture. Something that both sides could use more of. I realize players are a combative group by their very nature. They have to be in order to be successful on the ice but that approach works less well in the board room.
The difference the NHL and the NHLPA is that the NHL owners make no comments, either positive or negative. The NHLPA on one hand makes not attempt to stifle negative comments but there seems to be an uproar if a member makes a positive comment.
The inflammatory comments have been a subtle as hand grenades and has done little for the players in the world of public opinion. It hasn't done anything for the image of the league either. Who in their right mind would try to undermine the very industry that pays them so well.
Hamrlik's olive branch is more like a bridge building gesture. Something that both sides could use more of. I realize players are a combative group by their very nature. They have to be in order to be successful on the ice but that approach works less well in the board room.
Say what you want about the affect of the tweets but calling Hamrlik's move an olive branch and a bridge building gesture is beyond delusional.
The minimal salary will stay about the same. The only thing I can see that could affect the players salaries on the long term is the RFA age changing and it's not one year that change that much.
The players already agreed on the clause that forbid the use of long terms contracts like the Pronger one.
All these changes matter. RFA and UFA dates matter a lot. That's why the negotiations are so complicated - there are a ton of factors to consider at all times and there are tons of interests Fehr has to represent and value in them. When retiring, guaranteed pensioner Hamrlik or a retired pensioner like Recchi start making public comments it doesn't help anything but reallly really hurts the young players who still have (inshallah) 15 years in the league to look forward to.
5 year RFAs at ELCs not making much of a difference? Are you kidding me?
The owners gave and signed every single one of those deals, the players just had to abide by all the stipulations. Why to people keep saying that the deals are biased against the owner? Not a single contract is signed or traded for without the owner's implicit approval. Even in the super-rare cases of contractual holdouts, the owners usually got market value or a bit below.
Try telling a 22 year old Subban that he's gonna have to play at 850k for another two years even though he's playing 30min a night.
All these changes matter. RFA and UFA dates matter a lot. That's why the negotiations are so complicated - there are a ton of factors to consider at all times and there are tons of interests Fehr has to represent and value in them. When retiring, guaranteed pensioner Hamrlik or a retired pensioner like Recchi start making public comments it doesn't help anything but reallly really hurts the young players who still have (inshallah) 15 years in the league to look forward to.
5 year RFAs at ELCs not making much of a difference? Are you kidding me?
The owners gave and signed every single one of those deals, the players just had to abide by all the stipulations. Why to people keep saying that the deals are biased against the owner? Not a single contract is signed or traded for without the owner's implicit approval. Even in the super-rare cases of contractual holdouts, the owners usually got market value or a bit below.
Try telling a 22 year old Subban that he's gonna have to play at 850k for another two years even though he's playing 30min a night.
If I ever overheard anyone complaining about only making 850k/year, I'd probably kick them in the balls. But that's just me.
All these changes matter. RFA and UFA dates matter a lot. That's why the negotiations are so complicated - there are a ton of factors to consider at all times and there are tons of interests Fehr has to represent and value in them. When retiring, guaranteed pensioner Hamrlik or a retired pensioner like Recchi start making public comments it doesn't help anything but reallly really hurts the young players who still have (inshallah) 15 years in the league to look forward to.
5 year RFAs at ELCs not making much of a difference? Are you kidding me?
The owners gave and signed every single one of those deals, the players just had to abide by all the stipulations. Why to people keep saying that the deals are biased against the owner? Not a single contract is signed or traded for without the owner's implicit approval. Even in the super-rare cases of contractual holdouts, the owners usually got market value or a bit below.
Try telling a 22 year old Subban that he's gonna have to play at 850k for another two years even though he's playing 30min a night.
Yep, I agree that all of these initiatives are designed to rein in costs but if over half your teams are losing money, there has to be some kind of approach that provides owners with an opportunity (but not a guarantee) to make money.
A lot of the problems do arise because of the actions of some of the owners but an agreement among owners to limit contracts would be collusion, so the fallback is to have an agreement between the owners (as a group) and the players (as a group). It is an imperfect situation but what are the alternatives.
Do you think the Habs would offer Subban $850k per year? I am sure that current management would be much more fair than that.
All these changes matter. RFA and UFA dates matter a lot. That's why the negotiations are so complicated - there are a ton of factors to consider at all times and there are tons of interests Fehr has to represent and value in them. When retiring, guaranteed pensioner Hamrlik or a retired pensioner like Recchi start making public comments it doesn't help anything but reallly really hurts the young players who still have (inshallah) 15 years in the league to look forward to.
5 year RFAs at ELCs not making much of a difference? Are you kidding me?
The owners gave and signed every single one of those deals, the players just had to abide by all the stipulations. Why to people keep saying that the deals are biased against the owner? Not a single contract is signed or traded for without the owner's implicit approval. Even in the super-rare cases of contractual holdouts, the owners usually got market value or a bit below.
Try telling a 22 year old Subban that he's gonna have to play at 850k for another two years even though he's playing 30min a night.
No player stay at ELCs during all his RFAs years. The proposition of the owners is to change the UFA age from 27 to 28 and no that's not a big difference. Maybe there is others clauses I don't know about, but I didn't saw any major hit to a long term player salary.
Not to mention, if the player share was 40% of HRR or even less than that today, most of the players already in the NHL would still be here and there would still be thousands of others trying to make it there.
Can't say the same for the owners. If we assume that there are teams losing money, why would anyone want to enter into a business venture that will cost him money to obtain, and then lose money thereafter. Sure you can relocate the teams, but you still need to get an owner willing to spend the cash on a high-risk/low-reward long-term project.
There's no shortage of people who want to be owners, it's the NHL that has to turn people away.
Mike Lazaridis is a good example. Kenneth Thompson waited for years to get a team in Winnipeg; Peladeau is waiting to get a team in Quebec City, etc.
Owning an NHL franchise is for the most part a tremendously profitable business.
Say what you want about the affect of the tweets but calling Hamrlik's move an olive branch and a bridge building gesture is beyond delusional.
Once this is over, the NHLPA needs to have internal discussions to decide how to deal with the next lockout, which Jeremy Jacobs and Gary Bettman are probably planning for 2017 or 2018.
Two suggestiosn:
- A system of heavy fines to deal with twitter abusers and solidarity-breakers like Hamrlik.
- A better opening strategy. They should have done what the NHL did: have a high first offer and negotiate down. Their first offer was 54%. It should have been high enough to neutralize the NHL's 43% offer.
I don't think they're overpaid. Their industry permits it. What I am saying is very clear and simple, I have been saying it right from my first post on the matter, I think a 12% rollback isn't a huge demand.
I couldn't care less about how much more they make than me, if you think this is what it's about, then you really haven't understood a thing.
12% rollback isn't bad enough to warrant losing a season over, and it seemed to be headed that way.
Yes, it took years of negotiating to get where they are today. I fail to see how relevant this is, we're solely discussing losing 10% of salary, a not so strange occurrence in life. Pay cuts happen. In case you forgot, the players felt they got ripped off after the last CBA. Turned out, ''things ended it up being alright''.
I would like to see your face after a 12% rollback in your pay after taking a rollback just a few years ago. You probably wouldn't be saying things like "things are going to be alright". Keep on telling them what is worth losing a season over like you have anything invested in their situation. Only they can decide what is worth fighting for and what isn't.
How many rollbacks is it going to take before things aren't "alright"?
Give me a break, you have been moaning the whole time about how you would looove to be making that kind of money like they just fell into it or something and didn't work their entire lives to get where they are.
I would like to see your face after a 12% rollback in your pay after taking a rollback just a few years ago. You probably wouldn't be saying things like "things are going to be alright". Keep on telling them what is worth losing a season over like you have anything invested in their situation. Only they can decide what is worth fighting for and what isn't.
How many rollbacks is it going to take before things aren't "alright"?
Give me a break, you have been moaning the whole time about how you would looove to be making that kind of money like they just fell into it or something and didn't work their entire lives to get where they are.
He'd be a very happy man and appreciative of the salary increases he gained since the last collective bargaining.
Weak unions? They end up broke, unemployed, ruined. See the Hostess workers.
WHAT?
The union was so strong it bankrupted the whole thing. Are you out of your MIND? Unions forget that companies (or governments, as is the problem in Québec) don't have infinite amounts of money too easily.
I'm happy Hamrlik broke silence - and in something else than Puck Gary caps. He can't be the only one thinking like that. Remember, it's his 4th work stoppage.
The union was so strong it bankrupted the whole thing. Are you out of your MIND?
You have not followed the Hostess situation. It actually has very little to do with the union which has made tremendous concessions over the years -- the company was run into the ground by poor management.
Here's an article from a Hostess worker: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...ostess-Bankery
He was making $34,000 last year. If a company can't be profitable with workers willing to work for so little, as in below-median ages, then it is a badly-run company.
Note that the CEO made 2.3 million.
Last edited by DAChampion: 11-21-2012 at 08:42 PM.
It's getting real close for me to put an X on this season and avoid all things NHL related except for the upcoming draft. I'm not interested in a 48 game season.
There is no clear reason for any us to have any problem with Geoff Molson. He's been a decent administrator for the Habs thus far and has recently completed a reform of the front office. He spends to the cap. Media communications are done reasonably well.
As far as I know, he is not one of the militant owners on the executive committee salivating over the prospect of an extended lockout, a la Jeremy Jacobs.
If you have any evidence Geoff Molson is selling snake oil, then post it.
If he votes against Bettman at some point, I'll applaud Molson. Right now, he's just one of the owners who unanimously decided that this lockout was a good idea.
You mean like how the billionaire owners are grateful and appreciative to have received a 180% raise since the last lockout?
You mean the rich big markets.
What about the majority of the teams out there?
Just because 1 family on the street wins the 100 million dollar jackpot doesn't necessarily mean that income for other families on the same street increased.
Just because 1 family on the street wins the 100 million dollar jackpot doesn't necessarily mean that income for other families on the same street increased.
To bring up one small market team: Tom Golisano bought the Sabres in 2003 for 92mil. He sold them to Terrence Pegula for 189mil in 2011. The majority of owners, in big and small markets, are heading for huge paydays down the road.
I am impressed with Erik Cole's personal ethics, character, and intelligence.
"That’s what this is supposed to be about, that’s what makes hockey players different. You sacrifice something for the people coming behind you. That’s where the respect factor comes in. Whoever’s kid is the best kid on your son’s hockey team, you want that kid to have the same opportunity that you’ve had. That’s what it’s about. Hamrlik is unbelievable."
