The players should be encouraged by the fact that the owners try to take advantage of every single loop hole available. Its like Recchi said a few months back, "they'll find a way to pay you, so just sign the deal" (PARAPHRASED).
I really don't see the problem here. You were allowed to do front loaded, crazy money contracts under the old rules. The owners/GMs had to work inside those rules to make their team as competitive as possible. Now that those rules are up, they want to make the new rules so that they don't have to offer front loaded, crazy money contracts just to get top UFAs. It's time to make new rules, so they want to change them. It's not stupid at all.
I agree with you here. You did what you had to to, within the old system, to ice the best team possible. That system was flawed and there's now an opportunity to fix these flaws because the old system has expired. Seems rather obvious to me.
I think this is actually a pretty reasonable and feasible demonstration. Some folks say they'll give up the NHL forever, I doubt that. But boycotting a game for each game missed... that's pretty doable. That's something I can really get on board with!
It's not a bad idea but it's totally unfeasible for someone like me - my season tickets are paid for. I'm unemployed at the moment (one year so far). I can't just not show up and flush that money down the commode. It's no problem for me to not buy merchandise or food at the arena - I already do neither of those, so, unfortunately, I won't have much impact in that regard. Supporting businesses around the area I can do if the budget will let me, I don't exactly have cash to throw around right now!
But those multi millionaires are making multi millions through other ventures. The players are depriving themselves of likely their only paycheck.
And please spare us the "owners are bullies" rhetoric. They rightfully want a deal that doesn't automatically cause teams to lose money. They aren't demeaning or abusing the players. They just want a mutual financial incentive for both sides. If you owned a hockey team, you would too, and you're a liar if you say otherwise.
So the players should be forced to accept a deal they don't want because they aren't as well off? How does that seem right?
The owners are trying to use the above point in order to force a deal they favours them. They may be asking for a fair revenue split, but they also want to the players to restrict themselves greatly in order to protect the owners from themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin
Simple fact, the owners have been giving more for decades, it's not really about the players losing money more so than the owners taking what's rightfully theirs back.
Yes, the owners make money, but the teams are not. There's a difference people need to understand. And the majority of teams do not make money.
Tell me who has been giving up so much for decades. Please stop with the poor players, they've been getting more than 50% for two decades.
Let me know how you feel when the NHL collapses if things didn't/don't change.
The owners have been giving the same amount all other pro sports leagues were giving.
Yes the majority of teams do make money. Even Columbus only lost about 7.5 millon last year.
The NHL is in no risk of collapsing and I haven't been saying poor players anything. I'm just pointing out facts because I believe anyone clearly on one side or the other is a moron
Because those contracts stipulate that they are tied to the existing cba and subject to future cba changes. In short, there is no legal or contractual requirement for the owners to 'make whole'. Therefore it is a concession.
At best that answer is a novel argument to make in Court... In every industry, existing contracts signed in a prior CBA are always recognized if the parties continue having an employment relationship without a CBA (whether a clause references an existing CBA or not). It's Contract Law 101.
I really don't see the problem here. You were allowed to do front loaded, crazy money contracts under the old rules. The owners/GMs had to work inside those rules to make their team as competitive as possible. Now that those rules are up, they want to make the new rules so that they don't have to offer front loaded, crazy money contracts just to get top UFAs. It's time to make new rules, so they want to change them. It's not stupid at all.
I agree with that except to the point that they offered these contracts knowing that they were going to cry about them months later. They offered money that they never planned on paying.
I agree with that except to the point that they offered these contracts knowing that they were going to cry about them months later. They offered money that they never planned on paying.
Absolutely true.
That's why the players got those signing bonuses, however - they knew the CBA was going to impact their salaries.
Both sides knew exactly what they were doing and getting into.
I understand revenue does not equal profits... that doesn't change the fact that the majority of teams make money. The owners make whole is only them saying we'll honour a portion of the contracts we agreed to pay you. Looking at this subjectively... the players are only going to lose in this. The only question is how much are they going to lose. And yet people try to make it out like the owners are giving up so much.
They're very obviously trying to separate the players from the Fehr.... just like did last time with Goodenow. They have consistently put take it or leave it offers on the table and have consistently walked away from talks when they don't get what they want and they did the exact same thing last time.
And you know why? Because they can. The players only hurt themselves the longer they refuse to make a deal.
I agree with that except to the point that they offered these contracts knowing that they were going to cry about them months later. They offered money that they never planned on paying.
Speaking to the Parise and Suter contracts directly, they had something like 10 million in signing bonus the first year or two. That money was paid out, the actual salary portion was only a million or two per year and that money won't be paid while they're locked out...
Ehrhoff and I think Wisniewski have something similar as well.
I agree with that except to the point that they offered these contracts knowing that they were going to cry about them months later. They offered money that they never planned on paying.
What's the difference between wanting to change a rule and "crying about it" though? Again, it was possible and it was damaging to the game so they want to make in impossible now that its time to change things up.
Further, they're going to have to pay every single contract in full under the terms of the new CBA and maybe the following CBA after that depending on how long the new one lasts and how long the longest contracts are. Every player and every owner knew this when both parties signed contracts. As far as I know, nobody is proposing anything that would get the owners out of paying contracts that are already signed.
I agree with that except to the point that they offered these contracts knowing that they were going to cry about them months later. They offered money that they never planned on paying.
The players are not offered a set amount of money. They're offered a % of HRR.
At best that answer is a novel argument to make in Court... In every industry, existing contracts signed in a prior CBA are always recognized if the parties continue having an employment relationship without a CBA (whether a clause references an existing CBA or not). It's Contract Law 101.
so if a legal binding contract, that states specifically inside of said contract and both parties agreed to it. that once the old cba we signed this contract under is over with and we agree to a new cba your contract will then be governed under the new set of rules stated in the new cba. all that means nothing?
man if you are a lawyer you must get beat badly in court.
and if this is true, then why do the players just i don't freaking know, sign any cba the owners want and just go to court to get the money owed to them under your preposterous way of thinking.
The players are not offered a set amount of money. They're offered a % of HRR.
People don't seem to understand that.
That's not true, they are offered a set amount under a cap that is set by a % of HRR. The contract roll backs would be based on the change in percentage.
Speaking to the Parise and Suter contracts directly, they had something like 10 million in signing bonus the first year or two. That money was paid out, the actual salary portion was only a million or two per year and that money won't be paid while they're locked out...
Ehrhoff and I think Wisniewski have something similar as well.
Yes, 10 mil for first two and 5 for third.
Ehrhoff got 8 mil last year, 5 mil this year in signing bonuses.
Wisniewski got 2 mil last year, 3 mil this year in signing bonuses.
Shea Weber has similar contract; 13 mil in sign. bonuses for next 4 years.
So the players should be forced to accept a deal they don't want because they aren't as well off? How does that seem right?
What the owners make in their other businesses has nothing to do with the NHL/CBA. It would be like stating that Crosby makes millions off his endorsements so he should be ok with taking a massive paycut. That endorsement money has nothing to do with his NHL paycheck.
Unless you think NHL owners should just look at owning an NHL team as an expensive hobby. You might get a few that could and would want to foot that bill. And you have some owners that actually make money from the NHL. But you have many teams that lose money, and do not have owners that want to finance an NHL hobby by burning through profits from their other businesses. So you would end up with an NHL of far fewer teams, which is fine by me, but I am guessing the NHLPA would not want to contract that many teams (member jobs)
Last edited by MacOfNiagara: 12-09-2012 at 02:46 PM.
Reason: grammar
What's the difference between wanting to change a rule and "crying about it" though? Again, it was possible and it was damaging to the game so they want to make in impossible now that its time to change things up.
Further, they're going to have to pay every single contract in full under the terms of the new CBA and maybe the following CBA after that depending on how long the new one lasts and how long the longest contracts are. Every player and every owner knew this when both parties signed contracts. As far as I know, nobody is proposing anything that would get the owners out of paying contracts that are already signed.
Slight difference, and strictly my opinion and experience, is that the management side knew long ago what they were going to put on the table in these "negotiations". They knew what their limits were and I what point there would be a work stoppage, if any of them say differently then they are not telling the truth. The players know what they are hoping for and where they would like to be. Management always has the upper hand in these type of negotiations except for a very small percentage of times.
With that in mind them going to the table and offering contracts to players when they knew that two months later they would be attempting to change the rules governing those contracts, in my opinion is negotiating in bad faith.
That's not true, they are offered a set amount under a cap that is set by a % of HRR. The contract roll backs would be based on the change in percentage.
It's 100% true.
The owners want to change the amount of HRR the players get. And if the players hadn't killed HRR they would be making more money then they did last year by year 3 or 4.
Slight difference, and strictly my opinion and experience, is that the management side knew long ago what they were going to put on the table in these "negotiations". They knew what their limits were and I what point there would be a work stoppage, if any of them say differently then they are not telling the truth. The players know what they are hoping for and where they would like to be. Management always has the upper hand in these type of negotiations except for a very small percentage of times.
With that in mind them going to the table and offering contracts to players when they knew that two months later they would be attempting to change the rules governing those contracts, in my opinion is negotiating in bad faith.
hmm then don't sign them if you don't want the potential to happen, what a concept. don't agree to something you don't agree with lol.
Slight difference, and strictly my opinion and experience, is that the management side knew long ago what they were going to put on the table in these "negotiations". They knew what their limits were and I what point there would be a work stoppage, if any of them say differently then they are not telling the truth. The players know what they are hoping for and where they would like to be. Management always has the upper hand in these type of negotiations except for a very small percentage of times.
With that in mind them going to the table and offering contracts to players when they knew that two months later they would be attempting to change the rules governing those contracts, in my opinion is negotiating in bad faith.
So, if the GM of your team didn't sign a huge UFA because he knew that eventually he'd want the rules changed, and another team went and scooped him up with a long term, huge money deal, would you be okay with that because your GM was doing the right thing? They all had to do whatever they could to get the best players. Even if they knew for sure they would try to change the rules to prevent these things in the future, when it's time to get your guy you do what you can within the rules to make it happen - you don't try to operate inside what the rules might be eventually if circumstances play out a specific way between you and 29 other people and another camp of 700.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but wouldn't contracts already signed stay the way they are? For example, if a guy signed a 15 year contract before the CBA expired and the new one has 5 year contract limits, that player still has a 15 year contract, no? Others just can't get signed to them in the future. How are contracts already signed being changed aside from maybe being worth less as the % of HRR changes, which, again, is something every player, owner and agent knew was coming.
The owners want to change the amount of HRR the players get. And if the players hadn't killed HRR they would be making more money then they did last year by year 3 or 4.
The new CBA would have to state a % roll back of contracts across the board to change any individual contract. The only reason this can happen is because all individual contracts are governed by the current CBA. With that said when you sign a contract that is governed by a CBA and there is something like the HRR that the NHL has you individually are not signing for a percentage of that you are signing for a set dollar value.
If the HRR is raised, as it has been every year that the cap goes up, your contract value does not go up.
What you are saying is that if I sign a contract for 2 million a year and the HRR is raised 10% for the next year then the following year my salary would go up 10%.
So, if the GM of your team didn't sign a huge UFA because he knew that eventually he'd want the rules changed, and another team went and scooped him up with a long term, huge money deal, would you be okay with that because your GM was doing the right thing? They all had to do whatever they could to get the best players. Even if they knew for sure they would try to change the rules to prevent these things in the future, when it's time to get your guy you do what you can within the rules to make it happen - you don't try to operate inside what the rules might be eventually if circumstances play out a specific way between you and 29 other people and another camp of 700.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but wouldn't contracts already signed stay the way they are? For example, if a guy signed a 15 year contract before the CBA expired and the new one has 5 year contract limits, that player still has a 15 year contract, no? Others just can't get signed to them in the future. How are contracts already signed being changed aside from maybe being worth less as the % of HRR changes, which, again, is something every player, owner and agent knew was coming.
I'm not disagreeing with what you guys are saying, I'm just making a point that what they are all crying over is a process that they created. They started this, not long ago I believe, wasn't DiPietro's one of the first?
