The union being crushed (assuming that includes decertification) probably ends up working out better for many of the players regardless. Probably no salary cap, no RFA/entry-level restrictions, etc.
Not what I meant. No way the players win that court battle as the courts will deem the lockout legal and see the unions strategy for what they are.
By being crushed I mean they will end up accepting a lesser offer than the one currently on the table.
The players are losing their credibility on a daily basis with their tactics.
As long as the union is crushed and pulverized I don't mind not seeing hockey for the next couple years.
If you worked for me, and you came to collect on a contract we'd agreed on that paid you $50K a year, and my response was:
"You know Bob, myself, and 17 others in my business lost money this year... so here's a check for $37k instead of the $50k we agreed upon. Oh.... and that means you're paid in full... I don't owe the other 13k. And next year's salary will be reduced by an additional 7% off of the $37K."
You'd tell me I'd be hearing from your lawyer. And you KNOW it!
You make that claim... but you don't believe it.
Last edited by BTCG: 12-18-2012 at 11:36 AM.
Reason: spelling
If you worked for me, and you came to collect on a contract we'd agreed on that paid you $50K a year, and my response was:
"You know Bob, myself, and 17 others in my business lost money this year... so here's a check for $37k instead of the $50k we agreed upon. Oh.... and that means you're paid in full... I don't owe the other 13k. And next year's salary will be reduced by an additional 7% off of the $37K."
You'd tell me I'd be hearing from your lawyer. And you KNOW it!
You make that claim... but you don't believe it.
One of the problems is guaranteed contracts. My work right now states it will pay me a certain amount every year. They could decide they don't need me tomorrow and never pay me a penny more if they chose to.
These spoiled hockey players don't know how good they have it. In the real world when a business isn't healthy they lay people off in the bunches.
One of the problems is guaranteed contracts. My work right now states it will pay me a certain amount every year. They could decide they don't need me tomorrow and never pay me a penny more if they chose to.
These spoiled hockey players don't know how good they have it. In the real world when a business isn't healthy they lay people off in the bunches.
No they cannot. They may only opt out if there is a clause that permits it.
And per my example, Ted Leonsis is no different. If i said:
"Hey Ted, I know I agreed to pay $5k for my tickets, but I lost money. So here's $3.7k, and we're even."
Anybody really think that my bar code on my tickets would remain working?
No they cannot. They may only opt out if there is a clause that permits it.
And per my example, Ted Leonsis is no different. If i said:
"Hey Ted, I know I agreed to pay $5k for my tickets, but I lost money. So here's $3.7k, and we're even."
Anybody really think that my bar code on my tickets would remain working?
C'Mon Bob!
Ha! You are living in the fantasy sports world my friend!
So...lets say you are Scott Gomez and awarded a $7 mil contract to produce "x" amount of points or whatever. After a couple year you suck so hard you shouldn't be on the ice. Should Scott then have to return the money or will he continue earning it?
The players want to have their cake and eat it too.
No if my work tomorrow decided to have layoffs they may give me a few weeks severance package type deal if they choose and call it a night.
I worked at this place named Home Gym Systems back in the day. We made like $8 an hour and got a variable commission on units we sold depending on how much we sold them for.
One day management walked in and said they are not doing well and fired a bunch of people. The other few that got left behind had a new deal where they work entirely on commission and essentially their salary was cut in half.
Thats how the REAL world works. Even in the NFL they can cut you in the middle of a $100 million deal and not owe a cent more to you.
NFL only works that way because their CBA specifically allows/creates it. If you had a contract in the real world you would usually have more of a safety net than that.
Of course that's the difference between working with a contract and working without one. Without a contract you can be fired. Of course you're also free to leave and "play for the competition" in most cases as well, and sports would be no fun if that could happen more freely.
I have no problem with contracts the way they are now, more or less. The marginal guys only get 1 year and a 1 year bad investment isn't an issue. The big contracts backfiring punishes stupid managers which is highly entertaining for me. A truly free market NHL would probably support even higher contract values (granted, with fewer job opportunities because some bottom-tier teams probably wouldn't survive) but I don't care much one way or the other.
NFL only works that way because their CBA specifically allows/creates it. If you had a contract in the real world you would usually have more of a safety net than that.
Of course that's the difference between working with a contract and working without one. Without a contract you can be fired. Of course you're also free to leave and "play for the competition" in most cases as well, and sports would be no fun if that could happen more freely.
I have no problem with contracts the way they are now, more or less. The marginal guys only get 1 year and a 1 year bad investment isn't an issue. The big contracts backfiring punishes stupid managers which is highly entertaining for me. A truly free market NHL would probably support even higher contract values (granted, with fewer job opportunities because some bottom-tier teams probably wouldn't survive) but I don't care much one way or the other.
Right and just like that the contracts currently can be collectively bargained so can the immediate rollback in players salaries. Thats why they are locked out right now.
I sign a contract for every job but its not guaranteed and thats the case for 99.9% of the population. What fantasy world are the players living in?
Unions were SUPPOSED to be established to help the little guy against big business. These days they mostly help overpaid athletes making millions of dollars a year.
Overpaid is a funny term. In an uncapped, free-for-all world the top players probably make a good bit more than they do now. But the players don't have/won't use the leverage to get back to that kind of system, so they're stuck with where they are now. Rollbacks and the like are very clearly fair game if they settle for them, of course. Right and wrong are pretty much subject to the agreement that eventually gets hammered out.
Overpaid is a funny term. In an uncapped, free-for-all world the top players probably make a good bit more than they do now. But the players don't have/won't use the leverage to get back to that kind of system, so they're stuck with where they are now. Rollbacks and the like are very clearly fair game if they settle for them, of course. Right and wrong are pretty much subject to the agreement that eventually gets hammered out.
To be successful a sport needs a salary cap these days. Fact is players take none of the financial risk associated with running a franchise. 50/50 is more than fair in my book.
If the salary cap negotiated is too small for the players liking then they are free to go play in the KHL, SEL or Swiss League even.
Leagues as we know them, yes, unless they're unfathomably rich (see MLB). The NHL in some form could survive without a cap, not that they'd want to.
But yes, you illustrate the issue nicely. SEL, KHL, whatever aren't very good alternatives for most players. That's why they'll likely never be able to do any better than simply limiting the amount of ground they lose each time the CBA comes up.
Right and just like that the contracts currently can be collectively bargained so can the immediate rollback in players salaries. Thats why they are locked out right now.
I sign a contract for every job but its not guaranteed and thats the case for 99.9% of the population. What fantasy world are the players living in?
Unions were SUPPOSED to be established to help the little guy against big business. These days they mostly help overpaid athletes making millions of dollars a year.
I don't see them as overpaid. They are a select group of athletes who can play hockey at the highest level. The reason they get paid so well is because they are the only people who can do the job.
In the real world Joe Schmo is easily replaceable, NHL players are not.
I watch the NHL for the players, and I couldn't give a damn how much money the owners are losing.
I don't see them as overpaid. They are a select group of athletes who can play hockey at the highest level. The reason they get paid so well is because they are the only people who can do the job.
In the real world Joe Schmo is easily replaceable, NHL players are not.
I watch the NHL for the players, and I couldn't give a damn how much money the owners are losing.
I don't see them overpaid either (as a group, some individuals sure), but not caring about how much money teams are losing is a narrow minded view, unless you're pulling for an Original 6 NHL again. Teams can't lose money forever and still have a healthy league.
__________________
George McPhee....The Teflon GM. 15 years of failure and counting....
6 - Number of playoff series the Capitals have won since George McPhee took over as General Manager in 1997 (which makes him the third-longest-tenured GM in the League), three of which came in McPhee's first season on the job.
Ha! You are living in the fantasy sports world my friend!
So...lets say you are Scott Gomez and awarded a $7 mil contract to produce "x" amount of points or whatever. After a couple year you suck so hard you shouldn't be on the ice. Should Scott then have to return the money or will he continue earning it?
The players want to have their cake and eat it too.
No if my work tomorrow decided to have layoffs they may give me a few weeks severance package type deal if they choose and call it a night.
I worked at this place named Home Gym Systems back in the day. We made like $8 an hour and got a variable commission on units we sold depending on how much we sold them for.
One day management walked in and said they are not doing well and fired a bunch of people. The other few that got left behind had a new deal where they work entirely on commission and essentially their salary was cut in half.
Thats how the REAL world works. Even in the NFL they can cut you in the middle of a $100 million deal and not owe a cent more to you.
Bob (sorry I didn't answer right away, but it was time for my afternoon nap ),
I love ya bro... but you're really reaching now.
But I'm going to demonstrate the difference.
You know, I'm sure, that I am originally from Detroit You know that song "born and raised in south Detroit? I was.
In the early days of the 1900's, the auto manufacturers ran their plants and treated their employees like the feudal kings treated their serfs. Promises made; raises, vacations, conditions, etc., were never kept. An old man once told me of the things he saw:
"Bill, if an employee said he had to use the bathroom, it had to be #2. And the boss would send a man to the bathroom with you, and you were told NOT to flush when you were done: they wanted to see the toilet, and you were told.... there had BETTER be something floating in it, if you know what I mean. If there wasn't, you were fired. They'd take you right out, and you might not get any of your personal property back."
The workers, organized, and the owners brought in the goon squads with baseball bats to intimidate them. It didn't work. This is what prompted Congress to enact labor laws.
Here, we have contracts between the players, and management.
This is apples and oranges between the example you cited about selling exercise machines.
When either side is allowed to violate the terms of a contract, the entire concept of contracts goes right out the window.
Right and just like that the contracts currently can be collectively bargained so can the immediate rollback in players salaries. Thats why they are locked out right now.
I sign a contract for every job but its not guaranteed and thats the case for 99.9% of the population. What fantasy world are the players living in?
Unions were SUPPOSED to be established to help the little guy against big business. These days they mostly help overpaid athletes making millions of dollars a year.
Bob,
I spent Thanksgiving with a couple of the best lawyers in the world: $500 per hour, K Street lawyers. We discussed the NHL/players situation. Both of them found the NHL's arguments to be laughable.
I don't see them overpaid either (as a group, some individuals sure), but not caring about how much money teams are losing is a narrow minded view, unless you're pulling for an Original 6 NHL again. Teams can't lose money forever and still have a healthy league.
And as we discussed nearly a month ago now during Thanksgiving dinner, both these lawyers gave me a headsup that night:
"Watch what happens in the next 2 months, if the union decertifies. Those broke owners will suddenly have plenty of money to spend... on lawyers like Terry and I ($500 per hour lawyers). I guarantee you.... just watch."
If you recall, I told Devil Dancer (?) that what I had heard was that was that the matter wouldn't be settled soon. He said that's not what he had heard.
Turns out... the lawyers I know were right. What a surprise.
Trained by another World Champion a few months back. Did the Paul Kirk Master BBQ Class. That's 3 World champs that have trained me, now. Needless to say, my brisket, ribs, and pulled pork I'm cookin is amazing these days. You're in CA: lotta good tri-tip there, I'm told. Enjoy!
When either side is allowed to violate the terms of a contract, the entire concept of contracts goes right out the window.
2005-2006: +0.40%
2006-2007: -2.76%
2007-2008: +0.48%
2008-2009: -12.90%
2009-2010: -9% [approximate, haven't seen precise figure]
2010-2011: -4.0%
2011-2012: -6-8% [reportedly between that range]
That's the history of salary percentage either forfeited or gained under the past CBA due to the agreed upon linkage between player salaries and Hockey Related Revenue. The concept of full face value contracts died in the NHL seven years ago. The buyout mechanism renders it subject to further important agreed upon caveats.
Given that seemingly secondary concerns like term limits on future contracts, transition rules and CBA length are now at the forefront of disagreement it's a matter of the players realising when to cut their losses. Some, like Hamrlik, are able to see beyond the corner but the majority seem fairly vindictive. Both sides are waiting for the other to break while all that's being strained is fan patience/goodwill and the partnership needed for growth. You'd have to think it's going to be an 11th hour agreement, if there's one at all. The tenor from the beginning has suggested it.
2005-2006: +0.40%
2006-2007: -2.76%
2007-2008: +0.48%
2008-2009: -12.90%
2009-2010: -9% [approximate, haven't seen precise figure]
2010-2011: -4.0%
2011-2012: -6-8% [reportedly between that range]
That's the history of salary percentage either forfeited or gained under the past CBA due to the agreed upon linkage between player salaries and Hockey Related Revenue. The concept of full face value contracts died in the NHL seven years ago. The buyout mechanism renders it subject to further important agreed upon caveats.
Given that seemingly secondary concerns like term limits on future contracts, transition rules and CBA length are now at the forefront of disagreement it's a matter of the players realising when to cut their losses. Some, like Hamrlik, are able to see beyond the corner but the majority seem fairly vindictive. Both sides are waiting for the other to break while all that's being strained is fan patience/goodwill and the partnership needed for growth. You'd have to think it's going to be an 11th hour agreement, if there's one at all. The tenor from the beginning has suggested it.
Oooookay.... so your argument is like the Minnesota owner's argument:
"Forget the fact that we signed 2 players to contracts worth $196 million... we cannot afford what we just did, and the body of the NHL players (who make too much money) should forgive us."
One question: are the 2 players still required to report to training camp?
2005-2006: +0.40%
2006-2007: -2.76%
2007-2008: +0.48%
2008-2009: -12.90%
2009-2010: -9% [approximate, haven't seen precise figure]
2010-2011: -4.0%
2011-2012: -6-8% [reportedly between that range]
That's the history of salary percentage either forfeited or gained under the past CBA due to the agreed upon linkage between player salaries and Hockey Related Revenue. The concept of full face value contracts died in the NHL seven years ago. The buyout mechanism renders it subject to further important agreed upon caveats.
Given that seemingly secondary concerns like term limits on future contracts, transition rules and CBA length are now at the forefront of disagreement it's a matter of the players realising when to cut their losses. Some, like Hamrlik, are able to see beyond the corner but the majority seem fairly vindictive. Both sides are waiting for the other to break while all that's being strained is fan patience/goodwill and the partnership needed for growth. You'd have to think it's going to be an 11th hour agreement, if there's one at all. The tenor from the beginning has suggested it.
In keeping things apples to apples, I don't see how the NHLPA can accept further erosion of the guaranteed contract without concessions from the owners on its corollary - liberalization of the labor market (within the confines of the cartel).
If they get earlier free agency and the ability to holdout to restructure a deal or force a trade, it's gonna suck for fans. Increased player movement is good in theory, but in practice, I can see superstars moving around every year and the same 7 or 8 franchises monopolizing the market for top talent.
It works for football where players have short careers and the long term deal still exists, but for a sport where players can stay among the league leaders into their 40s its gonna be weird.
In keeping things apples to apples, I don't see how the NHLPA can accept further erosion of the guaranteed contract without concessions from the owners on its corollary - liberalization of the labor market (within the confines of the cartel).
If they get earlier free agency and the ability to holdout to restructure a deal or force a trade, it's gonna suck for fans. Increased player movement is good in theory, but in practice, I can see superstars moving around every year and the same 7 or 8 franchises monopolizing the market for top talent.
It works for football where players have short careers and the long term deal still exists, but for a sport where players can stay among the league leaders into their 40s its gonna be weird.
Oooookay.... so your argument is like the Minnesota owner's argument:
"Forget the fact that we signed 2 players to contracts worth $196 million... we cannot afford what we just did, and the body of the NHL players (who make too much money) should forgive us."
One question: are the 2 players still required to report to training camp?
Nah the GMs this past free agency simply were operating on the now expired CBA and were simply playing within the rules of the expired cba and against the other teams competing for said free agent.
Nah the GMs this past free agency simply were operating on the now expired CBA and were simply playing within the rules of the expired cba and against the other teams competing for said free agent.
Hmmm... so what we accepted once.... ought to lock us in to the future?
Glad people have rejected that argument... or we'd never had put a man on the moon.
2005-2006: +0.40%
2006-2007: -2.76%
2007-2008: +0.48%
2008-2009: -12.90%
2009-2010: -9% [approximate, haven't seen precise figure]
2010-2011: -4.0%
2011-2012: -6-8% [reportedly between that range]
That's the history of salary percentage either forfeited or gained under the past CBA due to the agreed upon linkage between player salaries and Hockey Related Revenue. The concept of full face value contracts died in the NHL seven years ago. The buyout mechanism renders it subject to further important agreed upon caveats.
What do these numbers supposedly represent? I haven't seen anything like this before.
),
