I will get you 3X earnings in damages from an illegal lockout, I will get rid of the cap, and I wll give all of you free agency with no artificial constraints on your earning power...
That is a very intriguing theory. Would you then say the end game is misjudged by Fehr or that it is going more or less according to plan?
I will get you 3X earnings in damages from an illegal lockout, I will get rid of the cap, and I wll give all of you free agency with no artificial constraints on your earning power...
You should probably add there is no guarantee the courts will rule in your favor. Stars gain to make much more, aging and lesser players might not have a roster spot anymore, several struggling clubs will likely dissolve and not be able to compete, meaning some of you wont have a job here anymore, also by the time this gets settled you might have to play in russia for awhile.
Its not all roses or any guarantee of that. If the players investigate the entire picture. Especially non star players.
Yes, because its not "vast". Majority sure, But its not like its 25 owners out of 30 are making money.
For months I have read that many question if the NHL owners make money or not?
The thinking is plain wrong.
What owner would purchase a team knowing they could earn a few million dollars yr on average operating the franchise?
The more important is whether the owners are receiving a decent return on their investment? Businessmen aren't in the charity business. Many seem to think that if a club isn't losing money the owners should be happy and all is well in the world.
You should probably add there is no guarantee the courts will rule in your favor. Stars gain to make much more, aging and lesser players might not have a roster spot anymore, several struggling clubs will likely dissolve and not be able to compete, meaning some of you wont have a job here anymore, also by the time this gets settled you might have to play in russia for awhile.
Its not all roses or any guarantee of that. If the players investigate the entire picture. Especially non star players.
And don't forget the oh so lovely perks like no pension, no insurance (meaning you break your hand you pay out of your own pockets), no minimum salary so if a team really wanted to they could pay you next to nothing for the year, no guaranteed contracts.
No because the make whole declines and eventually disappears. When it does, they would be at 50-50, provided there's no permanent escrow cap or some other unforeseeable addition to what's on table now.
Unfortunately as of now the PA wants a cap that doesn't go below $67 million and a cap on escrow. So are they really at 50-50?
The full financials of every team. It's pretty cut and dry. They don't have access to everything.
If the NHLPA/Fehrzie had a problem with the financials they were given , it might come up in the bargaining of the new CBA , or do you think That the Players are dumb high school drop outs who hired some dumb Shmuck who doesnt understand the financials given to him.
Do you really think you might be on to something here or does it support your argument.
My Dad always said dont let the truth get in the way of a good story.
By your logic, the NHLPA should take whatever the NHL puts in front of them before a game is lost --- until salaries average KHL levels.
You perpetuate this claim as though it were inevitable. How about we close off this lockout and go the nuclear route should your scenario actually happen. All the PA accomplishing at this junction is an obscene amount of lost earnings for little gain.
I keep reading that the players could win 3 times their wages in court, etc.
I'm not a lawyer nor an odds maker but ... is this a 50-50 proposition or a long shot How many players are willing to give up 2 seasons more to find out if the courts rule in their favor @ the level they desire?
But enough... let's say the players win everything they hope for. How
many franchises / jobs would be left in the NHL? Owners constantly think about improving profitability. Cutting costs are the way back to prosperity. Salaries are the owners biggest cost and with no minimum caps (no CBA/union) most teams (led by angry owners) might pay substantially lower team salaries? In the long run what do the players truly gain in court other than the threat?
What's the point of holding out for 2+ season to make 3x your current contract, when you could just keep playing and make XX over your current contract ...
15% of the NHLPA, those that would actually be affected by these changes, have a legitimate reason not to want these restrictions. 85% don't. My point is, and has always been, that the entire PA should not be resisting restrictions that only affect a very small % of its constituents.
I think the main talking point through the PA now is that the contract limits will "squeeze" everyone else but star players, in terms of money and length they will be able to get. They likened it to the NBA where there are a few guys with maxed out deals and the rest of the team gets significantly less. I don't agree it'll happen in the NHL because the NBA is a star-driven sport and that approach won't work in hockey.
David Backes also said something to the effect of, "if Crosby can only get a 5 year deal, what's the best I can get? 3?" Kind of a silly conclusion but I think these are the types of arguments they're using to galvanize the players.
You perpetuate this claim as though it were inevitable. How about we close off this lockout and go the nuclear route should your scenario actually happen. All the PA accomplishing at this junction is an obscene amount of lost earnings for little gain.
There's more to this lockout than money, from a PA perspective.
Stopping or preventing a cycle of constant give backs and CBA negotiation losses is probably pretty important for the PA.
They've already conceded a significant amount of money over time, so it should be obvious that money isn't the only concern here.
Unfortunately as of now the PA wants a cap that doesn't go below $67 million and a cap on escrow. So are they really at 50-50?
Here's the thing that many, many of the fans I talk to miss: What the cap is set at is irrelevant with the players' share directly linked to revenues.
You could have a $100-million cap and the players would only get 50 per cent as long as there isn't a cap on escrow. That's what linkage is.
I don't believe the league will ever agree to that cap on escrow, even as a temporary measure, so these arguments that the deal won't get to 50-50 really don't make sense.
What the percentage will be is a moving target based on how many games they play, what the make whole is, etc. etc. At the moment, it appears the deal will go something like 56-54-51-51-50-50-50-50 in terms of a players' share, but forecasting exactly what it'll be is impossible.
Needless to say, this idea that the players would get 57% over the term of the deal simply doesn't have merit.
I keep reading that the players could win 3 times their wages in court, etc.
I'm not a lawyer nor an odds maker but ... is this a 50-50 proposition or a long shot How many players are willing to give up 2 seasons more to find out if the courts rule in their favor @ the level they desire?
But enough... let's say the players win everything they hope for. How
many franchises / jobs would be left in the NHL? Owners constantly think about improving profitability. Cutting costs are the way back to prosperity. Salaries are the owners biggest cost and with no minimum caps (no CBA/union) most teams (led by angry owners) might pay substantially lower team salaries? In the long run what do the players truly gain in court other than the threat?
They were referencing a legal statement from another league (NBA or NFL, cant recall). That 200% over and above their salaries is an estimate of damages. It is NOT a guarantee they would get that nor is it a guarantee that they would win. So, it is a big risk. More like a bluff. This isnt a winning strategy. Receiving 3 x your lost wages due to antitrust issues has a lot of holes in it. Some teams wouldnt be able to pay it given their financial issues. This claim is a bluff. Not sure how the bottom 20% of the PA is even willing to go with this tactic.
They were referencing a legal statement from another league (NBA or NFL, cant recall). That 200% over and above their salaries is an estimate of damages. It is NOT a guarantee they would get that nor is it a guarantee that they would win. So, it is a big risk. More like a bluff. This isnt a winning strategy. Receiving 3 x your lost wages due to antitrust issues has a lot of holes in it. Some teams wouldnt be able to pay it given their financial issues. This claim is a bluff. Not sure how the bottom 20% of the PA is even willing to go with this tactic.
I find this reference interesting seeing as how if the NHLPA successfully sues it will be precedent setting within N American sports. Care to show your reference?
Here's the thing that many, many of the fans I talk to miss: What the cap is set at is irrelevant with the players' share directly linked to revenues.
You could have a $100-million cap and the players would only get 50 per cent as long as there isn't a cap on escrow. That's what linkage is.
I don't believe the league will ever agree to that cap on escrow, even as a temporary measure, so these arguments that the deal won't get to 50-50 really don't make sense.
I think most understand this. The problem is there are still people within the PA that say they have agreed to 50/50 but they haven't. As long as the minimum cap and escrow cap are still there, it's not true.
At what point do the players ask themselves, "what are you fighting for?" And is it really worth the losses? I'm astonished that they aren't pushing the man they hired to get a deal done. Who cares about who is right or wrong or who has to make the first call at this point, lets see some damn urgency if any of you truly do care about the health of the sport and the league.
Whatever happened to rolling up your sleeves and being determined to get something done? Neither side is budging, neither side is interested in negotiating, and until someone decides to take the initiative in saving this league, then I'm afraid that we are going to suffer from yet another lost season due to men in suits and ties. These guys aren't deal makers, they're egomaniacs who are trying to save face from public scrutiny. Neither Bettman nor Fehr want to appear desperate in these negotiations nor do they want to end up caving in to the others' demands.
I don't know at what point the owners and players reach a boiling point and decide to get something done without their representatives. They made that attempt, it seemed to work after the first 24 hours, over time, Fehr got more involved and talks broke down. It is no coincidence that what progress was made came to a screeching halt when Fehr entered the fracas.
At what point do the players ask themselves, "what are you fighting for?" And is it really worth the losses? I'm astonished that they aren't pushing the man they hired to get a deal done. Who cares about who is right or wrong or who has to make the first call at this point, lets see some damn urgency if any of you truly do care about the health of the sport and the league.
Whatever happened to rolling up your sleeves and being determined to get something done? Neither side is budging, neither side is interested in negotiating, and until someone decides to take the initiative in saving this league, then I'm afraid that we are going to suffer from yet another lost season due to men in suits and ties. These guys aren't deal makers, they're egomaniacs who are trying to save face from public scrutiny. Neither Bettman nor Fehr want to appear desperate in these negotiations nor do they want to end up caving in to the others' demands.
I don't know at what point the owners and players reach a boiling point and decide to get something done without their representatives. They made that attempt, it seemed to work after the first 24 hours, over time, Fehr got more involved and talks broke down. It is no coincidence that what progress was made came to a screeching halt when Fehr entered the fracas.
I agree with the overall essence of this post, but will ask you this. Who is the commissioner and who is not? Who is representing the players and carrying out their will, and who is supposedly carrying out the will of the league and owners.
Berrtman, in my mind, has a track record of making poor choices for our league. It's time he goes. I won't lie, I have always disliked him. I believe most before this lockout felt the same way. I root for the NHLPA because I think the backlash will result in Bettman's termination.
Lets be honest; Fehr doesn't need this negotiation for his legacy. Why does Bettman need it? So he can take over for the NBA?
People need to consider things other than what is fed to them via media IMO.
I agree with the overall essence of this post, but will ask you this. Who is the commissioner and who is not? Who is representing the players and carrying out their will, and who is supposedly carrying out the will of the league and owners.
Berrtman, in my mind, has a track record of making poor choices for our league. It's time he goes. I won't lie, I have always disliked him. I believe most before this lockout felt the same way. I root for the NHLPA because I think the backlash will result in Bettman's termination.
Lets be honest; Fehr doesn't need this negotiation for his legacy. Why does Bettman need it? So he can take over for the NBA?
People need to consider things other than what is fed to them via media IMO.
Sorry, but your dream of Bettman getting fired will not be coming true I can guarantee you that. Bettman isnt there to make the average fan happy, his job is to put money in the owners pockets and he's done a good job of growing the league from when he first took over.
Fehr has a history of successfully negotiating for those he represents. Can Bettman say the same? If he could, we wouldn't be where we are. The last CBA was a disaster, even after Bettman won his PR war.
Problem for him is this time he's dealing with a real lawyer. Not a snake oil salesman in a hollow suit.
