HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Differences Between the NHL's October 16th offer and current CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 12:07 PM
  #76
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
Maybe you guys should read closer... I specifically mentionned the early november offer (where the NHL said they could still fit in an 82 game schedule) where the make whole didn't come out of the players share.

As to the "walk away" from arbitration rights, how many players have been affected by that in the past 7 years? 10? So that's worth spending hundred of millions?
It seems that after all of this people still don't understand how unions work or the premise behind them.

Arbitration may only effect a handful of players but it's a right they all have, it's important to all of them.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:09 PM
  #77
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Discounting the fact that these things are important to unions when doing your own calculations doesn't make them not true. It makes you out of touch with the reality of the situation.
The problem with your logic is anyone can make up anything about honor and say that their side won. I say the owners got honor and valor and all of that because because and if you disagree with me that therefore the owners won then you're just out of touch. It's all eye of the beholder crap. I say the union was completely dishonored by having to accept a deal that ended up paying them less than they would have gotten two months ago - shameful tail between the legs moment where they were forced to supplicate themselves to ownership. It's true because I say so and if you don't see it the way I do you're out of touch.

Don't judge a deal on that kind of ********. Count the dollars.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:09 PM
  #78
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
But Tawnos used make believe math. The Net gain was $300 million. Not $500 milliom.
Nope. The HRR calculations in the first year would included those make whole payments meaning there would be less room to spend on salaries without getting it all taken back in escrow. Now the players get paid right to their 50% share plus the make whole money. The original make whole would have had a negative impact on player salaries across the league.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:12 PM
  #79
Major4Boarding
Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,652
vCash: 500
Here's some material for those Pro-Paul Kelly folks (myself included), care of one Andrew Ference

Quote:
Ference: Kelly would've taken worse CBA

Bruins defenseman Andrew Ference, who admitted on Dennis & Callahan to helping "get rid of" former NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly, said after an informal skate Monday at Boston University that he doesn't believe Kelly could have gotten the players the deal that current NHLPA head Donald Fehr netted them this weekend.

"No," Ference said, straight-faced. "We'd be playing, I'm sure. I'm sure we wouldn't have missed as much hockey and the league would have been salivating. That's the blunt answer."
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/th...tled-worse-cba

And a corresponding tweet

Quote:
DJ Bean‏@DJ_Bean

Ference calls bringing on Fehr "the smartest thing we've ever done." Adds "obviously I'm biased because I helped get rid of the last guy"
And last little piece (from referenced article above)

Quote:
"Across the whole league, one of the most impressive things when you talked to guys was that it wasn't just about keeping guys quiet -- people actually believed in what we were doing," Ference said.
"... about keeping guys quiet"... says the guy who was tweeting everyone minutes before the deal was announced that it had in fact been done. Dude can't help himself I guess.

Major4Boarding is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:12 PM
  #80
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Don't get me wrong, it is all about money.

Contract term limit

Variance

buy outs

a higher cap

pension

They gained a lot more than the 300m the owners are forking over.
Okay, you might not get it yet, but you need to get this: none of these things give the union more money. None. Not a red cent. Unless I'm wrong about pensions, because what I've read indicates that owners aren't paying any more money into pension funds, they're all funded by the players. These are all just rules by which money gets shifted from one player to the other. Bottom line, be all and end all is that the amount of money going to from owner to player is 50% of revenue plus $300M. That's it. No tweaking of any of these other rules will add a red cent to that.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:12 PM
  #81
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
This is such a brazen disregard for math I don't even know how to respond to it. If I propose you pay yourself $5, and then later we negotiate that I pay you $5 instead, you don't get to say that you negotiated for me to pay you $10. It's ****ing incomprehensible.
You do realize that the money the players were going to be putting into make whole was money taken out of their future share. That would have been money lost long term to ease the amount of money lost short term. Either way, it's money lost.

It's more like being forced to take $5 and set it aside. Then no longer having to set it aside AND being given $5 on top of it. You have access to $10 more dollars in the latter scenario than in the first, but only $5 more than if you never were setting the $5 aside to begin with.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:15 PM
  #82
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Don't get me wrong, it is all about money.

Contract term limit

Variance

buy outs

a higher cap

pension

They gained a lot more than the 300m the owners are forking over.
Buyouts come out of the PA share, if anything, I'd label it an owner win.

A higher cap with a lower floor and no cap on escrow isn't a win or a loss, it just means that there will be less parity in the league (I guess Rangers players rejoice?)

For pensions, the loss was already funded by the owners in the previous CBA, so I fail to see where's the win.

Variance? Well okay star players can get a bit more of front loading but really was it such a big PA issue?

Contract term limits? Once again affects about 10% of the PA (as long as there's a max on contracts)

If the PA didn't try for so long to outmaneuver the NHL by insisting on delinked measures (like a cap on escrow), I really believe the PA could have got this deal or something very close in november (or early december).

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:16 PM
  #83
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The problem with your logic is anyone can make up anything about honor and say that their side won. I say the owners got honor and valor and all of that because because and if you disagree with me that therefore the owners won then you're just out of touch. It's all eye of the beholder crap. I say the union was completely dishonored by having to accept a deal that ended up paying them less than they would have gotten two months ago - shameful tail between the legs moment where they were forced to supplicate themselves to ownership. It's true because I say so and if you don't see it the way I do you're out of touch.

Don't judge a deal on that kind of ********. Count the dollars.
I dont think honor or valor or any other silly notion like that have anything to do with it as much as the idea that if we just let them get away with it this time then what will they try and pull next time and the league pushed them in that direction by starting asking for the moon. Sure you can justify it as starting off hard and working to a solution in the middle but asking for too much surely had a negative impact on these negotiations. I think the players really wanted to show the owners they were willing to fight for every inch of ground they were giving up to make them hesitant to try it again. I actually think the 10 year term of the CBA probably came about from that and likely it's a win for the PA.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:16 PM
  #84
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,727
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Nope. The HRR calculations in the first year would included those make whole payments meaning there would be less room to spend on salaries without getting it all taken back in escrow. Now the players get paid right to their 50% share plus the make whole money. The original make whole would have had a negative impact on player salaries across the league.
Your incorrect. Not sure how many more ways it can be presented. You are double counting the $200. First offer 50% of HRR goes to players. Part of that 50% is used for make whole. Second offer 50% of HRR goes to players, an additional $300 million is used for make whole. Under no rational math is that a benefit of $500 million to the players. Under the second scenario the make whole amount increases by roughly $100 million, the players share increases by $200 million. That's $300 not $500.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:16 PM
  #85
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Nope. The HRR calculations in the first year would included those make whole payments meaning there would be less room to spend on salaries without getting it all taken back in escrow. Now the players get paid right to their 50% share plus the make whole money. The original make whole would have had a negative impact on player salaries across the league.
No, the original "make whole" provision did no such thing as take money away from the players. That's ****ing ridiculous. "Make whole" money would have worked like this: players take a 12% haircut now, and later that 12% is paid back to them by taking it out of future year's caps, effectively lowering the available cap space for future players. But with all players on net, the PA still gets exactly 50% every damn year.

The only way you get to add that $211M is if the owners said, "you players will pay us owners $211M, which we keep." Otherwise, you're just making a mathematically absurd argument. And I mean absurd in the fullest sense of the word. Please stop.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:19 PM
  #86
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The problem with your logic is anyone can make up anything about honor and say that their side won. I say the owners got honor and valor and all of that because because and if you disagree with me that therefore the owners won then you're just out of touch. It's all eye of the beholder crap. I say the union was completely dishonored by having to accept a deal that ended up paying them less than they would have gotten two months ago - shameful tail between the legs moment where they were forced to supplicate themselves to ownership. It's true because I say so and if you don't see it the way I do you're out of touch.

Don't judge a deal on that kind of ********. Count the dollars.
I'm judging the deal on what the known interests of the parties are. That's called reality. I'm not doing it off of opinion, but rather what the sides claim.

And I never claimed that the players won this negotiation. When compared to the last CBA, they lost or held ground on far more issues than they gained ground on. All I'm saying is that compared to the deal offered by the league in October, this deal is far better from the union's perspective. You may disagree that it actually is better from your perspective, but I don't see how someone can dispute that it is from their's.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:20 PM
  #87
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
You do realize that the money the players were going to be putting into make whole was money taken out of their future share. That would have been money lost long term to ease the amount of money lost short term. Either way, it's money lost.

It's more like being forced to take $5 and set it aside. Then no longer having to set it aside AND being given $5 on top of it. You have access to $10 more dollars in the latter scenario than in the first, but only $5 more than if you never were setting the $5 aside to begin with.
Except you aren't forced to set it aside. It's still your $5. It gets paid to you or one of your colleagues in green money. It's yours. It never goes from you to the owners. Period. If you want to keep fighting this, enjoy living in math-free world, but this is just offensively wrong.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:21 PM
  #88
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Okay, you might not get it yet, but you need to get this: none of these things give the union more money. None. Not a red cent. Unless I'm wrong about pensions, because what I've read indicates that owners aren't paying any more money into pension funds, they're all funded by the players. These are all just rules by which money gets shifted from one player to the other. Bottom line, be all and end all is that the amount of money going to from owner to player is 50% of revenue plus $300M. That's it. No tweaking of any of these other rules will add a red cent to that.
You're ignoring individual rights to earn.

5 years at 5m or 7 years at 4.5m

I get more guaranteed money and leave more money for everyone else.

5% variance vs. 35%

You say you're an economist, you should know the importance of this.

etc, etc, etc

I know you guys want the players to have been wrong to drag this out but they were not.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:22 PM
  #89
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
This is such a brazen disregard for math I don't even know how to respond to it. If I propose you pay yourself $5, and then later we negotiate that I pay you $5 instead, you don't get to say that you negotiated for me to pay you $10. It's ****ing incomprehensible.
Even if i were to look at it in your model, you cant say its net neutral for the players as a whole. Its maybe net neutral for that one player who had the contract that was affected and rolled back. But for the players as a whole, under the owners initial make-partial offer, their escrow would be based on all of their salaries, plus the what they are representing as the money that was negotiated for escrow at 57% and is now clawed back at 50%. Thats not a $200 mil swing, but nor is it nothing though.


I cant imagine anyone is trying to say the players won this. Of course they didnt. They never expected to. Their opening offer was a loss to them. So pointing out they lost seems rather pedantic.

They fought with solidarity, as a reunited union with purpose for things they believed in and eventually settled to save the season with contracting and transition rules they are comfortable with. All concessions again. Not to come out ahead. Over the life of this cba, some $2-3 Billion that would otherwise have gone to players, will now go to owners. That was surrendered early. What did the owners gain by extending the fight from that point - how much money?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:24 PM
  #90
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,727
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
You're ignoring individual rights to earn.

5 years at 5m or 7 years at 4.5m

I get more guaranteed money and leave more money for everyone else.

5% variance vs. 35%

You say you're an economist, you should know the importance of this.

etc, etc, etc

I know you guys want the players to have been wrong to drag this out but they were not.
Well no. The amount of money paid to the players on aggregate would be 50% of HRR. All term length, free agency age etc is change the way that 50% is divided up amongst the players. It has zero affect on the amount of money they are paid as a whole.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:24 PM
  #91
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
Buyouts come out of the PA share, if anything, I'd label it an owner win.

A higher cap with a lower floor and no cap on escrow isn't a win or a loss, it just means that there will be less parity in the league (I guess Rangers players rejoice?)

For pensions, the loss was already funded by the owners in the previous CBA, so I fail to see where's the win.

Variance? Well okay star players can get a bit more of front loading but really was it such a big PA issue?

Contract term limits? Once again affects about 10% of the PA (as long as there's a max on contracts)

If the PA didn't try for so long to outmaneuver the NHL by insisting on delinked measures (like a cap on escrow), I really believe the PA could have got this deal or something very close in november (or early december).
Honestly, you haven't taken the time to understand the issues or how they effect individual players.

The PA eroded the owners original position by dragging their feet until their offer was reasonable enough to work off of.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:24 PM
  #92
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I'm judging the deal on what the known interests of the parties are. That's called reality. I'm not doing it off of opinion, but rather what the sides claim.

And I never claimed that the players won this negotiation. When compared to the last CBA, they lost or held ground on far more issues than they gained ground on. All I'm saying is that compared to the deal offered by the league in October, this deal is far better from the union's perspective. You may disagree that it actually is better from your perspective, but I don't see how someone can dispute that it is from their's.
Because every losing side in every negotiation since the dawn of time comes out and says, "I fought hard and I really valued my right to eat my dirt sandwich cut into quarters with a side of rocks, because I really value sandwiches more when they're cut into quarters, and therefore, good for me."

So listen, the PA may say they got things they wanted, but they were never going to say they didn't. If you want to be objective, you don't just listen to what either side says. You look at the deal itself and count the dollars.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:27 PM
  #93
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Well no. The amount of money paid to the players on aggregate would be 50% of HRR. All term length, free agency age etc is change the way that 50% is divided up amongst the players. It has zero affect on the amount of money they are paid as a whole.
If I can get two more years, that's millions in guaranteed money to me. Millions of dollars in real money.

How the 50% gets divided inside the union and giving all its members the rights they need to get their fair share are important. Put yourself in the union... they'd be important to all of you too.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:28 PM
  #94
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
No, the original "make whole" provision did no such thing as take money away from the players. That's ****ing ridiculous. "Make whole" money would have worked like this: players take a 12% haircut now, and later that 12% is paid back to them by taking it out of future year's caps, effectively lowering the available cap space for future players. But with all players on net, the PA still gets exactly 50% every damn year.

The only way you get to add that $211M is if the owners said, "you players will pay us owners $211M, which we keep." Otherwise, you're just making a mathematically absurd argument. And I mean absurd in the fullest sense of the word. Please stop.
It wasn't fiscally net neutral. The original make whole provision was coming out of the players' share. It wasn't money "outside of the system". The make whole paid by the league in the final agreement is outside the system.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/85...-step-backward

Quote:
Management included a provision to ensure players receive all money promised in existing contracts, but the union is concerned with what management termed the "make-whole provision." If the players' share falls short of their $1.883 billion in 2011-12, the players would be paid up to $149 million of deferred compensation in the first year of a new deal and up to $62 million in the second. However, the union believes that money would be counted against the players' share in later years.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:28 PM
  #95
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Because we're not talking about their lunch money but their lively hood. One is a matter of principal, and the other is a matter of survival. The NHLPA (as a whole) gave up an awful lot of money so that a very small amount of their members can continue to get big money contracts.
These players are all doing fine one way or the other.

Are any players not going to survive because of this?

Doh Fehr, in my estimation understood that the owners were going to drag this out until the deadline.
So he played the waiting game to keep his options open. Because deep down, I think Fehr wanted to take a crack at the cap.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:29 PM
  #96
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
No, the original "make whole" provision did no such thing as take money away from the players. That's ****ing ridiculous. "Make whole" money would have worked like this: players take a 12% haircut now, and later that 12% is paid back to them by taking it out of future year's caps, effectively lowering the available cap space for future players. But with all players on net, the PA still gets exactly 50% every damn year.

The only way you get to add that $211M is if the owners said, "you players will pay us owners $211M, which we keep." Otherwise, you're just making a mathematically absurd argument. And I mean absurd in the fullest sense of the word. Please stop.

Read what you just wrote that I bolded. How is that not a negative impact on players salaries going forward as I suggested? By changing it to a payment outside the revenue share the make whole payments take up no cap space, meaning teams can pay salaries right to 50% and the players get to keep it rather than escrow get it if the make whole and the paid salaries push them over 50%.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:31 PM
  #97
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Even if i were to look at it in your model, you cant say its net neutral for the players as a whole. Its maybe net neutral for that one player who had the contract that was affected and rolled back. But for the players as a whole, under the owners initial make-partial offer, their escrow would be based on all of their salaries, plus the what they are representing as the money that was negotiated for escrow at 57% and is now clawed back at 50%. Thats not a $200 mil swing, but nor is it nothing though.
Escrow has nothing to do with this. The offer was 50% every damn year, and you can pay yourselves back later for the haircut you're taking now.

That is zero dollars moving from player to owner.

I seldom come out and talk like this, but here it is: anyone arguing that being relieved of the $211M make whole payment to themselves was any kind of victory for the players is just so dead wrong it's not even funny. You may think you're running towards some obscure, tricky logical victory, but you are knee deep in wrong right now.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:31 PM
  #98
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I know you guys want the players to have been wrong to drag this out but they were not.
That's a matter of opinion. Did they make some gains? Yes absolutely they did. Were those small gains worth waiting an extra couple of months? The PA says yes absolutely - mind you what else can they say?

Realistically, I don't know. I know the contractual stuff was a big deal. Although why I do not know, when it only affects a very small % of the members - and the line that it would kill the middle class was BS fear mongering by Fehr.

The money doesn't really seem to work out to their favor... but then we all knew it wouldn't.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:31 PM
  #99
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Because every losing side in every negotiation since the dawn of time comes out and says, "I fought hard and I really valued my right to eat my dirt sandwich cut into quarters with a side of rocks, because I really value sandwiches more when they're cut into quarters, and therefore, good for me."

So listen, the PA may say they got things they wanted, but they were never going to say they didn't. If you want to be objective, you don't just listen to what either side says. You look at the deal itself and count the dollars.
Are you eating those rocks? I'm saying look at the proposals and compare them. Don't listen to what either side is saying. Is the ability to sign for 2 years longer better for the individual player signing that contract? Yes, a longer guarantee is a better option than a shorter one. Is the arbitration award for $2.5m which can't be walked away from better than the one that can for the individual player receiving the award? Yes. Those are the questions you ask. The fiscal portion of it is removing all reality from the equation and just looking at number on a paper. It's not how things work.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:33 PM
  #100
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,727
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
If I can get two more years, that's millions in guaranteed money to me. Millions of dollars in real money.

How the 50% gets divided inside the union and giving all its members the rights they need to get their fair share are important. Put yourself in the union... they'd be important to all of you too.
I was simply correcting you statement that long term deals meant more money to other people. On aggregate the amount of money paid to the players doesn't change regardless of contract length allowed.

Yes Player A may benefit more in guaranteed money. For for every extra dollar he earns there is anotehr player that doesn't earn it. Like I said, its all about how the money is distributed, it has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of money.

I made no comments about long term deals beign fair or not. simply said that the contractual rights issues fought over has nothing to do with amount of money earned by the players.

The union fighting for certain contractual rights, it was fighting for a certain class of player. Cause if it beenfits one player, there is another player who's losing out because of it.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:44 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.