The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
So the timing of negotiations starts when the players capitulate? Some teams are struggling, why is it the pa's responsibility to shore them up?
The owners took those expansion fees for risky markers, when they don't work out the owners can wash their hands of it and look at the players and say " clean up this mess, would you"?
Hmm owners put themselves in this mess correct?
Owners want to fix this mess correct?
Owners making proposals to correct this mess correct?
PA position in this negotition:
PA says you screwed us over last time, but we want to keep playing with the last CBA even though you screwed us, We want no changes made to said CBA because you know even though we keep repeating how you screwed us over we want to continue playing under it!
So the timing of negotiations starts when the players capitulate?
where can I capitulate and make $2.4m?
You make it sound like they're being abused in a coal mine or doing some dangerous task. They're playing hockey. For 9 months a year. With first class star treatment everywhere they go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan
Some teams are struggling, why is it the pa's responsibility to shore them up?
It's not.
But if they don't help out a bit (i.e. agree to a more owner-friendly CBA), there will be fewer NHLPA members in the near future. That's ok with the PA?
I don't understand why some fans still side with the players solely based on the false premiss that the players are fighting for "the average working man" against the big bad owners. The NHL has an average annual salary of 2.5 million a year hardly an "average working man" salary. The players hired Fehr out of greed and nothing more. They know they hosed the owners in the last CBA and they didn't want to give anything back so they hired Fehr. Now they must live with everything that stands for.
I don't understand why some fans still side with the players solely based on the false premiss that the players are fighting for "the average working man" against the big bad owners. The NHL has an average annual salary of 2.5 million a year hardly an "average working man" salary. The players hired Fehr out of greed and nothing more. They know they hosed the owners in the last CBA and they didn't want to give anything back so they hired Fehr. Now they must live with everything that stands for.
It's all relative, do I side with the Billionaires or millionaires? The dictators or the ones being dictated to?
You make it sound like they're being abused in a coal mine or doingrt he some dangerous task. They're playing hockey. For 9 months a year. With first class star treatment everywhere they go.
It's not.
But if they don't help out a bit (i.e. agree to a more owner-friendly CBA), there will be fewer NHLPA members in the near future. That's ok with the PA?
I don't care how much tom cruise gets to make pretend, its none of my business. If what they do is so easy, why don't you do it ?
Are you saying that someones salary is based on some inherent societasl value. If 17000 people were willing to pay you to ply your trade, I'd be the first to say you deserve every penny you could get.
Owners making proposals to correct this mess correct?
PA position in this negotition:
PA says you screwed us over last time, but we want to keep playing with the last CBA even though you screwed us, We want no changes made to said CBA because you know even though we keep repeating how you screwed us over we want to continue playing under it!
Correct?
The players area not saying they got screwed they are saying they made concessions. The players made out well under a system devised by the owners, good for them, they were given lemons and made lemonade and the owners now want to raid the cigar box for the change they belerive they are entitled to.
The last CBA, what were the two issues going in that the players said they would not accept ? What ultimately happened?
Retrospectively the players made out well, and some teams did not despite the league overall did OK. So if the owners insist on cost certainty ( which the pa opposed) and it ultimately does not work out, then the remedy is to get it again from the people who opposed the mechanism of the owners choice ?
The players didn't just accept everything the NHL shoved down their throats. They were responsible for the cap floor and the 57%, both of which were instrumental in their salaries continuing to increase. If Fehr had any interest in talking to the league prior to the start of the season he could've neogitatied a deal in a similar fashion and saved the players a ton of money, but it appears his plan from the start was to stall for as long as possible and use the possible cancellation of the season as leverage (and possibly get this thing to Court). Granted Bettman is just as terrible when it comes to negotiating and equally as unlikeable, but by hiring Fehr the PA just added to the problem and all but guaranteed another long work stoppage.
The players didn't just accept everything the NHL shoved down their throats. They were responsible for the cap floor and the 57%, both of which were instrumental in their salaries continuing to increase. If Fehr had any interest in talking to the league prior to the start of the season he could've neogitatied a deal in a similar fashion and saved the players a ton of money, but it appears his plan from the start was to stall for as long as possible and use the possible cancellation of the season as leverage (and possibly get this thing to Court). Granted Bettman is just as terrible when it comes to negotiating and equally as unlikeable, but by hiring Fehr the PA just added to the problem and all but guaranteed another long work stoppage.
The owners went into the last CBA with two demands, a cap and a rollback. The players countered with a one time 5% reduction but no cap. They left with a cap and a 24% rollback and you can say that the players won that negotiation ?
Yes they did well because if they were going to have a cap, if revenues exceeded expectations the players proportional take increases. And they did so the players did okay but this can only be evaluated retrospectively and the owners thought that this was an equitable concession, when it turns out in the players favor, the owners get to disawov the system they proposed and ask for further concessions?
The players have every right to chose who represents them, and to begrudge the players for chosing someone with experience, as opposed to someone who would play pattycake with the owners is nonsensical, especially when the last two labor stoppages were at the request of the league. Or are you saying that the league is putting the personalities of the people at the table over the contents of the proposal? If the NHL is doing this, I hope they get reamed in negotiations as they would deserve it.
