Agreed, I'm at the point where I need to stop scouring HF boards for new info and start finding other avenues of entertainment. I suspect I'm not the only one on these boards, but we're so dang addicted to this game that it's hard to break away.
And some of us are tethered in the HF basement, unable to escape
I'm holding out hope for this week. I think all of the posturing of late could lead to more agreements in the room.
__________________
You can take my wings, but I'm still gonna fly
it could be jobs for other people. You know that with the players taking a larger piece of the pie it means less jobs for us. Less people doing those dirty jobs as the club budget isn't there.
So pretty much the players are screwing us out of jobs.
This doesn't make much sense - if there are "less people doing those dirty jobs" how does that equate to skyrocketing non-player operating costs. Less people would mean lower non-player operating costs, all else being equal.
If non-player operating costs are increasing, which must be the case according to the NHL position that their revenue-linkage percentage that they setup in the previous CBA is no longer workable, one would be more likely to see increasing non-player employment by the club, not less. If they have skyrocketing non-player operating costs AND lower non-player employment, then there must be some other non-player line item that is massively higher now than it was 6 years ago - the question would be, what?
Also, it should perhaps be noted that the "piece of the pie" that the players receive is lower (at 57%) than what they received in 2004, albeit marginally higher than what they received in 2006 (54%). That increase from 2006-today is, of course, what the league and players mutually agreed upon in the previous CBA.
How is getting paid an average of 2.1M a year plus the best benefits of any other hockey league, getting"walked over"?
The NHL wants the NHLPA to go from A to B. It doesn't matter how good or bad you think B is. It's still movement that requires something in return that the NHLPA deems acceptable.
What is the point of being part of a collective bargaining relationship if things can be taken away from you without condition? No wonder the NHLPA is actually considering decertifying...
How is getting paid an average of 2.1M a year plus the best benefits of any other hockey league, getting"walked over"?
The same way you getting your salary slashed would be a bad thing, even though you'd still be bloody fantastic compared to some guy in say... Uganda. You can't judge these things on a comparative basis. The owners are continually asking for concessions, and offering nothing in return. Simply giving in, time after time, is the very definition of getting walked over.
The same way you getting your salary slashed would be a bad thing, even though you'd still be bloody fantastic compared to some guy in say... Uganda. You can't judge these things on a comparative basis. The owners are continually asking for confessions, and offering nothing in return. Simply giving in, time after time, is the very definition of getting walked over.
This is funny. Using a
regular persons salary as comparison as if there is a glimmer of similarity between the two. If there was, it would be the fact that both are paid in dollars.
This is funny. Using a
regular persons salary as comparison as if there is a glimmer of similarity between the two. If there was, it would be the fact that both are paid in dollars.
funny how that comparison started also. it was the crying song that the players were signing at the start of this cba mess.
Craig Custance @CraigCustance
Yes, decertification is a long process. Filing a disclaimer of interest, however, could happen immediately. Arguably as effective.
Seth Rorabaugh @emptynetters
Crosby admitted the NHLPA has "kicked around" the idea of decertifying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones
Pretty casual talk for something so potentially destructive. Crosby should learn more about what he's talking about.
I'm not as scared by the "Nuclear" option of decertifying. The past has shown us that it will be a very difficult process to pull off through the courts, I highly doubt that an attempt to decertify would be upheld in court. It's painfully transparent that this is only a negotiation tactic and not truly a desire to move forward without a union.
The players who are trumpeting this weapon right now are in for a lot of disappointment when reality hits.
So because the NHL has a monopoly in the industry, the NHLPA shouldn't demand a certain level of bargaining that they're entitled to? Sorry but that doesn't fly for me.
I can understand the anti-NHLPA argument if we assume that the NHL's financial situation is as dire as they claim it to be.
But it doesn't make sense to me to be anti-NHLPA because they're waging a battle that appears to be unwinnable. Look, I know it's costing fans games, and I understand the frustration that comes with watching the NHLPA swing at windmills, but they're well within they're right to do so, even if it doesn't work out in the end for them. Sorry but the argument smacks of fan entitlement. Perhaps it makes a little sense to direct some of the vitriol to the other side of the table, where they seem bent on taking advantage of their monopolistic command of the industry when it comes to labor negotiation.
I just don't see why they don't do cap hit = salary + (total bonuses / years). Add some sort of limit on signing bonuses, and you've solved the back-diving problem.
Because GMs would sign a bunch of players who have a lower salary in the same year as each other.
I'd be fine with eliminating variance from year to year, so the cap hit and salary is the same thing, but I doubt players would like that.
I also would be fine with eliminating a limit on contracts, but calculate the cap hit every 5 years of the deal. That would make the Parise/Suter contracts look like:
First 5 years: 10.6M
Second 5 years: 8.2M
Last 3 years: 1.33M
Nobody is taking decertifying seriously, right? It's the dumbest PR move I've seen yet. It wouldn't make sense, it'd backfire, and the process would be too long for it even to work correctly.
Come on now, people. They aren't serious with that.
Everything that needs to be shipped, which is basically everything that isn't a person's salary, is affected by the price of fuel.
Minimum wage also went up in 2008, I'm not sure how many minimum wage employees a team has, maybe some of the arena staff. But that's one factor.
The ever increasing costs of insurance and medical care.
Increased costs of energy consumption (water and electric).
Fuel costs have greatly affected the price of food, though most arenas have also jacked up the prices they charge. A lot of arenas have also moved toward other offerings than the standard hot dog, pizza and popcorn though too, as fans demand a greater arena experience (food, entertainment, staff, aesthetics) it causes the teams to spend more.
I'm going to assume that teams have raised their costs on the social media front as well.
Property taxes most certainly have increased in some or most cities where these arenas are located, not sure which if any of the teams pay those or if they are covered/exempted by the city.
I'm sure there are a bunch of other obvious and not so obvious rising costs that i've missed (aside from the previously mentioned travel costs which have to be the biggest increase).
Nobody is taking decertifying seriously, right? It's the dumbest PR move I've seen yet. It wouldn't make sense, it'd backfire, and the process would be too long for it even to work correctly.
Come on now, people. They aren't serious with that.
This is Donald Fehr, there's no knowing what might do.
So because the NHL has a monopoly in the industry, the NHLPA shouldn't demand a certain level of bargaining that they're entitled to? Sorry but that doesn't fly for me.
I can understand the anti-NHLPA argument if we assume that the NHL's financial situation is as dire as they claim it to be.
But it doesn't make sense to me to be anti-NHLPA because they're waging a battle that appears to be unwinnable. Look, I know it's costing fans games, and I understand the frustration that comes with watching the NHLPA swing at windmills, but they're well within they're right to do so, even if it doesn't work out in the end for them. Sorry but the argument smacks of fan entitlement. Perhaps it makes a little sense to direct some of the vitriol to the other side of the table, where they seem bent on taking advantage of their monopolistic command of the industry when it comes to labor negotiation.
The NHL is NOT a monopoly. There are many other professional leagues guy can go to if they don't want to make an avg of 2.1M a year and have the best benefits possible.
