Since the negotiations at this point appear to be about the "make whole" process, I wouldn't be surprised if players without contracts (Subban) or young players with 1 year contracts (Neuvirth, Desharnais, White) feel unrepresented. Their battle looks to be done. They are headed towards 50% of HRR by their primes, and another labor dispute in 6-7 years. The union has abandoned their fight, so their self interest might just be to play asap.
Don't forget older players and grinders that could be out of the league, because of that lockout.
I don't condone threats and sure, maybe having his integrity questioned is over the top. However, what Hamrlik said was very serious. All the union has is solidarity and Hamrlik undermined that. He hurt every other player in the union with his comments and I'm sure many in the union took personal offense to those comments.
Maybe they did, and yes maybe Hamrlik put the current committee in a bad position, except they are supposed to be representing all players, not just the ones that agree with them. If they let the process go up to having some players start questioning what they did, and having to blast or threaten them it's because they're not doing the job they're supposed to be doing and at this point asking for a vote is perfectly legitimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamp9post
It is like a political party member voting against the party. Whatever his personal intentions, he's going to draw the ire of the rest of the party and likely find himself out of that party before long.
No no and no. That's an horrible analogy. I invite you to use http://openparliament.ca/ , consult the voting results of recent bills and you'll find many examples of MPs voting against their party without causing any ruckus. This is a democracy, we're not fascists (not yet at least).
I actually read through the part of the CBA relating to playoff revenue and HRR split recently... unless I'm reading it wrong, players were getting the same 57% of playoff revenue that they were getting from regular season HRR. The notion of players making their money during the regular season and teams making theirs during the playoffs is pre-cost certainty.
Yes, that would be true, thanks. The players probably wouldn't get their full escrow payment (or any of it for that matter) because HRR for that year would be down.
Gene Principe @GenePrincipe
"I’ve been in the league for 20 years, faced three lockouts.Only 14 guys have done that. I’ve earned right to say what I think."R.Hamrlik
Good for Hamrlik...he is speaking for himself, the 150 guys who are at the end of their career, and may not play after this year, and the 250-300 who make less than 1.5M per season...the 3rd and 4th liners so to speak...
Hammer:"i'm sure Cole is happy living on his big bonus this year". ***** is getting real.
Hamrlik is the man.
Quote:
"Someone thinks I'm selfish - I might be," Hamrlik told TSN. "But it's selfish to play hockey. I still want to play with the Capitals or at least have the chance to win and go as far as I can. I think time is against us and we need to find a solution. I think that it's a fight between two groups that have too much pride. We need to find an agreement - I still support Fehr, but we as players we need to push him a little bit more and get the best deal possible."
Quote:
"Erik Cole has his opinion like everyone else," said Hamrlik. "I'm a little bit disappointed in what he said. What I do know is he has three years left on his contract and I'm sure he got a nice signing bonus this summer, so I don't think he didn't have to sacrifice anything. So good for him, good agent."
Quote:
"I've talked to the guys in the locker room when we skate in Montreal, I've been in a meeting in Barcelona this summer where we were meeting with Fehr," he expalined. "From my experience at the meeting in Barcelona, they said we have everything set up. I have a proposal for the owners, we should be okay, blah blah, blah...but nothing happened. I'm just disappointed - I know it's a really tough business, it's not just me losing money. Everybody's losing money - the sooner we figure it out, the better for everybody."
No no and no. That's an horrible analogy. I invite you to use http://openparliament.ca/ , consult the voting results of recent bills and you'll find many examples of MPs voting against their party without causing any ruckus. This is a democracy, we're not fascists (not yet at least).
You can't seriously believe the NHLPA and sports unions represent the struggle other unions are facing right now. If anything the wages and quality of life of professional athletes is directly related to the labour-crushing, finance-centric policies of late capitalism that took off since the 80s.
For an alleged expert at these things, Fehr should have known Bettman had no problem calling a lockout. If the players care about anyone else why did they wait so long to start negotiating?
Et Le But,
It has already been proven that the owners were planning a lockout regardless of how the union reacted. A fan on the Bruins board pointed out that the TD garden (in Boston) was rented out to the Romney presidential campaign. Obviously, Jeremy Jacobs had no intention of ever telling his friend Mitt Romney "I need my arena back".
This means that they had no intention of starting a season before mid November at the earliest. Probably later. I'll be satisfied with a 48 game season though, it should be sufficient for a Habs development / evaluation / tanking / transition year.
*************
On your first point, I agree. Popularity in bread and circuses is at an all time high: rising obesity rates everywhere, and record revenues every year for the NFL, for Hollywood, etc much faster than the general rate of growth or inflation.
With that said there is a lot of similarity in people's attitudes. People want wealth to be transferred from the players to the owners in the same way that some wanted "overpaid" teachers in Wisconsin to make less money, so that "job creators" can get tax cuts. The attitudes are quite similar. There's more similarity in the attitudes than the dynamics in my opinion.
With that said there is a lot of similarity in people's attitudes. People want wealth to be transferred from the players to the owners in the same way that some wanted "overpaid" teachers in Wisconsin to make less money, so that "job creators" can get tax cuts. The attitudes are quite similar. There's more similarity in the attitudes than the dynamics in my opinion.
This I agree with, and I have very little sympathy for the owners worried about losing money in what is a vanity project for many of them. The NHL has itself to blame for the inflation of players contracts and the administrators need to share some of the losses.
We live in an economy where "job creators" and their capital have significant leverage over workers who only control their own labour. In this sense the players are nothing more than workers.
But even if the pro-owner mindset is a symptom of this, this is not the battle that means anything when you look at the big picture. The players worth is already inflated to absurd amounts, and much of the value guaranteed to them by the CBA benefits only a few of the players - fringe payers stand to lose more from the lockout than renegotiation.
Furthermore, the issue in Wisconsin and the US in general is a war against public unions, where the goal is to not only build resentment against teachers and public workers who negotiated for certain benefits, but to also gut public funding and eventually privatize services like education. There's also no threat of outsourcing that killed many of the private unions in America.
Just look at this threat of decertification. Imagine a "real" union using that as a threat.
This I agree with, and I have very little sympathy for the owners worried about losing money in what is a vanity project for many of them. The NHL has itself to blame for the inflation of players contracts and the administrators need to share some of the losses.
We live in an economy where "job creators" and their capital have significant leverage over workers who only control their own labour. In this sense the players are nothing more than workers.
But even if the pro-owner mindset is a symptom of this, this is not the battle that means anything when you look at the big picture. The players worth is already inflated to absurd amounts, and much of the value guaranteed to them by the CBA benefits only a few of the players - fringe payers stand to lose more from the lockout than renegotiation.
Furthermore, the issue in Wisconsin and the US in general is a war against public unions, where the goal is to not only build resentment against teachers and public workers who negotiated for certain benefits, but to also gut public funding and eventually privatize services like education. There's also no threat of outsourcing that killed many of the private unions in America.
Just look at this threat of decertification. Imagine a "real" union using that as a threat.
This is a good post, thank you for raising the level of discussion.
With respect to sympathy for the owners, I would be on the side of the owners if they proposed a legitimate business plan that included more revenue sharing, some sort of cost controls over non-player expenses, etc, something with long-term viability. As it is, I do not support the Bettman plan as it is a flawed business strategy that doesn't address any of the league's economic problems, it will simply lead to another lockout in 5 or 6 years. At the end of the day that is the Bettman business strategy -- reduce the players to zero over time by perpetual and periodic lockouts. They got 72% from the free-market system in 2004, 57% last year, 50% after this lockout, maybe 40% after the 2018 lockout. Bettman sees the players as enemies to be beaten rather than as partners to build the business with, he would have been right at home as an executive at General Motors or at Hostess. Given that the owners have this attitude, I understand the players trying to take what they can.
I freely admit that this is partly due to my bias as a fan: I am sick of the Bettman lockout cycle.
That's what these things are about for me. The good of the game, etc. I wouldn't be on the side of the players if they were demanding an increase to 65% or something like that. However, I have been disgusted by the attitude I see here, among some posters, that the players should be grateful just to be able to bang a lot of hot chicks, that the players are responsible for the lockout, that workers should not get 50% of post-cost revenue in a highly talented field, and that the owners are the ones taking 100% of the risks and that all 30 owners should be entitled to a large annual profit.
I would not be surprised if people like Jeremy Jacobs see the NHLPA as an insult to nature, and if they would be willing losing to lose tens of millions of dollars just to beat up a union, any union. However, in general it does seem correct that the class of people Jacobs belongs to has more to gain by humiliating teachers than by milking pro athletes.
Last edited by DAChampion: 11-22-2012 at 08:40 PM.
Nothing wrong with taking another job if you are locked out.
Some of you do not get the difference between a lockout,and a strike... Yet the same people call the players uneducated... LOL.
I was reacting to Hamrliks comment in comparison to Ian Whites,Versteegs,Prust's etc. I know the players are locked out and not on strike and I know how bad it looks when highly paid players take off to Europe and take the job of a lower paid player when his bretheren are back home fighting for the cause. I did'nt call the players uneducated and I don't care to insult anyone about level of education or lack of. I have read most of your posts and back and forth arguments with alot of posters that I respect greatly on this board. It seems you have all the answers, so good for you, maybe you could send them to Bettman or Fehr. It looks like they could use more help than the few of us uneducated on this board.
With that said there is a lot of similarity in people's attitudes. People want wealth to be transferred from the players to the owners in the same way that some wanted "overpaid" teachers in Wisconsin to make less money, so that "job creators" can get tax cuts. The attitudes are quite similar. There's more similarity in the attitudes than the dynamics in my opinion.
The best part is the hypocrisy. Having a pity party for hamrlik/retirees and players making less than 1.5million while belligerently insulting players for "only making millions". Then they attack the elite players for being "greedy" knowing full well if it wasn't for the union the best players would be getting enormous contracts while hamrlik and the 1.5million dollar group would be making bare minimum. It shocks me everyday to hear everyday people who are more clued in to the situation than these so called "hard core" fans.
I was reacting to Hamrliks comment in comparison to Ian Whites,Versteegs,Prust's etc. I know the players are locked out and not on strike and I know how bad it looks when highly paid players take off to Europe and take the job of a lower paid player when his bretheren are back home fighting for the cause. I did'nt call the players uneducated and I don't care to insult anyone about level of education or lack of. I have read most of your posts and back and forth arguments with alot of posters that I respect greatly on this board. It seems you have all the answers, so good for you, maybe you could send them to Bettman or Fehr. It looks like they could use more help than the few of us uneducated on this board.
I have different priorities than Bettman, so what use could have of my answers?
I want what's good for the game, he wants what's good for the owners. His business strategy is to lower the players share through successive labour battles every five or six years. I don't think he's an idiot at all, he's no moron in need of answers from some outside expert. He has legitimate answers that are good for his clients.
Lower the players' share to 50% this time, to 40% in 2018, to 33% in 2025, etc. that's no moron's strategy. That's a good, sinister, and perfectly sound plan.
I have different priorities than Bettman, so what use could have of my answers?
I want what's good for the game, he wants what's good for the owners. His business strategy is to lower the players share through successive labour battles every five or six years. I don't think he's an idiot at all, he's no moron in need of answers from some outside expert. He has legitimate answers that are good for his clients.
Lower the players' share to 50% this time, to 40% in 2018, to 33% in 2025, etc. that's no moron's strategy. That's a good, sinister, and perfectly sound plan.
I think the players have done ok under Bettman. The players have had a harder time with the inner workings of the PA than with Bettman.
I have Roman Hamrlik's upper deck rookie card. On the front, it shows him as a freshed face rookie in the locker room. On the back, they ask him questions. One of the questions is "What advice would you like to give to kids growing up?".
His answer?
"Always stand up for yourself."
This isn't Roman Hamrlik being selfish. This is Roman Hamrlik standing up for himself and others and using his tenure in the league to express a sentiment shared by many who don't have his courage. This is also Roman Hamrlik showing that he had all he needed inside to be a great Hab. Wish we would have drafted him.
***** is getting real.
