HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

If you belong to any kind of Union, let us hear your thoughts

View Poll Results: How do you feel the NHLPA is doing
Execellent, I would walk with them 6 11.11%
Not bad, I would change some things 5 9.26%
Not good, I am afraid of the direction they are going 21 38.89%
Fire them all 22 40.74%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-18-2004, 07:54 AM
  #1
hockeyhomer99
Registered User
 
hockeyhomer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dallas, Great State
Country: United States
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
If you belong to any kind of Union, let us hear your thoughts

Lets hear from the Union people as to how you percieve the NHLPA dealings..

Please only Union members and please I.D the Union


BTW.. UAW and the last proposal was a major move, but we have no movement from the owners at all


Last edited by hockeyhomer99: 12-18-2004 at 07:59 AM.
hockeyhomer99 is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 08:18 AM
  #2
dkrause1971
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10
vCash: 500
UAW-
The Owners did move a little on the cap being higher then before. I am not sure how so many post on this board feel that the owners should agree to one of these luxuary taxes. The cap is their one major chip and you know what? Maybe they really are that bad off financially and feel they must have it. We'll find out if they are willing to cancel a season over it won't we. I funny how so many so easily decide what is fair for each side when we have no idea of the majority of the information needed to decide. My friend is like "some of the good euros will leave", well hell if you don't have the money- you don't have the money.

Another point i constantly read on this board is how greedy the owners are for wanting a profit and how they clean house when they sell the team off. It all relative isn't it? Depends if they bought the team before the big 90's boom. I don't see the Gates, Dells and Allens jumping into the NHL which tells me its not that great an investment. Allen does even make money off the Trail Blazers. Rich boys with big toys is mainly it.

But back to the question- You cannot really judge this lockout until the breaking point of this season. I will believe the owners more if they cancel the season over this. Until, that point they are playing the one card they said they needed too. It will be bad negioating if Bettman didn't. As for the NHLPA- The last offer really wasn't anything longterm but got some PR buzz for them which is good.

I personally think the league in general is in that bad of shape. The NHL market sucks, the dollar is dropping in value, the economy sucks and now they don't have the expansion dollars to use toward salaries either.

Don

dkrause1971 is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 12:45 PM
  #3
jacketracket*
 
jacketracket*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ... double cream."
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,512
vCash: 500
I may be one of the few posters here who has actually been terminated from a job, due to having been nominated by co-workers to lead an unsuccessful attempt to unionize. Thanks to the NLRB, I was vindicated.

I was also a Teamster for several years.

Unions obviously exist to negotiate the best possible deal for their members. That said, good union leadership realizes when the company/industry they are negotiating with is in serious trouble --- trouble that could adversely affect the continued employment of it's members.

I honestly believe that the NHLPA recognizes the troubled position the league is in, and will eventually begin to negotiate some form of "cost certainty" (whether it's a cap, a strong luxury tax, ... ) with the league, once other concessions from the owners have been made.

jacketracket* is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 04:54 PM
  #4
Joe T Choker
Las Vegas Black Aces
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melrose/Nashville
Country: Italy
Posts: 25,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacketracket
I may be one of the few posters here who has actually been terminated from a job, due to having been nominated by co-workers to lead an unsuccessful attempt to unionize. Thanks to the NLRB, I was vindicated.

I was also a Teamster for several years.

Unions obviously exist to negotiate the best possible deal for their members. That said, good union leadership realizes when the company/industry they are negotiating with is in serious trouble --- trouble that could adversely affect the continued employment of it's members.

I honestly believe that the NHLPA recognizes the troubled position the league is in, and will eventually begin to negotiate some form of "cost certainty" (whether it's a cap, a strong luxury tax, ... ) with the league, once other concessions from the owners have been made.
I knew there was a reason I didn't like you...unions suck!

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 08:36 PM
  #5
jacketracket*
 
jacketracket*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ... double cream."
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven_Nation_Army
I knew there was a reason I didn't like you...unions suck!
Zing!!

My compliments to whoever helped you with the big words.

jacketracket* is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 09:14 PM
  #6
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
The union (brotherhood) that I work around (I am not a member) would not be happy about turning down a deal that helps 91% of the membership in favor of holding out for a deal that caters to the top 9%. The NHLPA is not really a union in the traditional sense but a collective body that allows for collusion amongst its members and those that service it.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 10:21 PM
  #7
Joe T Choker
Las Vegas Black Aces
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melrose/Nashville
Country: Italy
Posts: 25,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
The union (brotherhood) that I work around (I am not a member) would not be happy about turning down a deal that helps 91% of the membership in favor of holding out for a deal that caters to the top 9%. The NHLPA is not really a union in the traditional sense but a collective body that allows for collusion amongst its members and those that service it.
about focking time someone admitted that the PA isn't a real union

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
12-18-2004, 11:33 PM
  #8
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 32,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven_Nation_Army
about focking time someone admitted that the PA isn't a real union
It's a cartel.

Hasbro is online now  
Old
12-19-2004, 12:00 AM
  #9
Saul Alinsky
Community Organizer
 
Saul Alinsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
The union (brotherhood) that I work around (I am not a member) would not be happy about turning down a deal that helps 91% of the membership in favor of holding out for a deal that caters to the top 9%. The NHLPA is not really a union in the traditional sense but a collective body that allows for collusion amongst its members and those that service it.
Besides, aren't actual unions supposed to negotiate contracts/wages for all their members?

Saul Alinsky is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 12:12 AM
  #10
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
The union (brotherhood) that I work around (I am not a member) would not be happy about turning down a deal that helps 91% of the membership in favor of holding out for a deal that caters to the top 9%.
... and which deal offered cater to 91% of the union ???

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 03:57 AM
  #11
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
... and which deal offered cater to 91% of the union ???
I think that the point is that this argument is really about protecting the elite as opposed to the run of the mill NHL player from the union perspective. The vast majority of NHL players would be better off with a flat $1.3 million dollar salary for any player who was in the league. This is a battle to protect the minority of the union members, and it's costing the majority far more than they'll ever see in return.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 04:05 AM
  #12
hockeyfan125
HFB Partner
 
hockeyfan125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,019
vCash: 500
Unions are all that is ruining society...

hockeyfan125 is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 08:24 AM
  #13
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
I think that the point is that this argument is really about protecting the elite as opposed to the run of the mill NHL player from the union perspective. The vast majority of NHL players would be better off with a flat $1.3 million dollar salary for any player who was in the league. This is a battle to protect the minority of the union members, and it's costing the majority far more than they'll ever see in return.

Under a hard salary cap it's the lower tiered players that suffer the most. The NHL owners are trying to entice the lower paid players, but if they fall fir it, they'll end up being the suckers.

Take a look at the NFL. It's not the stars that have seen their money drop. Stars still get paid like stars, and the lowered tierd players have to split what little there is left of the pie.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 10:24 AM
  #14
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Take a look at the NFL. It's not the stars that have seen their money drop. Stars still get paid like stars, and the lowered tierd players have to split what little there is left of the pie.
So untrue. Scrubs get paid like scrubs.

The guys that get hurt are the over the hill and aging. The guys teams used to keep around because of what they used to be.

The star players are most certaintly taking less money. What would Peyton Manning be worth in a non cap NFL?

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 10:26 AM
  #15
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
The members of the NHLPA are doing the unthinkable.

Whenever you belong to a union and you are locked out or on strike it is inexcusable to take another job in your profession.

Any player playing in another league, taking a job away from another player, is no better then a scab.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 10:45 AM
  #16
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
So untrue. Scrubs get paid like scrubs.

The guys that get hurt are the over the hill and aging. The guys teams used to keep around because of what they used to be.

The star players are most certaintly taking less money. What would Peyton Manning be worth in a non cap NFL?
The "scrubs" you speak of, the 4th line 5-7th defenseman you speak of , the guys you think the NHL offers is better for, would see their salaries quickly drop to the $300K-$700K range, so that teams could afford to pay the Thornton's, Sundin's, Sakic's of the world.

The "so-called" scrubs wouldn't see the hit as part of the NHL's rollback, but it would be much worse for them, as their deals when expired would get slashed by 50% or more.


Manning contract is for an average of $14 million per season, and it included a $34.5 million signing bonus.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 05:17 PM
  #17
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The "scrubs" you speak of, the 4th line 5-7th defenseman you speak of , the guys you think the NHL offers is better for, would see their salaries quickly drop to the $300K-$700K range, so that teams could afford to pay the Thornton's, Sundin's, Sakic's of the world.
OH NO! The 4th liners would only make 300k-700k per season. Oh the humanity!

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The "so-called" scrubs wouldn't see the hit as part of the NHL's rollback, but it would be much worse for them, as their deals when expired would get slashed by 50% or more.
If thats whats being offered then thats what he has to play for, or so the PA boners always say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Manning contract is for an average of $14 million per season, and it included a $34.5 million signing bonus.
Yea no kidding. How much would he be worth with no cap?

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 05:57 PM
  #18
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
OH NO! The 4th liners would only make 300k-700k per season. Oh the humanity!


If thats whats being offered then thats what he has to play for, or so the PA boners always say.
That was the whole point. The argument is that this is a good deal for the power paid NHL guys. No it isn't, the lower paid guys will get killed under a hard cap enviornment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Yea no kidding. How much would he be worth with no cap?
Manning would be worth more, but on a on a percentage basis, not nearly as much as other players. In an uncapped world Manning would probably get 18 million or so per year.

However if there was no cap Manning, age 28, wouldn't have as much leverage because he wouldn;t have become a UFA,

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 06:50 PM
  #19
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,990
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
However if there was no cap Manning, age 28, wouldn't have as much leverage because he wouldn;t have become a UFA,
That would be the same way Forsberg didn't manage to pull in a huge deal as a RFA, or Bure or Pronger or Jagr or Kariya etc etc etc.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 06:51 PM
  #20
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
That would be the same way Forsberg didn't manage to pull in a huge deal as a RFA, or Bure or Pronger or Jagr or Kariya etc etc etc.
You mean dumb owners ???

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 07:19 PM
  #21
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,990
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
You mean dumb owners ???
The weakest link in any system is usually human.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 01:25 AM
  #22
TonySCV
Moderator
3 in 5 > 3 in 6
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
The members of the NHLPA are doing the unthinkable.

Whenever you belong to a union and you are locked out or on strike it is inexcusable to take another job in your profession.

Any player playing in another league, taking a job away from another player, is no better then a scab.
Very true. Ironically, the group in all of this that should be held in the higest regard is the officials. They agreed from the onset to honor the lockout and not work until the NHL resumes play. Too bad the players don't see it the same way.

TonySCV is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 04:41 PM
  #23
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
That was the whole point. The argument is that this is a good deal for the power paid NHL guys. No it isn't, the lower paid guys will get killed under a hard cap enviornment.
You call 4th liners getting 300k-700k getting killed? Please thats more then fair.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 04:48 PM
  #24
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
300k-700k isn't all that much when your making it for maybe 8-10 years and then you retire. Now, I could live on it, but I'm not a professional athlete in the best league in the world.

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 04:56 PM
  #25
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
300k-700k isn't all that much when your making it for maybe 8-10 years and then you retire. Now, I could live on it, but I'm not a professional athlete in the best league in the world.
well that's still 2.4M - 7 M dollars (using your figures) they will have earned by age 30. I happen to think these footsoliders (so to speak) are fairly paid as they are elite athletes in a competitive job environment, so this isn't a complaint...but I never really understand the 'short career' argument in isolation. I don't expect to retire completely by 35, and neither should they.

looooob is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:24 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.