HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2012, 12:42 PM
  #451
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The NHLPA has come a lot closer to 50% than the NHL has come to being reasonable with contract restrictions. You've obviously chosen your side, no sense arguing about it.
go read chubros' link. in fact the PA is calling for guaranteed raises under their proposals.

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:43 PM
  #452
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
I'd like you to explain how any of the NHLPA offers have come closer to 50%.
If the NHL was interested in taking responsibility for growing the game they could actually do better than 50% in some of those offers.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-17-2012 at 12:51 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:46 PM
  #453
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
go read chubros' link. in fact the PA is calling for guaranteed raises under their proposals.
Employess asking for raises when your business is growing every year! The nerve!

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:03 PM
  #454
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,377
vCash: 500
I wonder how it would be received if there was a growing fan sentiment of "just cancel the ****ing season already, we're tired of hearing about it."

I think that would be more alarming than those who are claiming they won't go to games or buy merch anymore.

hlrsr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:35 PM
  #455
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
the players knew full well that the contracts they were signing were under the previous CBA and were probably subject to changes with the new agreement. and if they didn't than they deserve whatever hardship they get for being so ignorant.
It's extremely tainted for an owner to purposely offer money and terms to a player, knowing full well that he is doing so because it would be rolled back by a possible 'work stoppage'. The owner and player have an agreement under certain conditions. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that the context of the signing could suddenly change because one side is not happy with it two weeks after they sign it. The players are owed the terms that the two sides legally agreed to and signed to. The owners deserve whatever hardship they get for being so ignorant and callous.


Note: I'm not on anyone's side, but your statement is highly ridiculous. I needed to point that out.

The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:40 PM
  #456
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by medgett View Post
I've stayed off HF for the whole fall as a way of not getting too caught up in the frustration and anger that is the lockout. Now, I'm just too pissed off. I'm not going to say that I'll never watch a game again because the truth is that I love the sport and will continue to live and die with our team here. That said, I'm done putting my money into this league. I will watch every game at home in HD or with my buds at a pub or restaurant. I am not paying for any Canucks tickets from this point on. Usually, I attend 8-10 games a year. Additionally, I usually spend about $150/year on merch. Again I can easily go without buying any team gear. I know the rink will continue to be full and they'll still sell tons of nucks merch around town, but I just can't stomach the thought of handing any more money over to the NHL or its clubs.

It's obviously unrealistic to think that fans will adopt this strategy in any significant way, but I would like people to think about the message you send to the NHL, the owners and the players, when you're buying tickets or buying gear. By continuing to consume the product directly, you're saying its alright to screw us once every 6-8 years. As far as I'm concerned, I am quite content considering I'm going to have an extra 700-800 dollars to spend elsewhere in my life.
I hear you, but can you honestly believe that the Canucks have any remote interest in this lockout? The team, the owners, the management, the players et al. would be on the ice in a heartbeat. But there are hardliners in the Board of Governors and hardliners on the PA side. I understand you see the Canucks as a proxy to the league, but personally, I'm not sure I'd wish any ill will towards my home town team (may be irrational) as opposed to the "NHL".

Would love to hear more of your thoughts and others as I'm genuinely interested in how it's perceived as Canucks vs. NHL.

The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:48 PM
  #457
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,591
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
I hear you, but can you honestly believe that the Canucks have any remote interest in this lockout? The team, the owners, the management, the players et al. would be on the ice in a heartbeat. But there are hardliners in the Board of Governors and hardliners on the PA side. I understand you see the Canucks as a proxy to the league, but personally, I'm not sure I'd wish any ill will towards my home town team (may be irrational) as opposed to the "NHL".

Would love to hear more of your thoughts and others as I'm genuinely interested in how it's perceived as Canucks vs. NHL.
Doesn't matter when you consider that the money Canucks fans pay to the Canucks will also be going to teams like Phoenix who are in full support of this lockout. That's why I'm not a huge fan of revenue sharing that includes ticket revenues.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:58 PM
  #458
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
It's extremely tainted for an owner to purposely offer money and terms to a player, knowing full well that he is doing so because it would be rolled back by a possible 'work stoppage'. The owner and player have an agreement under certain conditions. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that the context of the signing could suddenly change because one side is not happy with it two weeks after they sign it. The players are owed the terms that the two sides legally agreed to and signed to. The owners deserve whatever hardship they get for being so ignorant and callous.
I don't disagree with you... but you could have the right way on the road, and still end up dead in a crash... If you end up dead, does it really matter that you had the right of way? The players, IMHO, have to be real careful about their "life" (or careers)... They still end up real nice, regardless of what they agree to in a CBA...

I'm all for the players pushing things as far as they can, to get the most that they can - right up to the last possible minute... I can get behind that (from both player and owner side - I hold no blame for each side trying to get the most they can, with the pressure points they have)... If Fehr's goal is to make the NHL uneasy and worried to get things for the players that they otherwise couldn't get, I support what Fehr is doing completely... It's a negotiation, and he's negotiating for the players, so he needs the NHL to be real concerned, at this point... Fehr needs to line things up and have the NHL think that he'd blow it all up... I'd even hint at "decertify"... If Fehr actually does blow it all up though (lost season, etc.), terrible, IMO... Terrible for the players, terrible for the game... Terrible for me, terrible for you... The owners? I don't expect anything else, so I cut them more slack... The owners are liars, and shady, and that's just a given, IMHO... It's not right, but that's the way it is... The owners are in the position of strength, and I think it would be foolish for the players not to agree to a CBA that would allow them to play (and continue their careers) ASAP... It would be foolish, IMO, for the players to die on their swords here... This isn't the time and place for a union to make a Braveheart-type stance... If it was for immigrant worker berry pickers who are being grossly mistreated or taken advantage of? Absolutely... "Normal" industry unions against lying and shady owners? Sure... The wins and loses can have profound affect, in the grand scheme of things... In this case, even if the players lose the CBA dramatically, the players still win, extraordinarily... If the players blow that up, I think it was a foolish thing to do...

I think the players are probably in the right... But, sometimes, so what, IMHO? You could be completely right and without fault, but also be dead - or end up screwing yourself in the process of being right... Is this really something worthy of dying (or screwing yourself) over? If the NHL was harvesting babies for their DNA, and the players were trying to stop it, willing to sacrifice their careers for it, admirable... But, get the most you can (anyway you can, within the law), of the millions of dollars available, and then get back to playing... That's my vote, as an outsider...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 11-17-2012 at 02:03 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:16 PM
  #459
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye View Post
I don't disagree with you... but you could have the right way on the road, and still end up dead in a crash... If you end up dead, does it really matter that you had the right of way? The players, IMHO, have to be real careful about their "life" (or careers)... They still end up real nice, regardless of what they agree to in a CBA...

I'm all for the players pushing things as far as they can, to get the most that they can - right up to the last possible minute... I can get behind that (from both player and owner side - I hold no blame for each side trying to get the most they can, with the pressure points they have)... If Fehr's goal is to make the NHL uneasy and worried to get things for the players that they otherwise couldn't get, I support what Fehr is doing completely... It's a negotiation, and he's negotiating for the players, so he needs the NHL to be real concerned, at this point... Fehr needs to line things up and have the NHL think that he'd blow it all up... I'd even hint at "decertify"... If Fehr actually does blow it all up though (lost season, etc.), terrible, IMO... Terrible for the players, terrible for the game... Terrible for me, terrible for you... The owners? I don't expect anything else, so I cut them more slack... The owners are liars, and shady, and that's just a given, IMHO... It's not right, but that's the way it is... The owners are in the position of strength, and I think it would be foolish for the players not to agree to a CBA that would allow them to play (and continue their careers) ASAP... It would be foolish, IMO, for the players to die on their swords here... This isn't the time and place for a union to make a Braveheart-type stance... If it was for immigrant worker berry pickers who are being grossly mistreated or taken advantage of? Absolutely... "Normal" industry unions against lying and shady owners? Sure... The wins and loses can have profound affect, in the grand scheme of things... In this case, even if the players lose the CBA dramatically, the players still win, extraordinarily... If the players blow that up, I think it was a foolish thing to do...

I think the players are probably in the right... But, sometimes, so what, IMHO? You could be completely right and without fault, but also be dead - or end up screwing yourself in the process of being right... Is this really something worthy of dying (or screwing yourself) over? If the NHL was harvesting babies for their DNA, and the players were trying to stop it, willing to sacrifice their careers for it, admirable... But, get the most you can (anyway you can, within the law), of the millions of dollars available, and then get back to playing... That's my vote, as an outsider...
So silly that people just cave to that being a foregone conclusion.

Frankly its BS.

Same as the sentiment that the players who signed contracts should have known they would get rolled back...thats a effin joke.

If I sign a contract for anything, I make sure I get that....that's why it's a contract.

Quote:
con·tract   [n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 kon-trakt; otherwise v. kuhn-trakt] Show IPA
noun
1.
an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2.
an agreement enforceable by law.
3.
the written form of such an agreement.
4.
the division of law dealing with contracts.
Obviously the players are unwilling to immmediately link their potential earnings to get to 50/50....

If the NHL came out and suggested a way for all signed contracts to get paid out in full as per the contracts signed, they'd be playing.

That is where the bad faith comes in...sign me to a 6 year deal and cry poor the next day, lock me in for 13 years, and tell me you are only going to pay me 75% of what I negotiated, I'd be pissed too, and I'd be fighting for the money I'm rightfully owed.


This is all without even bringing up the NHL's stance on contracts....what a joke.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:26 PM
  #460
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
So silly that people just cave to that being a foregone conclusion.

Frankly its BS.

Same as the sentiment that the players who signed contracts should have known they would get rolled back...thats a effin joke.

If I sign a contract for anything, I make sure I get that....that's why it's a contract.



Obviously the players are unwilling to immmediately link their potential earnings to get to 50/50....

If the NHL came out and suggested a way for all signed contracts to get paid out in full as per the contracts signed, they'd be playing.

That is where the bad faith comes in...sign me to a 6 year deal and cry poor the next day, lock me in for 13 years, and tell me you are only going to pay me 75% of what I negotiated, I'd be pissed too, and I'd be fighting for the money I'm rightfully owed.


This is all without even bringing up the NHL's stance on contracts....what a joke.
OK, but if that person you signed the contract with is now saying he can only pay you 75% of it (for whatever reason), or you get none of it... Do you take the 75% of it, or how much are you willing to sacrifice to get the 100%?

I completely support the fight... In the end, I think the NHLPA wins this fight on existing contracts, because of how they are fighting... But, if I'm the NHLPA, I don't blow things up if only getting 90% or 85% of that contract...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:43 PM
  #461
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
So silly that people just cave to that being a foregone conclusion.

Frankly its BS.

Same as the sentiment that the players who signed contracts should have known they would get rolled back...thats a effin joke.

If I sign a contract for anything, I make sure I get that....that's why it's a contract.

I am not an owner apologist, and i just want this all to end, but this sentiment (generally accepted as fact) that the players somehow signed a contract that guaranteed them payment in full is complete garbage.

The players contracts, the ones signed days or weeks before the lock-out, and all those signed under the past CBA, were signed with full knowledge that they were linked to an agreed upon percentage revenue share. A contract signed for $10 million would only get paid out at 10 million if the revenues (as the CBA defined them) were to remain at or above the level of the revenues that were calculated at the calculation point at the time of the signing (the purpose for escrow).

In other words, the players NEVER signed a contract that guaranteed them that money.

The issue here is only a negotiation over what that calculation is/was to determine revenue, and the players final salary. There is no nasty rally cry that works for me in saying "These owners signed these contracts and the players need to be made whole." Even under the old CBA, if financial downturn continued and revenues dipped (which frankly, in a world teetering on financial ruin is a likelihood rather than a possibility_ IMO), the players would have only received a percentage of their signed contracts.

And now we are only arguing over if over one third or more of the teams losing money is a financial downturn, and what percentage of the contracts should be paid out. It is clear that even the players believe that it should be less than 57 percent of revenues, meaning that players accept they should receive less salary in the future even if revenues were to remain neutral.

Based on the agreement that these contracts were signed under (that being that they would only receive full payment under certain conditions- neutral or growing revenues), and based on the fast that the players have already accepted that they will no longer receive even the old 57% of those revenues, I simply do not accept or understand that argument that the players must be "Made Whole." There is no whole to be made, except the 57%. And the players are accepting that they will no longer receive 57% (the largest portion of revenues of any major pro sport). Instead they will come into line with every other business model out there that is a comparable.

For me, it is your argument that is, as you expressed it so eloquently, "a elfin joke"

Now, the contract rules are another argument. If I were the players, this is where I would hold my ground.

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 03:03 PM
  #462
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Employess asking for raises when your business is growing every year! The nerve!
i'm guessing you missed the the guaranteed part. the PA is calling for raises regardless of how revenues are doing. damn right that's some nerve

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 03:35 PM
  #463
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,072
vCash: 500
Anyone know how many teams are currently losing money. I understand its something like 20 of them. Certainly for those teams playing hardball makes sense.

And I am pissed that the players suggest that they agree to a 50-50 split if the league revenues keep growing. In other words, teams like Vancouver will have to keep screwing the fans every year. My tickets have a face value of $185 ... which I can't afford but I have friends who will pay it. 4 seats, 45 games = $38,500 without playoffs. IIRC I had a stub from 1993 around - $30 a seat.

Infaltion in that preiod has been a total of 60%. And the teams with poor capacity can't raise their prices much, they will lose more than they gain. So it will have come from the 5 - 6 rich teams.

Sorry, the players aren't going to be playing until they accept a real linkage to actual revenues, and agree to a smaller share ... say 54% this year, then 53%, 52% 51% and finally 50% in the last year and every year thereafter.

I woud love to see a 50 game season every year but thats a different story.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 03:45 PM
  #464
B-rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
Anyone know how many teams are currently losing money. I understand its something like 20 of them. Certainly for those teams playing hardball makes sense.

And I am pissed that the players suggest that they agree to a 50-50 split if the league revenues keep growing. In other words, teams like Vancouver will have to keep screwing the fans every year. My tickets have a face value of $185 ... which I can't afford but I have friends who will pay it. 4 seats, 45 games = $38,500 without playoffs. IIRC I had a stub from 1993 around - $30 a seat.

Infaltion in that preiod has been a total of 60%. And the teams with poor capacity can't raise their prices much, they will lose more than they gain. So it will have come from the 5 - 6 rich teams.

Sorry, the players aren't going to be playing until they accept a real linkage to actual revenues, and agree to a smaller share ... say 54% this year, then 53%, 52% 51% and finally 50% in the last year and every year thereafter.

I woud love to see a 50 game season every year but thats a different story.
I agree, and that's what I find ridiculous and even ignorant about the players. There can't be a league if 20 of the 30 teams are losing money. There have to be concessions made but the players don't seem to realize this .

B-rock is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:01 PM
  #465
roach9
Registered User
 
roach9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-rock View Post
I agree, and that's what I find ridiculous and even ignorant about the players. There can't be a league if 20 of the 30 teams are losing money. There have to be concessions made but the players don't seem to realize this .
And if I'm D. Fehr, here's what I say to that:
  • The league as a whole has made money, lots of it. Without the 30 teams, there would be less competition, and less overall revenue (imagine a league with only 10 profitable teams; I suspect they would very quickly see decreased profits)
  • Players don't have a choice what team they play on; be it a profitable team or a team with a growing debt, so why should the players have to subsidize the 2/3 of the teams' losses? Again, the league as a WHOLE is making money

In sum, you cannot suggest that because 2/3 of the teams are losing money, the players ought to decrease their share of revenues, because ultimately, the league that every contracted player is assigned to is MAKING money. The fact that there are a plethora of franchises losing money, from a players perspective, is irrelevant.

roach9 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:02 PM
  #466
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-rock View Post
I agree, and that's what I find ridiculous and even ignorant about the players. There can't be a league if 20 of the 30 teams are losing money. There have to be concessions made but the players don't seem to realize this .
20 of the 30 teams may be "losing money" but the owners are still making profits. It's creative accounting. No doubt some are in dire positions, but not nearly as many as it seems.

The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:07 PM
  #467
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,792
vCash: 500
...And Ed Snider now denying original report in the Philly Daily News.

http://flyers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=645860

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:11 PM
  #468
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
20 of the 30 teams may be "losing money" but the owners are still making profits. It's creative accounting. No doubt some are in dire positions, but not nearly as many as it seems.
From everything related that's very possible, but on HRR as it's stated a lot of teams don't make money.

If the teams were making outrageous profits why would they lockout the players for a drop in the bucket amount?

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:13 PM
  #469
Biggest Canuck Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Kelowna, BC
Posts: 10,451
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Biggest Canuck Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by roach9 View Post
And if I'm D. Fehr, here's what I say to that:
  • The league as a whole has made money, lots of it. Without the 30 teams, there would be less competition, and less overall revenue (imagine a league with only 10 profitable teams; I suspect they would very quickly see decreased profits)
  • Players don't have a choice what team they play on; be it a profitable team or a team with a growing debt, so why should the players have to subsidize the 2/3 of the teams' losses? Again, the league as a WHOLE is making money

In sum, you cannot suggest that because 2/3 of the teams are losing money, the players ought to decrease their share of revenues, because ultimately, the league that every contracted player is assigned to is MAKING money. The fact that there are a plethora of franchises losing money, from a players perspective, is irrelevant.
Well said. it is up to the league to get their franchises in order and go to markets where they will not lose money vs ataying in non traditional markets. Why should the players pay for the Leagues mistakes?

As well the Players know full well that with Quebec and Southern Ontario getting teams soon revenues are only going to increase. Which is why there is this battle.

Biggest Canuck Fan is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:19 PM
  #470
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,271
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
Anyone know how many teams are currently losing money. I understand its something like 20 of them. Certainly for those teams playing hardball makes sense.

And I am pissed that the players suggest that they agree to a 50-50 split if the league revenues keep growing. In other words, teams like Vancouver will have to keep screwing the fans every year. My tickets have a face value of $185 ... which I can't afford but I have friends who will pay it. 4 seats, 45 games = $38,500 without playoffs. IIRC I had a stub from 1993 around - $30 a seat.

Infaltion in that preiod has been a total of 60%. And the teams with poor capacity can't raise their prices much, they will lose more than they gain. So it will have come from the 5 - 6 rich teams.

Sorry, the players aren't going to be playing until they accept a real linkage to actual revenues, and agree to a smaller share ... say 54% this year, then 53%, 52% 51% and finally 50% in the last year and every year thereafter.

I woud love to see a 50 game season every year but thats a different story.
That's really odd that 20 of 30 teams are losing money yet the league generates $3.3 billion in revenue. How much are teams spending?

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:23 PM
  #471
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roach9 View Post
And if I'm D. Fehr, here's what I say to that:
  • The league as a whole has made money, lots of it. Without the 30 teams, there would be less competition, and less overall revenue (imagine a league with only 10 profitable teams; I suspect they would very quickly see decreased profits)
  • Players don't have a choice what team they play on; be it a profitable team or a team with a growing debt, so why should the players have to subsidize the 2/3 of the teams' losses? Again, the league as a WHOLE is making money

In sum, you cannot suggest that because 2/3 of the teams are losing money, the players ought to decrease their share of revenues, because ultimately, the league that every contracted player is assigned to is MAKING money. The fact that there are a plethora of franchises losing money, from a players perspective, is irrelevant.
Sorry but that is an useless argument. 20 of the teams see no profits right now. The healthy teams are being asked to give money to the poor teams. And the biggest losers to the league being smaller are the players. The less jobs there are ...

The players have already lost more money then they will make under any deal by losing about 1/3 of this season. Am I suggesting that its all the players fault. No. But they had better be ready to start making realistic concessions and move towards a 50 - 50 linked split of revenues or they will lose a whole season of pay. For some of them that will be 25-30 % of their lifetime hockey revenues. For most it will be at least 10 - 15%. Lets face it, Fehr seems to be representing the existing contracts issue as much as anything else, the guys whos earning potential is in the future are probably going to see their salaries based on a 50 - 50 split anyways.

Fehr continues to try to find ways to spin it so the players are not taking a pay cut - instead of moving a little bit towards common ground.

I would be happy for the league to find a way for the owners who are willing to be allowed to honor existing contracts (or something like 95% of the contract) by giving them the choice of going over the cap for the next 5 years. Say 57 % to 50% is a 15% pay cut. Allow the owners who are willing to pay the players at 95% but only count 90% against the cap. And this only applies to existing salaries.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:42 PM
  #472
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
i'm guessing you missed the the guaranteed part. the PA is calling for raises regardless of how revenues are doing. damn right that's some nerve
I don't know about you but I get guaranteed raises. I work for a well run company that's confident in its ability to make money. They use me as a resource for that but don't expect me to do it for them or make up for their business mistakes. You know, a good company... the opposite of the NHL.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:50 PM
  #473
Elbows of Bure
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 492
vCash: 500
^ Scurr by comparing your company to a national sports league are you comparing apples to oranges? Because I bet you are.

Industry standards are one of the bench marks that unions and management use in coming to reach CBAs. Unless you're a multi-million dollar athlete who gives a damn if you are guaranteed a wage in relation to this discussion?

(By the way, good on you for getting that raise every year )

Elbows of Bure is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:01 PM
  #474
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbows of Bure View Post
^ Scurr by comparing your company to a national sports league are you comparing apples to oranges? Because I bet you are.
Not really. The competition in the industry grinds its employees in the same manor the NHL does, it's a business choice. I find that if ownership takes responsibility for their part in the business, employees are generally pretty reasonable. Employees know they need the boss to make money to keep their job. When ownership blames all their hardship on their employees, it tends not to turn out well for the company.

We get modest raises annually because my boss is gambling in his business that he can outgrow my raise long-term. Some years he loses, often he wins big. He lands the best employees because people want to work for him.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:09 PM
  #475
Elbows of Bure
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 492
vCash: 500
But is your company mandated to compete against 29 other like companies for business?

Are you in a union with all the other employees of all the other companies with which your company is competing?

What are the termination provisions in your contract?

I feel fairly confident that your situation is absolutely not analogous to the NHL's, or any major league sport.

Elbows of Bure 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 06:01 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.