HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

What does "honor current contracts" mean to you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 02:47 PM
  #1
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,741
vCash: 500
What does "honor current contracts" mean to you?

This has been a popular term that I've seen used to describe many very different possible CBA agreements. I'm curious what the term "honor current contracts" means to you in the context of the NHLPA & NHL's CBA negotiations. I originally thought I'd make this a poll, but this question doesn't lend itself well to pigeonholing answers.


Here are some of the possible meanings I've seen:

A) Players with current contracts will receive 100% of those contracts every year of the CBA, regardless of Actual Player Share and HRR.

B) Players with current contracts will receive 100% of those contracts for some initial number of transitions years in the new CBA.

C) Players with current contracts will receive deferred compensation to offset salary lost due to escrow for the first X years of the CBA. e.g. NHL "make whole" proposal

D) HRR will transition to 50/50 over some number of seasons, but current contracts are not assured of receiving 100%. e.g. PA proposals 1 & 2

E) A portion of current contracts is excluded from Player Share of HRR, but current contracts not assured of receiving 100%. e.g. PA proposal 3

F) Player compensation each year of the CBA will be the larger of $1.87B or 50% of HRR, but current contracts not assured of receiving 100%. i.e. de-link and freeze total player compensation at current level until growth makes it 50%

G) Something else?


Last edited by mouser: 10-26-2012 at 03:06 PM.
mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 02:50 PM
  #2
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,825
vCash: 500
Players mean players get every dollar they had contracted for without it reducing their share of future profits, even if that's a guarantee they didn't have at the time they signed the contract (since their contract was then linked and subject to escrow).

Owners don't care because it's a PR phrase.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:03 PM
  #3
Inkling
Habs Bandwagoner
 
Inkling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,159
vCash: 500
They've asked for 100 cents on the dollar, which is option "A", but obviously people have to realize that they believe they are in the middle of a negotiation.

They ask for 100 cents on the dollar but that doesn't mean they expect it. If the owners want to negotiate, that's an opening for them to say that 'no, you only get X cents on the dollar guaranteed and maybe we'll index it to league growth. If the league grows Y %, you'll get 100 cents, if the league grows Z % you'll only get 90 cents" or whatever. And then the negotiation can proceed from there.

The owners can choose not to negotiate and say 50/50 and no more, but you can't blame it on the fact that the players have said "A". The players seem willing to negotiate.

Inkling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:06 PM
  #4
LickTheEnvelope
Decertified Poster
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,978
vCash: 500
G = a combination of C + E.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:07 PM
  #5
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,652
vCash: 50
to me it means players with existing contracts get the values their contracts would have had should the players share be 57% of HRR during each year of their contract.

which is a significant difference in real dollars from the NHL's proposals in the first year or two.

__________________
RIP Kev.
danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:08 PM
  #6
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,433
vCash: 500
It means the players get what they get within the framework of the CBA they are playing under at the time they are paid.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:12 PM
  #7
Deebo
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,748
vCash: 500
Honoring them as written, that is they are subject to the provisions of the active CBA.

The way the contracts were written never guaranteed the players 100% of the face value.

Deebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:12 PM
  #8
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,727
vCash: 574
The NHLPA's definition is option A by the way they're negotiating. They want every single penny that is listed on their contract. Ofcourse ignores the fact, as others have mentioned, that under the last CBA there was no guarantee they would receive every single penny, and also that their contracts had language stipulating that it was subject to the CBA which is now expired.

The fact the NHLPA wants to eliminate linkage which is what the contracts wre signed under, then somehow say the NHL is in the wrong for not wanting ot honour every penny is completely disengenuous and trying to win the PR war with uneducated fans.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:14 PM
  #9
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,060
vCash: 500
To me, "honoring contracts" means not doing anything that would go against the contents of the legal documents that both parties signed. The contracts, as signed, are built to change dollar amounts depending on the CBAs they are played under. There is no % of HRR that negotiations could result in that would make me think that either side isn't "honoring contracts." Both sides know that the dollar amounts to come depend on the CBA, the players are repeating that the owners don't want to honor contracts in hopes that it will have a positive effect on their PR campaign.

So, I guess I pick G.

haveandare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:16 PM
  #10
dougieg93
flip for filip
 
dougieg93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,003
vCash: 500
Honour them in good faith, until you are in a pinch - then you default.

dougieg93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:22 PM
  #11
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
It means what it meant at the time when both parties signed the contract. And it continues to mean that until both sides agree to sign a new contract that states something different. The players are not obligated to agree to new terms simply because they signed to the original terms or simply because the owners want to change the original terms. If both sides want to tear up the contract and start from scratch then that's another option. But I'd say that under that scenario the player should also be free to seek a new contract elsewhere if he so wishes.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:27 PM
  #12
W75
Wegistewed Usew
 
W75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,127
vCash: 50
G) It means nothing. Nothing. All the sides knew the situtation, and that situation drove the market price higher. Wihtout expiring CBA, prices didn't go that high in the first place.

Oh no.. sorry, yes it means something. Rhetorics.

W75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:31 PM
  #13
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
to me it means players with existing contracts get the values their contracts would have had should the players share be 57% of HRR during each year of their contract.

which is a significant difference in real dollars from the NHL's proposals in the first year or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It means what it meant at the time when both parties signed the contract. And it continues to mean that until both sides agree to sign a new contract that states something different. The players are not obligated to agree to new terms simply because they signed to the original terms or simply because the owners want to change the original terms. If both sides want to tear up the contract and start from scratch then that's another option. But I'd say that under that scenario the player should also be free to seek a new contract elsewhere if he so wishes.

What I believe it means to the players is that some may feel they left money on the table (hometown discounts, longer term to help teams' cap situation), but the figure they ultimately achieved was predicated on the player share range being 54-57%.

Was it silly or naive for them to have considered it in that manner? Perhaps, but the emotional response from the players seems to indicate they feel they were misled by teams.

The legality and language of the CBA cannot really mean anything other than they collectively get X% as negotiated with any current or future CBA.

There's the aspect also of seeing revenues grow at amazing rates, which from their POV requires that they ask where there's a problem. I think it's natural for people to think there are problems if they're asked to give back something they feel they 'earned' as part of an original agreement.

@MoreOrr. Bold section. Yes, their attitude seems to be that if the owners want to rewrite the terms, then it's open to interpretation on many fronts. To me, at least.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:31 PM
  #14
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It means what it meant at the time when both parties signed the contract. And it continues to mean that until both sides agree to sign a new contract that states something different. The players are not obligated to agree to new terms simply because they signed to the original terms or simply because the owners want to change the original terms. If both sides want to tear up the contract and start from scratch then that's another option. But I'd say that under that scenario the player should also be free to seek a new contract elsewhere if he so wishes.
... ya, I pretty much agree with these sentiments. The "Grandfather Clause" if you will. In this instance though as we know the % subject to change under a new CBA, something the agents & players were well aware of, though I doubt very much if they anticipated so precipitous a drop from the existent 57%, and were willing to continue playing on through negotiations. Obviously, the NHL decided it wasnt going to willingly give up any leverage with a strike option, and so here we are. What a mess.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:31 PM
  #15
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It means what it meant at the time when both parties signed the contract. And it continues to mean that until both sides agree to sign a new contract that states something different. The players are not obligated to agree to new terms simply because they signed to the original terms or simply because the owners want to change the original terms. If both sides want to tear up the contract and start from scratch then that's another option. But I'd say that under that scenario the player should also be free to seek a new contract elsewhere if he so wishes.
Good. So we agree about everything.

Because at the time of signing, the contract meant it would give $XXX conditioned upon the terms of the CBA to be negotiated. Players paid agents six figures to explain this to them.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:35 PM
  #16
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,838
vCash: 500
It means the PA is throwing out a red herring.


It would be one thing if there wasn't a provision in the contract for a new CBA. But every single contract includes that provision. Therefore any change with the CBA would mean contracts are "honored."

Renbarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:46 PM
  #17
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
The owners seriously should be making an effort to be more creative here. They should try to find a way to honor for the most part the contracts that have been made, but make serious demands with regards to how costs must be reduced moving forward from this date.

The owners shouldn't be asking the players to pay the price for errors in the last CBA. As some have been saying, in defense of the owners, the old CBA is to a certain degree history. The losses that the owners experienced under that CBA shouldn't be attempted to be made up for by altering contracts. But the owners can justify why significant reductions in costs (player costs) moving forward from here must be part of the new CBA.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 10-26-2012 at 03:53 PM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:47 PM
  #18
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,069
vCash: 500
- Legally, it means nothing, because the current contracts are bound to whatever CBA modifications are negotiated and agreed upon. If the PA agreed to receive 1% of HRR paid out in 2nd hand rubber bands, then legally their contracts would be honoured.

- In terms of reasonable common sense logic, exactly what they received under the previous CBA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
to me it means players with existing contracts get the values their contracts would have had should the players share be 57% of HRR during each year of their contract.
...
With the PA's escalator clause and escrow, this would likely be significantly lower than the nominal dollar amount of each contract.

- The players seem to define it as getting 100% of the nominal value without escrow. This was what Fehr proposed when he asked for all contracts to be honoured. Basically he's asking for more than the players got previously.

Chubros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 03:49 PM
  #19
LickTheEnvelope
Decertified Poster
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The owners seriously should be making an effort to be more creative here. They should try to find a way to honor for the most part the contracts that have been made, but make serious demands with regards to how costs must be reduced moving forward from this date.
Technically they are always honoring the contracts they made... otherwise they would be sued.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 04:20 PM
  #20
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,127
vCash: 500
To me it means that if you signed Parise for 13 years for $98M contract, you pay him every dime of those $98M over the next 13 years.

powerstuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 04:25 PM
  #21
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
I'd say that the owners should be putting three options on the table, two of them well spelled out, the other pretty much open for negotiation:

1) They honor established contracts, but demand serious reductions in player costs for the teams moving forward from here.

2) There is little honoring of previously negotiated contracts, and the necessary modifications are made in order to immediately free the vast majority of teams from yearly losses.

3) Some compromise between the two options above, in which relatively minor adjustments are made to previously negotiated contracts, and the reductions moving forward in player costs to teams aren't so drastic.

No matter how you look at it, the players will be taking a hit, either sooner or later. The PA won't like any of those choices, but at least they won't be able to deny that there are options to choose from or the option of some negotiated middle ground.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 04:29 PM
  #22
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,163
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
To me it means that if you signed Parise for 13 years for $98M contract, you pay him every dime of those $98M over the next 13 years.
And there's the rub; you see that contract wasn't really for $98M hard dollars. That's the amount it was worth at the time. The contract is actually for 'X dollars, which is modified by Y, which may vary, but right now it happens to be worth X'.

Not only can 'Y' change from CBA to CBA, but did you also know that in the last CBA, 'Y' could change from year to year? 'Y' was on a sliding scale based on revenue. If people tell you the player's HRR% last CBA was 57%, that's not entirely true. It was 54-57 depending on revenue. That's right, your salary could actually change from year-to-year as the player's HRR% shifted around. In other words, your contract was never guaranteed for any amount.

Turbofan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 04:30 PM
  #23
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
To me it means that if you signed Parise for 13 years for $98M contract, you pay him every dime of those $98M over the next 13 years.
What if you signed Parise for $98 mil assuming a continuation of 57% share of HRR, with the condition that the $98mil could go up or down with the renegotiation of future CBAs?

haveandare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 04:37 PM
  #24
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
To me it means that if you signed Parise for 13 years for $98M contract, you pay him every dime of those $98M over the next 13 years.
To me it means if you sign a 13 year contract with a team. You play with that team.

No trade demands/requests
Decline in play must equate to decline in salary per year. The Gomez/Horcoff rule.

After all if the expectation is to make the owners accountable then why not the players too?

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 04:42 PM
  #25
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
To me it means if you sign a 13 year contract with a team. You play with that team.

No trade demands/requests
Decline in play must equate to decline in salary per year. The Gomez/Horcoff rule.

After all if the expectation is to make the owners accountable then why not the players too?
so when your work output declines... do you pay back to your owner ?

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:02 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.