HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Lockout Thread: I told myself I wouldn't do this| Part IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-28-2012, 11:47 AM
  #376
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick View Post
As I said, the ability of some teams to offer large, uninsured contracts "could easily affect parity just like cap-circumventing deals". It would be like the backdiving contract situation all over again.

Whether it's worth holding out for or not, it's certainly an understandable position for the league to aim for in terms of trying to create a somewhat level playing field for free agency.
I agree there is ZERO need for front-loading or huge variances in a contract.

I could see allowing a max. signing bonus which is formulated into the contract but these long-term heavy front-loaded contracts are unnecessary. The playing field should be as level as possible as it makes it a far more competitive and therefor better game.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:00 PM
  #377
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick View Post
As I said, the ability of some teams to offer large, uninsured contracts "could easily affect parity just like cap-circumventing deals". It would be like the backdiving contract situation all over again.

Whether it's worth holding out for or not, it's certainly an understandable position for the league to aim for in terms of trying to create a somewhat level playing field for free agency.
If contract terms is designed to create parity among teams, then why are the Leafs a financial powerhouse that spend to the cap ceiling finishing at the bottom of the league standings, while the Phoenix Coyotes on life support, needing revenue sharing money (to pay its players) and playing at the cap floor, playing in the final 4 of the Stanley Cup playoffs?.

If parity is designed at creating a level playing surface, how do we explain how contract terms and amounts don't effect on ice success in the NHL. ie spending more does not equal >> success or competitive advantage and the actual results in fact show the opposite occurring.

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:09 PM
  #378
Kirkpatrick
Registered User
 
Kirkpatrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
If contract terms is designed to create parity among teams, then why are the Leafs a financial powerhouse that spend to the cap ceiling finishing at the bottom of the league standings, while the Phoenix Coyotes on life support, needing revenue sharing money (to pay its players) and playing at the cap floor, playing in the final 4 of the Stanley Cup playoffs?.

If parity is designed at creating a level playing surface, how do we explain how contract terms and amounts don't effect on ice success in the NHL. ie spending more does not equal >> success or competitive advantage and the actual results in fact show the opposite occurring.
No, it doesn't always work. So should there be no restrictions on contracts, salary, and conditions? Do you think that the goal of creating a system where all teams can have a chance to pursue players is a bad one?

Kirkpatrick is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:17 PM
  #379
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
I'm not sure what your saying with your last posts?

Are you against any rules whatsoever on contracts such as variance, term, non-frontloading, retirement cap hits, etc??
No, I am 100% against cap circumventing contracts that intentionally manipulate the teams CAP situation to an unfair advantage like some of the previously signed contracts violate. (Luongo, Hossa etc).

However I fail to see how a Sidney Crosby (at age 25) who signed a 12 year deal @ $104 mil with an annual cap hit of $8.7 mil (among the NHLs highest) throughout until age 37, somehow violates the CBA or provides unfairness of the game for Pittsburgh by handing it out. In fact an Owner securing and protecting his investment long-term is in his best interest financially.

Therefore the issue shouldn't be limiting all contacts to 5 years, but rather addressing just the contracts that violate the cap by fixing/adjusting how contract cap hits are calculated for parity issues.

NHLPA couldn't care less how the artificial team cap number is effected by CBA rules, they're only concerned about how much actual money goes into their own bank accounts, and that is what they're fighting for.

So as far as I'm concerned there are two different issues here 1). Cap Calculation 2). Player contract $$ and terms. You can easily create a CBA system that controls #1, and that doesn't require the limiting of #2 through a lockout. Simply change the cap calculation formula and not the players contract to address the real issue of concern.

Mess is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:20 PM
  #380
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick View Post
I think the 5 year limit could be more of a sticking point than we might think. I believe that previously owners could only get contracts insured for a max of 7 years, but that that has been lowered now to 5 years.

Having to pay out those contracts without insurance could be a serious financial consideration, and could easily affect parity just like cap-circumventing deals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
I agree there is ZERO need for front-loading or huge variances in a contract.

I could see allowing a max. signing bonus which is formulated into the contract but these long-term heavy front-loaded contracts are unnecessary. The playing field should be as level as possible as it makes it a far more competitive and therefor better game.
Couple options:

Option 1: Give the 5 year limit to the owners.

Then

UFA status after the initial 3 year ELSC (or 2+1 ELSC) plus the length of the 2nd. contract?

So if the team signs the player for 4 years rather than 5 he's eligible after 7 years. If 3 years he's UFA after 6 years.

Some give and take there.


Option 2: Unlimited length of contracts, but guaranteed for only 5 years.

No cap relief with a 20% variance.

The insurance issue would not be there if no guarantees for contracts greater than 5.

It is not unreasonable to assume someone making 5 million one year could earn 4 million the next year.


------------------------

I think the lack of a tangible bonus structure system hurts both parties here.

Someone hits milestones / career highs going into their next contract. Setting up reasonable, attainable and measureable bonus targets protects both parties.

Allow up to 20% of contract to be bonus based on team, league and target categories.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.

Last edited by ULF_55: 11-28-2012 at 12:28 PM.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:28 PM
  #381
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
If he's meddling why would they allow him in the room? You'd think they'd have some type of Security so only those wanted/needed would be allowed in.
Both sides are allowed to bring in anyone they like to represent their side of the bargaining talks in hopes of getting a deal done.

This entire lockout is all about Bettman protecting the weaker, small market teams best interests, so Burke (despite it being against his own teams best interest) is invited in to speak to 5 year contracts because that supports Bettman's true agenda in the process, and Burke's own personal beliefs on the subject.

Burke as I pointed out can have an opinion, and even be a guest speaker on the subject, but doesn't have a CBA vote in the matter as he is not an Owner nor a Player in this dispute.


Last edited by Mess: 11-28-2012 at 12:37 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:37 PM
  #382
ACC1224
Burke was right.
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 27,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Both sides are allowed to bring in anyone they like to represent their side of the bargaining talks in hopes of getting a deal done.

This entire lockout is all about Bettman protecting the weaker, small market teams best interests, so Burke (despite it being against his own teams best interest) is invited in to speak to 5 year contracts because that supports Bettman's true agenda in the process, and Burke's own personal beliefs on the subject.
Your definition of "meddling" is pretty wacky.

As a Leaf fan, I don't see how Burke being involved can be viewed as anything but a good thing.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:46 PM
  #383
BertCorbeau
Moderator
Yelling at clouds
 
BertCorbeau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
No, I am 100% against cap circumventing contracts that intentionally manipulate the teams CAP situation to an unfair advantage like some of the previously signed contracts violate. (Luongo, Hossa etc).

However I fail to see how a Sidney Crosby (at age 25) who signed a 12 year deal @ $104 mil with an annual cap hit of $8.7 mil (among the NHLs highest) throughout until age 37, somehow violates the CBA or provides unfairness of the game for Pittsburgh by handing it out. In fact an Owner securing and protecting his investment long-term is in his best interest financially.

Therefore the issue shouldn't be limiting all contacts to 5 years, but rather addressing just the contracts that violate the cap by fixing/adjusting how contract cap hits are calculated for parity issues.

NHLPA couldn't care less how the artificial team cap number is effected by CBA rules, they're only concerned about how much actual money goes into their own bank accounts, and that is what they're fighting for.

So as far as I'm concerned there are two different issues here 1). Cap Calculation 2). Player contract $$ and terms. You can easily create a CBA system that controls #1, and that doesn't require the limiting of #2 through a lockout. Simply change the cap calculation formula and not the players contract to address the real issue of concern.
Good point Mess, I tend to agree .. Seems like there should be an age limit a player can be signed to up until a certain age, to avoid cap circumvention.

If an owner is willing to take a gamble on a 25 year old kid for 12 years, that's reasonable IMO .. It's the 10+ year deals for guys who are around 29-30 that it starts to get out of whack.

For example, if they imposed a system that following the entry contract, any player can be signed to a length of a contract until he is 35 .. Takes him to the end of his prime essentially. Therefore you can lock up your young stars for 10-12 years, but not circumvent the cap unless you really want to cut the salary later in the deal. In which the player wouldn't want to take substantially less salary while they're still in their projected prime.

The UFA age is what again? 28? That imposes a 7 year cap on any free agent theoretically, and a 5 year cap on a 30 year old UFA.

The issue then becomes what about a 32-34 year old UFA .. A 3 or 4 year max term for a UFA of this age, or older, would prevent teams from adding on and extra year or two to drop the cap hit

At the end of the day, it's a gamble for an owner to want to invest that much money and term into a young player who hasn't exactly proven much .. So to hand out that term of contract on a young player is really risky .. But as the player ages and becomes more proven the situation changes and those contracts need to be addressed in the CBA. DiPietro got signed for 15 years at age, and look how poorly that's working out for the Isles right now

Just some outside of the box thinking


Last edited by BertCorbeau: 11-28-2012 at 12:52 PM.
BertCorbeau is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 01:54 PM
  #384
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Both sides are allowed to bring in anyone they like to represent their side of the bargaining talks in hopes of getting a deal done.

This entire lockout is all about Bettman protecting the weaker, small market teams best interests, so Burke (despite it being against his own teams best interest) is invited in to speak to 5 year contracts because that supports Bettman's true agenda in the process, and Burke's own personal beliefs on the subject.

Burke as I pointed out can have an opinion, and even be a guest speaker on the subject, but doesn't have a CBA vote in the matter as he is not an Owner nor a Player in this dispute.
In one of the recent CBA negotiations, there was discusion that teams that signed players to a certain length of contract, would be bound to that contract and length whether that player stayed on said team, or left elsewhere or even retired. How anyone can suggest that Burke would be a detriment to the process, has no ground to stand on. Strange how there is discusion that contract length will be capped in the new CBA, and potentially teams being penalized for signing long term contracts in the previous CBA. Not to mention the potential trading of cap space/dollars that was also discussed.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 02:04 PM
  #385
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
Your definition of "meddling" is pretty wacky.

As a Leaf fan, I don't see how Burke being involved can be viewed as anything but a good thing.
I can see how Burke could be there, but he's just a temporary employee not an owner.

I would hope the owners and not Bettman are responsible for him being there.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 02:13 PM
  #386
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
I can see how Burke could be there, but he's just a temporary employee not an owner.

I would hope the owners and not Bettman are responsible for him being there.
What difference would it make who invited Burke anyway? People can't just arbitrarily show up at these meetings.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 04:54 PM
  #387
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
I can see how Burke could be there, but he's just a temporary employee not an owner.

I would hope the owners and not Bettman are responsible for him being there.
Well not MLSE, but small market owners who want to neuter the big market rich teams and take away their financial power, would be in full agreement to have Burke come in and try and get this clause in the CBA.

Its not in MLSE best interest to have short-term contracts so that when a UFA becomes available their $$ is not an advantage in recruitment. All 30 NHL teams could offer 5 year deals and while that might constitute parity it decreases buying power.

Big market rich teams already are forced to revenue share to keep other teams on life support alive, and need to comply with a hard cap that already neutralizes their wealth.. The only real benefit that can be gained above the hard cap spending is front loaded or long-term big money contracts that not all teams can afford.

So when a Corey Perry hits the market there is still a competitive advantage for the haves verses the have nots, reducing the bidders and increasing MLSE odds of landing a top player as something that helps offset revenue sharing costs by adding better players via UFA.

Mess is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 08:55 AM
  #388
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
What difference would it make who invited Burke anyway? People can't just arbitrarily show up at these meetings.
To me there is a difference. If Bettman brought him in to be his lapdog or if the owners advised them what their position was.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/11/28...-lockout-talks

Quote:
A report out of Boston Wednesday, by Bruins insider Joe Haggerty of Comcast Sportsnet New England, said Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs admonished a Jets governor, not principal owner Mark Chipman, in a recent meeting for saying the franchise “was opposed to engaging in a long, bloody lockout sure to stymie their franchise’s momentum and hurt the game of hockey.”

At that point Jacobs, considered one of the owners’ driving forces behind the lockout, “answered by reprimanding the Winnipeg representative as one of the ‘new kids on the block’ and informed him that he would know when he was allowed to speak in the NHL boardroom.”

...
Then the most unusual thing happened: Chipman, who hasn’t said a word under a league-wide gag order on owners during the lockout, put out a statement.

“I was disappointed to learn today of a report which claimed an exchange took place between an alternate governor of the Winnipeg Jets and Jeremy Jacobs of the Boston Bruins at a recent NHL Board of Governors meeting. I was present throughout all BOG proceedings and can categorically state that no such exchange between Mr. Jacobs and either one of our alternate governors — Patrick Phillips or Kevin Cheveldayoff — ever took place. Any suggestion otherwise is completely false.”

Like I said, maybe it didn’t happen, but the NHL’s urgency to nip it in the bud is certainly curious.

...
If the Winnipeg Jets governors, just a year removed from spending $170 million (including a $60 million relocation fee that went to the other owners), have reservations about a lockout killing their momentum and potentially setting them on a path to ruin, they better damn well keep it to themselves.

At least that’s how the old boys on the NHL Board of Bullies would have it.
I'm guessing he was directed to put out that release because he isn't allowed to comment about what is going on due to the gag order. So toe the line.


Last edited by ULF_55: 11-29-2012 at 09:05 AM.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 12:03 PM
  #389
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,513
vCash: 500
I cannot believe the idiocy of both sides in bringing the negotiations to this point. There is a clear path to a deal if they could mutually get the hell over themselves and finish this off. They are too close to let it fail. Ultimately I suspect they won't, there is too much at stake to fail.

In the mean time, I say again, a plague on both their houses.

__________________
bWo: If you don't know, you should know... Buds WORLD Order Constitution
Adj: "Squiffy" - stupefied by a chemical substance (esp. alcohol)

R.I.P. Darryl buddy... it was too soon.. too soon
Squiffy is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 03:50 PM
  #390
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
I cannot believe the idiocy of both sides in bringing the negotiations to this point. There is a clear path to a deal if they could mutually get the hell over themselves and finish this off. They are too close to let it fail. Ultimately I suspect they won't, there is too much at stake to fail.

In the mean time, I say again, a plague on both their houses.
The National Hockey League and NHL Players' Association's second straight day of meetings with federal mediators have concluded in New Jersey, as both sides tried to spur negotiations towards a new collective bargaining agreement. Sources indicated that no progress was made in Thursday's session and that no more meetings with mediators were planned. Full Story.

Mess is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 08:14 PM
  #391
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,542
vCash: 500
I heard coming home that the mediation attempt has failed, but aparently Betman suggested to Fehr that the Players and the Owners meet without Betman, Daly or the Fehrs.

No word what the players said.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 08:47 PM
  #392
p.l.f.
mvp
 
p.l.f.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 34,690
vCash: 500
im ready to give up on the season now

p.l.f. is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:24 PM
  #393
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
I heard coming home that the mediation attempt has failed, but aparently Betman suggested to Fehr that the Players and the Owners meet without Betman, Daly or the Fehrs.

No word what the players said.
This would be the biggest mismatch in collective bargaining history. A collection of professional athletes with no representation sitting across the table of people who broker deals in the hundreds of million of dollars for a living.

The players should counter by offering to play a game of shinny against the owners. Winning team gets to dictate the terms of the CBA.

htpwn is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:28 PM
  #394
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
This would be the biggest mismatch in collective bargaining history. A collection of professional athletes with no representation sitting across the table of people who broker deals in the hundreds of million of dollars for a living.

The players should counter by offering to play a game of shinny against the owners. Winning team gets to dictate the terms of the CBA.
I don't think so.

Get the face of the league in there, with a few of the guys who went through the NCAA and some guy who are on their 2nd or 3rd work stoppage. there is enough collective knowledge on the players side to deal with the Owners.


I think the players would love to see just who is infavour of the lockout.

I know the concensus is that Jacobs is a driving force, but isn't he actually losing money with no hockey?
Don't the Bruins make a profit?
So is he just pissed he isn't making ENOUGH money?

I would love to see Sidney Ask Mario what his thoughts are?

And Parise and Sutter get to look at Leipold and ask him his position on the "Make Whole" idea.

And then have Chara grab Jacobs and bounce him like his name was McCabe.

There are a few good reasons for the players to want Face to face. I don't know why the owners would want to do it.


Unless it is the owners who want to capitulate who innitiated the "reported" offer.

Should clarify again, I heard this on the radio coming home.


Last edited by charliolemieux: 11-29-2012 at 10:45 PM.
charliolemieux is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:44 PM
  #395
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,542
vCash: 500
This could have some impact.

Quote:
John Marshall
The Associated Press

GLENDALE, ARIZ.—The Phoenix Coyotes have taken a major step toward securing an owner.

All that’s left is one last hurdle.

Glendale’s city council voted late Tuesday night in favour of a reworked, $320 million arena management deal with Greg Jamison, clearing the way for the former San Jose Sharks CEO to complete his purchase of the team from the NHL.

“The affirmative vote by the Glendale City Council is an important step toward the realization of a positive ownership resolution for the Coyotes and their fans,” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in a statement Wednesday. “The National Hockey League looks forward to working with Greg Jamison to complete the sale process as expeditiously as possible.”

The city council approved a 20-year, $324 million deal for Jobing.com Arena in June, but, faced with growing financial constraints, city leaders sought to renegotiate the deal.

The council voted 4-2 in favour of the new deal, which cuts back Glendale’s payments in the first five years, gives Jamison incentives to bring in more non-hockey events and issues penalties if there is an NHL lockout. The current lockout is in its 11th week and has wiped out more than 400 regular-season games, along with the NHL All-Star Game.

The new arena deal requires Jamison to complete his purchase of the team from the NHL by Jan. 21, 2013, a deadline he was confident would be met.
One of the comments mentioned the current council is on it' sway out. Likely why there is a deadline.


I don't know how much this saves the new Owner and the LEague as a whole, but anything towards Phoenix's bottom line impacts the NHL.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:13 PM
  #396
Jerkini
Registered User
 
Jerkini's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
This would be the biggest mismatch in collective bargaining history. A collection of professional athletes with no representation sitting across the table of people who broker deals in the hundreds of million of dollars for a living.

The players should counter by offering to play a game of shinny against the owners. Winning team gets to dictate the terms of the CBA.
I agree. Billion dollar owners who are no doubt well accustomed to boardroom negotiating versus a bunch of high school educated hockey players? Yea, no thanks.

Jerkini is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 07:58 AM
  #397
ACC1224
Burke was right.
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 27,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerkini View Post
I agree. Billion dollar owners who are no doubt well accustomed to boardroom negotiating versus a bunch of high school educated hockey players? Yea, no thanks.
As a Hockey fan, I don't care. What ever gets them back to playing is all that matters.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 08:37 AM
  #398
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
This could have some impact.



One of the comments mentioned the current council is on it' sway out. Likely why there is a deadline.


I don't know how much this saves the new Owner and the LEague as a whole, but anything towards Phoenix's bottom line impacts the NHL.
How much is the leaguing asking Jamison to pay for the team? I wonder if this will give the owners incentive to dig in and possibly lose the entire season just to teach the players a lesson. With no season, the owners already are splitting 200M on the NBC contract...how much more money do they get from the Yotes sale?

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 08:39 AM
  #399
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerkini View Post
I agree. Billion dollar owners who are no doubt well accustomed to boardroom negotiating versus a bunch of high school educated hockey players? Yea, no thanks.
Education doesn't make you a good negotiator.

They won't be signing a CBA while in talking to the owners.

Their agents are a text away, and their agencies know the score.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 09:20 AM
  #400
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
This would be the biggest mismatch in collective bargaining history. A collection of professional athletes with no representation sitting across the table of people who broker deals in the hundreds of million of dollars for a living.

The players should counter by offering to play a game of shinny against the owners. Winning team gets to dictate the terms of the CBA.
Yup, there is a reason players hire agents and owners employee GMs in order to get contracts signed in the NHL because its the agents and GMs that know the CBA terms best.

There is a great level of inequality in business knowledge itself of an owner reading a financial statement on a regular basis verses a player, creating an uneven platform for discussing the finances of the game.

Mess 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 02:34 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.