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, and NHL revenues.

Decertification + NHL Pension Plan

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-25-2012, 09:15 PM
  #26
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
2 interesting sections from previous CBA:

21.1 General. The Pension benefits are set forth in the National Hockey League
Players' Pension Plan, Amended and Restated effective August 26, 1999, and as
subsequently amended, and the National Hockey League Pension Plan for Players of
United States Member Clubs, effective July 1, 2001, and as subsequently amended. The
National Hockey League Players' Pension Plan and the National Hockey League Pension
Plan for Players of United States Member Clubs (collectively the "Pension Plans"), shall
be amended to the extent necessary so as to provide the benefits set forth in this Article
21. The NHL agrees that at all times at least one-half of the trustees comprising each of
the two boards of trustees that act as the administrators of the National Hockey League
Players' Pension Plan and the National Hockey League Pension Plan for Players of
United States Member Clubs shall be appointed by the NHLPA from among its active
members or their designated representatives. The NHL will appoint the remaining
trustees. The NHLPA shall have the authority to designate the legal counsel, plan
administrator, recordkeeper and other consultants retained with respect to the Pension
Plans as outlined in Section 50.3



(b) The NHLPA shall be obligated to contribute one-fourth of the abovespecified
amounts from the NHLPA's share of the proceeds from international hockey, to
the extent that the NHLPA's proceeds are sufficient to satisfy this obligation. In the event
that the principal amount of the proceeds, not including any interest thereon, is
insufficient in any year to meet this obligation, any deficiency shall be paid by the Clubs,
provided that such deficiency shall be repaid to the Clubs out of future proceeds during
the term of this Agreement. To the extent that any deficiency remains unpaid on the date
of termination of this Agreement, it shall be canceled and the NHLPA shall have no
obligation to repay or to provide for the repayment of any such remaining deficiency.


Not to nit pick but how are these possible with no NHLPA?
If the NHLPA decertified, those plans would no longer exist in their current form. There would be no further contribuions and either a successor NHLPA (not a labor union, but an association) would take over administration or the players would have to roll over their vested pension account balances into other retirement accounts (IRAs or whatever the Canadian equivalent is).

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 09:18 PM
  #27
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,362
vCash: 500
Can someone clarify something for me.

Can't a player simply request all the negative they would lose by decertification?

ie. an agent/player could still ask for a 10year, guaranteed contract with a pension, benefits etc... correct?

It would just be up to the owner(s) to accept/decline?

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 09:42 PM
  #28
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Can someone clarify something for me.

Can't a player simply request all the negative they would lose by decertification?

ie. an agent/player could still ask for a 10year, guaranteed contract with a pension, benefits etc... correct?

It would just be up to the owner(s) to accept/decline?
Yes, just think of it as a normal situation between employer & employee. So, the better players could negotiated better terms while the bottom players would get no terms at all. Stronger markets could lock up more of the better players and the weaker markets would struggle (and likely go bankrupt, there would be NO revenue sharing). Some teams fold, and the terms for the mid-range player would now get worse. The interesting part of this is the undrafted stud prospects. You could see players sign deals (not necessarily play though) when they're 15 (not sure about this part but I dont see how this could be stopped under the labour laws).

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 09:56 PM
  #29
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
Yes, just think of it as a normal situation between employer & employee. So, the better players could negotiated better terms while the bottom players would get no terms at all. Stronger markets could lock up more of the better players and the weaker markets would struggle (and likely go bankrupt, there would be NO revenue sharing). Some teams fold, and the terms for the mid-range player would now get worse. The interesting part of this is the undrafted stud prospects. You could see players sign deals (not necessarily play though) when they're 15 (not sure about this part but I dont see how this could be stopped under the labour laws).

With the exception of some teams folding what is the real downfall by the players? Wouldn't this essentially just go back to an uncapped system? I don't particularly believe the low end players would earn much less, if the demand is $X, the owners will pay it. Can someone just clarify it for me? Thanks

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 11:05 PM
  #30
Erik Estrada
@Denis.Coderre
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post

This isn't relevant - because this funding was not part of a pension plan. Laws concerning continuing pension obligations and pension guarantees do not apply in this case.

Basically, the Senior Players who were receiving money through this supplementary fund are SOL - with both the NHL & NHLPA (who were equally funding it) equally to blame.
I posted the quote because it referred to decertification and pensions in general, not specifically because it related to that category of Senior Players...

That Central State case would suggest retirees in general, would not be affected by decertification alone. The NHL would need to satisfy ERISA’s requirements for terminating its obligations to the pension fund.

If the PA decertified and both the PA and the NHL had contributed to the Senior Retirement Fund up to that decertification date, wouldn't the NHL also need to satisfy ERISA’s requirements for terminating its obligations. Could it not be construed as some type of pension fund?

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 11:16 PM
  #31
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
there would be NO revenue sharing
Yes a normal business situation like every other business in America. How could these billionaires possibly make money in that environment, it would be a disaster. No revenue sharing because that is only something they give as a concession to players in cba talks i guess, its not something they would do on their own just for parity, the good of the league, and to help all teams make a profit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
With the exception of some teams folding what is the real downfall by the players? Wouldn't this essentially just go back to an uncapped system? I don't particularly believe the low end players would earn much less, if the demand is $X, the owners will pay it. Can someone just clarify it for me? Thanks
I dont think you are going to find the nice easy answer you are after. Perhaps all we can really know is that there would be court cases and uncertainty. It's likely not going to start off as well for the players. Until someone, perhaps one who might have otherwise made an rfa offer sheet, really gets in a bidding war for a player they need. And then trade deadline day comes and the pressure to start locking up players becomes intense and the GM's are left with no cba devices to protect them from themselves. Seems reasonable to speculate that sooner or later, players would be better off than before. But it takes messiness, time, and uncertainty to get there.

The fact the nuclear options are coming out now when they are really so close that failure to come to an agreement now will forever become a case study in poor negotiations in text books going forward should be a good sign.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 11:22 PM
  #32
Bank Shot
Registered User
 
Bank Shot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DickSmehlik View Post
I always chuckle when I hear the major 4 sports leagues talk about current players and a pension plan.

Sure it was needed back in the day when players weren't compensated like they are today but considering the millions of dollars a player earns today, do they really need those relatively pithy payments in retirement?
Darren McCarty, and Theo Fleury do from the sounds of things. I'm sure there are a lot of others too stupid to handle their finances.

Bank Shot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 12:53 AM
  #33
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Shot View Post
Darren McCarty, and Theo Fleury do from the sounds of things. I'm sure there are a lot of others too stupid to handle their finances.

Plus what about all the third and forth line players from the 70ies, 80ies and 90ies. People seem to forget pre-Bettman the average salary was about 300 thousand.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 01:01 AM
  #34
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,112
vCash: 500
Making 3 or 4 hundred thousand in 1980 was very good money.A 4 or 5 room house cost around 90 thousand.A car was around 15000.No its not what players make today but the fortunate who made that were considered rich and powerful back then

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 01:46 AM
  #35
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
Making 3 or 4 hundred thousand in 1980 was very good money. A 4 or 5 room house cost around 90 thousand.A car was around 15000.No its not what players make today but the fortunate who made that were considered rich and powerful back then
... expensive tastes thom. 1980, you could buy a brand new Ford Pinto for $3700. Loaded Baby. Hatchback. Woodgrain vinyl door panel inserts. Bucket seats. Automatic. Sunroof. 8 Track. Cigarette Lighter.... average price of a new house was like $67K. Bread was like .48 cents a loaf; Leg O' Lamb two bucks a pound. The buying power of a hundred bucks in 1980 is comparison today about $240. So ya, making $300K or more a year back then was "very good money".

Killion 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 05:09 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.