HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Dreger: NMC, NTCs could be major sticking points for next CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-13-2017, 05:16 PM
  #126
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
1) Players are paid every 2 weeks, but the team would have to log where the player "earned" his salary and if it was in another state, then they owe taxes on that. I know, tax laws are long and complicated. I don't know if the state tax is game day or they do an average daily rate and tax that.
This applies for their salary, which gets paid out every 2 weeks during the season. But as you're alluding to with the signing bonuses, that would be applied against where your team is located (I assume that vs home residence). So for players who live in tax friendly cities/states, the more they get in signing bonuses, the less that gets taxed for their road games. Probably not a huge difference, but a nice perk to get when you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Positive View Post
That would also make no sense for Price to have almost all his contract in signing bonuses then. Montreal is near the top of the league in terms of tax burden for players, so I'd think that he'd want zero signing bonuses just so more of his total cash would be taxed less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
2) There is the time value of money. So, getting paid on July 1, still lets you have that money early, nearly 4 months before you take home your first pay check from the NHL since the season begins early October so the first payment is after mid October. So, Price can invest his signing bonus and have that earn something during the season.
@SH. There's that, but it's a lot more than 4 months. Price earns 15m next season - 13m is a SB. If a team averages 3 games a week, and players get paid every 2 weeks, it would take him 13 paycheques or 6.5 months (assuming my math is correct) to cover that signing bonus. Basically, that SB allows him to start earning interest on it immediately, vs waiting almost 11 months to have that same 13m in the bank. Even if my math is off, the advantage should be obvious. I mean even if he's only earning a few percentage points of interest on that money... that could add up to 100k or more pretty easily. Over the life of the contract? You're likely talking another couple million.

Mr Positive, there's what SH said (2), but there's also the fact that signing bonuses are guaranteed. Lockout? No problem - you're missing part of your salary (which on his new deal averages less than 2m a year). Turn into a crap player and are worried about getting bought out? No problem, 70m of your 84m contract is in guaranteed signing bonuses. Which means for CP, if Montreal wanted to buy him out tomorrow (66% of 14m), they'd have to pay him 79.24m out of his 84m contract. Probably not the biggest concern for Price given who he is, but it's why someone like Clarkson went this route.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
That is definitely an issue, hence why the players want the contracts front-loaded as much as possible. Start gaining interest on a bigger chunk of cash faster.
But front loaded and signing bonus loaded are two very different things. Front loading a contract has a lot of advantages to both the players and the team. One of the advantages of front loading a contract means there's less money owing on the back end. Which means as long as you can afford it, trading a player with a 5m cap hit and a 3m salary is a lot easier then trading a player with a 5m cap hit and a 7m salary.

Front loading a contract (vs signing bonuses) also means that should the player get bought out, the buyout is on the remaining salary owed - which means more money in the player's pocket.

Basically if you're a team that can afford it, you should be front loading every contract you can as there's really no downside to it - other than the budget.

__________________
I've been looking for trouble... but trouble hasn't been cooperating!
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 05:19 PM
  #127
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkhawk View Post
I think the average players really get screwed by the signing bonuses in case of a lockout. The big stars who hold a lot more power in the NHLPA then their numbers would indicate are going to be sitting there not caring if the impasse gets settled. Stamkos will have his $7,000,000. Mcdavid will have his 13,000,000 meanwhile the 2nd and 3rd liners will be losing their paychecks throughout the lockout and have nothing to show for it.
Bold 1: Except that when it comes to a vote... every player still only gets 1 vote.

Bold 2: I dunno about that. I mean I see and understand what you're saying... but seeing how the average NHL salary has gone up significantly over the past 10 years, I'd think that the 2nd/3rd liners are doing just fine. Sure they'll be impacted greater then McDavid and others who had the leverage to get every penny and advantage they could out of their teams, but these guys are a lot better off then they were 10 years ago.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 08:32 PM
  #128
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CokenoPepsi View Post
What does signing bonus really matter to the owners? I can understand them being pissed so many players getting them in lockout years as they have to pay out no matter what, but what about in other years?
Some thoughts:
1) It's getting paid at a time when they the owners are getting little cash flow coming in. Which means they're either losing out on the interest that money would be generating (assuming they have it and it's sitting in an account somewhere) or they're paying fee's if they're borrowing said money on their line of credit.
2) It's buyout guaranteed.
3) It can be a hindrance to move the player down the road if they have a heavy bonus laden contract. Or they have to hold onto the player, pay them (potentially) million(s) only to trade them the next day.
4) Lockout protection - they get paid it no matter what.

If I was the owner writing the cheques, I'd hate signing bonuses - for almost the same reasons the players want/love them. Just with the added issue that having a player with said bonuses in their contract could also cause issues trying to trade them later.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2017, 04:23 PM
  #129
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Some thoughts:
1) It's getting paid at a time when they the owners are getting little cash flow coming in. Which means they're either losing out on the interest that money would be generating (assuming they have it and it's sitting in an account somewhere) or they're paying fee's if they're borrowing said money on their line of credit.
2) It's buyout guaranteed.
3) It can be a hindrance to move the player down the road if they have a heavy bonus laden contract. Or they have to hold onto the player, pay them (potentially) million(s) only to trade them the next day.
4) Lockout protection - they get paid it no matter what.

If I was the owner writing the cheques, I'd hate signing bonuses - for almost the same reasons the players want/love them. Just with the added issue that having a player with said bonuses in their contract could also cause issues trying to trade them later.
The expectation should be for the team, that if you have to structure a contract that is signing bonus loaded, it should be reserved for your top players. Thus, you don't anticipate having to trade them, at least not anytime soon.

It does help the large market teams so that down the road, should that player's game begin to tapper off, they can move a $6 million cap hit for 2 more years with only $7 million or so real money having to be paid by the other team. If you "Bernier" a player, like the Leafs, who paid him his $2 million bonus on July 1, but then dealt him to Anaheim on like the 3rd, the Ducks only had to pay him $2 million and take the full $4.15 million cap hit. Same with Loui Eriksson, so that if the Canucks trade him after July 1, 2020, they paid his signing bonus for year #5, thus he only has his year 5-6 salary to be paid, plus any signing bonus for year 6. That could be only $7 million total. So, that team would have to assess whether he's worth $3.5 million cash per year when deciding to take him on or not.

Street Hawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2017, 10:55 AM
  #130
Spydey629
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
You're going to a see a lot more signing bonuses mentioned from here to the end of the CBA. The GMs and agents have figured this out as a loophole in the cap. Player X gets a long term contract, but the money is paid out now as a bonus, so they literally have money in the bank come a lockout.

Separately, I have to wonder if creative thinking is needed to bridge all the issues everyone has brought up here:

* As armchair GMs, we all like to see player movement. Well, that's why the long-term contracts, NMCs/NTCs are such a big deal. You could argue that getting rid of all the above is in the fans best interest.

* That said, fans of good teams want to see their teams keep their good players, which is why we have long-term deals and the no-trades in the first place.

Just some brainstorming:

*What if the compromise was a hybrid of all? Long-term deals stay at the 7/8 year caps they have, but a player can only have a NMC on the first 3-4 years?

*OR, as someone mentioned, and with Fehr in charge, why not do a MLB style veteran veto 10-5 rule, and eliminate the NMC altogether?

*Finally, if they keep the clauses, why not cap those? 5 per team? 6?

These really seem like bridgeable issues. I really don't want to be thinking about a lockout for another four years...

Spydey629 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 11:11 PM
  #131
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,777
vCash: 500
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/3...ne-still-open/

Friedman
Quote:
I’ve spent a bit of time thinking about what’s going on in the NHLPA, after writing a few things about it during the year. Both the players and owners have the option in 2019 to re-open the CBA before the 2020–21 season. Right now, it’s 100 per cent that the players do it. Escrow and the Olympics are major issues for them.

As I get older, I’m not interested in the rhetoric and politics. We’ve heard it before — it never changes. My only concern is a solution. The Canadian dollar had a slight uptick this week, which is very nice for the cap, but no one is expecting a significant climb. If my math is correct, our loonie is down 25 per cent since before the 2012-13 lockout, while Hockey Related Revenue is up 15 per cent (in U.S. dollars) since the stoppage ended. (One source indicated overall league revenues were up nine per cent from last season to this one, as measured in local currency.)

So there’s growth — many businesses would be happy increasing nine per cent per year — but the Canadian dollar poses a problem other leagues don’t have.

There are at least two major upcoming opportunities for the NHL and its players. The first is international hockey. South Korea is out, but the move into China is underway. Both sides talk about how important it is, so you can’t stress enough how it must be done right. Second is the U.S. television deal. It is up in four years, but I wonder if it even gets that far before a new one is negotiated.
...
Yes, I think that having the big names like Price, Crosby, McDavid, etc., in the room, would go a long way to help with negotiations. (Now, would those guys be willing to take time out to do that?)



LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 11:37 AM
  #132
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/3...ne-still-open/

Friedman


Yes, I think that having the big names like Price, Crosby, McDavid, etc., in the room, would go a long way to help with negotiations. (Now, would those guys be willing to take time out to do that?)
LeBron, through his non-basketball ventures knows what kind of value he brings to a venture. Same with the other top NBA players given the value of their endorsement deals and outside businesses. They know that the players make the NBA.

Do NHL players have that same insight? Not as if the star players exert influence over the rules committee to allow them to shine. Not sure they have it in them to do that.

Street Hawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 11:43 AM
  #133
Steve
Registered User
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
There will be lockouts every single time until the owners have complete control with how contracts are handed out. ie. Signing bonuses, NMC/NTC and restrictions on years. Don't be surprised to see guaranteed contracts start to make its way out also.

Players have lost every lockout and will continue to, owners know this and will exploit it as long as they keep winning IMO.

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 03:56 PM
  #134
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
There will be lockouts every single time until the owners have complete control with how contracts are handed out. ie. Signing bonuses, NMC/NTC and restrictions on years. Don't be surprised to see guaranteed contracts start to make its way out also.

Players have lost every lockout and will continue to, owners know this and will exploit it as long as they keep winning IMO.
Have to think there might be some fan backlash if they push too far.

(Which hasn't happened yet, to Bettman's delight.)

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 07:39 PM
  #135
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
There will be lockouts every single time until the owners have complete control with how contracts are handed out. ie. Signing bonuses, NMC/NTC and restrictions on years. Don't be surprised to see guaranteed contracts start to make its way out also.

Players have lost every lockout and will continue to, owners know this and will exploit it as long as they keep winning IMO.
There needs to be a strike then.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 09:22 PM
  #136
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 31,000
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Have to think there might be some fan backlash if they push too far.

(Which hasn't happened yet, to Bettman's delight.)
The players have lost every time because they have been on the wrong side. Fans recognised this, players eventually did too.

I'm not convinced the players will lose the next time around, most people think the NHL has reset the balance. If the NHL tries to push it too far next time they will be seen as the greedy ones.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 09:32 PM
  #137
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 31,000
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
There needs to be a strike then.
A strike and a lockout are basically the same, no pay (players) and no sales (NHL). If the NHL really wanted something it'd be just as happy with a strike as a lockout - still a waiting game for one side to crack. There is reason to strike/lockout is to get the other side to give up something (ie lockouts because they NHL wants profit sharing/cap, players have more to lose), usually the side that thinks it gains more from it initiates it.

I don't see the point of the players initiating a strike. What are they going to be getting? The few small changes are not worth losing a years pay over even if they win. They are not going to overturn the cap, they already lost that fight. HRR split seems equitable. The seem happy with RFA/ELCs, older players get more pay that way.

Both sides have no reason not to get an outcome long before the old CBA dies.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 12:08 AM
  #138
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
There will be lockouts every single time until the owners have complete control with how contracts are handed out. ie. Signing bonuses, NMC/NTC and restrictions on years. Don't be surprised to see guaranteed contracts start to make its way out also.
I think getting rid of all of that would be much better for the sport and the fans (especially getting rid of guaranteed contracts)

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 12:32 AM
  #139
Noldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
I think getting rid of all of that would be much better for the sport and the fans (especially getting rid of guaranteed contracts)
I don't think that the League even wants to get rid of guaranteed contracts. There are still old guard around who remember the constant hold-outs of the nineties. There is a reason that 2005 CBA stipulated that contracts cannot be renegotiated and it is not a concession won by the players. The owners would have more to lose (financially) than to gain by giving up the non-renegotiable contracts.

Noldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 08:07 AM
  #140
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
I think getting rid of all of that would be much better for the sport and the fans (especially getting rid of guaranteed contracts)
Both ways?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noldo View Post
I don't think that the League even wants to get rid of guaranteed contracts. There are still old guard around who remember the constant hold-outs of the nineties. There is a reason that 2005 CBA stipulated that contracts cannot be renegotiated and it is not a concession won by the players. The owners would have more to lose (financially) than to gain by giving up the non-renegotiable contracts.
Bingo.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 08:13 AM
  #141
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,519
vCash: 500
And I need an explanation for that :

Suppose a player really, really doesn't want to be traded somewhere, let's say Islanders (there's a reason for that specific choice). Naturally, he'd put that place on his no-trade list, so he isn't traded up to Islanders.

But he cannot do that in the new regime. And he's traded up to Islanders. Show up, doesn't care. Plays a bit. Hold out. Takes his **** and go back home, with his caphit. Islanders are stuck with the guy and have to trade him. Said player doesn't really care about not being paid, because it's not like he didn't do any money in his career and is otherwise 30 years old. He even has some of his salary paid as a July 1st bonus.

How on Earth would that not have been preferable for everyone involved to have that NTC attached to the deal in the first place?

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 08:39 AM
  #142
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
And I need an explanation for that :

Suppose a player really, really doesn't want to be traded somewhere, let's say Islanders (there's a reason for that specific choice). Naturally, he'd put that place on his no-trade list, so he isn't traded up to Islanders.

But he cannot do that in the new regime. And he's traded up to Islanders. Show up, doesn't care. Plays a bit. Hold out. Takes his **** and go back home, with his caphit. Islanders are stuck with the guy and have to trade him. Said player doesn't really care about not being paid, because it's not like he didn't do any money in his career and is otherwise 30 years old. He even has some of his salary paid as a July 1st bonus.

How on Earth would that not have been preferable for everyone involved to have that NTC attached to the deal in the first place?
Not necessarily. Team can sue for breach of contract, get contract voided. As he's 30 there's no continuing cap hit to worry about.

But if he's really upset, it's in the team's best interest to trade him (even for the proverbial bag of pucks). NTC just equals control over where. No NTC = good luck sucker.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 09:33 AM
  #143
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Not necessarily. Team can sue for breach of contract, get contract voided. As he's 30 there's no continuing cap hit to worry about.

But if he's really upset, it's in the team's best interest to trade him (even for the proverbial bag of pucks). NTC just equals control over where. No NTC = good luck sucker.
... Voiding the contract would basically equal trading him for a pierced bag of pucks devoid of pucks.

In the example, the acquiring team gave assets to acquire a player who didn't want to be there in the first place. Assets they wouldn't have given for a player whom they couldn't have acquired, should that player had an NTC/NMC.

From my perspective, NTCs/NMCs basically make sure that the above doesn't happen.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 09:50 AM
  #144
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Both ways.
My comment referenced improving things for the sport/fans...I can't imagine caring less about the players/owners (they're privileged/fortunate and I don't see them nor can I imagine them as suffering/hard done by in any way)


EDIT - I'm not thinking of the effect on specific players/now, and I'm not looking at it as if it has to be a victory/loss situation between the players/owners, I'm thinking long term and for the benefit of hockey (players/owners and fans) and not just the players/owners, with the idea being benefiting the fans will positively affect the business long term and overall

I think in the entertainment field, with massive amounts of money involved, you should be able to "cut your losses" if a player doesn't perform anywhere near what the money says they should; I can't think of any other entertainment in my life (CDs, movies, local events/sports, etc) where I'm obligated for years to pay for something long after its value has majorly diminished


Last edited by Nino33: 07-18-2017 at 10:55 AM.
Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 09:57 AM
  #145
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noldo View Post
I don't think that the League even wants to get rid of guaranteed contracts. There are still old guard around who remember the constant hold-outs of the nineties. There is a reason that 2005 CBA stipulated that contracts cannot be renegotiated and it is not a concession won by the players. The owners would have more to lose (financially) than to gain by giving up the non-renegotiable contracts.
I recall the decade of hockey but I don't recall the "constant" hold outs in the 90s

Do you mean they held out and actually missed regular season games?
So over the decade hundreds of players held out? Dozens? A handful? I'd think constant would mean hundreds...I honestly don't recall hold outs being so constant/relevant

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 10:41 AM
  #146
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
The Canadian teams and Buffalo will always be at an disadvantage as long as NTCs/NMCs are around. A lot of players don't want to play in Canada.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 12:09 PM
  #147
tsanuri
Moderator
 
tsanuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Lompoc CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
The Canadian teams and Buffalo will always be at an disadvantage as long as NTCs/NMCs are around. A lot of players don't want to play in Canada.
Where there are players that feel this way overall it's crap. There are reasons to not want to play in nearly every market if you ask the fans of those teams. But what it seems to usually come down to is are the teams successful.

tsanuri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 01:33 PM
  #148
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
My comment referenced improving things for the sport/fans...I can't imagine caring less about the players/owners (they're privileged/fortunate and I don't see them nor can I imagine them as suffering/hard done by in any way)


EDIT - I'm not thinking of the effect on specific players/now, and I'm not looking at it as if it has to be a victory/loss situation between the players/owners, I'm thinking long term and for the benefit of hockey (players/owners and fans) and not just the players/owners, with the idea being benefiting the fans will positively affect the business long term and overall

I think in the entertainment field, with massive amounts of money involved, you should be able to "cut your losses" if a player doesn't perform anywhere near what the money says they should; I can't think of any other entertainment in my life (CDs, movies, local events/sports, etc) where I'm obligated for years to pay for something long after its value has majorly diminished
And if a player feels he isn't being paid like he deserves to be, and like he would be paid on the open market, is he allowed to "cut his losses" ?

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 01:59 PM
  #149
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsanuri View Post
Where there are players that feel this way overall it's crap. There are reasons to not want to play in nearly every market if you ask the fans of those teams. But what it seems to usually come down to is are the teams successful.
If that was true, it would not be almost 25 years since a Canadian team won the cup.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2017, 02:03 PM
  #150
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
And if a player feels he isn't being paid like he deserves to be, and like he would be paid on the open market, is he allowed to "cut his losses" ?
#1 I said I was thinking of the betterment of the sport and for the fans...how does even more power for players = a better sport/better situation for fans? It doesn't (what are you, a player agent?)

#2 In a situation when a player severely underperforms a player is not meeting the contract agreement IMO, but if the owner is paying the player as the contract states why should the player be able to bail?

Players are massively compensated, they're not hard done by/suffering at all...if they want the rights to quit and get another job anytime they're welcome to get a real job IMO (and if there were no guaranteed contracts players could still sign with another team if cut...nothing's stropping them from doing so; the massive financial compensation they get makes protecting them from unfairness ridiculous to me - they get millions to play a game!)




I cared about players decades ago...decades of being treated poorly as a fan while owners and players care about themselves and their own profit (to an obscene level IMO) means I don't care about making sure millionaires get even more; again, players are massively compensated and I'm not into caring that they get more, nor do I think players having more power than the teams/league sounds like a good thing either (I don't follow the NBA but my understanding is that's what it's like and the NBA has become a joke league, fake like wrestling...but they make lots of money!)


I've been told for so long "it's a business" and seen the NHLPA and the owners/NHL care only about themselves...why should I as a fan "care" about them when they're making millions! (if they were hard done by/suffering in some way I can see caring, but that's the furthest thing from what the situation is)

I don't support greed or the idea that constant growth is a good thing (or even attainable/sustainable).....I think what's best for the sport and the fans should be the priority, not what's best for the players (or owners); I don't think the increase in salary/power that player's have gained over the years has made the game better at all

The game/sport and the teams/league to me are WAY more important than players; players come, and players go (and again they're more than fairly compensated for their efforts)

Nino33 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 03:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.