WHL rocks Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Then why did a bunch of owners rush to sign players to contracts before the old CBA expired, knowing that they would be asking for rollbacks on those existing contracts in the new CBA? That's called bargaining in bad faith my friend. Existing contracts were subject to change under the old CBA. There is no CBA right now, therefore they're not subject to change unless the players agreed to it in a NEW CBA. Which they won't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Don't be surprised to see the NHL budge again in the next little while. Bettman is under alot of pressure from the owners to get this season started on time. And I guarantee he's not gonna wanna miss out on his little gem of a contract with NBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Of course it is. But in business when two people shake hands to an agreed amount, you pay that person the agreed amount, or else your a weasel. It would be one thing if the NHL was really struggling and had no money. But for Bettman to boast about record revenues in order to get a big fat contract for himself, and then turn around and tell players that they have to give money back is just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Of course it is. But in business when two people shake hands to an agreed amount, you pay that person the agreed amount, or else your a weasel. It would be one thing if the NHL was really struggling and had no money. But for Bettman to boast about record revenues in order to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakattack92 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 All caps "NHL" "players" "reach" I thought a CBA was reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Every contract the players signed (SPC) states the contract is subject to change. The SPC is not set in stone. It's subject to change as per CBA. It's written into the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6YPE Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Hey, maybe if they keep this crap up everyone will get sick of it, or forget all about the NHL and the league will have to fold... With every passing day I get less and less interested in watching their product. Keep it up guys and I wont be back and I'm sure others feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 While I certainly haven't read all of the previous CBA, I hadn't seen that particular clause. My understanding is that the SPC is only able to be modified if agreed upon in the CBA, which would supersede any previously signed contracts once agreed upon by both the NHLPA and NHL. It is not necessarily written into the SPC itself that it is subject to change as I understand it, as that would suggest it can be modified outside of any CBA changes, which isn't the case. EDIT: Here is the link I had been reading prior on this: http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/ask-a-lawyer-if-a-player-has-a-contract-how-can-the-owners-cut-his-salary/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Unless of course you shake hands on a revised agreement, as was done in the last CBA. Every contract was rolled back 25% as agreed upon by NHLPA vote. Every change in the CBA is voted on by both sides. Yes record high revenue. But as the revenue has gone up so has player salaries. As the cap has gone up half the teams have fallen behind and can no longer compete to keep their high quality players, while others teams are flat out losing money despite revenue sharing. The last CBA created a level playing field which has again gone lopsided towards the rich teams and the players. Now if I was an owner of a money making team, I'd be willing to increase revenue sharing only if the players took less of the pie. Players don't want teams to fold and lose those jobs, yet they don't want to do their part to help keep them alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc44 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 It's a joke. I'm caring less and less whether or not there is a season. Been getting my fill with WHL, NFL, CFL, and NHL13. I'll only be watching Canuck games once there is NHL again, and won't be paying for merchandise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 If the lockout continues like the previous one then this should be the best time to buy merchandise as official jerseys were half off half way through the previous one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 FRICK THE NHL, both sides are close to losing any respectability I once had. Maybe I can quit hockey and drinking. Well maybe hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surtur Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Hey, maybe if they keep this crap up everyone will get sick of it, or forget all about the NHL and the league will have to fold... With every passing day I get less and less interested in watching their product. Keep it up guys and I wont be back and I'm sure others feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.