Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


Recommended Posts

That is not my point.  If a person has only six years left where he can make significant money and if his choice is [A] Take a 12% reduction in his pay for the next six years or Lose 1/6th (or 17%) of his remaining income by losing a full year's income with the hope that he will get back to what he had been earning annually for the last five years of his career, then a rational person would choose [A].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not my point. If a person has only six years left where he can make significant money and if his choice is [A] Take a 12% reduction in his pay for the next six years or Lose 1/6th (or 17%) of his remaining income by losing a full year's income with the hope that he will get back to what he had been earning annually for the last five years of his career, then a rational person would choose [A].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, you are forgetting a key factor, the NHLPA is a union. They aren't bargaining on an individual basis, they are bargaining for the collective group. As an older player near the end of his playing career, he would likely choose to play now instead of losing money. This is his perogative. However, unions typically see the long term. They don't just settle for what is good for a small part of the whole. They want a deal that will favour the majority of members for as long as possible. Not everyone is going to be happy with the final agreement and how much money is lost in getting the new deal, but that is the breaks of being unionized. Once you are on strike or locked out, it's generally accepted that you will never be able to regain the lost income from being out of work. Taking some short term losses for the benefit of future members is also at play here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But "bargaining for the benefit of future players" is exactly what the union is NOT doing. The union is willing to go 50-50 for FUTURE players...as long as CURRENT player contracts are protected. Essentially, the union is saying they will agree to a two-tier system.

Neither side of this equation is virtuous...and neither side is "greedy". Each side is simple trying to extract as much from the other side as they can. In this case, I think the players are fighting from a weaker position. That's reality. The sooner they accept that fact (they don't have to LIKE that fact), the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But "bargaining for the benefit of future players" is exactly what the union is NOT doing. The union is willing to go 50-50 for FUTURE players...as long as CURRENT player contracts are protected. Essentially, the union is saying they will agree to a two-tier system.

Neither side of this equation is virtuous...and neither side is "greedy". Each side is simple trying to extract as much from the other side as they can. In this case, I think the players are fighting from a weaker position. That's reality. The sooner they accept that fact (they don't have to LIKE that fact), the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think the NHLPA is taking the position they are taking to protect the livelihood of future union brothers...while the owners are "just greedy"?

Is that why the NHLPA is willing to go 50-50 on league revenue for FUTURE contracts and players as long as the CURRENT players' contracts are honored?

The players are no less (and no more) "greedy" than the owners are...but let's not pretend that the union's objective is "to protect future generations of hockey players".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither side of this equation is virtuous...and neither side is "greedy". Each side is simple trying to extract as much from the other side as they can. In this case, I think the players are fighting from a weaker position. That's reality. The sooner they accept that fact (they don't have to LIKE that fact), the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is all a question of degree. The NHL has the admin, the franchise expertise and most importantly the venues. The calibre of play with replacement players might suffer but the reduced payroll costs would give them a hugh benefit. If they went that route they could start cherry picking players back. What % of NHLPA players would stick it out because of principal? I am sure their are many NHL players who feel they make the NHL. They are part of it but not the total answer by any stretch.

The NHLPA is negociating from weakness and should have realized that from 2004. They had an opportunity to merge their interests with the NHL at that time. They hired a new head, Kelly, who seemed to be headed in the right direction. They fired him and hired a gun Mr. Fehr. Who knows what bridges they burnt in that period of '04 to '12? Usually business likes certainty and the NHLPA has not exhibited a lot of that.

The NHL has its own operational issues. They have a business plan that has delivered significant revenue gains but still experiences many unprofitable franchises. The 2004 CBA did not fix the profitabilty issues and their relationship with the players wasn't fixed either. Couching this dispute as a labour vs management conflict will never resolve the problem. IMHO the players at best are sub-franchisees and their interests should coincide with ownership. The fact that the 2004 CBA increased players revenue from $1 billion to $1.8 billion should have triggered more awareness of the potential for all concerned. NHL ownership recognizes players as assets that grow their businesses but they also know that there is more involved in running successful franchises than that.

All this BS aside I still stand by the honouring of existing player contracts. It would take a franchise bankruptcy to alter that. Instead of these two entities fighting over %s they should be determining a framework for sharing revenue which yields healthy businesses. Recognize the players input and recognize that ownership has to have a return on investment. If one of the two cannot agree then the NHL moves to replacement players and the NHLPA can start their own league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...