RonMexico Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 @GlobeKPD: Once NHL cancels all remaining Nov. games, it leaves prospect of a 60-game schedule, same as 3 seasons, 1946-'49. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 @GlobeKPD: Once NHL cancels all remaining Nov. games, it leaves prospect of a 60-game schedule, same as 3 seasons, 1946-'49. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Is 43-45% of 3.3 billion more than 0 as well? Negotiating is a two way street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Remy Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Last page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brambojoe Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Petey Castiglione Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Lp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drive-By Body Pierce Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 poetica, elvis,... you two save me a whole lot of typing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Drybone Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 poetica, elvis,... you two save me a whole lot of typing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I dont understand why the NHL cant honor the contracts they have and keep the salary cap at 70mil . Keep it there until that is 50% of revenue and only then start to raise it on a 50/50 split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Mobile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 That only works if revenue continues to climb. I have a feeling that they may not see the same growth continue (or maybe even some revenue decline) following this little dust up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Which makes for a much more meaningful regular season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 So you have to shave everyone salary which becomes legally problematic . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.