Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#1891 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:30 PM

[Edited for brevity.]
- A one time walk away from a single contract from each of the 30 teams.
- This right can be traded to teams looking for more than one.
....
Although not ideal, at least 22 of 23 players on each squad will have their contracts honoured in full.


That's an interesting idea but one that I don't know would even be legal. I don't think one party of a contract can nullify it unless the other side agrees and given the kinds of contracts that would be targeted, it would be a tough sell to players all but guaranteed to get a much worse deal or none at all.

Plus there's still the problem that current contracts won't fit under the new cap (especially with the NHL contracts in the minors being included) without failing to honor them or allowing owners to basically force players to give them an interest free loan by delaying payments until the cap could cover them (and denying players the right to make money off their own money while allowing owners to).

Personally I think a staggered drop would be the best. Starting at I think 54% they could honor the spirit of all contracts now but with the 5% expected growth from the previous season and improved team revenue sharing almost all teams would be in the black in year 1. If revenue grows 5% or year 1, (as the NHL projects) drop to 50% the next season. Otherwise, drop to 52% in year 2 and then to 50% in year 3. That way players aren't being held accountable for owners' decisions and owners get immediate and long term benefits while still being held accountable for their contracts.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1892 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,884 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:38 PM

It is easy to find people that will buy teams in profitable markets that goes without saying, it's teams like PHX, Nashville, FLA, Dallas, NJ, Tampa, Colorado
...

So, you agree that your statement of 700 players would be looking for 9-5 (or regular) work if not for the current 30 owners is incorrect and that we would still have a league? It seemed the opposite from your post I quoted. In the very least, we'd have a contracted list of teams and the best players would continue to be playing at the highest level for the Stanley Cup.

If you don't agree then I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The articles you posted state teams are worth more now than they were prior to the last CBA, in some cases more than twice as much, except for 4 teams that have actually decreased in value. Considering the large increase in worth of many of the franchises - particularly for Canadian teams - it seems to also contradict your argument that increases in the cap haven't been covered by increases in revenue and franchise worth.

Revenue sharing from the teams whose value increased above the average to those that didn't should help keep the league in reasonable shape, and for all the owners got in their favour financially on the last CBA they couldn't translate that into more teams posting positive income.

Perhaps that's a sign that some of those 30 owners you say the players couldn't do without (and that includes the NHL with their efforts to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix, clearly the largest loser in the operating income category) haven't run their teams very well as a business yet continue to persist in failing markets.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#1893 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,884 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:46 PM

And is Bettman wrong about canadian fans? Of course not. The point is Bettman offered the deal everyone expected to solve this: 50/50. The players rejected it. So the owners will wait until the players change their mind. I think the players have no credibility left at all. Just plain greed from them. And it will bite them in the ass.

Bettman offered a deal that looks good only when described via Twitter: 140 characters or less. Once we all got a chance to have the details explained it was clear they weren't offering strictly 50/50 either, just in a different way from how the NHLPA accounted for their 50/50 offer(s).

What Bettman said: "50/50, and we offer to make whole any losses from player contracts."

What Bettman meant: "50/50, but we'll use a part of your future 50% share of HRR to pay for the losses from player contracts."

Edited by elvis15, 25 October 2012 - 04:47 PM.

  • 2

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#1894 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,299 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 05:16 PM

That's an interesting idea but one that I don't know would even be legal. I don't think one party of a contract can nullify it unless the other side agrees and given the kinds of contracts that would be targeted, it would be a tough sell to players all but guaranteed to get a much worse deal or none at all.

Plus there's still the problem that current contracts won't fit under the new cap (especially with the NHL contracts in the minors being included) without failing to honor them or allowing owners to basically force players to give them an interest free loan by delaying payments until the cap could cover them (and denying players the right to make money off their own money while allowing owners to).

Personally I think a staggered drop would be the best. Starting at I think 54% they could honor the spirit of all contracts now but with the 5% expected growth from the previous season and improved team revenue sharing almost all teams would be in the black in year 1. If revenue grows 5% or year 1, (as the NHL projects) drop to 50% the next season. Otherwise, drop to 52% in year 2 and then to 50% in year 3. That way players aren't being held accountable for owners' decisions and owners get immediate and long term benefits while still being held accountable for their contracts.


Absolutely it would be legal if it was voted on and ratified by the PA just as it was legal to reduce previous contracts by 24% last time. I'm no expert but I don't see the difference there. I also don't think it would be as hard to get players to agree to it as you think. The PA needs 50% +1 to accept a deal and I believe that it wouldn't be hard to have half of the PA throw 30 players under the bus to protect 95.65% of their membership especially considering they are underperformers theoretically taking money out of the pockets of the other PA members.

Actually, considering the mechanism suggested by the NHL to allow teams to spend up to $70 mil as per the last CBA for one year, there wouldn't be a problem fitting all contracts under the cap for this year. Heading into next year there are over $200 mil in expiring contracts and the owners/GMs would have to decide on a new market value for any UFAs at that point.

I also think the staggered drop is the best solution, combined with increased revenue sharing and the alteration of the cap variance, but we've been down this road already. The NHL resoundingly rejects that suggestion.



Off topic a little, I do like the NHL's proposal to allow teams to trade a certain percentage of their cap to other teams. I think this is the one legitimately innovative thing the League has suggested. It allows teams to save on player costs and to build their equity/farm teams from the richer franchises. This is a potentially excellent way for smaller market teams to play 'moneyball.'

Edited by theminister, 25 October 2012 - 05:22 PM.

  • 0

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1895 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,299 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 05:20 PM

I like to figure myself as a very knowledage hockey fan.

I look at that proposal - and it makes sense.

But sadly the egos of Bettman and Fehr are now involved.

Our love of the game and the ability to enjoy it, is being decided by two men who want to 'win' the lock-out.

I *understand* why the NHL didn't want to operate temporarily under the old CBA, but it just doesn't make sense why they didn't make a stronger push to make a deal happen BEFORE Sept 15; rather than an artificial date in Nov, Dec or Jan.

But as I said - it simply comes down to the fact, that Bettman and Fehr want to win the lock-out, and because of that, we miss out on the thing we love.


Thanks, man. The same goes for me.

Unfortunately, I agree with the rest of your post too.
  • 0

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1896 ba;;isticsports

ba;;isticsports

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 05:24 PM

I see it as a lot worse,when it happens to people who live payday to payday,than to rich players

In the real world
How did it work out for the Nurses, after they had a signed contract and the Liberals took that away from them?
They certainately dont make what NHL players do, and were mandated back to work

Life isnt always fair
But NHL players are still paid pretty fair coin
The players have it good

Forget about what the Owners want,
Forget about what the Players want
They keep talking how the other is lost wthout them.
Without our passion and interest,they are both lost

How about a contract for the fans ?
I personally would like the League to say NO MORE 1 way contracts for ANYONE (like the old days)
You have a NHL contract,that You earn if Your playing in it, and one if Your playing on the Farm Team
No waiver wire for at least 3 call ups per year

Some players need motivation,
Seems like most games I have gone too, I feel cheated,because Our team or the other Team players didnt appear to be putting much effort in (then fans would see more passion, and teams wouldnt be saddled with a poor product - like Gomez etc)


Greed?

How is asking for money that you are LEGALLY entitled to being greedy?

If anything, being greedy is, promising money to someone, and then asking for some of it back, just because you can.


  • 0

#1897 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:59 PM

Theminister, you may be right and it would be possible to get the players to go along with a plan like yours. Unfortunately, no one has ever gone broke selling to the worst of human nature. But that does not mean that we can't be better or expect better.

There's a huge difference between the collective agreeing to collectively sacrifice and the collective agreeing to make a few individuals (none of whom may have agreed) make all of the sacrifices. And I can't imagine there wouldn't be legal issues surrounding that. The union is there to protect the collective good as well as the individual union member who pays dues. If a union scarified a few in the interest of the many, I can absolutely see them having a claim against their union for failing to live up to their mandate to protect those players' interests. And even if there aren't legal issues, there absolutely are moral issues.

And for what? So the richest people in the world can indulge in buyers' remorse and get out of contracts they knowingly, willingly and legally signed? That seems preferable to you than telling owners that they should be held to the same standards in business as everyone else? That seems better than telling the NHL to actually negotiate in the best interest of their industry rather than simply trying to screw the players for their personal benefit regardless of the consequences to others (fans, arena workers, restaurant workers, etc.)? Do you honestly think telling owners that here's yet another easy out for their bad decisions, rather than any actual consequences, will fix the problem rather than exacerbate it?

Chances are good neither the NHL nor players ever listen to anything fans have to say, but if they ever do, "Sacrifice a few so the many can get more than they need!" is not the message I want them to hear from me. Nor is, "Accountability is for poor people."

I can only speak for myself, but if they ever hear anything I say let it be this: The money I gave them is not a license to behave dishonorably, to believe that they are above the law, nor proof that the same laws that apply to me no longer apply to them simply because they have more money than I do.

Edited by poetica, 25 October 2012 - 07:01 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1898 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:08 PM

Off topic a little, I do like the NHL's proposal to allow teams to trade a certain percentage of their cap to other teams. I think this is the one legitimately innovative thing the League has suggested. It allows teams to save on player costs and to build their equity/farm teams from the richer franchises. This is a potentially excellent way for smaller market teams to play 'moneyball.'


I totally agree, its the only innovative thing they suggested, and it is a good idea! My sarcastic side says its yet another way a cap strapped TOR (or similar team) could spend willingly above the cap, pay more revenue sharing, and still miss the playoffs.
  • 0

#1899 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,299 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:16 PM

poetica....I wasn't suggesting my proposal was my preference or that it was a morally correct way to solve the dispute. In fact I agree with everything you wrote.

I am trying to take a dispassioned view of the situation and come up with, what I thought at least, was an innovative way to bridge the gap between the two parties. In business I have learned that moral arguments usually don't get anyone too far.

Alternatively, and I believe this is more correctly to your point, ethically the owners are in the wrong based solely on their 'negotiation' tactics.

Edit: The ancillary workers are actually the people I have the most vested interest in. Regardless of how the larger pie is split, getting the games back on so as to mitigate their financial burden would be the primary goal.

Edited by theminister, 25 October 2012 - 07:29 PM.

  • 0

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1900 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:49 PM

All games in November to be cancelled tomorrow.




FRACKING FRUSTRATING.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1901 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:04 PM

Theminister, you're right that moral answers are all too often not favored in business, but they should be, especially in an entertainment industry that needs our money to thrive. I absolutely believe fans need to demand they all behave like adults, consider their greater effect on the communities that give them so much, and give a little to get the deal done. I firmly believe that it's in our best interest as fans to not let the off the hook or give them any excuses for acting like they we don't matter.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1902 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:19 PM

The facts havent changed.

The NHL owns the stanley cup and controls all the arenas.

The NHLPA has the current talent .

One will still own the stanley cup and control the NHL 6 years from now.

The other will have a group of aging players in the KHL while the NHL drafted new talent for 6 years under a new union.

The players have no leverage in the long run at all. They just get older and get replaced.

The owners are hitting them short term by making sure they dont get paid . Some owners take a hit but know that in the long term they will win this battle.

Players should simply accept a 50/50 split in the revenue

Players accept 5 yr max salaries and 28 year old UFA

NHL keeps the cap at 70mil and only when it drops below 50% then the cap can rise.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1903 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:40 PM

The facts havent changed.

The NHL owns the stanley cup and controls all the arenas.

The NHLPA has the current talent .

One will still own the stanley cup and control the NHL 6 years from now.

The other will have a group of aging players in the KHL while the NHL drafted new talent for 6 years under a new union.

The players have no leverage in the long run at all. They just get older and get replaced.

Again...without the fans/players...there is no revenue stream. Players can organize their own games...there are numerous other arenas they can play at...tix at $20 to watch NHL caliber players compared to watching AHL players at $50 combined with bad PR (the new NHL), I think the fans will be drawn to the players games. The players/fans can do without the NHL...whereas the NHL cannot do without the fans/talent. TBH, I'd be down/fine with folding this whole league and starting all over again..but having a team with our current roster of course in a new league.

Edited by Mauii, 25 October 2012 - 08:50 PM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#1904 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:42 PM

[Edited for brevity.]
The NHL owns the stanley cup and controls all the arenas.


The NHL does NOT own the Stanley Cup. It was a gift to the people of Canada. (Interestingly, the NHL does own the trademarks to the name and image of the Stanley Cup but some have questioned their legal right to do so as they do not own it.)

Some teams do own their arenas but some rent their arena. And there are a few other arenas around. So I understand (and agree with) your point that players and owners need each other, but they don't control "all of the arenas."

Edited by poetica, 25 October 2012 - 08:43 PM.

  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1905 ba;;isticsports

ba;;isticsports

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:13 PM

Again...without the fans/players...there is no revenue stream. Players can organize their own games...there are numerous other arenas they can play at...tix at $20 to watch NHL caliber players compared to watching AHL players at $50 combined with bad PR (the new NHL), I think the fans will be drawn to the players games. The players/fans can do without the NHL...whereas the NHL cannot do without the fans/talent. TBH, I'd be down/fine with folding this whole league and starting all over again..but having a team with our current roster of course in a new league.


Really ??
You think that Even if they were able to arrange arenas,pay the wages, bills,flights,accomadations,food etc on and on,
That and only charging $20 ticket and no tv contract or sponsorship contracts they would not be anything close to what they were making in the NHL If there was no NHL, the only option would be overseas, and still they will not have it as good as they Ever will have it with the Nhl.

The players really only have only 3 choices

Agree to never play in the NHL again and never accept any offer
or
Take the offer and play and be an instant Multi-Millionaire
or
Play for less than what the NHL is offering them right now and play Overseas the rest of their careers

The entertainment field actors,musicians,athletes have all been taking a hit and not making as much as they were
  • 0

#1906 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,000 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:22 PM

@adater
Good point by Dreger: Jarome Iginla will sacrifice $15 million over two lost seasons. Think he'll want that?
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#1907 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:30 PM

Really ??
You think that Even if they were able to arrange arenas,pay the wages, bills,flights,accomadations,food etc on and on,
That and only charging $20 ticket and no tv contract or sponsorship contracts they would not be anything close to what they were making in the NHL If there was no NHL, the only option would be overseas, and still they will not have it as good as they Ever will have it with the Nhl.

The players really only have only 3 choices

Agree to never play in the NHL again and never accept any offer
or
Take the offer and play and be an instant Multi-Millionaire
or
Play for less than what the NHL is offering them right now and play Overseas the rest of their careers

The entertainment field actors,musicians,athletes have all been taking a hit and not making as much as they were

The players are functioning on principle. Some are already saying that they rather play for the KHL for less because they are tired of the NHL's shenanigans. Based on this premise, yes I do believe that players would choose to not play for the NHL again; however, should another league be created, they may jump on that opportunity, and the fans just may opt to watch their old hockey heroes playing in this new league. Fans come to watch their favourite players and not because of loyalty to the owners/league/team...even the Canucks lost fans when the team was dismantled.

Edited by Mauii, 25 October 2012 - 09:41 PM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#1908 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,094 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:38 PM

Fans come to watch their favourite players and not because of loyalty to the owners/league/team...even the Canucks lost fans when the team was dismantled.


Not me. I've been a Canucks fan from the start. In that time they've gone through several owners and a boat load of players, but it's the team I cheer for.

In some ways, I am part of the problem. The NHL is banking that fans like me will be back, no matter how long this takes. They're probably right.
  • 1
Posted Image

#1909 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:44 PM

Not me. I've been a Canucks fan from the start. In that time they've gone through several owners and a boat load of players, but it's the team I cheer for.

In some ways, I am part of the problem. The NHL is banking that fans like me will be back, no matter how long this takes. They're probably right.

They lost me and I stopped watching during the Messier era and traded away Linden, amongst other principal players like Bure, and Bure was the reason why I started paying attention to hockey.

Edited by Mauii, 25 October 2012 - 09:45 PM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#1910 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,094 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:51 PM

They lost me and I stopped watching during the Messier era and traded away Linden, amongst other principal players like Bure, and Bure was the reason why I started paying attention to hockey.


I'm not denying that some people are more a fan of the players than they are of the team. I'm still a Bobby Orr fan. Those are the fans that are at risk here. Without their favourite players, it may not matter if the teams come back as some people are advocating.

It's interesting though, that all the players you listed have retired. Is there anyone you follow today like you did with Bure or Linden?
  • 0
Posted Image

#1911 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:57 PM

I'm not denying that some people are more a fan of the players than they are of the team. I'm still a Bobby Orr fan. Those are the fans that are at risk here. Without their favourite players, it may not matter if the teams come back as some people are advocating.

It's interesting though, that all the players you listed have retired. Is there anyone you follow today like you did with Bure or Linden?

To date no one's matched Bure's calibre, hence, my jersey remains unnamed, however, I do like the players we have on our team but no one player stands out. I was having high hopes for Hodgson.

Edited by Mauii, 26 October 2012 - 11:36 AM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#1912 LeanBeef

LeanBeef

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:07 PM

Sick of this crap
  • 0
Sig too big.
"Being a Canuck fan, maybe sometime down the road be a Vancouver Canuck.... that would conquer all my dreams"
-Milan Lucic

#1913 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:53 PM

Well, the answer SHOULD be obvious, but apparently the NHPLA doesn't understand basic math.

Also, let's say you're an NHL player and you have no more than six years left in your playing career. You have a choice: [A] Take a 12% haircut on your current salary but play for six years or [B] Lose a full year's salary and forego AT LEAST 17% of the rest of your professional hockey income that you'll ever make? I say "AT LEAST" because that assumes that after a lost season they go right back to getting 57% of league revenue (which is NOT going to happen). So, that player is more likely to lose 20%-25% of the rest of his career's income by losing a full season.

Do players understand BASIC math?

Edited by lorentjd, 25 October 2012 - 10:58 PM.

  • 0

#1914 Phil_314

Phil_314

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,100 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 09

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:09 PM

How did you derive that? (More importantly, is that in the CBA somewhere?)
  • 0

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


Jesus LOVES YOU!
2012, meet Matthew 24:36-47!

14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.


#1915 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:12 PM

Career-ending injuries happen every year.

So, let's say you're a player who gets such an injury mid-way through the 2014-2015 season AND we have lost the entire 2012-2013 season. That player, by losing this season, will have lost...forever...40% of his remaining professional hockey player income!!

To take that risk is...insane.

But, apparently, emotions...not brains...are driving player decisions (at least thus far)...

Take the 50-50 split and don't lose and entire year of your finite steam of NHL income!!

If we lose a season, I can GUARANTEE this: There will be a ton of current players who, when they are 40, 50, and 60 years old would KILL to get back the income they will have lost with this lost season. But that income will have been lost forever and a lot of those guys will be schlepping along in some banal, low-paying (i.e., regular) job with little coin in the bank thinking: "God, it would be great if I could get my hands on that $700,000 I flushed down the toilet when we gave up that 2012-2013 season!"
  • 0

#1916 MashedBananas

MashedBananas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,671 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 09

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:12 PM

12% haircut? O.o
  • 0
Posted Image

Sig Credit goes to Henrik Sedin

#1917 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,943 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:21 PM

*
POPULAR

OP is chalk full of ignorance
  • 7

#1918 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:23 PM

let's see... if I had 6 years left before having to "retire" due to age, I would possibly be in my early 30s. If I'm good enough to play in the NHL, that would mean I'm good enough to play in Europe. And with the frequency of "lockouts," I think I'd just leave and play in Europe the last 6 years and make my money over there.
  • 0

#1919 Primus099

Primus099

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:23 PM

Career-ending injuries happen every year.

So, let's say you're a player who gets such an injury mid-way through the 2014-2015 season AND we have lost the entire 2012-2013 season. That player, by losing this season, will have lost...forever...40% of his remaining professional hockey player income!!

To take that risk is...insane.

But, apparently, emotions...not brains...are driving player decisions (at least thus far)...

Take the 50-50 split and don't lose and entire year of your finite steam of NHL income!!

If we lose a season, I can GUARANTEE this: There will be a ton of current players who, when they are 40, 50, and 60 years old would KILL to get back the income they will have lost with this lost season. But that income will have been lost forever and a lot of those guys will be schlepping along in some banal, low-paying (i.e., regular) job with little coin in the bank thinking: "God, it would be great if I could get my hands on that $700,000 I flushed down the toilet when we gave up that 2012-2013 season!"


I'm pretty sure retired NHLers don't need to work regular jobs for little coin after they stop playing hockey, they've either made so much money that they don't need to do anything or they become announcers/analysts
  • 0

#1920 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:27 PM

How did you derive that? (More importantly, is that in the CBA somewhere?)


Let's say you're a player and your current salary is $1 million per year and you have six playing years left in your career. If players drop from 57% of league revenue to 50% of league revenue, that would be a reduction in salaries of 12.3% -- meaning the $1 million would drop to $877,000 per year (or an income of about $5.3 million over the remaining six year career).

Now, let's say you given up the full current season but, after that, the league agrees to resume the 57% share for the players (so that player would resume making $1 million per year for the next five years -- or a total of $5 million). $5 million is about 17% less that the full $6 million the player believes he should be paid for the last six years of his career.

But let's say that after the lost season the players finally give in to a 50-50 split. That player will have lost all of this season's income AND then only make $877,000 per year for the last five years of his career (earning a total of about $4.4 million over the remaining life of his career). In tha case, the player will have lost just over 25% of what he thought he deserved at the 57% rate).

Any way you slice it, a player with only six years remaining in his career is going to end up far worse off by losing a full season than by taking a 12% haircut in his current salary but not losing a full season.

If I were such a player, I'd take the haircut and keep playing. It would be a no-brainer.

Edited by lorentjd, 25 October 2012 - 11:39 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.