lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 dp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 OP is chalk full of ignorance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Man Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Lorentjd, I am going to simplify things for you here. In theory, 50/50 sharing would work, except for the %12 reduction in salary. Why, you say? because if you are hired and negotiated a contract to perform a specific job. Than those who dealt the contract with you come back a mere couple weeks/months later and told you sorry we can't pay you and now you have to take a %12 reduction. You would not call it a haircut. I am just as frustrated as you with both sides on this but how is that fair to have one side unwilling to keep the promise and in good faith with there dealings. I for one don't blame players who have said they may not return if this is the case. If my employer was doing this to me I would look elsewhere too. And you can take your "haircut" analogy out the door because it is so far off what it really means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 In theory, 50/50 sharing would work, except for the %12 reduction in salary. Why, you say? because if you are hired and negotiated a contract to perform a specific job. Than those who dealt the contract with you come back a mere couple weeks/months later and told you sorry we can't pay you and now you have to take a %12 reduction. You would not call it a haircut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 In theory, 50/50 sharing would work, except for the %12 reduction in salary. Why, you say? because if you are hired and negotiated a contract to perform a specific job. Than those who dealt the contract with you come back a mere couple weeks/months later and told you sorry we can't pay you and now you have to take a %12 reduction. You would not call it a haircut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Man Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 If I signed a contract and my employer wanted to cut my pay, contrary to the contract, I'd be pissed. But NHL contracts are subject to whatever CBA is in place at the time. A new CBA could result in payments that are higher or lower than those stipulates in a player's contract. Now, if player contracts said that the stipulated salaries were not subject to a CBA (and that the salaries would be paid regardless of what a CBA said), then that would be a different story. But that's not how these professional player contracts work -- they are all subject to an overriding CBA and, as I understand it, every one of those contracts were signed with that proviso in the contracts. That all being said, mathematically, most players will be worse off losing an entire season of income, even if the league eventually agrees to a CBA with a 57% cut going to the players, than to take the league's 50-50 deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stexx Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 i dont know how the players can look themselves in the mirror when they say "we dont see why the nhl needs a salary reduction". gee maybe look at how many franchises are in financial trouble? new jersey dallas phoenix Sanjose (has never made money despite its attendance) LA (same as sanjose) anaheim carolina colombus florida tampa bay colorado (not quite yet but they are drawing significantly less fans than 5 years ago) st louis (maybe not after last year but they were every other year not sure on them) buffalo (was in serious trouble until an idiot with a wad of money bought them) ^ that is 13 teams i listed above that are/were in financial trouble at some point over the last 3 years that is 43% of the franchises. Right now this league is being carried by the strong canadian dollar, that could EASILY reverse in the next 5 years. the players are totally out to lunch on the state of the league and just cling to their 3.3billion dollar revenue number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Man Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 i dont know how the players can look themselves in the mirror when they say "we dont see why the nhl needs a salary reduction". gee maybe look at how many franchises are in financial trouble? new jersey dallas phoenix Sanjose (has never made money despite its attendance) LA (same as sanjose) anaheim carolina colombus florida tampa bay colorado (not quite yet but they are drawing significantly less fans than 5 years ago) st louis (maybe not after last year but they were every other year not sure on them) buffalo (was in serious trouble until an idiot with a wad of money bought them) ^ that is 13 teams i listed above that are/were in financial trouble at some point over the last 3 years that is 43% of the franchises. Right now this league is being carried by the strong canadian dollar, that could EASILY reverse in the next 5 years. the players are totally out to lunch on the state of the league and just cling to their 3.3billion dollar revenue number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stexx Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I want to counter this but it feels like you have just put up your opinion on which teams shouldn't be and that's why they suck. Where are you getting your facts and numbers from? and no, Hockeyinsiderr is not a source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus099 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I think you might be surprised at how many former pro athletes have to work regular jobs after their careers are over. Losing a full season of pro hockey player salary, while the gettin' is good, would be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wh!stler R!der Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Will the fans show more anger if there is only half a season than a full season? If the NHL is locked out until the summer I think the edge and anger of the fans would die down because it would be so long since we saw hockey. I hope there is half a season so there will be some revolt from the fans. Season ticket holders will be back but I think our sellout streak will end after the lockout if it's a half season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 You're right that the calculation is not complex; the PA is doing what they're doing to protect future generations of hockey players, much like what prior generations did for them. Owners wanting more for the sake of wanting more can't be allowed. There is no fundamental reason for the owners' desire for a bigger split. They're just greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 "BASIC math" would also conclude that 45% of $3B is also greater than 57% of $0...then 35%...then 25%....etc. Which is the path that the owners will always be on now that they have a cap. Now that a cap is in place, the owners will just continue with the lockouts and demands for greater HRR percentages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES 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...
King of the ES Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 My basic math assessment is looking at what is on the table now through the eyes of a current player, especially a player with just a few years left in their playing career. For them, it's a no-brainer to take the owners' offer and play this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 What's the problem with that? Some of those contracts were signed only weeks ago. They were bargained in good faith. Why should they be rolled back? Where, anywhere, in life, is that a reasonable thing to do? Should we all try calling the Canucks and asking for a 12% reduction in season ticket prices, because, well, they're pretty expensive? Think that'd work? The players have already agreed to transfer > $1B in wealth to the owners, for really no reason, at a time when hockey is booming. That's greed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Are you now at least acknowledging that what the union is doing is NOT "to protect future players"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.