Let's play the negotiation game - some of us can be Bob and some of us can be Gary

[YellHockey*]

The players demand guaranteed profits for themselves.

Players don't get profits. They get a salary that is dictated by a business. They amount they can earn is limited to the amount their employer will pay them.

Owners, on the other hand, have no limits on what they can either make or lose. That's what being an entrepeneur is all about.

 

[SENSible1*]

Players don't get profits. They get a salary that is dictated by a business. They amount they can earn is limited to the amount their employer will pay them.

Owners, on the other hand, have no limits on what they can either make or lose. That's what being an entrepeneur is all about.

They amount they can earn is limited to the amount their employer will pay them

.

Not in this situation.

If the employers decided to stop paying anyone more than 1,000,000 a year the players would launch and win a collusion suit. The employers, as a group, are not free to set the amount they are willing to pay once they have entered a CBA. That is precisely why they are acting in a collective manner at the only time they are allowed to do so, during CBA negotiations.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

.

Not in this situation.

If the employers decided to stop paying anyone more than 1,000,000 a year the players would launch and win a collusion suit. The employers, as a group, are not free to set the amount they are willing to pay once they have entered a CBA. That is precisely why they are acting in a collective manner at the only time they are allowed to do so, during CBA negotiations.

Except that he wasn't speaking about all the employers as a whole...just one particular employer. Each employer (aka owner) has the right to decide to not pay someone more than $1,000,000 per year and it isn't collusion. If I asked my boss for $100,000/yr, they could (and would) say no. And I also could ask a competing company for the same $100,000/yr for the same job, the competing company could also say no. But just because the 2 of them said no doesn't mean its collusion...it just means that they weren't interested in my services for that price. Collusion would entail that my employer and the competing company have decided together not to accept my offer and set a limit on what I could earn. So yes the league as a group cannot have discussions or make decisions to set an amount they are willing to pay after the CBA is finalized, else that is collusion. However, each owner can still determine what they are willing to spend on a player...that is called being a responsible business person.

 

[I in the Eye]

The players demand guaranteed profits for themselves. You don't see them offering to give up their guaranteed contracts (nor should they).

IMO, hockey players should be paid like investment analysts...

http://www.thestreet.com/markets/analystrankings/961248.html

Allow only a handful of 'superstars' (cream of the crop) to get the guaranteed contracts... However, don't 'hard cap' how much any player can earn... Let their (and the team's) yearly achievement dictate how much each player gets paid...

Everyone gets a small base salary (say somewhere between $1 million - $2 million), plus huge variable compensation depending on the achievement of the individual AND the success of the team... If Matt Cooke scores 40 goals, 10 game winners, and the Canucks have success during the year (100 point season; 3rd round of the playoffs) with Cooke being a key ingredient to the Canucks success, pay Cooke $4.5 million... If Matt Cooke does terrible (and the Canucks do terrible), pay Cooke $1.2 million... If Matt Cooke does ok (but the Canucks go far in the playoffs), pay Cooke $2.5 million...

IMO, it's not fair to Cooke to not get paid for his and his team's yearly accomplishment... whereas some of his peers on worse teams get paid significantly better, for doing significantly less...

IMO, because performance (both team and individual) is variable from year-to-year (not guaranteed), compensation should also be variable from year-to-year (not guaranteed)... If Cooke (and the Canucks) have one outstanding year, pay him handsomely for that accomplishment...

To be paid like an investment analyst more accurately reflects the 'hockey environment'...

I'd pay the GMs, the coaches, and everyone who has 'direct input' to the yearly success of the team with the same compensation framework...

Oh well, perhaps an argument for a future CBA...