NHLPA tells us what (somewhat)

[OilerNut*]

Why do you see it that way? If the settlement had been negotiated with a cap, say at 44 mil, based on 2004 revenue. All they needed to do was word it so that as league revenue went up, the cap went up, Not in percentage of revenue, but in actual cap number at the same percentage. They could even have added language which stated that the 44 mil. was a permanent figure until, the league revenue exceeded 2004 levels, at which time proportionate increases to the cap as it relates to revenue would be triggered. WHY does this seem so horrible to everyone ???

That would be ok, I think, if there was some form of revenue sharing.

 

[guymez]

Why do you see it that way? If the settlement had been negotiated with a cap, say at 44 mil, based on 2004 revenue. All they needed to do was word it so that as league revenue went up, the cap went up, Not in percentage of revenue, but in actual cap number at the same percentage. They could even have added language which stated that the 44 mil. was a permanent figure until, the league revenue exceeded 2004 levels, at which time proportionate increases to the cap as it relates to revenue would be triggered. WHY does this seem so horrible to everyone ???

There is no balance to it.
What about the other side of the equation? If the players are so confident in the league only growing it's revenues in the future, why wouldn't they include a provision which would see the cap be reduced if revenues declined? It would be a great PR move and really be a major show of good faith.

 

[guymez]

The most important kind. Their physical health and well being.

I disagree. Many people risk their physical health and well being on the job. That doesn't mean they deserve to be treated as an business partner.

 

[vanlady]

There is no balance to it.
What about the other side of the equation? If the players are so confident in the league only growing it's revenues in the future, why wouldn't they include a provision which would see the cap be reduced if revenues declined? It would be a great PR move and really be a major show of good faith.

Over the last 10 years the owners have messed up this league badly. The players have agreed to a 24% rollback as part of any settlement, as well as other concessions. But it is not solely the players responsibility to fix the problems created in the last 10 years.

The future of the league is going to be dependant on the players to promote it. The players are going to have to increase public appearences, spend more time autographing and media appearances. Why, to win back the fans and try and bring back the game. The owners are not going to have to bust there butts to fix the mess that is going to follow this lockout, again that is going to fall to the players, so yes they should be entitled to reap some of the rewards of there hard work, by increases in the cap.

 

[NYFAN]

I disagree. Many people risk their physical health and well being on the job. That doesn't mean they deserve to be treated as an business partner.

How many people do you know who risk blowing out a knee, head injury, or possible paralysis regularly??? That is a significant risk in my eyes. Hockey, at the NHL level, is no joke. At times the speed of the game is incredible, with that speed comes major risk. At least that's how I see it.

 

[CarlRacki]

In other words business as usual pre 1964( I think)

You're the one demanding that the players receive a free market.

 

[NYFAN]

Over the last 10 years the owners have messed up this league badly. The players have agreed to a 24% rollback as part of any settlement, as well as other concessions. But it is not solely the players responsibility to fix the problems created in the last 10 years.

The future of the league is going to be dependant on the players to promote it. The players are going to have to increase public appearences, spend more time autographing and media appearances. Why, to win back the fans and try and bring back the game. The owners are not going to have to bust there butts to fix the mess that is going to follow this lockout, again that is going to fall to the players, so yes they should be entitled to reap some of the rewards of there hard work, by increases in the cap.

You bring up a very good point!

 

[OilerFan4Life]

How many people do you know who risk blowing out a knee, head injury, or possible paralysis regularly??? That is a significant risk in my eyes. Hockey, at the NHL level, is no joke. At times the speed of the game is incredible, with that speed comes major risk. At least that's how I see it.

True enough, but that's their frikin job. Drive a taxi or a bus, cashier, be a waiter etc.

 

[NYFAN]

You're the one demanding that the players receive a free market.

No actually the PA and Goodenow did. And your definition and theirs are two different things!

 

[PecaFan]

How many people do you know who risk blowing out a knee, head injury, or possible paralysis regularly??? That is a significant risk in my eyes. Hockey, at the NHL level, is no joke. At times the speed of the game is incredible, with that speed comes major risk. At least that's how I see it.

Take your pick. Police. Fire. Mining. The Military. The forest industry, just for starters. Death and dismemberment are practically *common*.

This "physical risk" stuff is pure crap.

 

[Mothra]

What I am suggesting, is that the numbers they were given, did not include the numbers the PA included in their joint look at 4 franchises. Which explains why their results came back the way they did. I never suggested that he falsified numbers, but he was brought in to verify the numbers Bettman and the owners wished to use, and did not include the numbers the PA wished to include.

You said....

"Leavitt report, not audit. Was definitely skewed toward ownership. At a cost of 1 million dollars. Did you think it wouldn't say what Bettman wanted it to say?"

This suggests a lot more than what you are now saying

 

[me2]

How many people do you know who risk blowing out a knee, head injury, or possible paralysis regularly??? That is a significant risk in my eyes. Hockey, at the NHL level, is no joke. At times the speed of the game is incredible, with that speed comes major risk. At least that's how I see it.

That is such a pissweak argument.

Plenty of other industries which are much more dangerous as others have listed. Let me add farming to that list. Plenty of farmers getting around with missing fingers and arms. Plenty with bad backs from heavy lifting or wrestling animals. Plenty of unlucky ones farmers pushing up daisies too.


And this argument falls over even further with you start looking at guys in the UHL. Same risks as NHLers and about 2% of the reward. You think they feel bad that Yzerman only collected $30m in compensation for a couple of bad knees? At least he can afford the best surgeons to fix them.

Or the guy that plays for free, lots of risk and no cash compensation at all.

 

[Chayos]

Since the NHL keeps saying that the revenues are going to drop, it should not be a problem for the league to accept this clause.

The problem was the players wanted to use 2005/06 as the base year. If tehy wanted to use 2003/04 as the base year i am sure teh owners would listen. Anything a=above 2.1 billion they would isten to, but next year revenue drops by a minimum of 25% tehn if tehy manage to rebuild a bit the players salaries start killing them again.

picture if they go down 25% in 2005/2006 but rebuild that 25% by 2008

that would have teh cap at $56.25 million from 45 million in just 2 years and the minimum would go from the rumoured $25 to 31.25. How could the owner accept this ? it is a worse position than they were in in the last cba.

Let those bastages rot in europe at $.10 on the dollar for all i care now.

 

[CarlRacki]

No actually the PA and Goodenow did. And your definition and theirs are two different things!

Yes, because my definiton is accurate. Neither side wants a free market, nor should they. Goodenow's claim otherwise is purely disingenuine.

 

[me2]

The league more or less has monopoly here, no other league can employ that many players and pay them so much. I have no doubt that NHL can eventually force the players to accept a 10 million cap. But depending on the players stubborness/pride it may take a 5 year hockey shutdown. Is it worth it for the owners, considering that if you beleive what they are saying it is a non-issue for them? Is it worth it for them to cancel the season over?

Anyway, this is just basic negoatiating stuff. What's releveant for this if the players were asking for 03/04 or 05/06 season to be used as index. That would clearly show who wasn't interested in making a deal - the players or the owners.

If the players had argued for linking the $42.5m cap to the $2.1b in revenue from last year I'd take them more seriously. That is up and down linkage too, not just up only. But no, they were exceedingly disingenuous with their linkage offer, both in the fact it was one-way and the years they chose.

 

[NYFAN]

Take your pick. Police. Fire. Mining. The Military. The forest industry, just for starters. Death and dismemberment are practically *common*.

This "physical risk" stuff is pure crap.

Death and dismemberment are not common. That is why there is compensation or insurance for them in every industry. You don't have to agree, but don't belittle the argument. Would you also agree, that Police officers, firemen and the military men and women are grossly underpaid? That doesn't mean the best players in hockey should be also!

 

[NYFAN]

That is such a pissweak argument.

Plenty of other industries which are much more dangerous as others have listed. Let me add farming to that list. Plenty of farmers getting around with missing fingers and arms. Plenty with bad backs from heavy lifting or wrestling animals. Plenty of unlucky ones farmers pushing up daisies too.


And this argument falls over even further with you start looking at guys in the UHL. Same risks as NHLers and about 2% of the reward. You think they feel bad that Yzerman only collected $30m in compensation for a couple of bad knees? At least he can afford the best surgeons to fix them.

Or the guy that plays for free, lots of risk and no cash compensation at all.

I'm not watching farmers for entertainment are you? Players in the UHL are chasing the dream of NHL hockey. They share alot of the same risk, in the hope of making it to the show. Those who continue to play , knowing they will never make it, do it because they have a genuine love for the game, I commend them. But because they are willing to play for peanuts , it doesn't mean the NHL players should also. Want to dig deeper, why are college players subject to all the risk ,and zero reward? Don't give me its all about education either. College athletics is the biggest farce in the world. Tons of revenue, generated, but the players don't see a dime!

 

[NYFAN]

You said....

"Leavitt report, not audit. Was definitely skewed toward ownership. At a cost of 1 million dollars. Did you think it wouldn't say what Bettman wanted it to say?"

This suggests a lot more than what you are now saying

No it doesn't. I suggest you read all my posts and links on the subject.

 

[CarlRacki]

Death and dismemberment are not common. That is why there is compensation or insurance for them in every industry. You don't have to agree, but don't belittle the argument. Would you also agree, that Police officers, firemen and the military men and women are grossly underpaid? That doesn't mean the best players in hockey should be also!

Oh, please. Make any argument you wish, but please don't try to convince us that NHL players are "grossly underpaid." I don't begrduge them their success, but I won't sympathoze either if they have to settle for "only" an average salary of $1.3 million. That there is an argument worth every bit of belittling it can get.

 

[NYFAN]

Oh, please. Make any argument you wish, but please don't try to convince us that NHL players are "grossly underpaid." I don't begrduge them their success, but I won't sympathoze either if they have to settle for "only" an average salary of $1.3 million. That there is an argument worth every bit of belittling it can get.

I suggest you re read the post. I did not say that NHLers were grossly underpaid. But for those of you with radical ideas that somehow players salaries should somehow be more in line with the common man , that simply isn't the case!

 

[PecaFan]

Death and dismemberment are not common. That is why there is compensation or insurance for them in every industry. You don't have to agree, but don't belittle the argument.

*Everyone* I know in the forest industry has some physical injury. My grandfather was missing three fingers. My step father several toes. My brother has extensive back injuries.

I'm belittling your argument because it's totally off base. *You* were the one trying to paint hockey as some dangerous career, when in fact it *pales* when compared to many, many occupations. It's not dangerous, and danger has nothing to do with how much hockey players are paid.

As for underpaid, no one is asking them to be underpaid. We are asking them to go from massively overpaid, to just plain old regular overpaid.

 

[NYFAN]

*Everyone* I know in the forest industry has some physical injury. My grandfather was missing three fingers. My step father several toes. My brother has extensive back injuries.

I'm belittling your argument because it's totally off base. *You* were the one trying to paint hockey as some dangerous career, when in fact it *pales* when compared to many, many occupations. It's not dangerous, and danger has nothing to do with how much hockey players are paid.

As for underpaid, no one is asking them to be underpaid. We are asking them to go from massively overpaid, to just plain old regular overpaid.

If you look at the NHL as a whole, its just like the real world. The minority are making the huge dollars we hear about. The majority of players are making reasonable money for what they do. Its contracts like the ones Holik, Jagr, Pronger, etc have that make it seem so out of touch! Because it pales to your comparison doesn't make it a non issue. It is definitely a factor in reaching an agreement. As for dangerous jobs, I had one of the most dangerous jobs on the planet, working on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, but I don't think they shouldn't be well paid because I wasn't. These guys are the best of the best. In any sports or entertain ment job, the best of the best are more highly compensated than their peers. Its just a simple fact. And evryone who is now screaming about what they make, who regularly watched the NHL and bought tickets and merchandise, should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Phanuthier*]

How many people do you know who risk blowing out a knee, head injury, or possible paralysis regularly??? That is a significant risk in my eyes. Hockey, at the NHL level, is no joke. At times the speed of the game is incredible, with that speed comes major risk. At least that's how I see it.

Umm... quite a few?

How about any technician out there?

 

[Phanuthier*]

Death and dismemberment are not common. That is why there is compensation or insurance for them in every industry. You don't have to agree, but don't belittle the argument. Would you also agree, that Police officers, firemen and the military men and women are grossly underpaid? That doesn't mean the best players in hockey should be also!

Huh? Nobody is saying NHL players should be underpaid. If you want to look for that, go to the UHL where I bet Hatcher, Draper and Chelios are playing for their "principals."

 

[Phanuthier*]

I suggest you re read the post. I did not say that NHLers were grossly underpaid. But for those of you with radical ideas that somehow players salaries should somehow be more in line with the common man , that simply isn't the case!

While I think they should, I know they won't.

However, 1.3 million for an average is far, far from being that of the "common man." Nor do I consider splitting 42.5 million 23 ways anywhere close to being near the "common man."