Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Dave is a killer, Oct 6, 2005.
i feel sorry for the players giving back 24% claw back when the new cba agreement came into affect. This must had been a tough pill to swallow but another 10% payback off there 05=06 pay cheques is harsh.
Same old story teams are overspending and players have to bite the bullet
imo it should be the 4 to 8 mil dollar a yr players that bite the bullet more then the 450 000 to 1 mil a yr players
thats why this rumbling with pa is just starting to boil
could we have a walk out situation on our hands
Message to PA: We could've had a better deal for you in February, but noooooooooo
If the NHL and all of it's teams have a good season and the revenue is there, the players could easily get that money back...this is where the owners and the players have to work together to $ell the game...to generate more revenue...it is in everyone's best interests now, not just the league and the owners...
I really would like to see the league minimum players exempt from the escrow. $450,000 was outlined as the lowest an NHL player could make, and they should stick to that. It would mean a slightly higher reduction of the other players, but, it's relatively small. I feel for the guys on the bottom end of the payroll. Many of these guys would have been getting $800-900K before the lockout, and have only gotten offers at league minimum. If they have to take a 10% hit on top of that because, that's going to hurt the pocket book.
It's even worse, when you consider that the career of the journeyman NHLer has been shortened, with teams no longer carrying as many injury reserves.
Thats actually not true. Higher cap number, yes, but the rest of the CBA offered in February would have been a terrible deal for the players.
The $450,000 a year players who got a payraise from $180,000 last year.
That's right they raised the minimum.
How many players do you think made less than $450,000 in 2003-04. Only a small handful of players were at that level. With the cap though, the squeeze has been put on the third and fourth line players, and now, a signficant portion of the league is at this level.
alot more player make 450 now
many went from 800 K to 450 K a few went up from 180 to 450 K
The players can't blame anybody but themselves because of their poor negotating skills
Actually, yes true - not the $42M non-linkage offer, but the leagues last real offer - the Feb 2 55% linkage offer with a $29.8M floor, $40M cap, and 50/50 profit sharing. And that was just the leagues opening - it could have been negotiated up from there.
While I admit, the final deal for the players was a lot better than I expected them to get after the season was cancelled, the players might have been better off negotiating off of that offer. And of course that offer wasn't too different from what the league had been pushing all along - and that (or a better deal) was there for the taking in Sept or October.
The main win that the players got out of the CBA is the greatly relaxed UFA rules, but that was really a non-financial concession for the owners - with the team and league wide caps UFA salaries are really a zero sum game. They don't make the teams/league pay more - they just change who gets the money.
it had nothing to do with their poor negotiating skills, it had to do with their public statements/sentiment back towards the players
the players screwed up big time and now have to pay up (literally and figuratively). They were so staunch in their anti-cap strategy and arrogant that they were forced to sign a deal that was not as good for them if they had negotatiated last year on a cap.
I don't see what the big deal is. It is common in business when there is a partnership to set aside funds so that the proper percentages can be worked out at the end. The players get up to 54% - this is just a mechanism to ensure that.
Well I am sure if your boss came to you at the end of the week and said that 10% of your check was being set aside because the company had gone over their budget you would not be too happy.
I may not be happy about but if I had collectively bargained to receive 54% of revenues and I received 60% I would expect to give 6% back. It is called a business partnership. In case you haven't noticed, the NHL/NHLPA relationship is quite different than that of a normal employer/employee relationship.
The problem with that statement is that YOU did not receive 60% of the revenues. Somebody else did. But YOU are going to have to give up some of your paycheck as a result of it.
is he unionized? If so then his group did indeed recieve 60%.
Its one of the reasons why some people DONT want to unionize.
I don't work in an industry in which the average salary is $1,300,000 and I don't work in an industry in which my fellow workers and I earn 54% of the revenue. Comparing the employer/employee relationship of average joes to professional athletes is ridiculous and your comparison in this case is overly simplistic.
Not sure what deal you've been reading
A few cold, hard facts in the whole escrow debate.
Fact #1: The CBA states that players get 54% of league revenues.
Fact #2: The players agreed to get 54% of league revenues.
Fact #3: The escrow ensures that the players will get 54% of league revenues.
End of debate.
The escrow is not extra money being taken away. In fact, it's not even money that is being taken away. If total player salaries end up being less than 54% of league revenue, the players will get EXTRA money paid by the league at the end of the season. So quit qhining about some meaningless percentage of escrow money that is being placed aside temporarily. The players will get every red cent of their 54%.