So is everyone clear its about a cap now!

[Sinurgy]

Last time I checked the Labor board in every province of this country would crawl all over the employers back. So again why should everyone in the country have this protection and not the players?

I don't think the Labor Board was created with the thought of "protecting" million dollar hockey players from unfair labor practices.

 

[vanlady]

I don't think the Labor Board was created with the thought of "protecting" million dollar hockey players from unfair labor practices.

I don't care how much money you make. In your line of thinking only the poor should have the protection of the Constitution.

 

[Sinurgy]

I don't care how much money you make. In your line of thinking only the poor should have the protection of the Constitution.

In my line of thinking only the poor should have protection, how do you come up with that?

 

[vanlady]

In my line of thinking only the poor should have protection, how do you come up with that?

You want to define what protections someone should receive based on the size of there paycheck.

 

[Sinurgy]

You want to define what protections someone should receive based on the size of there paycheck.

I'm not "defining" anything, I just said that I don't believe the Labor Board was created with the thought of "protecting" million dollar hockey players. I'd like to think they have much more important things to worry about than something that would be so utterly silly that it's awkward to even talk about.

Not that any of this matters because I think we all know (or atleast we all should know) a sports franchise is a very unique business that is part of a very unique industry.

 

[arnie]

I have read thousands of posts about this. This is my take on it

If you distil everything down to the basic issue is has to be this.
The owners cant get arround the colussion thing. They cant just reset saleries in acordance to true revenues. They cant get together , look at the books and readjust the payrole. When the players say " let the market decide" but the market is not allowed to decide and the players know this. The players want to go for the highest bidder, forcing a shark like feeding frenze for their services, but the sharks are not allowed to stop hunting this fish in favour of another type. No wonder the players don't want to stop the feeding frenze ever. .

You are missing a key point - while the owners can't collude, but the players can. It is well known that Goodenow keeps and eye on contracts and steps in when he judges that a signing will hurt other players' baragining positions.

 

[CGG]

So if your company offers you 75% next year (or nothing) and that 75% is twice what any other company offers you, you'll go work at half the 75% offer?

Makes a lot of sense...

We're talking qualifying offers, not the lockout. Why should teams retain rights at only 75% of their original salary? Like I said, if the player isn't worth at least the same salary, cut him loose, he's a free agent.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I'm an employee, my company can't retain me by offering me 50% or 75% of my salary for next year while at the same time prevent me from working somewhere else. If they don't think I'm worth the same salary or a raise, they cut me loose, I go work somewhere else.

Actually, yes they can. If you are at a high enough level they can do just that through performance and non-compete clauses. They can draft a multi-year contract with performance clauses open to evaluation at given times during the duration of your contract that can either positively or negatively affect your remuneration, normally in stock options and bonuses. Along with these contracts are normal non-compete clauses/waivers that prevent you from working in the same industry or competing agents. That's the real world because most of the owners have likely been subject to similar contracts. The players are finally going to get a taste of it.

 

[CREW99AW]

When only 8 of 30 owners have to vote yes for Bettman to keep the lockout going, that is not very democratic either is it? .

Mac Engel wrote in the Star-Telegram that 10 yrs ago Bettman wanted to hold out for a salary cap when the league locked out the players.In his article today he quotes Gord Miller, who says big market owners in Philadelphia, Toronto, Detroit and New York went behind Bettman's back and got a different deal done.

looks like Bettman was determined to avoid a repeat of that.

 

[SuperUnknown]

We're talking qualifying offers, not the lockout. Why should teams retain rights at only 75% of their original salary? Like I said, if the player isn't worth at least the same salary, cut him loose, he's a free agent.

The problem with that is you're still going to lose a valuable player if you cut him lose. On the other hand, I agree that 75% QO is not a good thing.

Anyway, I thought you were talking about the lockout, sorry I misread.

 

[alecfromtherock]

Last time I checked the Labor board in every province of this country would crawl all over the employers back. So again why should everyone in the country have this protection and not the players?

Province? What the hell, 24 of the teams are in AMERICA therefor the US Labor Board will handle this situation(if needed be)

Quebec does not recognise the PA as a official union, they would allow replacement players to play in their province.

JD of Hockey Central said 3 of the 5 member board in the US are Republicans(good luck PA)

So when W said in his visit to Canada that our 2 countries will be united with the return of the NHL, he was not joking as the GOP will be the ones to solve this issue.

Look at the player reps for the PA, are they the bottom half of the salaries? Or are they the elite who stand to lose the most in a fair deal?

I usually use Detroit as my high example in salaries, but today I will give them a break and use the #2 team in terms of salary:

The New York Rangers had a salary of $76,488,750, a cap $30-45 million will translate into a minium of $31 million salary slash or a 41.1% (not the 24 % rollback) reduction.

Top 25 player salaries–> NYR: Jagomir Jagr (11 million) Pavel Bure (10 million) Robert Holik (8.85 million)

Under maximum cap of 45 million: Jarg ($6,471,539.93) Pavel ($5,883,218.12) and last but certainly not least Holik ($5,000,753.40)

Totalling $17,355,511.45 for 3 players vs $29,850,000 last season.

Under a salary cap arbitration would almost hold no use:

Your team is at the maximum cap already, player A wants a salary of $8 million, but there is only enough cap room for $3 million, guess what your getting $3 million.

I agree that the Labor Board was not created to protect millionairess from still making millions.

 

[vanlady]

I'm not "defining" anything, I just said that I don't believe the Labor Board was created with the thought of "protecting" million dollar hockey players. I'd like to think they have much more important things to worry about than something that would be so utterly silly that it's awkward to even talk about.

Not that any of this matters because I think we all know (or atleast we all should know) a sports franchise is a very unique business that is part of a very unique industry.

The Labor boards were devised to protect all workers.

To define someone by how much they make is social descrimination in reverse, another words that is the thinking that led to slavery.

 

[Trottier]

I don't think the Labor Board was created with the thought of "protecting" million dollar hockey players from unfair labor practices.

This quote (nothing personal, just commenting on your opinion) summarizes for many of us the mindset of some (many?) of the anti-NHLPA folks, perfectly.

Translation: the more money you make, the more economically successful you are professionally, the less rights you should have to continue to earn. In other words, you should not be entitled to the exact same economic freedom as every other individual.

Sadly, the lament of many a common man/hateful, envious fan.

VanLady nailed it. It's both indefensible and unseemingly, IMO.

 

[CarlRacki]

This quote (nothing personal, just commenting on your opinion) summarizes for many of us the mindset of some (many?) of the anti-NHLPA folks, perfectly.

Translation: the more money you make, the more successful you are professionally, the less rights you should have to continue to earn. In other words, you should not be entitled to the exact same economic freedom as every other individual.

Sadly, the lament of many a common man/hateful, envious fan.

VanLady nailed it. It's both indefensible and unseemingly, IMO.

Before you sing the praises of VanLady too much, take note of the fact she also likened the pro-NHL mindset to that of those who participated in the slave trade. There have been lots of silly things said around here by both sides, but that certainly raised the bar to a whole new level.

 

[Trottier]

I think I made it very clear on which point she and I agree 100%.

Common sense would dictate that agreeing on one point does not mean agreeing on every point. Unless one is bent on character assassination, of course.

Might want to heed attention to some of the company with whom you are lining up in this discussion.

And while we're at it, want to defend the premise that the more one makes (in any profession), the less rights they should have? Yep, that's the type of "freedom" we want to see around the world. "Selective" freedom.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Simple. Because those who have more can afford to give up more. Why do folks who hardly make anything pay no income tax? Why do the rich pay a higher percentage than the middle class, or the low income earners?

The NHL offer was eminently fair. Those who are currently making less than a couple of million haven't yet received the benefit of the salary explosion machine, so why should they pay the same amount as a player who's been receiving the benefit of the old system for years?

First off no player in the NHL is making so little that they shouldn't have their salary cut. We are not talking about a player who's making 75k a year cutting his salary.

Secondly, the players making less than a couple of million wouldn't be paying the same amount as a player who's been making more than that as you have claimed. You've missed the point that cutting salaries by the same % throughout the league would lead to players giving up different amounts of money. The players making 5 million and up should lose the same percentage as everyone else, that's only fair, yet that % would cause a greater lose dollar-wise, which is also fair because they can afford to lose more.

The NHL knows that their only option is to outlast the PA and/or hope the PA cracks and gives in. The NHL's proposal of cutting salaries wasn't fair, it was simply trying to speed up this process and divide the players. It's common sense that more of the lower income guys would take a cap than the higher income guys, so obviously the NHL took less from the guys who would take a cap in hopes that they would speak out against the PA and the union would suffer from it. But, it was not "fair"

 

[SuperUnknown]

I think I made it very clear on which point she and I agree 100%.

Common sense would dictate that agreeing on one point does not mean agreeing on every point. Unless one is bent on character assassination, of course.

Might want to heed attention to some of the company with whom you are lining up in this discussion.

And while we're at it, want to defend the premise that the more one makes (in any profession), the less rights they should have? Yep, that's the type of "freedom" we want to see around the world. "Selective" freedom.

However, you have to keep in mind the labour laws are put there to prevent abuse from employers.

I doubt that NHL players could plead a case of "abuse from the employers", even with the latest initial offer. That's why the casual people feel disconnected with them.

 

[Russian Fan]

I don't think the Labor Board was created with the thought of "protecting" million dollar hockey players from unfair labor practices.

So it should protect billions dollars owner who never took seriously their investmen in their toy called an NHL franchise ?

Are they losing money ? That's for sure !

Are they poor because of it ? not at all. This is not even a company for them. It's more an entertainment business which gave the owner to be on a select club of proving they got a lot of money to spend.

Those same owners who cut THOUSANDS & THOUSANDS of

#1- their NHL adminstrations employees ! If they have a 300M$ war chest could they have save those employees that I sure it's around 30 to 40 employees at an average 25,000 to 30,000$ a year. Meaning around 1M$

#2 - job in their REAL BUSINESS in order to get the stock on wall street go up & give significant profits to those who invest & own their business ?

And I didn't even talk that they are the same who transfer their offices & productions industry from Canada or USA to Mexico, Asia & on in order to make MORE money.

We talk about hockey , I know but don't forget that every OWNER in the NHL are multi-millionaires or billionaires & that they ALL DID WORSE then every player together to make LIFE OF THE PEOPLE harder than it looks.

They cut jobs, they maintain a hard stance with every employees in their real business, that's HARSH & it's more than everything you seem envious of the Holik's, Lapointe's & Leclair's who are guilty of 1 THING : signing a monstruous contract. This contract never cut jobs, never took off your pleasure of receive a paycheck you earn in what job you are.

I point your comment & nothing I said is pointing at you directly but to everyone who think the players are so awful & the owner seems so poor & are doing everything they can to make the world so good. (last note is that a rarely see OWNERS going to hospitals to see sick kids, going to charities that does not benefit their business)

 

[CarlRacki]

And while we're at it, want to defend the premise that the more one makes (in any profession), the less rights they should have? Yep, that's the type of "freedom" we want to see around the world. "Selective" freedom.

I don't feel the need to defend a premise I never stated (nor do I believe, for that matter). The second I applaud someone who makes that statement, call me on it.
I shall now return to my slave-owning mindset.

 

[vanlady]

Before you sing the praises of VanLady too much, take note of the fact she also likened the pro-NHL mindset to that of those who participated in the slave trade. There have been lots of silly things said around here by both sides, but that certainly raised the bar to a whole new level.

Actually I suggest you read my comment again. What I said was the social stigmatism mindset that you put forth, is the same social stigmatism that was attached to race. To determine a persons rights based on there race or paycheck is social bigotry at it's finest. No ones rights and freedoms should be determined by there race, gender or paycheck.

 

[Sinurgy]

The Labor boards were devised to protect all workers.

To define someone by how much they make is social descrimination in reverse, another words that is the thinking that led to slavery.

There you go again, saying I'm "defining" people based on how much they make. I'm not "defining" anyone. All I did was mention the mindset that was present when the Labor Board was created. I don't know why you people can't just f'n take it for what it was instead of copying out one line of several statements and then try to deduce my belief system on citizens rights from it. Furthermore, even if I was saying what you keep implying, that is one specific instance not some sort of official stance on the many rights of people. I made a simple statement and you (along with others) turn it into some sort of blanket philosophy that I and suddenly many other "pro-Owner" apply to all of society. Please, you are being silly beyond words. Please just stop it!

Oh and comparing anything I've said to slave trade mentality? Are you serious?! Could you be more foolishly dramatic?! Just when I think this thread couldn't get any more ridiculous!

Oh and for the record, I DO NOT think that someones rights should be based on their economic status. Does that change my comment on the mindset present when the Labor Boards were created, hell no!!

 

[Sinurgy]

I point your comment & nothing I said is pointing at you directly

Good because if you were you'd be horribly wrong!

 

[CarlRacki]

Actually I suggest you read my comment again. What I said was the social stigmatism mindset that you put forth, is the same social stigmatism that was attached to race. To determine a persons rights based on there race or paycheck is social bigotry at it's finest. No ones rights and freedoms should be determined by there race, gender or paycheck.

And where exactly did I put forth this "Social stigmatism"?
Please, before you start casting aspersions on others know who and what you're talking about.
And, more importantly, get a little perspective. To compare a labor dispute between millionaires to slavery is the misplaced hyperbole at its finest.

 

[PecaFan]

First off no player in the NHL is making so little that they shouldn't have their salary cut. We are not talking about a player who's making 75k a year cutting his salary.

No, not 75K, but pretty damn close to it. Were talking dozens of guys going from 400K to 300K etc in one shot. That is a *massive* cut to those guys. Life changing, I'd say. Far greater impact than a guy who goes from $4 million to $3 million. That guy probably doesn't even notice it, just the statement from his broker has a different bottom line.

Secondly, the players making less than a couple of million wouldn't be paying the same amount as a player who's been making more than that as you have claimed. You've missed the point that cutting salaries by the same % throughout the league would lead to players giving up different amounts of money.

By "amount", we're talking percentages. They both pay the same amount means they both pay the same percentage. As I pointed out in my tax example, the rich and the poor have different tax percentages, because having one percentage for all simply isn't fair.

I explained why it's not fair, I'll try again in a new way.

A player making five million or whatever, has already participated in the salary growth machine. He's been to arbitration, free agency etc, and had his salary increased 80%, 100%, 200% etc. He deserves a large cut back because he's *benefitted* from the increase already.

A player making under a million etc, has *never* received the large percentage increase. He's still under the old basic contract, never been a free agent, never gone to arbitration, etc. So why should he get a rollback, when he was never rolled forward?

 

[me2]

No, not 75K, but pretty damn close to it. Were talking dozens of guys going from 400K to 300K etc in one shot. That is a *massive* cut to those guys. Life changing, I'd say. Far greater impact than a guy who goes from $4 million to $3 million. That guy probably doesn't even notice it, just the statement from his broker has a different bottom line.

Massive for the little guy. He's got a wife, two kids, and $400K house to pay for. He's in and out of the line up, splitting time between minor leagues pay and major league pay. He's a bubble guy, who will maybe get 2 or 3 years of NHL play. That $100K x 2/3 could be the difference between paying off his mortgage or not and making sure he's financial secure.

For the guy going from $4m->$3m its more a case of whether he'd have bought 3 more houses with that lost million or just 2 and new Ferrari.