The players must vote ..

[tantalum]

Maybe you should read his post. He said the 3rd and 4th liners should be pissed that they are sacrifcing so guys like Pronger can make $10 million. I said guys like Pronger will continue to make superstar money, no matter what system is in place. If there's a cap, the low end guys get the brunt. That is why they're willing to sacrifice now.

Superstars will stay make big money. No arguments from me on that point. And I do agree that much of the brunt will be on the the lesser players. However, I do think you will see a significant reduction in the star salaries to much more reasonable levels. And while the 3rd and 4th liners will be hit (say 800 k down to 600-650 k) I think ti's the glorified second liners who think they are first liners that are making 3+ million that in the end will be hit the hardest of the bunch under a cap. And I don't mind that at all.

 

[eye]

Maybe you should read his post. He said the 3rd and 4th liners should be pissed that they are sacrifcing so guys like Pronger can make $10 million. I said guys like Pronger will continue to make superstar money, no matter what system is in place. If there's a cap, the low end guys get the brunt. That is why they're willing to sacrifice now.

Go back and read theBob's post again. He said exactly what your saying and you disagreed with him but then again disagreeing with anyone is what you do best, isn't it?

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

I'm no legal expert but it would seem to me the NHLPA executive committee and Bob Goodenow would have no obligation to allow a vote in order to show good faith in bargaining with the league. They're empowered to negotiate on behalf of the union and that's that. If the "silent dissenters" (assuming they exist) want their voices heard, they're going to have to foment revolt on their own.

Just my understanding/opinion.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Go back and read theBob's post again. He said exactly what your saying and you disagreed with him but then again disagreeing with anyone is what you do best, isn't it?

If I was an older player, or a 3rd or 4th liner I would be very pissed that I am sacrificing my career and taking a huge pay cut so clowns like Pronger can make $10 mil. I wouldnt stand for it.

He said the 3rd and 4th liners should be pissed that they are sacrifcing so guys like Pronger can make $10 million. I said guys like Pronger will continue to make superstar money, no matter what system is in place. If there's a cap, the low end guys get the brunt. That is why they're willing to sacrifice now.

Here's how I break down what theBob said: older and marginal players are currently sacrificing their careers during the lockout in order to prevent a salary cap, becuase the PA wants to ensure that guys like Pronger will continue to make superstar money.

Here's how I break down what I said: superstar players will get superstar money, whether there's a cap, whether there's a tax, or wheter there's any other system. If there's a cap, that means there is a fixed limit of what a team can spend. If superstars still get superstar money, that means there's less money to be paid to non superstars, which includes the 3rd and 4th liners theBob talked about. It is my belief that a cap would hurt marginal players much more than it would hurt superstars. Therefore it is in the best interests of those marginal players to support the union in its efforts to avoid a salary cap.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Superstars will stay make big money. No arguments from me on that point. And I do agree that much of the brunt will be on the the lesser players. However, I do think you will see a significant reduction in the star salaries to much more reasonable levels. And while the 3rd and 4th liners will be hit (say 800 k down to 600-650 k) I think ti's the glorified second liners who think they are first liners that are making 3+ million that in the end will be hit the hardest of the bunch under a cap. And I don't mind that at all.

For sure everyone would make less, but look at the NFL with its all powerful hard cap. Look at the deals Manning and Vick signed (btw, no one's been able to tell me how low revenue NHL can sign deals like those with no revenue sharing). Superstars will get their money, and if there's a hard cap, every non superstar is going to be hurt quite a bit.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

If they don't accept a cap, non-stars will be hurt even more because they won't have a league to play in here period. The ones that get contracts in Europe will get them for much less than what they'd make here. Many won't get European contracts as spots are limited and as Bryan McCabe and Marc Savard have proven, Europe isn't exactly the cakewalk some people thought it would be for NHLers.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Once the NHL comes out of the meeting on Jan 14th and announce Monday as D-Day the NHLPA will fold like a bunch of cheap sluts, and accept the payroll ranges system.

 

[hockeytown9321]

If they don't accept a cap, non-stars will be hurt even more because they won't have a league to play in here period.

And if Gary Bettman continues his path of destrction, the leaguw is going to need a lot more than a salry cap to survive.

 

[SuperUnknown]

And if Gary Bettman continues his path of destrction, the leaguw is going to need a lot more than a salry cap to survive.

As long as the owners can make a higher profit (than currently), the revenues don't really matter. If they can make $50M out of $700M (1/3 of current revenues), it's still more than losing $300M out of $2100M. They don't stand anything to lose, even if the market shrinks down greatly. On the other hand, players stand to lose a ton, as if the market shrinks to $700M, they'll get collectively about $400M, which is $1000M less than what they made the past few years.

In other words, the PA needs to get a deal done as soon as possible, since they are hurting the most by the shrinking fan base, while the owner aren't really hurt as long as in the end they can implement a structure where they can make profits.

 

[Puck]

I doubt the NHL will ever call a secret owner's vote, the official line is that they are unanimously behind Bettman.

I doubt the fans can force the union to call a vote. Why?, because the fans think there should be one? The fans have been behind the owners, what influence or leverage do they hold on the players now? If people think there are unfair labour practices going on, they can get a lawyer and make formal charges.

The union just proposed a 24 per cent rollback that seemed to stun some players with its 'pain factor' to their wallets. And that was turned down by the NHL. Why would the players call a vote now? To make more concessions?

I'd be pretty sure if the players decided to discuss a Cap, their 24 per cent rollback as it stands would be off the table. The new cap formula would be the provision that handles the wage restraint and cost certainty. The 24 per cent rollback was the bait to the NHL to avoid a Cap. That was turned down.

Do you want a vote because of the impending artificial and yet-to-be-called NHL drop dead date? It's a lockout not a strike.

Internal politics within the union would dictate whether a vote would be called. If the PA members thought they had enough votes to accept Bettman's so-called counter proposal (incl. dropping salary arbitration) they could demand a vote. If Goodenow and the 30 player reps thought the players' had overwhelming sentiments to accept a cap, I'm supposing the executive would then consider that. If the players don't like their player reps it is up to them to change them.

I doubt any PA member would vote in the positive to accept Bettman's proposals as it stands including deleting the 'arbitration provision'.

There would have to be at least some sort of Memorandum of Agreement between both sides drawn up for the members to vote on; I haven't seen anything. Do you just want them to vote on whether to wrap the rope around their necks and accept whatever Bettman demands, in order to play? The union might as well just close up shop.

Some people are suggesting that there are secret talks going on. That would be the best hope for a solution at this point. I'm not aware of any talks though. From where I sit, the situation looks bleak.

 

[misterjaggers]

Maybe you should read his post. He said the 3rd and 4th liners should be pissed that they are sacrifcing so guys like Pronger can make $10 million. I said guys like Pronger will continue to make superstar money, no matter what system is in place. If there's a cap, the low end guys get the brunt. That is why they're willing to sacrifice now.

.
The problem is, the union is fighting a losing battle. Inevitably it will surrender on the salary cap. While union leadership talks about "fighting the good fight", many of this group of active third and fourth line players surrender significant lifetime earnings, money that will never be recouped, if this season is lost.

 

[hockeytown9321]

.
The problem is, the union is fighting a losing battle. Inevitably it will surrender on the salary cap. While union leadership talks about "fighting the good fight", many of this group of active third and fourth line players surrender significant lifetime earnings, money that will never be recouped, if this season is lost.

Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. We'll find out by the 14th I guess.

 

[Wetcoaster]

If the NHL tells the NHLPA that they have given their best and final offer, the NHLPA refusing to allow a vote on it would be an unfair labor practice....

They cannot declare this after the prior offer. That statement must be made at the time the offer is tendered.

 

[djhn579]

It would appear to be from a layman's point of view. Can anyone with a legal background provide clarification if this is an unfair labour practice and if it would qualify as "bargaining in bad faith"?

My mistake, I thought I read that somewhere. I was probably thinking about what I read in this article that says it could have some bearing on the determination of whether an impasse actually exists...

The Existence Of An Impasse

Before an employer actually implements its pre-impasse proposals, it must be sure that an impasse does indeed exist. An impasse is defined in the law as the point at which further discussions would be futile. Designating a situation as futile is by no means an empty philosophical exercise; it is a fact-laden legal determination that has spawned countless NLRB and court decisions. Here are some of the factors that are likely to be an important part of the debate:

● bargaining history of the parties;

● good faith of the parties, which may include: the presence of delaying tactics, unreasonable bargaining demands, efforts to bypass the union, failure to designate an agent, arbitrary scheduling of meetings and whether the employer has withdrawn already agreed-upon provisions;

● length of negotiations, although no set number of meetings are required;

● importance of issues on which the parties are deadlocked;

● belief of the parties as to whether impasse exists;

● rejection of a final offer by the rank-and-file union membership;

● union’s rejection of proposals without presentation of counterproposal or requesting more time to negotiate;

● union’s refusal to recommend a final offer to the rank-and-file for ratification;
● union’s withdrawal from negotiations without attempting to schedule more meetings; and

● whether reasonable time existed for the union to review information supplied to it by the employer and analyze its impact on counteroffers.

http://www.lawmemo.com/emp/articles/hardball.htm

 

[djhn579]

They cannot declare this after the prior offer. That statement must be made at the time the offer is tendered.

Of course...

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

Totally wrong. A cap won't hurt guys like Pronger. Superstars will still get superstar money. Its the 3rd and 4th liners that will be hurt the most.

really? how do you know that? how can anybody know that? will the blues still pay their superstar (pronger, tkachuk, weight, demitra) what they are earning now under a cap? thats about $35M for those 4 players, so they are going to spend $10M for the rest of their line up? if the blues cant afford pronger (for example) at $10M per year, who else will pay him that? the leafs? rangers? flyers? red wings? they all have higher payroll then the blues. or maybe the oilers? flames? sabres? hurricanes? they cant afford a $10M player now, wont be able to under a cap. so wheres pronger going to get his superstar money from? all you can say is the superstar will get more money then the 3rd and 4th liners under any system.

 

[hockeytown9321]

really? how do you know that? how can anybody know that? will the blues still pay their superstar (pronger, tkachuk, weight, demitra) what they are earning now under a cap? thats about $35M for those 4 players, so they are going to spend $10M for the rest of their line up? if the blues cant afford pronger (for example) at $10M per year, who else will pay him that? the leafs? rangers? flyers? red wings? they all have higher payroll then the blues. or maybe the oilers? flames? sabres? hurricanes? they cant afford a $10M player now, wont be able to under a cap. so wheres pronger going to get his superstar money from? all you can say is the superstar will get more money then the 3rd and 4th liners under any system.

Look at the NFL. How much did Vick sign for? How much did Manning sign for? Superstar NFL salaries continue to go up, and continue to be astronomical. And they have to pay twice as many players.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

Look at the NFL. How much did Vick sign for? How much did Manning sign for? Superstar NFL salaries continue to go up, and continue to be astronomical. And they have to pay twice as many players.

i dont follow the nfl so you are gonna have to tell me what vick sign for. but the one thing i do know about the nfl is they generate ALOT more revenue then the nhl, therefore they can pay their superstar "astronomical" salaries.
but instead of bringing in the nfl, how about if you answer my question? where is pronger gonna get his "superstar salary" under the cap?

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

=A secret vote will end this thing because I know the NHLPA gag order from the intimidating Bob Goodenow to the high priced overpaid player reps that are only looking out for their own interests will be very suprised to know that most players are willing to play within a cost linkage system. A vote would mean that common sense could prevail over the stubborn minority opinions of Bob and his clonies.

Gag order?

Rank and file members have, in this dispute, unprecedented access to union information previously unheard of in past years. This is the internet age. Each player has been issued a labtop to keep abreast of issues and negotiation updates, as well as provide their own input.

There is no excuse for any member to claim they are being left out in the dark. To claim that they are is patently ridiculous.

 

[salty justice]

Im sure superstar players will continue to make superstar money in comparison to other players. But in a system with a $35mil cap, there wont be any players making $10mil. And if the league raises the minimum contracts, like they did in their offer, and progressively rollback taxes, the lower end players will be better off than they are under the old system.

 

[hockeytown9321]

i dont follow the nfl so you are gonna have to tell me what vick sign for. but the one thing i do know about the nfl is they generate ALOT more revenue then the nhl, therefore they can pay their superstar "astronomical" salaries.
but instead of bringing in the nfl, how about if you answer my question? where is pronger gonna get his "superstar salary" under the cap?

Vick signed for $100 million.

Yeah, the NFL makes more revenue. About 3 times a much. That's irrelevent to the discussion. They have a system which strictly links salary to revenue, and their superstars get bigger contracts every year.

The only real major difference is that all the NFL can afford the massive signing bonuses necessitated by the cap. Not all NHL teams could, unless significant revenue sharing was adopted.

 

[CarlRacki]

The only real major difference is that all the NFL can afford the massive signing bonuses necessitated by the cap. Not all NHL teams could, unless significant revenue sharing was adopted.

That's kind of irrelevant. While you're perhaps correct regarding team's ability to pay larges bonuses, they would be completely unnecessary anyhow. As long as guaranteed contracts remain the norm - and both sides say they will - there's no demand/need for the mega bonus.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

The only real major difference is that all the NFL can afford the massive signing bonuses necessitated by the cap. Not all NHL teams could, unless significant revenue sharing was adopted.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head. Vick's signing bonus was a whopping 30 mill. further, the rich owners aren't keen to share their money unless certain and unrealistic obligations are met by the small market teams. moreover, how many here would also believe that any added revenue the small market teams would get from the rich clubs would go in the back pocket of the small-time owners? i would...thus the unrealistic requirements the rich owners would demand from the smaller market clubs.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

Vick signed for $100 million.

Yeah, the NFL makes more revenue. About 3 times a much. That's irrelevent to the discussion. They have a system which strictly links salary to revenue, and their superstars get bigger contracts every year.

The only real major difference is that all the NFL can afford the massive signing bonuses necessitated by the cap. Not all NHL teams could, unless significant revenue sharing was adopted.

so why wont the players "settle" for a cap? if the rich teams can still spend as much as they want (they can afford to pay the bonuses) superstars players will still get their superstar salaries and the team will still have enough money to sign the 3rd and 4th liners to what they are earning now. unless im not understanding the nfl system correctly, in which case i'll appreciate it if you can explain it to me.

 

[hockeytown9321]

so why wont the players "settle" for a cap? if the rich teams can still spend as much as they want (they can afford to pay the bonuses) superstars players will still get their superstar salaries and the team will still have enough money to sign the 3rd and 4th liners to what they are earning now. unless im not understanding the nfl system correctly, in which case i'll appreciate it if you can explain it to me.

You're not understanding that the NFL teams have to shift the brunt onto the low level guys, which was my original point. The players themsleves (the PA itself might be different) want to avoid the cap because all but the top level guys are hurt significantly by it.