Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby ukcanuck » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:36 pm

Fred wrote:
dbr wrote:
Fred wrote:What is strange is the players actually sign personal contract that they negoiate & agree to willingly with each team. They agree ! they sign ! what's to complain about. The complaint is Weber wants more?, Lapierre wants more ? even after they have agreed to their salary.


Players are pushing to keep things the way they are (ie. the same % of HRR, the same contract rules, etc) because they have done really well under this CBA, it's the owners pushing to keep players away from unrestricted free agency and to cut salaries (even on deals they agreed ! to and signed ! ).

Do you seriously believe what you posted or am I badly misreading you?



I think you're reading more into it. Individuallythe players work out their own deal and sign on the dotted line. Collectively they want a bigger piece of the pie, but I can't see Weber as an example actually benefitting further than his own contract has brought to him. It'll be no more than the cherry on the pie


I thought you understood what is going on with this threatened lockout. The owners want a ROLLBACK collectively, they want MORE of the players CURRENT salaries placed in escrow from their monthly pay cheques until the final accounting at the end of the year at which time the league would divide the HRR on a 53% /47% (to be negotiated) split. which will mean on average EVERY player in the league will receive LESS than the amount they agreed to and signed for on their existing contracts ...

In plain english, the owners want to get out of the contracts they legally and morally are responsible for...What I want to know is in what universe is a contract not a contract when you or I sign one, and why the FUCK should it be any different for a welfare recipient, a millionaire, a billionaire, a corporation, an athlete or a goddam brain surgeon!
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby dbr » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:01 pm

Fred wrote:
Topper wrote:The Weber deal is a poor example. Shea is guaranteed $68 million (4x$13mil, 2x$8mil) over the next six years. That money is untouchable except by his agent and the tax man. His NHL salary over that period is only $12mil (4x$1mil, 2x$4mil). With so little of his pay coming in salary, escrow is nearly meaningless to him.



So why the heck should he give a dam ? he's on the NHLPA committee I believe. 700+ pl;ayers have all negoiated a contract of their own to the best of their/agents ability, squeezed every penney they can from the owners pocket to their pocket. If they were not satisfied one can only presume they would not have signed. That part they like.


The problem with this reasoning is that it applies to both sides; if owners were not satisfied they would not have signed.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby Potatoe1 » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:15 pm

Topper wrote:The Weber deal is a poor example. Shea is guaranteed $68 million (4x$13mil, 2x$8mil) over the next six years. That money is untouchable except by his agent and the tax man. His NHL salary over that period is only $12mil (4x$1mil, 2x$4mil). With so little of his pay coming in salary, escrow is nearly meaningless to him.


Im fairly sure deals like Webers are subject to escrow as well.

He wont pay it this year but I would imagine that if the players take a roll back in the form of increased escrow, he will pay off the top on his lump sum payment this time next year.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby ukcanuck » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:18 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
Topper wrote:The Weber deal is a poor example. Shea is guaranteed $68 million (4x$13mil, 2x$8mil) over the next six years. That money is untouchable except by his agent and the tax man. His NHL salary over that period is only $12mil (4x$1mil, 2x$4mil). With so little of his pay coming in salary, escrow is nearly meaningless to him.


Im fairly sure deals like Webers are subject to escrow as well.

He wont pay it this year but I would imagine that if the players take a roll back in the form of increased escrow, he will pay off the top on his lump sum payment this time next year.

just a guess, but wont every player pay up into escrow in proportion to their salary cap hit regardless of actual salary. Considering that contracts like Webers and Luongo's that are designed to get around the cap, it would only make sense...
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby Fred » Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:35 am

dbr wrote:[The problem with this reasoning is that it applies to both sides; if owners were not satisfied they would not have signed.


Absolutely, what is apparent the owners have no control over their GM's OR they're in it strictly for the fun but don't want to get bent over. There's no such thing as entering into the spirit of the CBA. Agents also scrutize the CBA with a team of lawyers to find excepition and loop holes for their clients and bit by bit it crumbles. Until such time it has to be reviewed and re evaluated. It's a circle. There is no such thing as a perfect CBA
cheers
Fred
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby Topper » Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:01 am

ukcanuck wrote:In plain english, the owners want to get out of the contracts they legally and morally are responsible for...What I want to know is in what universe is a contract not a contract when you or I sign one, and why the FUCK should it be any different for a welfare recipient, a millionaire, a billionaire, a corporation, an athlete or a goddam brain surgeon!

To have signed players to lower contracts under the current cba would have required collusion on the part of the owners.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4787
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby Arachnid » Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:13 am

I said this last strike/lock-out. The Players should be the owners, ala Super Mario, dissolve the league and start a new one.

They've changed the game so much from the original 6 era that tradition means didley squat anymore. The owners don't give a shit about the bread and butter fans and the players need to learn to manage themselves better so ticket prices are fair.

Revolution involves more than government sometimes :D
There is no such thing as climate change...there is no such thing as climate change...there is such thing as climate change...
Arachnid
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Old Berlin

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby dbr » Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:19 am

ukcanuck wrote:just a guess, but wont every player pay up into escrow in proportion to their salary cap hit regardless of actual salary. Considering that contracts like Webers and Luongo's that are designed to get around the cap, it would only make sense...


I don't think that's how it works.. if it did could you imagine escrow being set at 10% of salaries (or cap hits) and some player on the last year of his contract making peanuts compared to his cap hit having to hand over half his paycheque?

Fred wrote:
dbr wrote:[The problem with this reasoning is that it applies to both sides; if owners were not satisfied they would not have signed.


Absolutely, what is apparent the owners have no control over their GM's OR they're in it strictly for the fun but don't want to get bent over. There's no such thing as entering into the spirit of the CBA. Agents also scrutize the CBA with a team of lawyers to find excepition and loop holes for their clients and bit by bit it crumbles. Until such time it has to be reviewed and re evaluated. It's a circle. There is no such thing as a perfect CBA


How could the owners not have control over their employees, that makes no sense.

That being said it's obvious that "owners" means a group of individuals, with huge variance across the group in terms of means and philosophy - to some every dollar spent over the cap ceiling is a victory and to some every dollar spent over the floor is a defeat.

It's so one-sided to imply that players and their agents are the only ones driving the deals that undermine the "spirit" of the CBA, obviously some teams wish to spent over the salary cap in order to gain a competitive advantage and the ownership groups and management of those teams are willing participants in that.

It's far more accurate to say that Gary Bettman can't control the owners (which is only fair, otherwise we're dealing with collusion) than it is to say the owners can't control their GMs; similarly, the PA can't control all players and you see this when people like Ryan Kesler come out in the press and make comments about how players on his team have to give a hometown discount if they want to win.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby ukcanuck » Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:30 am

Topper wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:In plain english, the owners want to get out of the contracts they legally and morally are responsible for...What I want to know is in what universe is a contract not a contract when you or I sign one, and why the FUCK should it be any different for a welfare recipient, a millionaire, a billionaire, a corporation, an athlete or a goddam brain surgeon!

To have signed players to lower contracts under the current cba would have required collusion on the part of the owners.

I don't think it would. I think it would have required restraint in signing players to contracts that made sense in relation to the player's age abilities and track record. It has been inherently obvious that you can't buy championships in this league and as an owner you can veto any contract offer your GM wants to make without sticking to some imaginary line in the sand pre agreed to by your partners...If I am not mistaken that is how we ended up with Luongo, florida's owner wouldn't agree to the contract demands at the time...
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby ukcanuck » Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:43 am

personally i think this is getting away from the point that it is the owners who are driving this bus into the ditch. Its only reasonable to assume that both sides in this negotiation have to defend their best interests, however it has been ONLY the players who have stated publicly they are willing to help the owners by giving the rollback they want but they want guarantees that the owners are going to use the rollback to help the weaker sisters. by creating a revenue sharing fund similar to MLB which would see the owners match the player's rollback to create the money necessary to right the ship in all the markets. Thats a reasonable answer to the problem that keeps coming up in the sunbelt. but Buttman calls that a diversion from negotiating the rollback. Clearly certain owners (original six) want the cash for themselves and dont want to help the weak franchises if it affects their personal bottom line...this is not acceptable
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby Fred » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:00 am

The players responded with a proposal that would see their cut unlinked from revenue for three years, during which salaries would go up 2 per cent, 4 and then 6. The fourth year of their proposal, the salaries would snap back and link to revenue. They’d get a 57 per cent cut just like the current CBA.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/Subscribe+Pr ... z26AoXbuW2


Doesn't seem like a plan to me, at acursary glance it looks like more of the same
cheers
Fred
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby Topper » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:12 am

ukcanuck wrote:
Topper wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:In plain english, the owners want to get out of the contracts they legally and morally are responsible for...What I want to know is in what universe is a contract not a contract when you or I sign one, and why the FUCK should it be any different for a welfare recipient, a millionaire, a billionaire, a corporation, an athlete or a goddam brain surgeon!

To have signed players to lower contracts under the current cba would have required collusion on the part of the owners.

I don't think it would. I think it would have required restraint in signing players to contracts that made sense in relation to the player's age abilities and track record.........If I am not mistaken that is how we ended up with Luongo, florida's owner wouldn't agree to the contract demands at the time...

So some one else did.

That is the case throughout the league. That is why Suter and Parise held their auctions for services.

If the owners decided not to pay up, that is collusion.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4787
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby the Dogsalmon » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:13 am

Arachnid wrote:I said this last strike/lock-out. The Players should be the owners, ala Super Mario, dissolve the league and start a new one.

They've changed the game so much from the original 6 era that tradition means didley squat anymore. The owners don't give a shit about the bread and butter fans and the players need to learn to manage themselves better so ticket prices are fair.

Revolution involves more than government sometimes :D




again...anarchy is great when you get a government cheque...
User avatar
the Dogsalmon
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:12 am
Location: in the ainus

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby Topper » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:14 am

Fred wrote:
The players responded with a proposal that would see their cut unlinked from revenue for three years, during which salaries would go up 2 per cent, 4 and then 6. The fourth year of their proposal, the salaries would snap back and link to revenue. They’d get a 57 per cent cut just like the current CBA.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/Subscribe+Pr ... z26AoXbuW2


Doesn't seem like a plan to me, at acursary glance it looks like more of the same

McKenzie has a new articulate article on TSN describing both the owner's and PA's offers and the redonkulusness of both.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4787
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Boycott NHL owners non-NHL Businesses

Postby Fred » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:37 am

Topper wrote:
Fred wrote:
The players responded with a proposal that would see their cut unlinked from revenue for three years, during which salaries would go up 2 per cent, 4 and then 6. The fourth year of their proposal, the salaries would snap back and link to revenue. They’d get a 57 per cent cut just like the current CBA.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/Subscribe+Pr ... z26AoXbuW2


Doesn't seem like a plan to me, at acursary glance it looks like more of the same

McKenzie has a new articulate article on TSN describing both the owner's and PA's offers and the redonkulusness of both.



Good article, he's done the numbers and frankly I can understand why the PA doesn't want to make mention of the 44% increase during the last CBA and it also explains why they want to keep as is

( Even if you use the pre-lockout, free-market figure of $1.7 million, the average player's salary has still gone up $750,000 or about 44 per cent in the new system.
)

. The fact that the income for the NHl revenues has risen from $2.2 billion to $3.3 billion how has been achieved how ?? the players are playing better ? or better promotion by the NHL and a new NBC TV contract
cheers
Fred
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron