• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

2,459 posts in this topic

to me it sounds like he is admitting that they will have to take a salary rollback, which goes completely against the NHLPA's current stance.

the question becomes whether he was referring specifically to salary rollbacks or the players share of revenue

If the NHLPA's most important point is no salary rollback then they are already failing...every cancelled game costs revenue.

A missed paycheck for the first year already means a loss of 8.3% (1/12th). Or maybe more...since I am not sure how many paychecks a player receives per year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want"

"So tell me what you want, what you really, really want"

"I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want"

"So tell me what you want, what you really, really want"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dunno about that

from the article:

to me it sounds like he is admitting that they will have to take a salary rollback, which goes completely against the NHLPA's current stance.

the question becomes whether he was referring specifically to salary rollbacks or the players share of revenue

But that's a rhetorical question posed by the author in the article, not to Alzner.

It could mean that. There's really no context so who knows. But I think all the players are aware that under any new CBA the conditions will be less favorable than what they have right now.

The league is trying to avoid saying the word "rollback" but to cut salaries to the degree they want, they're gonna need a rollback because of the asinine contracts the owners handed out right before the CBA expired. Or create some luxury tax for going over the tax, which is never gonna happen.

It seems like a decent compromise is just to let the players percentage of revenue decrease in a stepped way over the length of the CBA, which is pretty much a version of what the union proposed. Both sides just need to agree on the eventual percentage. Well, first they need to agree on what constitutes HRR.

Even with the stepped down decrease, it seems like both sides could end up making more money overall because it would bring a relatively quick end to the lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Future Pulitzer prize nominee Ilya Bryzgalov with a look at the present and the future:

"(NHL) owners...they create this situation and they put themselves into this situation," explained Bryzgalov. "Like I said before, they have to take responsibility for their own actions.

"If you watch what they did consistently, like saying: 'It's going to be (a) lockout. We're not happy with the system, we can't operate with the system that we had'...and (yet) they continued to sign the players during the negotiation process, signing the players to long-term contracts for big amounts."

"I think some of the players may not return to the NHL because you have everything here and major companies are going to pay the top players here big money. And, especially for Russians players who can play at home in front of their own fans and families and [earn] even bigger money than they have in the National Hockey League," said Bryzgalov.

"The KHL can't feed all the players, but for some big players - especially those with Russian passports - it might be a threat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting tweets from Bob McKenzie tonight. In their entirety:

My instincts say we'll lose the whole year but we've still got a month or two to salvage a Dec or Jan start up, so we'll see. I suspect we'll see our first real movement from either side in coming week but whether that creates legit traction for talks, who knows? At this point, I don't doubt either side's resolve. That may be the problem. Owners think players will cave. Players think owners will cave. I think, like last time, we'll lose the season before anyone blinks.

Would losing a second season within 10 years be the straw that breaks the camel's back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On average, they are paid 16 times. Bi-monthly checks from the month in which the season starts to the month in which it ends - typically October to April (8 months).

The players have missed their first check so far, but a little relief is coming later this month when they receive the escrow rebate from last year. After that, no checks in sight.

I read all this within the last couple days.. can't remember where or I would cite it.

If the NHLPA's most important point is no salary rollback then they are already failing...every cancelled game costs revenue.

A missed paycheck for the first year already means a loss of 8.3% (1/12th). Or maybe more...since I am not sure how many paychecks a player receives per year?

Edited by FireCaptain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it, some superstars are already threatening the NHL because now they do have alternatives and other leagues to play in. If we lose Datsyuk because of this I'll swear I gonna lose it.

Ally likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players who want to play by the new cba the owners want- stay. Those that dont- leave. Lets get on with it already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm calling for a full boycott of the NHL. What would the NHL have to say to a half-empty JLA? or MSG? What about if the Air Canada Centre was half empty? or if Newark was a ghost town and Long Island had no one show up at all? We need to send a STRONG message that we are your bosses. We are the ones who decide if you get our money today or not. WE decide if your league state is good or bad.

Let the NHL store in NYC get overloaded with merch and just walk by it. Get Buttman out there to peddle jerseys and t-shirts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Fehr head of the NHLPA gave a great interview http://www.theglobea...article4593338/

If a team is kept in a city in which it is not doing very well, and there is another place it could be relocated and do better and make labour relations and everything else easier, and the decision is to leave it in the first city, whose responsibility is that and who ought to bear the cost for it? Those questions from our standpoint have self-evident answers.

‘We have teams that aren’t doing so well, so let’s lower salaries on the teams that aren’t doing so well so we will be comfortable with it. Forget whether any management failure had a part in it. But we’re also going to lower the salaries on the teams that are making very large profits by the same amount.’ That sort of means we’re going to pay the players based on the worst performing, least efficient, most undercapitalized teams.

one of the things we wonder is that if you have to have a rule like the owners do, where if you say anything that isn’t approved, you can be fined an enormous amount of money? That raises two questions: When in the world did we get to the point of regulating free speech in America again? And secondly, what is it we’re afraid they’re going to say?

Top quotes from the interview I'd advise everyone here to read it, it is really well thought out, positive and shows exactly what a great hiring this guy is. He also pointed out how the players could have gone the catch me if you can route with their first proposal.

btw. all these CBA crap doesn't look even look at some insane tax fees.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL needs to get out of this mess fast. If the players cant deal with 43% of the billions that come in, let them go. Im sure there are others who will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL needs to get out of this mess fast. If the players cant deal with 43% of the billions that come in, let them go. Im sure there are others who will.

And in a few years the owners will lock the replacement players out so they can cut their pay even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm calling for a full boycott of the NHL. What would the NHL have to say to a half-empty JLA? or MSG? What about if the Air Canada Centre was half empty? or if Newark was a ghost town and Long Island had no one show up at all?

We all know this will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL needs to get out of this mess fast. If the players cant deal with 43% of the billions that come in, let them go. Im sure there are others who will.

Really? Anti-Union much? Lets see, it's the players that are responsible for the revenue that the team and NHL make. People pay their $80 to sit in the nose bleeding corners to just get a glimpse of Pavel Datsyuk or Alex Ovechkin and those players are expected to let the owners not only have the majority of the revenue PLUS accepet paycuts or they should be fired? I would argue the opposite, if the OWNERS cant deal with 43% of the BILLIONS that come directly because of the players that play and bring the fans in, then let them sell the team to someone who can.

This is typical of any and all CEO's and Owners of teams...They are ALL making millions and millions and some even billions ( Mike Illitch IS a billionaire you know) and all they want is more more more. Never acknowledging that it is the EMPLOYEE that generates the profits. Same can be said of the NHL as can be said of, lets say, Ford Motor Company. The problem is greed. I am pissed at both sides for not coming to a comprimise, but this is typical Owner anti-union actions. Example: before the IAM was forced out of Delta Airlines, everything was blamed on the labor cost. They cannot do this or that becuase of labor costs....now, no union, same problems exist, but all of a sudden it's because of oil prices, less people traveling...The problem is not the union or labor contracts or collective bargaining, its CEO's and Owners refusal to have a good relationship with the unions. Owners want to be able to do what they want, when they want, no matter who, what or where it affects people and families. Sure the NHL players make waaaaay more money than your typical laborer, but they are the elite of elite hockey players in the world, they should be paid as such and they should reap the benefits of their talents by having at least an equal share of the revenue they create. 50/50 should be the agreement, but the Owners want the majority and the PA wants the majority...50/50, share the wealth equally...

they owners need to open their eyes and realize that they make more profits with Pavel Datsyuk and Hank Zetterberg playing rather than Walt the Postman and Joe the Plummer playing...who would you rather pay to see?

Now you know why Lidstrom retired when he did...the writing was on the wall and he didn't want any part of corporate greed again...

Edited by LeftWinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Anti-Union much? Lets see, it's the players that are responsible for the revenue that the team and NHL make. People pay their $80 to sit in the nose bleeding corners to just get a glimpse of Pavel Datsyuk or Alex Ovechkin and those players are expected to let the owners not only have the majority of the revenue PLUS accepet paycuts or they should be fired? I would argue the opposite, if the OWNERS cant deal with 43% of the BILLIONS that come directly because of the players that play and bring the fans in, then let them sell the team to someone who can.

This is typical of any and all CEO's and Owners of teams...They are ALL making millions and millions and some even billions ( Mike Illitch IS a billionaire you know) and all they want is more more more. Never acknowledging that it is the EMPLOYEE that generates the profits. Same can be said of the NHL as can be said of, lets say, Ford Motor Company. The problem is greed. I am pissed at both sides for not coming to a comprimise, but this is typical Owner anti-union actions. Example: before the IAM was forced out of Delta Airlines, everything was blamed on the labor cost. They cannot do this or that becuase of labor costs....now, no union, same problems exist, but all of a sudden it's because of oil prices, less people traveling...The problem is not the union or labor contracts or collective bargaining, its CEO's and Owners refusal to have a good relationship with the unions. Owners want to be able to do what they want, when they want, no matter who, what or where it affects people and families. Sure the NHL players make waaaaay more money than your typical laborer, but they are the elite of elite hockey players in the world, they should be paid as such and they should reap the benefits of their talents by having at least an equal share of the revenue they create. 50/50 should be the agreement, but the Owners want the majority and the PA wants the majority...50/50, share the wealth equally...

they owners need to open their eyes and realize that they make more profits with Pavel Datsyuk and Hank Zetterberg playing rather than Walt the Postman and Joe the Plummer playing...who would you rather pay to see?

Now you know why Lidstrom retired when he did...the writing was on the wall and he didn't want any part of corporate greed again...

The players are not only employees but also the product

Nev likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL needs to get out of this mess fast. If the players cant deal with 43% of the billions that come in, let them go. Im sure there are others who will.

I think that for a good portion of hockey fans it does matter who is one the ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On average, they are paid 16 times. Bi-monthly checks from the month in which the season starts to the month in which it ends - typically October to April (8 months).

The players have missed their first check so far, but a little relief is coming later this month when they receive the escrow rebate from last year. After that, no checks in sight.

I read all this within the last couple days.. can't remember where or I would cite it.

Thanks for the info!

Based on total cap hits for this season (=$1.8B), this means $120M worth of paychecks are lost atm.

So that leaves $880M on the table between the current offers of the NHL and the NHLPA.

Edit: Actually according to http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/10/06/nhlers-begin-feel-pain-locked-out-again-begin-miss-paycheck-this-week/SlObwrb5UE6a5rKaVr1UDN/story.html there are 12 installments between October and April.

Assuming every paycheck is given on the 1st and 15th of the month.

So that actually leaves: $1.0B - $150M = $850M on the table.

Edited by RippedOnNitro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On average, they are paid 16 times. Bi-monthly checks from the month in which the season starts to the month in which it ends - typically October to April (8 months).

The players have missed their first check so far, but a little relief is coming later this month when they receive the escrow rebate from last year. After that, no checks in sight.

I read all this within the last couple days.. can't remember where or I would cite it.

according to the nytimes, escrow checks are 8% of the players 2011-2012 salary.

That is the same day that N.H.L. players are to receive escrow checks containing 8 percent of their 2011-12 salaries — a timely tranche of income ($80,000 for a player who made $1 million last season) that may help strengthen their resolve into November and December.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/sports/hockey/nhl-lockout-comes-as-some-players-go-to-skate-in-european-leagues.html?_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to the nytimes, escrow checks are 8% of the players 2011-2012 salary.

http://www.nytimes.c...agues.html?_r=0

Yes, the players will be able to take one paycheck hit, since the 8% escrow replaces that first paycheck.

However the players still lose their paycheck in the total amount since the escrow would have been paid anyways.

I guess this means also, that with each missed paycheck this season means a lower escrow payment next season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should all support dissolving the players union. When that is done, we will never have to worry about another lockout. If players don't like the terms the NHL owners offer, they can play elsewhere. If the best players are choosing to play outside of the NHL, the owners can choose to offer better contracts to entice them to play in the NHL. Free market economics... it works amazingly well.

In the long run, it is market competition that ensures fair wages and treatment... not unions.

Edit: Well shucks, I meant to post this in the lockout thread. Could someone please move it for me? Cheers.

Edited by RedWingsDad
esteef and Chelios57 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.