## View Poll Results: What kind of lock do you prefer?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
• Combination Lock

8 19.51%
• Keyed Lock

3 7.32%
• Electronic Keypad Lock With Code

15 36.59%
• Armed Guard

15 36.59%

1. Originally Posted by aragorn
But how do we push the players to a settlement?
Originally Posted by AngelEyes
By bargaining in good faith.
Rephrase then. How do we get nhlpa to start bargaining in good faith... they haven't started yet.

2. Originally Posted by aragorn
Link to that Hockey's Future math? Thanks.
I'll post it when I get home. Too hard to do from my phone at work.

3. Originally Posted by keyTOarson
The "players paying players" is slanted rhetoric from the PA camp. The money doesn't physically come out of one player's pocket and is then deposited into another player's pocket. The example I used in my previous post is pretty simplistic, but it covers the general idea. NHL teams have to spend a finite amount of money each year on player salaries. When you have a superstar that gets a raise from \$6 million to \$7 million a year, there is going to be less money in the market to spend on complimentary players.

The NHL's proposal is no different. The players still get the full value of their contract, but it's paid out in segmented deferrals. The "players paying players" rhetoric comes from the fact that the deferral money each year leaves less of the "pie" to be paid out to other players. Admittedly, I was not the one to do the math, but one poster on Hockey's Future did an amazing job of breaking down how the players' third offer compares to the NHL's latest offer with regards to the Kings. Basically, under the NHL proposal the Kings would have \$22 million in cap space next season, minus \$5 million in deferrals from this season (assuming this season happens). In sum, the Kings would have \$17 million in cap space next year. Under the PA's infamous third proposal, the Kings would have \$14 million in cap space next year. Obviously the deferrals hurt the players who are becoming free agents in the next year or two (which is over 50% of the union, ironically enough) as there will be less available to them in the market, but the players' third proposal actually leaves less money available for future free agents.

The NHLPA may claim it is looking out for the future interests of all its members, but the underlying evidence shows they're more concerned about the here and now instead of their future security.
i don't dispute the mechanism, i dispute its meaning. there is a very big difference between having a salary cap now with a finite amount of money and negotiating contracts now within that structure. as you say, player A gets 7 million that is 7 million less that is available to the other players. however, you are ignoring the fact that there are already salaries on the books that were negotiated in what the nhl claims was good faith which will be taken out of future players' earnings. in essence, the owners are saying, not only are we going to ding you up front by putting 7% of your salaries in escrow, but we are also going to ding you later when you finally get what is owed to you and it lowers the pool of money that is made available in salaries in year three and beyond. so not only are salaries immediately diminished, but the potential growth of player salaries in future years is also artificially lowered as a consequence.

so if you want to stop using the language that the player are paying players, then that's fine. but you cannot deny that the NHL's proposal asks the players to continue to sacrifice current and future gains while the owners sacrifice not a damn thing.

4. Originally Posted by D0wntime
i don't dispute the mechanism, i dispute its meaning. there is a very big difference between having a salary cap now with a finite amount of money and negotiating contracts now within that structure. as you say, player A gets 7 million that is 7 million less that is available to the other players. however, you are ignoring the fact that there are already salaries on the books that were negotiated in what the nhl claims was good faith which will be taken out of future players' earnings. in essence, the owners are saying, not only are we going to ding you up front by putting 7% of your salaries in escrow, but we are also going to ding you later when you finally get what is owed to you and it lowers the pool of money that is made available in salaries in year three and beyond. so not only are salaries immediately diminished, but the potential growth of player salaries in future years is also artificially lowered as a consequence.

so if you want to stop using the language that the player are paying players, then that's fine. but you cannot deny that the NHL's proposal asks the players to continue to sacrifice current and future gains while the owners sacrifice not a damn thing.
I believe that owners were sacrificing by running teams at a loss.

5. Originally Posted by D0wntime
i don't dispute the mechanism, i dispute its meaning. there is a very big difference between having a salary cap now with a finite amount of money and negotiating contracts now within that structure. as you say, player A gets 7 million that is 7 million less that is available to the other players. however, you are ignoring the fact that there are already salaries on the books that were negotiated in what the nhl claims was good faith which will be taken out of future players' earnings. in essence, the owners are saying, not only are we going to ding you up front by putting 7% of your salaries in escrow, but we are also going to ding you later when you finally get what is owed to you and it lowers the pool of money that is made available in salaries in year three and beyond. so not only are salaries immediately diminished, but the potential growth of player salaries in future years is also artificially lowered as a consequence.

so if you want to stop using the language that the player are paying players, then that's fine. but you cannot deny that the NHL's proposal asks the players to continue to sacrifice current and future gains while the owners sacrifice not a damn thing.
A) the players' contracts are subject to whichever collective bargaining agreement is in place. As a number of people have said, if the players were not informed of this by their agents when signing the contracts then their agents are guilty I malpractice. The owners have every legal right to re-define the terms of the agreement, just like the players have the right to not accept them. The problem for the players is that a good majority of them are not making money right now.
B) the players' third proposal (which comes closest to a 50/50 split takes more potential earnings away from players than the NHL's does. That's the one that Fehr admitted to not running the numbers on or something along those lines. When about 60% of your membership is going to be affected by this loss of earning potential within 2 years, i'd say the PA isn't that worried about taking limiting its members' future earning potential.

6. Sorry for the crappy grammar/spelling. Trying to write that quickly while on a break.

7. Players like Brown that have a family of five usually do not leave their country to work, unless they know that the season is going to be canceled. This lockout is just beginning. It will probably go into 2014. Enjoy the stay in Europe.

8. Originally Posted by D0wntime
but you cannot deny that the NHL's proposal asks the players to continue to sacrifice current and future gains while the owners sacrifice not a damn thing.
:-( wah!

Originally Posted by nosoupforyou
I believe that owners were sacrificing by running teams at a loss.
Yeah!

9. Originally Posted by keyTOarson
B) the players' third proposal (which comes closest to a 50/50 split takes more potential earnings away from players than the NHL's does. That's the one that Fehr admitted to not running the numbers on or something along those lines. When about 60% of your membership is going to be affected by this loss of earning potential within 2 years, i'd say the PA isn't that worried about taking limiting its members' future earning potential.
Honest question here...if this is true, then why didn't the owners JUMP at this offer? Less money for the players means more money for the owners right?

10. Originally Posted by boy1der
Honest question here...if this is true, then why didn't the owners JUMP at this offer? Less money for the players means more money for the owners right?
Simple answer is that it still requires the owners to pay the full value of the current contracts up front. That is something they are adamantly against, hence their deferral plan.

Page 143 of 200 First ... 43 93 133 141 142 143 144 145 153 193 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•