Fehr could give a rats ass if their is a hockey season and I also think players need to stay off twitter.Ovechkin just tweeted that the owners were:mmph: clowns..Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogey
Printable View
Fehr could give a rats ass if their is a hockey season and I also think players need to stay off twitter.Ovechkin just tweeted that the owners were:mmph: clowns..Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogey
Two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by doughtydiva
1) Bettman and Fehr are doing exactly what their supposed to be doing. Representing the players/owners is their JOB...so let's quit blaming these individuals and look at who is really the problem.
2) The owners ARE clowns. And OV should know: he sees one in the mirror every day.
jom
You're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by doughtydiva
I tweeted back at Ovechkin that he's a fool if he thinks Fehr is acting in his best interest.
Bitch had nothing to retort. Heh.
Crhistian Ehrhoff (for example) getting 8 million dollars is outrageous on its face. Yes the owners help create this problem BUT I don't for a second sympathize with the poor players who so horrifically got screwed in the last CBA (please note the sarcasm).Quote:
Originally Posted by santiclaws
You can't simplify this by saying they are in entertainment and thus make a lot of money. Stars make an obscene amount of money. Character actors do not. Why are the character actors of the NHL making so much money? Because the players and owners (despite themselves) found a way to circumvent the cap. Now the players don't want to give up that loophole......well **** them.
So you can't come up with a single concession the owners have made?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bollocks
I'm going to go see the Rams in a couple of weeks in Phoenix, like I do every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19
I side with the players on this one, because of the contracts. One of you tell me, if you signed a contract for one price, and then while under contract your boss tells you we are going to pay you less then you signed for! Thats BS!!! On that note please come to an agreement so we can drop the puck and defend the stanley cup!!!
While it is their job to represent their respective parties, it is also their jobs to , you know, negotiate. Something they really failed to do until it was too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by jom
A lockout should have never been part of their bargaining strategy. They shoulder a fair amount of blame in my book.
The concession the owners have made is negotiating from their initial offer to the offers now. You think it's silly? It's not. They want to CHANGE the CBA, not just move laterally to a different but still sucky position. If the players think they can reap benefits for 8 years year in year out (and saying it's the owners' own fault is just extraordinarily ridiculous), and then expect any major concession, then they are just too demanding and they don't understand that the owners WILL get it their way. This will stop when big majority of teams will stop getting into the red. If there is a full season lockout, the players lose. If the NHL offers any major concession, they will want to fix it in the next CBA.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron
It's how it is. The owners make rules, and if the players (well, probably only 5% or less) don't like them, it's their loss. Period. Cry out all you want how the owners don't want to give anything, but the fact is they ARE making it possible for ALL players and many are actually losing money. If you think this is nothing, then you are out of your mind.
SO easy to be smart when it's not your responsibility that 100 people are getting their pay AND having to pay from your own pocket if fans don't like what they see. And the "owners are doing it voluntarily" just isn't appropriate here. It's actually very unfair. I'd hate if people were saying that if I were the owner of a sports team. You would too.
So, again, DON'T say like the owners don't make sacrifices. Losing millions is a hell of a sacrifice. Players don't EVER lose money. Ever.
Are you employed? Did you sign a contract? Are you protected by some sort of law that your employer can't cut your pay? Serious question. So please answer it honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhigs45
Firstly, let me say, I agree with you, however just to play devils advocate, I can name a time because I did it myself, however, after taking over the management of a casino here in Vegas about 2 1/2 years ago it quickly became clear to me that there had to be a drastic change in the pay structures, so I had the great job of calling in all the dept. heads, quickly telling them they were not fired, but we would be asking for a 10% paycut until we could get the business stable, this applied to all salary positions, including myself, I then held meetings with the hourly employees, explained what we needed to do, the cut management had taken and I told them there would have to be a 3% wage cut for them, no this did not make me the favorite person to them, but oh well, the alternative was people being fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhigs45
Thankfully it only took about 3 months to get the place running correctly, the 3% put back for the hourly people and the 10% for the salary people.....And one year later the place had it's best year ever...Of course 6 months after that I was fired :22smile:...The place is in trouble again.... Which really sucks for the hourly employees, but oh well.
Anyways, what I am trying to say is yes, there can be give backs in a signed contract as long as both sides agree to it.
