Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by empire

"Cease-fire between Israel and Hamas averts ground war"

But sometimes it's the only choice.
18,500 people depended on the "Union" to represent them, the mismanagement was from the "Union" and they LOST.

Sad day in the USA.

Originally Posted by KingThomas

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly conflated the former Hostess CEO, Brian Driscoll, whose salary was reportedly tripled, with the current CEO, Greg Rayburn. For a detailed look at who did what, here’s Fortune/CNN:

Former Hostess Twinkies CEO tripled salary to $2.5m before bankruptcy




CORRECTION: An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn't CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy. The post also incorrectly stated that he was paid a salary of up to $2,550,000 per year. His salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month, according to a company spokesman.

Union Claims Hostess Executives Received Raises In Advance Of Bankruptcy (CORRECTION)


Fox Blames Union for Hostess Bankruptcy - Ignores CEO Pay and Hedge Funds

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...kruptcy-ignore

Wrong thread, boys.


Though something can be taken from this. Bottom line is, if the players and owners don't work together to find a financially responsible system, ain't nobodys gonna be paid **** no mo'.

That's technical financial terminology.

Originally Posted by empire

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly conflated the former Hostess CEO, Brian Driscoll, whose salary was reportedly tripled, with the current CEO, Greg Rayburn. For a detailed look at who did what, here’s Fortune/CNN:

Former Hostess Twinkies CEO tripled salary to $2.5m before bankruptcy




CORRECTION: An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn't CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy. The post also incorrectly stated that he was paid a salary of up to $2,550,000 per year. His salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month, according to a company spokesman.

Union Claims Hostess Executives Received Raises In Advance Of Bankruptcy (CORRECTION)

In early February, Hostess had asked the bankruptcy judge to approve a sweet new employment deal for Driscoll. Its terms guaranteed him a base annual salary of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and “long-term incentive” compensation of up to $2 million. If Hostess liquidated or Driscoll were fired without cause, he’d still get severance pay of $1.95 million as long as he honored a noncompete agreement.

...

Within a month of taking over, Rayburn had to preside over a public-relations fiasco. Some unsecured creditors had informed the court that last summer — as the company was crumbling — four top Hostess executives received raises of up to 80%. (Driscoll had also received a pay raise back then.) The Teamsters saw this as more management shenanigans. “Looting” is how Hall described it in TV interviews. Rayburn announced that the pay of the four top executives would go down to $1 for the year, but that their full salaries would be reinstated no later than Jan. 1. Hostess pays Rayburn $125,000 a month, according to court filings.

Sooooo, your linked story proves that executive pilfering was a major problem. Regardless if it was Driscoll or Rayburn who were the CEO's, the article clearly shows management executives were trying to set themselves up with golden parachutes & massive cash grabs at the expense of the working man while the ship was going down in flames.

Sounds like poor management to me. Blame the men and women who want to earn a liveable wage and benefits all you want for striking and aiding the collapse, but don't ignore the conditions that were presented to them to take such actions.




EDIT***Derailing CBA thread***Sorry for going off topic all!

wtf with twinkies?
gtfo!

Originally Posted by nosoupforyou

Aaron, nothing was answered in your analysis above. only more questions until full financials are shown. just because the profitability of the arena management company went down doesn't mean that they weren't less profitable combined. in fact, if they moved the staff to the other company, then they would have been more profitable during the lockout without the drain from the team based on the Forbes estimate.

No specifics were answered, but it's pretty telling that the arena deal alone put SSE in the black. I'm not too concerned with how the lockout affected them. I am concerned they claim loses, while clearly profiting from hockey. And people believe them!

Originally Posted by FishMonger

You know what else is not considered HRR? Endorsements. Endorsements that players in any league other than the NHL never get, because them other leagues ain't the NHL. Until players put that on the table as HRR, they can't bitch about owners making something on the side.

Endorsements are tiny in the NHL when compared to other sports. Except for a few superstars, I doubt they get much more than free equipment.

Originally Posted by FishMonger

You know what else is not considered HRR? Endorsements. Endorsements that players in any league other than the NHL never get, because them other leagues ain't the NHL. Until players put that on the table as HRR, they can't bitch about owners making something on the side.

Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. I wasn't referring to the owners making money from other businesses, I was referring to them hiding hockey related revenue in non-hockey related businesses. I'm not taking the players side or the owners side in this, because I think they are both equally at fault. But, I do not believe for a second that half the teams in the league are actually losing money. For example, Staples center is the home to 3 professional teams and many other large events. Who determines how much revenue from fixed advertising in the building is allotted to the Kings? Does AEG have the ability to say that concerts generate that revenue, and thus there is zero hockey related revenue derived from this stream? The answer is a mystery to me, but I have a feeling AEG gets to make this determination.

I don't feel endorsements have any place in this conversation and I don't see the owners ever bringing those into the conversation.

Originally Posted by FishMonger

Wrong thread, boys.


Though something can be taken from this. Bottom line is, if the players and owners don't work together to find a financially responsible system, ain't nobodys gonna be paid **** no mo'.

That's technical financial terminology.

Sorry Fish about the off thread stuff but my point was about unions and the problems they can create.

Hostess is just a recent reminder of the problems that could of been negotiated but failed and many people will suffer.
A few years ago it was Detroit that needed an influx because they were paying a union guy $75 an hour to install lug nuts.

I saw this back in the 60's when I went to work for a large company back in England and the union super would come around every week to collect the dues, of course I would claim I had no money and refused to pay. Over a few months they would surround me with big hulking guys and demand I pay the dues and I still refused. After six months on the job they demanded I join the union, I refused, they marched me to the front office where they brought out the GM.

This was a company that had 5,000 people on site at a huge plant, I was 16 years old.

The GM said, Look son you're a nice kid, you work hard and we would like you to stay but we are a union shop and you have to join the union .....or I have to fire you.

I said F U, I quit and walked out.

BTW, this is worth looking at

Fox Blames Union for Hostess Bankruptcy - Ignores CEO Pay and Hedge Funds | Video Cafe

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

I actually agree with you here. They are going to have to "go down in the series" or else the NHL doesn't exist much longer. Well, it might, but it'll be way different from what we're used to. Like I said, the NHLPA needs to understand the reality of the situation the NHL is in. I have no problem blaming the NHLPA, although I really think it's Fehr who should get the blame, but blame them for the correct reason(s).

Fehr's the coach.

He sends out his goons when things don't go his way.

Then when his team get's penalized, he blames them.