Thread: We are BACK!!!! NHL AND NHLPA REACH DEAL ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

They get paid what their market value is...until the owners lock them out and say that, even though we signed you to this deal two weeks ago, we can't afford it so things have to change. Your analogy only works if every contract signed ran the length of the CBA.

But these contracts would run the length of the CBA, and are always based on the CBA. But CBA's change every so often and contracts (new or old) will fluctuate accordingly. It's not like if a player signed a 7 year 6 mil per season contract in the expired CBA that they were ever guaranteed 6 mil a year. That was never the case. Those contracts were based on several factors including HR-revenue and the league/player percentages. If those fluctuate then the player's salaries have always fluctuated too. Now certainly the owners in this CBA negotiation want more of the pie, no denying that, but had the season started on time the revenues would have continued growing and the players would have recovered any shortfalls in a short period of time. Now.... who really knows? If it goes through the courts entire careers may be lost, several owners may be gone, several teams may be gone (with all the jobs they provide to players and peripherals), etc... Instead of 700 players in the league there may only be a need for only 600. Like I said, who really knows? It's 4-6 teams and all the mid to lower level players that get hurt the most.

Originally Posted by EB924

Flase. the "market" is more than just the NHL, as Tre West cearly pointed out in his post. If the players don't like playing in a league with cap they can always take their talents to Russia, or Finland, or Sweden, or Switzerland, etc., etc., etc.

If that's the case, then the owners have nothing to worry about once the individual lawsuits roll out.

We are quickly approaching the "NHL Cliff", there is a lot of water under those bridges but someone needs to stand tall and get the job done.

Originally Posted by empire

We are quickly approaching the "NHL Cliff", there is a lot of water under those bridges but someone needs to stand tall and get the job done.

I have no faith in anybody to stand tall. They're all just going to watch the NHL crumble beneath their feet.

Although we're only a peanut gallery, does anyone here -- especially the cadre of pro-owner posters -- truly feel that a 50-50 split of HRR along with a handful of the other stuff going the owners' way is really going to fix the league's financial instability? Especially if the league has to slog through lower attendance for a couple of seasons? Can we really expect that the financial fortunes of the bottom-feeders, like Phoenix, St. Louis, Columbus, and the Islanders will be stabilized simply with an owner-favorable CBA?

I'm guessing that sometime in the term of the next CBA, more than one franchise will be in enough trouble to be on the move to what would hopefully be a more lucrative market. But in my thinking, neither Quebec City, Seattle, nor Kansas City is going to be robust enough to stabilize a sinking franchise. Hamilton? Probably. But not the others.

Even if these bozos can salvage this season, in my mind, the overall health of the league is in serious doubt.

Well, there needs to be some serious profit sharing for some of the teams to be able to make it. THAT should be a major point in the new CBA. I read somewhere that the NFL shares over 50% and the NHL is around 5%. If the league REALLY wants to be profitable for ALL teams...this needs to change. Like...NOW.

And be sure that next CBA, the owners will again ask [demand] for more of a percentage from the Players, no matter how profitable things may become. I just hope we don't go through all of this crap...AGAIN!

Finally a resoultion to this madness. We will have NHL hockey again. It will start in 10 months but the NHL will be back. Finally an end is here. It took a while but lets get ready to rock n roll in 10 months. I am so excited to see if the Kings can defend their crown as the only back to back champions in some time.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

So you can "run" the goalie, but not the skaters? You guys are implying, whether you realize or not, that penalties committed against a goalie should not be called as if it was committed against a skater. A good goalie is a helluva' lot more important to a team than any skater. Ask the Kings, ask the Devils. The NHL is literally protecting a team's best player by not making them fair game. I agree that Smith's antics are really lame, but that doesn't give anyone any reason to "run" him.

no one is saying they can run the goalie, but the usual is they come out, play the puck and set a pick if you will. If the puck is on their stick, and they are way out of their crease, they should be subject to the same rules as someone with the puck on their sticks looking down counting quarter. Most important player on the team or not.

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

They get paid what their market value is...until the owners lock them out and say that, even though we signed you to this deal two weeks ago, we can't afford it so things have to change.

Try the day before the lockout...I went into this on the side of the player, only because the owners have shown time and again that they cannot be trusted to police themselves. Time and again they have found ways to get around their own self imposed limits.

But at this point, screw both sides, there is no reason this couldn't have been sorted before the season began, except neither side is willing to give.