NHL Hockey

[kickingfrog]

Yes and no.

 

In general most players under contract will not be payed. In a normal season they don't start to get paid until the regular season starts. In other words: The players don't start missing salary cheques until middle of October if there is a lock-out.

 

Some players have contracts that pay them bonuses in the summer. Some of these bonuses were put in contract offers by general managers to make the contract more difficult for other teams to match. The Flyers offer sheet for Weber this summer has such.

 

Some of the younger players can play in the ahl or chl and still get paid. Some of those deals would have a reduced salery (2 way contract) Higher drafted/better players are less likely to have 2 way deals.

 

The players who contributed to the escrow account last season will get most of the 10-12% (that they paid into it from their salary) in early October whether the players are locked-out or not.

 

 

Edit to add:

 

Wade Redden, who has been down in the minors for the Rangers for the last 2 (3?) years because the team that signed him, didn't want the cap hit will get paid 5 million dollars this year and 5 more next year playing for the Wolfpack.

Edited September 9, 2012 by kickingfrog

[Cookslav]

It would be real nice for Barrie to have Scheifele for the whole season. I think in the long run it would be good for him to.

 

 

Heck ya...

He'd be a good draw for the stands as well, plus playing junior is better then riding the bike during a lock out for sure.

[misfish]

Go 'Colts' Go

 

 

Side note.

The Leafs made the, WORST TEAM LIST,on ESPN. Thats of all sports teams,not just hockey.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Misfish

[BradMc76]

I don't really mind. Last time NHL went on strike, poker became popular. I'm still getting paid because of that. If NHL doesn't play this year, then maybe poker will get popular again, and I can get even more money!

[jedimaster]

Talked to an NHL'r this weekend, and if you're contract expires at the end of this season it doesn't get extended until the next one. P.S. he said its likely to be a lockout. The players wanted to play under the current deal until a new CBA got negotiated. It should be mentioned that every team(short of 3) were profitable last year. Clearly This is a LOCKOUT and not a strike. This has nothing to do with anything other than the @sshats at the league wanting to scrap the season to put more money in there pockets.

 

He said that if there is a lockout he is gonna go to play in europe and most guys he talked to will also go play in europe. If they lock the players out he will miss out on his last year of his contract and will come back as a UFA. I told him to play for the leafs when he comes back so he can get me tickets. haha. Plus I think he would be a great fit for the Blue and White. AND he LOVES to fish. Serious hard core bass guy.

Edited September 10, 2012 by jedimaster

[SirCranksalot]

Clearly This is a LOCKOUT and not a strike.

.

 

 

 

Aren't they the same???? (At least according to some!!!)

 

Why would your friend play for the Leafs when he can play for a real NHL team??

 

 

[davey buoy]

Aren't they the same???? (At least according to some!!!)

 

Why would your friend play for the Leafs when he can play for a real NHL team??

 

 

 

What's that saying, Oh,real friends don't let friends play for the leafs.:lol:All kidding aside,send him over,I think we could use him:good:

[jedimaster]

What's that saying, Oh,real friends don't let friends play for the leafs.:lol:All kidding aside,send him over,I think we could use him:good:

 

baha, we actually talked about that and he said, "Playing for the leafs would be awesome, there are alot of perks to play for a team like that but..." I was like, I know I know.... but... you would be a freaking movie star if you played onthe leafs.

 

I dunno if he would but it would be so awesome if they did. They could use him. He is built like the Brick you know what house, tough and solid skater. He would be awesome in the corners. Not a superstar or anything but a good guy and he plays with his heart on every shift. You can see that every time he is on the ice. No floater shifts.

Edited September 10, 2012 by jedimaster

[moxie]

My daughter has just started her first season of hockey two seasons removed from my sons' last playing season. Amature hockey of all stripes I have time for. NHL hockey on the other hand..... and especially that special Toronto Maple Leaf brand of inconsequential so-called hockey........WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!! hehehe.

Edited September 11, 2012 by moxie

[kickingfrog]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/league-and-players-are-fighting-in-an-age-of-disagreement/article4543964/

 

 

League and players are fighting in an age of disagreement

 

KEN DRYDEN

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Sep. 13 2012, 7:13 PM EDT

Last updated Thursday, Sep. 13 2012, 8:33 PM EDT

 

 

For years, from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, Gary Bettman kept searching for an answer he couldn’t find. With no salary cap, the NHL teams that could spend, including the New York Rangers, Detroit Red Wings and Philadelphia Flyers, did. But many teams that couldn’t spend, including teams in smaller markets, more southern U.S. cities and Canadian teams, except Toronto and Montreal, overwhelmed by a 70-cent Canadian dollar, also spent to a point beyond what their revenues would support. In NHL governors’ meetings, Bettman would point this out, at first forcefully, over time as if possessed.

 

He presented elaborate charts: Here’s what the league and individual teams take in, here’s what we spend. It makes no sense. Here’s what winning teams spend, here’s what losing teams spend. There’s no correlation between spending and performance (there was, in fact, some correlation). It makes no sense.

 

He would run a roll call of teams, and one by one take team owners, with all their private business splashed up on a big screen for everyone to see, to the principal’s office. Here’s what you’re doing – you idiot – here are the results you’re getting – you moron – and, always prefaced by the anti-trust defeating phrase, “Of course, you have the right, as everyone does, to make any decision you want” – what are you going to do in the future – you total fool.

 

To get out of the principal’s office, team owners learned to respond as if at an AA meeting.

 

“Hi, I’m Bob, and I’m a spend-aholic.”

 

“Hi Bob.”

 

Bettman’s buildup would continue each year until free-agent day – July 1. This year would be different. Then on July 1, all hell broke loose. Bob, as well as Dick and Harry, spent his brains out again.

 

Mutual support and individual humiliation weren’t working. Bettman’s response was to generate more and worse of the same. But each year, he got the same result. It was suggested to him that his approach didn’t work and would never work because many owners had a logic that overrode even financial success. Owners are competitive people, as players are. Owners want to win, as players do. But a player who wants to win, as a free agent, can go to five or six teams, playing each team against the others to drive up the money he seeks. An owner has no place else to go. An owner has to win where he is. When a player he thinks he needs to win sets to leave, he runs after him. An owner’s addiction isn’t chemical, it’s to his own self-image.

 

Every several years a collective agreement between the NHL and the NHL Players’ Association expires and a new one needs to be negotiated. If owners couldn’t restrain themselves, Bettman knew they needed a collective agreement that would do that for them. Bob Goodenow, head of the NHLPA, naturally, wasn’t looking to co-operate. Goodenow knew these rich, tough owners were actually weak. All he needed was to say “no” to every proposal. Eventually they would cave. And they did.

 

Finally, Bettman realized they always would. The only way for the owners and for him to win was to take the power out of the owners’ hands. He couldn’t do that directly. He was their employee.

 

He had to get their support to change the NHL bylaws so that a higher percentage of team owners were required to override any proposed agreement with the NHLPA he brought to them. Then he’d need the support of only a few friendly owners, and the negotiations were his. He got the bylaws changed.

 

Bettman girded himself for the 2004 negotiation, month by month building up in himself a belief in the rightness of his position, in the wrongness of the players’ position, and a solid dislike of Goodenow. And this time he had the power.

 

Goodenow said “no” as he always did. The owners locked out the players. The season didn’t start. Goodenow said “no” again and again. The owners would cave. Bettman didn’t. Goodenow had no other strategy. Goodenow needed the players. Bettman didn’t need the owners. It became Bettman against the players. The players caved.

 

The NHLPA disintegrated. Goodenow left. Infighting among players and their agents produced warring factions, new heads and acting heads of the NHLPA, and a mess. Finally, Donald Fehr, former long-time head of baseball’s players union, by far the most effective and respected of North America’s professional sports players unions, agreed to be the NHLPA’s head. And now here we are. The collective agreement expires at midnight Saturday. The sides seem nowhere near an agreement.

 

The owners and players both want an NHL of 30 teams because owners have made big investments in those 30 teams and because players want the jobs those 30 teams provide. Some teams are financially weaker. To survive, they need help. The owners want the players to give up more of what they have to see that these teams make it. The players want the owners, especially richer owners, to give up more of what they have to do the same. So the biggest fight between them is over what percentage of league revenues should go to the owners and what to the players, and what constitutes “league revenues.”

 

The fact is, both the owners and players are doing relatively fine. Their fight is not one of economic necessity. Bettman needs to win because he won last time, and he’s a winner. The players need to win because they lost last time and have to prove they’re not losers. The two sides didn’t really start to negotiate until July because there wasn’t much to talk about, and because for each to win what he needed to win, neither could agree before the collective agreement expired. There’s no agreement because neither needs an agreement. It’s not a fight they need to have. They fight because they can.

 

There’s something not quite right about this. Others are affected. It’s not obvious that a fan will be better off if the owners win, or the players win, no matter what Bettman or Fehr argue. Fans want their game. They pay for their game – steeply – but a price they accept to pay.

 

Eight years ago the NHL lost a full season. The fans could have developed new interests. Old hockey-viewing habits might have been broken. But the fans came back in even greater numbers and paid even higher prices. Bettman says the NHL has the “world’s best fans,” and maybe he’s right. But is it necessary that they prove it? Might love and loyalty not be paid back a different way? Or is this just the way things are: a strike or lockout every number of years, an 11th-hour season-saving deal, then two-thirds of a season of games crammed into a half-season of days, and critically, a full playoffs to try to make everyone forget?

 

We have become better and better at difference. We hire more experts to push our own case. It’s their job to win, their only job. Nothing else matters. It’s black and white, winning and losing, winners and losers. Grey is boring. Conviction is good. Compromise is weak. Compromisers are spineless. The media decide what’s worthy of attention. The media love difference. There’s drama in difference, drama in conflict. There is no bigger interest. There are only interests.

 

So we fight for as much as we can get.

 

What are the losers – the fans – to do? They could try to stand up together, develop a strategy, stay home from games. As unlikely as that is, big surprises happen, and the strong are never as strong as they seem.

 

Or the players and owners might say, this is going nowhere good. The way we live isn’t about total victory, about being the only one left standing, the only one who wins. An economy, a society, politics, sports don’t work if only a few win. With no overwhelming issues, NHL owners and players have agreed to disagree.

 

They need to learn how to agree to agree.

[kuhaman]

Funny

[ch312]

The owners are locking out the players.

 

The owners (none of whom have a significant amount of their vast wealth tied up in their nhl teams) are trying to take more of the revenue from the players.

 

The owners continue to sign the big contracts, while claiming they can't afford to. They are either liars or the worst businessmen in the world. (I pick liars.)

 

The owners want a socialized system of paying the players, while not sharing the revenue amongst themselves. Hypocrites.

 

The owners have never once had someone pay a $120 to watch them work. Who would watch an old saggy azzed white guy sit on his butt and find more ways to not pay his taxes?

 

The owners said they needed cost certainly and that ticket prices would go down if there was a cap. They got it and it didn't.

 

Every beer league bozzo says that they would play for free. blah blah blah Easy to say when you own family won't watch you play for free.

 

Imagine how it would go over if your company was making money hand over fist and they came to you and said "We're going to take 24% of your salary." And we are going to reduce your opportunity to make money in the future even though you are the sole reason we make any money.

 

 

We can shake our head all we want and say they make too much money but they only get paid what the market will bear, well almost, since the owners have a cap.

 

No one has ever been forced to pay for a hockey ticket.

 

 

wah...wah...wah, we deserve more money because "we're entitled to it". no, actually they're not. they're hockey players that already make more than they deserve, not someone actually useful to society like doctors, nurses, firemen, cops, etc whom are underpaid.

 

heaven forbid they take a 24% cut on a multi million dollar salary. you guys should be blaming the players just as much as the owners as GREED is very evident on BOTH sides.

 

 

 

boycotting the NHL for a season after this Bull is done with is the only way to prevent it because in the end they're nothing without money from fans. but, just like the gas situation, people will bend over with smiles on their faces and take it. voila! nothing is fixed.

Edited September 15, 2012 by ch312

[kickingfrog]

It is ok to not to want to follow the details of the negotiations, or even being aware of the most basic parts of the two side's positions, but refraining from making comments would then also be a prudent decision.

[Stoty]

wah...wah...wah, we deserve more money because "we're entitled to it". no, actually they're not. they're hockey players that already make more than they deserve, not someone actually useful to society like doctors, nurses, firemen, cops, etc whom are underpaid.

 

heaven forbid they take a 24% cut on a multi million dollar salary. you guys should be blaming the players just as much as the owners as GREED is very evident on BOTH sides.

 

1) The owners make WAYYYYYY more than the players

2) WE pay both the players & owners salaries

3) If your boss said he would pay you millions a year to work.... I'm guessing you wouldn't say no

4) Your employer wants to take 24% of your salary away.... what's your opinion then?!

[jedimaster]

My opinion is I am gonna damn well miss NHL hockey.... Here is me many moons ago taking a road trip with the boys to pittsburgh in the playoffs....This road trip we made hockey night in canada and the toronto sun, and the Leafs won.

 

I'll tellyou this. It was to go watch the Teachers Pension Fund push Pencils. I could care less how much the owners make. I would pay to see the best hockey players in the world play no matter what team they played for.

 

Edited September 16, 2012 by jedimaster

[Jigger]

It is ok to not to want to follow the details of the negotiations, or even being aware of the most basic parts of the two side's positions, but refraining from making comments would then also be a prudent decision.

 

If you watch hockey, pay for hockey in any way or even buy some Little Caesars once in awhile, you can comment on the situation.

 

Thanks for the article. Dryden always has a way with words.

[glen]

Good info Rob. Thankyou.

 

 

Nice ride Vince.

Edited September 16, 2012 by glen

[jedimaster]

Sadly the bud buggy didn't last.

[kickingfrog]

This would be one of the multibillionaire owners looking for a bigger handout from the taxpayer's pocket for a new arena to host his hobby-toy, I mean hockey team. These teams are spare time, spare money operations for the most part. Nobody forced anyone to buy-in. Nobody forced them to sign the big contracts.

 

For the most part you can swap out the name of the owner/city and repeat this in most of the papers in that have nhl teams that have or are looking for new arenas.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/edmonton-city-council-rejects-oilers-bid-for-more-taxpayer-dollars-for-arena/article4540405/

 

 

 

Edmonton city council rejects Oilers bid for more taxpayer dollars for arena

DEAN BENNETT

EDMONTON — The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, Sep. 12 2012, 3:36 PM EDT

Last updated Wednesday, Sep. 12 2012, 6:10 PM EDT

 

A new downtown arena for the Edmonton Oilers hit the ditch Wednesday as city councillors rejected a bid by the NHL team for more money from taxpayers.

 

Mayor Stephen Mandel would not say how much was asked for, or what is was for, but said the ball is now in the court of the team’s owner, pharmacy billionaire Daryl Katz.

 

“Optimistic might not be the best word,” Mandel said.

 

“Frustrated might be a better word. But I’m optimistic in the sense (we can) get back together and see how we can make this work.”

 

Construction on the $450-million arena is slated to begin early next year.

 

Mandel said the request from the Katz Group did not come with an ultimatum, although Katz has said the Oilers won’t play indefinitely at their current home of Rexall Place in Edmonton’s north end.

 

The Katz Group, responding to council’s decision through a prepared statement, said it has become clear during the design and engineering process that the $450-million cap won’t be enough to build the “iconic” structure that both the city and the Oilers want.

 

John Karvellas, executive vice-president of the Katz Group, didn’t say what the revised cost would be, but said the Oilers would pay their fair share for any costs over the $450 million.

 

Karvellas said they have already gone above and beyond expectations by spending $70 million to date.

 

“We have made these investments of time and money in good faith and without regret and continue to believe this project can and must succeed,” he said in the statement.

 

Mandel and the councillors rejected the Katz request Wednesday morning after debating it behind closed doors.

 

Their decision comes almost a year after the Katz Group and the city agreed in principle on a cost-shared deal for the rink, which included a maximum cost of $450 million.

 

Mandel said council voted to keep that original agreement in place.

 

“In my opinion (it’s) a very good deal for all parties to keep sustainable, strong, great NHL hockey here,” said Mandel.

 

Councillor Kim Krushell, a longtime supporter of the project, was asked if council was “blindsided” by the Katz Group request for extra funds.

 

“I would characterize it that I was surprised. That’s about all I will say,” Krushell said.

 

The deal for the new rink has led to sharp and heated debate in the Alberta capital.

 

Proponents say public money for this private venture will lead to economic spinoff benefits, a revitalized downtown core, and a higher international profile.

 

Critics say no public money should go toward a private venture.

 

A third group says it can see a role for public money, but says the deal struck is too lopsided in favour of the Oilers.

 

Under the agreed terms, city taxpayers will put up $125 million to go with $100 million by the Katz Group. A ticket tax ($5-$6 a ticket) would pay for another $125 million.

 

Another $100 million is being sought from the province, although Premier Alison Redford’s government is adamant no tax dollars will go to private ventures.

 

Mandel said that they’re getting closer to solving that problem.

 

“We’ve been working with the province on various programs and we believe they’re getting close to coming up with a solution that would deal with the realities of every town and village and city ... coming up with funds for facilities like the arena project,” he said.

 

Council has already been told that the city’s ultimate contribution will far exceed $125 million.

 

Officials estimate that when borrowing and land purchase costs are factored in, the number becomes $305 million. Another $57 million will be spent for a light-rail transit extension to the rink, a pedestrian corridor and an above-ground walkway over the main avenue in front of the building.

 

A proposed community rink would add another $21 million. The city would also pay Katz $20 million over 10 years to advertise through his team. It’s not clear what form that advertising would take.

 

The base number itself is already rising.

 

In July, councillors were told revised estimates have boosted the original $450-million figure to $485 million, prompting designers to look at ways to cut back on some of the amenities, like some of the concession stands and the Oilers retail store.

 

The Oilers would pay their $100 million in instalments: $5.5 million in annual rent for 35 years, plus interest, for a total of $186 million.

 

The team would pay to operate the building and keep the profits for 11 months out of the year.

 

Katz would retain the naming rights for the building. Comparable estimates put that at $1 million a year.

 

The deal would bind the team to staying in Edmonton for the next 35 years.

 

The proposed rink is a futuristic structure of wavy lines and curves done over in zinc, masonry and glass in the broad shape of an oil drop.

 

There would by 18,400 seats along with clubs and bistros, even a space to hold beach volleyball tournaments, along with underground parking.

 

The city is banking that the arena will be a catalyst for more retail and housing.

 

The rink would replace the aging Rexall Place, which has been the home of the Oilers since their World Hockey Association days of the 1970s.

 

Built in 1974, it’s the second-oldest rink in the NHL. The oldest is the arena where the New York Islanders play.

 

The Oilers are the only NHL team that doesn’t get non-hockey-related revenue from its building.

[Stoty]

My opinion is would be this. I have two choices:

 

1. I can accept that my boss is only willing to pay me 76% of multi-millions, which is still a ton of money.

 

Or

 

2. I can go find another job that pays to my liking just like every other non-union member on this planet.

 

You don't want to accept money for work? LEAVE!

 

I can't stand unions, especially unions full of millionaires playing a game for a living.

 

So... if that's your opinion about them... then I guess all the CAW employees at the "big three" that are voting on a strike Monday, should also suck it up and be thankful they have a job too? Just bend over and let go of what the companies want to take away from them?

 

C'mon man... NO ONE would be happy to take a paycut, no matter how much money they make.

[Stoty]

Of course no one is happy to take a pay cut!!!! If I was faced with a pay cut I could accept it or find a new job. It's simple.

 

MUCH easier said than done....

[danc]

 

 

I can't stand unions

 

That's just because you don't belong to one.

[Stoty]

I was underpaid and over worked at my last job, I found a new one. It was easy. I am much happier now.

 

Did they take away anything? Pay cut? benefits reduced?

Or were you just not "happy" with the pay?

 

There's a BIG difference.

[danc]

I was in OPSEU for one summer. I was a student working at the science center in exhibit maintenance.

 

A circuit breaker flipped.

 

I flipped it back.

 

An electrician filed a grievance.

 

Unreal.

 

Don't even get me going on the Scugog flag lowering from a few years ago.

 

I have no clue about what you're talking about with the Skugog thing. But after spending 35 years in SMW local 397, I'll be retiring soon with a healthy pension that is not on the backs of the Ontario government or the tax payers. Not once has my union ever had to go to bat for me. Not once has my union had to protect me or find me employment. In fact, if my work was sub standard, I wouldn't be working period. Works for me.

[Jigger]

Open a new thread if you want to get into "the BIG 3". Combining bailouts and lockouts wont keep this thread alive long.