Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    I listen to sports talk radio. A caller made a point that made sense. Here it is in general.

                                                         ------------

    The players feel the owner's want to take away too much. They may be right . No argument there. The perception is they won't play hockey for less money then what they feel they're worth.

    Aren't some of them being hypocritical in this perception by going over to Europe and.................playing hockey for less money  ? 

    If the agreement was signed as it is now they'd still ( most likely ) be making more then in Europe.

    Note: I understand all the "keeping in shape, just want to play" hockey cliches they are using. But the bottom line is they won't play hockey for less over here but in the same breath some are doing exactly that in Europe. 

    Hypocritical as far as backing a union.

    I am not taking sides as I think they are both partially wrong. I am just sharing something that made sense.

    Don't shoot the messenger. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    At the end of the day, union, team, etc...It doesnt matter. The all mighty dollar wins out in everything. They wouldnt be over in Europe to "stay in shape" if they werent being paid. Some of their "union brothers" didnt have the oppurtunity to go and play elsewhere for pay. Did it stop them. No, because a "union brother" isnt as important to them as a dead president.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    This is not really about the money anymore.  Sure the actual negotiations center around dollar figures but this has become about winning and losing.  The players are making a philosophical stand against the owners saying the will not be dictated to when it comes to a new CBA.   Each and every player knows this decision will cost them money, but they think the overall benefit will show up the next time a CBA is negotiated.  It's all about the kids....

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    If it were really about the kids, wouldn't the PA say fine, we'll eat the extra cash on "make whole" but we want the new standard player contract to say that the absolute value of the contract cannot be pro-rated as a result of changes in the CBA?  I don't see the players working to protect their rights in future negotiations as much as a) protect the absolute value of contracts and b) protect the existence of contracting provisions that have proven inflationary.

    But back to the point: I had heard that not many of the NHL players in Europe are actually banking money.  The insurance pretty much eats up whatever salary they get while there, so they're really just marking time and, in Seguin's case, notching the bedpost until it's time to get back to work.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davinator. Show Davinator's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    I believe the players can make up to 65% of their NHL wages playing overseas.
    However, that money is tax-free so their net difference is mimimal.

    I also believe the Teams pay for the insurance on the players' NHL contracts - again no net loss to the player.

    That being said, I don't think what the players said about not playing for less than they believe they're worth is being hypocritical

    Their goal is to come back to the NHL and they refer to their worth to the owners that profit from them playing for the organization.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    If it were really about the kids, wouldn't the PA say fine, we'll eat the extra cash on "make whole" but we want the new standard player contract to say that the absolute value of the contract cannot be pro-rated as a result of changes in the CBA?  I don't see the players working to protect their rights in future negotiations as much as a) protect the absolute value of contracts and b) protect the existence of contracting provisions that have proven inflationary.

    But back to the point: I had heard that not many of the NHL players in Europe are actually banking money.  The insurance pretty much eats up whatever salary they get while there, so they're really just marking time and, in Seguin's case, notching the bedpost until it's time to get back to work.



    The "all about the kids line" was a bit facetious.  However, I still think it is about future negotiations. 

    Job actions rarely make financial sense to either party.  It's almost always about making a stand or making a point.  The "make whole" stand the players are making is negotiation position, as is the reduction in player contracting rights. If you think about it, they are ridiculously close to a contract to be this close to losing a season over the differences.  It's a dispute of wills now. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    In response to Davinator's comment:

    I believe the players can make up to 65% of their NHL wages playing overseas. However, that money is tax-free so their net difference is mimimal.

    I also believe the Teams pay for the insurance on the players' NHL contracts - again no net loss to the player.



    I might be mistaken but I believe that a player has to be claiming taxes as a citizen of Europe for the contract to be "tax free". Kovalchuk and Ovechkin work in the US on Visa's or in some cases dual citizenship. So I don't think players from North America are tax exempt.

    Are you saying Swiss, Swedish teams etc. are paying NHL players insurance ?

    If that is true then that is a good deal. Interesting allot of NHL fans were saying they don't like players playing overseas during the lockout but Henrique got hurt and is out for a good lenghth of time after playing in the AHL.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    In response to Davinator's comment:

    I believe the players can make up to 65% of their NHL wages playing overseas. However, that money is tax-free so their net difference is mimimal.

    I also believe the Teams pay for the insurance on the players' NHL contracts - again no net loss to the player.



    I might be mistaken but I believe that a player has to be claiming taxes as a citizen of Europe for the contract to be "tax free". Kovalchuk and Ovechkin work in the US on Visa's or in some cases dual citizenship. So I don't think players from North America are tax exempt.

    Are you saying Swiss, Swedish teams etc. are paying NHL players insurance ?

    If that is true then that is a good deal. Interesting allot of NHL fans were saying they don't like players playing overseas during the lockout but Henrique got hurt and is out fr a good lenghth of time after playing in the AHL.




    I pretty sure I read one of the reasons Crosby is hesitating is the cost of his insurance to play there.  I'm not so sure anybody is covering it but the players.  Surely if anybody was offered that it would be Sid.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    From my understanding the only insurance the teams are eating are the insurance costs to used to cover money owed to a player who is injured abroad, not the actual insurance needed to recover from injury? IDK maybe I'm confused but I thought the players were getting less money overall. In some cases much much less.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    From my understanding the only insurance the teams are eating are the insurance costs to used to cover money owed to a player who is injured abroad, not the actual insurance needed to recover from injury? IDK maybe I'm confused but I thought the players were getting less money overall. In some cases much much less.



    I think you are right.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    If it were all about the kids, the players wouldn't be pressing for a 5 year CBA. 


    The fact that some are playing in Europe is a joke.  They'll play for those fans for peanuts, but in order to play for us, skating clowns need hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    No NHLers should be playing in the AHL.  Anything that risks injury outside of the NHL is bad news.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    Not difficult to see why players are going overseas for peanuts, while balking at millions here.

    It's their idea.

    Us poor folks do the same thing all the time.

    Ask your friend to rake your leaves for 100 bucks, and he may feel disrespected.  Jet off to Bora Bora for a week, and your neighbor does it for free.  It doesn't matter that you're living better than you ever do, the neighbor does it because "he" decides to .....on "his" terms.

    People get quite persnickety when they feel someone's trying to one up them, or insinuate they're overall worth is diminishing.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    Hmmm....Our srategy is - let's give up millions so we don't lose thousands because of not being treated fairly on our terms. Oh yeah, and when we do come back, we're still giving it up.

    Sounds like a plan. That Fehr is good.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Perception of the NHLPA's stance ?

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    Hmmm....Our srategy is - let's give up millions so we don't lose thousands because of not being treated fairly on our terms. Oh yeah, and when we do come back, we're still giving it up.

    Sounds like a plan. That Fehr is good.

     



    This is the part i don't understand from the NHLPA's point of view. I'm all for a "union" to stick together, but when it comes to throwing money out the window for the sake of showing the owners that they won't be pushed around,it doesn't make sense. When Bettman said that the owners tabled their best offer, i believe he was pretty close to meaning it. The owners might give a bit more, but thats it. If the NHLPA wants to decertify, a pretty risky proposition to say the least, the NHL could come back looking very different , maybe with less teams which means less jobs for the players. All the way round, i just don't see the players winning, but if they are taking a lot of satisfaction out of losing money, so be it.  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share