The NHLPA has rejected the NHL's verbal proposal to extend the current collective agreement for three years in exchange for Olympic participation. "In the short meetings we had with the PA it was pretty clear everyone was still a little uncomfortable with continuing the CBA for three more years," said New York Rangers PA team representative Derek Stepan. "Obviously, a big topic was escrow and to find a way to negotiate that, so it was a combination of things that made the decision pretty easy to say we're not quite set on just doing three more years."
They never tend to win CBA negotiations - and this year they are fighting for "Escrow"
Which makes no sense since they put the Escrow issue on themselves by using the cap escalator every year.
If they use the escalator to increase the cap by a bigger percentage then what the % increase in revenue was then guess what - you are going to be paying more escrow.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
NHL/NHLPA, please use the MLB/MLBPA as an example to learn from. Very little rhetoric (yes some late floating of the idea of a lockout, but nothing like these clowns) and a deal done before the deadline. 32 years of labour peace.
To be fair, it must suck to have to pay a bunch of money back at the end of the year. Maybe it would be better to only pay them a % of their salary during the season and then give them a big cheque at the end to make up the rest of the 50%?
To be fair, it must suck to have to pay a bunch of money back at the end of the year. Maybe it would be better to only pay them a % of their salary during the season and then give them a big cheque at the end to make up the rest of the 50%?
I think that is how it works now.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mccree For This Useful Post:
To be fair, it must suck to have to pay a bunch of money back at the end of the year. Maybe it would be better to only pay them a % of their salary during the season and then give them a big cheque at the end to make up the rest of the 50%?
Who cares if it sucks? Thats the deal!
In fairness, they probably have escrow withheld from their pay the same as taxes and other withholdings rather than being forced to write a cheque at the end of the year.
But how it happens is irrelevant, its the 'why' thats important and the 'why' is that the NHLPA just blindly uses their escalator every year.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Maybe the NHLPA needs the escalator clause taken out or modified to protect themselves from themselves, much like the owners needed a salary cap to protect themselves.
The Following User Says Thank You to Geeoff For This Useful Post:
NHL/NHLPA, please use the MLB/MLBPA as an example to learn from. Very little rhetoric (yes some late floating of the idea of a lockout, but nothing like these clowns) and a deal done before the deadline. 32 years of labour peace.
Correct me if wrong but labour peace in the MLB started after Fehr left. Labour unrest really hit the NHL when Fehr arrived. Coincidence?
Remove the escalator, which will lower revenue risk, which will in-turn reduce the amount that players pay into escrow. At the end of the day, these players are netting the same amount whether the escalator is exercised or not.
It can't be that simple though... so I'm obviously missing something.
Yeah I was wondering about the dissatisfaction with escrow thing back when they proposed this CBA extension and escrow was discussed, it does feel like I'm missing something.
Has there been any insight into what the players actually want or are dissatisfied with? Is it just the simple fact of having it deducted during the season rather than making a lump payment at the end? Or having to pay more and then getting a bit of a refund at the end?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
NHL/NHLPA, please use the MLB/MLBPA as an example to learn from. Very little rhetoric (yes some late floating of the idea of a lockout, but nothing like these clowns) and a deal done before the deadline. 32 years of labour peace.
Actually 22 years
#neverforget
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to East Coast Flame For This Useful Post:
NHL/NHLPA, please use the MLB/MLBPA as an example to learn from. Very little rhetoric (yes some late floating of the idea of a lockout, but nothing like these clowns) and a deal done before the deadline. 32 years of labour peace.
Fair point, but the math is off. 22 years of labour peace for MLB
The Following User Says Thank You to gunnner For This Useful Post:
Remove the escalator, which will lower revenue risk, which will in-turn reduce the amount that players pay into escrow. At the end of the day, these players are netting the same amount whether the escalator is exercised or not.
It can't be that simple though... so I'm obviously missing something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Yeah I was wondering about the dissatisfaction with escrow thing back when they proposed this CBA extension and escrow was discussed, it does feel like I'm missing something.
Has there been any insight into what the players actually want or are dissatisfied with? Is it just the simple fact of having it deducted during the season rather than making a lump payment at the end? Or having to pay more and then getting a bit of a refund at the end?
Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing. Something is missing.
Heres a question, escrow is a percentage of revenue right? Is the issue that the 'Big Money' players are paying more escrow? Is that what they're unhappy about?
At the end of the day Escrow is just the balancing mechanism to keep everything even at 50/50 right?
What do the players want? No escrow? So in order to balance everything at the end of the year some of them would be required to come up with money. What if they cant? Whats the contingency there? It seems to me that it makes more sense to operate sort of 'as you go' in order to be able to adapt more easily to fluctuations.
What is the players' actual complaint in regards to escrow?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
They never tend to win CBA negotiations - and this year they are fighting for "Escrow"
Which makes no sense since they put the Escrow issue on themselves by using the cap escalator every year.
If they use the escalator to increase the cap by a bigger percentage then what the % increase in revenue was then guess what - you are going to be paying more escrow.
I don't mind players trying to squeeze as much as they can from the owners. They are the show after all.
But you are right... they never win these disputes and it is so predictable. The NHL will start taking stuff off the table until the players cave.
The owners should offer to increase roster sizes to try and create a division in the Association between star players and fringe/aging players. I bet about half the players in the NHLPA would take a chance on being able to stay in the league a litter longer and have longer earning potential, over fighting and potentially losing a year of salary for the sake of star players unhappy with the system.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
To be fair, it must suck to have to pay a bunch of money back at the end of the year. Maybe it would be better to only pay them a % of their salary during the season and then give them a big cheque at the end to make up the rest of the 50%?
They still get paid at the end of the season and I have a hard time feeling sorry for any NHL player that is living paycheck to paycheck which is the only reason I can see this being an issue.
NHLPA rejects NHL's extension of CBA for Olympic participation offer
