Post by swervinmervin on Nov 13, 2012 1:24:48 GMT -5
Another Brookes Boys' Blog -
What's Bugging Me So Much, Anyway?
I am asking myself this question - what is it about the on-again, off-again Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations that bothers me so much?
Well, let’s look at it this way. The last remaining negotiating issue that directly affects the players’ pay is the “make whole” provision. The largest estimate of the difference between the 2 sides puts the difference at about $380 million in total. Spread out over the likely term of the agreement, that is about $65 million per year, or about 2% of total league revenues per year.
That 2% is less than the 3% that my ticket prices are likely to increase by next year.
That’s right – in percentage terms, I’m going to pay more in my ticket price increase than either side will have to pay in bridging that gap in negotiations.
But I must be missing something, because each side seems to be afraid that they are being treated poorly - or “robbed”, as one player on a taxpayer-subsidized team recently put it.
Maybe it’s the players’ pension issue. Yes, maybe that’s it. I remember hearing that this was an issue that was being discussed in the meetings. It must be hard to save enough out of the base salaries. Surely the pension plan is the big issue.
Or, as Steve Fehr put it, maybe it’s the question of which side is going to “pay for the lockout”? Hmmm… does he mean “Will the players get paid for games not played?”. Can’t figure that one out. Could he mean “Who will pay for the lawyers?”. Funny how the representatives and leaders are lawyers themselves, in many cases. But could the legal fees be more than 1% of total revenues? Could they be big enough to be a deal-breaker. No, I’m sorry, I’m still confused.
But, if the players want to play so badly, and if the owners are apparently saddened to cancel games, there must be some deal-breaker in this negotiation. Right?
Is it the owners’ proposal to limit contract length to 5 years? If so, that seems a little ironic, since it was always the players that wanted the freedom to contract. Remember the old “reserve clause” in that other sport, baseball? Wasn’t it the owners that fell all over themselves to make ridiculously long contract offers to lure free agents? Are we still in lockout because of a proposal to limit contract length?
Is it because the owners want to reduce the initial period of "low-wage" contracts from 3 years to 2 years? We would have a lockout over this?
Can someone please explain to me if it’s these proposals that have the players allegedly breaking their sticks in frustration, and the owners smashing beer bottles in empty arenas?
Because if I can’t figure out why there is still a lockout, I think I’ll just go back to the good old days, and look for a game of street hockey. And I just might have one of those beer bottles to drink - ice cold in the snow. Just don’t whack it with your stick, or I might get mad enough to break my stick and sit out a game or two.
At least I can understand why I would be upset over that.
Swervinmervin
@justgotupndjava
After my morning coffee, I am sometimes called by my nickname, "Geoff Brookes".
What's Bugging Me So Much, Anyway?
I am asking myself this question - what is it about the on-again, off-again Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations that bothers me so much?
Well, let’s look at it this way. The last remaining negotiating issue that directly affects the players’ pay is the “make whole” provision. The largest estimate of the difference between the 2 sides puts the difference at about $380 million in total. Spread out over the likely term of the agreement, that is about $65 million per year, or about 2% of total league revenues per year.
That 2% is less than the 3% that my ticket prices are likely to increase by next year.
That’s right – in percentage terms, I’m going to pay more in my ticket price increase than either side will have to pay in bridging that gap in negotiations.
But I must be missing something, because each side seems to be afraid that they are being treated poorly - or “robbed”, as one player on a taxpayer-subsidized team recently put it.
Maybe it’s the players’ pension issue. Yes, maybe that’s it. I remember hearing that this was an issue that was being discussed in the meetings. It must be hard to save enough out of the base salaries. Surely the pension plan is the big issue.
Or, as Steve Fehr put it, maybe it’s the question of which side is going to “pay for the lockout”? Hmmm… does he mean “Will the players get paid for games not played?”. Can’t figure that one out. Could he mean “Who will pay for the lawyers?”. Funny how the representatives and leaders are lawyers themselves, in many cases. But could the legal fees be more than 1% of total revenues? Could they be big enough to be a deal-breaker. No, I’m sorry, I’m still confused.
But, if the players want to play so badly, and if the owners are apparently saddened to cancel games, there must be some deal-breaker in this negotiation. Right?
Is it the owners’ proposal to limit contract length to 5 years? If so, that seems a little ironic, since it was always the players that wanted the freedom to contract. Remember the old “reserve clause” in that other sport, baseball? Wasn’t it the owners that fell all over themselves to make ridiculously long contract offers to lure free agents? Are we still in lockout because of a proposal to limit contract length?
Is it because the owners want to reduce the initial period of "low-wage" contracts from 3 years to 2 years? We would have a lockout over this?
Can someone please explain to me if it’s these proposals that have the players allegedly breaking their sticks in frustration, and the owners smashing beer bottles in empty arenas?
Because if I can’t figure out why there is still a lockout, I think I’ll just go back to the good old days, and look for a game of street hockey. And I just might have one of those beer bottles to drink - ice cold in the snow. Just don’t whack it with your stick, or I might get mad enough to break my stick and sit out a game or two.
At least I can understand why I would be upset over that.
Swervinmervin
@justgotupndjava
After my morning coffee, I am sometimes called by my nickname, "Geoff Brookes".
