Buds Board Keepers League

Shep wroteCOLON

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

Shep wroteCOLON

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONFact: The Majority of pro NHL'ers have to work following their careers to make a living. The notion that all players are rich and greedy is false. Similarly, the majority of owners in the NHL didn't make their riches from the NHL, in fact many of them are losing money because of it.

I'm well aware of that.

Just venting then? Fair enough.

No, not so much. The players should still be happy with the extremely generous salaries they make for playing a game. They have to work after they are done? Oh boo. Most people nowadays work into their 60s. It's a shame these guys can't retire at 35 and work-free for the rest of their lives.

Saying 'the majority' of pro NHLers have to work after their careers is false. Yes, there are players that do work after their careers are over, whether it's to make money to live, enjoyment, or to keep them busy from boredom. The NHL has a pretty solid pension plan, so maybe they cannot retire and live a rich lifestyle they may have come accustomed too, but most can retire and live off their pension and interest on the money they've earned.

Even a player making NHL minimum absolutely destroys in life. I think you underestimate just how much a $500,000 salary is. If you even have the slightest knowledge in investments, that salary + the NHL pension can set these guys up for life as long as they don't blow it like many NBA and NFLers do. Buying $3,000,000 houses and $200,000 cars is a quick way to blow through money no matter what your salary is.

Most owners have so much money that owning and operating an NHL team is a toy for them. Some owners make money off hockey, most don't. They have made or make their money in other business ventures and get to play with their toy when they feel like it. Some toys cost millions a year in money down the drain, that's a shame.

Wrong, over half of all NHL players play less than 100 games during their playing careers (as of 2008), and guess what the minimum requirement is to qualify for an NHL pension? 160 GP. And if I'm not mistaken players don't receive that money until age 45 or 55.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

Shep wroteCOLON

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

Shep wroteCOLON

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONFact: The Majority of pro NHL'ers have to work following their careers to make a living. The notion that all players are rich and greedy is false. Similarly, the majority of owners in the NHL didn't make their riches from the NHL, in fact many of them are losing money because of it.

I'm well aware of that.

Just venting then? Fair enough.

No, not so much. The players should still be happy with the extremely generous salaries they make for playing a game. They have to work after they are done? Oh boo. Most people nowadays work into their 60s. It's a shame these guys can't retire at 35 and work-free for the rest of their lives.

Saying 'the majority' of pro NHLers have to work after their careers is false. Yes, there are players that do work after their careers are over, whether it's to make money to live, enjoyment, or to keep them busy from boredom. The NHL has a pretty solid pension plan, so maybe they cannot retire and live a rich lifestyle they may have come accustomed too, but most can retire and live off their pension and interest on the money they've earned.

Even a player making NHL minimum absolutely destroys in life. I think you underestimate just how much a $500,000 salary is. If you even have the slightest knowledge in investments, that salary + the NHL pension can set these guys up for life as long as they don't blow it like many NBA and NFLers do. Buying $3,000,000 houses and $200,000 cars is a quick way to blow through money no matter what your salary is.

Most owners have so much money that owning and operating an NHL team is a toy for them. Some owners make money off hockey, most don't. They have made or make their money in other business ventures and get to play with their toy when they feel like it. Some toys cost millions a year in money down the drain, that's a shame.

Wrong, over half of all NHL players play less than 100 games during their playing careers (as of 2008), and guess what the minimum requirement is to qualify for an NHL pension? 160 GP. And if I'm not mistaken players don't receive that money until age 45 or 55.

Regardless, if NHL players were more financially responsible they'd see that none of them would have to work after they retire. Period. It would take me 14 years of working to bring in one year of NHL minimum. If I work till I'm 60 (45 years in work force) to retire thats the equivalent of playing 3 nhl seasons. The minute that player gets league minimum for a 4th season there's his pension. Considering league average is 5-6 seasons (http://www.quanthockey.com/Distribution ... ngthGP.php) a player making NHL minimum has no reason to work after retirement unless he threw his money away during his career.

We all have to work our asses off for 40+ years, be financially responsible and put away and invest for retirement in our early 20s just to make ends meat for during our retirement. All an NHLer has to do is work 4-5 years at league minimum to do the same as us. No sympathy at all.

Excellent post Chuck. Ive no sympathy for them either.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONWrong, over half of all NHL players play less than 100 games during their playing careers (as of 2008), and guess what the minimum requirement is to qualify for an NHL pension? 160 GP. And if I'm not mistaken players don't receive that money until age 45 or 55.

No, I'm not wrong. You really think I'm referring to players that play less than 100 games? Yeah, I expect players that play 65 games to retire on the money they've earned.

Shep wroteCOLON

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONWrong, over half of all NHL players play less than 100 games during their playing careers (as of 2008), and guess what the minimum requirement is to qualify for an NHL pension? 160 GP. And if I'm not mistaken players don't receive that money until age 45 or 55.

No, I'm not wrong. You really think I'm referring to players that play less than 100 games? Yeah, I expect players that play 65 games to retire on the money they've earned.

I explicitly stated that "most NHL'ers have to work following their careers." You argued to the contrary, and I proved otherwise. If you misunderstood the very clear, and explicit terms of my argument, that is your problem, not mine. Furthermore, it is irrational to label the NHLPA greedy because of it's upper class of players, whilst ignoring the middle and lower class players in their union. The players who play under 160GP are impacted just as much as those who play over the limit, and there is nothing greedy about part time players, and lower tier players demanding money that they signed in good faith. Every dollar counts, especially when you have put your whole life into hockey, and don't have a back-up plan, or a university/college degree to fall back on, which is the reality for many professional hockey players.

Chuck Norris wroteCOLONRegardless, if NHL players were more financially responsible they'd see that none of them would have to work after they retire. Period. It would take me 14 years of working to bring in one year of NHL minimum. If I work till I'm 60 (45 years in work force) to retire thats the equivalent of playing 3 nhl seasons. The minute that player gets league minimum for a 4th season there's his pension. Considering league average is 5-6 seasons (http://www.quanthockey.com/Distribution ... ngthGP.php) a player making NHL minimum has no reason to work after retirement unless he threw his money away during his career.

We all have to work our asses off for 40+ years, be financially responsible and put away and invest for retirement in our early 20s just to make ends meat for during our retirement. All an NHLer has to do is work 4-5 years at league minimum to do the same as us. No sympathy at all.

Did you even read the link you provided? It is the same one I used to base my argument on, it explicitly states the following:

Over half of all NHL players play less that 100 games during their career and for approximately 5 percent of players, their first NHL game is also their last.

Only 4 percent of players (that's 1 out of 25) dress up for more than 1000 games.

The figure you referenced (5-6 Years) does not account for all players. As mentioned above, over half of all players don't even qualify for a pension (160GP) or the minimum 3 seasons you calculated above. Not everyone impacted by a potential roll-back is financially irresponsible, that is a simple, and inaccurate take on the situation. None of this is to mention the hefty medical bills that many NHL'ers (who reside in the United States) incur following their careers due to the physical nature of the sport.

P.S. It takes you 14 years of working to earn $525,000?

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

Shep wroteCOLON

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONWrong, over half of all NHL players play less than 100 games during their playing careers (as of 2008), and guess what the minimum requirement is to qualify for an NHL pension? 160 GP. And if I'm not mistaken players don't receive that money until age 45 or 55.

No, I'm not wrong. You really think I'm referring to players that play less than 100 games? Yeah, I expect players that play 65 games to retire on the money they've earned.

I explicitly stated that "most NHL'ers have to work following their careers." You argued to the contrary, and I proved otherwise. If you misunderstood the very clear, and explicit terms of my argument, that is your problem, not mine. Furthermore, it is irrational to label the NHLPA greedy because of it's upper class of players, whilst ignoring the middle and lower class players in their union. The players who play under 160GP are impacted just as much as those who play over the limit, and there is nothing greedy about part time players, and lower tier players demanding money that they signed in good faith. Every dollar counts, especially when you have put your whole life into hockey, and don't have a back-up plan, or a university/college degree to fall back on, which is the reality for many professional hockey players.

We have a different definition of "NHLer". I don't find somebody that has played 30 games in the NHL as an NHLer. They've played in the NHL, but I don't consider them an NHLer. Once you have a career, you're an NHLer. That's besides the point.

An NHLer making minimum, $500,000, I'd have to work ~10 years at my current salary to make that much, before taxes. So no, I feel no sympathy to anybody in the NHL making the minimum salary.

I feel no sympathy for either side for that matter. The rollback is bullshit, 100% agree there. Both sides need to compromise, but right now, neither side is. The new CBA will not be signed without a rollback, so unless the NHLPA changes their stance, we will miss the entire season, once again.

Bettman is a smart man. He's made billions of dollars for these owners. There's a reason that have had our 3rd lockout in 18 years under his tenure, but his job security is as safe as Bill Gates in Microsoft at this moment. At the end of the last lockout it was assumed the players made out like bandits, 8 years later the owners are claiming they've been raped. They are being uber stubborn as to not get destroyed again, when on paper they looked great last time, this time they want to look even better.

If we haven't started by the winter classic, the entire season is done. I read an article that thinks this could be a 2 year lockout. More than one player/agent have claimed this to be the case. I find that to be bullshit and simply comments to turn heads and hope to get people talking. But still, that's are far apart they are and how unwilling everybody is to negotiate and compromise.

Shep wroteCOLONWe have a different definition of "NHLer". I don't find somebody that has played 30 games in the NHL as an NHLer. They've played in the NHL, but I don't consider them an NHLer. Once you have a career, you're an NHLer. That's besides the point.

I'm only concerned with people who are impacted by the roll-back, and that includes part time players.

Shep wroteCOLONAn NHLer making minimum, $500,000, I'd have to work ~10 years at my current salary to make that much, before taxes. So no, I feel no sympathy to anybody in the NHL making the minimum salary.

I don't feel sympathy for them either, but that wasn't the point of contention. The point of contention was that NHL'ers are greedy, and that I do not agree with.

Shep wroteCOLONI feel no sympathy for either side for that matter. The rollback is bullshit, 100% agree there. Both sides need to compromise, but right now, neither side is. The new CBA will not be signed without a rollback, so unless the NHLPA changes their stance, we will miss the entire season, once again.

Bettman is a smart man. He's made billions of dollars for these owners. There's a reason that have had our 3rd lockout in 18 years under his tenure, but his job security is as safe as Bill Gates in Microsoft at this moment. At the end of the last lockout it was assumed the players made out like bandits, 8 years later the owners are claiming they've been raped. They are being uber stubborn as to not get destroyed again, when on paper they looked great last time, this time they want to look even better.

If we haven't started by the winter classic, the entire season is done. I read an article that thinks this could be a 2 year lockout. More than one player/agent have claimed this to be the case. I find that to be bullshit and simply comments to turn heads and hope to get people talking. But still, that's are far apart they are and how unwilling everybody is to negotiate and compromise.

I agree completely, a roll back is inevitable, and I think Fehr realizes that, but unless he has the players support it doesn't really matter what he thinks.

The last NHL and NHLPA proposals do not include Rollbacks.
It was only in the 1st NHL proposal that included the 24% "Rollback"

Billy, the owners last proposal reduced the players share from 57% to 50% in the first year, how do you think they would do that without immediately reducing the players dollar amount (I.E. a roll-back)?

bills09 wroteCOLONFrom Adrian dater.

Based on my talks with NHL people, this is the kind of offer that would settle the lockout from player side:

Player percentages of 54 (maybe 53) in first year, then sliding down to 50-50 by year three or four. My sources also indicate NHL would not be averse to doing a 10-year deal that keeps it a 50-50 split in years 3-10.

well, hopefully Dater's sources are good.