Skip to content

Players’ big sticking point? They want their contracts honored

Oct 18, 2012, 11:12 PM EDT

Donald Fehr: Sidney Crosby AP

Many of the players have said their part in the wake of the NHL shooting down their three proposals but one thing seemed to be their big talking point today.

Donald Fehr and many players said their main concern now was making sure their contracts were honored in full. Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews told Tracey Myers of CSNChicago.com just as much.

“As players we know we tabled a great deal today,” Toews said. “Our biggest concern is obviously that our contracts continue to be honored as we progressively make our way to a 50-50 split between the league and the players.”

It sounds reasonable enough that the players would want to get what they’ve already agreed to. After all, it’s not as if owners were reluctant to sign players ahead of the lockout. The problem is getting the math to work out to make it happen.

ESPN.com’s Pierre Lebrun believes both sides can figure it out if they work at it. Talking it out and figuring out, however, doesn’t exactly look like it’ll happen right away.

  1. x50cal - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:19 PM

    Bettman and Daly are jokes!

  2. mpg44 - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:24 PM

    Hey morons (aka the players ) …. If there are no profits , even with your 57% of hrr , your contract wouldn’t have been honored !! Your to stupid to realize that all you doing making people leave , and take their money with them . Thereby you won’t have a profit , your contract pay will be lower !! 57% of nothing is nothing you dumb ass!!

    • eyeh8goodell - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:43 PM

      No, it’s you who is the moron in this case (and probably many others I would imagine). The owners created this lockout (for the 3rd time in as many tries), not the players. The owners are the ones who offered these contracts during a time of record PROFIT for the league. And now they don’t want to honor the deals they offered and signed? Please.

      Oh, and the players aren’t making “nothing”. The “cattle” have simply found new ranchers to care for them. If the NHL won’t honor their contracts then the players will just find other rick owners to pay them to play pro hockey……as they’ve clearly demonstrated by now. That’s how it works when you have a globally marketable talent (which the players have). THAT is the difference. Plenty of guys around the world (especially Russian oligarchs) have money and would love to profit off these hockey players. But only a finite few people on Earth have the talents these particular players have.

      Oh, and it’s always hilarious to hear various idiots on the internet accuse others of “stupidity” when their posts are so ironically full of bad grammar and spelling. In your case:

      “Your to stupid…”

      Can you figure out where you messed up?

      • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:19 AM

        Apparently you are to stupid to read contracts ….. The very existence of hrr is a direct result of players wanting to profit with the league . They want the rewards of revenue uprising , but they are to weak to accept the fact that are risk involved that may cause a loss of money . Go get a book and read it …. A mind is a Terri or thing to shove up a players ass!!

      • bcjim - Oct 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM

        Contracts have always been subject to the % split.

        The players know this.

        They know that in ANY renegotiated cba, that their salary might go down (or up possibly), if the split increased in the players favor.

        But, shhh! they dont want you to know this, these “poor” guys just want you to think they are being played unfairly. Which is NOT the case.

      • elvispocomo - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

        @mpg44 you should re-read your own statements. HRR does not have a ‘p’ anywhere in the letters of it’s acronym. One of the R’s stands for revenue, and profit starts with the ‘p’ I mentioned didn’t fit anywhere. If there’s revenue (which by the way has been at record levels during the last CBA) then that’s what the players get a part of.

        Of course the owners get to deduct a bunch of things they say shouldn’t qualify as revenue, making the players 57% much less than it would be overall, and the owners want to further clarify what HRR means so they can deduct yet more things and bring down the player’s share again. And of course all the fees many of them get paid to manage arenas they play in (like in Florida) or the money they make directly if they own the building outside of the hockey part of the organization doesn’t count towards HRR, so the players are getting even less than 57% of total revenue the owners take in. But, the owners have all the expenses of running the team factored right in there when they talk about profit, or lack thereof.

    • rashardmendenballs - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:10 AM

      MPG44 you are the idiot not the players!!

      From judging your intellect by your comment. I guarantee you that i can get you to clean my floors with a tooth brush for minimum wage.

      There ARE lots of profits at 57% HRR and if your an NHL team not making a profit, ,MAY BE YOU SHOULD ADJUST YOUR CRAPPY BUSINESS MODEL. Better yet if you are not booking corporate sponsors and finding suitors for your luxury boxes, FIRE YOUR CRAPPY SALES STAFF!

      How do you not profit from $85 upper deck seats, $12 beers, licensed merchandise (you know…like jerseys with the names of “Crosby” and “Toews” on the back of them), TV AD revenues and mobile streaming revenue & rights?!?!

      I am with the players, just continue to holdout until the owners turn this one way negotiation into a two way street. Last time I check, I watch NHL hockey because of the entertainment that the players provide and not because of Jeremy Jacobs nor Ed Snider.

      • hockeyflow33 - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:50 AM

        If you ever find yourself siding with Jacobs, you can guarantee you’re wrong.

    • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 5:38 AM

      Wow …. You are really a fu– ing moron. If your are really siding with fehr and the players on this you are dumber then dirt !!! Do even understand what and how hrr works? Here , let me help you retard , 57% of 0 = 0 . Did you get that or did to to fast for you !! It doesn’t matter what they sign for now , whether its 57 % or 50 %!, the overall recunue will now due to the lockout which was NOT entirely on the owners . Which , even if it was the old CBA , wouldn’t matter since some of their contract pay is judged by the amount of profit and the amount of hrr they get. Since your so smart I would have guess that you already knew that but no your not your just a retard with his head shoved so far up the players ass !!!!

      • spiffy53 - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:17 AM

        i think the thumbs down count shows that you are a little out to lunch on this entire concept. i would suggest you leave the heavy thinking to those who are more capable.

      • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM

        I think you need to go read how the hrr sharing works!! It by all definition affects the bottom line payout of the contracts . Not all years will be profitable . Just think of the profit there will be once they get back on the ice ….. I assure it won’t be anywhere near 3.3 billion!! That is a fact! So ….. Please go educate yourself and if you still can’t get it , please ask someone to help you !!

      • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:27 AM

        The players could sign a contra t right now for 60% hrr ( 3 % more then last year ) and that would still give them a paycut . All due to the loss revenue from the lockout !! LEARN HOW TO DO MATH!!!

      • bigblackzaranek - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM

        To paraphrase (big word, but stick with me on this) James Downey… Mr. mpg44, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      • bcjim - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM

        Mr mpg44 is right. I suggest the rest of you apologize to him.

      • phillyphanatic77 - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM

        Mpg44 may be right that 57% of 0 is obviously 0, but there are major flaws in his other incoherent dribble. Player contracts will be 100% guaranteed no matter the percentage split because of the owners “make whole” agreement in their proposal in which they would honor all player contracts for this year and next. So in fact when you say that the players could take 60% and still take a paycut you are completely wrong. The players contracts will be protected FULLY (so whatever they signed for they will receive) no matter if its 50/50 or 60/40. The only issue is that after those two years the owners will impose a tax of sorts, “deferred compensation benefit”, to recoup some of those concessions. So maybe YOU should go read a book, if you can, since you can’t seem to type coherently.

      • bigblackzaranek - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM

        At this point i consider you to be such a jackwagon that if you were to say the sky is blue, id call you a tard and just deck you with a dictionary (that big book (A set of written, printed, or blank pages fastened along one side and encased between protective covers.) with all the words in it) just in hopes that you would some day be able to not only read, but to comprehend what you have just read.

      • theawesomersfranchise - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM

        THings MPG44 is TOO STUPID to understand

        Too vs To
        Your vs You’re
        Then vs Than

        And many other things
        So again, how about you and your grade 7 education just shut up. Yes Yes, Donald Fehr is a stupid person and the NHLPA can’t do math, you have it all figured out. That, or you’re just some loud-mouth idiot who hasn’t a clue, who can’t spell and don’t know what he is talking about.

        I’m going with the later just like everyone else here.

      • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 3:12 PM

        @ Phillyphanitic and bcjim …. Thank you . It is refreshing to know that there people out ther who are not only capable of reading but also comprehension !! I only wanted to exaggerate with 60% figure to hopefully show some of the complete morons on here what math looks like. I really was on the fence until I actually found out what the HRR was , how it works , and why it exist . I get it now and now I have a much more informed opinion then the morons on this site .

        My real sadness is that these morons here who don’t have a clue how the HRR works are the very sheep that Mr . Bettman and Mr. Fehr are counting on. These are the idiots who will come crawling back the NHL and the NHLPA and spend their money on all of these ridiculous whinny SOB’s called owners AND PLAYERS!!!

    • mgp1219 - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:31 PM

      Hey, mgp44, I really hope no one is confusing you for me because you are a dope! Please change your moniker or your attitude.

    • theawesomersfranchise - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM

      My God MPG44 shut up you clueless buffoon, unless you’re whole objective is to look like a clueless buffoon, then by all means continue with your ignorant and selfish ramblings.

  3. joeyashwi - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:28 PM

    The players signed their contracts under the last CBA. They should be honored regardless. Sign a ten year CBA working the split down to 50/50 within the first five years. If there are teams that can’t survive, relocate them to where they will. I may be an idiot but this makes sense to me.

    • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 5:48 AM

      It is and was being honored …. Part of their contract pay IS based on percentage of profit and share in hrr sharing. I thought you guys already knew this. It’s called escrow. The owners pay some of the players contract into escrow , then based on the revenue numbers and share holding , determin how much of that the owners I’d liable to pay. So if a player even under the old CBA signed a contract , signed a contract wort 1 million for a season , his pay could be lower or higher based on the final nbers of the yers are .

      • motobus - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM

        That is not at all how it works. The hockey related revenue (hrr) split is used to set the salary cap.

      • bcjim - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:09 PM

        Yes moto, but what if revenues are under projections? Then there is a “pay cut” across the board to get to that number. Thats what escrow is for!

      • elvispocomo - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM

        “Part of their contract pay IS based on percentage of profit and share in hrr sharing.”

        Profit has nothing to do with HRR, just like revenue sharing is different as well. You have 3 (maybe more) different concepts you’re muddling together, but only sort of correct on one.

        If there are no revenues, the percentage doesn’t matter. You’re correct in that. Where you’re wrong is in the following points:
        – If there is revenue, the percentage absolutely does matter, and how HRR is defined is an important part of that, possibly more important than the %.
        – If there is or isn’t profit, that affects nothing with regards to what the players are paid (based on contracts already signed).
        – Revenue sharing happens outside of the player’s pay structure.

      • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 3:20 PM

        I do see your point ….. I just wish that the definition of the HRR would stay the same as it was agreed upon before so that could just put an end to the caucus ion on that . Do a true 50/50 split , then both parties would be equally responsible to the health of the league .

        Heath of the league …. There is what we all should be the most worried about . Not who is right in being more greedy then the other. But ending this , put in a rule that a work stoppage would never happen again ,(since other real unions are able to work without contracts as long as there is retroactive pay involved) , move on and preserve the past , present and future of the league !!

    • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 3:23 PM

      I like this idea …. However the NHLPA will never agree to a 7% paycut . That what all this bickering is about.

  4. craigmaitland - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:46 PM

    Why don’t leagues just copy the NFL? He’ll no salaries shouldn’t be guaranteed. What’s stopping a guy from getting a big payday and becoming a lazy slob? Signing bonuses should be guaranteed, year to year salaries shouldn’t.

    • hockeyflow33 - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:51 AM

      Why would you think the NHLPA would ever agree to that? It’s a ridiculous notion

    • micasa81 - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:35 AM

      Why do we assume players are, at most, playing well enough to earn their salary? Sometimes players underperform, and sometimes they overperform. The salary remains what it is.

  5. joeyashwi - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:54 PM

    I’m still trying to figure out what the players’ contracts and the 57% of HRR have to do with them being greedy or morons. The 57% of HRR was the agreement under the CBA. It has nothing to do with player contracts, only what the salary cap will be set at. The owners, knowing full well what financial shape they were in, signed the players’ contracts. Therefore, the contracts signed under the old CBA should be honored, PERIOD! It’s the owners own faults they ran out and signed ridiculous contracts before the CBA ended, not the players!!!

  6. stangz11 - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:10 AM

    I think the solution to all of this is eventually going to be a 50-50 split and an immediate salary rollback with the owners (not the players!) paying the losses back over time as revenues grow. That way the owners get what they want (immediate rollback and larger slice of the pie) and the players get what they want (contracts will still be honored, just not immediately).

    Next week will be the true test of these negotiations. It’ll be interesting to see if these two sides can really get together and accomplish something before we potentially lose games from the season. Call me an optimist, but I think they might be closer than we think. If they can just put the verbal abuse away maybe something happens.

    • ThatGuy - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM

      Maybe, but the players and union know that money now is worth less than money 2, 3 or 5 years from now simply because of inflation. So unless there is interest paid by the owners on the deferred cash, I doubt that happens.

  7. mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 5:43 AM

    The whole point behind my initial post was to show that these idiots , all of them ,!are fighting over OUR money that after what they are putting US , THE FANS, through should not be thee for them the fight over anymore. I know these players are talented and few of us could ever reach their levels , the same thing could be said towards the owners. It time to rise up NHL fans , and show all of these stupid , bickering , whinny players and owners who is really running this league . Cause none of them would be any thing with out US !! Those of you here who attacked on me for this ….. WAKE THE HELL UP!!!

    • micasa81 - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:41 AM

      The problem is, as a product, NHL hockey is something I like. That was true before the lockout, and it will be true after. Forget about teaching anyone a lesson – it sounds great, but it’s not what I’m interested in doing day in and day out while there’s hockey to watch.

      • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM

        I agree but NHL is not the only game in town. I will continue to watch hockey and I will not support the NHL . True hockey fans know that there are other venues out there that do produce good hockey action to watch . My biggest worry now is that the fighting they are doing now is not only doing substantial damage to the game now , but also affecting both the future and past of the game!! And that really sucks that a few people have to ruin it for everybody else!!

    • theawesomersfranchise - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM

      Go wipe your nose kid

  8. sampulls - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:03 AM

    eyeh8goodell
    You slam others for spelling/grammar…yet you call them ‘rick’ owners. LOL. Love the s.t.u.p.i.d.i.t.y!

    • dezaruchi - Oct 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

      One person pressed the wrong button on the keyboard. The other person has no idea what the correct buttons are. See if you can figure out who is who.

  9. michael91148 - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:09 AM

    For those who care here are my views:
    Point 1. The world has changed since 2004. Those people buying tickets to your games are having troubles finding the money…. but they are.
    Point 2. 50/50 is the obviously where this thing i going…. just do it.
    Point 3. The owners need to honour the contracts that they negotiated. They are stupid contracts, but they agreed to them….. A man’s word is his bond. Man-up.
    Point 3. Players need to understand that their pay is going to go down ! Ask the guy @ GM what it’s like to take a 50% haircut to keep his job.
    Point 5. We are being subjected to two lawyers (OMG) doing business the american way… bullying and threatening and video clips. Not going to be a deal here unless these 2 non-hockey people get their egos out of their asses :-)

    So why is this not solved ? It is like kindergarten !

    • hockeydon10 - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:40 AM

      Point 1: Correct.

      Point 2: The owners’ offer was actually less than 50/50 for two reasons. First, they redefined HRR to take some items out compared to the old definition, resulting in less money for the players. Second, they “make whole” was going to be taken from future players’ share, meaning those years it would be less than 50/50.

      Point 2 again: The players offer is rumored to drop to 50/50 gradually. The league glanced at three offers and rejected them in 10 minutes. This tells me they didn’t even really look at them.

      Point 3: Yes, they should. This is something players are insisting upon. I don’t really blame them. A man’s word and handshake should be bond enough. The fact that they have a legally binding contract is icing on the cake.

      Point 3 (the second one you listed :P ) : They do understand that and look willing to get there gradually.

      Point 5: It’s the way of the world, not just CBA negotiations.

  10. delsj - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:32 AM

    Well played owners! If this was the offer you started with, we’d still have a lockout. However, by starting with a totally ridiculous offer, you now give the perception that you are trying to compromise. So when the players refuse this deal, they are jeopardizing the overwhelming fan support they have enjoyed to this point. The people who just want hockey back are starting to turn on the players. I see why you are multi-million/billion dollar businessmen.

  11. kingjoe1 - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:01 AM

    Is there anything Unions haven’t ruined?

    I guess this the end of hockey as we know it. I imagine within a few years, the NHL will be back to a boutique league. Say good-bye to Columbus, Florida, Dallas, Phoenix, Nashville, Edmonton and perhaps even Anahiem and Islanders

  12. joeyashwi - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:46 AM

    There is currently zero HRR because the OWNERS locked the players out. The NHL was on an upward swing again and the owners killed that momentum. I’m not saying the players aren’t at fault here but if the owners signed the contracts to pay them x amount of money for y amount of years, they should be honored. They didn’t sign contacts saying they would be paid x percentage of HRR for y amount of years. I think 57% of HRR for 23 players a team is ridiculous but that was the agreement and those contracts should be honored. HRR would have increased this year if the owners weren’t so hell bent on locking the players out. They will get their better percentage but as so eloquently pointed out a larger percentage of a smaller pie is still less. Yes, I’m a moron and proud.

    • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:16 AM

      A percentage of that contract payout is tied into escrow . That figure is decided by the amount of revenue generated and te percentage of hrr . Think of it as a big 401k but your only allowed to invest in the NHL .

  13. joeyashwi - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:07 PM

    Who ran out and signed all the big contracts right before the CBA expired? The owners! Mr. mpg44, if they were so concerned with finances why then did they hurry to get all these deals done before the last CBA expired instead of waiting for the new, owner friendly CBA to be enacted? Exactly! They signed the deals under the old terms and should be honored as such. Do you think if the roles were reversed that the players would all get raises? I’m not even saying that I agree with the players’ stance on this CBA but I think when the owners knowingly and willingly signed these contracts, they fully expected to pay them. Is it fair that the owners had 43% of HRR to pay for all expenses, employees, minor league contracts, etc. etc.? No, I don’t, but it is the deal that they agreed to at the time. Honor the contracts, sign a ten year CBA, drop the split to 50/50 over the first five years, and focus on increasing ways to make more HRR instead of bickering and fighting over our money. THAT is what the owners should do and the players would agree to. Common sense, a lost art in today’s America.

    • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM

      Because they knew this was coming …. Which by no means makes this right. Neither side is an innocent victim here. Both sides screwed up and cause the mess that we the fans must ow deal with.

    • phillyphanatic77 - Oct 20, 2012 at 11:56 AM

      IMO the owners handed out all those huge contracts under the last cba with the understanding that Bettman would get the players union to roll over and concede everything just like in04-05. They believed they would recoup a portion of the salaries whether through increased escrow or with a redistribution of HRR, in which they would try to fool the players into accepting the “make whole” clause so that two years down the line they could impose deferred compensation benefit. Which is essentially a massive clawback under the guise that “we’ll honor the first two years of the contracts we just gave you, but after that we want some of our money back”. This is one of the major reasons why the union turned down Bettmans “generous” 50/50 split. As I’m sure most of you realize the owners purposefully released just the 50/50 part of their proposal first to gain the PR upper hand, then waited til we fans we’re chewing out Fehr and the players to release the other conditions of their offer the next day. I think Bettman legitimately believed he could fool the union into taking this offer, that looked good on the surface, and that’s why (like a child) he rejected all three counter offers in 10 minutes. There needs to be a neutral third party in there since Bettman and Fehr just can’t get a single thing accomplished.

  14. joeyashwi - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM

    The truth is that none of us knows anything. Why doesn’t the NHL just follow the model of the only league that has it right, the NFL? Non-guaranteed contracts (excluding bonuses which are guaranteed), 50/50 split, revenue sharing, etc. It is working out pretty well for the NFL but they have one thing that the NHL doesn’t have, excellent marketing and exposure. Okay that’s two things but they both fall on the owners. Three work stoppages in a row is unacceptable in any industry and the only common denominator in all three has been the Bettman led owners. If you can’t figure it out for yourselves, then follow a proven example of how it’s done.

  15. blomfeld - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM

    Ah, my friend ! … for you I give “special price ! :)

    These players like Parise and Kovalchuk thought they were getting away with murder, when they signed all of these stupid “til death do us part” deals. Well the last laugh will be on them, as the owners are definitely going to have their way with this too, with a big “retroactive” rollback on all existing 7 year “plus” contracts ! Just watch friends …

    • dezaruchi - Oct 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

      If Kovalchuk was trying to “get away with murder”, why is it the league punished Lou Lam and the Devils for the contract being signed? You’re acting like these players did something shady by simply taking what was offered to them. Are you the sort of person that would turn down a raise at work so that your boss can make more money?

      • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM

        I do distinctly recall both Kovalchuk and Parise allowing it become a bidding war. They bidding just sit by and wait for the biggest contract offer , they helped drive up the price !! The players are not innocent of this , neither side is innocent of this.

      • blomfeld - Oct 19, 2012 at 3:54 PM

        “The players are not innocent of this” …

        Precisely ! Look Dezaruchi, let me put it to you like this. If you’re walking down the street and you witness someone pick-pocket another person’s wallet, would it be a crime if you said nothing and simply carried on your way ? … of course not ! And yet that’s not how one “ought” to behave. Rather, a “decent and reasonable” person would immediately inform the victim and/or run down the pick-pocket himself and strike him with a devastating blow. So the same applies to these players. They know fully well that the length of their “til death do us part” contracts is ridiculous and therefore people like Kovalchuk and Parise are “culpable” for the financial difficulties which the NHL is facing today.

  16. broadstreetbeatdown - Oct 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM

    Do any of you guys actually think that Nashville could afford the type of contact they signed Weber to? That deal would bankrupt their little franchise. I got to hand it to the owners they aren’t uber rich because they’re lucky!

  17. bellicosejeff - Oct 19, 2012 at 5:56 PM

    No Broadstreet, Nashville’s franchise alone could not cover the contract. The owners can however. Another example of why I don’t side with the players. These owners are the ones using their own money to cover what the franchise alone can’t pay for. They are the only ones taking a risk here, not the players, and definitely not Fehr…did I spell his last name right…I’ll just call him Donnie.

    On the flip side it’s the handful of greedy owners that have f**ked this whole situation up with their cap circumventing Mega deals that were never intended. The type of offer YOU’RE owner and GM tried to use to poach Weber from us. They drove the price. of players through the roof and gave the players something they were never supposed have that they don’t want to get rid of.

    So I thank the Preds owners and every other team owner that never signed a player to a mega deal. We were FORCED to sign one or lose our best skater. Luckily our owners don’t mind paying Weber out of their personal cash.
    Hey, I got an idea! I say let the players keep their 57% and their mega deals, but from now on they cover their own Jerseys, equipment, travel, food, transportation, lodging and whatever other costs these owners (particularly the owners for struggling franchises, which is over half the league BTW) have been paying for using their own cash to help cover the cost for the last several years!

    One last thing …let it go. We matched the deal, it done. It’s not going to hurt the franchise because the franchise isn’t expected to cover the majority of his deal, the owners are paying for it. If something changes, I’m sure you’ll read about it here.

    • mpg44 - Oct 19, 2012 at 7:10 PM

      Don’t forget about medical coverage …. Can’t imagine having a few doctors , their staff , rehabilitating centers on hand for these whinny players can be cheap at all . Now much is the insurance for Cindy Crosby to play in Europe ? Don’t think insurance is any cheaper here do you!!

    • broadstreetbeatdown - Oct 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM

      I have said in earlier posts that the players should cover their own expenses.

      Now on to the next point. It is owners like YOURS that are holding up the deal. Do you honestly think that teams like Philly, NYR, Boston, TO, Mtl actually give a crap about paying out a $100mil. dollar deal? No, these are money making franchises that don’t care about throwing money at top tier talent; however, financially struggling teams like yours cannot afford to pay these guys, so their owners step in and say they’ll cover the costs. Fast forward to today and they are holding up the deal because they don’t want to pay guys like Weber the money they offered them. So please save the hollow rhetoric.

      As far as your let it go comment. I let it go a long time ago. That doesn’t mean I can’t use the Weber situation in relation to the current CBA talks. The difference being that our owner can afford to cover a huge contract out of his pocket(not that he needs to) your owners cannot and are holding the rest of the league hostage because they don’t want to honor contracts that they offered.

  18. bellicosejeff - Oct 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM

    YOUR….not YOU’RE….I probably got other things wrong too. Just beating everyone to the punch. Have a great night all!!!

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. B. Bishop (1971)
  2. D. Alfredsson (1900)
  3. M. Fleury (1872)
  4. C. Anderson (1769)
  5. J. Schultz (1474)
  1. J. Boychuk (1383)
  2. D. Krejci (1381)
  3. D. Setoguchi (1363)
  4. E. Staal (1326)
  5. J. Harding (1215)