Idoit40fans wrote:I don't understand the surprise when the an unresolved issue comes up after something else is resolved. What are they supposed to do? Ok we figured out that we're splitting hrr 50/50 lets just sign the CBA now, nothing else needs addressed. Free Agency rules supreme. Enjoy.
That said, this is just another play to squeeze more money out of the agreement. I thought it was just, considering how "screwed" retired players were with the lockout in place, but then i listened on NHLn Radio on the way home a description of the pension works. Basically 2 types of pension(i knew nothing about pensions at all before this so if this is common knowledge, well...idiot40fans) in one you get paid out x dollars per year of service into a retirement account and in the other you get paid x % of your best earning year for the remainder of your life after you retire.
Currently the players are on the first plan and getting the maximum legally allowed. The reason this is an issue is that american players get that amount $45k into their account, and canadian players, since the amount in canada is like $27k or something, get paid the $45k as a check which is immediately taxed. It seems that is the issue. Not even sure they're fighting for option B, which the owners obviously don't want...given ownership changes and stuff.
So as you can see, given salaries and such, the players are just making things tough on the owners right now. At this point, I don't care, I blame the owners for not getting into negotiation until less than a week ago, and its going to go down to the wire before a deal is done either way. I don't care if there is one more counter or 10 between now and then.
They said in the last negotiations that pensions were resolved... now they are not because the NHLPA changed its mind. Its not resolving one issue and another appearing. It is re-opening issues that were already negotiated. This has been happening the entire time. First HHR split was the big issue for the NHLPA, but that wasn't really it because it was actually salary roll-backs, but that wasn't really it because it was the "make whole" concept, but that wasn't really it because it was pension, but that wasn't really it because it was contracting rights, but that wasn't really it because its now pension again?
And just out of curiosity, was it the owners who refused to meet with Fehr or Fehr who refused to meet with the owners before the lockout even started? Please refresh me on that because I must have read everything incorrectly since the owners haven't, apparently, been negotiating until less than a week ago.