My winter is ruined!

[ForeverAutumn]

Ever since I had to give up skiing, I hate winter. It holds no purpose for me. There are only two things that make it remotely worthwhile...Lacrosse and Hockey. In that order.

Well, the National Lacrosse League has cancelled the 2008 season because the owners and player's union can't agree on a contract. Their current contract has salary caps. A franchise player earns about $25,000 a year. A rookie only earns about $6,000. The average salary is $14,500. At 16 regular season games, the average player isn't even earning $1,000 a game.

The league is offering a five year contract with an annual 3% pay increase. The players want the salary cap removed. No-one is willing to budge and so the NLL has cancelled the season.

I'm supporting the players. The league says that a guaranteed 3% increase is generous. I think it's generous only if the salary is fair in the first place.

The owners say that they can't afford to remove the salary cap, that's it's not good business. Well, this is a growing league and like any young business you have to be willing to make an investment and take some risks before you can make a profit.

A league that has been growing and expanding for the last few years could find itself in serious trouble getting started again. Five years ago teams were folding because they couldn't get the fan base to be profitable. Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver all had teams that no longer exist. For the last three or four years the league has been expanding and hasn't lost a team. The sport has gained popularity. Enrollment in kids leagues has tripled. It's been a great turnaround. Last year Chicago and New York joined the league. This year, Boston was to have a team. Some markets have strong fan bases and won't be hurt by a missed season, but other markets are still on the brink and might not survive skipping a year.

A cancelled season, at this precarious time, could cost the league several teams.

Who gets hurt the most in all of this? The fans do. It sucks!

[JSE]

Ever since I had to give up skiing, I hate winter. It holds no purpose for me. There are only two things that make it remotely worthwhile...Lacrosse and Hockey. In that order.

Well, the National Lacrosse League has cancelled the 2008 season because the owners and player's union can't agree on a contract. Their current contract has salary caps. A franchise player earns about $25,000 a year. A rookie only earns about $6,000. The average salary is $14,500. At 16 regular season games, the average player isn't even earning $1,000 a game.

The league is offering a five year contract with an annual 3% pay increase. The players want the salary cap removed. No-one is willing to budge and so the NLL has cancelled the season.

I'm supporting the players. The league says that a guaranteed 3% increase is generous. I think it's generous only if the salary is fair in the first place.

The owners say that they can't afford to remove the salary cap, that's it's not good business. Well, this is a growing league and like any young business you have to be willing to make an investment and take some risks before you can make a profit.

A league that has been growing and expanding for the last few years could find itself in serious trouble getting started again. Five years ago teams were folding because they couldn't get the fan base to be profitable. Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver all had teams that no longer exist. For the last three or four years the league has been expanding and hasn't lost a team. The sport has gained popularity. Enrollment in kids leagues has tripled. It's been a great turnaround. Last year Chicago and New York joined the league. This year, Boston was to have a team. Some markets have strong fan bases and won't be hurt by a missed season, but other markets are still on the brink and might not survive skipping a year.

A cancelled season, at this precarious time, could cost the league several teams.

Who gets hurt the most in all of this? The fans do. It sucks!

That does suck!

Salary caps can be tricky. On one hand the players in the "Big 4" sports make way to much money but on the other hand, why should the owners limit salaries just so they can make more. The players are the product so they deserve a fair share. I think caps make sense when owners are just making a reasonable profit but sports like Pro Football bring in massive profits and I think the players should get their fair share or it. Basketball also makes some pretty huge profits. Baseball? Not quite as much unless your a big market team. Funny, baseball does not have caps. Hmmm?

In terms of Lacrosse, if the league is growing and making more and more money, I think the players should get more than a 3% increase each year. I don't think caps really work in a growing sport assuming revenues are also growing. Sounds like the owners see the increasing profits and want to protect them in this case. Granted, I know zilch about the Lacrosse league/market.

[elapsed]

On a similar topic, rookies in the CFL make only $32,000 per year. Average salary in the CFL is $55,000. That works out to only $3,000 per game. It's no wonder that many CFL Players have second jobs in the off-season, they can barely afford to put food on the table.

[Feanor]

....

Well, the National Lacrosse League has cancelled the 2008 season because the owners and player's union can't agree on a contract. Their current contract has salary caps. A franchise player earns about $25,000 a year. A rookie only earns about $6,000. The average salary is $14,500. At 16 regular season games, the average player isn't even earning $1,000 a game.

...

If basketball or hockey were no more popular that lacrosse, their players' salaries might be capped as $25k. In general salaries are dictated by the market for the product the workers product and that is fair and reasonable. I don't see an exception here.

Of course, I can think of one exception: my salary hasn't increased in 7-8 years. Now there's a gross injustice. And the other side of that injustice is that I could retire and take my pension worth more than half of my salary, (from a "defined benefit" plan). Having earned my pension it's not immediately clear to me why I shouldn't get both my salary and my pension, but my employer doesn't see it that. What I could do about it is exacty what the lacrosse players can do: quite and get a job elsewhere.

[Feanor]

On a similar topic, rookies in the CFL make only $32,000 per year. Average salary in the CFL is $55,000. That works out to only $3,000 per game. It's no wonder that many CFL Players have second jobs in the off-season, they can barely afford to put food on the table.

CFL Football is likely more popular than lacrosse ... admittedly hard to believe.

[ForeverAutumn]

CFL Football is likely more popular than lacrosse ... admittedly hard to believe.

That might be true in Canada, but only three of the 14 NLL clubs are Canadian. The other 11 are in American cities and the NLL head office is in New York. There's no question in my mind that lacrosse is likely the least popular of all professional sports at the moment. But that's changing and I'm just afraid that the league won't be able to survive a lost season.

[Feanor]

That might be true in Canada, but only three of the 14 NLL clubs are Canadian. The other 11 are in American cities and the NLL head office is in New York. There's no question in my mind that lacrosse is likely the least popular of all professional sports at the moment. But that's changing and I'm just afraid that the league won't be able to survive a lost season.

I do hope the league survives, and that you get to enjoy your favorite sport.

[topspeed]

Why did you give up skiing? Bad knees?

[kexodusc]

. Having earned my pension it's not immediately clear to me why I shouldn't get both my salary and my pension, but my employer doesn't see it that. What I could do about it is exacty what the lacrosse players can do: quite and get a job elsewhere.

Your defined benefit plan is allowed to exist by virtue of the definition of "retirement" therein. You cannot cash that sucker in until you terminate your employment by law. The ability for that pension plan to exist in the first place is contingent on that and would not be allowed tax free investment growth, tax deductible contributions, and tax deference on the associated benefit otherwise.
All this to say your employer isn't the bad guy here...blame the government, I guess...

Though, there's nothing preventing you from retiring and earning income while in receipt of the pension if your employer would hire you back and you meet the earliest retirement eligibility standards in your jurisdiction's Pension Benefits Legislation. Whether you could then continue to accrue pensionable service with that same employer is also subject to your laws...I would guess no unless you work for a level of government, even then...

Which plan is it? You could be a client of mine? (scary thought, huh)

Don't feel too bad Feanor - if I were to quit my job today, they claw back 50% of my "earned" pension because I haven't met some arbitrary length of service requirement.

[kexodusc]

FA knows I'm also a big Lacrosse fan...I'm kind of supporting the league's position here, though I have to admit I know very little about this dispute.
What I do know about pro-sports is that the players perpetuate a myth about a free market when their collective agreements (which were imposed upon the owners) create anything but a fair, open market.
It's not that I'm anti-union - I'm not, though I'm not exactly pro-union either - it's just that pro-sport unions have an unfair advantage that other unions wish they had. With the exception of the NFL possibly.
And it's hard to have much sympathy for owners that continue to lie about how much money they're "losing", but at least they don't hide their motives.

The NLL is very smart here - losing the salary cap now could be fatal in the future - it's damn hard to get back. But 3% raises every year barely cover inflation. Not much of a real raise at all - time to quit being so cheap - why not propose a fair, revenue based partnership?

I don't know what kind of leverage the players have when half the teams supposedly lose money anyway and claim to lose less money when not operating. And let's be clear, very few of these players expect NLL salary to be their only source of income, I don't think anyone's starving here.

It's unfortunate that greed has once again tainted sport.

[bobsticks]

Before we go hatin' on the salaries of the "big 4" too much it's worth considering that the average career length in professional football and hockey is around three years. Yes, it's a necessity that the owners present viable and responsible numbers to the shareholders, but as stated the players are the product. These guys need to be fairly compensated for their efforts as career-ending injuries are rampant.

For every Scott Stevens and Vinny Testaverde there are a dozen Steve Moores and it's not unheard of to end up four years older with five concussions, two bad knees, no straight fingers and a big, green Wing on your a$$...hypothetically speaking, of course.

[Feanor]

....

Though, there's nothing preventing you from retiring and earning income while in receipt of the pension if your employer would hire you back and you meet the earliest retirement eligibility standards in your jurisdiction's Pension Benefits Legislation. Whether you could then continue to accrue pensionable service with that same employer is also subject to your laws...I would guess no unless you work for a level of government, even then...

...

I'm not accuring pension any more in any case. Under my plan, the maximum accrual is 35 years, which I have passed already, and you can retire any time after 60 years with no reduction of pension. I'm 62. My pension is fully accrued and, as I say, earned.

[ForeverAutumn]

Why did you give up skiing? Bad knees?

That's the reason. After 20 years of skiing, I tried to keep going for as long as I could, even reducing it to just skiing half days. But when it got to the point where a half day of skiing meant a week of recovery, I decided to give it up for good. That was about 10 years ago and I really miss it.

[kexodusc]

I'm not accuring pension any more in any case. Under my plan, the maximum accrual is 35 years, which I have passed already, and you can retire any time after 60 years with no reduction of pension. I'm 62. My pension is fully accrued and, as I say, earned.

Well then other than CPP integration issues (doubtful) you should be able to terminate, receive your pension, and commence employment again - provided your employer is eager to have you back and there's no collective agreement restrictions. Terminating is a requirement though.
Boy, you must love your job - if I had 35 years, and probably a 2% integrated benefit formula, I'd be long gone!

[GMichael]

That's the reason. After 20 years of skiing, I tried to keep going for as long as I could, even reducing it to just skiing half days. But when it got to the point where a half day of skiing meant a week of recovery, I decided to give it up for good. That was about 10 years ago and I really miss it.

Time to pick up a snowmobile. You get to sit down while you ski. Even goes up hill.

[Feanor]

Well then other than CPP integration issues (doubtful) you should be able to terminate, receive your pension, and commence employment again - provided your employer is eager to have you back and there's no collective agreement restrictions. Terminating is a requirement though.
Boy, you must love your job - if I had 35 years, and probably a 2% integrated benefit formula, I'd be long gone!

I could try a tougher line with my employer. It is possible that they would go for something but whatever it was, it would be strictly part time and very unlikely that I would earn any more, total, than I'm getting from them today.

I could likely retire and work on contracts, but again, it's by no means certain that I would earn more than the difference between my pension and my salary over, let's say, a year's time. And very likely I'd have to travel or commute longer distances which I definitely don't want to be bothered with.

[ForeverAutumn]

Time to pick up a snowmobile. You get to sit down while you ski. Even goes up hill.

I've always wanted to try snowmobiling. Or as we Canuckleheads call it, sledding. It looks like fun!

[GMichael]

I've always wanted to try snowmobiling. Or as we Canuckleheads call it, sledding. It looks like fun!

It is a blast. I'm sure there's a place not too far, where you can rent one to see what it's like. You can go as fast or as slow as you like, so it's perfect for all ages. Most people go in groups for safety reasons.

[topspeed]

That's the reason. After 20 years of skiing, I tried to keep going for as long as I could, even reducing it to just skiing half days. But when it got to the point where a half day of skiing meant a week of recovery, I decided to give it up for good. That was about 10 years ago and I really miss it.

That's what I figured. Have you considered taking up snowboarding? I don't snowboard, so I could be completely off my rocker on this, but it seems like the lateral forces on your joints would be far less than while skiing. I would think that as long as you keep the stress to the vertical plane, it should be easier on the 'ol knees.

Of course, if your knees are completely tore-up...(in my best Rosanna Rosanna Danna voice)...Never Miiiind!

[kexodusc]

Before we go hatin' on the salaries of the "big 4" too much it's worth considering that the average career length in professional football and hockey is around three years. Yes, it's a necessity that the owners present viable and responsible numbers to the shareholders, but as stated the players are the product. These guys need to be fairly compensated for their efforts as career-ending injuries are rampant.

For every Scott Stevens and Vinny Testaverde there are a dozen Steve Moores and it's not unheard of to end up four years older with five concussions, two bad knees, no straight fingers and a big, green Wing on your a$$...hypothetically speaking, of course.

Fair enough, that's a good point. Though in recent history the players unions seem more concerned about padding the wallets of the elite at the expense of the bottom feeders.

I'm all for the players making what their worth and the magnitude of their salaries is not really an issue for me... if you're the best at anything you're going to be rich I assume, whether it's doctor, lawyer, whatever. Good for them. They're portion of the revenues and how they share it among themselves is where I disagree with them, because it directly affects the product I support.

The players are at most "part" of the product, not all of it. How much? I don't know...some say less than half, I think slightly more. Certainly not two-thirds. Without the fancy arenas and stadiums, marketing machine, trademarks, history etc, those same players have failed to replicate the same level success. Without the players there is no game, but without the infrastructure and spectacle, those players don't have a vehicle to maximize their revenue potential.

With the NLL, they're nowhere near that level of complexity though. I think this is just the owners trying to exert absolute control over the league before they lose it like the big 4 did. They'll have to make an effort to find some middle ground as I said, 3% is embarassing.

[ForeverAutumn]

With the NLL, they're nowhere near that level of complexity though. I think this is just the owners trying to exert absolute control over the league before they lose it like the big 4 did. They'll have to make an effort to find some middle ground as I said, 3% is embarassing.

That's the impression that I'm getting. Jim Jennings (the league president) says that removing the salary cap will kill the small markets who can't afford it. But if you read the comments from the players association they claim that their offer included revenue sharing that would mean the large markets would help support the small markets. If I understand their offer, they also claim that their proposal of removing the cap and implementing some revenue sharing with the players wouldn't cost the teams more than they paid last season.

Apparently, the League took only 30 minutes to review the Players Association's offer before turning it down. There was no counter-offer from the league...their proposal was an all or nothing deal. The speculation is that the league is trying to strong arm the players to break up the union.

The decision, by the player's representatives, to turn down the league's offer was unanimous, even knowing that the season would likely be cancelled. As much as I'm going to miss the season. I'm still supporting the players.

It still sucks though.

OMG! That means that the Leafs are my only hope for a championship team this winter! I'm screwed.

[GMichael]

Time to expand to a few new sports.

[ForeverAutumn]

That's what I figured. Have you considered taking up snowboarding? I don't snowboard, so I could be completely off my rocker on this, but it seems like the lateral forces on your joints would be far less than while skiing. I would think that as long as you keep the stress to the vertical plane, it should be easier on the 'ol knees.

Of course, if your knees are completely tore-up...(in my best Rosanna Rosanna Danna voice)...Never Miiiind!

I have a friend who snowboards and tells me that the technique is nothing like skiing. I'm not sure that I want to start learning all over again. Besides, I think that you need better balance and my balance stinks.

We've been golfing at a course that's about 10 minutes from home that is a small ski hill in the winter. Every time we golf there my husband makes noise about wanting to go night skiing there this winter. So I just might give it a try. I've never tried parabolic skiis and I hear that they are much easier on the knees. Maybe I'll take a chance and try it out for a couple of hours.

...maybe on a Friday night when we're supposed to be at a lacrosse game.

[kexodusc]

That's the impression that I'm getting. Jim Jennings (the league president) says that removing the salary cap will kill the small markets who can't afford it. But if you read the comments from the players association they claim that their offer included revenue sharing that would mean the large markets would help support the small markets. If I understand their offer, they also claim that their proposal of removing the cap and implementing some revenue sharing with the players wouldn't cost the teams more than they paid last season.

Apparently, the League took only 30 minutes to review the Players Association's offer before turning it down. There was no counter-offer from the league...their proposal was an all or nothing deal. The speculation is that the league is trying to strong arm the players to break up the union.

The decision, by the player's representatives, to turn down the league's offer was unanimous, even knowing that the season would likely be cancelled. As much as I'm going to miss the season. I'm still supporting the players.

It still sucks though.

OMG! That means that the Leafs are my only hope for a championship team this winter! I'm screwed.

Hmmm - the more I read, the more I think the owners are the bad guys here...it's one thing to play hardball if you've got an unfavorable history behind you to justify it - these guys don't.

I'm not a big fan of revenue sharing without a cap and floor in place - see baseball and hockey as an example. The problems don't get solved for the small market, but there's a bit more money to throw at players everywhere.

The stakes are small in NLL so there's no real pressure on either side, yet. I have a feeling a lot of these guys aren't losing much money if they're still working their real jobs, and as I mentioned, a lot of owners lose less not operating than they would otherwise. Sometimes both sides need to bleed a bit before the healing can begin.

[ForeverAutumn]

Hmmm - the more I read, the more I think the owners are the bad guys here...it's one thing to play hardball if you've got an unfavorable history behind you to justify it - these guys don't.

I'm not a big fan of revenue sharing without a cap and floor in place - see baseball and hockey as an example. The problems don't get solved for the small market, but there's a bit more money to throw at players everywhere.

The stakes are small in NLL so there's no real pressure on either side, yet. I have a feeling a lot of these guys aren't losing much money if they're still working their real jobs, and as I mentioned, a lot of owners lose less not operating than they would otherwise. Sometimes both sides need to bleed a bit before the healing can begin.

I think that the stakes may be small for the owners, not so much for the players. I remember a situation a few years ago when I worked for a company that implemented a new, employer contributed, pension plan. The company was sold 4 days before the plan vested and the plan was shut down. When the plan members met with management to discuss the situation we were told that there wasn't a lot of money involved. At which point I piped up and said, "That's a subjective statement. If you think there's not much money involved then why don't you pay it out to us". They didn't. I think that the NLL situation may be similar. To the owner's it's the principal. To the players it could be 25% of their annual income.

I think that the stakes being small for the owners is part of the problem. Some of the NLL owners are also NHL owners which may make them jaded. Jennings commented that if the owners were willing to lose an NHL season a couple of years ago, they wouldn't think twice about giving up an NLL season.

In the meantime the fans are the real losers. I guess I could look at the bright side...I have a $500 refund for tickets coming my way.