Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Francesco Aquilini the Puppet Master


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#31 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:20 AM

Bettman only needs like 8/30 teams to do anything.

Nashville, TB, Florida, Columbus, Phoenix, Anaheim, Colorado... that's 7 have-not teams already.


Where do you come up with this nonsense....lol
  • 0

#32 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,491 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:20 AM

Yeah,but the reality is Bettman is the servant and extension of the majority of the owners.

The players should leave to other leagues and let the owners figure it out for themselves for a year or two.

All the businesses that suffer,employees and families ,never mind the players and the staff at the rink,itself.

The owners cannot get their act together and want to use others to get their fiscal acts together.

No players.No league.No business.
  • 1

#33 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:22 AM

First of all, the ownership group acts as a collective. They vote on matters and the majority rules. We have no way of knowing whether or not Aquilini voted for or against the lockout. Given that Vancouver has one of the highest annual revenues, combined with a history of Aquilini dishing out money hand and foot to create a winning environment, it's not far fetched to infer that he may actually have voted against a lockout, ie: the lockout will cost him substantial revenue that he would earn if the hockey season went forward.

Secondly, Gary Bettman is the commisioner of the NHL. He is the figurehead of the entire league. The success of the NHL is (or at least should be) his primary objective. To me, that indicates that his interests would be with both owners and players, as both groups are instrumental in the future success of professional hockey. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as though Gary Bettman should not be picking sides. He should be a non-partisan individual, an adjudicator over negotiations if he has any involvement at all. Gary Bettman should not be siding with the ownership group if in fact his interests are the future success and growth of the league, as he is ostracizing the players that make this league possible. The ownership group should be handling negotiations without the participation or interference of the NHL brass.

That's how I see, at least.


Probably one of the most intelligent comments I have seen on this board and in general. Didn't think about that but certainly that is the role he should have played, as arbiter, steward of the game. I suppose with the owners paying him 8 mil they figured we're not paying someone else on top of that! lol
  • 1

#34 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,491 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:23 AM

Yes 23 of 30 owners should be grateful for the opportunity to spend $150 million. lose money, just so that they can have the wonderful privaledge to provide us with our entertainment.

They shouldn't want to make money those greedy losers, what the heck is their problem.


Their problem is they are billionaires and billionaires have accountants and weasley representatives that tell the world how poor and unfortunate they are.
  • 1

#35 The Kassassin Train

The Kassassin Train

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,105 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 05

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:33 AM

Speak favourably about him? I hate the bastard. Little known fact : He financially supports Chirstie Clark and her Liberal party of retards.


Quick Question and serious since you want to get political....Did you vote Conservative when the Federal election was around?
  • 0

The key difference is that Sopel can fill in for Seabrook and Campbell just fine. Bieksa, he is garbage so in that sense he is like the worst defenseman in the league.


When Cody (Hodgson) gets older, he might be better than Datsyuk.


Let's not push this guy (Kassian). He's still immature, and if he fails on the 2nd line it's because he isn't ready. Some guys really need years to develop, it's how well and how fast players adapt to the game. In my opinion, I'd rather have Horvat getting 2nd line minutes. He will start off on the 3rd line next season but I see him making the transition, being a great compliment to whoever plays his wings.

At this point, I don't see Kassian fitting in to any role other than a 3rd. If players like Kassian start getting 2nd line minutes then we just stay inconsistent as a team.


The idiocy on CDC....

#36 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,672 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:36 AM

Speak favourably about him? I hate the bastard. Little known fact : He financially supports Chirstie Clark and her Liberal party of retards.


Then why pour money into his coffers? Take your business elsewhere.
  • 0

#37 Magikal

Magikal

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 09

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:40 AM

Then why pour money into his coffers? Take your business elsewhere.


Make me :)

Edited by Magikal, 21 September 2012 - 02:41 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to Lahey.

October1st,2013. #HistoryWillBeMade

#38 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:50 AM

Owners own teams for many different reasons including love of the game and personal gratification but don't forget the profit lies in selling the franchise down the road and not necessarily the day to day operations.
  • 1
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#39 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:57 AM

Their problem is they are billionaires and billionaires have accountants and weasley representatives that tell the world how poor and unfortunate they are.


Umm people pay taxes, teams are audited. Have you been to a game in the USA? Tickets aren't priced like they are in canada since the NHL is the number 4 sport if lucky in many states (NFL, NBA, MLB ahead of them).

You can get into games in LA, Anaheim for 20 bucks in NYC you can even get in for 40 bucks, its affordable yes but then put in player expenses and teams lose, not to mention they don't sell out like they do in Canada even with low prices.

People here are so blind to the reality of the league bec we have a passion in this country and as such tickets are pricey and games are still sold out. Moreover, there is very little competition in Canadian markets from other sports at an elite level so its always the main draw for entertainment dollars.

Owners are not making up numbers guy, its reality.
  • 0

#40 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:59 AM

Owners own teams for many different reasons including love of the game and personal gratification but don't forget the profit lies in selling the franchise down the road and not necessarily the day to day operations.


Ahh so owners shouldn't care about making a profit is the logical conclusion, who cares right, they should buy teams and lose money so you can go to a game, thats what matters. And its such a great ego boost to own a team thats losing money and sucking their finances from their other pockets...these guys didn't get rich by making stupid economic and financial decisions bud.

Do you really see the ludicrous statement you just made? That someone buys a business and doesn't care about making money? Really? Umm....ok ...put down the joint bud.

Moreover, you try selling a business down the road that you bought for 150 mil and lost money for ten years for more than you paid Houdini.

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 21 September 2012 - 03:01 AM.

  • 0

#41 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,491 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:19 AM

Umm people pay taxes, teams are audited. Have you been to a game in the USA? Tickets aren't priced like they are in canada since the NHL is the number 4 sport if lucky in many states (NFL, NBA, MLB ahead of them).

You can get into games in LA, Anaheim for 20 bucks in NYC you can even get in for 40 bucks, its affordable yes but then put in player expenses and teams lose, not to mention they don't sell out like they do in Canada even with low prices.

People here are so blind to the reality of the league bec we have a passion in this country and as such tickets are pricey and games are still sold out. Moreover, there is very little competition in Canadian markets from other sports at an elite level so its always the main draw for entertainment dollars.

Owners are not making up numbers guy, its reality.


Guy,you are so naiive or ignorant I am laughing about to cry.
Billionaires are not peons with little tax statements in front of themselves with a deadline for Revenue Canada.
They have teams of lawyers and accountants and know exactly the return and payback before borrowing or investing a dime.
If they are having such problems then why did they buy the franchise in the first place?
Move the teams into Canada and the Northern US where they are successful and forget the NBA dream.
I have no sympathy for the league or their silly owners with this non-traditional market structure based on tv revenues that never actualised.
Dump the losing teams and make the league and remaining franchises highly profitable and viable.By bye losers and bye bye Bettman.
Stop making the players,the paying public and the businesses pay for this billionaire nonsense.

Edited by nuck nit, 21 September 2012 - 03:21 AM.

  • 1

#42 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:24 AM

grab a brain dude.

Why are there are there owners lining up to buy loosing teams? Do they really expect to make money when others couldn't? There are billionaires lining up to buy money loosing franchises and aren't allowed in ie Jim Balsillie How does a billionaire figure he's gonna turn a sun belt looser into a winner when he'd probably make more money on a day to day basis buying soy beans? No, he loves the game and/or wants to be shown to be in the loop and if he looses 50 million a year then that's only 1% of 5 billion which is peanuts to most these guys. If you love hockey and are making money on a day in and day out basis then why sell? No. they sell to realize the value in a franchise and move on to other things when the situation presents itself and they are no longer buoyed by owning a prestige business.
  • 0
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#43 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,914 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:48 AM

Consider that all the owners might *not* be on board with a lockout. How would this proceed behind closed doors?

You realize they voted UNANIMOUSLY in favour of a lockout, right?
  • 0

#44 Moonshinefe

Moonshinefe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:51 AM

Lots of hate for Aquilini, perhaps it's warranted. But who else would you want running the Canucks? Is there some other benevolent Canadian billionaire willing to spend top cap wise to run a team kicking around here?

You all hate him for his questionable ethics but we also have him to thank for the team we have today. We spend to the cap and he's funding it. The Canucks team is one of the best franchises in the NHL right now. Think about that. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the alternative.

Edited by Moonshinefe, 21 September 2012 - 06:52 AM.

  • 0

#45 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,491 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:55 AM

Do you see NHL hockey?

I don't see NHL hockey.

Maybe we will be lucky and it will go to Europe where there are no labour lock outs by Billionaires.
  • 0

#46 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,018 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:00 AM

You realize they voted UNANIMOUSLY in favour of a lockout, right?



Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who was aware of this. Unless Bettman was lying outright, every single owner, Aquilini included, voted in favor of the lockout.

As I've said many times before, the "have" owners keep screwing things up for the entire league by throwing ridiculous money at players. The "have not" owners really have no choice but to rely on CBA negotiations to try and level the playing field.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#47 ridehard1212

ridehard1212

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:03 AM

Speak favourably about him? I hate the bastard. Little known fact : He financially supports Chirstie Clark and her Liberal party of retards.


You sir make me very angry.. Liberals may not be perfect but they are a far far better then the alternative.. I am very worried that people forget how bad things were the last time the NDP were in power.. If it happens again it might be a good time to become a oilers fan!!! and get out of BC
  • 2
I dont give a rat arz about my spelling/grammer mistakes,get over it and up urs if it bothers u!!!!

#48 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,657 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:11 AM

To those who support the owners.

Would you pay your current ticket prices to watch the Aquillini famly vs. Sniders? The Players ARE the NHL. That's why their section at the hockey hall of fame dwarfs the owners and builders. They are investors into making a profit. But the players ARE the product.
  • 1
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#49 grandmaster

grandmaster

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 04

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:23 AM

To those who support the owners.

Would you pay your current ticket prices to watch the Aquillini famly vs. Sniders? The Players ARE the NHL. That's why their section at the hockey hall of fame dwarfs the owners and builders. They are investors into making a profit. But the players ARE the product.


In the end it is the people who pay these stupid prices. If you had a business and could charge more you would too. Don't even go there.

As for the product, they do not run the company. the product is not taking any financial risks and does not hire itself. What kind of world do you live in when you think you can get a job and dictate the owners what on what to do? That's not how life works pal.
  • 0

Favorite all time Canuck: Bertuzzi 2002-2003 season
Most clutch all time Canuck: Linden 1994 Stanley Cup Playoffs
Most exciting all time Canuck: Pavel Bure 90's

#50 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,055 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:23 AM

Sure,plenty of other hockey fan boards the Aquilini's don't own that we can participate in.So,let him take his little board and you and he can go home.
Personally,I would love to have you banned for being such a condescending yes man.
The players make the league.Without the talent the billionaires move on to their next gig.
The players remain the stars and I would love them to all go to Europe this year and just forget these owners and their pathetic state of governing themselves by locking their fans and employees out of jobs and entertainment enjoyment.

It is leeftwing morons like you that have done such a great job of running the world to date. I suggest the Dippers put that in their platform. Nationalize the NHL and make the players public servants. Then we don't have to worry about those bloody 'billionairs' who grind us into the dirt every day.

Better suggestion is you pack your bag and join the NHLers over in Euroland and play that game until it ends. One by one your idealized socialist heaven is going under. Enjoy.
  • 1

#51 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,055 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:30 AM

grab a brain dude.

Why are there are there owners lining up to buy loosing teams? Do they really expect to make money when others couldn't? There are billionaires lining up to buy money loosing franchises and aren't allowed in ie Jim Balsillie How does a billionaire figure he's gonna turn a sun belt looser into a winner when he'd probably make more money on a day to day basis buying soy beans? No, he loves the game and/or wants to be shown to be in the loop and if he looses 50 million a year then that's only 1% of 5 billion which is peanuts to most these guys. If you love hockey and are making money on a day in and day out basis then why sell? No. they sell to realize the value in a franchise and move on to other things when the situation presents itself and they are no longer buoyed by owning a prestige business.

Last I checked the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan owned the majority of the TO Laffers. I am sure those pension cheques they are cutting are a mere pittance of what they are collecting. Those insidious 'billionaires' have to have their fingers in there some how. I guess it must be those good socialist heroes , the teachers, who are turning thumbs down on increasing the revenue sharing to less 'fortunate' franchises. :(
  • 0

#52 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,491 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:39 AM

It is leeftwing morons like you that have done such a great job of running the world to date. I suggest the Dippers put that in their platform. Nationalize the NHL and make the players public servants. Then we don't have to worry about those bloody 'billionairs' who grind us into the dirt every day.

Better suggestion is you pack your bag and join the NHLers over in Euroland and play that game until it ends. One by one your idealized socialist heaven is going under. Enjoy.


Oh,I forgot.The world is being run into the ground with a war machine.I can tell you it is not guys wanting to see a hockey game.
The oceans are dying and the bees are about gone but those billionaires sure are your saviour.
Destroy another planet after you finish this one off,first.
  • 0

#53 Burrdin

Burrdin

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:03 AM

Also if you don't like how the owners and Bettman are running things then move on elsewhere because they are the bosses who cut the cheques and have every right to call how they run their businesses

Who exactly do you think the "NHL" is, if not the owners? Idiot.


You both make it sound like the owners of teams are the same as any regular business owner. Actually the "NHL" is its own intellectual property. That's why the owners have to go through a process to buy an NHL team(ie. they can't just buy a team from an existing owner whenever they want-they have to get league approval first) and why they can't just do what they want with it when they buy it. For example they can't buy a team and then move it to another city because they're losing money. They have to get league approval first.

Unfortunately for these owners, unlike other businesses, in sports the players(employees) are what draw the customers. So if not for the high end talented players, there would be less fans and less money. Essentially it would be the AHL or WHL, etc.

I agree though, it takes a huge commitment by the owners to put out all the money to pay for all the things that go into a franchise and to pay for the best players in the world. Ideally, we would all like every owner to be a fan of the game and not care if they make a profit or not. It seems like this is the case for some owners, but not for all. THAT'S why we are still waiting to start the (pre)season.
  • 0

#54 Burrdin

Burrdin

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:10 AM

In the end it is the people who pay these stupid prices. If you had a business and could charge more you would too. Don't even go there.

As for the product, they do not run the company. the product is not taking any financial risks and does not hire itself. What kind of world do you live in when you think you can get a job and dictate the owners what on what to do? That's not how life works pal.


I don't think I disagree with you, but have you never been in or known anyone in a union? It's basically what all unions do. They try to get what they think is in the best interest of their members. Whether it actually makes sense or not ;)
  • 0

#55 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,491 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:35 AM

The product can get a job in the KHL or any European team needing talent.

Conversely,they can play in the AHL as many are about to do.

Back when salaries were not paid out as fairly as they are today the players played Senior Men's leagues and worked for a good wage in a mill or smelter,processing plant or mine.

The product will always have employment as they have the talent that other humans wish to see.

The owners of NHL teams cannot financially regulate each other adequately so the NHL brand shuts down and that is the way it should be.

Now we need it to shut down for some years for the NHL product to flourish,or so it seems as this is the second lock out of the players and the game and they still cannot get their acts together.
  • 0

#56 RonMexico

RonMexico

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:19 AM

First of all, the ownership group acts as a collective.  They vote on matters and the majority rules.  We have no way of knowing whether or not Aquilini voted for or against the lockout.  Given that Vancouver has one of the highest annual revenues, combined with a history of Aquilini dishing out money hand and foot to create a winning environment, it's not far fetched to infer that he may actually have voted against a lockout, ie: the lockout will cost him substantial revenue that he would earn if the hockey season went forward.



While that does make sense that he would not want to lose out on the revenue, he also stands to retain a significantly more money if the PA were to accept the owner's offer. We, the common folk, cannot afford for our businesses to be shut down for more than a week before we feel the pinch. Yes the Canucks organization will lose money, but they also have many other million dollar revenue streams to cushion the loss. And really, since the Aquilinis took over this team, I am fairly sure they have never been scraping by. My roughly $100 for beer and food at the game says so.

Edited by RonMexico, 21 September 2012 - 10:20 AM.

  • 0

#57 Magikal

Magikal

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 09

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:58 AM

You sir make me very angry.. Liberals may not be perfect but they are a far far better then the alternative.. I am very worried that people forget how bad things were the last time the NDP were in power.. If it happens again it might be a good time to become a oilers fan!!! and get out of BC


Not that I ride any party's jock here but you are talking about an NDP cabinet that is 20 years in the past. Their entire party is different now than it was back then and if Fast Ferries are the worst thing they did, then it's still a thousand times better than sh**ing all over first nations peoples, threatening the safety of the BC rainforest and closing down schools/cutting school programs left right and centre just to name a few things. Also Ms. Clark is the biggest flopping fish in the game. Remember when she had her radio show? All she did was bash Harper left, right and centre. Now they might as well be in love their so close. Don't talk about the present and the future when you clearly don't know jack squat about the past.

Edited by Magikal, 21 September 2012 - 10:59 AM.

  • 2
Posted Image
Credit to Lahey.

October1st,2013. #HistoryWillBeMade

#58 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,943 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:14 AM

Consider that all the owners might *not* be on board with a lockout. How would this proceed behind closed doors?

You realize they voted UNANIMOUSLY in favour of a lockout, right?


The NHL may have presented a unanimous front, but there is significant competition between them, and are significant contradictions between their interests. There is also obviously a huge disparity between the revenues of the have and have not franchises. Naturally they are presenting a unanimous front - they aren't stupid - this is a negotiation process where they are attempting to leverage the players to take some responsibility for propping up the peripheral non-hockey markets, which they are collectively using as the 'necessity' behind their lockout.
Aside from the fact that the owners have very different interests (or non-interest) in a lockout, they are also faced with the irony that the players are proposing a greater revenue sharing pool. This is, in large part, why I am leaning towards the players side of negotiations at this point.

I think behind closed doors, the owners no doubt have to deal with far more divisive issues. The process gets very complicated because the NHL has to work out their own contradictions in a negotiation where they are also attempting to get the most return vs the players' interests. We've all seen teams agreeing to contracts with UFAs (even a smaller market, albeit northern hockey market team like Minnesota) that simply defy their stated collective interest and illustrate the contradiction in the claims of an unfair ownership revenue share. An additional factor that leans me towards the players is the fact that teams have entered into these contracts freely, as a result of competition between franchises to acquire the services of UFAs. To then collectively refuse to honour the terms they individually entered into is an odd part of the process mitigated by the process of re-engaging in Collective Bargaining. In this sense I dont' see them operating as a typical business must - there are different legal consequences if a business hopes to reneg on a contract, and in what other form of business can you count on your competitors to subsidize you if you are a failing venture? Teams that are unable to survive are not subject to the typical grow or die of the market - they have the benefit and the limitations, as another poster mentioned, of being part of a collective entity. To try to put left/right labels on things is to oversimplify them - the NHL (owners) are already a hybrid/mixed economy of sorts, with 'left and right' elements structured together. It is very difficult to simply support the owners - to do so is to support a bunch of contradictions. If all the teams were in the position of the small southern non-hockey market franchises, supporting the owners would be a no-brainer (and teams wouldn't be behaving as they have). If all teams were in a position like the Rangers, Leafs etc, supporting the players would be a no-brainer. But the way the NHL internally addresses these issues is opaque - to simply trust the way they present their 'collective' financial hardship would be exceedingly naive.

I am not interested in getting into political ideology - I think it winds up dumbing us all down. It's been a long time since I identified with left or right or particular ideologies and it doesn't help me personally to try to reduce this dispute into those kind of terms. As I said, I am leaning towards the players because of the manner in which specific issues are being addressed - the players have seemed more mindful to speak to those issues, whereas the NHL doesn't seem particularly concerned to address them publicly - they see it as a supply and demand marketplace where they are (at least collectively) in a position of strength and aren't really terribly concerned with fan perception or public opinion - at least not as things stand - and fair enough - they are a business that is weighing it's interests and they are probably correct to assume that demand will remain regardless of the optics of this dispute.


People on both sides are suggesting analogies that make this into an owner/employer, player/employee relation. The differences are so significant that the analogy falls apart as soon as you start to analyze it. The owners have less power than a typical employer/employee relationship, for a whole lot of reasons, not the least of which is their own collective limitations, and the relative wealth and ability of players to financially endure a lockout. The terminology of a players 'union' suggests that they are employees - but it is just as easy to see them as contractors, particularly once they succeed their ELC and have the freedom to offer their services in a bid for the best contract offer if they so desire. In reality they have the power of management class in the marketplace, and few people consider the middle class to be workers/employees. I'm not particularly concerned with how they divide up the 3.3 billion, but I have felt the contradictions coming out of Bettman's position are more patronizing than the feel-good commercials of the players... For me, if the owners return promptly with a revenue sharing plan that rivals the one the player's proposed, the field will be somewhat levelled. I'm not particularly concerned with how they divide up the 3.3 billion - but the fact the owners have locked out under the circumstances and are proposing a smaller revenue sharing pool makes it difficult for me to see why I should support their position.
  • 2

#59 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,943 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:32 AM

Not that I ride any party's jock here but you are talking about an NDP cabinet that is 20 years in the past. Their entire party is different now than it was back then and if Fast Ferries are the worst thing they did, then it's still a thousand times better than sh**ing all over first nations peoples, threatening the safety of the BC rainforest and closing down schools/cutting school programs left right and centre just to name a few things. Also Ms. Clark is the biggest flopping fish in the game. Remember when she had her radio show? All she did was bash Harper left, right and centre. Now they might as well be in love their so close. Don't talk about the present and the future when you clearly don't know jack squat about the past.


You're free to post what you will, and I'm free to say that I don't particularly appreciate this kind of off-topic politicking/lobbying in a hockey forum. You brought party politics into thread and that's about as relevant (and fun) as arguing about religion.

In terms of the lockout and CBA negotiations, I don't think the Canucks interests are obvious - they have significant revenue to cover their operatiing costs, they have maintained a sane salary/term/cap structure, they haven't been on the UFA market throwing around bids that cripple the smaller markets ability to compete, they can survive a stoppage but would probably prefer to drop the puck instead. A unique position that is probably about as politically neutral internal to the NHL/NHLPA relations as any franchise.

If you look at a salary rollback - how much does an owner in Vancouver stand to save, and how long before a stoppage loses more than those savings? I think you are looking at a lack of interest in a significant stoppage. I think the players have done the math and are relatively aware of the significant differences in implications for different franchises. I think Bettman is in an uneasy position - and it would be very interesting to see the actual NHL side of things. I'm surprised they've taken the approach they have and I'll be surprised if the players compromise first.

Edited by oldnews, 21 September 2012 - 11:44 AM.

  • 0

#60 Magikal

Magikal

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 09

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:48 AM

You're free to post what you will, and I'm free to say that I don't particularly appreciate this kind of off-topic politicking/lobbying in a hockey forum. You brought party politics into thread and that's about as relevant (and fun) as arguing about religion.

In terms of the lockout and CBA negotiations, I don't think the Canucks interests are obvious - they have significant revenue to cover their operatiing costs, they have maintained a sane salary/term/cap structure, they haven't been on the UFA market throwing around bids that cripple the smaller markets ability to compete, they can survive a stoppage but would probably prefer to drop the puck instead. A unique position that is probably about as politically neutral internal to the NHL/NHLPA relations as any franchise.

If you look at a salary rollback - how much does an owner in Vancouver stand to save, and how long before a stoppage loses more than those savings? I think you are looking at a lack of interest in a significant stoppage. I think the players have done the math and are relatively aware of the significant differences in implications for different franchises. I think Bettman is in an uneasy position - and it would be very interesting to see the actual NHL side of things. I'm surprised they've taken the approach they have and I'll be surprised if the players compromise first.



wait, you DON'T like arguing for endless hours about politics and religion? Where's your sense of fun buddy?
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to Lahey.

October1st,2013. #HistoryWillBeMade




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.