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

#61 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:52 AM

wait, you DON'T like arguing for endless hours about politics and religion? Where's your sense of fun buddy?


arguing about hockey :bigblush:
  • 0

#62 Magikal

Magikal

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 09

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:53 AM

arguing about hockey :bigblush:


A good chunk of hockey is politics :P
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to Lahey.

October1st,2013. #HistoryWillBeMade

#63 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,560 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:57 AM

I find it interesting how on the eve of the lock-out deadline, Donald Fehr was surrounded by an army of players, while it was just Gary Bettman by himself on TV, acting as the face of ownership.


According to a NHL by-law, owners can't discuss their postions.

Are the owners permitted to discuss their positions publicly?
“We have bylaw 17.17, which doesn’t enable anybody to speak on this subject except for me and Bill Daly. And we do that because we are the most able to address these issues. And frankly, in this era of digital media, we will be responding to stories non-stop — most of which will not be accurate, or will be out of context — and we’re much more comfortable, as we’ve been throughout this process, taking a low-key approach to the public relations aspect of this … we think the negotiations have to take place across the table between the parties directly.”


Not sure if anyone remembers but back in 2004 the (brand new) Thrashers owner was fined $250,000 for suggesting the league would use replacement players.

The owners have to remain silent.
  • 0
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#64 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:06 PM

A good chunk of hockey is politics :P


a bad chunk of hockey is politics :excl:
  • 1

#65 Magikal

Magikal

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 09

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:12 PM

a bad chunk of hockey is politics :excl:


Well played sir. You may have one of my internets.
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to Lahey.

October1st,2013. #HistoryWillBeMade

#66 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,119 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:42 PM

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.

Old News:
A particularly good post which one expects when they see your name on it.

I perhaps have been guilty in being sidetracked on this discussion.

Clarification: You suggested the players had 'proposed a greater revenue sharing pool'. Could you flesh that out a little more?

You also suggested that the competition for UFA'a and the resulting large contracts were simply the competiton for players and the game they play on the ice. I would suggest that there could be a number of business reasons for these bidding wars. Any franchise in a challenged market might feel forced to pay for a UFA player to retain their market. Losing a particular player could hurt their marketing, their team morale, or turn fans against the GM or coaching.

You stated that you thought the players had been more open with the public which I agree with. Bottom line however is that move is easier for the players to do than it is the owners. Fans know what the players make. Having public sympathy is one of the few tools that the players can use in this negociation. Bettman has always played his cards close and I think some of that is respecting the parties involved. Most of the ownership are not public companies and their affairs are private.
  • 0

#67 Mike Versace ESQ

Mike Versace ESQ

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:51 PM

I'm not claiming to know everything but I'm just using my brain here instead of just blindly following the crowd but you really think Aqulini has a problem with the current system? You think he's in favor of shutting the league down losing out on millions, losing out on a sold out Rogers Arena every game no matter what, holding out for a deal that will probably end up making him pay out MORE in revenue sharing to the have not teams only for them to use that money to drive up the prices of FA's that the Canucks want to sign? I'm pretty confident if it was his call, the NHL would be in training camp right now under the terms of the previous agreement.

Edited by Mr Soprano, 21 September 2012 - 12:52 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImagePosted Image


FOLLOW @MikeVersace1

#shapcrew #membersonly

credit to CanucksHD for the avatar


#68 bossram

bossram

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,943 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:52 PM

I find it interesting how on the eve of the lock-out deadline, Donald Fehr was surrounded by an army of players, while it was just Gary Bettman by himself on TV, acting as the face of ownership.

But let's not fool ourselves. Gary Bettman is just the figure head for owners. They pay him big bucks to say what they don't want to say to the public. He is boo'd by every single team's fans in the NHL, yet his job security is bullet proof because the owners love him. He is truly their puppet.

When Gary Bettman was standing alone, announcing the NHL has locked out its players, he might as well have been holding hands with our own Francesco Aquilini. Our owner is one of 30 who is offering the players a raw deal. Aquilini is more at fault for this lockout than Bettman because Bettman is just following the demands of owners.

Canucks fans tend to talk so favourably about Aquilini, because he has opened the purse strings and allowed this organization to compete at the cap limit for several years. He has invested in unique strategies and created a healthy, winning environment for players and fans.

But he is still an owner, and an influential power in an unnecessary lock-out. So, as a reminder, don't hate Bettman, even though he is so easy to hate. He's just the messenger. It's time we recognized who the real culprits are, and keep them accountable.


Although many owners are responsible for the lockout, and blaming Bettman entirely isn't right, there is no way to know whether or not Aquilini supports the lockout or not. He doesn't have much to gain. He is losing millions of dollars if the team doesn't play and has demonstrated he is not afraid to spend money if it improves the team.

The Aquilini ownership group are the best owners we've ever had. Money isn't really the objective to them, otherwise they wouldn't be spending right to the cap and proving Gillis with their own money to use on abtract concepts such as sleep analysis that may or may not even affect the on-ice product.

The Aquilini's are committed to this organization and committed to winning. I wouldn't slam them unfairly.

The collective greed of the power-tripping owners are what caused this (see: Ed Snider)
  • 0
What is the deal with Mike Gillis, it always seems like he's sweating...

#69 Brick Tamland

Brick Tamland

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,150 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:01 PM

Don't be fooled, he is not just a puppet (GB). You don't pay a puppet millions and millions unless he can provide value for service. He is educated, eloquent and precise. He knows the financials of the game better than almost anyone and he convinces owners to send their income to other owners who do not earn as much (see revenue sharing).

If GB was let go, he would get hired by another set of owners in a second.
  • 0
I Love Lamp...

#70 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,187 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:17 PM

I'm not claiming to know everything but I'm just using my brain here instead of just blindly following the crowd but you really think Aqulini has a problem with the current system? You think he's in favor of shutting the league down losing out on millions, losing out on a sold out Rogers Arena every game no matter what, holding out for a deal that will probably end up making him pay out MORE in revenue sharing to the have not teams only for them to use that money to drive up the prices of FA's that the Canucks want to sign? I'm pretty confident if it was his call, the NHL would be in training camp right now under the terms of the previous agreement.



You may be right, however, the fact is the owners voted unaminously in favor of locking the players out.

I'm not really sure what FA expects to gain from a work stoppage, but I also am unsure why he would vote against his own interests...
  • 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!

#71 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,613 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:47 PM

Sadly, I'm afraid it's not as obvious to everyone, because you'll never see any reporting with "lock-out" and "Aquilini" in the same story, only "Bettman" and "lock-out".

How about "owners" and "lock-out"? Does that ever get reported? Of course, all the time in fact.

If people aren't smart enough to figure it out from there, then you creating a thread to tell them isn't going to help.

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

This and other posts mention a very important point. If the supreme court reaches a majority decision on a case you don't like, should you hold each of the judges individually accountable, or should you just single out the ones that didn't agree the way you wanted them to?

In much the same way, do we know that Aquilini was for or against the lockout? I haven't seen it reported anywhere, but feel free to link to an article where it says one way or the other. If you can find one that says he was for the lockout, feel free to single him out. If you can't, or you find one that says the opposite, then this thread seems fairly stupid to single him out rather than speak out against the owners that are confirmed as having voted for the lockout, or just speaking about the owners in general.

Edited by elvis15, 21 September 2012 - 01:49 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#72 iLLmAtlc

iLLmAtlc

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:59 PM

I think you guys might be a bit under-informed and underselling Bettman's role in the lockout. He recently had the NHL bylaws changed so that he only needs the support of EIGHT owners in order to turn down any NHLPA proposals:

http://twitter.com/w...075057878925312

Anyone who has that kind of control cannot just be a mouthpiece. He's an agent, yes, but I think it might be he who is advising the owners on what needs to be done and so much not the other way around.

Edited by iLLmAtlc, 21 September 2012 - 02:02 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#73 Steve Carell

Steve Carell

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,666 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 06

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:12 PM

Yup. Whatcha gonna do about it?

Make me :)


Posted Image
  • 1

#74 thema

thema

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:24 PM

What a refreshing thread; certainly it is the absolute first time I have read the name Aquillini in regards to the lockout on this forum. Aquillini's track record is well known especially to poor people in Vancouver so I'm betting he's totally on board with the lockout. It is astonishing to me how many people whine about "greedy players" in this the THIRD LOCKOUT of Bettman's tenure. I for one hope it lasts several seasons and the NHL is forced to transform itself into a hockey league that concentrates on markets where hockey is not only known about but is also massively popular. The South ain't gonna cut it no matter how low the Canadian dollar goes and with it hovering around par with the US dollar the southern sun belt teams are doomed. I say lose most of them, divvy up the players to the survivors and set up a minor pro league in the south that better reflects the relative popularity of the sport there. Maybe call it something like the IHL.
  • 3

#75 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:32 PM

Old News:
A particularly good post which one expects when they see your name on it.

I perhaps have been guilty in being sidetracked on this discussion.

Clarification: You suggested the players had 'proposed a greater revenue sharing pool'. Could you flesh that out a little more?

You also suggested that the competition for UFA'a and the resulting large contracts were simply the competiton for players and the game they play on the ice. I would suggest that there could be a number of business reasons for these bidding wars. Any franchise in a challenged market might feel forced to pay for a UFA player to retain their market. Losing a particular player could hurt their marketing, their team morale, or turn fans against the GM or coaching.

You stated that you thought the players had been more open with the public which I agree with. Bottom line however is that move is easier for the players to do than it is the owners. Fans know what the players make. Having public sympathy is one of the few tools that the players can use in this negociation. Bettman has always played his cards close and I think some of that is respecting the parties involved. Most of the ownership are not public companies and their affairs are private.


Boudrias,
The reason I suggested the players proposed a greater revenue sharing pool (to support the weaker financial markets) is because the current level is $150 million - the NHL proposed it be raised to $190 million - and the NHLPA has proposed $240 million (at least those are the last figures I saw). I found that interesting, a wise concession on behalf of the players, and curious that the NHL proposal is lower than the NHLPA.

Of course, the players have an interest in sustaining a 30 team league. The owners though are in an odd position - the more the wealthy subsidize the weaker teams, the more they undermine their competitive advantage, so some teams may have a point in moderating this - it is oddly enough in their interests as part of the collective, but against their individual interest. The other potentially negative effect is to sustain teams in markets that may not realistically be viable in the long term, and when is enough enough? Despite Daly implying that the players are the beneficiaries of a 30 team league, clearly some owners of weaker franchises stand to lose truckloads of money if the NHL ever proposed contraction - a red herring and non-starter imo.

I agree that smaller market teams may feel pressured to compete in the UFA sweepstakes, for various reasons, but I wouldn't say they are forced - if they choose to spend, they are taking a risk that may or may not pay off. Some teams manage to be competitive because of good management (*every year there is a Florida in the playoffs and a Leafs or Flames outside) and money well spent. Others can't spend their way to success regardless of throwing money around. It seems to me even small, peripheral/non hockey market franchises like Columbus (Nash), Florida (Campbell) , Nashville (Weber) manage to draft, acquire and retain marquis players - virtually every team has "stars". Even Atlanta (Kovalchuk) had big draw players but couldn't sell hockey. I'm not sure any team can argue they are excluded from the ability to compete or even ice a good product - I think the problems are a larger set of issues of being unable to create substantial interest to sell the NHL despite the potential to compete if managed well.

I agree that Bettman is playing his cards close to his chest, and I think that is also in large part due to the significant contradictions - extremely rich and life-support franchises represented by the same 'collective' interest. Imo there needs to be greater cooperation/concession between owners, some of whom are obviously circumventing the cap and escalating salaries at a rate that makes their 'collective' position look ridiculous - as well as between the NHL and NHLPA. The irony of players being willing to transfer greater revenue to the have not franchises imo underlines that. When the players say they will concede more revenue, but not if it means making Toronto, Philadelphia and New York richer, I think they have a point.
The NHL position is so intriguing because it speaks for a strange collective of somewhat misfit interests - what they seem to have agreed upon is instead of working out those internal contradictions, they'll stand 'united' and attempt to roll-back player revenue instead. I'm simply not willing to take Bettman's assertions at face value - there are two/too many faces speaking.

Edited by oldnews, 21 September 2012 - 02:55 PM.

  • 1

#76 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,646 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:43 PM

Hockey survives in hockey markets.
Florida is 'snow bird' territory so it survives.
Phoenix,which should survive with 'snow birds' is a constant drain and drama.
This Bettman NHL expanded into the south on the lure of TV contracts that never materialised.
The sooner the teams that carry the dead wood get together and spell it out for those they are carrying,the better and faster the health of the entire league will become.
Time to end the Bettman nightmare and that is up to the clubs with the greatest revenue to orchestrate,together.
  • 0

#77 Cakeman

Cakeman

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 03

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:51 PM

If the Canucks play a full season they make a great deal of money for the franchise. If there is a full season lockout, the team will lose money. If Aquilini is so 'underhanded' that he will do anything to make a buck, don't you think he would also not want a lockout?? When the owners had their so-called vote which was apparently unanimous, Francesco was being held down by 4 of the other owners, while Bettman was holding Aquilini's arm up with all his strength....there is no way the Canucks owner wants a lockout. Use some intelligence in this, not blind hatred.
Bettman has enough support among the owners to do what he wants, he broke the union head last time, this time the union brings in 'the ace' so now Bettman wants to show Donald Fehr who the big boss is....
  • 0

#78 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:36 PM

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


The NHL is run by the head guys in the NHL office, Bettman and Daly and whoever else they may be.


Your local Tim Hortons, for example, is also run by an owner. But the Tim Hortons franchise? A bunch of CEO's and head guys, in a main office somewhere overseeing all of the Timmies in Canada. Telling the owners of each store how they should run their business.

The owners only have a certain amount of power. That goes for any and every business. The NHL, is in fact, a business.

Don't call me an idiot, idiot.

Edited by MaximYapierre, 21 September 2012 - 04:38 PM.

  • 0

/=S=/


#79 ruffdeezy

ruffdeezy

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:37 PM

I bet there are 10 owners who don't want a lockout. They can't say anything against it otherwise they will be fined a million dollars. The vote had to be unanimous otherwise Bettman would look like a buffoon. This is about propping up poor market teams. Bettman looked dumb last year with Atlanta moving and he wants to have the upper hand this time.
  • 2

#80 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,646 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:40 PM

Imagine wrapping up a billion dollars in a Canadian franchise and having hockey trying to be peddled in Atlanta and deep southern states where girls mud wrestling is better understood than ice hockey?
The Canadian owners have to be shaking their heads trying to rid themselves of the Bettman albatross.
Edmonton is said to need a new arena to make it and yet they have to funnel millions of dough down south so that Gary can expand into the land of the elusive TV deal that never manifests itself.
  • 0

#81 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:22 PM

Being generous with your money is very different from being passive when being dealt a smaller piece of the pie. Just because Aquilini is willing to spend money on the team and community, doesn't mean he is on board with taking less. It takes away from his freedoms of what do to with the extra $$ whether it be used to benefit him and his or not.

Edited by CanucksSayEh, 21 September 2012 - 09:23 PM.

  • 0

#82 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,426 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 22 September 2012 - 02:17 AM

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


The internet is your friend....

As in 1994, the owners' position was predicated around the need for a salary cap. In an effort to ensure solidarity amongst the owners, the league's governors voted to give Bettman the right to unilaterally veto any union offer as long as he had the backing of just eight owners.


http://en.wikipedia....ki/Gary_Bettman

Just search around the 04/05 lockout.
  • 0

#83 Li'l Fra

Li'l Fra

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 07

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:47 AM

Wow...do you people think that Aquilini "owes" us his huge investment in the Canucks? I for one am stoked to have strong, local owners who are fans of the team.

Who cares if he's a Liberal. So was most of the province was until Gordon blew up the party. The Conservatives? The NDP? There's the Green party? It's all a joke...please don't bring politics into my Hockey. Please!

It wasn't so long ago that Vancouver was in danger of losing their team. It's a business, owners risk their money, they deserve to be compensated.

There should be no doubt that this ownership group has invested more in this franchise than any that came before.

Aquilini stands to lose millions if there is an extended lockout. I, for one, don't believe he's on Bettman's side on this one. He already shares profits with losing southern teams. You think he's happy about that?

Or is this just a "hey let's hate the rich guy" thing.

The players and owners in favour of this lockout can all s#ck it as far as I'm concerned. But only because they're acting like spoiled children, taking their puck and going home.

What side do you think Aquilini is on?
  • 1

#84 Max-a-Million

Max-a-Million

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 08

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:55 AM

1. It's been reported that the owners are 100% behind Bettman and support his tactics unnanimously, so that includes Acquilini

2. The owners are business men and they have hired Bettman, a lawyer to advise and lead them. At the threat of a $1,000,000 fine they will not say anything against him.

3. It's pretty obvious with the crazy contracts that were handed out in late August and up to September 15th by the owners that they are silently in disagreement.

4. This is a classic case of union versus employer and it baffles me that millionaires need a union to represent them.

5. Hockey is entertainment, not an essential service and while I am a hockey fan, I hope they stay locked out for a couple of years. Then we'll see how much money everyone is making while buildings sit empty and assets depreciate in value. Can you imagine if the WWE (another form of entertainment akin to hockey) were to go on strike? SO WHAT.

6. The people hurt the most are the blue collar workers and they'll find other jobs. The sports and radio announcers will find something else to blabber about and life will go on.
  • 0

I spend half my money on Wine, Women and Song.
The other half I waste!


#85 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:49 AM

Wow...do you people think that Aquilini "owes" us his huge investment in the Canucks? I for one am stoked to have strong, local owners who are fans of the team.

Who cares if he's a Liberal. So was most of the province was until Gordon blew up the party. The Conservatives? The NDP? There's the Green party? It's all a joke...please don't bring politics into my Hockey. Please!

It wasn't so long ago that Vancouver was in danger of losing their team. It's a business, owners risk their money, they deserve to be compensated.

There should be no doubt that this ownership group has invested more in this franchise than any that came before.

Aquilini stands to lose millions if there is an extended lockout. I, for one, don't believe he's on Bettman's side on this one. He already shares profits with losing southern teams. You think he's happy about that?

Or is this just a "hey let's hate the rich guy" thing.

The players and owners in favour of this lockout can all s#ck it as far as I'm concerned. But only because they're acting like spoiled children, taking their puck and going home.

What side do you think Aquilini is on?

::D
  • 0

#86 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,560 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:55 AM

Interesting read here. Perspective from the management (owner's) side. The interview for which the Red Wings are being fined for.

One-on-One With Jim Devellano, Detroit Red Wings Senior VP

Devellano was candid and thorough in his discussion and answers below and we trust it will provide our readers with some inside perspective on the NHL lockout and issues behind it.

http://islandsportsn...wings-senior-vp




  • 0
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#87 BurnabyJoe

BurnabyJoe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 06

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:58 AM

I have a relative who meets with Aquilini and other sports owners somewhat frequently. He really had nothing good to say about Aquilini, and every other owner he's had business with.

I came away realizing what a business pro sports really is. He told me emphatically that they don't care about the players or the game. It's all money.
  • 3
http://i8.photobucke...e/canucks40.jpg <- Jim Robson's 40th Anniversary Team.

#88 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 09

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:58 AM

Actually, it was the NHL and Bettman who proposed the lockout, the owners just voted on it.

Not trying to defend Aquilini in any regards, I think he's a money hungry pr*ck, but justifying Bettman by blaming the owners is incorrect.

EDIT: Because if the owners say no to a lockout, and the NHL locks them out anyways, then they're dealing with pissed off owners and pissed off players

So your saying theres 3 partys involved ? The NHL ,The owners and the players ?

The NHL is the owners and Bettman has more power then just being a puppet ,He has a proven track record with the owners with getting them deals in there favor leaving me to believe the reins have been loosen up over the years to let him free lance on there behalf .

Im not saying he has full control but i bet every decision does not half to be approved by the owners
  • 0
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#89 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 09

Posted 22 September 2012 - 12:04 PM

I have a relative who meets with Aquilini and other sports owners somewhat frequently. He really had nothing good to say about Aquilini, and every other owner he's had business with.

I came away realizing what a business pro sports really is. He told me emphatically that they don't care about the players or the game. It's all money.

The Aquilini's from what i have heard are very greasy and dirty business men like most people who have as much wealth as they do ,Thats why i would never give my support to people of excessive wealth in a battle for them to increase there money hoarding
  • 1
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#90 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 September 2012 - 12:21 PM

Interesting read here. Perspective from the management (owner's) side. The interview for which the Red Wings are being fined for.

One-on-One With Jim Devellano, Detroit Red Wings Senior VP



"It's very complicated and way too much for the average Joe to understand, but having said that, I will tell you this: The owners can basically be viewed as the Ranch, and the players, and me included, are the cattle. The owners own the Ranch and allow the players to eat there. That's the way its always been and that the way it will be forever. And the owners simply aren't going to let a union push them around. It's not going to happen."

Fined for what? I doubt it. If so, it's just a stunt. This reads like a PR piece for Bettman.

I imagine Devallano's boss was pleased with his analogy, but it's reductive and doesn't hold water for a number of reasons. As he points out, men don't like to be subject to interviews like Ron McLean performs.... they also don't like to be considered cattle.
Devallano can go on that Lucic should be grateful because Devallano maintains that the owners made him a millionaire, but that is rather simplistic isn't it. The owners have nothing to do with a young player who has developed to the point of being drafted by an NHL team. The other side of that equation is that Lucic (and his parents, coaches, family, etc) made hims a player that is worth millions to a franchise - there are reason$ they are drafting and CONTRACTING him - together they make money. Ranchers own cattle - players own themselves and sign contracts with owners of franchises. There seems to be some confusion about types of property here. Inb4 someone maintains that players belong to an organization up to the point that they are free agents - that is incorrect - an organization owns the exclusive rights (in relation to other organizations) to negotiate with that player and retain their services - the player is not their 'property.'

What owner made themself a billionaire all by their lonesome? Show me a rancher who can make a living without cattle. A "ranch" without "cattle" is just a bunch of grassy fields. The NHL without players is little more than frozen water.

This is why even Bettman talks about "partnership".

Edited by oldnews, 22 September 2012 - 05:12 PM.

  • 0




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.