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

#121 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,990 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 25 September 2012 - 02:57 PM

He's still no Jim Henson.
  • 0
Posted Image

#122 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,418 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 26 September 2012 - 05:38 AM

I dont believe I have ever agreed with nuck nit on anything, but I like what he has to say in this thread.
Wouldn't it be great if the NHL sunk 6 to 10 teams? Imagine the quality of the game then. There would be very few plumbers on any team, most teams would make the playoffs(which would make more money), and it would be even more entertaining.
This plan would also eliminate the need for revenue sharing which would please the owners of the remaining 20-24 teams.
  • 2

#123 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,990 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:05 AM

I dont believe I have ever agreed with nuck nit on anything, but I like what he has to say in this thread.
Wouldn't it be great if the NHL sunk 6 to 10 teams? Imagine the quality of the game then. There would be very few plumbers on any team, most teams would make the playoffs(which would make more money), and it would be even more entertaining.
This plan would also eliminate the need for revenue sharing which would please the owners of the remaining 20-24 teams.



I've been putting this on the top of my Christmas list for years. Sad thing is they're talking expansion again.
  • 0
Posted Image

#124 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,968 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:26 AM

Is anyone even talking about Aquilini any more in this thread?
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#125 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 26 September 2012 - 09:13 AM

You are absolutely right about Christie Clark and her bunch of idiots!! Unfortunately they're still far better than the alternatives!!


Based on the past? Please. It's time this province saw a new party take the helm for a term or two.

The Liberals have been involved in selling of provincially owned assets to private companies, many of which have ended up disasterously.

But go ahead and continue a long standing B.C. pasttime....... Wallowing in apathy.
  • 0
Posted Image

#126 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 26 September 2012 - 09:20 AM

Is anyone even talking about Aquilini any more in this thread?


Francesco Aquilini. There.

Based on how the Canucks organization has negotiated fair, reasonable (for both sides) contracts for all of their roster players, I would venture to say that Aquilini is actually one of the owners not in alignment with the leagues CBA position. Many of the Canucks roster could have made a million or two more in other markets, but chose to Vancouver instead. I don't really know though. Merely speculating.
  • 0
Posted Image

#127 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,704 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 26 September 2012 - 10:26 AM

I dont believe I have ever agreed with nuck nit on anything, but I like what he has to say in this thread.
Wouldn't it be great if the NHL sunk 6 to 10 teams? Imagine the quality of the game then. There would be very few plumbers on any team, most teams would make the playoffs(which would make more money), and it would be even more entertaining.
This plan would also eliminate the need for revenue sharing which would please the owners of the remaining 20-24 teams.

Although those owners wouldn't be overly happy about losing their investment. Then there's around 250 players that may not be too happy either. I'm not so sure the NHLPA would be happy with that solution for that matter. But then the same could be said about the big three. The NFL, NBA and MLB would all be better with fewer teams. Each has their strong teams and weak teams. Just as they have their rich teams and poor teams. But the sad truth is, if you want national coverage, you need to be a national sport. That;s what the expansion was all about. But as I've said many times, it's a long process to get the payoff.
  • 0
Posted Image

#128 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,968 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 11:30 AM

Francesco Aquilini. There.

Based on how the Canucks organization has negotiated fair, reasonable (for both sides) contracts for all of their roster players, I would venture to say that Aquilini is actually one of the owners not in alignment with the leagues CBA position. Many of the Canucks roster could have made a million or two more in other markets, but chose to Vancouver instead. I don't really know though. Merely speculating.

::D

The speculation part was my point earlier in the thread. No one can prove one way or the other if Aquilini voted for or against the lockout, so no point in calling him out. It'd be one thing to debate whether he did or not, but since he'd be fined if he talked about it we won't get to hear it from the horse's mouth.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#129 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,075 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 September 2012 - 11:42 AM

::D

The speculation part was my point earlier in the thread. No one can prove one way or the other if Aquilini voted for or against the lockout, so no point in calling him out. It'd be one thing to debate whether he did or not, but since he'd be fined if he talked about it we won't get to hear it from the horse's mouth.


Gary Bettman said that the vote was unanimous. Do you really think he'd lie about that?
  • 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!

#130 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,968 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:27 PM

Gary Bettman said that the vote was unanimous. Do you really think he'd lie about that?

I don't think I'd seen anything saying it was unanimous, although I haven't paid attention to everything that's gone on. I did know he only needed 8 of the owners to vote yes to a lockout to go ahead.

EDIT: I searched and found a few articles mentioning the unanimous vote.

Even if they all did turn in a yes vote, there is a strong possibility that not all were in favour. It'd be similar to the Republicans all voting the same way regardless of their feelings on an issue as a show of solidarity in opposition to Democrats.

Here's an article talking about moderate NHL owners having no say:

The first-year success of the team [Winnipeg] was beyond even owner Mark Chipman’s wildest dreams, and yet, as the new kid on the block, there was no doubt he would toe the party line and vote to lock out the players on Sept. 15.

It’s fair to assume Chipman didn’t want to do it. Who would want to mess with the kind of momentum his team is riding after Season 1?

But it must be remembered that Chipman would not be an NHL owner and the Jets would surely not exist were it not for the last lockout, the very one that killed the entire 2004-05 season.


Edited by elvis15, 26 September 2012 - 12:33 PM.

  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#131 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,075 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:35 PM

I don't think I'd seen anything saying it was unanimous, although I haven't paid attention to everything that's gone on. I did know he only needed 8 of the owners to vote yes to a lockout to go ahead.



My crap browser doen't allow me to post links or anything, but this is an excerpt from a Bruce Garrioch story in the Toronto Sun on Sept 13th:

"Speaking at a packed a news conference, Bettman said he had unanimous support to lock out members of the NHL Players' Association for the third time in 18 years when the current CBA expires, a decision that doesn't come as a surprise to the players"
  • 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!

#132 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,968 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:40 PM

My crap browser doen't allow me to post links or anything, but this is an excerpt from a Bruce Garrioch story in the Toronto Sun on Sept 13th:

"Speaking at a packed a news conference, Bettman said he had unanimous support to lock out members of the NHL Players' Association for the third time in 18 years when the current CBA expires, a decision that doesn't come as a surprise to the players"

I added some to my post, but the wording of support versus a vote was where the confusion arose. A unanimous vote is one thing (as I mentioned about solidarity of the owners against the players above) but to have them all say they are in favour throughout discussions and leading into a vote may not have been the case.

That does confirm they likely had enough strong support to have the rest come to agreement versus it being a case of a lot of owners not agreeing with a lockout.

Edited by elvis15, 26 September 2012 - 12:42 PM.

  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#133 juwanski

juwanski

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Joined: 23-November 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 10:19 PM

The real masters are the 15+ struggling teams that need help to make it not our owners. The problem with revenue sharing it it makes even the wealthy teams hate the current system. That would be the only reason why they would all be on the same page.
  • 0

#134 thema

thema

    Comets Star

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

Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:35 AM

I haven't paid attention to everything that's gone on.


You and about a million other hockey fans who support the owners in this lockout. Blows my mind how anybody can feel sympathy for these tools.
  • 1

#135 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,418 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 27 September 2012 - 08:41 AM

Although those owners wouldn't be overly happy about losing their investment. Then there's around 250 players that may not be too happy either. I'm not so sure the NHLPA would be happy with that solution for that matter. But then the same could be said about the big three. The NFL, NBA and MLB would all be better with fewer teams. Each has their strong teams and weak teams. Just as they have their rich teams and poor teams. But the sad truth is, if you want national coverage, you need to be a national sport. That;s what the expansion was all about. But as I've said many times, it's a long process to get the payoff.


I think some of the owners might just be happy enough to have the league take their respective money-pits off their hands.
The 250 players you speak of were only drafted or signed to fill holes in teams rosters, no they wouldn't be happy but back in the pre-25 + team NHL they would never have gotten to play regularly anyway. It has become a watered down league.
No the NHLPA would not be happy but the higher quality players wouldn't have to worry about their jobs and they would get over losing their fourth line and 6th-7th Dman brethren eventually.
You cant really compare the Big 3 in the states to hockey, the weakest of the Big 3 are probably stronger in popularity than many of the popular NHL teams in comparison. Teams like Phoenix, Anaheim, Carolina, Dallas, and even northern teams like New Jersey and NYI most of which have won at least 1 Cup or even had a dynasty(NYI), nobody really cares about or attends their games.
NHL may be periodically popular in the south but will probably be a money-pit afterthought most often until those teams fold or relocate.
  • 1

#136 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,704 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:15 AM

I think some of the owners might just be happy enough to have the league take their respective money-pits off their hands.
The 250 players you speak of were only drafted or signed to fill holes in teams rosters, no they wouldn't be happy but back in the pre-25 + team NHL they would never have gotten to play regularly anyway. It has become a watered down league.
No the NHLPA would not be happy but the higher quality players wouldn't have to worry about their jobs and they would get over losing their fourth line and 6th-7th Dman brethren eventually.
You cant really compare the Big 3 in the states to hockey, the weakest of the Big 3 are probably stronger in popularity than many of the popular NHL teams in comparison. Teams like Phoenix, Anaheim, Carolina, Dallas, and even northern teams like New Jersey and NYI most of which have won at least 1 Cup or even had a dynasty(NYI), nobody really cares about or attends their games.
NHL may be periodically popular in the south but will probably be a money-pit afterthought most often until those teams fold or relocate.


Of course there is a comparison. Each of the big three would be better with fewer teams just as the NHL would. Each of the big three have teams that struggle just as the NHL does. Just because the big three is more popular overall does not mean all their teams enjoy the same fan base and revenue.... just as in the NHL. The numbers are just bigger.

If the NHL ever wants to gain the popularity of the big three and enjoy similar TV revenue they have to be a natioanl sport. It just that simple.
  • 0
Posted Image

#137 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,075 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:23 AM

I added some to my post, but the wording of support versus a vote was where the confusion arose. A unanimous vote is one thing (as I mentioned about solidarity of the owners against the players above) but to have them all say they are in favour throughout discussions and leading into a vote may not have been the case.

That does confirm they likely had enough strong support to have the rest come to agreement versus it being a case of a lot of owners not agreeing with a lockout.



This is absolutely a possibility, but no-one really knows for sure.

However, it does pose this question: If it only takes 8 or so owners to trigger a lockout, doesn't it also follow that the same number could quash it?

I'm pretty sure I could come up with 8 franchises that would seemingly be fine with carrying on the way they did with the last CBA. So why vote for it?
  • 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!

#138 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,968 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:46 AM

This is absolutely a possibility, but no-one really knows for sure.

However, it does pose this question: If it only takes 8 or so owners to trigger a lockout, doesn't it also follow that the same number could quash it?

I'm pretty sure I could come up with 8 franchises that would seemingly be fine with carrying on the way they did with the last CBA. So why vote for it?

From what I understand, if there are 8 or more teams intent on the lockout, it will go through. If the other teams against it (say it was 20 teams) couldn't change the minds of those for it, then it would go through regardless of what the other teams would like. I believe Bettman was instrumental in having that 8 team vote put into place, so it is something that favours a minority of the teams.

If those 8+ teams where the more powerful teams in the league (ie. Philly), then they'd be able to shift the balance by putting more pressure on the other teams to vote their way. If those 8+ teams were much less powerful (ie. Winnipeg) then they'd have much more pressure from the rest of the teams to change their vote in favour of the majority.

It wouldn't matter if a majority was for the lockout, as it would have gone through in any event, but if a minority wanted it, they'd have to have enough power to not be swayed by the rest of the owners.

Edited by elvis15, 27 September 2012 - 10:51 AM.

  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#139 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,418 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 28 September 2012 - 08:11 AM

Of course there is a comparison. Each of the big three would be better with fewer teams just as the NHL would. Each of the big three have teams that struggle just as the NHL does. Just because the big three is more popular overall does not mean all their teams enjoy the same fan base and revenue.... just as in the NHL. The numbers are just bigger.

If the NHL ever wants to gain the popularity of the big three and enjoy similar TV revenue they have to be a natioanl sport. It just that simple.


Hockey wont be consistently popular in the southern states, these teams have won championships and people dont give a sh!t.
Hockey can be a national sport in the US, but it should be kept in the northern US where most of those teams have a good following.
  • 1

#140 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,143 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 28 September 2012 - 08:46 AM

Yeah,hockey can be a national sport,behind pro football,college football,baseball,basketball,college basketball,Nascar racing,golf,soccer and finally-hockey.
Bettman and his U.S. billionaire buddies will be locking out NHL pro hockey players and their fans for decades to come if we are waiting for the declaration of 'national sport' status and the big payday dream of tv revenues.
  • 1

#141 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,704 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 07:05 PM

Yeah,hockey can be a national sport,behind pro football,college football,baseball,basketball,college basketball,Nascar racing,golf,soccer and finally-hockey.
Bettman and his U.S. billionaire buddies will be locking out NHL pro hockey players and their fans for decades to come if we are waiting for the declaration of 'national sport' status and the big payday dream of tv revenues.


Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#142 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,143 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 28 September 2012 - 08:05 PM

Need a shoulder ,Baggins?

You and Gary will be ok after you hose the fans and the players long enough.

What,third time lucky for Yet More Greed,Inc.?
  • 0

#143 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,704 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:32 AM

Need a shoulder ,Baggins?

You and Gary will be ok after you hose the fans and the players long enough.

What,third time lucky for Yet More Greed,Inc.?


I'm not the one doing the crying here. You are.

I'll be fine regardless of what happens with the lockout. I hate to break it to you but how it pans out has nothing to do with me. Which is to say, I'm not hosing anybody.

Which Greed Inc are you refering to? Owner Greed Inc or Player Greed Inc. It actually applies to both sides doesn't it?
  • 0
Posted Image

#144 snucks

snucks

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 03

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:44 AM

The league is greedy; both owners and players. We need to start a strictly Canadian league. The time is now.
  • 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.