Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

NHL, PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION REACH STALEMATE IN CBA TALK


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Sully2Cool

Sully2Cool

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,551 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:09 PM

Text Size



Unless one side has a sudden change of heart, it appears collective bargaining agreement discussions between the NHL and the NHL Players' Association have reached a stalemate.

No meetings are scheduled and it doesn't appear as if there will be any scheduled in the immediate future.

NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly sees little reason to continue negotiations based on the Players' Association's recent stance

"They have made it clear to us that they have very little interest in the proposal we made last Tuesday," said Daly. "They also told us they have no intention of making a new proposal. I'm not sure what we would be meeting about."

When asked if the negotiations may slip into a deep freeze, Daly responded in a brief but very telling manner. "I suspect so," he said. "Back to the drawing board. Unfortunate."

NHLPA counsel Steve Fehr responded to the league's comments.

"The league is apparently unwilling to meet," said Fehr. "That is unfortunate, as it is hard to make progress without talking."

Late Tuesday afternoon, the NHLPA conducted a conference call for executive board members and according to a union spokesman, following the call, the players informed the NHL they are willing to meet at any point, without preconditions, to try and reach an agreement.


  • 0
Posted Image

#2 LeanBeef

LeanBeef

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:12 PM

Oh, its you
  • 0
Sig too big.
"Being a Canuck fan, maybe sometime down the road be a Vancouver Canuck.... that would conquer all my dreams"
-Milan Lucic

#3 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,217 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:13 PM

Black lines, lots and lots of black lines.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#4 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,366 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:15 PM

Good job by the NHL. These little talks do little to nothing if both sides are unwilling to move from their current position.

If it goes into deep freeze, then so be it.
  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#5 Lups

Lups

    Jebus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,628 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:15 PM

NHLPA is really standing their ground
  • 0

#6 Sully2Cool

Sully2Cool

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,551 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:20 PM

sorry about the black lines i was having trouble posting.http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408009

Edited by Sully2Cool, 23 October 2012 - 10:21 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#7 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:22 PM

NHLPA is really standing their ground


And so they should. What the NHL is doing is ridiculous.

Trying to take away money from players on contracts that have already been agreed upon, is negotiating in bad faith. And it's just bad bad business.

Don't be surprised to see the NHL budge again in the next little while. Bettman is under alot of pressure from the owners to get this season started on time. And I guarantee he's not gonna wanna miss out on his little gem of a contract with NBC.
  • 3

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#8 KING ALBERTS

KING ALBERTS

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,260 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:23 PM

Unless one side has a sudden change of heart, it appears collective bargaining agreement discussions between the NHL and the NHL Players' Association have reached a stalemate.
No meetings are scheduled and it doesn't appear as if there will be any scheduled in the immediate future.
NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly sees little reason to continue negotiations based on the Players' Association's recent stance.
"They have made it clear to us that they have very little interest in the proposal we made last Tuesday," said Daly. "They also told us they have no intention of making a new proposal. I'm not sure what we would be meeting about."
When asked if the negotiations may slip into a deep freeze, Daly responded in a brief but very telling manner. "I suspect so," he said. "Back to the drawing board. Unfortunate."
NHLPA counsel Steve Fehr responded to the league's comments.
"The league is apparently unwilling to meet," said Fehr. "That is unfortunate, as it is hard to make progress without talking."
Late Tuesday afternoon, the NHLPA conducted a conference call for executive board members and according to a union spokesman, following the call, the players informed the NHL they are willing to meet at any point, without preconditions, to try and reach an agreement.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

i fel off the banwagon and hit my hed on a rok


#9 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,294 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:23 PM

Unless one side has a sudden change of heart, it appears collective bargaining agreement discussions between the NHL and the NHL Players' Association have reached a stalemate.

No meetings are scheduled and it doesn't appear as if there will be any scheduled in the immediate future.

NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly sees little reason to continue negotiations based on the Players' Association's recent stance.
"They have made it clear to us that they have very little interest in the proposal we made last Tuesday," said Daly. "They also told us they have no intention of making a new proposal. I'm not sure what we would be meeting about."

When asked if the negotiations may slip into a deep freeze, Daly responded in a brief but very telling manner. "I suspect so," he said. "Back to the drawing board. Unfortunate."

NHLPA counsel Steve Fehr responded to the league's comments.

"The league is apparently unwilling to meet," said Fehr. "That is unfortunate, as it is hard to make progress without talking."

Late Tuesday afternoon, the NHLPA conducted a conference call for executive board members and according to a union spokesman, following the call, the players informed the NHL they are willing to meet at any point, without preconditions, to try and reach an agreement.
  • 0

Posted Image


#10 Opmac

Opmac

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,525 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 07

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:26 PM

All caps

"NHL"

"players"

"reach"


I thought a CBA was reached. :(
  • 0

Posted Image


#11 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:27 PM

I can't believe how much pandering to the fans each side is doing through the media. It's like the fans are kids, and the NHL and NHLPA are in a custody battle over us. Each side is trying to come off as the better parent. It's disgusting.

I'd rather not hear anything from these bozos, until they get something significant done. Nobody wants to hear which side isn't willing to meet anymore.
  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#12 Kevin-B

Kevin-B

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Joined: 13-November 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:33 PM

While the league continues to argue over revenue,I'm spending my money on attending more WHL games. I want the
NHL to get started but I'm getting burned out on the politics and have made adjustments.
  • 0

#13 Lillooet_Hillbilly

Lillooet_Hillbilly

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:33 PM

if owners say they cant afford expensive long term contracts then why do they give them out?
  • 2

#14 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,294 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:35 PM

I can't believe how much pandering to the fans each side is doing through the media. It's like the fans are kids, and the NHL and NHLPA are in a custody battle over us. Each side is trying to come off as the better parent. It's disgusting.

I'd rather not hear anything from these bozos, until they get something significant done. Nobody wants to hear which side isn't willing to meet anymore.


all it's doing is pissing off the majority of the fans. I'm sure some will eat it up and pick sides, but as you said, it's disgusting. I'm at the point now where I don't even care if there is a season if this is how the "negotiations" are going to go.

Both sides need to shut the f up, lock themselves in a room, and not come out until a deal is done.
  • 1

Posted Image


#15 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:45 PM

all it's doing is pissing off the majority of the fans. I'm sure some will eat it up and pick sides, but as you said, it's disgusting. I'm at the point now where I don't even care if there is a season if this is how the "negotiations" are going to go.

Both sides need to shut the f up, lock themselves in a room, and not come out until a deal is done.


It's at the point where if this thing looks like it's gonna carry on to December and January, I seriously won't even care anymore. I'm a die hard Canucks fan, but it's getting harder and harder to support a league that runs it's business this way. It's just becoming a joke of a league. Which sucks, because the game and the players are the best they've ever been.

It's all about money now though. The love and the passion for the sport is hard to see through the greed on both sides. And that just taints the purity of the game. The worst part is knowing that little emperor Bettman is collecting 8 million dollars this season, while the league is on the brink of collapsing.

I wish the AHL had better coverage and played more often because I am at the point where I'm just gonna become a Wolves fan and not look back.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#16 King Heffy

King Heffy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:47 PM

It's a joke. I'm caring less and less whether or not there is a season. Been getting my fill with WHL, NFL, CFL, and NHL13. I'll only be watching Canuck games once there is NHL again, and won't be paying for merchandise.
  • 0

KcJJSvD.jpg

 

Put Gino in the ROH


#17 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:10 PM

And so they should. What the NHL is doing is ridiculous.

Trying to take away money from players on contracts that have already been agreed upon, is negotiating in bad faith. And it's just bad bad business.

Don't be surprised to see the NHL budge again in the next little while. Bettman is under alot of pressure from the owners to get this season started on time. And I guarantee he's not gonna wanna miss out on his little gem of a contract with NBC.


Every contract the players signed (SPC) states the contract is subject to change. The SPC is not set in stone. It's subject to change as per CBA. It's written into the contract.
  • 0

#18 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:13 PM

Every contract the players signed (SPC) states the contract is subject to change. The SPC is not set in stone. It's subject to change as per CBA. It's written into the contract.


Of course it is. But in business when two people shake hands to an agreed amount, you pay that person the agreed amount, or else your a weasel.

It would be one thing if the NHL was really struggling and had no money. But for Bettman to boast about record revenues in order to get a big fat contract for himself, and then turn around and tell players that they have to give money back is just ridiculous.

Edited by DeNiro, 23 October 2012 - 11:14 PM.

  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#19 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:24 PM

Of course it is. But in business when two people shake hands to an agreed amount, you pay that person the agreed amount, or else your a weasel.

It would be one thing if the NHL was really struggling and had no money. But for Bettman to boast about record revenues in order to get a big fat contract for himself, and then turn around and tell players that they have to give money back is just ridiculous.


You are missing the point. The agreed amount is subject to change. Part of the agreement when they shook hands was the contract is not set in stone.

If you go by what they actually shook hands on is it not the players who are being disingenuous?

They knew the contracts are not guaranteed. It's written into the contract that it's not guaranteed for heavens sake. Why are they now insisting previous contracts be paid in full when they originally agreed otherwise??
  • 0

#20 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:46 PM

You are missing the point. The agreed amount is subject to change. Part of the agreement when they shook hands was the contract is not set in stone.

If you go by what they actually shook hands on is it not the players who are being disingenuous?

They knew the contracts are not guaranteed. It's written into the contract that it's not guaranteed for heavens sake. Why are they now insisting previous contracts be paid in full when they originally agreed otherwise??


Then why did a bunch of owners rush to sign players to contracts before the old CBA expired, knowing that they would be asking for rollbacks on those existing contracts in the new CBA?

That's called bargaining in bad faith my friend. ;)

Existing contracts were subject to change under the old CBA. There is no CBA right now, therefore they're not subject to change unless the players agreed to it in a NEW CBA. Which they won't

Edited by DeNiro, 23 October 2012 - 11:52 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#21 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:45 AM

Then why did a bunch of owners rush to sign players to contracts before the old CBA expired, knowing that they would be asking for rollbacks on those existing contracts in the new CBA?

That's called bargaining in bad faith my friend. ;)

Existing contracts were subject to change under the old CBA. There is no CBA right now, therefore they're not subject to change unless the players agreed to it in a NEW CBA. Which they won't


Then why did a bunch of players rush to sign contracts that they knew were not guaranteed. Why did players agree to contracts which the players knew were subject to change in accordance with the CBA the contracts were signed in.

Now they want to say those contracts should not be subject to change ?? That is signing a contract in bad faith.

If those contracts only existed in the old CBA. Then they will only exist in the new CBA if the owners agree to have them exist.
  • 0

#22 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,807 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:49 AM

Don't be surprised to see the NHL budge again in the next little while. Bettman is under alot of pressure from the owners to get this season started on time. And I guarantee he's not gonna wanna miss out on his little gem of a contract with NBC.


Word. Mark my words, the season starts the first week of December. As much as I believe the lockout was planned by the owners from the outset, I also don't think they ever planned to kill another season, not with the amount of growth the league has experienced since the last lockout. I firmly believe that their contingency plan has always been to work a deal out with no more than a 20% loss in regular season games.
  • 0

#23 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:21 AM

Of course it is. But in business when two people shake hands to an agreed amount, you pay that person the agreed amount, or else your a weasel.

It would be one thing if the NHL was really struggling and had no money. But for Bettman to boast about record revenues in order to get a big fat contract for himself, and then turn around and tell players that they have to give money back is just ridiculous.

Unless of course you shake hands on a revised agreement, as was done in the last CBA. Every contract was rolled back 25% as agreed upon by NHLPA vote. Every change in the CBA is voted on by both sides.

Yes record high revenue. But as the revenue has gone up so has player salaries. As the cap has gone up half the teams have fallen behind and can no longer compete to keep their high quality players, while others teams are flat out losing money despite revenue sharing. The last CBA created a level playing field which has again gone lopsided towards the rich teams and the players.

Now if I was an owner of a money making team, I'd be willing to increase revenue sharing only if the players took less of the pie. Players don't want teams to fold and lose those jobs, yet they don't want to do their part to help keep them alive.
  • 0
Posted Image

#24 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:19 AM

Of course it is. But in business when two people shake hands to an agreed amount, you pay that person the agreed amount, or else your a weasel.

It would be one thing if the NHL was really struggling and had no money. But for Bettman to boast about record revenues in order to


Should there be a clause then if a player holds out because he wants a contract extention or wants to be traded that he has to give back some of the money he was paid during his current contract? Who knows, teams may have been building around player x for a couple of years then player x wants out before his contract is up and the team may have wasted trades and draft picks building the club.

There may be record revenues as a league but really it's only 6 or 7 teams that are making the record revenue not all 30. If it were all 30 making hand over fist money then it might be a different story for the players.
  • 0

#25 Dakattack92

Dakattack92

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 12

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:18 AM

All caps

"NHL"

"players"

"reach"


I thought a CBA was reached. :(


I saw the story on my TSN app and thought the same thing :(
  • 0

#26 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,881 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:55 AM

Every contract the players signed (SPC) states the contract is subject to change. The SPC is not set in stone. It's subject to change as per CBA. It's written into the contract.

While I certainly haven't read all of the previous CBA, I hadn't seen that particular clause. My understanding is that the SPC is only able to be modified if agreed upon in the CBA, which would supersede any previously signed contracts once agreed upon by both the NHLPA and NHL. It is not necessarily written into the SPC itself that it is subject to change as I understand it, as that would suggest it can be modified outside of any CBA changes, which isn't the case.

EDIT: Here is the link I had been reading prior on this: http://prohockeytalk...cut-his-salary/

Edited by elvis15, 24 October 2012 - 12:38 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#27 6YPE

6YPE

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,644 posts
  • Joined: 25-December 04

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:18 AM

Hey, maybe if they keep this crap up everyone will get sick of it, or forget all about the NHL and the league will have to fold... With every passing day I get less and less interested in watching their product. Keep it up guys and I wont be back and I'm sure others feel the same way.
  • 0

11s35sy.png

 

Sig by -Vintage Canuck-


#28 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 24 October 2012 - 12:54 PM

While I certainly haven't read all of the previous CBA, I hadn't seen that particular clause. My understanding is that the SPC is only able to be modified if agreed upon in the CBA, which would supersede any previously signed contracts once agreed upon by both the NHLPA and NHL. It is not necessarily written into the SPC itself that it is subject to change as I understand it, as that would suggest it can be modified outside of any CBA changes, which isn't the case.

EDIT: Here is the link I had been reading prior on this: http://prohockeytalk...cut-his-salary/


Yes Elvis. This is also my understanding.

It would change in accordance with new CBA as the new CBA would be agreed upon by both parties.


Edited by WHL rocks, 24 October 2012 - 12:54 PM.

  • 0

#29 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,464 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:36 PM

Unless of course you shake hands on a revised agreement, as was done in the last CBA. Every contract was rolled back 25% as agreed upon by NHLPA vote. Every change in the CBA is voted on by both sides.

Yes record high revenue. But as the revenue has gone up so has player salaries. As the cap has gone up half the teams have fallen behind and can no longer compete to keep their high quality players, while others teams are flat out losing money despite revenue sharing. The last CBA created a level playing field which has again gone lopsided towards the rich teams and the players.

Now if I was an owner of a money making team, I'd be willing to increase revenue sharing only if the players took less of the pie. Players don't want teams to fold and lose those jobs, yet they don't want to do their part to help keep them alive.


The pie reference only works if you first acknowledge that it's not a whole pie being shared with players to begin with. It's a pie with pieces already cut out by excluded revenue and allowed deductions.

And the league has known for years that they need increased team revenue sharing to keep their lower end teams afloat. Team revenue sharing is pretty much a staple in most, if not all, sports industries because it's in the owners' long term interest to keep all of the franchises open. Under the NHL's proposed increase team revenue sharing, all but 2 teams would (according to 2011 numbers) be made profitable by that tiny change alone. (The percentage or revenue to be shared, by the way, is roughly the same as revenue is expected to go up next year, so it's not exactly a hardship for the richer teams. And even still, that puts NHL revenue sharing well below what other successful leagues offer.) The league has always known how to prop up the money losing teams and simply failed to do so because instead of giving a little themselves, or requiring that individual franchise owners show any actual restraint by spending within their means, they wanted players to take all of the responsibility.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#30 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:42 PM

It's a joke. I'm caring less and less whether or not there is a season. Been getting my fill with WHL, NFL, CFL, and NHL13. I'll only be watching Canuck games once there is NHL again, and won't be paying for merchandise.

If the lockout continues like the previous one then this should be the best time to buy merchandise as official jerseys were half off half way through the previous one
  • 0
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !




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.