Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


Recommended Posts

Fair deal? Like the current one which the owners themselves wrote at gunpoint and immediately began poking holes in? People accuse Fehr of ruining baseball, but baseball has had labour peace since 94, the NHL is facing its 3rd lockout in that same period, football and basketball (the models Bettman is looking to for guidance) have also had major labour strife over that time frame, baseball seems to have the best system of ensuring labour peace, a system that is essentially voluntary revenue sharing, a way of forcing the big spenders to help out the ones that the big guys spending practices are hurting in the first place. No system is perfect, but the one that keeps the business operating without work stoppages is likely the best one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners would have no incentive to reach an agreement if they are already playing under the owner's proposal. It would also set a massive precedent where the owner's would come into the next negotiations asking things like a 50% rollback in salaries and a 25% revenue salary cap.

Continuing to work under the old CBA while the new one is being negotiated isn't just not dumb, but happens frequently during union negotiations. A lockout is an owner's choice to discontinue work. A strike is the worker's choice to discontinue work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, so playing under the owners' proposal, the owner would have no incentive to reach an agreement but somehow, playing under the exisiting CBA, which the players love, well the players would have some incentive to compromise??? Come on, this is crap. The bottom line is clear: the players don't want to give up anything and if that means that the owners lock the doors because there is not enough money for them under the current system, then fine with them. You realize that the NHLPA's counteroffer involved an increase of 2% in the cap the first year. The owners want a 24% roll back. The players are not even offering a freeze, talk about 'really wanting to play in the fall'!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ilya Kovalchuk Will Play in the KHL in the Event of a Lengthy Lockout:

New Jersey Devils news comes few and far between these days, but some broke yesterday afternoon when Slava Malamud of Sport-Express tweeted out news that Devils star forward Ilya Kovalchuk will play in the KHL in the event of a lockout. Malamud claims that if the NHL goes into a lengthy lockout, Kovalchuk will play for SKA St. Petersburg, the same team that almost signed him to a massive long-term contract just a few years ago.

No financial terms of the potential contract have been disclosed. There have been no details regarding a potential out clause released, either.

Once again, I must stress that Kovalchuk will only play in the KHL if the NHL season will be very delayed and/or cancelled, and he will not miss any Devils games should a season be played.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Todd-Cordell/Ilya-Kovalchuk-Will-Play-in-the-KHL-in-the-Event-of-a-Lengthy-Lockout/159/46297

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current CBA included everything the owners wanted last time. They completely got their way and they still aren't happy. The players managed to make that CBA work for them but you can't make it seem like the current CBA is the players' CBA. That CBA is exactly what the owners wanted back in 2004.

Would you accept a 24% roll back? That is an insane change to be done all at once. If anything the owners angered the NHLPA with their initial proposal which was so ridiculous so the players didn't budge on that proposal and instead offered something different. If the owners' initial proposal had been reasonable then the players' would have been more willing to negotiate. The blame for this whole situation can't be solely placed on the NHLPA and should be mainly placed on the owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I accept a 24% rollback?? Well the more relevant question is would the NHLPA accept a 24% rollback, hmmm, well they did in 2004 so why is it such an insane starting point for the owners? So the owners start at what they got last time and obviously would work up from there so the result would be a lesser rollback than last time, what is so crazy about this plan? Yes the current CBA is what the owners wanted in 2004 but obviously some creative GMs and agents have found loopholes that have defeated the spirit of the CBA as it is and made it no longer aceptable to the owners as a group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...