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

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


Recommended Posts

Parise: “Gary’s pretty adamant about his third lockout of his tenure”:

We haven’t really heard any real strong words from anyone on either side of this summer’s labor talks. That is until Zach Parise decided to speak his mind.

Parise spoke with Ben Goessling of the St. Paul Pioneer Press and says while the players are eager to get a deal done and play, he feels NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has another aim entirely.

“I think the ’04-’05 season is still pretty fresh in everyone’s minds, and now we find ourselves in the same position,” Parise said after a workout in St. Louis Park on Tuesday, Aug. 26. “It’s not good for the game. It’s not good for anyone. We’re ready to play. We want to play. But (NHL commissioner) Gary (Bettman)’s pretty adamant about his third lockout of his tenure.”

There’s a lot of truth in what Parise is saying there, but you have to wonder what his logic is in trashing the league’s boss. To say Bettman is “adamant” about another lockout is stretching the truth.

That said, it’s clear there’s frustration with many players who are looking at possibly not playing and not getting paid starting on September 15. That gigantic new deal Parise (and Ryan Suter) signed with Minnesota might have something to do with that.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/29/parise-garys-pretty-adamant-about-his-third-lockout-of-his-tenure/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Bettman is adamant on having a lockout, but i think he's more than willing to if the owners don't get everything they want in the deal. And he could care less about the players and the fans, the only people he cares about is himself and the owners.

You would think after two lockouts he would be better at recognizing the issues that lead to lockouts and try and correct them before they lead to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Bettman is adamant on having a lockout, but i think he's more than willing to if the owners don't get everything they want in the deal. And he could care less about the players and the fans, the only people he cares about is himself and the owners.

You would think after two lockouts he would be better at recognizing the issues that lead to lockouts and try and correct them before they lead to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently a 90 minute meeting today which is good

Chris Johnston

Quote: Donald Fehr says PA hopes to counter-propose before the end of the week

Tim Panaccio

Quote: Their original proposal reduced HRR from 57 to 43 under the current CBA; now it's back to 46%

Quote: Says some of their plan increases player escrow

Michael Grange

Quote: Fehr -- in early yrs #NHL proposal would include very significant escrow jumps

Quote: Fehr -- 'we intend to work on a proposal in response to this one...hopefully tomorrow' #NHL #CBA

Aaron Ward@aaronward_nhl

Fehr, on revised proposal, 'asked a series of questions and got clarification' ... ' working on a response to this one'#TSN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talent may not be an issue but a lot of the expansion franchises or relocation franchises that Bettman brought into the league are the ones failing financially. Columbus is not making money, Atlanta has already been moved, the original Winnipeg Jets weren't doing good but Phoenix isn't doing any better. Bettman sure as hell didn't fight to keep the Jets in Winnipeg as hard as he's fighting for Phoenix.

His examples were hyperboles. He didn't actually think that those examples were on the same level as the real numbers being thrown around.

The fact that you can't see that and you thought he was serious shows your intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bettman might have brought in some franchises that aren't making money but they still contribute massively to league revennue of $3.3 billion. NHLPA gets 57% of said revenue (not of net profit) so the players get their share of the money, no matter if the owners are losing money.

Winnipeg city sure as hell didn't contribute $25 million per year towards saving the jets as Glendale has been doing and proposes to contribute millions per year in order to keep the Coyotes in PHX. WPG didn't offer to pay the NHL hundreds of millions of dollars by charging it's inhabitants tax in order to pay for the Jets' losses.

Ignorance is bliss

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...eg-jamison.html

And on your last point re: hyperboles

My point was that he sees the owners asking for a 57/43 split comparable 99/1 or to asking a dealership to sell you a car for $1. But he fails to recognise that the players are currently getting a 57/43 split and same could be said of that split.

As they say, two peas in a pod...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the life of me I can't understand why Canadian hockey fans are arguing for the players to get a larger % of revenues. Just a short few years ago the CAD $ was worth close to 66 cents. Canadian teams were struggling to pay the bills while big market American teams spent and won Cups.

The hard cap helps the Canadian teams as much as any others. Lower hard cap is the better for the likes of EDM, CLG, OTT, WPG and even VAN when the CAD $ comes down from parity. Over the next few years the CAD $ is projected to lose value against the green back. Canadian hockey fans will be crying foul again because their teams can't afford to sign big name players.

I hope the players get taken to the cleaners and NHL has long term, viable cost certainty. Heck I think a $50 million hard cap is great for Canadian hockey teams. But I know this is not going to happen.

A 50/50 split is reasonable and I for one hope that's what it comes down to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the life of me I can't understand why Canadian hockey fans are arguing for the players to get a larger % of revenues. Just a short few years ago the CAD $ was worth close to 66 cents. Canadian teams were struggling to pay the bills while big market American teams spent and won Cups.

The hard cap helps the Canadian teams as much as any others. Lower hard cap is the better for the likes of EDM, CLG, OTT, WPG and even VAN when the CAD $ comes down from parity. Over the next few years the CAD $ is projected to lose value against the green back. Canadian hockey fans will be crying foul again because their teams can't afford to sign big name players.

I hope the players get taken to the cleaners and NHL has long term, viable cost certainty. Heck I think a $50 million hard cap is great for Canadian hockey teams. But I know this is not going to happen.

A 50/50 split is reasonable and I for one hope that's what it comes down to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the life of me I can't understand why Canadian hockey fans are arguing for the players to get a larger % of revenues. Just a short few years ago the CAD $ was worth close to 66 cents. Canadian teams were struggling to pay the bills while big market American teams spent and won Cups.

The hard cap helps the Canadian teams as much as any others. Lower hard cap is the better for the likes of EDM, CLG, OTT, WPG and even VAN when the CAD $ comes down from parity. Over the next few years the CAD $ is projected to lose value against the green back. Canadian hockey fans will be crying foul again because their teams can't afford to sign big name players.

I hope the players get taken to the cleaners and NHL has long term, viable cost certainty. Heck I think a $50 million hard cap is great for Canadian hockey teams. But I know this is not going to happen.

A 50/50 split is reasonable and I for one hope that's what it comes down to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally understand why your name is WHL rocks, because you would prefer to watch hockey games with mediocre players playing. NHL is not the only hockey league in the world, and with a low salary cap, teams will have less money to attract good players to stay in the league. It is not unreasonable to think some talented players will flock to KHL because they could get a lot more money outside of NHL.

I think I am trolling a 10yrs old. :bigblush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, After the last lockout the cap was $39 million. I don't remember an exodus to the KHL or the SEL. Just 4 years ago the cap was $50 million, again same thing.

10 years old? LOL, I wish. Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember the Nords and Jets leaving and the reasons why they left. Heck I'm old enough to remember when the Canucks were on the verge of moving because they were losing money by the bucket full.

No doubt I'm 100% on the owners side on the CBA. I want something that keeps the teams profitable and in business. If the Oilers are able to keep all their stars I'm happy. If the cap increases to close to $100 million over the next few years and the CAD$ drops to .80 cents as projected only TOR, MTL and maybe VAN will be able to stay competitive. Some of these teams might even look to relocate like they were a few years ago.

Zach Parise just came out against Bettman, This after Bettman grew the league and ensured Parise a $98 million deal. Tells a lot about players' greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't fire the CEO for growing your business from $400 million to $3.3 billion. You get your partners in the business (players) to agree to a deal that ensures the health of the billion dollar business.

As it stands almost half the teams lose money, this is unsustainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are contradicting yourself. If half the teams are losing money, then the CEO isn't doing a very fine job. Teams that are not doing so well financially should be relocated. You don't simply cut everyone else's wages to accomodate bad owners with their bad business decision. In fact, I don't see Bettman taking a pay cut.

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...