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

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


Recommended Posts

If you knew enough about the actual legal issues, then you'd know that you don't have enough actual information to really make an assessment of who has budged, and who is playing games.

You're not in the board room, and you should know that you're reacting to media rhetoric, and not actual happenings.

There are so many fine details that have been bargained over, and so many back and forths. You can't possibly think you know enough of the situation to decide who is the greedier of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a deal that makes sense for both sides. There is no clear "winner", although, I would give a slight edge to the players at this point. The biggest concession by the players would be the 50-50 revenue split. $1.5 B is still a good chunk of coin, though!

Sign it and drop the freakin' puck already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly - that's why I made that post - sorry, I should have enclosed it in [sarcasm] - just like someone can't say "amazing how the owners sign multi year contracts and then want to change them" without knowing all the details...

The simple solution is pay for performance (something I doubt not one player would ever sign for - I wonder why?)

Owners can't "fire" the players like your boss and mine can do if we aren't performing up to expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a year ago:

http://ca.sports.yah...ug=ycn-10423863

"I'm surprised that NHL players make as much as they do. One of the major papers in New York City used to show the weekly ratings of sports games on TV in the New York market. NHL games were always the lowest rated of any sport, and some of the ratings were incredibly low. A Stanley Cup Finals game on NBC in 2007 was the lowest rated prime time program in NBC history."

How am I contradicting myself?  I said I expect both to make concessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about time - call it the Oilers or Penguins rule. A team that is poorly run and plays equally poorly should not be rewarded with consecutive #1 picks over and over. I had no issue with the worst overal drafting first overal but when teams make no effort to improve and make repeat trips up at #1 they need to do something so that a businuess plan of sucking badly does not guarentee first overal all draft picks. For me I would prefer it being even more simple - a team drafting first overal can not draft any higher than Third overall for 2 years after drafting first ( unless the first draft pick is aquaired via trade ). Just my thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about time - call it the Oilers or Penguins rule. A team that is poorly run and plays equally poorly should not be rewarded with consecutive #1 picks over and over. I had no issue with the worst overal drafting first overal but when teams make no effort to improve and make repeat trips up at #1 they need to do something so that a businuess plan of sucking badly does not guarentee first overal all draft picks. For me I would prefer it being even more simple - a team drafting first overal can not draft any higher than Third overall for 2 years after drafting first ( unless the first draft pick is aquaired via trade ). Just my thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely some interesting points to ponder in their proposal. (Try saying that 10 times fast!)

Each Club will be entitled to execute up to one “Compliance Buy-Out” prior to the 2013/14 season pursuant to which payments made to the Player will not be charged against the team’s Cap, but will be charged against the Players’ Share.
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...