Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

Ossi Vaananen Canucks Star

Ossi Vaananen

Posted
Posted

Does it matter what other investments these owners have? Basically you are saying, if you have invested in 5 mutual fund and 4 are making money but one is not, and you are losing money year after year on it, you are going to leave it alone and not move it or care because you have 4 other investments that are making you money? I am pretty sure we all invest money to make money not lose and the owners are no different. We need not worry what other investments the owners have, we need to worry that we can find investors to buy teams. Last time I looked there seem to be a lot of people willing to play hockey but not a heck of a lot of people willing to buy hockey teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SamJamIam Canucks Star

SamJamIam

Posted
Posted

More than anything, it blows my mind that people who back the owners say "They're losing money!". Yes, billionaire businessmen are claiming they're losing money while having no third party actually take a look at their books to verify it. I could tell you I'm making a million dollars a week and it would mean as much as the expense figures offered to us by people who have a vested interest in lying about their expenses. Sure sounds like figures we should take at face value.

For people like Boudrias (thanks for the intelligent post btw) who question whether franchises are a money maker in the same way as flipping houses, think longer term. Franchises don't sell every week, but think about how much money has been made by owners compared to 2 CBAs ago? Even if they have lost money on some of those years, their investments have only grown in value with the promise of collecting a greater portion of revenues and ability to sign players for much less. The instituting of the cap alone could have upped a franchise's value by millions if it was bought before the last CBA. Operating losses for the owners are laughable, and they know it.

A final observation: remember a few weeks ago, before there was widespread talk about a possible lockout? Here on CDC people knew it was very likely, and there were discussions about it earlier in this very thread. And they were vastly more pro-players. Then the lockout was confirmed and boom, suddenly that was drowned out by people claiming the owners are in the right. It's as though the more casual fans suddenly went "Oh crap? Lockout? I have no idea who the owners are so I will take out my frustration on the only public figures I know of who are involved in this dispute! This must be the players fault!". I can't imagine anyone in their right mind who would think otherwise given the fact that the owners wrote the last CBA. Its so telling and so interesting when the conversation suddenly changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiDeN Canucks Rookie

WiDeN

Posted
Posted

I don't see why the players would strike if they said they are happy to play under the expired agreement until an agreement was reached by both sides. It would be more likely that the owners would initiate a lock-out midseason if they didn't like how the negotiations were going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
D-Bo7 Abbotsford Prospect

D-Bo7

Posted
Posted

The owners said they wouldn't play under the old CBA. I don't think alot of people realize that the NHL can't continue the way it was for 1 more season.

There's too many teams now in financial turmoil. Something needs to be done now before it's too late and the NHL is forced to start folding teams left right and center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-Vintage Canuck- Canucks Hall-of-Famer

-Vintage Canuck-

Posted
  • Author
Posted

An NHL agent predicts that when the new CBA is signed, Gary Bettman will try to save his reputation by announcing 2 expansion team for Canada.

An NHL agent predicts that whenever a new CBA is signed, Gary Bettman will try salvaging his rep by announcing 2 expansion teams for Canada.

— Adam Proteau (@Proteautype)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boudrias Canucks All-Star

Boudrias

Posted
Posted

I really shouldn't even dignify this half baked response. All NHL teams are making money with the exception of the Islanders which could barely cover their cap. If you're going to pluck one paragraph out of an entire post then you are less educated than I thought. Take the time to either read the article or the rest of my post. Having an NHL franchise is a sure bet to make millions a year, the issue is whether they are making enough.

Once again I do not understand how you can glorify the owners in this situation. It's the equivalent of your boss trying to cut your salary when the business is actually growing. Your boss in this situation would have to be particularly greedy.

It doesn't take any special virtue to be an NHL owner, and yes there was a number of suitors when teams like Nashville went up for sale, it's not the case for Pheonix as it's a failure regardless of ownership. Players on the other hand start skating at 5, and make it a life dream to one day play in the NHL. These are guys who put their bodies through torture to maybe have a chance at playing for a decade. With the increase in head injuries as of late, players are brave to continue.

Go support your owners, pay another 20% for a Canucks ticket because Aquilini doesn't have his own island like his other billionaire friends. Glad to see someone has fallen for Daly's rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ossi Vaananen Canucks Star

Ossi Vaananen

Posted
Posted

Your attitude towards this dispute appears to be based in the assumption that the owners are not virtuous, are greedy, are nothing special and are making millions. Dirty billionairs. Sad.

To me it is an issue whether they are making money because every business I ever knew that did not, went out of business. To suggest that there will always be 'owners' willing to subsidize our viewing pleasure is a leap of faith in itself. It has been a standard thought process from labour down through the decades than either business was making to much money to walk away or that business had to much capital invested in 'bricks & mortar' to be able to walk away.

You might question whether ownership is making money as does the NHLPA. Since many of these franchises are not owned by public corporations we will only be guessing. I hope they are. Certainly the players can assume that and make their demands accordingly. However, at the end of the day they are not part owners in the NHL they are a cost of doing business. Hopefully in that process both the players and ownership can mutually benefit. At some point both parties will have to agree to a process which will produce an agreement. The players agreed to a CBA in 2004 and benefited tremendously from it. In 2004 they did not see the growth in revenue and predicted player hardship. Their 57% share in revenue grew from $1.0 B to $1.83 B in 7 years. If ownership now feels that a new deal requires concession that is their decision as they risk their businesses and their future returns.

You suggested that owner friendly posters can simply expect higher ticket prices if the owners have their way. Ticket prices have been going up for decades. Most NHL tickets are more than I want to pay already and I don't go to many games. The risk the owners and players run is that more people like me won't go. If that time ever comes then they will have to react by cutting their costs. I do not expect either of these groups to take less than what they can get.

When my boy was going thru minor hockey I enjoyed his games as much as any NHL game. Eye of the beholder type stuff, right. Used to be the attraction of the 'game' to most Canadians was the fact that they had played the game. I always asked my son whether he had 'felt it' after a game. At one point I had stopped asking. One day he came home and said 'Dad I felt it tonight'. Describing what I meant by feeling it could be different for different people. For me it was having light feet, effortless stride and a desire to play all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boudrias Canucks All-Star

Boudrias

Posted
Posted

I guess I am not as smart as yourself as I don't have the degrees. My learning was more at street level. I did two startups and bought an existing business. All three of these companies prospered by providing a service which people obviously saw benefit in supporting. I made money at it. I guess my success was at the expense of the 'people'. Your more on top of this and obviously your professors taught you well.

Oh and as an analogy, one of my companies biggest customers was one of those rapers and pilliagers, a multinational oil company. Their corporate objectives were not mine and to protect my company I diversified my sales away from their influence. At the same time I learned a lot from the relationship, particularly the pilliaging which was great. At no time did I think I had a right to what was their business. If NHL players think they are so hard done by then perhaps playing hockey in Euroland will be more fullfilling.

If they want the NHL then they should hammer out a deal and get on with it. Spare me the bleeding of green. Every day you get up you comsume what this world has to offer. Perhaps the next time one of those poor NHLers passes thru a crosswalk down on Georgia, in one of their 'toys', you might rethink that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boudrias Canucks All-Star

Boudrias

Posted
Posted

I really thought you were smarter than this. First you open with how NHL owners are virtuous by keeping their businesses alive, then you go on to close with how your son loves the sport. I shouldn't have to explain how the latter deviates from your thesis. You're numbers are once again inaccurate, and you fail to consider the hit players took from 76% to 57%. Sighting the growth only further weakens your point... the owners aren't making enough of a growing pot? I'm still confused.

Ticket prices do rise and as such decreases the amount of people able to go to a game. When the demand is high for these tickets as it is now in Vancouver, ownership can risk increasing the price as they will still have 18,000 + willing to pay it. Basic economics. With rising ticket prices it becomes less likely you will be able to take your son to a game.

Yes, I'm not a fan of the super wealthy. I've had opportunities to exploit others and make substantial sums. I have 2 degrees, I'm taking a masters course while running a branch of a major industrial company. I've had a chance to sell some of our materials to major oil companies, and if the Enbridge pipeline goes through it would be a substantial profit for my larger corporation. The difference is I do not want to be wealthy at the expense of the environment or of the public - some people genuinely want to make the world a better place. Aquilinis made their money being slum lords and buying failing companies to sell for a profit; do not think there is anything virtuous about this. The Aquilinis are actually one of the better ownership groups out there, when you consider that Katz (Oilers) has retracted his 100 million$ offer towards a new stadium and is expecting the tax payer to float a 475$ million arena. He then has the audacity to ask city council for 6 million a year to help cover the expected 10 million$ operating cost. This is a man worth billions but is asking the average Joe to float his utility bill; do not think these people virtuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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