Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#3151 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:34 PM

Lots of respect to Hamrlik and Neuvirth for stepping up. We have been waiting for players to question the PA. Erik Cole is an idiot. His comments are just plain pathetic. He goes on saying that it's selfish but they says that they have to unite just because of the "respect" factor. What a joke, the guy doesn't even know what he's talking about. Too many injuries to the head for this guy.

I've said it all along. Owners and Bettman always will call the shots. The majority of players can't make the sacrifice to lose the money and season, and it's only the players with big contracts that are really being effected. Until someone steps up against the PA, this will go nowhere. Finally, players are starting to make a stand because if they don't. The Season will be over.

There has never been a reason for the Owners to crack. Latrendress is right, the longer they wait the worst the offer gets. Players will be making the same mistake they did in 2004, by losing money and the season when they will probably accept the same deal that was initially offered in the first place.


In 5 or 6 years or whatever the length of a new CBA, we'll be in the same situation again. Bettman will see to that.
  • 0

#3152 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,654 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:34 PM

Hamrlik has always been a bit of a disagreeable tool in my opinion. Always out for his own best interest alone.


This is pathetic. Anyone who says this doesn't know jack. This is exactly what you want to get rid of hockey. The only reason you say this is because he isn't North American. If he was Canadian and followed the same exact same career path as Hamrlik, we'd have a different situation. People are just throwing guys like him into the stereotypes.

Erik Cole saying that Hamrlik might as well stay in Czeck. Hey kid, talk about having some respect. Hamrlik has played a hell lot more in the NHL than Cole has.

But as i said a week ago, every day we'll hear from a new player. Perhaps a different perspective and this is good. I hope some players, unlike Cole, decide to speak out and not "say nothing" out of "respect", aka "not know anything" but unite just because you feel like you have to.

Edited by Rey, 22 November 2012 - 01:49 PM.

  • 2

#3153 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,297 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:50 PM

I think Erik Cole's comments give a good inside perspective at what alot of the players are thinking. Clearly they've all drank the Kool-aid that Fehr has given them.

From what he's saying, this is more about principle, and fighting for the next generation of players, than it is about actual dollars. It's about doing what they did in 04/05, and standing up to the NHL to get a good deal for themselves apparently...

What a bunch of BS. First of all, I wouldn't believe for a second that they're doing this for future hockey players, and not themselves. Second of all, they didn't win anything in 04/05, in fact, most people believe that they got screwed in the last deal.

I think Cole needs to actually show some respect to a 20 year veteran and listen to him. Hamrlik has been through 3 lockouts, so he knows what the end game is. Giving up an entire season has never given them a better deal. They'll end up getting pretty much the same deal, at the cost of missing an entire year of their careers. When he says it's not worth it, he knows what he's talking about.

Edited by DeNiro, 22 November 2012 - 02:02 PM.

  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#3154 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,120 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:55 PM

I think Erik Cole's comments give a good inside perspective at what alot of the players are thinking. Clearly they've all drank the Kool-aid that Fehr has given them.

From what he's saying, this is more about principle, and fighting for the next generation of players, than it is about actual dollars. It's about doing what they did in 04/05, and standing up to the NHL to get a good deal for themselves apparently...

What a bunch of BS. First of all, I wouldn't believe for a second that they're doing this for future hockey players, and not themselves. Second of all, they didn't win anything in 04/05, in fact, most people believe that they got screwed in the last deal.

I think Cole needs to actually to show some respect to a 20 year veteran and listen to him. Hamrlik has been through 3 lockouts, so he knows what the end game is. Giving up an entire season has never given them a better deal. They'll end up getting pretty much the same deal, at the cost of missing out an entire year of their careers. When he says it's not worth it, he knows what he's talking about.


I've maintained all along that they should not be focusing on future players as they are not members of the PA. They should only worry about their currently voting members.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#3155 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:58 PM

http://thestar.blogs...his-league.html

[b] [size=2][size=3]

I found this to be an interesting read. I wonder if this topic has come up at all in these negotiations.


Interesting. This is one area where the PA should ask and Owners should give more on.
  • 0

#3156 ChuckNORRIS4Cup

ChuckNORRIS4Cup

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,381 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:58 PM

NHL = No Hockey League
  • 0

Eh8NO.jpg

Trevor Linden Quote Nov. 29th 2012 [Asked if he would return to the game?]
"The game has been with me for a long time, if the right opportunity came about, you never know"


#3157 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:00 PM

I think Erik Cole's comments give a good inside perspective at what alot of the players are thinking. Clearly they've all drank the Kool-aid that Fehr has given them.

From what he's saying, this is more about principle, and fighting for the next generation of players, than it is about actual dollars. It's about doing what they did in 04/05, and standing up to the NHL to get a good deal for themselves apparently...

What a bunch of BS. First of all, I wouldn't believe for a second that they're doing this for future hockey players, and not themselves. Second of all, they didn't win anything in 04/05, in fact, most people believe that they got screwed in the last deal.

I think Cole needs to actually to show some respect to a 20 year veteran and listen to him. Hamrlik has been through 3 lockouts, so he knows what the end game is. Giving up an entire season has never given them a better deal. They'll end up getting pretty much the same deal, at the cost of missing out an entire year of their careers. When he says it's not worth it, he knows what he's talking about.


Cole already got half of his $4 million salary this year in the form of signing bonus. Easier for him to say these things.
  • 0

#3158 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,378 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:09 PM

I don't know how many season ticket holders there are out there like me, but I just wrote an email to my representative (which was kindly worded and not attacking), about what the organization will do to make it up to me as a season ticket holder once the season returns (this season or next). Did not say what my reaction would be should it be nothing, but I will have no problem with cancelling my season tickets.

I understand that there are always people on the waitlist and someone will take my place, but hopefully I'm not the only season ticket holder that will resort to that. If they want my support over the next 30+ years, they will need to make it up to me. If not, that will be $120,000+ over that period of time that they won't be getting from me. I have no problem putting that money to something more useful and meaningful.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#3159 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,297 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:11 PM

Cole already got half of his $4 million salary this year in the form of signing bonus. Easier for him to say these things.


No kidding.

He's really not considering the average player that only has a 3 year career in the NHL, and makes 800k or less. For these guys, taking away a third of their potential career earnings in the NHL would be a big blow.

It's time for the payers to start taking care of themselves, and not players that aren't even in the NHL. Those players will have to fight their own fight when it's their time. But right now, giving up hundreds of millions of dollars for the sake of principle, is just idiotic.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#3160 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:17 PM

I don't know how many season ticket holders there are out there like me, but I just wrote an email to my representative (which was kindly worded and not attacking), about what the organization will do to make it up to me as a season ticket holder once the season returns (this season or next). Did not say what my reaction would be should it be nothing, but I will have no problem with cancelling my season tickets.

I understand that there are always people on the waitlist and someone will take my place, but hopefully I'm not the only season ticket holder that will resort to that. If they want my support over the next 30+ years, they will need to make it up to me. If not, that will be $120,000+ over that period of time that they won't be getting from me. I have no problem putting that money to something more useful and meaningful.


All you need to know is the highlighted part. I understand your frustration. But the fact of the matter is there are thousands of ppl waiting to take your place.
  • 0

#3161 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,819 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:19 PM

Rethink your post and come again.

Attendance PHX 12000 per game, MTL 21000+ per game.

If you'll notice, I quoted your whole post, but was replying specifically to the comment about the NHL and KHL not having much difference.

When Phoenix has an average attendance of 12,421 and that's only 4000 lower than the KHL record attendance (which was attained only when the top players in the world came over from the NHL) then it's an indication that people are more willing to spend to go see NHL level players.

Fan bases also play a part, but are Russian fans any less excited about hockey than Canadian or American fans are? Phoenix (with their rock bottom tickets prices that are second lowest in the league) is the worst attended NHL team and Montreal is second in attendance (21,273) and has the 3rd highest ticket prices. Yes, Montreal was a crappy team last year but has a good fanbase because of their history of winning and particularly memorable players.

No I don't see how it doesn't make sense. When the league had 6 Canadian teams, Canadian teams made up for over 1/3 of the revenue. If/When the CAD comes down NHL revenue will take a hit. Simple as that.

1/5 of the league accounts for 1/3 or revenue.

$3 billion/ 3 = $1 billion. Reduce that $1 billion by 25% leaves you $2.75 billion. See how easy that is?

It would be stupid of any one to think so black and white. Of course the NHL has grown. The NBC deal is proof of that. But the value of CAD is a huge reason for increased revenues. Bettman and Fehr both know that and they both know CAD will come down once US economy recovers. That's why guarantee players seek is such a contentious issue in these negotiation.

Consider the question again, and then it'll hopefully make more sense. We aren't taking about how revenues are generated and why there are increases or decreases from a literal financial point of view. We're talking about which of the players or the teams causes fans to be fans. Do the players or the teams keep the league at the level it is as the best in the world?

A fan could have an equally entertaining experience (with their family, with friends, on a date, etc.) at any of the major sporting events, so why choose hockey? Baseball has cheaper ticket prices so you'd think families would go there, or they'd go to minor league versions of the majors sports to make it affordable, so NHL hockey must have something that sets them apart from the NBA/NFL/MLB/AHL/CHL/etc. and allows them to draw fans who drove the record revenues during the last CBA.

Yes, the league itself does have value, but that value is built off of the players. New fans (and the significant revenues we've seen as a result) aren't generated because of a cool logo or because the NHL currently uses the Stanley Cup as it's prize. You can make a similar logo and colour scheme in another league yet not have the same fanbase, and the NHL doesn't even own the Stanley Cup. If you're a fan of hockey, geographical location and the players involved on a given team will drive more fan loyalty than anything the NHL as an entity can provide.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#3162 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:33 PM

If you'll notice, I quoted your whole post, but was replying specifically to the comment about the NHL and KHL not having much difference.

When Phoenix has an average attendance of 12,421 and that's only 4000 lower than the KHL record attendance (which was attained only when the top players in the world came over from the NHL) then it's an indication that people are more willing to spend to go see NHL level players.

Fan bases also play a part, but are Russian fans any less excited about hockey than Canadian or American fans are? Phoenix (with their rock bottom tickets prices that are second lowest in the league) is the worst attended NHL team and Montreal is second in attendance (21,273) and has the 3rd highest ticket prices. Yes, Montreal was a crappy team last year but has a good fanbase because of their history of winning and particularly memorable players.


Consider the question again, and then it'll hopefully make more sense. We aren't taking about how revenues are generated and why there are increases or decreases from a literal financial point of view. We're talking about which of the players or the teams causes fans to be fans. Do the players or the teams keep the league at the level it is as the best in the world?

A fan could have an equally entertaining experience (with their family, with friends, on a date, etc.) at any of the major sporting events, so why choose hockey? Baseball has cheaper ticket prices so you'd think families would go there, or they'd go to minor league versions of the majors sports to make it affordable, so NHL hockey must have something that sets them apart from the NBA/NFL/MLB/AHL/CHL/etc. and allows them to draw fans who drove the record revenues during the last CBA.

Yes, the league itself does have value, but that value is built off of the players. New fans (and the significant revenues we've seen as a result) aren't generated because of a cool logo or because the NHL currently uses the Stanley Cup as it's prize. You can make a similar logo and colour scheme in another league yet not have the same fanbase, and the NHL doesn't even own the Stanley Cup. If you're a fan of hockey, geographical location and the players involved on a given team will drive more fan loyalty than anything the NHL as an entity can provide.


Yes of course, the reason we Canadians pay hundreds of $ to go watch a hockey game is because Canadian teams have a history of winning and we have the best players in the world playing in our cities.

When was the last time the Vancouver Canucks won the Cup? Actually forget that, when was the last time a Canadian team won the Cup? What is it you say? 21 years ago? I see.

Edited by WHL rocks, 22 November 2012 - 02:37 PM.

  • 0

#3163 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,819 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:37 PM

For those that aren't baseball fans (like myself) or hadn't followed the MLB labour disputes when Fehr was in charge, here's an interesting read on how he operates:

...
If hockey wants to avoid losing a second season under Commissioner Gary Bettman’s watch, it should widen its analysis from issues like “core economics” and “player contracting.” The NHL had better figure out Fehr, how he runs a union, what his strategies are and, especially, why baseball got crushed time after time. The subtext of these negotiations is the Fehr factor.

Long negotiations have key junctures — like Wednesday. One Fehr method is to identify moments of discovery when his union can determine the other side’s true intentions. The union pushes an aggressive proposal, one that usually addresses the concerns of moderate members in the union. That way, it either reaches an agreement soon or the membership toughens once it “discovers” that the actual strategy of the other side is a long fight.
...
After covering six work stoppages, a canceled World Series and three collusion cases during Fehr’s time in baseball, I have a clear sense of how he acts at inflection points. First, Fehr means exactly what he says; previous posturing is set aside when phrases appear like “about as good” as it’ll get.

Also, his membership isn’t just backing him; it really is their deal. It took baseball owners 20 years to grasp that Fehr isn’t a puppeteer. He educates, he shapes, but he doesn’t decide. The players do. That’s what empowered the MLBPA and made it so tough. Fehr will reduce demands rather than negotiate without full support. That’s core. It’s not changing.
...
The biggest mismatch I’ve ever covered was not on a field. It was organized baseball against the MLBPA. And, mostly, it was unnecessary. Baseball owners refused to see the union or Fehr for what they clearly were.

MLB demonized Fehr personally. Despite seeing dozens of players constantly involved in every bargaining session, they refused to accept that mere “ballplayers” actually understood the issues — sometimes better than they did. Owners, often fighting among themselves, didn’t grasp that players formed a negotiation information tree, reporting back to all players.

For decades, many owners hoped that Fehr, like Marvin Miller before him, somehow had the players mesmerized, hypnotized. If they could just snap their fingers the right way, players would awake to their benevolence. NHL owners need to understand Fehr’s first two rules. First, the players are saturated with info and totally trust its source — other players, not Fehr. Second, a Fehr union will always bring a weaker deal for stronger backing.

Finally, after going 0 for 8 in work stoppages, canceling the 1994 World Series and losing three collusion cases in the 1980s at a cost of $280 million, baseball figured it out. The ’94 strike left both sides, and the game, bloody. MLB finally quit framing the union as an ideological foe and began to work with it in grudging, respectful, adversarial semi-harmony. Things got better.

That labor peace has lasted 17 years with no end in sight. The idea that Fehr, 64, was a radical or didn’t want owners to get filthy rich (unless players did, too) or wouldn’t take a fair deal if one were offered — that all died in the last century.
...
Financially, baseball has never been healthier. It’s gushing cash. The best thing that’s happened to baseball in modern times, aside from wangling free parks at mostly public expense, was MLB’s realization that a strong union, fair labor policy, fiercely negotiated, and booming business were compatible. The price baseball paid to learn that lesson was astronomical.

Now, it’s hockey’s turn. The most troubling development to me is that hockey’s leaders now sound like MLB owners a generation ago. It’s like a time warp. Two weeks ago, stories appeared intimating that players weren’t getting a straight story from Fehr, that he had his own agenda and owners’ concepts were not getting to the membership in a pure form. That is the one tactic that always backfired when baseball owners used it. It did again.
...
NHL leaders need to realize, in a fraction the time it took baseball, that if you go to the mat with a Fehr union, everybody suffers, but you might get it worse. If you work with them, then one day you wake up and Albert Pujols has a $275 million contract and the Dodgers sell for $2 billion.

Your choice.


EDIT: forgot the link http://www.washingto...ee_story_1.html

Edited by elvis15, 22 November 2012 - 02:37 PM.

  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#3164 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,378 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:42 PM

All you need to know is the highlighted part. I understand your frustration. But the fact of the matter is there are thousands of ppl waiting to take your place.


Absolutely, and that is the shame of it. However, like I said, there may be (and probably are) quite a few people that will do the exact same thing. And in a small market like Winnipeg, I don't know how smart it would be to p*ss off fans a second time around. Some markets are different than others, there is not question about that. And I know that not all fans are like me who would not only not buy season tickets, but not purchase any NHL merchandise. It really depends not only on the market you are in, but also on how long this lockout lasts.The fans certainly feel a lot differently towards this lockout than they did about the previous one. What I do know is that in Winnipeg, I know 5 season ticket holders (totaling 16 seats) that feel the exact same and will also be cancelling their tickets, but only if the lockout lasts the entire season.Not sure how the owners feel towards the potential loss of fans this time around, but I'm sure they are concerned about it, they aren't stupid.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#3165 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:42 PM

then one day you wake up and Albert Pujols has a $275 million contract and the Dodgers sell for $2 billion.

:lol: not happening with the NHL
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3166 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,819 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:44 PM

Yes of course, the reason we Canadians pay hundreds of $ to go watch a hockey game is because Canadian teams have a history of winning and we have the best players in the world playing in our cities.

When was the last time the Vancouver Canucks won the Cup? Actually forget that, when was the last time a Canadian team won the Cup? What is it you say? 21 years ago? I see.

I'm not sure what you're arguing now. Are you saying the quality of the on ice product is what brings fans in general to watch NHL hockey? Because that's what I'm saying. Or are you talking about a different subject, where Canadian fans don't care about what teams they cheer for so long as they get to watch hockey?
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#3167 kilgore

kilgore

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:44 PM

Another lost season has been looming since the day the NHLPA announced that they were going with Donald Fehr as their leader heading into the new CBA negotiations. The militants within the union won the day and I came to terms with the fact that there will be no season this year, hockey players being the most militant lot in professional sports.They will be in there grinding for every available nickel, just like every other CBA negotiation.

As North American pro athletes go, it's hard to like hockey players. They're just so damned greedy.


So the millionaire players are greedy? And the billionaire owners are not?
The players agreed to live under the expired agreement for this year so we could still watch hockey. The owners said......na...we are going to lock out fans and players until the players crawl back on their knees and accept whatever we throw at them.

The players reluctantly gave in to Bettman last time and accepted a salary cap. Owners and players BOTH have done well since. But the owners looked over and saw that the players surprisingly did better than the owners in percentage of total league revenue under the agreement that they forced on the players. So they are holding their breath and stomping their feet and locking the doors until they get and even bigger slice. But its the players that are greedy do I have that right?

The owners have other revenue sources which will only increase over time, the players have a limited window of earning that kind of money until they are forced to retire through age or injury. Why is it "greedy" to want to get paid well while they can? Why is it greedy to want to keep the advances they have negotiated previously? Why is it greedy to actually agree to give up salary that you negotiated under contract in order to make a deal? Would you do that with your job?
  • 0

30rw2li.jpg   ..................... Put Gino in the Ring of Honour!  .......................  2hg788l.jpg


#3168 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,819 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:46 PM

then one day you wake up and Albert Pujols has a $275 million contract and the Dodgers sell for $2 billion.

:lol: not happening with the NHL

Clearly, since baseball generates much higher revenue in the US, which is a much more populous market. But why couldn't we see a relative increase for hockey similar to that, where players can continue to make money and the health of the teams can also grow?
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#3169 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:49 PM

Clearly, since baseball generates much higher revenue in the US, which is a much more populous market. But why couldn't we see a relative increase for hockey similar to that, where players can continue to make money and the health of the teams can also grow?


Not saying the NHL can't succeed - no matter what kind of deal gets signed.

I just think it is ludicrous to throw around MLB numbers to prove a point. The NHL will never be on par with MLB in $.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3170 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,378 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:51 PM

So the millionaire players are greedy? And the billionaire owners are not?
The players agreed to live under the expired agreement for this  year so we could still watch hockey. The owners said......na...we are going to lock out fans and players until the players crawl back on their knees and accept whatever we throw at them.

The players reluctantly gave in to Bettman last time and accepted a salary cap. Owners and players BOTH have done well since. But the owners looked over and saw that the players surprisingly did better than the owners in percentage of total league revenue under the agreement that they forced on the players. So they are holding their breath and stomping their feet and locking the doors until they get and even bigger slice. But its the players that are greedy do I have that right?

The owners have other revenue sources which will only increase over time, the players have a limited window of earning that kind of money until they are forced to retire through age or injury. Why is it "greedy" to want to get paid well while they can? Why is it greedy to want to keep the advances they have negotiated previously? Why is it greedy to actually agree to give up salary that you negotiated under contract in order to make a deal? Would you do that with your job?


I would sympathize with the players if they were asked to make less IF they were making $70k a year. The fact of the matter is, they are playing a sport and being compensated handsomly for it. Not only that, but being compensated playing a sport that virtually nobody in the states cares about.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#3171 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,348 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:58 PM

Not saying the NHL can't succeed - no matter what kind of deal gets signed.

I just think it is ludicrous to throw around MLB numbers to prove a point. The NHL will never be on par with MLB in $.


Not that I don't agree...however, not too long ago people would have said the same about the NFL.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3172 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:02 PM

Absolutely, and that is the shame of it. However, like I said, there may be (and probably are) quite a few people that will do the exact same thing. And in a small market like Winnipeg, I don't know how smart it would be to p*ss off fans a second time around. Some markets are different than others, there is not question about that. And I know that not all fans are like me who would not only not buy season tickets, but not purchase any NHL merchandise. It really depends not only on the market you are in, but also on how long this lockout lasts.The fans certainly feel a lot differently towards this lockout than they did about the previous one. What I do know is that in Winnipeg, I know 5 season ticket holders (totaling 16 seats) that feel the exact same and will also be cancelling their tickets, but only if the lockout lasts the entire season.Not sure how the owners feel towards the potential loss of fans this time around, but I'm sure they are concerned about it, they aren't stupid.


I completely get your frustration. However if I were you I would take a deep breath and re think before cancelling. It sucks to know these guys are making millions of $ off us and still looking for more but when the game is back you will most likely have a hard time staying away from it.

As far as your friends in Winnipeg I don't understand their point of view at all. Winnipeg is a small market team. They will never be able to spend $70 million. Therefore it will be difficult for them to put a winning team on the ice if player salaries continue to go the way they have been.

They've gone 15 years without NHL. What's it been now 6 weeks in to the lockout? (actual hockey games). Whats the big deal missing a couple of months of hockey in order to do something that will benefit their team the most?

This lockout won't affect TML, MTL, NYR, PHI. It will however benefit the small market teams like EDM, WPG, OTT etc. If I'm a fan of any small market team I'm 100% behind Bettman and the owners.
  • 0

#3173 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,348 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:03 PM

I would sympathize with the players if they were asked to make less IF they were making $70k a year. The fact of the matter is, they are playing a sport and being compensated handsomly for it. Not only that, but being compensated playing a sport that virtually nobody in the states cares about.


It's all relative. They get a percentage of what people are paying to see them. The same people in charge of ticket prices signed those contracts. In fact, if the league didn't put teams in non-viable markets, and were willing to move a few of them to Toronto/Quebec/Seattle(?), both the league and the players would be making more.

Their salaries were agreed to by the teams because they recongize the fans pay the money to see the players. If the money is suddenly not there, the salaries are clawed back by escrow.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3174 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:04 PM

Not that I don't agree...however, not too long ago people would have said the same about the NFL.


:huh:
Not too long ago? For the past quarter century I would say NFL ratings / viewership has always been higher. At least as a teenager I remember seeing stats that key regular season NFL games got more viewers than World Series games (which at the time I was surprised to see).





I also get irked whenever the NHL gets compared to the other leagues in anyway. Fehr did this with MLB, the NBA did this with the players, blah, blah, blah. The NHL isn't at the level of the other leagues. I expect to see unique solutions for this league.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3175 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,819 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:05 PM

Not saying the NHL can't succeed - no matter what kind of deal gets signed.

I just think it is ludicrous to throw around MLB numbers to prove a point. The NHL will never be on par with MLB in $.

The underlying point is that the NHL can experience increased success of it's own but it was clearly a high-impact statement to finish off the article.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#3176 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:08 PM

The underlying point is that the NHL can experience increased success of it's own but it was clearly a high-impact statement to finish off the article.


Yeah I got that.

But that finish is like saying if Roseanne Barr worked out a little more she could look just like Jennifer Aniston.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3177 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:08 PM

Obviously Fehr and Betman think there is a good chance the revenue won't be as projected, hence the demand for guarantee $ by PA and refusal by NHL. If they both thought like you this would not be one of the main issues in these negotiations.


Again, there's no guaranteed amount to start with and no guaranteed growth, only that players' share will never decrease from year to year. I haven't been able to find a single source that says NHL revenue has ever dropped from one year to another, despite currency fluctuations. After the last lockout revenue grew every single year, and at a rate similar to other non-multinational pro sports leagues in the US. (Reference: http://nhlnumbers.co...012-2013-season) So, why would it be a bad bet to assume that just like all the years before revenue will never go backwards?

Do you have proof that that new request specifically is a "main issue" since being proposed just a few days ago?

If the CAD goes down the NHL revenues will be hit hard. Over 5 years I can guarantee you the CAD will not be at par with USD.

As it stand the 7 Canadian teams generate 1/3 of NHL revenue. What would happen when the US economy gets stronger and the USD/CAD goes up? Remember a few years ago when the CAD was worth .65 cents? Canucks were a well fare team.


I know that reporters keep saying that the revenue increases the NHL has had have been due "largely to gains in the Canadian dollar" but I haven't been able to find a single source that gave an actual numerical explanation for that statement. Do you know of one? I ask because we should have enough information to determine the effects of a fluctuating Canadian dollar on NHL revenue growth. It just seems like no one has bothered to do it. So, I did.

Apparently, Canadian teams represented 31% of NHL revenue in the 2007/08 season (Source: http://www.thestar.c...sh-is-in-canada) Given that it's commonly said Canadian teams represented 33% of revenue last season and there is now 1 more Canadian team than there was in 2007/08 which likely accounts for the difference, I think it's safe to assume the relative percentage of revenue Canadian teams represent has remained relatively unchanged. So, we can assume past currency information as it relates to NHL revenues should be a good indicator of future effects.

Using historical currency exchange data (Source: http://cad.fx-exchan...es-history.html), I used a single rate from each month from October to March (April wasn't specifically included on the reference graphs, thus its exclusion.) to get an average Canadian dollar rate for the NHL season. (I also included the average over the full 2 years the hockey season encompasses for comparison.) When we compare that to the yearly NHL growth rate (Source: http://nhlnumbers.co...012-2013-season) we can clearly see there is not direct link between huge gains or loses as the Canadian dollar fluctuates.

2006/07
Canadian Dollar season average 0.86
Canadian Dollar 2-year average: 0.91
NHL Revenue Growth %: 7.45

2007/08
Canadian Dollar season average 0.99
Canadian Dollar 2-year average: 0.94
NHL Revenue Growth %: 12.77

2008/09
Canadian Dollar season average 0.83
Canadian Dollar 2-year average: 0.91
NHL Revenue Growth %: 2.62

2009/10
Canadian Dollar season average 0.95
Canadian Dollar 2-year average: 0.92
NHL Revenue Growth %: 3.9

2010/11
Canadian Dollar season average 0.99
Canadian Dollar 2-year average: 0.99
NHL Revenue Growth %: 5.5

2011/12
Canadian Dollar season average 0.98
Canadian Dollar 2-year average: 1.0 (to date)
NHL Revenue Growth %: 6.15

Were the Canadian dollar a major influence on NHL revenue overall we would expect to see a clear link between currency fluctuations and revenue growth. For example, we should see a similar growth rate in years with similar dollar rates but that is not the case. Instead, we see that 2007/08 and 2010/11 had the same season average dollar rate but 2010/11 actually had a higher 2-year average dollar rate, meaning the currency was stronger overall. Despite that, 2007/08 had a growth rate of 12.77% but 2010/11 had a growth rate of only 5.5%

Actually, the last 2 seasons illustrate that other factors are at play perfectly as the economy has been relatively the stable over both years and the season and 2-year dollar average for both years were almost identical. Despite that, 2010/11 had 5.5% growth but 2011/12 had 6.15% Obviously fluctuations in the Canadian dollar did not account for the change in revenue growth.

And for one last example, look at the bookend years: for 2006/07 there was a season dollar average of 0.86 and revenue growth at 7.45% whereas in 2011/12 there was a season dollar average of 0.98 but only 6.15% revenue growth.

Obviously fluctuations in currency would effect Canadian teams, but I'm sure they employ many banking methods to minimize the loses and maximize the gains from such fluctuations. Even still, it seems clear when you actually look at the numbers that the Canadian dollar is not a major deciding factor in the NHL's bottom line.

Edited by poetica, 22 November 2012 - 04:25 PM.

  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3178 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:09 PM

What annoys me the most is that Bettman thinks we are stupid. He makes comments talking about how the players are responsible for the damage to the game that is happening right now. The indisputable fact (and I have plenty labour relations/arbitration experience to know this) is that locking out employees is almost never done unless the employees are engaging in some sort of partial strike/work stoppage (rotating strikes, work to rule, etc) that makes it too difficult to continue running the business effectively.

When you are actually wanting a deal, you simply keep working under the same agreement that has expired as you negotiate. That is standard LR practice. I know of many cases where they continue working a couple years without a new contract.

So any economic damage is being caused solely by the league. Even by talking about mounting damages to the game/league... Bettman is conceding that they would be better off financially to be playing right now. If that wasn't the case there couldn't be any damages. That is unlike the previous work stoppage when more than half the teams were better off by keeping their doors shut rather than playing games.

It is becoming clear that Bettman promised certain fairly dramatic things to the owners... and he is under pressure to keep those promises. Instead of taking a smaller win, he feels that doubling down is the best strategy. It is a vicious circle I have seen behind the scenes in negotiations. The longer it goes and the more it costs, the more pressure to get an even better deal in order to make up for those increasing losses and to make it seem worthwhile to have done through the labour strife in the first place.

The league clearly has a very specific number in mind for what they want their savings to be. They also still feel that they can get it. They also feel in control of the process enough that they can simply start the season when they think they have wrung out enough or that the math for losses starts outweighing what they can get at the table.

If I were Fehr, I would leverage the anger from today that the players have and deliver an ultimatum to the league to start putting the pressure onto them.

They simply have to say that the NHLPA will continue to negotiate until 01 December, after which time they will effectively cancel the season and be negotiating for the 2013-2014 season.

This allows their membership to seek employment elsewhere without having to worry about being obligated under IIHF rules to return to the NHL if a deal gets done this season. It also allows them to make plans for things like NHLPA mini-tours of the big hockey markets where they put on games/tournament similar to the Bieksa's buddies games on a regular basis (say weekly in each major market).... maybe giving half the proceeds to charity and half to the players. Nothing would freak out owners with big continuing overhead costs more than seeing other arenas filled with happy fans enjoying themselves. In this scenario you can also guarantee that broadcasters would jump on board to broadcast many of those games.

Players are playing and getting paid some, fans are seeing hockey, broadcasters are getting revenue... and the owners are left on the sidelines. All of a sudden you diverge "the game of hockey" from "the NHL".


Wow! Great post!!

That is what I was thinking too. The PA needs to do something like that to put some pressure on the league. They have been creeping in closer to the NHL and giving up stuff that they had in the last cba this entire time but the NHL still will not negotiate and is still using the bully tactic. It's retarded and there's only a select few fans out there that believe the crap coming out of Bettman and daly's mouth.
  • 0

#3179 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,378 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:11 PM

I completely get your frustration. However if I were you I would take a deep breath and re think before cancelling. It sucks to know these guys are making millions of $ off us and still looking for more but when the game is back you will most likely have a hard time staying away from it.

As far as your friends in Winnipeg I don't understand their point of view at all. Winnipeg is a small market team. They will never be able to spend $70 million. Therefore it will be difficult for them to put a winning team on the ice if player salaries continue to go the way they have been.

They've gone 15 years without NHL. What's it been now 6 weeks in to the lockout? (actual hockey games). Whats the big deal missing a couple of months of hockey in order to do something that will benefit their team the most?

This lockout won't affect TML, MTL, NYR, PHI. It will however benefit the small market teams like EDM, WPG, OTT etc. If I'm a fan of any small market team I'm 100% behind Bettman and the owners.


It's not that I'm actually frustrated, it's more, "What is the NHL promising to me?"Last time, fans like me came back as their was a plan in place to make the game more exciting. And it absolutely has been better. This time around, what is the incentive for me, as a paying customer?As I said, there is definitely more important things I could be spending my $120,000+ (season tickets alone, not including merch and centre ice) over the next 20-30+ years. Unless there really is something that the fans get out of this lockout, I really have no problem with not returning and not supporting.Again, it's not actually frustration I have, but apathy.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#3180 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:22 PM

2006/07
Canadian Dollar season average 0.96
Canadian Dollar 2-year average: 0.91
NHL Revenue Growth %: 7.45


I think you better check again.
From Oct 06 - March 07 the CDN$ never got to 0.96
It's low point was less than 0.85 at the beginning of Jan and it's highest point was just under 0.90 on Oct 2.
I don't see how that averages 0.96 :)


Edit
Source: Bank of Canada

Not sure what you will get with this link. http://www.bankofcan...year-converter/
I did a query from Oct 5/05 to Oct 2012 (I don't think my query will come up for you.)

Edited by Shift-4, 22 November 2012 - 03:26 PM.

  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.




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.