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

#3271 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,453 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:18 PM

The current contracts - yes, because that is how they were written under the past CBA. Snider, at the time, was referring to an open market where a CBA wouldn't exist in which 'guaranteed contracts' are the rule.
Eg. a player could be signed to a contract that says if the team isn't happy with your performance we will release you - that is the market that Snider was referring to.


A player could also sign a contract that says something like - I'm Shea Weber - I want what A-Rod gets - I want 25 million for 10 years - I want to own 4 luxury boxes in the Spectrum, I want a limo (with a hot-tub) to pick me up and drive me to the arena, I want my own personalized towel set - a 24 hour on-call masseuse - my own parking spot at the front door of Philadelphia international airport - and I want what Messier got, my cut of any increase in Flyer's franchise value, and a 5% share of Comcast Spectator.

Paul Holmgren: "JC!"
Brian Burke: "I F%&$in quit!"
Jay Feaster: we are pleased to be operating without a Cap - it was really getting in our way Shea.
  • 0

#3272 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:23 PM

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

#3273 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:12 PM

At this rate the NHL wont have much revenue to fight over. They seem to think revenue is a given and just falls from the sky or if you build it they will come. Think again...remember Pheonix? FYI...revenue is generated by fans and their hard earned dollars. Without them you dont have a business...again I refer to the desert teams. Let me just say, I'm of the belief that consumers are king. They can make or break you and once the trust is lost it's tough to get them back, if not highly unlikely. Same can be said of sponsors, your other source of revenue. The NHL isn't king...without the fans, sponsors and players you will cease to exist. They are your biggest generating revenue source.

At this point I would have said gentlemen (players) go play wherever you can, and wait this out for 2-3 seasons until the NHL either gets its priority in order or dissolves entirely. Let the owners pay for Bettman's $8M salary and see how far he gets with his lock out ideas. Ironically he's the only one making millions at the moment...not teams nor players...how convenient. No wonder lockouts are no sweat off his back and willing to let it go on as long as they do. To everyone else, these lockouts are getting old and predictable, and need to stop. The business will lose billions at the cost of trying to gain those millions back to a few parties?? Not a cost efficient way of running things. Hard to believe successful billionaires signed up for this.

And, if I had a choice to spend my money to watch Team A (elite players aka the players team) versus Team B (NHL's proposed replacement players), I think I'd get more entertainment value and worth for my money watching Team A, alternatively I could watch a uni league for $5 (Team B's market competitor) which again I'd opt to watch for $5 versus any NHL Team B league.

At this point, the image of the NHL is going downhill fast, and pissing off their fans, players and sponsors. Nobody likes an ego centric, money driven/greedy bully holding everyone hostage for their sole self serving purpose and I always believed the character of the company is created by and from the top.

Unless you're able to generate your own revenue without the assistance of fans/sponsors/players which is how the NHL seems to be behaving with its lack of regard to all three parties and a lack of regard to its business, a national sport and minimizing it to dollar and cents despite a successful season, only then you should be entitled to do as you please. Until then, I'd tread carefully, act with humility and prioritize what makes this business successful. Again, I'd look at the Canucks model. They invest in their players and not only with dollar and cents, in fact that's almost secondary, the players invest in the team, they become the most winningest team, that keeps the fans happy and the fans continue to invest in the team, which keeps the arena full and fund this ordeal and make it all possible. They act in synergy to maintain the success of the organization. A sports league does not and cannot function alone, and if an owner truly believes they are the be-all and end-all, lets see how far that mentality will get you.

This reminds of a CEO who continues to fire primary employees when the company's stock is rising, in his ignorance and arrogance wanting to believe he is the cause of the rise only to have it fall each and every time when the employees are let go. In comparison to a successful billionaire who takes the time to chat up new employees, provide staff with free lunches prepared by an in-house chef and even nutritious snacks around the office. I think I'd be more inclined to follow the ways of a successful billionaire then a clueless CEO with plummeting stock.

Edited by Mauii, 24 November 2012 - 08:00 PM.

  • 2
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#3274 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:15 PM

Posted Image
  • 1
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3275 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,174 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:24 PM

The current contracts - yes, because that is how they were written under the past CBA. Snider, at the time, was referring to an open market where a CBA wouldn't exist in which 'guaranteed contracts' are the rule.
Eg. a player could be signed to a contract that says if the team isn't happy with your performance we will release you - that is the market that Snider was referring to.


Under any standard employment contract employees can only be fired "with good reason" and employees have the option of taking legal action against any employer they feel fired them without just cause. So, teams would have to be able to prove being unhappy with someone's performance was sufficient, which unless the contract included specific performance targets for the individual player in question, they might have trouble doing when one player is fired for producing at a level equal or greater of another player who wasn't fired.

And then there's a work safety issue. As individual employees, work safety rules should apply to players (though it isn't applied now in part thanks to collective bargaining) and players could sue a team or the NHL for work safety standards following an injury. Players could even sue one another for illegal hits.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3276 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:28 PM

Posted Image

Lol...fine. I broke it down to haphazard paragraphs. Tough to get a visual when you're composing from a phone.
  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#3277 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:28 PM

Double post

Edited by Mauii, 23 November 2012 - 05:29 PM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#3278 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:29 PM

Under any standard employment contract


It wouldn't be a standard employee contract. It would be a contract for services. If services are not performed up to expectations - goodbye. Just like in football.


Besides........in my example I am saying the contract is written that way.

Edited by Shift-4, 23 November 2012 - 05:31 PM.

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

#3279 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,174 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:37 PM

It wouldn't be a standard employee contract. It would be a contract for services. If services are not performed up to expectations - goodbye. Just like in football.

Besides........in my example I am saying the contract is written that way.


Legally, all individual employment contracts are contracts for personal services, so they would still be under the same laws as all others. Teams could try to call players independent contractors but even saying they are doesn't make it so legally and players could sue to get employment rights, and would likely be successful when they are required to provide the service personally (as opposed to being able to subcontract), are instrumental to the core business and use the team's equipment, all factors in determining a worker's status.

Also, even if performance was written into the contract like you said (though I took the quote from your first message to mean contracts wouldn't be guaranteed at all, as if teams could fire players for any reason without the protection of the CBA) teams would have to be able to prove that the targets weren't met and that another player would have been able to do so. In the end, like I said, teams would be open to lawsuits.

And, there would still be the merchandising issue. Without a contract teams wouldn't have the right to sell merchandise with a player's name or face. So there would be that issue to consider when firing a player.

Of course, even if they did decertify a new union would have to started because this is all too messy, so it's really kind of pointless.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3280 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:44 PM

lol at the lawsuits poetica
I have been through the process myself
I doubt it would be a concern for the teams
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3281 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,174 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:06 PM

Oh, okay. Didn't realize you'd been through a situation like we were discussing regarding sports teams, employment law, work safety, and merchandising. You're right. I'm sure teams wouldn't worry about lawsuits, even any that turned class action. All the teams have money to burn on lawyers, right?
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3282 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:09 PM

All the players have money to burn on lawyers, right?
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3283 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:17 PM

Whitney: NHL behaving like 'bullies'

A veteran of four NHL work stoppages -- three owners’ lockouts and one players’ strike -- the 40-year-old winger has seen this same old movie too many times.

"We have to stop the cycle of work stoppages," Whitney told ESPN.com on Friday. "It kills the game. And I’m not saying this to kiss up to them, but it’s not fair to the fans."

As popular a teammate you’ll find in the game, Whitney has spent most of his career in nontraditional hockey markets, places such as San Jose, Florida, Columbus, Carolina, Phoenix, and now, Dallas.

The damage that the lockout causes in places like that just makes his head spin.

And for what, he wonders.

"To be out this long, for a game that was thriving, to be doing this kind of damage to the league makes no sense to us as players," said Whitney. "To me, it just shows a lack of respect for the game by the people in charge. They’re not really hockey people, they didn’t grow up loving the game of hockey."

Fired up and yet measured in his comments, Whitney is indeed frustrated.

"They’re like schoolyard bullies right now; they want everything. That’s not negotiating," he said. "With us coming down to 50-50 [split of revenues], I don’t see the need for this to go as long as this has."

Like me, however, Whitney sees a deal that can be made.

"I don’t think it’s far apart at all, in fact I think it can be done in one afternoon," said Whitney, before building up to a laugh. "I’d stuff them all in a room and tell them they can’t come out until it’s done. And we’re not sending any food, either."

It’s been a whirlwind week. The NHLPA’s latest offer was for the most part rejected by the league, which caused anger among the players. Then veteran blueliner Roman Hamrlik made headlines by calling out NHLPA executive director Don Fehr.

"Obviously he’s frustrated, but I don’t think it’s fair for him to be making those comments from the other side of the ocean," Whitney said of Hamrlik. "He should be over here in the meetings if he wants to know what’s really happening.

"But I also know you’d hear comments like that from the other side too, from owners, if it wasn’t for the gag order. They’re equally frustrated. It’s frustrating for everybody."

Fact is, Whitney said, there’s no reason for any player not to have a firm grasp of the facts right now.

"Over my three lockouts, this is by far the most informed we’ve been as players and a union."

In the meantime, there’s been increased chatter among players about the merits of union decertification, something NBA players did last year to put pressure on owners.

"It’s going to have to be somewhat of a reality at some point," Whitney said of the possibility of decertification. "We have to look at all our options to increase our leverage. We’ll talk about that and decide what’s best for us. ...

"What has the league given us in this deal so far other than a kick in the shorts? And they want us to keep giving? At some point we’ll have to do something to put a bit more pressure on them."

Whitney understands that going down from 57 percent of the revenue pie to 50 percent was a reality players would have to likely accept after what happened in the NFL and NBA labor deals last season. But like many players, he’s frustrated by the league’s insistence on a number of changes to player contracting rights.

"It’s not fair, to be honest," said Whitney.

Agreeing with Fehr, Whitney said the league’s demands on contracting rights would lead to too restrictive a system, especially with demands such as a five-year limit on contracts and a 5 percent salary variation ceiling.

"There are some incredibly smart GMs out there, guys like Ken Holland and Lou Lamoriello," said Whitney. "They’re not allowed to say anything but what the league is trying to do now is say, 'We don’t trust you GMs, we want to put in a system that tells you how to run your teams now. We’re going to cut your legs out. Kenny, I know you’ve got a genius mind when it comes to contracts and maneuvering things, but we’re not going to allow that anymore. We’re going to make it so the worst GM in the league can compete with you because your hands are tied.'"

To be fair, the league is looking to tighten up the system because costs got out of control in the last CBA, especially on the players’ second contracts, which is why the league wants to push UFA to eight years service or 28 years old and why the league is seeking changes to salary arbitration.

Whitney understands the owners need some fixes, but he just wants a fair deal, not an agreement that will crush his side.

"Otherwise, we’ll just be in another work stoppage in five years, which makes no sense," said Whitney. "All of this makes no sense. We could have been playing a long time ago."


  • 0

#3284 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,174 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:23 PM

No, Shift, they don't, which is why all of this is a bad idea.
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3285 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:32 PM

No, Shift, they don't, which is why all of this is a bad idea.


Yup

+1
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3286 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,112 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:48 PM

All the players have money to burn on lawyers, right?


For someone whose "Been through all this", you seem blissfully ignorant of the existence of class action suits. There will still likely be dozens of them and cause the owners a crapload of time and money but not every player needs individual representation in the event of decertification. To get into a legal battle on a team level rather than a league level means different decisions due to different laws and different owners.

Owners already are a squabbling bunch. Removing their ability to collude will fracture their positions. Will Canucks players sue Aquilini when he's paying his staff to do community work, keeping Kesler on LTIR, and sending down as many people to the Wolves as possible? Probably not. They seem to all be on the same page. Will Minneasota players sue Leopold? You sure as hell bet they will.

Most importantly, this makes Bettman irrelevant. He represents the interests of a unified league which will have little purpose in a team-by-team legal battle. This isn't to say this is a brilliant move for the players. It's not all sunshine and rainbows. It's gonna cost both sides time and money, and what comes out the other side will only somewhat resemble the league we have now if decertification is invoked. But the players are left with few other options when the NHL is an oligarchy that makes decisions out of pettiness that are in the best interests of no one.
  • 0

Keswho.jpg


#3287 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,112 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:06 PM

Also, even if performance was written into the contract like you said (though I took the quote from your first message to mean contracts wouldn't be guaranteed at all, as if teams could fire players for any reason without the protection of the CBA) teams would have to be able to prove that the targets weren't met and that another player would have been able to do so. In the end, like I said, teams would be open to lawsuits.


Performance is not written into the contracts as a requirement for salary payment. Production is only relevant to specific performance bonuses outlined in the contract. Since no one has played, no one would get performance bonuses. The vast majority of these are in the contracts of cap-floor teams' players which are just used to artificially reach the cap. Its not money those players would ever see, so it wouldn't matter at all.

Edited by nateb123, 23 November 2012 - 10:06 PM.

  • 0

Keswho.jpg


#3288 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,453 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:11 PM

It's not only the legal fees that deter owners from facing these suits - it is also the prospect under anti trust laws of having to pay three times the damages if the claims are successful. 67 days at Bettman numbers of 8 to 10 million a day x3 is nearly 2 billion dollars already... not peanuts, not even to billionaires - and Bettman's rationale for locking out is not blowing anyone away with sheer legitimacy.

Edited by oldnews, 23 November 2012 - 10:12 PM.

  • 0

#3289 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,174 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:17 PM

Performance is not written into the contracts as a requirement for salary payment. Production is only relevant to specific performance bonuses outlined in the contract. Since no one has played, no one would get performance bonuses. The vast majority of these are in the contracts of cap-floor teams' players which are just used to artificially reach the cap. Its not money those players would ever see, so it wouldn't matter at all.


You are right about current contracts, but I was talking about contracts in a theoretical free market NHL post union decertification.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3290 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 02:38 AM

NHL boss Gary Bettman fighting cold war without obvious exit strategy

VANCOUVER — So dispiriting are the leaders charged with saving hockey that Black Friday was no darker than the last three months.
America hardly needs the busiest shopping day of the year to ignore the National Hockey League, but the self-marginalizing league took the opportunity anyway to cancel more games, including the All-Star Weekend in Columbus. This is the first good thing to come from the lockout because nobody wants to go to Columbus in January so the NHL, a league teetering on a very high ledge, can celebrate itself.
Friday was also notable for NHL Players’ Association boss Donald Fehr, otherwise busy writing the epilogue on his autobiography at hockey’s expense, saying something sensible.
“On Wednesday, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said that the league is losing $18-20 million per day during the lockout,” Fehr said, warming up his calculator. “Therefore, two more weeks of cancelled games far exceeds the current economic gap.”
That gap on core economics, the difference between what the union wants and what owners are willing to pay to compensate players under contract as the sides transition to a 50/50 split on revenue, is $182 million. That sum represents barely five per cent of annual revenue, had the NHL started on time in September and not embarked on a course towards destruction.
Surely, these sides are not going to scuttle a season that would have been worth about $3.5 billion in its entirety because they can’t bridge a gap of $182 million.
It’s enough to make you miss the Levitt Report, in all its skewed and pointy-headed splendour.
You remember that economic treatise from 2004, before Bettman completed his lockout hat trick?
Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, was paid handsomely by the NHL to assess the league’s finances and provide a report that Bettman used to justify the lockout and pursuit of a radically different economic model.
There were press conferences and pie charts and furrowed brows as Bettman gravely described the economic crisis and portrayed the league as on the brink of financial ruin.
The Levitt Report became a kind of navigation beacon during the Black Fridays and Black Wednesdays and Saturdays and Thursdays in the winter of 2004-05 when the NHL became the first “major” professional sports league to cancel an entire season. At least we knew what they were fighting about.
There was no case for war this time, no weapons of mass financial destruction justifying yet another lockout by owners. No key visuals, no thorough explanations by Bettman, no illusion of financial transparency from the NHL.
There is no navigation beacon in this lockout, which looks hopelessly adrift.
Decertification is suddenly hotter than Justin Bieber, and each has about equal substance. The union is fanning media speculation that the NHLPA may abolish itself. Theoretically, this would make the owners’ lockout illegal and turn every player into an independent contractor free to negotiate whatever he can without league-wide encumbrances such as a salary cap.
Decertification could be a very good thing for players, who commanded 75 per cent of revenue before there was a salary-cap, except those playing for weak franchises, which rather than causing a lockout every few years would lose the social safety net provided by the NHL. Major pro sports must be the only domain where billionaire owners, nearly all of them conservative, cry like socialists for protection against free-market forces.
In the short term, decertification would address the chronic and shameful shortage of slick litigation lawyers because NHL owners and players would be in court for a while.
But at least decertification, however remote, gives Fehr and the NHLPA an exit strategy. They have a way out of this lockout.
What is Bettman’s exit strategy?
Please tell me owners have a grand plan beyond merely waiting for players to fully capitulate, which they’re very good at but don’t appear willing to do this time. Because at the moment, Bettman’s game plan looks a little thin.
Perhaps owners thought this would be a quick war, an invasion of Grenada, to get what they want. The boys would all be at their home rinks for Thanksgiving, and owners back in their counting houses when the serious money started to flow near the end of the fall football frenzy in the U.S.
But here we are, hockey cancelled until at least the middle of December, snow on the ground in places and each side dug in for the long haul. This is what we signed up for? In a sense, the dispute is far worse now than when Bettman triggered it in September.
Three months into the lockout, the owners and players have succeeded mostly in destroying what little trust remained in their “partnership” while co-strangling a golden goose and causing far more lasting damage to their business than they did in 2004. They are quickly poisoning the well from which they drink.
It is, as others have noted, the dumbest dispute in pro sports history.
There is a $182-million valley to cross, but the sides aren’t really talking and, as of late Friday, had no plans to negotiate further. Tell me again what they are fighting about.


  • 0

#3291 PlayStation

PlayStation

    XBox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,289 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 08

Posted 24 November 2012 - 02:57 AM

Yup, Keep fighting over the tiny bit of money (compared to total revenue)
Not playing has cost you more than that amount you've been fighting over.

Not to mention a lot of true fans will be refraining from spending money on this league at least for the near future.
  • 0
Posted Image


"Real Men" :bigblush:

#3292 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,236 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 04:23 AM

Hey fellas!

How's it goin' eh?

Posted Image
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#3293 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:55 AM

For someone whose "Been through all this", you seem blissfully ignorant of the existence of class action suits. ......



:lol: Mega-whooooooosh my friend. Your ramblings indicate you were not following close enough. I recommend rewinding the tape and having another look about what I was referring to.

If you need clarification - ask. Don't make assumptions and then proceed to call me ignorant.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3294 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,275 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:56 AM

Wow, Brouwer completely throwing his own teammates under the bus for speaking their minds. What a class act...

"For me, I think those guys selling us out, being selfish like that and making those comments..." Brouwer continued. "Me being on their team, how am I going to trust them as a teammate from now on? Because you know they're not going to support players in the big scheme of things when you go and you play on the team with them; it's going to be tough to want to back those guys from now on." -Brouwer

He's saying they're selfish? First of all, Hamrlik is probably in his last year as a player, and just wants to play one more season. And Neuvirth doesn't even know how long he'll be in the NHL for. To say that these guys are selfish is ridiculous.

Brouwer isn't in their position, so he has no right to call them out. They're members of a group together, and if this is how these guys feel, I'm sure they're not the only ones feeling this way. They were just the only ones brave enough to say something. Maybe it's time to start listening to your own members, and not being selfish by fighting a fight based on principle.

Many don't have a problem generalizing ownership into a single entity which is a mistake and the same should not be done to players. When the average career is only 4 years the NHL opportunity for players is very finite. The real value to the majority of players is very limited in this dispute.

Fans seem to think that decertification is the ultimate hammer for players. The downside risk has major impacts. Less teams and a possible shutdown for protracted time. NHL teams cannot be forced to operate. In such an event the resolve of the owners would certainly be tested. Fans should also consider the impact on the product they view. The concept of building CUP worthy teams through drafting and player development might be gone. Survival of the fittest NHL teams might finish borderline teams. Canadian fans have short memories. When the CAN $ was at $0.65 most Canadian franchises would have died. Another issue might be competitiveness. The chance for smaller market teams to be serious contenders could be done.
  • 0

#3295 John.Tallhouse

John.Tallhouse

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,577 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:51 AM

These F%(#&^$ are playing with millions of dollars.... can I have some if your just throwing it around like that?
  • 0
Posted Image

#3296 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,085 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:09 AM

Fans seem to think that decertification is the ultimate hammer for players. The downside risk has major impacts. Less teams and a possible shutdown for protracted time. NHL teams cannot be forced to operate. In such an event the resolve of the owners would certainly be tested. Fans should also consider the impact on the product they view. The concept of building CUP worthy teams through drafting and player development might be gone. Survival of the fittest NHL teams might finish borderline teams. Canadian fans have short memories. When the CAN $ was at $0.65 most Canadian franchises would have died. Another issue might be competitiveness. The chance for smaller market teams to be serious contenders could be done.


The upside is the fwybwed and drybone argument is gone (which isn't really an argument without anything to back it up). About ~10 of 30 teams make money, and those bottom 20 teams would be facing even greater financial uncertainty, and no revenue share. If they are supporting the lockout now, then you better believe they will relax on contracting issues leading this pointless lockout to continue.

The players should do this, and decommission the chancellor of the board, who in fact is just the cancellor of the game. They would almost certainly end up with a new deal and a union in the end anyway. They have to push the nuke button to make those dicktaters think harder.
  • 0

#3297 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,275 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:20 AM

The upside is the fwybwed and drybone argument is gone (which isn't really an argument without anything to back it up). About ~10 of 30 teams make money, and those bottom 20 teams would be facing even greater financial uncertainty, and no revenue share. If they are supporting the lockout now, then you better believe they will relax on contracting issues leading this pointless lockout to continue.

The players should do this, and decommission the chancellor of the board, who in fact is just the cancellor of the game. They would almost certainly end up with a new deal and a union in the end anyway. They have to push the nuke button to make those dicktaters think harder.

I have no doubt that Bettman and ownership have already considered the possibility of decertification. It has already happened in football and basketball. Using the 'nuke button' as you suggest has far greater ramifications than you seem to comprehend.
  • 0

#3298 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,085 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:57 AM

I have no doubt that Bettman and ownership have already considered the possibility of decertification. It has already happened in football and basketball. Using the 'nuke button' as you suggest has far greater ramifications than you seem to comprehend.


Oh, I get the ramifications. A few law suits against Leipold, Jacobs, Snider would do a world of good to the tone of NHL negotiating board room. In some cases it could be owners suing owners. The worst part is, it means two lost seasons for nothing. Surely the commish would be fired. Players give up all their hard fought for rights. Teams in dis-array with RFA's on the open market. Rangers spending like crazy while Phoenix folds. Owners suddenly allowed to speak without gag order. A lot would happen quickly to get this over with.

This won't happen. It would all have to be waived as part of a new CBA with union representation. You have to pull the trigger to set things in motion though. Fehr has set this up as a possible win for the players. The players wanted to play hockey all along. The players want to negotiate. They want to make a fair deal. I'd think they'd have a pretty good case in court if that's the game they want to play.
  • 0

#3299 pdc

pdc

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 492 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:09 PM

From what I understand surrounding decertification it sounds like a horrible idea, and purely a bluff tatic by the NHLPA in attempts to gain an edge. For decertification to go through more than 50% of players would have to vote yes to this. The result would be the union dissolved, and anti-trust lawsuits.

If the players lost the lawsuits, which is entirely possible specially consindering the NFLPA lost the 1st part of their lawsuit to the NFL. Which I beleive with the amount of players playing across seas weakens the NHLPA's case compared to the NFL or NBA PA's. So if they lost wouldn't the players basically put themselves in a much worse situation?

If they won it would lead to a free market and increased negotiation rights for players. However it could be expected that several teams such as Phoenix, Florida, etc would go belly up due to loss of revenues and not being able to compete. Which intern would put several players out of a job. With a sudden influx of players still trying to make a living from playing, could that not inturn result in the blue collar players contracts bottoming out? For instance could it not be seen 4th liners and bottom pairing defencemen on 100k a year salaries, seeing how a cheaper replacement could be found.

Sure the star player would likely benefit but wouldn't you see the average player suffer. Which makes me wonder if the NHLPA majority would even vote for this? Just makes me wonder if the NHL even feels threatened by this, everyone seems to comparing the NBA and NFL decertification threats to this but I beleive their econmic situations are quite different. Maybe I'm wrong and making a few wrong assumptions here and some of you seem to have better understanding of this but can someone tell me where I am because this sounds like a horrible move, and one that could jepordize us seeing any NHL soon.

Thanks
  • 0

#3300 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,275 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:47 PM

Oh, I get the ramifications. A few law suits against Leipold, Jacobs, Snider would do a world of good to the tone of NHL negotiating board room. In some cases it could be owners suing owners. The worst part is, it means two lost seasons for nothing. Surely the commish would be fired. Players give up all their hard fought for rights. Teams in dis-array with RFA's on the open market. Rangers spending like crazy while Phoenix folds. Owners suddenly allowed to speak without gag order. A lot would happen quickly to get this over with.

This won't happen. It would all have to be waived as part of a new CBA with union representation. You have to pull the trigger to set things in motion though. Fehr has set this up as a possible win for the players. The players wanted to play hockey all along. The players want to negotiate. They want to make a fair deal. I'd think they'd have a pretty good case in court if that's the game they want to play.

Ownership would only be sued if they attempted to operate. I am sure they hvae considered their options and were aware that decertification was a player option. A shutdown until a new CBA is signed becomes the inevitable situation. You seem to think that decertificatiion is the ultimate player weapon when it might not mean that much. Whether it is the players on strike or ownership on strike the end result is a stalemate that again exposes the fundamentally weak position that players find themselves. At the end of the day it is not about what is right or wrong. It takes two parties who have to work together.
  • 0




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.