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

#3301 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,492 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:42 PM

Pdc, you made multiple excellent points, some of which I referenced earlier (lower players' salaries tanking, poor teams folding, etc.) Certainly, if decertification were carried through it would be a world of bad for both teams and players.

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?


Not withstanding my previous statement (the whole world of bad thing), I don't think the players would lose their lawsuits nor do I think the number playing in Europe would have any effect. The owners locked out the players despite year after year after year of record revenues under the system the owners themselves designed and the law very clearly puts the responsibility for ensuring profit on the owners, guaranteeing employees get paid regardless of the health of the company. The players offered to continue playing under the old CBA (which was profitable for many teams, certainly more than not playing) while negotiating on a new one, the owners refused without a single shred of evidence that the players didn't intend to do just that. Any speculation that they would have gone on strike or drug their feet in the negotiations is just that, speculation and can't be used against them. So, the owners locked out players who offered to play, denied them their right to work despite signed contracts due to their own business problems for SOME teams, and have not shown an eagerness to negotiate despite the union offering multiple concessions. I think everyone knows the NHL is playing hard ball, with almost all of their "concessions" simply being reducing their wish list of demands which they purposefully overinflated from their first offer just so they could appear to be "giving" something when in reality they are just demanding slightly fewer new concessions from players.

As for players playing in other leagues, that's entirely within their right to do so as it is the owners preventing players from fulfilling their contracts. (Players playing in other leagues during a strike would be an entirely different matter.) Not only is it within their right to do so legally (it's called mitigating your damages), the NHL and KHL, for example, even have a signed agreement between them that deals with just such a situation (that limits locked out NHLers to I believe 65% of their NHL salary while playing in the KHL and I would assume requires they be released by the KHL once the NHL starts working again). Given those facts, I don't see how some of the players playing in other leagues could be used against them. Plus then there's also the fact that some of the multiple lawsuits wouldn't involve any players who did play abroad.

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.


Nope, I think you understand perfectly. Like I said, a world of bad for both sides and quite possibly far worse for fans as it would mean no NHL hockey for years, and that's assuming the league survived at all.

The sad fact is, however, that at least moving in that direction may be the only power move the union has if the NHL can't show any flexibility or willingness to negotiate. They're already winning just with the lowered players' share and the union's offer to penalize teams signing new back diving contracts. Those are the meat and potatoes of a CBA. Everything else is just dessert, and I for one hope the owners' eyes aren't bigger than their stomachs. Or ours.
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3302 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,492 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:54 PM

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.


I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. But I think the previous one is a little shortsighted. If owners can't restart their business but players can find work elsewhere I think such a situation would at least initially put the owners in a much worse position. That would likely be magnified for single team arenas like ours. There are only so many concerts that they can book in place of games, and it likely still wouldn't make up for all of the lost revenue due to concessions and merchandising at games (which the arena may or may not get a tiny cut of with other events). Plus then there would be the loss of revenues from rink advertising and TV deals while other sponsorship deals (like arena naming rights) would likely be greatly impacted if there were no hockey team calling the arena home, which again would be greater for single team arenas.

Also, I'm not entirely sure the owners would have to try to restart their business for players to file lawsuits. Do you have a link to a legal journal that says that? I freely admit to the great holes in my knowledge of lawsuits against owners not running the business by choice despite record profits and signed contracts with employees. Has it even ever happened?

And what about teams like Florida that have signed contracts with the city that helped build their arena. Could the city sue them if they were choosing not to operate for breaching their contract? Anyone have any idea?

Crazy. It's all crazy!
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3303 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,492 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 04:26 PM

NHL boss Gary Bettman fighting cold war without obvious exit strategy
....

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.


That may be my favorite sentence from any lockout related article I've read yet!

Thanks for sharing the story.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3304 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,492 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 04:36 PM

I won't post the text here because there are a lot of quotes that would make it rather long with forum formatting, but anyone interested in a comparison of Fehr and Goodenow check out this story from the Edmonton Journal, NHL Lockout: Donald Fehr has avoided the mistakes of former NHLPA head Bob Goodenow.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3305 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 24 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

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.


All the people who thought the Union was going to get a 'good deal' or push the owners around have no disappeared , spun their story, or have gone deep underground.

This is all because the Union did NOT want to give up the big pay raises they have attained since 2005 , and they called in a HIRED GUN known for a lock out in another sport to shove the owners around.

Is there ANYONE left who still thinks that was a good move? Lol. Now they are talking about DISBANDING the union so the richest guys can try to legally enforce their rich contracts.

lolol. Wont be much longer until the union totally caves in and or fires Fehr.

The sooner they fire Fehr , the sooner the owners can back down and sign a reasonable CBA.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3306 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 24 November 2012 - 05:52 PM

p.s.

Lets get the deal done before they have to cancel the season . They will fire Fehr if that happens anyways

Edited by Drybone, 24 November 2012 - 05:53 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#3307 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,830 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:34 PM

If there's a decertification a new league will start
  • 0

#3308 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:55 PM

All the people who thought the Union was going to get a 'good deal' or push the owners around have no disappeared , spun their story, or have gone deep underground.

This is all because the Union did NOT want to give up the big pay raises they have attained since 2005 , and they called in a HIRED GUN known for a lock out in another sport to shove the owners around.

Is there ANYONE left who still thinks that was a good move? Lol. Now they are talking about DISBANDING the union so the richest guys can try to legally enforce their rich contracts.


If you think the PA are the one's trying to shove the owner's around then you have absolutely no clue what is going on.

The Players have already made over a billion dollars in rollbacks, yet the Owner's refuse to budge at all, it seems like the players move a mile, and the owner's move an inch.

Where we are at right now is summed up perfectly by (From the NHL) "We appreciate the rollbacks, but you still haven't given us what we want yet"

The sooner they fire Fehr , the sooner the owners can back down and sign a reasonable CBA.


Your theory just proves the owner's don't care about the game, they just want to win, that's all they care about.

There not trying to form a partnership, there trying to win a war.

If they really cared about saving the season they wouldn't have made such a lopsided 1st proposal, and they would have actually make a some-what serious proposal in August, rather than waiting to October.

There is no reason we should lose the season over this, but we will and it's embaress, we are fighting over about 190 Million dollars or whatever it is.

To me it just makes the league come across as even more of a joke than they already are, the Players tried to bargain in good faith but the owner's seem to have been hellbent again bargain in good faith along with them, they have wanted a war all along, and if that's what they want then I can't wait till the PA desertifies and starts battling back.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 24 November 2012 - 06:55 PM.

  • 1

zackass.png


#3309 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:56 PM

If there's a decertification a new league will start


No it won't happen, if there's a desertification the Season will be gone, and the Owner's will probably want Bettman's head, atleast I would if I was an owner.
  • 0

zackass.png


#3310 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:12 PM

No matter what, the season is likely over. Why bother with decertification? Last ditch effort from Fehr. Ruin the game like he tried with baseball. It's too bad. Decertification is actually good for big markets so =/. Too bad the two egos have turned the game into this, just a lack of respect to the game of hockey. Decertification? Fine back to the dynasty days. Teams will be lost and stacked. Players who aren't top players will not be able to find jobs. (Brouwer, and the guys who follow Fehr around (Darsh, Campoli) will be definitely out of jobs.

Too bad if that happens. I think it'll be entertaining for the fans, but it'll be a mess of a league. everyone should be to blame.

Players are too stupid if this were to happen. It's too bad the big top guys aren't saying anything at all. The veteran guys like Iginla need to say something meaningful out of the respect of the game of hockey.

Edited by Rey, 24 November 2012 - 08:22 PM.

  • 0

#3311 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:21 PM

I think this is the only way for the Players to fight back against the owner's.

To me it's clear the owner's will no bargain in good faith, all they want to do is win the deal and be greedy. There not trying to form a partnership they are trying to push the players around.

And I look at it from the opposite way you do Rey, to me the season is already over either way, so why not do it.
  • 0

zackass.png


#3312 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:38 PM

I think this is the only way for the Players to fight back against the owner's.

To me it's clear the owner's will no bargain in good faith, all they want to do is win the deal and be greedy. There not trying to form a partnership they are trying to push the players around.

And I look at it from the opposite way you do Rey, to me the season is already over either way, so why not do it.


This won't be a win for the Players. It'll become a lose lose for everyone because Fehr and the players are too stubborn to lose a little money. The NHL will be a complete mess. People already complain about the small changes in the game, and if they choose to do it again. There will be so many problems to exist.

It's a lack of respect of the game, and everyone involved is a joke. Regardless of what they do, the Owners will always be in charge and I have always said this. They need to realize that. So what happens to the Owners? Nothing much, the casual hockey fan doesn't care much. They can sell their team or in case they have lots of money they can throw as much $$$ for players to win. Teams will have to fold because of the loss in revenue. That's fine for the Owners, having a team is just a side investment. Players will have to be good to be fill up positions or else not be in the league at all. Players outside looking in, will have a tougher time. With the chances of teams like NY having the $$$ to payout players we're lookin at dynasty teams that will win for years while other teams aren't competitive. That means less fans, less revenue. The game will be lost. The history of the game will be forgotten.



It'll be a complete mess. Players are better off signing what is/was available now. It's just too unfortunate the most of the veterans are gone and it's a bunch of kids that are leading the charge now. When they all get old, maybe they'll realize that they just destroyed the sport and regret this.


Fehr wanted to destroy Baseball and failed. Oh well, now he gets to destroy hockey. Good timing all the veterans have retired or have left the game. Dumb kids take over and this is what happens.


You just hope someone steps up, for the respect of hockey. If Decertification happens, enjoy having the same 3-4 teams competing every year, while everyone else just stays the same just like the NBA. Remember Vancouver over 10 years ago? When no one cares about the team? cause they sucked? Expect that.

Edited by Rey, 24 November 2012 - 08:49 PM.

  • 0

#3313 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:41 PM

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.


They have probably considered decertification as an outcome. It might not be a good one for the league overall though, and that was my point. Only the rich top few teams might be ok with this. Decertification *is* the ultimate player weapon, because the NHL actively has to do something about it instead of taking a two week break.
  • 0

#3314 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:52 PM

This won't be a win for the Players. It'll become a lose lose for everyone because Fehr and the players are too stubborn to lose a little money. The NHL will be a complete mess. People already complain about the small changes in the game, and if they choose to do it again. There will be so many problems to exist.


Everyone has already lost, and I don't know how you can say that the players are too stubborn to lose money when they have already made huge concessions, over a billion dollars worth, I think the NHL has to stop being so greedy, stop trying to win and push the players around or else everything they have put into place through the pain of the last lockout (Salary Cap, exc.) will be lost due to this cerification and to me this all could have been avoided if they would have actually bargained in good faith rather than trying to push the players around & making demands.

It's a lack of respect of the game, and everyone involved is a joke. Regardless of what they do, the Owners will always be in charge and I have always said this. They need to realize that. So what happens to the Owners? Nothing much, the casual hockey fan doesn't care much. They can sell their team or in case they have lots of money they can throw as much $$$ for players to win. Teams will have to fold because of the loss in revenue. That's fine for the Owners, having a team is just a side investment. Players will have to be good to be fill up positions or else not be in the league at all. Players outside looking in, will have a tougher time. With the chances of teams like NY having the $$$ to payout players we're lookin at dynasty teams that will win for years while other teams aren't competitive. That means less fans, less revenue. The game will be lost. The history of the game will be forgotten.


It'll be a complete mess. Players are better off signing what is/was available now. It's just too unfortunate the most of the veterans are gone and it's a bunch of kids that are leading the charge now. When they all get old, maybe they'll realize that they just destroyed the sport and regret this.


Fehr wanted to destroy Baseball and failed. Oh well, now he gets to destroy hockey. Good timing all the veterans have retired or have left the game. Dumb kids take over and this is what happens.


You just hope someone steps up, for the respect of hockey. If Decertification happens, enjoy having 3-4 teams competing every year, while everyone else just stays the same just like the NBA.


To me Bettman is more to blame than Fehr, it's not Fehr's job to grow hockey, it's bettman's Fehr's only duty is to get the best deal he can for the player's and really the deals are only getting better so he has done a good job, Bettman has destroyed our game and wasted everyone's time, if they had started actually negotiating in August rather than making insulting offers and taking till mid way through October to begin to approach the same universe then we would be much futhur ahead.

Really they are just wasting everyone's time and are destroying our beloved game. I hate the NHL. They wanted this war, it's time for the NHLPA to stop trying to reason with them, to stop trying to bargain in good faith (Since clearly the won't) and fight back.
  • 0

zackass.png


#3315 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:00 PM

It's still saddens me that people talk as if Bettman actually has any power at all. It's the owners that are telling him what to do and what they want. The owners run the league and with or without decertification it won't effect the owners as much as the players.

The players need to start looking for themselves, and look at their losses and not look at the whole and realize they've already lost more money in these lockouts than they would have if they played.

And to remind you. The Owners and Bettman wanted to negotiate all year. Fehr had to wait until the last minutes and this is what happens. You can't win a ego war if you are being stubborn.

Players are stupid because there is a better deal for them right now, than "decertification"

I'm not siding with anyone, but you'd have to be stupid to think the Owners are willing to change their stance. It will always be that way. If the Players and Union don't want to do anything, then fine. Lets have decertification. Lets see how you will like it, or any fan sees it. This isn't about who should win or who's ego is bigger. It's about the game of hockey itself. You can hate Bettman, Fehr, Both, it doesn't matter. The end result will be bad for hockey. You hate the NHL? You honestly mean that? Your telling me that you don't like hockey? or are you being naive because you want a specific "person"(s) to fail?

Players are desperate and Fehr pulls this off, and you can say it with a smile that you support them? What a joke.

Edited by Rey, 24 November 2012 - 09:14 PM.

  • 0

#3316 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:17 PM

It's still saddens me that people talk as if Bettman actually has any power at all. It's the owners that are telling him what to do and what they want. The owners run the league and with or without decertification it won't effect the owners as much as the players.


He needs like 7 or 8 owner's to vote in his favour to do something, The owner's dont hold all the power, there are probably more than a few who would rather just accept the last offer.

The players need to start looking for themselves, and look at their losses and not look at the whole and realize they've already lost more money in these lockouts than they would have if they played.


You could say the exact same thing about the Owners.

And to remind you. The Owners and Bettman wanted to negotiate all year. Fehr had to wait until the last minutes and this is what happens. You can't win a ego war if you are being stubborn.


I'm not sure how August is the last minutes, the Players still had to play they would rather not have had to deal with that in the mists of everythin else that was happening while the season, playoffs, free agency exc.

And that's not Fehr not wanting to negotiate, that's the players not wanting to negotiate, he listen's to them, it's like you said bout Bettman but in this case the Players actually control more than the Owner's, Fehr just listen's to what the majority of the players want and there stance, and trys to negotiate the best offer within those perimeters.

Players are stupid because there is a better deal for them right now, than "decertification"


I don't fully understand the decertification yet, but I'm pretty sure once the Union idsbands, the Lockout become illegal, so then the players sue the owner's for there guarenteed contracts, and they get money back as well as ruining things like Salary Cap structure and so-on, I don't know where it goes from there or even if I am 100% correct on that, but from my understanding Thus-far it would reward them in some way and do more damage to the owner's.

So the owner's and Bettman should stop being so stubborn, the Players have already made over a billion dollars in concessions and all they have to do is leave to contracting rights alone and offer up about 100 Million more in the make whole. Over 5 years I think that is around 1.5-2.5 Million per year per owner, so really it isn't all that much, especially when you consider tha sacrifices the Players have already made, it is time for the owner's to step up and finally start negotating in good faith, if they do indeed care about the fans and want to save the season like they say they do.
  • 1

zackass.png


#3317 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:19 PM

You act if the Owners care if there is a decertification. They really dont and shouldn't be threatened. The players are killing themselves. You are better off fighting a tree than arguing about the Owners. The 7-8 Owners supporting Bettman are probably the wealthy teams to begin with.

Edited by Rey, 24 November 2012 - 09:24 PM.

  • 0

#3318 M A K A V E L I 96

M A K A V E L I 96

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:21 PM

CBC is showing classic games during the lockout. Wonder what genius decided it would be a good idea to put this graphic overlay on during the entire game. If you're going to waste this space, at least put the game clock on there.

Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#3319 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:26 PM

You act if the Owners care if there is a decertification. They really dont and shouldn't be threatened. The players are killing themselves. You are better off fighting a tree than arguing about the Owners.


No actually the players aren't? If they were don't you think they would have caved already.

The owner's do care about decertification, look into it, understand it completely and then u decide if the owner's owuld be okay with it.

All the owner's pushing around and bullying has done is galvinize the players even more and make them stronger in there cause, they aren't caving anytime soon, the owner's ignorance just frustrates and infutiates them, and makes them want to follow through with this, and once they do then it is war and they have ruined all the progress the owner's have made since the first work stoppage.

Yet you don't think the owner's care? Makes sense.
  • 0

zackass.png


#3320 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:28 PM

I don't fully understand the decertification yet,


The owner's do care about decertification, look into it, understand it completely and then u decide if the owner's owuld be okay


:picard:

Owners make income elsewhere. You make it sound like they need to own an NHL team to make a living. Owners are just greedy businessmen who just want to make even more money. If the NHL doesn't work, you think they are going to cry about it opposed to a NHL player who can't find a job after this is over?

241 is the number of NHL hockey players that never played in the NHL after the last lockout. Realize Decertification is about 1000x worse. Especially in the long term.

Edited by Rey, 24 November 2012 - 09:36 PM.

  • 0

#3321 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:35 PM

:picard:

Owners make income elsewhere. You make it sound like they need to own an NHL team to make a living.


Well look at how many teams are losing money, look at how big of a deal they are making it that they can't even give the players 100 Million or whatever when the players have already given back over a billion. If the NHL isn't as big of a deal as you say it is then why can't they do these simple things? Explain that.

And aside from just the money, it destroyed the Salary Cap structure and so-on if the players wish to attack those areas, then that destroys the progress they have made in the last lockout, do you not think that is a big deal?

If you truley don't think decertification is a big deal to the owners, then explain why u feel that way like I am, rather than just saying your stance and not backing it up.
  • 0

zackass.png


#3322 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:46 PM

Well look at how many teams are losing money, look at how big of a deal they are making it that they can't even give the players 100 Million or whatever when the players have already given back over a billion. If the NHL isn't as big of a deal as you say it is then why can't they do these simple things? Explain that.

And aside from just the money, it destroyed the Salary Cap structure and so-on if the players wish to attack those areas, then that destroys the progress they have made in the last lockout, do you not think that is a big deal?

If you truley don't think decertification is a big deal to the owners, then explain why u feel that way like I am, rather than just saying your stance and not backing it up.


The Bold. You really need to think about that when you post. I've pretty much said everything i needed to, perhaps you missed some of my edits to add even more. It's about being realistic and not dreaming. You really don't have anything backing you up, and honestly. I'm not throwing much sources out there, aside from the facts. That being what has happened, and what is potentially going to happen.

How many Owners of these teams that are losing money want to sell their teams? Most are better off getting rid of their teams. Salary cap doesn't effect the Owners. They effect hockey, the game. It was made so all 30 teams can be competitive. Teams with losses are failing to even reach cap floor. Without it, they can spend however much money on their team as they wish.

and what are you complaining about? You're supporting the decertifation. I'm the one, going on that it'll ruin the game. You've clearly posted in your 2nd response that you support it and that it should happen.

and Again. To reiterate what i said in my first post. Unless someone steps up for the respect of the game, the game is going to be ruined. You don't seem to understand how bad the NHL would be with "decertification".

Edited by Rey, 24 November 2012 - 09:55 PM.

  • 0

#3323 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,492 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:07 PM

Owners make income elsewhere. You make it sound like they need to own an NHL team to make a living. Owners are just greedy businessmen who just want to make even more money. If the NHL doesn't work, you think they are going to cry about it opposed to a NHL player who can't find a job after this is over?


So your argument is that the owners don't care about the NHL teams they own or the tiny percentage of their overall wealth those teams represent and that's why they won't care if their stubbornness and greed burns the whole league to the ground? And for that reason we should support their position?

From one of your previous statements, you said,

You hate the NHL? You honestly mean that? Your telling me that you don't like hockey?


If owners don't care about the NHL teams they own and you equate caring about the NHL with caring about hockey, that means the owners don't care about hockey. Why would any of us support the people who have no concern for the sport and who, by their greed and stubbornness, are keeping hockey from the fans?
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3324 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:08 PM

The Bold. You really need to think about that when you post. I've pretty much said everything i needed to, perhaps you missed some of my edits to add even more. It's about being realistic and not dreaming. You really don't have anything backing you up, and honestly. I'm not throwing much sources out there, aside from the facts. That being what has happened, and what is potentially going to happen.

How many Owners of these teams that are losing money want to sell their teams? Most are better off getting rid of their teams. Salary cap doesn't effect the Owners. They effect hockey, the game. It was made so all 30 teams can be competitive. Teams with losses are failing to even reach cap floor. Without it, they can spend however much money on their team as they wish.

and what are you complaining about? You're supporting the decertifation. I'm the one, going on that it'll ruin the game. You've clearly posted in your 2nd response that you support it and that it should happen.

and Again. To reiterate what i said in my first post. Unless someone steps up for the respect of the game, the game is going to be ruined. You don't seem to understand how bad the NHL would be with "decertification".


I understand completely how bad the NHL would be, my point being that it would destroy everything the game has gone through, all the work stoppages. Really the threat of it is just as powerful as actually doing it. I think it's the nuclear card, I have been pretty optimistic that the NHL would soon start negotiating and stop making demands but, if the NHL continues to refuse to bargain in good faith I don't see what else there is to do? If they give in this lockout, the NHL will come back next time and ask for more, and eventually guarenteed contracts will go out the window, and so-on. the Lockouts won't end, they will just keep coming back for more, that's what history tells us. After taking a step back, the damage it would do to both sides would be terrible, but more so to the owner's in my mind, and it would be a huge message for the future.

Either way and all that aside, The point of this lockout should be the revenue sharing, to make sure teams stop losing money, to help grow the game but in turn, the Owner's have gotten greedy and they have done way more damage to the game, I just don't understand what they think holding out will acomplish.

To me after all the concessions the players made, the NHL should just stop being so greedy, step up and offer to take on more of the make whole, and give the players there contract rights. Rather than having a standoff over a little bit of money after they have already gained alot more from the players, they should try to form a partnership like they are supposed to have and move forward, not try to screw the players over more and more everytime the CBA expires.

Bettman should just go, there is no reason for this lockout.
  • 0

zackass.png


#3325 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,059 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:11 PM

It's still saddens me that people talk as if Bettman actually has any power at all. It's the owners that are telling him what to do and what they want. The owners run the league and with or without decertification it won't effect the owners as much as the players.


I think the dispute between Bettman and Dolan decided how much power the Comissioner has a long time ago.
  • 0

#3326 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:36 PM

So your argument is that the owners don't care about the NHL teams they own or the tiny percentage of their overall wealth those teams represent and that's why they won't care if their stubbornness and greed burns the whole league to the ground? And for that reason we should support their position?

From one of your previous statements, you said,


If owners don't care about the NHL teams they own and you equate caring about the NHL with caring about hockey, that means the owners don't care about hockey. Why would any of us support the people who have no concern for the sport and who, by their greed and stubbornness, are keeping hockey from the fans?


It's so simple. It's because the own the NHL. Is that really hard to understand? You've come up all the time because you are bitter about 2004's lockout. Unfortunately, fail to look at the situation with the sense of reality. Bosses are suppose to boss around the employees, not the other way around. Have a problem? Go play in another league or do something else. It's really that simple.

Instead, because both sides are so cocky and have so much pride. Let the union destroy themselves, leaving everyone stranded and lost. Makes so much sense right?

Edited by Rey, 24 November 2012 - 10:39 PM.

  • 0

#3327 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:42 PM

I understand completely how bad the NHL would be, my point being that it would destroy everything the game has gone through, all the work stoppages. Really the threat of it is just as powerful as actually doing it. I think it's the nuclear card, I have been pretty optimistic that the NHL would soon start negotiating and stop making demands but, if the NHL continues to refuse to bargain in good faith I don't see what else there is to do? If they give in this lockout, the NHL will come back next time and ask for more, and eventually guarenteed contracts will go out the window, and so-on. the Lockouts won't end, they will just keep coming back for more, that's what history tells us. After taking a step back, the damage it would do to both sides would be terrible, but more so to the owner's in my mind, and it would be a huge message for the future.

Either way and all that aside, The point of this lockout should be the revenue sharing, to make sure teams stop losing money, to help grow the game but in turn, the Owner's have gotten greedy and they have done way more damage to the game, I just don't understand what they think holding out will acomplish.

To me after all the concessions the players made, the NHL should just stop being so greedy, step up and offer to take on more of the make whole, and give the players there contract rights. Rather than having a standoff over a little bit of money after they have already gained alot more from the players, they should try to form a partnership like they are supposed to have and move forward, not try to screw the players over more and more everytime the CBA expires.

Bettman should just go, there is no reason for this lockout.


Why do you continue to say that it's the NHL's fault? when All the NHL has done is make proposals. All the NHL has asked the Players union to do is make a proposal but Fehr can't even do that. Re-up for 5 years, and hope Bettman is gone and not replaced with the another Bettman clone. That's the best decision for everyone.

Everyone is greedy. Regardless if Bettman is in charge or not - potential lockouts will happen. It's a part of the business.

Talking about History? Remember the 2004 lockout and how many players came out and said that they argued over nothing and regretting wasting a whole season? Lets bump this thread, 2-3 years from now and see what happens.

Edited by Rey, 24 November 2012 - 10:51 PM.

  • 0

#3328 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,256 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:47 PM

Why do you continue to say that it's the NHL's fault? when All the NHL has done is make proposals. All the NHL has asked the Players union to do is make a proposal but Fehr can't even do that. Re-up for 5 years, and hope Bettman is gone and not replaced with the another Bettman clone. That's the best decision for everyone.

Everyone is greedy. Regardless if Bettman is in charge or not - potential lockouts will happen. It's a part of the business.


I say it's the NHL's fault because they have been completely unwilling to negotiate fairly and they still are unwilling to move any closer, it's supposed to be a partnership, the NHLPA has move significantly closer and the NHL hasn't been able to move the same distance.

As Steve Fehr said, for every mile the NHLPA moves, the NHL moves an inch, to me there are issues that have to be solved but instead all the NHL is focused on is taking more money and privilages away form the players, that's it not forming a good partnership with give and take on both sides like they should be.
  • 0

zackass.png


#3329 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,379 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:47 PM

Why do you continue to say that it's the NHL's fault? when All the NHL has done is make proposals. All the NHL has asked the Players union to do is make a proposal but Fehr can't even do that. Re-up for 5 years, and hope Bettman is gone and not replaced with the another Bettman clone. That's the best decision for everyone.

Everyone is greedy. Regardless if Bettman is in charge or not - potential lockouts will happen. It's a part of the business.

Actually, its more of the opposite. The NHLPA has been ready talk but each time they want to the NHL doesn't want to talk. It was pretty clear that the NHL, especially Bettman, wanted this lockout. Otherwise there would've been a CBA signed long before now.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#3330 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:55 PM

I say it's the NHL's fault because they have been completely unwilling to negotiate fairly and they still are unwilling to move any closer, it's supposed to be a partnership, the NHLPA has move significantly closer and the NHL hasn't been able to move the same distance.

As Steve Fehr said, for every mile the NHLPA moves, the NHL moves an inch, to me there are issues that have to be solved but instead all the NHL is focused on is taking more money and privilages away form the players, that's it not forming a good partnership with give and take on both sides like they should be.


I rather focus on what has actually happened aside to what Fehrs or the Bettmans have said. People act if what they say actually matter. They can say anything to the media. So, tell me. What has actually happened? in terms of offers? proposals? The NHL has given up a lot more albeit obviously not enough but that's the reality.(We're talking about this lockout). Not the ones in the past.

Edited by Rey, 24 November 2012 - 10:58 PM.

  • 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.