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

#3361 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 25 November 2012 - 08:29 PM

If it's true that we are going to lose the season over $200mil spread out over 5 yrs, then that is indeed very sad.
Players need to cave and work out some kind of strategy to recoup their losses.

Would it be possible for them to withhold all non hockey related services? Ie: just play the game. No photo ops, no media interviews, just play the game. No winter classic, no all-star game.

Could they not take control (as a group) of their own endorsement and sponsorship deals and earn revenue for themselves that way?

Somebody explain to me why that is such a dumb idea, how it will not work and what a doofus I am for even suggesting it.

cheers

Edited by scottiecanuck, 25 November 2012 - 08:31 PM.

  • 0

#3362 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:05 PM

Ahhh Poetica...It would be like you to find a journalist that hates owners/ billionaires as you do Jack Todd likes to become the Little engine that could face up the Mighty rich...and use his journalistic talents or lack there of to misinform the public....It was like reading one of your posts. If it were actually bias maybe it would have been a good read...


Ahh, fwybwed, leave it to you to not be able to tell the difference between an article about the millionaire running the league and one about the billionaires who own the teams. But, hey. You've never let facts or reality inform your opinions before, so why start now. Right?

At least you admit the story wasn't just bias. :)
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3363 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:37 PM

This isn't about make whole any more, because the difference doesn't make whole lot of cents. Its about stomping over contracting rights and the owners having the upper hand. If the players don't play again, those franchises are worthless. Even if somehow new scab players were introduced, it would be billions in losses.

The best thing I get out of *this* lockout as a fan, is Bettman might very well sink this time for the better of the game.
  • 1

#3364 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:49 PM

Sorry to all those who have related to this. truly... I am sorry for you.

unions weren't made to represent millionaires, in protection against the billionaires.

unions were made to represent those who could not afford to represent themselves.

anyways - what fan wants more free agency for players anyways? let's analyze this for a sec... do you want your stars going to larger markets sooner or later (van is a small market, if you don't know).

it is a complete anomalie that van and the canadian cities are prosperous - really they shouldn't be. by population and tv audience we suck. it is only cause the NHL is so poorly run and the world economic crisis with canadians still having money to blow, that is the only reason it supposedly looks good for us right now. illusory. going to disappear. believe me, we want parity. cause we are one of the have-not teams in 10 years from now, when the US is energy self-sufficient, and their economy is blazing (er... debt crisis notwithstanding.. ahem.. cough cough, but then we're all fracked).

those who live in glass houses....

so what the owners want is probably actually good for us. we're just too stupid to understand that.
  • 1

#3365 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:52 PM

poetica, poetica, wherefore art thou poetica...

your name is poem, but your thoughts are black
do unto others as thou would have done
unto you if you can hold that thought
or do you know how to have any fun?
  • 0

#3366 ba;;isticsports

ba;;isticsports

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 03

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:54 PM

Really why should anyone care about Billionaires fighting with Milionaires?
How can either side be in the right?
They are both greedy and selfish
Except for the Billionaires, without us fans (they were rich without hockey,some even richer without it), there would be alot less Millionaires

What is the fan, that is responsible for this Leagues survival, as much as any owner (who provides the vehicle and opportunity for it to exist), and any player who provides the entertainment) have to gain from this ????
They talk about each others needs and in passing mention the fan (as pr only) as both sides show, they dont care about the sport or the fans
I am a Canadian who lived hockey,play it.
In 94 I was wondering what I would do without it.
This time around if I dont care anymore like I once did,how are lesser involved fans going to react ?

I think they underestimated the impact this will have
Maybe the owners realize that now,and refuse to give Guaranteed Income, when they know, they will not be getting that
I bet it will be a long time before the average Joe,wil want to ever go to a game again
We will mosty just watch it,when on the tube now,maybe a good % wont plan there week around games anymore either,and ony watch when they have nothing better to do

Edited by ba;;isticsports, 25 November 2012 - 09:56 PM.

  • 0

#3367 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:16 PM

If it's true that we are going to lose the season over $200mil spread out over 5 yrs, then that is indeed very sad.
Players need to cave and work out some kind of strategy to recoup their losses.


It's not just about money. If it were, they would probably already be playing. The problem is despite players making big monetary concessions and offers to address multiple other concerns of the NHL, the league wants them to also give up significant contractual rights which would effect every year of their careers. Like the article I quoted on the last page said,

From the beginning, the players have been giving and giving and giving again in relation to the last CBA while the NHL is “giving” only play money, in relation to the league’s initial offer — which was like something drawn up by a madman. (Yes, that madman.) On top of the huge financial giveback, the league is demanding that players surrender contracting rights it took six decades to win.


Players need to cave and work out some kind of strategy to recoup their losses.


The players ended up caving last time and we are now seeing the result. Obviously caving did not make the league more stable, despite year after year of record revenue. If players simply cave this time, go ahead and set your watch for "lockout" when the next CBA expires. And the one after that. And the one after that, because it will only reinforce the idea that owners should just lockout players for any reason at all and then make a wishlist of demands because in the end they always get what they want.

The NHL is the only pro sports league in North America to lose an entire season to a labor dispute and may very well be heading in that direction again despite players having already agreed to many of their demands. And despite the damage any other league would assume it's doing to its own business, the NHL's own numbers show they still think they'll be making money over and above what they made last season as soon as 2013/14! [EDIT: Years corrected.] They believe that they, among all sports leagues, are special and will never face any consequences for their actions, no matter how petty or unnecessary. Encouraging that will never create a more stable league, only guarantee more of the same behavior.

Would it be possible for them to withhold all non hockey related services? Ie: just play the game. No photo ops, no media interviews, just play the game. No winter classic, no all-star game.


That would be a form of strike. What would be the point of willingly signing a CBA and then striking because you don't like the deal? They would have absolutely no legal ground to stand on in that event. Their only time to make a stand for the substance of that agreement is before it's made.

Besides, the Winter Classic and All Star games have already been cancelled for this year.

Could they not take control (as a group) of their own endorsement and sponsorship deals and earn revenue for themselves that way?


Some players already have individual endorsement deals and those aren't controlled by the NHL (other than the rules governing them in the CBA, such as saying they can say which team they play for for identification purposes but I think not use the logo or otherwise imply the team's involvement, and they can't endorse tobacco products.)

The problem is, only some players get endorsement deals. Only some players have that kind of option, but the reduced share and the contractual issues effect all of them and will eventually limit the careers of players not yet in the NHL. They aren't just fighting for themselves, but also for the players to come later.

A successful league should always be a 3-way partnership between owners, athletes and fans. Fans have given them record revenue and players have offered multiple concessions and suggestions in the interest of the long-term health of the league. It's the owners' turn to do their part.

Edited by poetica, 26 November 2012 - 11:22 AM.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3368 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:23 PM

poetica, poetica, wherefore art thou poetica...

your name is poem, but your thoughts are black
do unto others as thou would have done
unto you if you can hold that thought
or do you know how to have any fun?


Wow. You are bad at poetry.

But tell me, do you take your own advice? Do you hold it for all others, or reserve it just for some? Are owners doing as you want people to do unto you?

And does it even matter to you at all when your name means the Canucks are without meaning?
  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3369 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:42 PM

anyways - what fan wants more free agency for players anyways? let's analyze this for a sec... do you want your stars going to larger markets sooner or later (van is a small market, if you don't know).

it is a complete anomalie that van and the canadian cities are prosperous - really they shouldn't be. by population and tv audience we suck. it is only cause the NHL is so poorly run and the world economic crisis with canadians still having money to blow, that is the only reason it supposedly looks good for us right now. illusory. going to disappear. believe me, we want parity. cause we are one of the have-not teams in 10 years from now, when the US is energy self-sufficient, and their economy is blazing (er... debt crisis notwithstanding.. ahem.. cough cough, but then we're all fracked).

those who live in glass houses....

so what the owners want is probably actually good for us. we're just too stupid to understand that.


I think you should spend more time with your nose in an econ textbook and less with it stuck to the TV watching CNN. American politicians have been saying how it wants North America to become energy self-sufficient. But the States have mostly coal and natural gas. They get the vast majority of their oil and uranium from us (and much of their natural gas because it's cheaper). We also export electricity to them from surplus hydro and nuclear power. The US has serious energy problems. Coupled with it's health care and education systems, it's economic problems are going to be long-lasting. If our dollar loses value in the next few decades, it will be because of a massive breakdown in the Canadian economy. It's not happening.

Not only do Canadians have the money to spend on hockey, they have a far greater desire to pay for it. It's not an anomaly that the Canadian teams are doing well. We've simply that their profits have been under-represented in the past relative to some American franchises.
  • 0

#3370 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:49 PM

poetica, poetica, wherefore art thou poetica...

your name is poem, but your thoughts are black
do unto others as thou would have done
unto you if you can hold that thought
or do you know how to have any fun?


Poetica is just one of the die hards who honestly thought the union was ENTITLED to be 50% partners with the guys who own 100% of the league.

Its just a naive point of view when you have never run a business or seen life outside of being provided for.

In spite of his union going down in flames, he is holding vigil right to the end. Spinning away from his original point of view further every day.

I guess if the union makes any deal at all he will try to claim 'victory' because Fehr got .0001% of what he was hired to get in 2010

It makes for good theater anyways.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3371 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:58 PM

I think you should spend more time with your nose in an econ textbook and less with it stuck to the TV watching CNN. American politicians have been saying how it wants North America to become energy self-sufficient. But the States have mostly coal and natural gas. They get the vast majority of their oil and uranium from us (and much of their natural gas because it's cheaper). We also export electricity to them from surplus hydro and nuclear power. The US has serious energy problems. Coupled with it's health care and education systems, it's economic problems are going to be long-lasting. If our dollar loses value in the next few decades, it will be because of a massive breakdown in the Canadian economy. It's not happening.

Not only do Canadians have the money to spend on hockey, they have a far greater desire to pay for it. It's not an anomaly that the Canadian teams are doing well. We've simply that their profits have been under-represented in the past relative to some American franchises.


Your post has merit except the americans have so much untapped oil reserves off the shores, the gulf, alaska and a HUGE supply in the rockie mountians.

I have always thought we were HOARDING it until the rest of the world ran out in 2150, then charge 1000 bucks a barrel.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3372 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,199 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:19 PM

Poetica is just one of the die hards who honestly thought the union was ENTITLED to be 50% partners with the guys who own 100% of the league.

Its just a naive point of view when you have never run a business or seen life outside of being provided for.

In spite of his union going down in flames, he is holding vigil right to the end. Spinning away from his original point of view further every day.

I guess if the union makes any deal at all he will try to claim 'victory' because Fehr got .0001% of what he was hired to get in 2010

It makes for good theater anyways.


Why is it that you bash everyone who thinks Fehr is doing a great job, and who believes the PA has been far more willing to negotiate than the NHL.

Yet whenever I ask you why you think Fehr is so bad, or whenever I ask you to defend your stance or whatever it may be. You never reply.

I just don't understand, for someone who is so anti-fehr, and is comfortable being so negative towards people who don't share your stance, you don't really explain yourself well at all.
  • 2

zackass.png


#3373 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:23 PM

I hate this lockout, but I love a good poem
They've both got their c*ck out tryin to show'em
Who's greedier than whom, so we might as well chuck
Them in to a room till they both give a...
  • 2

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#3374 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,957 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:26 PM

...
unions weren't made to represent millionaires, in protection against the billionaires.

unions were made to represent those who could not afford to represent themselves.
...

In the simplest terms, unions were formed to protect workers from unfair treatment by the owners. Then again, unions have different powers now as everything evolves to meet with the needs of the world as it is currently, unless you're Amish.

Are you Amish, canucksnihilist? Did you break Amish to use a computer so you could give us a history lesson? I see a shunning in your future!

...
so what the owners want is probably actually good for us. we're just too stupid to understand that.

I'd tend to think the owners that okay'd massive deals they couldn't afford and hoped they could fix with a new CBA might just be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. That should have been a big clue for anyone who thinks the owners are the smartest people in the room when it comes to what's best for the NHL and it's players.
  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#3375 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,199 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:27 PM

I hate this lockout, but I love a good poem
They've both got their c*ck out tryin to show'em
Who's greedier than whom, so we might as well chuck
Them in to a room till they both give a...


I see what you did there.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 25 November 2012 - 11:27 PM.

  • 1

zackass.png


#3376 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,945 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 26 November 2012 - 01:25 AM

You guys should tweet Fehr and tell him to get the NHLPA to watch what they say online tweets FB ect...lol Bolland is a big dummy... ;)
  • 0

#3377 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:19 AM

You guys should tweet Fehr and tell him to get the NHLPA to watch what they say online tweets FB ect...lol Bolland is a big dummy... ;)

You should tweet your buddy Jimmy D, to watch what he says, bigger dummy.
  • 0

#3378 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:25 AM

You should tweet your buddy Jimmy D, to watch what he says, bigger dummy.


Are you serious?

Bolland asked for someone to be dead.
Jimmy D suggested the players, and himself included, are cattle while the owners are ranchers in a stupid analogy.

Jimmy D dummy? Yes. Bigger dummy than someone who suggests someone else needs to be dead? I don't think so.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3379 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,513 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:31 AM

This. He's just their puppet and doesn't have the ability to run this league the way it should be. Too many owners want things their way even if it's not helpful to the league and this is no exception, either with the CBA negotiations or keeping Bettman around.

This is the Ironic part, he keeps his job by not doing his job, if he did his job he would be fired inside of 3 months. His job is not to play Smithers to the owners Mr Burns, if you read his job description, he is supposed to protect the integrity of the game and the trust of the fans, as well as ensure labour peace, anyone seen any of those things around lately?

To put it in plain English, he isn't supposed to be an extension of the owners, he is supposed to protect the game FROM the owners.
  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#3380 stuckinontario

stuckinontario

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,270 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 04

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:42 AM

Just posted this bit from a brand-spanking-new TSN web article in the Decertification thread, figured I'd put it here, too:

LEGAL LOOK: A PRIMER ON NHLPA DECERTIFICATION
ERIC MACRAMALLA, SPECIAL TO TSN.CA
11/26/2012 11:53:40 AM

With talks seemingly stalled, we are hearing the NHLPA and players are considering decertification as their next option. NBA commissioner David Stern characterized decertification as triggering a 'nuclear winter.' Decertification has also been called an AK-47. It's a pretty dramatic tool and can have serious repercussions.

What is Decertification?
It's unlawful for competitors to get together and fix the marketplace. If they do so, they open themselves up to antitrust lawsuits. This applies to the NHL, because the 30 team owners are competitors and they get together and place restrictions on the NHL marketplace. Things like a salary cap, free agency restrictions and rookie pay are all on their face antitrust violations. Another thing that is an antitrust violation: the owners (as competitors) getting together and agreeing to lockout the players.
However, since these restrictions are inside the protective bubble that is the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the NHL is protected and the players can't sue for these antitrust violations. So the CBA insulates the NHL from antitrust lawsuits.
That's where decertification comes in. It refers to the NHL players revoking the NHLPA's authority to bargain on their behalf and effectively blows up the Union.
And that leads to the important part - by decertifying, the CBA rule protecting the NHL against antitrust lawsuits may no longer apply and players are now free to sue the NHL for antitrust violations. So decertification is like the pin that bursts the protective CBA bubble.
The first antitrust violation the players would tackle in court would be to have the illegal boycott that is the NHL lockout declared unlawful and lifted.

Are Decertification and Disclaimer of Interest The Same?
No. These terms are used interchangeably but are not the same thing. Decertification refers to the players voting to no longer have the NHLPA represent it. It requires the players to vote on decertification and then to subsequently have the National Labor Relations Board validate decertification.
Disclaiming interest occurs when the Union terminates its right to represent the players. It's a less formal process than decertification and only requires the Union to renounce representation of the players. It's easier to do and it takes less time to re-form the Union afterwards.
While they are different, the net effect is the same: the Union is dissolved and the players are free to sue for antitrust violations.

Why Would the Players Decertify?
NHL players hope that the threat of antitrust litigation will pressure the NHL to settle on more favourable terms. So Unions are dissolved in these types of negotiations with a view to extracting leverage in CBA negotiations. In the short term, the threat of a lockout being lifted by way of a court order may give the NHL the incentive to consider settlement. The players could also sue for antitrust violations like the salary cap and free agency restrictions. Antitrust litigation can be a powerful weapon as it can result in the award of treble damages, which refers to three times the actual damages. Simply put, antitrust litigation may result in catastrophic monetary damages awarded against the league. We are potentially looking at hundreds of millions of dollars.

What's After Decertification?
Once the NHLPA is decertified, the next step would be for the players to file a lawsuit asking a court to end the lockout on the basis that it's unlawful. If the players are successful, the NHL would appeal the court's decision.
Ultimately, if the players win and the lockout is deemed unlawful, the NHL would need to resume operations.

Would The NHL Have Any Defences?
Expect the NHL to argue that the NHLPA's decertification is a sham. They would say that it's nothing more than an opportunistic and transparent attempt to extract leverage in CBA negotiations. Decertification is a serious move, and it should not be akin to turning a light switch on and off when it's convenient. Decertification is a far more formal process than disclaiming interest, and as a result may not be as vulnerable to a sham argument.
The NHL could also maintain that federal labor law prevents courts from issuing orders that end lockouts. And there is a precedent for that. That's what the Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruled in the Tom Brady case, where the players were looking to have the lockout lifted. In that case, the Appeals Court said that the NFL lockout should stay in place because a federal statute called the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents federal courts from issuing injunctions during labor disputes to end work stoppages.
This decision is important for the NHL. However, it doesn't mean that the NHL would win based on this decision. It's of limited value. While it lifted the lockout, the Appeals Court actually didn't rule on whether the lockout was legal. Had the NFL players pursued the case, it's possible that the lockout could have been declared illegal by the Court. As well, Eighth Circuit decisions are binding on courts within the Eighth Circuit – but not other courts. If the players took the lawsuit to a different circuit, they may stand a better chance.
As for this circuit talk, in the U.S., the Courts of Appeal cover their own individual circuits. For example, the Eighth Circuit Appeals Court handles cases from places like Minnesota and Nebraska.

Where Would The Players File A Lawsuit?
Well it's unlikely to be the Eighth Circuit. The first thing the players would ask for would be to have the lockout lifted and we know that the Eighth Circuit based on the Brady decision might well say no. So the key for the players would be to file the lawsuit in a circuit that is more player friendly. That means they could well file in the Ninth Circuit, which, in part, handles cases from California. This circuit is known to be more progressive and pro-player.

Could The NHL File A Lawsuit First?
The NHL could move pre-emptively - and they probably should if they feel the threat of litigation is real. By filing first and doing so in a jurisdiction that both sides are connected to, it makes it more difficult for the players to have their case heard in a sympathetic circuit like the Ninth Circuit. For the NHL, they could look to file in the Second Circuit, which handles cases, in part, out of New York. That circuit has more owner friendly decisions. In fact, that's precisely what the NBA did faced with the possibility of the NBPA dissolving itself. The NBA went to court first and did so in the Second Circuit.
So overall, the players might prefer the Ninth Circuit, while the NHL might want to head to the Second Circuit or maybe the Eighth Circuit. It will be interesting to see if a lawsuit is filed, and if so, who files first. If I'm the NHL, I'm filing that lawsuit yesterday.

What Would Be Considered A Good Win For The NHL?
If the NHL can get a Court to keep the lockout in place, that would be a big win for the league because the lockout would remain in place for an indefinite period of time. That would undoubtedly create more leverage for the league.
Imagine the opposite - the players win and the lockout is lifted. If that happens, the league would really have to look to get this settled in a hurry. The last thing it wants is to resume operations against its will.

Who Would Win In Court?
The only certainty here is uncertainty. Each side can improve the chances of success by employing a good strategy. However, the law here is sorted and complex and it's too tough to say which side is heavily favoured in court. Frankly, if this ends up in the courts no one will win. There will be losers, though, I suspect. The goodwill associated with the NHL brand will continue to erode. As a result, fans – even those in traditional hockey markets – may turn away from the game. Some may do so temporarily, while others may not ever come back. So everyone loses here – the owners, the players and the fans. Well there are potentially two winners here – lawyers and their billable hours.

If The Players Decertify Is The Season Over?
The season wouldn't be over, but it makes it more likely that there will be no hockey this season. The NHLPA and Donald Fehr are considering this option quite late, and decertification doesn't happen overnight. It can take up to 45 days. That could take us well into January. Then you have the lawsuits. That also takes time. Judges are just going to expedite things because they may be in a hockey pool. Ultimately, though, the players hope that the mere threat of decertification will be enough to get the NHL to settle on more favourable terms.

My Head Is Spinning - Is That Normal?
Totally and Completely.

So What's Next?
Let's see if the NHLPA is decertified and who files a lawsuit first.

Is There A Chance the Lockout Will End Soon?
The hope is that things do get settled in the short term. There are obvious areas of compromise, and the hope is that the sides can settle on them. This isn't 2004. Back then, the NHL business model was broken with up to 73% of league revenue going to players. Fans were more likely to indulge the league as it looked to fix its business. This time around, however, the business model is not broken and the sides are grappling over revenue share. With fans less likely to look favourably on either side, settling soon is in the best interest of all parties involved.

Eric Macramalla is TSN's Legal Analyst and can be heard each week on TSN Radio 1050. You can follow him on Twitter @EricOnSportslaw.
  • 1
Posted Image
Canucks brass, send scouts out to Ptbo!

#3381 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,444 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:52 AM

How much do you guys think the owner of a company generally takes home percentage wise?
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#3382 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:53 AM

How much do you guys think the owner of a company generally takes home percentage wise?


Anywhere from a loss to 10%


Edit: and 10% is considered very good.

Edited by Shift-4, 26 November 2012 - 10:57 AM.

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

#3383 Raoul Duke

Raoul Duke

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,084 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 04

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:19 AM

poetica, poetica, wherefore art thou poetica...

your name is poem, but your thoughts are black
do unto others as thou would have done
unto you if you can hold that thought
or do you know how to have any fun?


HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!

What the hellllllll was that???

  • 0

Kershaw_zps0cb5a848.jpg


#3384 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,664 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:29 AM

Real_ESPNLeBrun: I was hoping the NHL was announcing the cancellation of the all-star game - forever. Darn it.

:lol: I'm with Pierre


Me too, I detest that stupid brand of hockey.
  • 0

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#3385 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,444 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:29 AM

Anywhere from a loss to 10%


Edit: and 10% is considered very good.


Follow up question...

How much (percentage wise) would an owner pay for their workforce and product? (Of course in a business where they are selling a product and not a service.)

I have to think that number is at least 50%.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#3386 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:56 AM

Follow up question...

How much (percentage wise) would an owner pay for their workforce and product? (Of course in a business where they are selling a product and not a service.)

I have to think that number is at least 50%.


Not in my experience. If it is a capital intensive (needing lots of machinery, plant space, etc) it can be under 30% easily. Retail would be even less (I just peeked at Rona 2011 financial statements $486M personnel expenses on over $4B in revenue.)

Since we are talking a service industry with NHL I thought I would compare it to the company I do the accounting for now which is mostly service based. The total personnel expense (including benefits) is around 35% of revenues.




It is my personnel opinion that all of that is irrelevant to the NHL situation, however. It is between the league and the PA as to where that should land.

Edited by Shift-4, 26 November 2012 - 11:59 AM.

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

#3387 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,945 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:59 AM

I doubt that the NHLPA would decertify....because of all the effort that has gone on so far and the players have lost games and money trying to stick it the Mighty owners. It would be a huge fail and slap in the face of those who believed in the NHLPA and stuck with them. But in the end to have it all go to decertification....most will see it as a waste when it comes down to everyman for himself...lol

Chants begin to moan out of the NHLPA crowds: cave cavE caVE cAVE CAVE CAVE~!
  • 0

#3388 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:07 PM

Follow up question...

How much (percentage wise) would an owner pay for their workforce and product? (Of course in a business where they are selling a product and not a service.)

I have to think that number is at least 50%.


If you're interested, I made a post about what some other industries pay for salaries on page 89 of this thread:

http://forum.canucks...0#entry10980313

And of course, that's just for employees and wouldn't include paying for things like the right to use a person's name or image to generate revenue.

Edited by poetica, 26 November 2012 - 12:09 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3389 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:13 PM

If you're interested, I made a post about what some other industries pay for salaries on page 89 of this thread:

http://forum.canucks...0#entry10980313

And of course, that's just for employees and wouldn't include paying for things like the right to use a person's name or image to generate revenue.


Most of those are percentage of total cost.

I thought EOTM was asking % of total revenue.




Edit: nvm.............got clarification from EOTM :)

Edited by Shift-4, 26 November 2012 - 01:11 PM.

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

#3390 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:30 PM

It's true that most businesses do not spend 50% of their revenues on salaries. However, sports are unique.

Average workers in an average industry are not comparable to professional athletes who among the best in the world. They are the employees AND the product. And their contract involves far more than regular, 9-to-5 employment conditions.

At the time of the 2004 lockout, player salaries were around 73% of revenue. Owners have been trying to drive that down as much as possible. Getting it down to 57% was a coup for them. But, like most large corporations, it's not about what is fair - it is about getting every last dollar you can. And if you cut the BS, that is all this lockout is about.
  • 0
Posted Image




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.