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

#3631 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:27 PM

I agree 100%, I will hate myself if hockey comes back because I know I'm weak.

I don't want to be I just am.


:lol:


Don't know if I said that wrong.............just meant if it is going to be cancelled just get it over and done with.
By all means I would rather the puck dropped :)
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3632 vavoom

vavoom

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:32 PM

I wonder if it is possible or feasible to introduce an owner/player option to solve the long term contracts issue. For example, first option goes to the owner to rollback the $ amount of existing contracts on a contract by contract basis. If this happens, then the player should have an option to accept the rollback or go to free agency.
  • 0

#3633 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:37 PM

I wish it was that easy and we get to watch hockey soon.

The biggest deal breaker right now is Fehr is asking for guaranteed $$$ no matter what happens to HRR. Actually its worst, Fehr is asking for guaranteed $1.88 Billion + equal share of any increase in HRR over the length of the CBA, but players don't get any less $$$ than previous year of deal if HRR drops. It would decouple the salary cap from revenue. How can the owners possibly agree to that after fighting so hard for a salary cap. Not gonna happen.


That is NOT true. Haven't we had this discussion before?

Here's a direct quote from the players' last proposal made public:

- Our players' share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

- Player share will equal 50% of HRR, plus these fixed dollar payments attributable to the first four years of the agreement:
- 2012/13: $ 182M
- 2013/14: $ 128M
- 2014/15: $ 72M
- 2015/16: $ 11M

Source: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409992

As that clearly proves, it is absolutely untrue to say they are demanding a guarantee of $1.88B because that number is based on last season's HRR but the "never dip below the previous season level" rule doesn't come into play until season 2 UNDER THE NEW CBA. Even if HRR in the first full season back does reach last season's level, the players' share will not be $1.88B because they'll be getting 50% and not 57%.

I don't know if that rule will make into the new CBA or not, or even if the owners have a problem with it at all (as far as I know, we only have people's guess that it's a deal breaker for the owners), but I still think that should be an easy give for them because HRR NEVER went backwards under the last agreement, even with a major world economic recession. Being that the level will be set each season HRR rises under the new CBA and that the damage from the lockout should be upfront and then taper off as fans' and sponsors' anger recedes, it really shouldn't be a big deal to guarantee to players that they aren't going to end up losing even more in the future.

As for the "they want to be partners but not take equal risk" argument, well, that cuts both ways. Owners can't make bad decisions, like placing and keeping money losing teams in bad markets, and then ask players to pay for them by taking cuts and making concessions time after time and then pull out the ole "but we want to be partners who share the risks" crap every time it suits them. They are either partners in giving and taking or they're not at all. They want players to take equal risks, then they need to do their part by not damaging the league with suckhole teams and being willing to make equal concessions by meeting players half way in a CBA negotiation, not half way from their purposefully ridiculous initial offer.

If you want to complain about them asking for any guarantee at all, go ahead, but at least complain about the reality of latest offer we know about and not an outdated version.

Edited by poetica, 30 November 2012 - 01:39 PM.

  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3634 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,002 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:51 PM

I can't help shaking the feeling that just as 04-05 was about players share every bit as much the salary cap that this standoff is more about guaranteed contracts than it is about hard dollars.

The attack on contract rights spells out in plain sight in my eyes. Salary cap + no guaranteed contracts = sports ownership nirvana.

If we lose a season, union decertification or not, I think this was the objective all along. The only way the NHL was going to give this fight up was with massive concessions on everything else.

Mark my words, if the season is lost, non-guaranteed contracts are all we will be hearing about from then on.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#3635 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:55 PM

Posted Image
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#3636 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,401 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:55 PM

players can’t let League eliminate their Fehr Filter

Do you know why Gary Bettman gets defecated upon by the majority of NHL players during the lockout?
Because it's easier than splattering the owners.
Easier because he's had a lockout hat trick. Easier because he's a lightning rod for criticism and symbolic of all the elitist corporate hypocrisy that the players feel fuels the work stoppage.
But also easier because, inherently, the players don't want to believe their guy is the reason they're not collecting paychecks and letting the game die on the vine. They want to believe their owners and GMs are going through labor hell for a valorous reason beyond a cash grab. They want to believe their guy isn't the guy driving the lockout — Boston Bruins players, obviously, excluded.
Bettman's a terrible messenger, like having an IRS auditor breaking bad news to families in intensive care. Put the owners and players in a room without their respective hatchet men — Bettman and NHLPA chief Donald Fehr — and you end up with different lines of communication being opened.
Like when Trevor Linden, NHLPA president, listened to the late Harley Hotchkiss, the co-owner of the Calgary Flames and chairman of the board of governors, back in 2005.
Linden and Hotchkiss met in small groups that didn't have either Bettman or then-NHLPA chief Bob Goodenow present in the room, as their negotiations had become rancid and pointless. This allowed Hotchkiss to make his plea directly to Linden: That the NHL's small-market teams needed help to survive, and here's how the players can help them.
History has judged it differently, but Linden was framed as a capitulator to the owners when the lockout ended, as did the tenure of Goodenow. His conversations with Hotchkiss were seen as an influence.
So of course the NHL, at the this juncture, is willing to get the players and the owners in the same room for a dialogue, without Bettman or Fehr present. In theory, it's a great way to generate good will and new ideas.
In reality, it's just another run at the Fehr Filter, if it's not just a half-hearted PR gambit.

From ESPN.com, the post-federal mediation news about Bettman's meeting proposal:


The news wasn't 90 minutes old that mediation had failed to bring any progress in NHL labor talks when word surfaced that the NHL commissioner offered Thursday to NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr to have owners and players only in the next bargaining session (whenever that is) -- no league or union brass or staff.
I'll say this for the commissioner, this one caught everyone off guard.
"We want to find a way to get to a deal," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told ESPN.com via email Thursday evening, explaining the surprise offer. "Nothing else has worked. The commissioner felt that we might as well propose something different. We will see how they respond."


The NHLPA is said to be "considering" the offer.
If they accept, it'll be conditionally. Katie Strang of ESPN New York wants to see all the owners involved.
Nick Cotsonika wants to see these adopted for the meeting:


Two conditions: Allow all the owners to come, or at least a cross-section of them, and not just the few who have been involved in the negotiations, like hawk Jeremy Jacobs of the Boston Bruins. Allow lawyers to advise the players, so the seasoned businessmen don't have an unfair advantage.


Again, it's a nice idea: The players and owners, the ones who allegedly care about the game more than the soul-less fiends that represent them in negotiations, getting together to find common ground and bang out a deal.
But again: This is just the NHL's way to get Donald Fehr out of the room, and is using the "removal" of Gary Bettman from the process as a carrot.
Already, we've seen:
The NHL proclaim for months that it does not "believe Fehr speaks for the players, and has hijacked the negotiations to suit his own ends."
• That, specifically, Fehr misled the players in an internal memo after negotiations in early November.
• The NHL giving general managers a 48-hour window that many of them never knew existed to speak directly to the player — without telling the NHLPA about the edict.
It's divide and conquer. Like a child getting what it wants from one parent after the other said "no", through the awesome power of flattery. Like a League that attempts to pry away the players from their leadership in order to fracture the union.
Don't let Roman Hamrlik fool you: It hasn't worked yet. But the League feels that Donald Fehr is the reason we're not playing hockey right now, and the tactic is to remove him from the process to open the players' eyes — like burning Indiana Jones with fire to snap him out of the Temple of Doom trance.
Perhaps they're correct, and Fehr's unwillingness to offer clarity and progress in the negotiating room is pushing the season to the brink.
Or perhaps they realize that he's got these players coalesced together like a Jacques Lemaire trap, and there's a better chance they launch the decertification nuclear option than there is that they'll cut a deal.
New offers. Mediation. Meetings without Gary Bettman in the room. The NHL is scrambling. Question is, is that a symptom of losing this labor war to the union or a collection of last-ditch efforts before they blow up the 2012-13 season?


  • 0

#3637 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,274 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:28 PM

players can’t let League eliminate their Fehr Filter

Well now doesn't that blow the Gary Bettman is a a**hole who is single handedly blowing the NHL season into dust! Stand aside Gary the big boys are movin in! Ownership is more united about their objectives than people think. Whatever numbers they are crunching establish their direction. Sorry but the 'Group of Eight' does not control the NHL owners and never has. There are hawks and doves in any group but the overall direction has been consistant.
  • 0

#3638 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:57 PM

Our special Christmas gift this year from Bettman is a cancelled season. He will announce it at Christmas morning when everyone is opening their gifts.

Posted Image

Edited by Pouria, 30 November 2012 - 04:00 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#3639 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:16 PM

That is NOT true. Haven't we had this discussion before?

Here's a direct quote from the players' last proposal made public:

Source: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409992

As that clearly proves, it is absolutely untrue to say they are demanding a guarantee of $1.88B because that number is based on last season's HRR but the "never dip below the previous season level" rule doesn't come into play until season 2 UNDER THE NEW CBA. Even if HRR in the first full season back does reach last season's level, the players' share will not be $1.88B because they'll be getting 50% and not 57%.

I don't know if that rule will make into the new CBA or not, or even if the owners have a problem with it at all (as far as I know, we only have people's guess that it's a deal breaker for the owners), but I still think that should be an easy give for them because HRR NEVER went backwards under the last agreement, even with a major world economic recession. Being that the level will be set each season HRR rises under the new CBA and that the damage from the lockout should be upfront and then taper off as fans' and sponsors' anger recedes, it really shouldn't be a big deal to guarantee to players that they aren't going to end up losing even more in the future.

As for the "they want to be partners but not take equal risk" argument, well, that cuts both ways. Owners can't make bad decisions, like placing and keeping money losing teams in bad markets, and then ask players to pay for them by taking cuts and making concessions time after time and then pull out the ole "but we want to be partners who share the risks" crap every time it suits them. They are either partners in giving and taking or they're not at all. They want players to take equal risks, then they need to do their part by not damaging the league with suckhole teams and being willing to make equal concessions by meeting players half way in a CBA negotiation, not half way from their purposefully ridiculous initial offer.

If you want to complain about them asking for any guarantee at all, go ahead, but at least complain about the reality of latest offer we know about and not an outdated version.


players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players’ share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.


What this means is, it doesn't matter what the actual HRR is, player's share will not come down even if revenue comes down. This means players share is effectively delinked from HRR. Guaranteed $$$.

In years two through five of this Agreement, the players’ share in dollars may not be less than it was in the previous year.

So players are guaranteed to make equal to or more $$$ in every season accept for the lock out shortened season this year, not matter what happens to HRR. This equals delink.

This demand is a huge reason for Fehr not wanting to negotiate how a lockout shortened season's HRR would work. He wants to agree to the entire agreement then talk about first season. So the 1st season revenue would be prorated to a full season's revenue to calculate what the guaranteed $$ for the players in year 2 would be. Fehr is on record arguing the owners take financial loss for locking out players. How I interpret this is the HRR for 12/13 season should be at least what it was last year and perhaps even + 5% growth, pro rated for this year but HRR for next year would be $3.2 billion +

The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement.


This is as simple as it gets. Fehr wants to decouple from HRR, IMO there is no way owners agree to do this after losing an entire season in 04/05 to get a salary cap in place.

source http://www.cbc.ca/sp...a-proposal.html

I understand you feel this is not a big deal, HRR is not going to drop, its going to keep going up, HRR didn't drop during 08 recession, etc, etc. etc... All these things don't matter.

What happened before doesn't mean it will continue to happen in perpetuity. If the owners accept this deal Fehr will have reversed a hard cap based on HRR. He will have delinked salaries from HRR.

I just don't see the owners accepting this.
  • 0

#3640 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:40 PM

Will NHL agree to NHLPA’s request for guaranteed players’ share growth?


Jason Brough
Nov 21, 2012, 2:51 PM EST

Getty Images


While it’s clear the NHLPA has made moves towards the NHL, expect the following part of the union’s latest CBA proposal (as perthe memo sent to the players) to grab the league’s attention:
“There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players’ share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.”
So basically the union is saying there are no guarantees…unless you count the guarantee that the players’ share will never decrease year to year.
For the NHL, this of course means that hockey-related revenues can’t decrease year to year, otherwise the players will receive more than the agreed upon 50 percent of HRR.
Will the owners take that risk? Because there’s no telling how this lockout will be greeted by fans and sponsors. And the economy is anything but guaranteed to improve. There’s even concern in Canada that the dollar could fall considerably if there’s a slowdown in China.
Business is unpredictable. If it wasn’t, we’d all know if we should buy RIM stock.
Yahoo! Sports’ Nick Cotsonika makes another point:

PA proposal doesn't just hurt owners for a bad year. It hurts them for a GOOD year. If revenues spike one year, it costs them the next.
  • 0

#3641 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,687 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:53 PM

...
I understand you feel this is not a big deal, HRR is not going to drop, its going to keep going up, HRR didn't drop during 08 recession, etc, etc. etc... All these things don't matter.

What happened before doesn't mean it will continue to happen in perpetuity. If the owners accept this deal Fehr will have reversed a hard cap based on HRR. He will have delinked salaries from HRR.

I just don't see the owners accepting this.

My point to this is that both sides are still projecting continued growth (or they were), and it is much more likely that there wouldn't be any significant spike in revenue followed by a large drop that would make that clause enough of a penalty to be worried about.

Both sides want growth, and just like the NHLPA got with the 54%/57% HRR levels in the last CBA they're trying to encourage the NHL to aim for growth with this clause. The NHL certainly isn't going to give them 51 or 52% of HRR if their revenue projections were overly pessimistic, so the NHLPA is asking for something that forces the NHL to look at areas that are issues in the business outside the players' control.

I've said before anyway, if the contracting details can be negotiated more to the players' favour, then the NHLPA will likely come down on financial issues.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#3642 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:02 PM

My point to this is that both sides are still projecting continued growth (or they were), and it is much more likely that there wouldn't be any significant spike in revenue followed by a large drop that would make that clause enough of a penalty to be worried about.

Both sides want growth, and just like the NHLPA got with the 54%/57% HRR levels in the last CBA they're trying to encourage the NHL to aim for growth with this clause. The NHL certainly isn't going to give them 51 or 52% of HRR if their revenue projections were overly pessimistic, so the NHLPA is asking for something that forces the NHL to look at areas that are issues in the business outside the players' control.

I've said before anyway, if the contracting details can be negotiated more to the players' favour, then the NHLPA will likely come down on financial issues.


No one can guaranteed continued growth. China is slowing down. If this continues Canada will slow down and Loonie will come down. US is on the verge of another recession. Some analysts are saying US is already in another recession. No one knows what the negative effects of the lockout will be.

If in year 2 of the CBA HRR grows and for the rest of the years it continues to drop, players share of HRR % goes up every year. This is not 50-50.

Fehr is asking for guaranteed $67.5 million cap upper limit in every year of the CBA. This is De linkage.

Lets say both parties really believe the NHL does continue to grow. Then why the argument?? Why ask for guarantees?? IMO the reason is to break the cap system. It is to delink from HRR.

Edited by WHL rocks, 30 November 2012 - 05:11 PM.

  • 0

#3643 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:12 PM

I wish it was that easy and we get to watch hockey soon.

The biggest deal breaker right now is Fehr is asking for guaranteed $$$ no matter what happens to HRR. Actually its worst, Fehr is asking for guaranteed $1.88 Billion + equal share of any increase in HRR over the length of the CBA, but players don't get any less $$$ than previous year of deal if HRR drops. It would decouple the salary cap from revenue. How can the owners possibly agree to that after fighting so hard for a salary cap. Not gonna happen.


Well I think it isn't not a completely unreasonable request to ask for more than 50% in the first year for the players unless the transition payments are made to satisfacton or close to it, after all they are taking a big rollback for the NHL and they aren't getting anything for it.
  • 1

zackass.png


#3644 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:24 PM

Well I think it isn't not a completely unreasonable request to ask for more than 50% in the first year for the players unless the transition payments are made to satisfacton or close to it, after all they are taking a big rollback for the NHL and they aren't getting anything for it.


I only quoted your post because you mentioned the difference was only $182 million. You recommended splitting the difference @ $91 million each and we're in business. I think if this was the only problem your solution makes 100% sense.

If you believe the PA should get 52% or 62% that's fine by me. It's your opinion and I respect that. I may believe PA should only get 40% of HRR or there should be a hard cap ceiling of $50 million and no cap floor.

I was just pointing out that the biggest issue is PA's desire to delink from HRR, not $182 million.
  • 0

#3645 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:25 PM

What this means is, it doesn't matter what the actual HRR is, player's share will not come down even if revenue comes down. This means players share is effectively delinked from HRR. Guaranteed $$$.


I'm not arguing that they are asking for a guarantee that their share never drops below the level of the previous season under the new CBA. But, that is not what you said. You said they were demanding a guarantee of $1.88B plus HRR increases and that is not true.

So players are guaranteed to make equal to or more $$$ in every season accept for the lock out shortened season this year, not matter what happens to HRR. This equals delink.


But it does not equal an automatic $1.88B like you said.

This demand is a huge reason for Fehr not wanting to negotiate how a lockout shortened season's HRR would work. He wants to agree to the entire agreement then talk about first season.


The entire purpose of the last PA proposal was to show how they would deal with a lockout shortened season (assuming there even is one!) It was because they were acknowledging the damage of a lockout shortened season that they agreed to a straight 50% of HRR + a "make whole" payment only in the first year with no guaranteed amount.

Fehr is on record arguing the owners take financial loss for locking out players. How I interpret this is the HRR for 12/13 season should be at least what it was last year and perhaps even + 5% growth, pro rated for this year but HRR for next year would be $3.2 billion +


What he's said in the media and what the proposal says are 2 completely different things, just as how you interpret things and reality are 2 completely different things at times.

The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement.


Their proposal does say that, but that is where things start to get murky because of several significant facts you failed to take into account.

First, the salary cap is what teams spend, not what they have to pay players per se. If teams overpay the players' 50% share, they will get that money back from the escrow accounts. So, that doesn't create a base requirement for what players' will get. They will end up getting only their agreed upon share percentage.

Second, that quote is for the salary cap, not the players' share. Unlike under the last CBA (because things were apparently too simple <_<), the current proposals will have multiple things counted against the cap but not the players' share. The last PA proposal, for example, included these additions to cap:
  • "Players and cash/cap trading. A team may have an unlimited number of Retained Salary Transactions up to 15% of the Upper Limit in any League year."
  • "The amount in excess of $1M paid to a player while in the minor leagues or in Europe on an NHL contract counts against the cap (none counts against the share). This applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect."
  • Whatever the heck their "cap benefit recapture" is. I know it's to address back diving contracts, but I don't know any details beyond that.
That means that under the new CBA, the salary cap will not equal the players' share or necessarily even be all that reflective of it.

What happened before doesn't mean it will continue to happen in perpetuity. If the owners accept this deal Fehr will have reversed a hard cap based on HRR. He will have delinked salaries from HRR.

I just don't see the owners accepting this.


It wouldn't technically be a delinking, as much as a positive linking only. The players' share will increase with HRR, just not decrease.

Maybe the owners will accept that, maybe they won't. We don't know. What I do know is that the NHL doesn't have a problem negotiating with on projections based on what's happened in the past. Like in their October (and I believe last public) proposal:

The "make whole" obligation will be operational only through the 2013/14 season because, beginning in Year 3, the projected growth in League-wide revenues should have resulted in an increase in absolute Players' Share dollars (in excess of the Players' Share of $1.883 Billion in 2011/12). This will effectively restore "full value" to all existing SPCs without any continuing need for a "make whole."

Source: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643572

You'll notice that their proposal speicfically said that they would only offer "make whole" payments for the first 2 years because of their projections that said it wouldn't be needed after that. There was no guarantee for players if that turned out not to be true, even if as a direct result of the owners' lockout. If owners find uncertainty so unappealing or risky, they shouldn't be asking the players to live with it.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3646 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:34 PM

PA proposal doesn't just hurt owners for a bad year. It hurts them for a GOOD year. If revenues spike one year, it costs them the next.


That would be true ONLY if HRR does something it's never done (as far as I've been able to find) and go backwards. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if HRR jumps significantly one year but more modestly, or not at all, the next year because the players' share will still just be 50% of whatever it is in that year.

Maybe it's smart for the NHL to want to hedge their bets and not guarantee no drop for players, but it's equally smart for the players to ask for it. They have, after all, already faced 2 significant drops in 8 years despite record revenue growth while the owners have done nothing but see their share increase.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3647 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:49 PM

No Poetica. Player's share will not be 50%. You are failing to realize this. Fehr is attempting to delink from HRR. When you ask for guaranteed players share will not drop below x number of $, then the 50-50 part is null and void.

It doesn't matter if HRR keeps going up. This system would de link players share from HRR. I don't know if there is a point in going back and forth on this. IMO this is a huge issue, in yours its not.

If any one thinks this is not the main issue and the problem is $182 million I couldn't disagree with them more.

The PA proposal is there for every one to look at and judge for them selves what it says. It's a lot of lawyer speak and if anyone is willing to take either side's talking points at face value then good for them. I don't, I look at the fine print. I may interpret some points different from others do and vise versa.

I can understand Bettman and Fehr being frustrated. Even fans can't agree on what the NHLPA proposal really says how could these 2 possibly agree on it.

On the $1.8 billion part, I do believe Fehr wants to use that figure to work out a deal for HRR for first year of contract. I spoke about it above and why Fehr refused to negotiate the lockout shortened season as part of the package. He wants to come back to it afterwards. He has said the owners should take responsiblility for loss HRR due to lockout. Which is plain language is HRR this year would be what it was last year +.

It's been posted before but here it is anyways.

NHLPA Proposal — 21 November 2012

This proposal addresses significant open issues concerning revenue sharing, player contracting, the players’ share, and certain other open areas, as reflected below. This proposal does not address other items upon which we have agreed or are pending, such as health and safety, hockey issues, the “jock tax”, and international.
1. Revenue Sharing
Pool of $200 Million at $3.303 B of HRR. Varies year to year with HRR.
Contributions to be raised per NHL formula. No discretion to increase individual team contributions beyond what formula provides.
Existing level of distributions to be protected for 2 years. If additional funds needed, raised pro-rata from all teams.
Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee (RSOC) has discretion to adjust amounts for Phase One distributions by up to +/- 15% per team, provided that all such adjustments are considered and decided upon at one time:

  • RSOC by unanimous vote may move beyond +/- 15% limitation towards but not exceeding the straight pool value for regular season HRR (Must therefore compute straight pool every year).
Industry Growth Fund to be managed by the RSOC:
  • IGF will have callable dollars of up to $20M in first year, $40M in second year, and $60M in each subsequent year of the agreement.
  • Need to establish criteria for which teams may apply for IGF funding and/or will submit plans.
  • IGF funding is available to any team by unanimous consent of RSOC.
  • IGF funding also available for industry-wide programs or projects.
RSOC has seven (7) members selected by the parties in their sole discretion, as follows:
  • Four employer representatives, at least one of which must by an owner.
  • Three (3) player representatives, at least one of which must be a player.
  • Parties may name up to 2 Alternate RSOC representatives who will serve in the event of absence of a member.
  • Need to spell out in drafting the process of the RSOC, and limited arbitral review of decisions.
2. Defined Benefit Pension Plan
The parties will establish a defined benefit pension plan under US law per the NHLPA proposal.
3. Discipline
For on-ice discipline, there will be an appeal to a neutral arbitrator or to a panel of three arbitrators (one appointed by each side and one neutral). The standard of review will be whether the League’s finding of a violation of the League Playing Rules was supported by substantial evidence, and, if so, whether the penalty imposed was within the League’s reasonable discretion and consistent with past practice.
For off-ice discipline, there will be an appeal to the impartial arbitrator. The issue will be whether the discipline was for just cause.
4. Player Contracting and System Issues
NHLPA liability for escrow is eliminated from the side letter.
NHLPA may set a higher percentage for escrow in a given year than the formula would provide. The NHL may also set a higher percentage than the formula would provide in the last year of the agreement, provided that any number so set is not unreasonable.
The Playoff Pool is increased per the NHLPA proposal.
Liquidated damages provisions in SPCs are prohibited. This applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.
Prompt mutual disclosure of European loan agreements, ATOs and PTOs.
NHLPA proposal on no trade / no move clauses.
NHL proposal to prevent a team playing with less than the minimum of 18/2 is accepted provided limitation is the NHL minimum + $100,000; counts against the share but not the cap.
Waivers:
  • Re-entry waivers are eliminated.
  • Waivers will be required to loan a player who is on emergency recall if that player has played 10 games.
  • NHLPA proposal on 13.23 waivers.
Four Recall Rule:
  • After the conclusion of the Regular Season, a Club may exercise an unlimited number of additional Regular Recalls provided that it may have no more than three (3) Players on its Active Roster who were recalled by way of Regular Recall after the Trade Deadline.
Minimum salary continues to increase on the same schedule as previous CBA, $25,000 every second year.
Goepfert Rule as proposed by NHLPA.
Performance bonus cushion in each year of the agreement.
The Lower limit must be satisfied without consideration of performance bonuses.
Players and cash/cap trading. A team may have an unlimited number of Retained Salary Transactions up to 15% of the Upper Limit in any League year.
The amount in excess of $1M paid to a player while in the minor leagues or in Europe on an NHL contract counts against the cap (none counts against the share). This applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.
NHLPA cap benefit recapture proposal:
  • Applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.
  • Applies to contracts of 9 years or longer.
  • 35 year old rule changed to provide that the cap charge taken will be as per cap benefit recapture.
Salary Arbitration:
  • Walk away eliminated.
Second buyout period will continue in its current form except that:
  • A Club may not buy out a player who was not on its Reserve List as of the most recent Trade Deadline.
  • A Club may not buy out a player who has a cap hit of less than $3 M.
Critical dates calendar:
  • Sec. 12.3(a) election moved per NHLPA proposal.
  • Free agency interview period per NHLPA proposal.
Salary Cap and Payroll Range:
  • Growth Factor, Performance Bonus Cushion, Long-Term, injury continue except for any changes already agreed to or contained in this proposal.
  • +8M/-8M payroll range becomes +/- 20% of midpoint beginning in 2013/14.
  • The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement. This is half way between the 11/12 Upper Limit (64.3 M) and the 12/13 UL (70.2 M).
5. Players’ Share
Our players’ share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players’ share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.
Player share will equal 50% of HRR, plus these fixed dollar payments attributable to the first four years of the agreement:
  • 2012/13: $182 M
  • 2013/14: $128 M
  • 2014/15: $72 M
  • 2015/16: $11 M
Payment of these amounts may be deferred for one year (specific payment date to be agreed upon), with the deferral accumulating interest rate equal to the sum of the prime interest rate in effect at The J.P. Morgan Chase Bank on the next June 15, plus 1%. Payment of these fixed dollar amounts is guaranteed by the League.
In years two through five of this Agreement, the players’ share in dollars may not be less than it was in the previous year. Attached are charts which show this proposal against your last in the format you provided after our last proposal.
6. Term of CBA
The term of the CBA will be for 5 years/seasons, and will end on September 15, 2017.
7. Transition Rules to be negotiated
May cover, among other things, compliance buyouts, pro-ration of status/service and statistical criteria/thresholds based on the length of the season, movement of deadlines, and any other relevant matters.


Edited by WHL rocks, 30 November 2012 - 06:19 PM.

  • 0

#3648 bobopan

bobopan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,527 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:55 PM

Just stick a fork in the season already please.. I stopped caring a longggg time ago. A 48 game season sure would be interesting.... i just don't think it would be in the Canucks favour with the majority of our squad sitting around doing jack squat.. This point in time im perfectly fine with and expecting a total wash of a season.
  • 0

#3649 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:08 PM

No Poetica. Player's share will not be 50%. You are failing to realize this. Fehr is attempting to delink from HRR. When you ask for guaranteed players share will not drop below x number of $, then the 50-50 part is null and void.


No, WHL, what you seem to fail to remember is that the players' share was never a hard fixed percentage even under the last CBA. There was a variance of 54-57% depending on revenue. So if a unmovable percentage is what you think "linking" to the HRR means, it was never linked to begin with. Therefore, the PA's proposal can't be delinking it now.

Plus, you are arguing that they are absolutely not going to have a 50/50 split based on a theoretical possibility of a variance despite the fact that every indication, from history to the NHL's own projections, is that it will be exactly 50/50 in every year of the CBA even with that rule.

If you actually stopped to think about it beyond your Fehr hating filter, you would see that this arrangement is actually better for the owners and the game. Under the last CBA, players got more as the revenues went up, which could have been seen as kind of punishing owners for doing a good job. Under this proposal, however, owners will not be punished for doing a good job and growing HRR as their (newly increased) percentage of it will never drop. They will, however, be held accountable for doing a bad job as they will have to guarantee that players won't have to give up more than they already have. Having a built-in mechanism that holds the league accountable for their game damaging choices is a good thing.

And again, with this CBA the players will have already faced 2 significant drops in 8 years despite record revenue growth while the owners' share has never done anything but go up. The players have made their sacrifices. It's the owners' turn. And being that this one likely to be purely theoretical it hardly seems like too much to ask.

If any one thinks this is not the main issue and the problem is $182 million I couldn't disagree with them more.


I think people paying attention think the biggest issue right now is the contractual issues. But if you have some proof that it's this proposed clause in particular, I'd love to see it.

On the $1.8 billion part, I do believe Fehr wants to use that figure to work out a deal for HRR for first year of contract. I spoke about it above and why Fehr refused to negotiate the lockout shortened season as part of the package. He wants to come back to it afterwards. He has said the owners should take responsiblility for loss HRR due to lockout. Which is plain language is HRR this year would be what it was last year +.


You quoted the proposal, so using your own message show me where the bad PA proposal touched you and said "$1.8B."

Fehr did originally want to negotiate based on full seasons and then work backwards and the PA did originally asked for $1.8B guaranteed. They've moved on. Time you did as well.

I'd be terribly impressed with your physic abilities if you could give me the winning lottery numbers. Until then, your theories on what Fehr wants to do or will do are nothing more than that - theories.
  • 3
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3650 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:57 PM

I can't help shaking the feeling that just as 04-05 was about players share every bit as much the salary cap that this standoff is more about guaranteed contracts than it is about hard dollars.

The attack on contract rights spells out in plain sight in my eyes. Salary cap + no guaranteed contracts = sports ownership nirvana.

If we lose a season, union decertification or not, I think this was the objective all along. The only way the NHL was going to give this fight up was with massive concessions on everything else.

Mark my words, if the season is lost, non-guaranteed contracts are all we will be hearing about from then on.


I have to disagree with this. I will tell you my reasons.

When the owners agreed to go out and get a salary cap, the players were promised all kinds of concessions to allow it. The NHLPA were given all kinds of goodies.

-57% of the revenue

- UFA age from 30 to 27

-RFA bidding wars.

- 2 years non contract UFAs

- guaranteed buyouts

In my opinion, when I read the full 480 page CBA , there was no doubt 2 things happened.

1) owners got a salary cap

2) Union got everything else. You may disagree with what 'everything else' means, but there can be no debate that these concessions were all better than what they had before.

The CBA was only meant to last 4 years. Then it got stalled, delayed , renewed. All at the Unions request. I dont begrudge this issue . I would do it too.

But lets get real. We got guys like Dave Bolland making 3.6 million a year . Even adjusted for inflation Wayne Gretzky never got this in his prime with the Oilers.

Todays salaries were never considered nor meant to be this inflated. This is not what the owners nor the union had in mind in 2004. The union didnt dare dream salaries could skyrocket this much.
Now that all the CBA stalling years are over with, its time to pay the piper and get down to some reasonable cut. 50/50

I said right when I found out Fehr was in charge of the union, that he was NOT hired to get a 'reasonable deal'. He was not hired to simply sign a deal or cave in.

He was brought in from a baseball lockeout to save what the players thought they were ENTITLED to . The salaries they had ballooned up to. They were not about to give them up.

But this only affects 10% of the top players. If they held a vote at this point, the other 90% would be pissed off. They are broke, and fighting to feed their families. They cant afford this. The very owners and players who can afford it are running this little war. And the rest of the players and fans pay the price.

If the league wanted to be able to get rid of contracts they would NOT NEED a salary cap. It would become useless. They would simply fire whomever wasnt working out.

I say be thankful the NHL union has guarantees because the NFL does not so if you dont produce........BYE BYE.

The longer this little spite fest between Fehr and the owners goes on, the worse it gets for the players. The owners have all the power and the money to IGNORE how much they lose.

The players do not.
  • 1
Posted Image

#3651 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:04 PM

In my opinion, when I read the full 480 page CBA , there was no doubt 2 things happened.

1) owners got a salary cap

2) Union got everything else. You may disagree with what 'everything else' means, but there can be no debate that these concessions were all better than what they had before.


Aren't you conveniently forgetting the 24% rollback on all contracts the owners also got in addition to the salary cap?

But lets get real. We got guys like Dave Bolland making 3.6 million a year . Even adjusted for inflation Wayne Gretzky never got this in his prime with the Oilers.

Todays salaries were never considered nor meant to be this inflated. This is not what the owners nor the union had in mind in 2004. The union didnt dare dream salaries could skyrocket this much.


Who cares what Gretzy got when he was with the Oilers, especially when you're not comparing it to what other players made only with certain teams as opposed to their highest salary? The reality is Gretzy got PAID. He made $1.7M in 1989/90, $3M from 1990/91 until 1993/94, $3.79M in 1994/95 (lowered due to lockout damaged season), $6.54M in 1995/96, $3.96M in 1996/97, $6.5M in 1997/98, $6M in 1998/99. He made over $40.5M during his NHL career.
(Sources: http://dropyourglove...spx?Player=1610 and http://en.wikipedia....ries_in_the_NHL)

According to an inflation calculator, $6.5M of 1998 dollars would be worth $9.1M in 2012. Only 4 current NHLers made more than $9.1M last season. I'm not disagreeing if you want to argue they weren't worth it, but you've hardly a case for current salaries being beyond what was ever considered.

Want more examples?

Top salaries by year. (In actual dollars paid in the year in question, not 2012 inflation adjusted!)
1996/97 - Mario Lemieux got $11.3M
1997/98 - Joe Sakic got $17M and Chris Gratton got $10M
1998/99 - Sergei Fedorov got $14M and 3 other players got $8M+
1999/00 - Jaromir Jagr got $10.4M and Paul Kariya got $10M and 4 other players got $8M+
2000/01 - Paul Kariya and Peter Forsberg got $10M and 5 players got $8M+
2001/02 - Jaromir Jagr and Peter Forsberg got $11M and at least 8 other players got $9M+
2002/03 - Jaromir Jagr got $11.5M and 4 other players got $10M+ and at least 5 more got $9M+
2003/04 - Jaromir Jagr and Peter Forsberg got $11M and at least 8 other players got $9M+
2004/05 - lockout
2005/06 -Jaromir Jagr got $8.4M and at least 9 other players got $6M+
2007/08 - Thomas Vanek, Daniel Briere, & Scott Gomez got $10M at least 7 other players got $7M+
2008/09 - Dany Heatley got $10M and at least 9 other players got $8M+
2009/10 - Vincent Lecavalier got $10M and at least 8 others got $8M+
2010/11 - Vincent Lecavalier and Roberto Luongo got $10M and at least 7 other players got $8M+
2011/12 - Brad Richards got $12M and at least 9 other players got $8M+
(Source: http://www.dropyourg...ryByLeague.aspx)

Disgusting though they may be, it sure doesn't look like today's top salaries are beyond what was envisioned, especially since at least 2 previous years on the list above had a higher salary than any player had last season.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3652 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,401 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:05 PM

owners, players want to cut out mediators

The NHL Players’ Association is still trying to decide whether to take a shot or pass on Gary Bettman’s invitation to sit down with the owners.
The union’s negotiating committee and executive board held a conference call Friday to stickhandle around the idea tabled by the NHL commissioner, moments after an attempt to sit down with a federal mediator fell apart Thursday.
Not only would Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly not be in the room, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr and special counsel Steve Fehr wouldn’t be welcomed either, so players could hear directly from the owners.
Not every player is against the meeting. Minnesota Wild veteran centre Zenon Konopka told QMI Agency Friday, before the players’ conference call, if that’s what the league wants the NHLPA should try it.
“Let’s take five owners and draft 15 players. Let’s talk and let’s get it done,” said Konopka from Long Island, N.Y. “We’re players … and nobody wants to play more than us.
“Let’s try every different avenue to get a deal done. If the commissioner wants that -- we just want to play -- anything he wants.”
If the players agree, the indications are they want to see different owners than Ted Leonsis (Washington), Jeremy Jacobs (Boston) and Murray Edwards (Calgary). Moderates like James Dolan of the New York Rangers and Montreal’s Geoff Molson would be welcomed.
In return, a league source said the NHL might request some names the players want. Tampa Bay Lightning winger Martin St. Louis told the Tampa Bay Times Friday he’d like to be there if the two sides decide to go ahead with these talks.
“I would,” St. Louis told the newspaper. “But you would have to be cautious, too. These guys (the owners) are successful because they’ve been doing deals their whole life. We’re hockey players, so we have to be careful.”
Not everybody likes the idea.
“The union should not go near this. This is nothing more than a ploy,” said a league insider. “It’s a public relations move in a big way. I just don’t think the union has anything to gain from this.”
There was a belief that by the time the players missed a couple of paycheques -- and most certainly by the American Thanksgiving last week -- some members of the NHLPA would hold a gun to Fehr’s head to get a deal in place.
It’s believed Fehr was pushed by a group of moderate players to table a comprehensive offer — including some high profile — to the owners in New York last week because not every player is prepared to lose the season.
For the most part, the players have held strong. They have offered a better deal to the owners than they currently have, but have refused to accept any risk by linking salaries to revenues which is a big reason why there isn’t a CBA.
“My belief is the expectations of the league going into this negotiation were ridiculous,” said the insider. “This whole thing has been a colossal disaster (for the league), but at this point both sides have to bend.”
That being said, this isn’t great for the players either. The money they don’t get paid every day is something they’re not going to get back. As the calendar turns to December it will be interesting to see where this whole mess leads.
The owners could put pressure on the union by announcing a “drop-dead” date for a season next week. That won’t have the players shaking in their boots, but the word is Roman Hamrlik isn’t the only one who wants to play.
Konopka made no bones about the fact the players want to get back to work. He has been keeping his time card filled with other business ventures, but, first and foremost, he wants to get back on the ice.
“Everyone is frustrated,” said Konopka. “That’s the word of the month, frustration, right?
“I’m a positive guy. I look at it as a half-full, not half-empty. The half-full part of me says we’re going to have a season. You’ve got to stay positive. If you don’t stay positive you’re in trouble. I’ve learned that in life.”
Nobody is positive even though, that if these discussions are held they’re going to lead to a resolution.


  • 0

#3653 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,401 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:08 PM

1997/98 - Joe Sakic got $17M


Holy Sh!t
  • 0

#3654 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:14 PM

Holy Sh!t


I know! The weird part is his salary was only $2M a year for that 3-year deal, but he got a $15M signing bonus.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3655 Sully2Cool

Sully2Cool

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,551 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:18 PM

Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#3656 Sully2Cool

Sully2Cool

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,551 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:19 PM

Triple post.

Edited by Sully2Cool, 30 November 2012 - 10:20 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#3657 Sully2Cool

Sully2Cool

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,551 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:20 PM

oops double post.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3658 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,401 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:34 PM

Doubt we'll get 8 years, the overlordsowners were just being generous this time around.
  • 0

#3659 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:52 PM

I have to disagree with this. I will tell you my reasons.

When the owners agreed to go out and get a salary cap, the players were promised all kinds of concessions to allow it. The NHLPA were given all kinds of goodies.

-57% of the revenue

- UFA age from 30 to 27

-RFA bidding wars.

- 2 years non contract UFAs

- guaranteed buyouts


I don't think 57% is a "goodie" after all it was a major rollback, they got contracting rights and things for giving up some of there salaries basicly.

As for the Salary infultration that's just what comes with the game growing. regardless of the split of the pie, grows both sides pieces will grow.

And the Players aren't broke, they have been saving and planning for this for quite awhile.


This is also about the next lockout in a way, this is something Nick Kypreos as touched on quite a bit recently on HC. If they players give in to the current contract (and move straight to 50% lets say) then what happens next time?

The owner's will come knocking on the door again and they will hold up the gun again and ask for more, if the players don't comply they will lock them out again. the next thing they will go after IMO will probably be guaranteed contracts. They will look at the NFL and want the same.

This is more than just about the here and now, but as far as the current negotiation, it's down to money and contracting rights. The players will have to give more money to get there contracting rights back to the previous system just like the last time and until that happens the league will keep the gun pointed and demand more.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 30 November 2012 - 10:54 PM.

  • 1

zackass.png


#3660 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,401 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:01 AM

I see Drybone is still subscribing to Worthington's Law

  • 1




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.