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

#4351 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:39 PM

agreed. PA took what the NHL gave over the past 2 days put it in his pocket and stuck out his hand for more. While NHL had made clear this was a package deal. These guys aren't billionaires for no reason, they won't take this lightly. Those on PA side can't blame this on Bettman or hard liners like Jacobs any more.

The PA has alienated the doves on the owners side. Tannenbaum made an very telling statement. He said if he wasn't in the room himself he'd have a hard time believing what happened and how things unfolded. Clearly pissed.


It is funny how everyone is crusading on all calling the PA bad guys.


Here is a fun fact kids

The PA has went from 75-57-now what will be a 50% share in terms of revenue. They are giving up so much as it is. The only difference between the PA offer and the NHL offer is an elimination of a 5% variance which there is no need for in the first place, a realigment of the make whole provision where the other 50 million (last 50mill of 300) goes to players instead of pension fund and 7 year MAX deals instead of 5. Before you all start jumping the gun on players look at the facts first.
  • 0

#4352 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,056 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:41 PM

A deal was within reach and the PA decided to change the goalposts, at the last minute. When you piss off straight-shooting moderates like Tanenbaum and Burkle, you're doing something pretty backhanded. They've been screwing around for months, stalling on proposals, and acting very, VERY unprofessional. Not to mention, they keep insulting the intelligence of the NHL/owners by submitting the same damn de-linked "50/50" split.

They shouldn't have had the massive shares in revenue that they did to begin with. The Fehr bothers blather on about how the players "lost the last CBA", even though they made off like gangbusters. The NHL is trying to right the ship.


Well, that's certainly one point of view. Here's another: Owners said the 50/50 was the most important issue. Now that the PA has offered that they say taking away contractual rights, contract term limits, and 10-year CBA term length are their most important issues and that unless the union agrees to those AND the 50/50 they can't have a deal. And yet the get their undies in a bunch that the union actually wants something?! Talk about changing the goal posts!

And the PA has continued to move, to make offers and the NHL has just poopooed everything like tantruming toddlers who want the entire cookie jar instead of just a few cookies. And to confirm their negotiating age, they keep giving ultimatums and taking their offers off the table when their "you only get this when you give us everything we asked for" tactic doesn't work. I don't remember the PA taking an offer off the table, only being open to continuing to work towards a deal. It's the NHL that has their negotiators on wheels for quicker exits every time they face anything other than gratitude they aren't demanding yet more.

And the Fehrs had nothing to do with the players' share. You can blame the owners and Bettman for that if you find it so offensive. But remember, their share was significantly larger before that! Players gave up 24% off EVERY year of their signed contracts last time and now, despite record revenues and the owners' share increasing more than 180% (see one of my posts a few pages back for exact amount and source) owners are demanding new significant rollbacks, including on contracts they supposedly signed in "good faith" mere months ago and have yet to pay anything on, plus they want to take back all of the contractual rights players got in the last CBA, and are still demanding yet more! And what have they offered? Oh right. To demand slightly fewer concessions from players and to possibly pay a little more of the legal contracts they signed and the league approved.

The NHL isn't trying to right the ship. They're trying to force the players to swim beside it and hold it up.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4353 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:41 PM

Fehr was a cancer in the mlb and now hes spreading it to the NHL!

They should just take the offer! Your not football or soccer players


Yet that is the league where players make the most and league is arguably healthiest. Go figure.
  • 0

#4354 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:42 PM

I am 100% with the owners here.

> Most NHL owners.....almost 2/3....dont even make money on hockey. (1/3 lose money) Yet they are being labelled as greedy. One star players salary is probably more profit than most clubs could hope to ever get.

> NHL players get everything first class from hotels, flights, meals, work space, equipment.

> Most of us on here would KILL to be able to play hockey for a career making a regular $50, 000 / yr salary. Heck, I would kill to be able to have enough to play hockey for fun let alone being paid millions to play.

> Yes there are troubled fanchises, but how many players would rather live in Tampa Bay or Florida and playe hockey than Quebec city.
  • 1

#4355 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,649 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:43 PM

https://twitter.com/adater


From deep inside players side: "We were ready to play again. But Don came in (Wed.) and told us we could get more and to hold out"


Edited by Rey, 06 December 2012 - 07:43 PM.

  • 0

#4356 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:44 PM

https://twitter.com/adater


Dater is pro owners and has had his blinder on towards them for a while now. Not sure if that is the most reliable source
  • 0

#4357 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:48 PM

I am 100% with the owners here.

> Most NHL owners.....almost 2/3....dont even make money on hockey. (1/3 lose money) Yet they are being labelled as greedy. One star players salary is probably more profit than most clubs could hope to ever get.

> NHL players get everything first class from hotels, flights, meals, work space, equipment.

> Most of us on here would KILL to be able to play hockey for a career making a regular $50, 000 / yr salary. Heck, I would kill to be able to have enough to play hockey for fun let alone being paid millions to play.

> Yes there are troubled fanchises, but how many players would rather live in Tampa Bay or Florida and playe hockey than Quebec city.


Absolutely stupidest point that average hockey fans make. Boo freaking hoo. It is the law of supply and demand. These guys are the best at what they do and there is a market for that sort of money.
  • 0

#4358 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:49 PM

I think the NHLPA should take the owners last offer and put it to a member vote. If most players think its a good deal they will vote to play if not then we are where we are.

Why not do this? I don't see anything wrong with going this route.
  • 3

#4359 250Integra

250Integra

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,359 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 06

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:51 PM

I think the NHLPA should take the owners last offer and put it to a member vote. If most players think its a good deal they will vote to play if not then we are where we are.

Why not do this? I don't see anything wrong with going this route.


Well the offer is gone.
  • 0

naslundsig5.gif14326903821.giftowel.gif
Thanks for the Memories Canada!!!
Thanks for everything Naslund!
Original creator of the WWE and the Rate my sig / Showoff thread


#4360 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,659 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:52 PM

I never thought I'd say this but I more or less agree with you. I think the players missed a good chance at a reasonable CBA. Contract limit and variance is not worth the battle. A lengthier CBA means less conflict down the road, I can't see why anyone would want to do this again. And then the 393m down to 300m is about as good as it's going to get. The push back from the players is getting harder and harder to support.


I tend to agree, play for what you're worth comes to mind. Not many other people sign 15 year contracts at work. It's based on performance. I guess from their perspective though injuries might be what they are worried about. They do have insurance but not superstar money after that contract ends, then it's just like pension ... I think.
  • 0

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#4361 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:52 PM

Also for the record, even if what Dater said is true, that is 1 out of 700 players.
  • 0

#4362 I R Baboon

I R Baboon

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:54 PM

I honestly dont care whose fault it is anymore, just get the game I love back on the ice.
  • 0

#4363 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,649 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:56 PM

Also for the record, even if what Dater said is true, that is 1 out of 700 players.


That's what they said about Hamrlik. There's more to the story now and Dater might be able to tell who the player was. It's hard to think the players are still "unified". I honestly doubt they are, and there's a lot of heat on Fehr and it isn't just Dater who is saying that.

Edited by Rey, 06 December 2012 - 07:56 PM.

  • 1

#4364 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:57 PM

really though, how many players sign contracts over 5 years-7years? it really is just the superstars. the majority of the league is on short team 3-4 year deals.

I can understand the variance rule from the players side as a huge negative. currently players are earning huge up front bonuses and then investing that money making even more. with a 5% variance rule it would cost them money.

whereas the term length just reallocates money faster than the current system to players earning their keep. IE scott gomez wouldnt be on easy street right now that money would go to PK subban who has earned it.
  • 0

#4365 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:58 PM

That's what they said about Hamrlik. There's more to the story now and Dater might be able to tell who the player was. It's hard to think the players are still "unified". I honestly doubt they are, and there's a lot of heat on Fehr and it isn't just Dater who is saying that.


No one else has said that out of the main stream journalists. All journalists have bias.
  • 0

#4366 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,416 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:59 PM

agreed. PA took what the NHL gave over the past 2 days put it in his pocket and stuck out his hand for more. While NHL had made clear this was a package deal. These guys aren't billionaires for no reason, they won't take this lightly. Those on PA side can't blame this on Bettman or hard liners like Jacobs any more.

The PA has alienated the doves on the owners side. Tannenbaum made an very telling statement. He said if he wasn't in the room himself he'd have a hard time believing what happened and how things unfolded. Clearly pissed.


Seems like what the NHL has been doing since Bettman's first lockout.
  • 4

zackass.png


#4367 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:59 PM

really though, how many players sign contracts over 5 years-7years? it really is just the superstars. the majority of the league is on short team 3-4 year deals.

I can understand the variance rule from the players side as a huge negative. currently players are earning huge up front bonuses and then investing that money making even more. with a 5% variance rule it would cost them money.

whereas the term length just reallocates money faster than the current system to players earning their keep. IE scott gomez wouldnt be on easy street right now that money would go to PK subban who has earned it.


The term difference is 2 years basically. Owners want 5. PA wants 7
  • 0

#4368 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:59 PM

Seems like what the NHL has been doing since Bettman's first lockout.


AND WE HAVE A WINNER
  • 1

#4369 surtur

surtur

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:01 PM

I am 100% with the owners here.

> Most NHL owners.....almost 2/3....dont even make money on hockey. (1/3 lose money) Yet they are being labelled as greedy. One star players salary is probably more profit than most clubs could hope to ever get.

> NHL players get everything first class from hotels, flights, meals, work space, equipment.

> Most of us on here would KILL to be able to play hockey for a career making a regular $50, 000 / yr salary. Heck, I would kill to be able to have enough to play hockey for fun let alone being paid millions to play.

> Yes there are troubled fanchises, but how many players would rather live in Tampa Bay or Florida and playe hockey than Quebec city.

no way would i ever play hockey as a job for 50K a year. the amount of training, dedication, travel, injuries etc...
maybe 50K a year for a weekend thing but i can make 50K a year doing much less. and i can not support my family and have nice things on 50K a year....(oh wait i do but i get to come home every night a spend time with my family)
I wouldn't play a pro sport for anything less then 200-300K a year. if that.


50k a year is not a lot of money in this day and age and my family struggles to get by on just over that much a year.



The term difference is 2 years basically. Owners want 5. PA wants 7

if the owners want shorter contracts then why dont they just make there team policy not to sign anyone over 5 years ....... easy fix.

Edited by surtur, 06 December 2012 - 08:10 PM.

  • 0

Release The KraKassian
Kassianthe_Krakensm.jpg


#4370 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,659 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:02 PM

Well, that's certainly one point of view. Here's another: Owners said the 50/50 was the most important issue. Now that the PA has offered that they say taking away contractual rights, contract term limits, and 10-year CBA term length are their most important issues and that unless the union agrees to those AND the 50/50 they can't have a deal. And yet the get their undies in a bunch that the union actually wants something?! Talk about changing the goal posts!

And the PA has continued to move, to make offers and the NHL has just poopooed everything like tantruming toddlers who want the entire cookie jar instead of just a few cookies. And to confirm their negotiating age, they keep giving ultimatums and taking their offers off the table when their "you only get this when you give us everything we asked for" tactic doesn't work. I don't remember the PA taking an offer off the table, only being open to continuing to work towards a deal. It's the NHL that has their negotiators on wheels for quicker exits every time they face anything other than gratitude they aren't demanding yet more.

And the Fehrs had nothing to do with the players' share. You can blame the owners and Bettman for that if you find it so offensive. But remember, their share was significantly larger before that! Players gave up 24% off EVERY year of their signed contracts last time and now, despite record revenues and the owners' share increasing more than 180% (see one of my posts a few pages back for exact amount and source) owners are demanding new significant rollbacks, including on contracts they supposedly signed in "good faith" mere months ago and have yet to pay anything on, plus they want to take back all of the contractual rights players got in the last CBA, and are still demanding yet more! And what have they offered? Oh right. To demand slightly fewer concessions from players and to possibly pay a little more of the legal contracts they signed and the league approved.

The NHL isn't trying to right the ship. They're trying to force the players to swim beside it and hold it up.


Nicely said, if I was in an enjoyable mood I would find it funny that they could fix everything here if they just didn't give stupid contracts out. The players are greedy but the owners are greedy leeches every day of their lives.
  • 0

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#4371 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,649 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:03 PM

No one else has said that out of the main stream journalists. All journalists have bias.


Dregor just said on radio that several players questioned Fehr about why they did not vote on last nights proposal. This was before the conferences today.
  • 0

#4372 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,649 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:06 PM

Not sure if this is true or not but a poster on HF said that RDS says that PA might make a "surprise" presser in a few minutes.

Fight fight fight fight. Bettman vs Fehr Boxing match to end this. More ratings than the actual game.

Edited by Rey, 06 December 2012 - 08:08 PM.

  • 0

#4373 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:07 PM

Well the offer is gone.


True but if the PA went to NHL and said put the offer back on table and we'll put it to vote I am sure the owners would put it back on table.
  • 0

#4374 Understand

Understand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,721 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:08 PM

I am on the NHL's side.

I wish the NHLPA will get a much worsen deal than the one offered to them this week...then the players will regret and Don Fehr will look like an idoit.

The players and Don Fehr don't seem to understand "who the bosses are". The bosses OWN the team and the players. If the players do not like the job offer, they can certainly quit and the bosses will hire someone else. Millions of hockey players looking to become a full time hockey player out there.

Please understand.....
  • 1

#4375 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:12 PM

Not sure if this is true or not but a poster on HF said that RDS says that PA might make a "surprise" presser in a few minutes.

Fight fight fight fight. Bettman vs Fehr Boxing match to end this. More ratings than the actual game.


I think this may be the players going back to the room and shaking Fehr up a bit. Maybe pull his sweater over his head and feed him a couple and say whats the matta wid you.

Just wishful thinking perhaps.
  • 0

#4376 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:15 PM

The term difference is 2 years basically. Owners want 5. PA wants 7


Not exactly.

Owners want 5 years for UFA and 7 years for own players. PA wasnt 8 years with possibility of extension half way thru. Also league wants 5% variance in salary from year to year. PA want max difference to be 25% from highest paid year to lowest.
  • 0

#4377 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:16 PM

I am on the NHL's side.

I wish the NHLPA will get a much worsen deal than the one offered to them this week...then the players will regret and Don Fehr will look like an idoit.

The players and Don Fehr don't seem to understand "who the bosses are". The bosses OWN the team and the players. If the players do not like the job offer, they can certainly quit and the bosses will hire someone else. Millions of hockey players looking to become a full time hockey player out there.

Please understand.....


Horrible argument made by you. The NHL may do this but then the game will suffer and owners wont make money. Remember the dead puck era? A lot of that was due to expansion and the fact that there were not enough great NHL players in the game to match rapid expansion. Sure the NHL can put other guys but that doesnt make the game entertaining and all that hurts is revenue.

Not sure why I am talking about this with you when this would never happen but yeah..
  • 0

#4378 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,659 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:19 PM

How about a new no hockey channel? It's like Center Ice but much cheaper. $50 bucks from each fan, there actually is no channel, we just give it to the media and they agree to stop covering this farce.
  • 0

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#4379 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:19 PM

Not exactly.

Owners want 5 years for UFA and 7 years for own players. PA wasnt 8 years with possibility of extension half way thru. Also league wants 5% variance in salary from year to year. PA want max difference to be 25% from highest paid year to lowest.


The score was reporting 7 so my bad if it is indeed 8. The variance thing is huge and a blatant grab by owners and so the 25% by players. The deals are similar enough is my point. It isnt like the league rejected an offer that was miles away.
  • 0

#4380 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,056 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:19 PM

....
The players and Don Fehr don't seem to understand "who the bosses are". The bosses OWN the team and the players. If the players do not like the job offer, they can certainly quit and the bosses will hire someone else. Millions of hockey players looking to become a full time hockey player out there.

Please understand.....


Do you understand that slavery has been outlawed? The owners do NOT own people. They do, however, own the contracts they signed and their legal responsibility to honor them. The players can't just quit because they have signed contracts they have to live up to and, I would hope, everyone would be opposed to them refusing to do so just because they decided they could get a better deal somewhere else. The players agreed to the contract and they have to live with it. What I don't understand is why so many people seem to think it's okay for the owners to alter their end of the contract after the fact to lower their legal commitment while still holding the players to what they originally agreed to.

It'd be crappy, but if the owners were offering to buy out players, or simply terminate all existing contracts as of today with no further obligation on either side, or offering to lower the contract lengths by the same percentage the dollar value drops so that both sides saw their commitment drop equally they might have wobbly leg to stand on. But, saying "I'll pay you X amount and you give me X number of years." 3 months ago and now saying, "I won't pay you X, you'll get M instead even though you didn't agree to that. Oh, and you still owe me X number of years." is the height of jackassedness .

Edited by poetica, 06 December 2012 - 08:21 PM.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(




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.