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

#4381 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:26 PM


Andy Strickland@andystrickland

When #NHLPA wanted Fehr back in room to close out deal yesterday, owners said it would be a deal breaker. Derailed process



Ya I can understand why Fehr and main players are mad. You are asking the union to give there guy the middle finger.
  • 0

#4382 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:30 PM

You have got to be kidding me

What should have been a fairly doable mathematical adjustment this past summer has transformed into perhaps the most ridiculous labor impasse in the history of pro sports.

Honestly, I can’t wrap my head around this one.

Are the owners and players really going to let the season get canned over the differences that remain in the two offers?

I would make the argument that the players are crazy to take that kind of financial hit rather than accept what the league and owners offered Wednesday night.

Similarly, the owners are out of their minds if they don’t see elements in the NHLPA’s counteroffer that they can live with to get hockey back this season.

Are we really going to drop the ax on an entire season because the owners are THAT adamant about five-year term limits for player contracts? And are the players THAT opposed to five-year contract term limits that they will let an entire season’s worth of salary go down the drain?

It’s pure madness in my opinion. All of it. Both sides.

NHLPA executive director Don Fehr has done a masterful job throughout this lockout of telling his players to stay patient and wait because the deal would get better. And when owners upped their "make-whole" provision from $211 million to $300 million Wednesday night -- something the league said it would never do -- Fehr was proved right.

Thing is, you can’t wait and wait and wait forever, and believe the offer will always improve. You have to know when the time is right to cut a deal.

To that end, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman promptly pulled the "make-whole" offer off the table Thursday night, as well as other concessions on player contracting rights. The league had been willing to not touch unrestricted free-agent eligibility, the entry-level system and salary arbitration. Now that’s out the window as well.

You know exactly what Fehr will tell his players. That those things aren’t really off the table, that it’s just a negotiating tactic.

Perhaps. Or maybe Fehr just managed to infuriate the most player-friendly owner in the league, Ron Burkle, a man who has won labor awards for his work in his private business life but somehow finally found a place where his negotiating expertise was unable to penetrate. Yes, the Pittsburgh Penguins' owner absolutely wanted to explode Wednesday night.

Conversely, I question Bettman’s decision to halt talks Thursday night. Why not respond to the NHLPA’s counteroffer Thursday night by saying it’s still not good enough but, hey, let’s meet again Friday and keep plugging away?

Well, I’ve got one theory on that. Given reports that players were having intense, sometimes heated debate internally Thursday as they decided how to proceed, it might very well be that the NHL and the owners smell blood. They might believe the players are finally cracking and that by pulling this week’s new elements off the table, they’ll get those players who are questioning union leadership to nullify Fehr and make a deal with the league.

Who knows, maybe their calculation is right about that. But as one player told ESPN.com on Thursday night after the theatrics were done, why wouldn’t the league submit a full formal offer? That’s the only way players would have a chance to vote on it membership-wide, he figured.

Again, good point.

In the end, once again the drama has overtaken the facts on this night.

I don’t believe the two sides are that far apart at all.

One NHL governor told ESPN.com that they were shown both offers from the league and NHLPA in the board of governors meeting.

"I looked at them both and wondered how this thing isn’t done already," he said.

And those were previous offers. Not the ones from the past 24 hours that showed more movement from both sides.


What we need now is for both sides to exhale and get back to the table no later than Monday.

For the millionth time, there is a deal here. Stop the politics and get it done.

(Note: Emphasis is mine.)
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4383 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,342 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:32 PM

Okay most of my inital frustration has subsided.


The thing I don't understand is how the NHL thinks this is beneficial for the game and the fans, it's a fight over money, the last CBA you could understand, some changes needed to be made.

What is the point of this? say the players cave and the owner's win, how does that help the game? It is just more money going into the pockets of our owners.

The game was growing amazingly in the last system. But they (NHL) destroyed all that by getting greedy. The game doesn't benefit from this.
  • 0

zackass.png


#4384 canucks.bradley

canucks.bradley

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,451 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:34 PM

the NHL is now going to beat the NHLPA into submission. Players should have accepted. I have never supported the players so they should just cave because they are not going to win this war
  • 0
Posted Image
3000th post - September, 2010

K guys I nd hlp fast. Im @ a girls I rly like & txtng from my iphone. I did a #2 in the bathroom and it plugged, water is almost overflowing toilet. Srsly I dunno wut 2 do somebody help!


Watch Bowness somehow mess up Tampa Bay's already amazing 2 powerplay units...he'll probably tell Stamkos to do drop passes from centre ice, take him out from the faceoff dot, and place him infront of the goalie :lol:


#4385 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:34 PM

You have got to be kidding me


(Note: Emphasis is mine.)



It comes down to egos.


NHL wants everything they can get and players are saying no you cant have it we did this thing already last time. Fehr and Bettman do not like each other and that causes huge issues, Cooler heads wont prevail because this is personal for both sides. That is why owners dont want Fehr in negotiations.
  • 0

#4386 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,639 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:34 PM

Don Cherry weights in.
https://twitter.com/CoachsCornerCBC


Posted ImageDon Cherry@CoachsCornerCBC
I believe the hardliners said to the doves ok we did it your way and the association thinks we are weak.. Now we'll do it our way....


Posted ImageDon Cherry@CoachsCornerCBC
Your way and the doves put an extra 100 million on the table and when the association said ok but... The doves turned into hawks themselves

Posted ImageDon Cherry@CoachsCornerCBC
..He was almost shaking. That was no act. There were owners who I'll call doves who were against the hawks. The hawks said ok we'll do it..

Posted ImageDon Cherry@CoachsCornerCBC
I have known Gary Bettman since he was named commissioner. I have never seen him so livid as he was tonight at the press conference...


Edited by Rey, 06 December 2012 - 08:35 PM.

  • 0

#4387 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:35 PM

the NHL is now going to beat the NHLPA into submission. Players should have accepted. I have never supported the players so they should just cave because they are not going to win this war


They have a union leader who dismantled the MLB whose far stronger. Imagine what he can to do the NHL. Not sure why everyone thinks Bettman will beat Fehr
  • 0

#4388 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:41 PM

the NHL is now going to beat the NHLPA into submission. Players should have accepted. I have never supported the players so they should just cave because they are not going to win this war


Ah, you're a lockout supporter. Because make no mistake, that's what you are asking for when you support the players just caving each and every time the owners lock them out to make new ridiculous demands simply because they can. It's simple human behavior. If doing something always gives you a reward, you keep doing it. If lockouts always equal more profits and control over players for owners, there will always be lockouts every chance they get.

Both sides needs to give enough to make it hurt so they don't take fans for granted by thinking work stoppages are just good negotiating tactics.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4389 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,639 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:42 PM

They have a union leader who dismantled the MLB whose far stronger. Imagine what he can to do the NHL. Not sure why everyone thinks Bettman will beat Fehr


The majority is on Bettmans side now. People are turning on Fehr. Bob Mackenzie also said that players want a deal and a vote. The twitter War was Russo vs Walsch and now everyone is teaming against Walsch(Fehr supporter). Don Cherry hates Bettman, and just tweeted what he did. It's kind of clear. You can Hate Bettman, but he's convinced a lot of people with his "performance".

Edited by Rey, 06 December 2012 - 08:44 PM.

  • 0

#4390 Sanj

Sanj

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:45 PM

They have a union leader who dismantled the MLB whose far stronger. Imagine what he can to do the NHL. Not sure why everyone thinks Bettman will beat Fehr


Bettman isnt stupid. He can and is putting up a hell of a fight with the owners on his side and has positioned himself with a lot of control
  • 0

#4391 bobopan

bobopan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,515 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:45 PM

I don't have much sympathy for a league that continually dumps money down the drain on certain markets which simply will never make money.

As for the 5 year contract limits seriously your willing to lose a season over that? There are only a handful of true long-term contracts in the league, and less than 10% of contract beyond 5 years...many of which fall in the 6 year catagory. You have no problem signing the checks for those before but now that is the "hill it will die on" .Give me a ???? break.
  • 0

#4392 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:46 PM

The majority is on Bettmans side now. People are turning on Fehr. Bob Mackenzie also said that players want a deal and a vote. The twitter War was Russo vs Walsch and now everyone is teaming against Walsch(Fehr supporter). Don Cherry hates Bettman, and just tweeted what he did. It's kind of clear. You can Hate Bettman, but he's convinced a lot of people with his "performance".


Too bad the media doesnt vote on this. If the PA wants to vote on this proposal I am sure they will do it soon enough. I just feel there is a lot of spin in the media that goes on either way.

We will see soon enough.
  • 0

#4393 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:46 PM

It comes down to egos.


NHL wants everything they can get and players are saying no you cant have it we did this thing already last time. Fehr and Bettman do not like each other and that causes huge issues, Cooler heads wont prevail because this is personal for both sides. That is why owners dont want Fehr in negotiations.


Oh, it definitely comes down to egos to some degree for sure. But I think the real reason the owners didn't want Fehr in the room is they didn't want to give up their unfair advantage. Remember, they had 2 owners who were on their negotiating committee the whole time, including their Board of Governors chairman.

But in the end, who cares?! They don't need to like Fehr anymore than the players need to like Bettman. A deal is a deal. Fair is fair. What will work will work. It's time they both acted like big boys and stopped worrying about who's the bigger poopie head.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4394 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:46 PM

They have a union leader who dismantled the MLB whose far stronger. Imagine what he can to do the NHL. Not sure why everyone thinks Bettman will beat Fehr


he dismantled the MLB by striking come playoff time. the NHL was smarter than that and just locked the players out to prevent this tactic. Fehr only has one card left disclaimer of intent/decertify and i dont think his membership wants that.
  • 0

#4395 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,639 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:47 PM

Too bad the media doesnt vote on this. If the PA wants to vote on this proposal I am sure they will do it soon enough. I just feel there is a lot of spin in the media that goes on either way.

We will see soon enough.


Definitely will see soon enough. From the sounds of it, the players aren't as united as people think. 4 PA representatives in the past 8 years. Me thinks there will be a 5th when it's all done.

Edited by Rey, 06 December 2012 - 08:47 PM.

  • 0

#4396 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:49 PM

he dismantled the MLB by striking come playoff time. the NHL was smarter than that and just locked the players out to prevent this tactic. Fehr only has one card left disclaimer of intent/decertify and i dont think his membership wants that.


That will be the next step and that is where union vote counts. If players do indeed "hate fehr" which I sincerely doubt then desertification vote will be lost or wont occur and Fehr will negotiate a deal. Either way we are getting closer to some sort of end point.

Also, I will say, if desertification vote is yes in then watch out. That basically means the NHL will have small window before desertification is complete and for all intents and purposes a season is lost.
  • 0

#4397 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:50 PM

The majority is on Bettmans side now. People are turning on Fehr. Bob Mackenzie also said that players want a deal and a vote. The twitter War was Russo vs Walsch and now everyone is teaming against Walsch(Fehr supporter). Don Cherry hates Bettman, and just tweeted what he did. It's kind of clear. You can Hate Bettman, but he's convinced a lot of people with his "performance".


From an article I quoted above,

But as one player told ESPN.com on Thursday night after the theatrics were done, why wouldn’t the league submit a full formal offer? That’s the only way players would have a chance to vote on it membership-wide, he figured.


If that's true, that means the PA couldn't put anything up for a vote because the NHL didn't give them what was required for them to do that. So, they kept the PA from putting it up for a vote but made it look like it was Fehr that kept them from doing it.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4398 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:51 PM

Definitely will see soon enough. From the sounds of it, the players aren't as united as people think. 4 PA representatives in the past 8 years. Me thinks there will be a 5th when it's all done.


And this is where I will make the trump point and say why have Fehr as union leader if you were going to cave in the end anyways? They have come too far in my opinion. Also it isnt like Fehr comes cheap, he is costing them a lot of money to do negotiations and it makes 0 sense to give the middle finger to your guy at the end.


Like I said, there is a lot of spin at this point and all this Fehr hate is being manufactured to some degree by the NHL and there supporting media (Adrian Dater being one of the key examples).
  • 0

#4399 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:53 PM

From an article I quoted above,


If that's true, that means the PA couldn't put anything up for a vote because the NHL didn't give them what was required for them to do that. So, they kept the PA from putting it up for a vote but made it look like it was Fehr that kept them from doing it.

"Performance" indeed.


Like I said about 15 seconds ago, the desertification vote will be the biggest measure of the loyalty players have towards Fehr.
  • 0

#4400 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:54 PM

Jason Botchford just made one hell of a point on twitter




Jason Botchford@botchford

People keep saying contract limits only impact 12%. But players see trickle down. Ex, if weber gets 5 yrs as ufa, what does garrison get?



  • 0

#4401 KING ALBERTS

KING ALBERTS

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:57 PM

Posted Image
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

i fel off the banwagon and hit my hed on a rok


#4402 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:58 PM

I certainley believe the players make too much money and an adjustment is required, but done over time. Its the owners to bid up the contracts, think they can rewrite legal contracts, just because they are now not making money. Its absurd and the owners have dug themselves a hole and now want a ladder to get out. Players were willing to go 50/50 this cpa , over a few years, owners want it all now ! wheres the negotiations in that. Bettmans a little crap, and is responsible for the mess of the present NHL. I'm happy to watch junior hockey, the NHL can fold !
  • 0

#4403 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:59 PM

Like I said about 15 seconds ago, the desertification vote will be the biggest measure of the loyalty players have towards Fehr.


if i was a player i would not touch desertification with a 10 foot pole at this point, the miniscule differences in the proposals is not worth the massive losses of rights they could incur if they decertify.

You just know the NHL would love a chance to get non-guaranteed contracts into the mix NFL style if they ever got the chance. As a player do i want to take that risk over a shorter contract length and not being able to make more money up-front? i highly doubt it.

(i dont know the intricacies of desertification but i heard that was a possibility from doug maclean im not sure how that would happen but he said it was a possibility)
  • 0

#4404 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:00 PM

he dismantled the MLB by striking come playoff time. the NHL was smarter than that and just locked the players out to prevent this tactic. Fehr only has one card left disclaimer of intent/decertify and i dont think his membership wants that.


Smarter? Bettman said they're losing about $20M a day during this lockout. IF you believe the PA would have gone on strike just before the playoffs without a single bit of proof that's true, the owners could have had their entire regular season revenue and only the owners who had teams in the playoffs would have lost any. So to review: even if the supposed PA playoff strike plan were true, it would have cost the league a few BILLION less than the owners' lockout.

This is lockout day 82. If each lockout day costs the owners $20M, owners have lost $1.64B so far. That's significantly more than their $1.38B share of last season's HRR and rising each day. That doesn't sound anything like "smart" to me.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4405 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:03 PM

if i was a player i would not touch desertification with a 10 foot pole at this point, the miniscule differences in the proposals is not worth the massive losses of rights they could incur if they decertify.

You just know the NHL would love a chance to get non-guaranteed contracts into the mix NFL style if they ever got the chance. As a player do i want to take that risk over a shorter contract length and not being able to make more money up-front? i highly doubt it.

(i dont know the intricacies of desertification but i heard that was a possibility from doug maclean im not sure how that would happen but he said it was a possibility)


If the season ended due to desertification I can guarantee you the PA would want to get rid of the cap
  • 0

#4406 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,902 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:04 PM

So Cherry can still talk out his ass on twitter... I didn't think it was possible.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#4407 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:06 PM

Smarter? Bettman said they're losing about $20M a day during this lockout. IF you believe the PA would have gone on strike just before the playoffs without a single bit of proof that's true, the owners could have had their entire regular season revenue and only the owners who had teams in the playoffs would have lost any. So to review: even if the supposed PA playoff strike plan were true, it would have cost the league a few BILLION less than the owners' lockout.

This is lockout day 82. If each lockout day costs the owners $20M, owners have lost $1.64B so far. That's significantly more than their $1.38B share of last season's HRR and rising each day. That doesn't sound anything like "smart" to me.


yes they would have the revenue, they would also have the incurred cost, and then the MASSIVE backlash that MLB got from its fans. Do you know how robbed we would have felt if the NHL went on strike at playoff time in 2010 with the canucks in first place? most of us would never be back. you cannot take that risk for any amount of money as a league.

without a single bit of proof? fehr did it what twice in MLB? yeah the writing was on the wall why do you think fehr kept saying its an owners lockout and "we can keep playing anytime". not rocket science,
  • 1

#4408 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:06 PM

So Cherry can still talk out his ass on twitter... I didn't think it was possible.


It is Don Cherry. He has decades of experience.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4409 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:07 PM

KatieStrangESPN
#CBA League suggesting that bringing D. Fehr back into talks could be "deal-breaker," as Ron Hainsey said, indicative of levels of mistrust


KatieStrangESPN
#CBA Told that was why NHLPA requested mediation. NHL, although amenable to idea earlier in wk, did not want to do it today


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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4410 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,342 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:10 PM

Both sides just need to take a step back and cool down, we are making things seem way worse that they are because of frustration. the main


Here's my idea.

- Have max contracts for own players/RFA's at 7 like proposed, then have UFA at 6.

- In exchange for that make the CBA a 9 year agreement with an opt out clause for the players in the 8th year, and the players get the economic deal they "agreed too" back.


Sounds good? It's really not that difficult, we are so close, if either side can park there egos/personal feelings aside for this last little stretch we can actually get a deal done.
  • 0

zackass.png





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.