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

#4441 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:59 PM

Listening to Dan Russell Sports Talk. Been listening to him for a couple of decades now. Most callers to his show are mature/older hockey fans. Perhaps 30 or 35 yrs to seniors.

Anyways, most callers are clearly pro owners now. Fehr is taking heat. Russell is siding with Fehr but clearly his listeners including me are not on the same page.

Great show btw. Haven't listened to him as much lately but for about 20 years it was my bed time radio. Longest running sports show in the country.
  • 1

#4442 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,261 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:01 PM

I think everything has gone according to Bettman's playbook up until today. He always planned on giving nothing to the players until Dec 1 and counted on them compromising right up until then. That way he begins negotiating on Dec 1 against a player position that is far closer to their own, allowing them to give less in the end.

They knew when the players started missing paycheques, this would cause them to compromise. They also know that in many markets the NHL doesn't make very much money in October and November as compared to the later months and certainly the playoffs. In short, they lose less than the players by forgoing the first 2 months. The players miss a third of their salary, but the owners only miss a fifth or sixth of their revenue.

They figured once Dec 1 rolled around, the players would be ripe for compromise and would be anxious to deal.

What happened here is that Fehr slowed down the process, knowing that we are entering waters that the owners do not care to be in (missing games deep into December and January). He now has the NHL in a more precarious position, much like the players were in for the last 3 months.

It is now Fehr's turn to grind the NHL and see what HE can get from THEM. This was not a part of Bettman's playbook and now he is extremely unhappy.

IMHO


This is literally the smartest thing I've read on CDC. I would give you a hundred upvotes if I could. Truly a big thought in the company of small minds.

Bettman's face is all the indication you need to see that he has failed, that he is now out of control and he never saw it coming. He just spent time saying how close they were to the BOG and gave Fehr the chance to make him look like a fool to his own employers. Don Cherry's idea of "doves" and "hawks" amongst the owners was a good analogy. However Fehr just gave them a common target. Doves will say Bettman's hardline approach which they bit their tongues about didn't work and that he's not the man to make a deal. Hawks have shown that they care about dollars, not people, and those dollars are now evaporating because they listened to Bettman's lockout plan.

Argue that some owners are reasonable, or argue some are cutthroat. It doesn't matter in what proportions they exist, the outcome is the same. Fehr's earning his paycheck.
  • 4

#4443 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,125 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:10 PM

^^^ Totally. Bettman is frazzled, he's shaken.

Keep in mind, based off of his last years salary, he has also forfeited approximately 2+ million dollars if the claims he is not getting paid are true.
  • 0

#4444 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,125 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:23 PM

Manipulator is a great word for this guy. I don't know how ppl have not been able to see this guy for what he is for the past three months. Finally he's been exposed. The whole hockey community is turning on him, even some players questioned him why they didn't vote on the latest proposal

From all reports, things were progressing well until PA came back and said we want Fehr back in the room. This egomaniac couldn't stand the fact the 2 sides were close to an agreement. He demanded to be let back in the room and promptly destroyed everything the two sides had accomplished over the week.


Woah, woah, woah.

The players demanded Fehr be let back in the room not he himself.

Everything was going well until the owners refused to allow the PAs executive director be a part of the process. You blame Fehr for the actions of the owners? Wow.

Edited by theminister, 06 December 2012 - 11:25 PM.

  • 1

#4445 Sanj

Sanj

    Comets Star

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:28 PM

Woah, woah, woah.

The players demanded Fehr be let back in the room not he himself.

Everything was going well until the owners refused to allow the PAs executive director be a part of the process. You blame Fehr for the actions of the owners? Wow.


I dont see why Don Fehr needed to be there though? Couldnt they figure it out with his bro
  • 0

#4446 Dasein

Dasein

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,836 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:29 PM

This is literally the smartest thing I've read on CDC. I would give you a hundred upvotes if I could. Truly a big thought in the company of small minds.

Bettman's face is all the indication you need to see that he has failed, that he is now out of control and he never saw it coming. He just spent time saying how close they were to the BOG and gave Fehr the chance to make him look like a fool to his own employers. Don Cherry's idea of "doves" and "hawks" amongst the owners was a good analogy. However Fehr just gave them a common target. Doves will say Bettman's hardline approach which they bit their tongues about didn't work and that he's not the man to make a deal. Hawks have shown that they care about dollars, not people, and those dollars are now evaporating because they listened to Bettman's lockout plan.

Argue that some owners are reasonable, or argue some are cutthroat. It doesn't matter in what proportions they exist, the outcome is the same. Fehr's earning his paycheck.


I agree, it is very true that everything had gone to Bettman's playbook up until now. And the post was a very intelligent one that looks into what has happened just now and what will probably ensue in the upcoming days (most likely weeks - and the season is probably gone).

But is it really that bad that it has gone according to what Bettman wanted? Was the deal proposed by the NHL through Bettman's playbook really that unreasonable that the players didn't even have to vote on it? I don't think so. I think the NHL utilized its tools well to put the pressure on the PA to accept a deal or to throw the season away.

Although everything so far had gone by Bettman's playbook, the fact of the matter is that the outcome was a reasonable offer, and Fehr, out of pride, rejected it without even considering it. He wanted to deny Bettman of his contingent plan, regardless of whether it was good enough or not to save the season, so that he could start playing by his own books. But that comes at the cost of a season - and Fehr knows it and everybody who cares enough to follow this knows it. That's why this was so frustrating. Fehr had a choice to make between trying to save the NHL season with a reasonable compromising deal (which he is supposed to do) at the cost of his pride, and having the upper hand at the cost of the season.

We all know which choice he made.

The fact that Fehr threw the season away just so he could have the upper hand is what pisses everybody off. The main goal here is to find a compromising deal that is reasonable to save the season. NHL made its offer. The logical thing to do is to at least vote on it - given that the season's on the line.

Because Fehr threw the season away, and many people know it, I wouldn't say he as the upperhand as he had anticipated. Bettman's job is on the line with another lockout, yes, but with the way Fehr played it, I wouldn't be surprised if the owners stand behind Bettman even more solid now...

It's just that I think that the NHL's proposal was reasonable and that hockey could have been back that makes it so frustrating. If that makes me a sucker who's fallen right into Bettman's trap of vilifying Fehr for destroying the season by refusing, then so be it. He deserves to be vilified ... He didn't even have the players vote on the proposal before refusing it.

Edited by Dasein, 06 December 2012 - 11:35 PM.

  • 0

Athletes today are scared to make Muhammad Ali Statements.


#4447 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:33 PM

I completely disagree with the notion that Bettman is dazzled or cornered etc... He's the one who took the offer off the table. He's the one who's been in control and keeps control by taking offer off the table. What this does is puts pressure on Fehr. Some players are already asking him why there was no vote.

While I agree with parts of JAH's post, some of it is not factually correct. Players don't lose 1/3 of money and owners lose 1/5 or 1/6 of revenue. This is not how it works.

If there is a shortened season players share and owners share will still be divided as per new CBA. They will both have a smaller pie to share. But they will still get pro rated amount of what they would get with full season.

It is true revenues in Oct and Nov are lower than later months. So the overall revenue is less affected if those 2 months are canceled. But since both sides' share of revenue is tied to HRR this affects both sides equally. When they start work again all the revenue goes into one pot and gets divided as per CBA, (50-50 plus make whole etc.) exactly as it would be with full season.

I think the players will ask to re start negotiations. I don't see owners giving much more. In 3 or 4 weeks if there is no deal the season will be canceled. Not something players want.
  • 0

#4448 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:37 PM

Woah, woah, woah.

The players demanded Fehr be let back in the room not he himself.

Everything was going well until the owners refused to allow the PAs executive director be a part of the process. You blame Fehr for the actions of the owners? Wow.


The players suggested it because they were told by Fehr what to say. I'm not blaming anyone for anyone's actions.

Both sides had an agreement they'd bargain without Fehr and Bettman. Then one side renegs on this agreement and says we won't go ahead if Fehr not allowed back in the room. Soon after every thing falls apart. Figure it out.

There is a report one player said they had a deal until Fehr got involved and ruined it.
  • 0

#4449 Dasein

Dasein

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,836 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:38 PM

Now, I suppose if everything goes perfectly according to Fehr's playbook, Bettman will break some time this weekend because he is afraid of losing his job, and compromise to the NHLPA's proposal to save the season.

If Bettman breaks and this happens, Fehr will be a hero for the players, and no longer the villain in the eyes of the fans - since the season was saved regardless.

But if this move is what costs the season, I don't know. I just think that it was a reasonable offer from the NHL, and if the NHLPA signs for anything less than the offer they had today, and the season ends up being cancelled, which I think is going to happen (Bettman won't bend IMO) as a result of Fehr overmanipulating things, Fehr deserves to have the finger pointed at him.

Am I the only one who thinks that Bettman has majority of the owners' behind his back now after this? I think his job security is higher now if anything ... I don't see the owners firing him any time soon.

And unless NHL decides to give the PA a second chance at the deal that they just took off the table, I see the PA signing for a much worse deal AND have the season be cancelled ...

Edited by Dasein, 06 December 2012 - 11:42 PM.

  • 0

Athletes today are scared to make Muhammad Ali Statements.


#4450 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,095 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:44 PM

Posted Image
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#4451 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:45 PM

This wasn't Bettman's call Dasein. This was the call of owners who were in the room negotiating. Bettman made it clear he was under pressure for some time to take make whole off the table but he went against these owners in attempt to get a deal done. Bettman is in power and in control because his owners are more hawkish then him. Hence the offer off the table. His owners are behind him so his job is not on the line. Bettman is more of a dove than most owners.

Now some of the "dove" owners who wanted a deal done are the ones who instructed Bettman to pull the offer.

Edited by WHL rocks, 07 December 2012 - 12:00 AM.

  • 0

#4452 Kamero89

Kamero89

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:46 PM

Both sides can go jump off a bridge.
  • 1

#4453 The Big Luongo

The Big Luongo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,416 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 06

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:01 AM

Just like i said a while back Fehr will stop at nothing to screw the NHL owners and the players are dumb to the fact he is brainwashing them to think they are hard done by.
Fehr, Toews and a few spoiled weasels are leading the charge and some decent players in that union with some sense has got to step up and make a deal.
Anyone who sides on the players side in this battle must be a fool.
  • 0

#4454 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,856 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:04 AM

These guys are such drama queens.
This should have been settled in the summer.

Players agree to go to 50-50
Owner agree to honor contracts

Players agree to CBA length
Owners agree to Contract Length

Players agree to UFA age
Owners agree to Entry level length

and on and on......

But no, they wanted to win the PR battle instead. This league is such a joke.
  • 1
Posted Image

#4455 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,261 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:12 AM

I completely disagree with the notion that Bettman is dazzled or cornered etc... He's the one who took the offer off the table. He's the one who's been in control and keeps control by taking offer off the table. What this does is puts pressure on Fehr. Some players are already asking him why there was no vote.


Bettman has taken almost every offer he's given off the table at some point. It's a transparent move that shows how bad Bettman is at negotiating. Owners will beg for that deal to be put back on the table if the PA is willing to take it. If you think that offer is gone, you've probably just bought a bridge.

While I agree with parts of JAH's post, some of it is not factually correct. Players don't lose 1/3 of money and owners lose 1/5 or 1/6 of revenue. This is not how it works.

If there is a shortened season players share and owners share will still be divided as per new CBA. They will both have a smaller pie to share. But they will still get pro rated amount of what they would get with full season.

It is true revenues in Oct and Nov are lower than later months. So the overall revenue is less affected if those 2 months are canceled. But since both sides' share of revenue is tied to HRR this affects both sides equally. When they start work again all the revenue goes into one pot and gets divided as per CBA, (50-50 plus make whole etc.) exactly as it would be with full season.


HRR is a misnomer in that it is more like "profit" than "revenue". If you don't know the difference look it up as it is key. Few owners make much profit this time of the year and some lose money at this time. To not play for October and November may very well mean an INCREASE in profits and therefore HRR. Bringing in the same amount of money and not paying 2 months' costs will do that. The actions of both sides seem to imply this. Daly only talks about lost revenues due to the lockout not profits. The Fehrs refuse to talk about how to divvy up the supposedly reduced HRR the lockout will create; meanwhile the NHL was constantly trying to re-table the issue.

If Fehr knows this fact and the NHL knows this (which I would bet they both do), Fehr has just demonstrated that the players will pass on at least 2 months of paychecks to get a fair deal. Meanwhile, they have effectively lost none. There is a term called "opportunity cost" that you should Google as well. The opportunity cost to the players up until now (or so they have thought) has been lost wages for sticking it to their greedy employers. Meanwhile the opportunity costs to owners has been nothing or even less than nothing. Now that has switched. Players have already written off their wages into mid January. Owners haven't had to give anything. Their resolve was due to a perceived financial invincibility. Now they're going to have to figure out just how much money they want to spend on this lockout. I highly doubt the answer is very much.
  • 0

#4456 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:28 AM

This isn't the first time that the NHL has made a 'take it or leave it' offer, and it is not the first time Bettman has said that its off the table and won't be re-introduced in the future. However, each 'take it or leave it' offer has been better than the last.

Also, the notion that you can pull something like percentage of HRR or term length off the table is a farce. The only thing off the table to this point is a full season. Once something is offered, it becomes the starting point the next time. The other side knows you are willing to give AT LEAST that, and won't settle for less than that unless you go 'scorched earth' and completely break them. Things that are uncontrollable, like the number of games in a season (or a season at all) are really the only things the NHL can legitimately pull off the table.

What these kinds of comments do is unify, annoy, and stiffen the spines of the players. It's more 'tantrum' than 'business'. If it was an ok deal today, it's an ok deal tomorrow. It's so obviously a purely punishing tactic that it undermines the trust built to this point and makes the NHL, and particularly Bettman, look unprofessional and childish.

What Fehr did was what he is supposed to do - negotiate points that are not agreed upon. When Bettman pulls this 'take it or leave it' and 'its off the table' routine, it tells the players that he is not willing to really negotiate, and that he will take his ball and go home unexpectedly and without warning. How can you really negotiate in good faith with someone like that? I believe what Bettman is trying to do is make the PA nervous the next time they get an offer that is close to what they would accept. He's planting in their mind the notion that the PA must bridge that final gap, and if they don't, the NHL will bail on the while process.

The NHL likes to come at this with absolutes. Like Daly's 'this is the hill we will die on'. Really Bill? So you'd flush a season for a one year difference in contract length? Two seasons? 5? Using absolute terms like this is, again, childish and unprofessional and in the end it's not really true.

IMHO, Fehr is more in control now than he has been to this point. I believe he has perhaps a couple of weeks to a month at the very most to hammer out a deal. Beyond that, the season is gone.
  • 4
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#4457 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,417 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:34 AM

Never have i seen the game i love become so tarnished.
  • 0
Posted Image

#4458 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,856 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:38 AM

The NHLPA basically gave the NHL a taste of their own medicine today. That's why Gary and Bill looked so angry, they finally took a hit. The NHL has been taking and taking. So this time the PA just said thank you and took the $100M. The NHL expect a major concession in return when they give something.

Inevitably cooler heads will prevail. Players need to come together and vote on the contract length/cba length.
The way they made it look on TV, it was like the world was about to end. But they are so close to a deal and just got frustrated, sometimes you just need to take a step back.

3 year difference on contract term
2 year difference on CBA length

Too bad we have to lose another week or two for them to agree on that as well.
At least this is good news for Hockey Canada!
  • 2
Posted Image

#4459 Brick Tamland

Brick Tamland

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,562 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:41 AM

Does anyone know what percentage of players currently have signed contracts that are longer than 5 years? I would think that it is star players and less than 5% of the league...
  • 0
I Love Lamp...

#4460 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,291 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:49 AM

Both sides can go jump off a bridge.


:lol: Lol nice optimism.

This isn't the first time that the NHL has made a 'take it or leave it' offer, and it is not the first time Bettman has said that its off the table and won't be re-introduced in the future. However, each 'take it or leave it' offer has been better than the last.

Also, the notion that you can pull something like percentage of HRR or term length off the table is a farce. The only thing off the table to this point is a full season. Once something is offered, it becomes the starting point the next time. The other side knows you are willing to give AT LEAST that, and won't settle for less than that unless you go 'scorched earth' and completely break them. Things that are uncontrollable, like the number of games in a season (or a season at all) are really the only things the NHL can legitimately pull off the table.

What these kinds of comments do is unify, annoy, and stiffen the spines of the players. It's more 'tantrum' than 'business'. If it was an ok deal today, it's an ok deal tomorrow. It's so obviously a purely punishing tactic that it undermines the trust built to this point and makes the NHL, and particularly Bettman, look unprofessional and childish.

What Fehr did was what he is supposed to do - negotiate points that are not agreed upon. When Bettman pulls this 'take it or leave it' and 'its off the table' routine, it tells the players that he is not willing to really negotiate, and that he will take his ball and go home unexpectedly and without warning. How can you really negotiate in good faith with someone like that? I believe what Bettman is trying to do is make the PA nervous the next time they get an offer that is close to what they would accept. He's planting in their mind the notion that the PA must bridge that final gap, and if they don't, the NHL will bail on the while process.

The NHL likes to come at this with absolutes. Like Daly's 'this is the hill we will die on'. Really Bill? So you'd flush a season for a one year difference in contract length? Two seasons? 5? Using absolute terms like this is, again, childish and unprofessional and in the end it's not really true.

IMHO, Fehr is more in control now than he has been to this point. I believe he has perhaps a couple of weeks to a month at the very most to hammer out a deal. Beyond that, the season is gone.


Finally someone know's what going on. I agree that once you put something on it is always there, you have proven you are willing to go that fair and the other side knows it, plus these tactics Bettman uses don't scare the PA at all and they seem to always backfire.

And I also agree that Fehr and the players control a good amount of power here and are actually really close, the NHL made outrageous remarks and embaressed themselves futher than they way they have handled this process already has.

As I said earlier (And Playboi19 just said)

2 year CBA difference and 3 year max contract difference, we aren't fair apart, this shouldn't take long.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 07 December 2012 - 12:49 AM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#4461 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:54 AM

Bettman has taken almost every offer he's given off the table at some point. It's a transparent move that shows how bad Bettman is at negotiating. Owners will beg for that deal to be put back on the table if the PA is willing to take it. If you think that offer is gone, you've probably just bought a bridge.

Really? Bettman took every offer he's given off the table?? I wasn't aware of this. Please provide link to back up you claim.

As far as me thinking "that offer is gone", I'm not sure where you pulled that out of. I'm on record on this thread saying Bettman will put the offer back on table if players asked for and wanted to vote on it. So again I'm not sure where you got that from. Google it, you won't find me saying it.

HRR is a misnomer in that it is more like "profit" than "revenue". If you don't know the difference look it up as it is key. Few owners make much profit this time of the year and some lose money at this time. To not play for October and November may very well mean an INCREASE in profits and therefore HRR. Bringing in the same amount of money and not paying 2 months' costs will do that. The actions of both sides seem to imply this. Daly only talks about lost revenues due to the lockout not profits. The Fehrs refuse to talk about how to divvy up the supposedly reduced HRR the lockout will create; meanwhile the NHL was constantly trying to re-table the issue.

If Fehr knows this fact and the NHL knows this (which I would bet they both do), Fehr has just demonstrated that the players will pass on at least 2 months of paychecks to get a fair deal. Meanwhile, they have effectively lost none. There is a term called "opportunity cost" that you should Google as well. The opportunity cost to the players up until now (or so they have thought) has been lost wages for sticking it to their greedy employers. Meanwhile the opportunity costs to owners has been nothing or even less than nothing. Now that has switched. Players have already written off their wages into mid January. Owners haven't had to give anything. Their resolve was due to a perceived financial invincibility. Now they're going to have to figure out just how much money they want to spend on this lockout. I highly doubt the answer is very much.


We shall see. Players have only lost only 3 paychecks. By mid Jan they will have lost 3 more. We will see where they stand by then.

As far as bringing in same amount of money by missing almost 50% of games I have no idea how you propose to do that. By all reports the league has lost approx $400 million. Players share of that is $200 million. If you think billionaires owners care about losing a few million as much as NHL players do then I would like to introduce you to a guy I know, he's a Nigerian prince.

Players: On Thursday, players missed their third paycheck. They have now technically already lost 19.4% of their 2012-13 pay. But that figure isn't permanently settled. What players would receive in a shortened season still would have to be negotiated, but if, for example, an agreement is reached and the NHL plays a 68-game schedule starting on Dec.1 they would likely regain some of those lost wages. A 68-game schedule represents 82.9% of an 82-game NHL game, and players could logically expect to receive 82.9% of their 2012-13 salary. That's what happened when the NHL played a 48-game season in 1994-95. For $10 million Tampa Bay Lightning center Vincent Lecavalier, who received no signing bonuses and isn't playing in Europe, that would be a loss of more than $1.7 million from this year's salary. And even after prorating player salaries is complete, their final take won't be settled because one of the major issues in collective bargaining is the owners' desire to drop players' share of hockey-related revenue from 57% to 50%. If that occurs, players will have a portion of their paychecks placed in escrow to cover the possibility that their share exceeds the agreed-upon percentage.
Revenues: The NHL was a $3.3 billion industry last season, and the league was anticipating a 5% increase in revenue for the 2012-13 season. Players had been using a 7% growth expectation. Now, the NHL is projecting revenues to be down a minimum of $350 to $400 million if the season starts up. More important, owners and players don't know if fan backlash over the lockout will affect growth. Even if they can get a season started in December, they can't be sure of which direction revenues will hea


Link http://www.usatoday....damage/1707351/

Edited by WHL rocks, 07 December 2012 - 12:57 AM.

  • 0

#4462 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:59 AM

Does anyone know what percentage of players currently have signed contracts that are longer than 5 years? I would think that it is star players and less than 5% of the league...


I think there are 90 contracts in the league. Bettman said this during his press conference.
  • 0

#4463 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,863 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:11 AM

Final word on all of this and then I go to sleep. The reason Bettman is pissed is because he misjudged the players. He wanted to get his deal by taking Fehr out of the picture. PA said F that and brought him back in today. I can guarantee all of you who are up Bettmans rear end for no apparent reason that the biggest mistake Bettman and his posy made was trying to get Fehr out of the equation. The players did not waste so much money and effort to get Fehr for no reason They knew what they were getting into 2-3 years ago when they hired Donald.

Yeah there is a faction that is mad but that faction did not understand consequences of having Fehr in the first place. Even if worst case scenario there are 40-50 players that are not happy that accounts for about 7% of the player union MAX. You are not going to get a deal if 7% of players want last offer.

Now Fehr is going to make Bettman pay. The actions he chooses may not be ideal for hockey fans but remember this was brought upon by the owners. By calling out a guy who is the figure head for the union, you are challenging the union loyalty for him. If they are indeed loyal to him, they will go for desertification. At that point Bettman and the owners look like morons for calling out Fehr and thats when they really set themselves up to get killed. If Fehr can deal with the MLB and prevent a cap from occurring in that league, I know sure as hell he can do as much damage to a less powerful league whose revenue stream is tremendously smaller.

Oh and if any of you do not agree with me look at the first action that Fehrs company took when Bettman was on podium. They decided to walk into the conference and stare him down. I talked to 2 family members who have prominent roles in a union in BC (do not want to reveal anything about it) and they were saying that they even thought that the players intruding the Press Conference indicated a sign of war.

Bettman is gambling on union loyalty being low. The test for Fehr will be desertification. If it passes, as I expect it should then the NHL will be dropping on a dime to give up concessions because if desertification happens the season is done.

There is no way the NHL can sustain another full locked out season in any way shape or form.
  • 1

#4464 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,863 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:14 AM

Listening to Dan Russell Sports Talk. Been listening to him for a couple of decades now. Most callers to his show are mature/older hockey fans. Perhaps 30 or 35 yrs to seniors.

Anyways, most callers are clearly pro owners now. Fehr is taking heat. Russell is siding with Fehr but clearly his listeners including me are not on the same page.

Great show btw. Haven't listened to him as much lately but for about 20 years it was my bed time radio. Longest running sports show in the country.


The one thing I will agree with you. Dan is one heck of a commentator
  • 0

#4465 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,291 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:17 AM

I don't understand how Gary can stand up there and say that he wants to get a deal done ASAP, and that they are willing to negotiate at anytime and stuff.

And yet they keep making "take-it of leave-it" offers.


Edit: I'm in the same boat as Canuckbeliever, that is my final tought for the night. uhh what a night it was....

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 07 December 2012 - 01:18 AM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#4466 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,612 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:24 AM

Final word on all of this and then I go to sleep....


*decertification - the misspelling is starting to bother me.

Your numbers are vague and seemingly pulled out of nowhere. You also seem to assert players were in attendance at the press conference to 'stare down Bettman' which isn't true. They have every right to attend as any media nut does, if they speak up well that's a different situation. Hainsey even said he did it because "TSN wasn't in his hotel room".

Beyond that I agree with you that the frustration directed towards Fehr is unwarranted. Bettman is the villain, and the difference between the two press conferences showcased that tonight. Fehr was optimistic and said they were 'close', while Bettman took the stage with anger and dispelled any potential progress. I'd be shocked if the two sides met before January, thanks in part to Bettman's delivery.

Everyone says the players should have voted on the last proposal, then why didn't the owners? The PA was the last side to offer and would have been much easier to get a vote following the BoG meeting. I'm of the opinion that there is a deal, and the two sides are closer than what they are letting on. The media battle isn't helping, neither side should have held a presser, certainly not one to voice frustration - seems counter-intuitive.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#4467 Brick Tamland

Brick Tamland

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,562 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:26 AM

So for 14% of the guys who have signed these 5+ deals, we are going to blow this deal up? Does Manny Malholtra think he can get a 6 years deal some where?

The PA doesn't want a 10 year labour agreement but they want themselves to be able to sign 10+ year labour agreements (player contracts)?

It is a bunch of idiots messing up our great game!
  • 0
I Love Lamp...

#4468 Brick Tamland

Brick Tamland

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,562 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:28 AM

*decertification - the misspelling is starting to bother me.

Your numbers are vague and seemingly pulled out of nowhere. You also seem to assert players were in attendance at the press conference to 'stare down Bettman' which isn't true. They have every right to attend as any media nut does, if they speak up well that's a different situation. Hainsey even said he did it because "TSN wasn't in his hotel room".

Beyond that I agree with you that the frustration directed towards Fehr is unwarranted. Bettman is the villain, and the difference between the two press conferences showcased that tonight. Fehr was optimistic and said they were 'close', while Bettman took the stage with anger and dispelled any potential progress. I'd be shocked if the two sides met before January, thanks in part to Bettman's delivery.

Everyone says the players should have voted on the last proposal, then why didn't the owners? The PA was the last side to offer and would have been much easier to get a vote following the BoG meeting. I'm of the opinion that there is a deal, and the two sides are closer than what they are letting on. The media battle isn't helping, neither side should have held a presser, certainly not one to voice frustration - seems counter-intuitive.


The owners did vote, they voted no...
  • 0
I Love Lamp...

#4469 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:32 AM

The most entertaining day yet outta this year's version of the "NHL."

Bettman's performance was worth the wait. Really dialed it up a notch. Nice use of contrast.

Crocodile posturing at it's best.

He looked so 'angry'... !!! Exasperated even!!!

But he's been big on the over-sell hasn't he?

Poker is a much more popular game these days; even us layfolk are more accustomed to watching big bluffs.

Did he kinda show us his cards though?

Were those some ingenious, or ingenuous gestures?

He's trying to play a different game: Monopoly - but that requires eliminating his opponent.

The strategy: exclude and isolate the NHLPA's counsel... After all, it's really not fair/fehr that the player's have professional representation...

Really - the owners don't need Gary Bettman to do their bidding - they are entirely capable of negotiating on their own behalf. The players are not businessmen, they are athletes - they are intelligent, but this isn't their game.

Not surprised there was a bit of a feeding frenzy - some people who bought into this ploy (although McLean's performance was not quite as stellar as Bettman's) - but from where I sit, it looks like another form of PR stunt. Unconvincing. Fehr responded in kind. Was it really the case of good faith negotiation on the part of the NHL, or another power play? How dare the players counter!?

Not too long ago Bettman was suggesting taking a few weeks away from negotiations, wasn't he?...now, all of a sudden there is a newfound utmost urgency - the hourglass has suddenly run out of sand? This is a classic negotiation strategy. I don't buy the dramatics at all. But it was entertaining. It's the least they owe us fans. If they are going to drag out the marathon snore of a pseudo-negotiation, the least they can do is throw in a little more of the high dramatics.

Edited by oldnews, 07 December 2012 - 01:40 AM.

  • 1

#4470 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,261 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:32 AM

We shall see. Players have only lost only 3 paychecks. By mid Jan they will have lost 3 more. We will see where they stand by then.

As far as bringing in same amount of money by missing almost 50% of games I have no idea how you propose to do that. By all reports the league has lost approx $400 million. Players share of that is $200 million. If you think billionaires owners care about losing a few million as much as NHL players do then I would like to introduce you to a guy I know, he's a Nigerian prince.


Good lord. Lost revenues does not equal lost profits or lost HRR. How lazy do you have to be to talk about this CBA negotiation for 2 months and not take 2 minutes to Google the meanings of "profit" and "revenue"? It's appalling.

Edited by nateb123, 07 December 2012 - 01:43 AM.

  • 2




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.