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

#4501 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:34 AM

Aaaaand now he's gone offline to avoid admitting he's wrong. It must require a spectacular amount of self-assurance to defend his comments and act like what he's saying has some authority when he doesn't have any clue about accounting, finance or negotiations. Thanks for helping me give him a dose of reality.


C'mon man what is this grade 4.

Give a credible link to your claims and we can talk. Or just admit you made it up.

I've been following these CBA negotiations pretty damn close. I don't recall Bettman pulling make whole off the table until today. If you have proof of this please provide me with link.

I won't be responding to you anymore unless you show me specific and credible proof of your claims of Bettman pulling every offer off the table prior to today.

And btw, you attempting to belittle me doesn't bother me. Just shows your lack of maturity. You made claims you can't back up and now you are frustrated.

Edited by WHL rocks, 07 December 2012 - 04:47 AM.

  • 0

#4502 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,799 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:12 AM

When it makes sense not to make a deal

The gap between the NHL and the NHLPA has diminished to the point that it’s almost unbelievable that a deal between the two sides hasn’t been reached yet. As one NHL governor told ESPN after looking at proposals from the league and the union, “I looked at them both and wondered how this thing isn’t done already.”
Aside from figuring out how to spread the financial pain caused by the lockout, it appears that very little separates the two sides. The NHL wants a 10-year deal with a mutual out-clause after eight years; the NHLPA says the same thing except with eight years and six years, respectively. The NHL wants five-year term limits (seven for a team’s own players), with maximum year-to-year variance of five percent. The NHLPA offered eight year term limits with a 25 percent variance. In his press conference on Thursday night, Bill Daly used the term “hill to die on,” but none of these things look like the stuff last stands are made of.
So why isn’t there a deal?
Let’s start by setting aside the argument that Donald Fehr and Gary Bettman are letting their egos and emotion get in the way. Both are highly intelligent men with long experience negotiating. If they didn’t accept the deals proffered by their counterparts, the obvious conclusion is this: because they believe a better deal is coming. And if these negotiations confirmed anything, it is that so far both sides have been right that they can gain more. The single biggest shift was on the “Make Whole” scheme (now off the table, according to Bettman), where both sides were able to agree on a given figure.
Yet, with precious few things left to bargain on now – again, seriously, we’re at the point where things like 1-to-3 year gaps on term limits for contracts have become pivotal issues – the question is whether those gains will come through the collective bargaining process.
For the NHL, the other possibility is that players desperate to play will topple the union leadership. Indeed, they’ve done everything they could to separate the players on the negotiating committee from NHLPA head Donald Fehr. In fact, according to player (and member of both the NHLPA executive board and CBA negotiating committee) Ron Hainsey, it was the NHLPA’s attempt to bring Fehr in to close the deal that soured the NHL on the process:


As confident as some of players are on their issues, we cannot close deals. I’d love to think I could. We cannot. Once we made clear that… we had to get our union leadership, that we’ve hired for this, in the room, there was just a very big change. It was alarming, and I was told that if we were going to do that, it was possibly a deal breaker. That was made clear last night. It was confusing, because we kind of agreed that we were moving toward each other, and we weren’t that far apart. So, it’s confusing for the players to think that we were supposed to finish this ourselves.


The implication is that the NHL hoped to rope the players into closing a deal without the presence of Fehr.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat, though. In 2005, a mutiny within the NHLPA ranks forced Bob Goodenow to accept a salary cap and ultimately led to his ouster as union head. While Gary Bettman was critical of turnover in the NHLPA’s executive director position, the message that Fehr is forcing a fight on the players that they don’t want has been part of the NHL’s communications strategy for months now.
While there’s no question that there are divisions within the NHLPA membership, an internal revolt seems unlikely at this juncture. By the start of November the last time around, multiple players in North America were willing to go on the record in opposition to Bob Goodenow’s stance on the salary cap. The recently retired Rob Ray said that he’d be a replacement player, and that he knew 10 current NHL’ers who would join him. This time, the only public dissent has come from Roman Hamrlik, who has been all but absent from NHLPA meetings and conference calls.
On the NHLPA side, the hope seems to be less that the league will splinter and more that the courts will decide things in favour of the players. Decertification – commonly used to represent both a disclaimer of interest (where the union disclaims its right to represent the players) and full-on decertification (a lengthier process that includes petitions and voting) – has long been hailed as a nuclear tactic for the players because in the absence of a union things like the salary cap and NHL Entry Draft could conceivably disappear. If the lockout is ruled illegal, there’s also the possibility that the players would be awarded heavy damages by the court. Player agents like Allan Walsh and Ian Pulver tweeted their support for decertification on Thursday night.
The problem is that while it could be a knock-out punch for the NHLPA, it’s also uncertain. Here’s legal expert Gabriel A. Feldman prognosticating on the NBAPA’s attempt during that league’s lockout:


Given the complex and novel nature of the legal issues involved– regardless of one’s views on the merits of decertification and disclaimer– it is simply impossible to predict the outcome of an antitrust suit filed by the NBA players. Remember, even in the Brady case, two federal judges sided with the NFL players, and two federal judges sided (in part) with the owners. Granted, the NFL got the two judges it needed, but there’s no guarantee that a different set of judges in a different court will rule the same way. So, neither side should be particularly comfortable with the strength of their legal positions.


Ultimately, in the case of both the NFL and NBA, deals were reached before the courts came to a final decision.
In a nutshell, both sides still have two possibilities to reach a better deal. There’s still significant time for a negotiated settlement – as Gary Bettman indicated in his press conference, the NHL won’t run a season shorter than 48 games, which gives a drop-dead date for the season as sometime in mid-January – but there’s also precious little gap between the two parties. The NHL can look at the recent history of the union, and hope that the NHLPA does to Fehr what it did to Bob Goodenow – allowing the league to once again dictate the majority of the collective bargaining agreement. The NHLPA has the uncertain hope offered by decertification; it’s a big risk but it also offers massive rewards and a chance at definitive victory over the league. Of course, if it fails the NHLPA will have no leverage whatsoever.
Clearly, Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr both see an opportunity to get more. If that’s by way of negotiations, it’s difficult to see the gains as being worth the time lost. If, on the other hand, they’re both looking for the big win, only one of them can be right.


  • 0

#4503 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,799 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:44 AM

My feeling is that we've now seen what the end-game, or original Master Plan, was behind this lockout. Beyond the nitty gritty of revenue and contracts, the aim was to discredit the concept of having a player's union. By offering unrealistic proposals through the fall, continually disappointing the general public (fans, us), and then removing the head of the union, the league could claim triumph over the fact that, in the end, the players only needed themselves to reach a deal. Furthermore, the ongoing line that Fehr (or ____ Director) was unable to properly transmit information to the full constituency. In any potential future negotiations, the NHL would have a fall-back mantra that 700+ players will certainly never be able to be represented by a single head. This is a lockout for future lockouts, in other words.

Everyone remembers Frank Luntz, right? I'd bet real money that part of his strategy was to have a two-week moratorium on negotiations in the second half of November, during which the seeds of this concept would be planted. The tantrum we saw today from Gary Bettman was pent up rage from having the script altered.
  • 1

#4504 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:52 AM

Hi guys, greetings from a wintry Scotland.

Each day I wake up, have breakfast, feed the dog and then open my laptop and log into this thread in the vain hope of good news.

Yesterday morning, or was it Wednesday (damn the time difference is awkward) I couldn't wait to log in after all the positive vibe from the previous day..........I should have known there was no good news as the Canucks front page was unchanged and I knew any "back to hockey" would have been plastered all over it.

At the time of writing this my soccer team is close to going out of business, players are not being paid, Directors are resigning and fans are taking up collections. Two groups of fans raised £4000 between them to help pay the Under 20 players last months salaries which amount to £10,500/month. The club still couldn't pay them.

There has been all manner of mis-administration at the Club over the past 10 years...........but at the end of the day it is the fans who suffer with the likely loss of their Club. These fans, coming up to Christmas are still digging into their pockets to try and save their football team (soccer) a team started in 1885, a team with a history of European success ............

The reasons for this in my view are the same as the reasons for the NHL lockout. The fans are not empowered and worse still are treated by those who run the game/their Club as cash cows who never learn and are so in love with their game/Club they will accept being treated like idiots and dip into their pockets to shell out no matter how they are treated.

I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the administration of the NHL and the players contracts to comment but one thing is certain there is a solution and there will be a settlement............so why is it taking so long? One reason is obvious. The fans have no say and no power to influence the outcome......OR DO THEY.

If I was a member of an NHL hockey club over there I would be trying to set up a fans committee, a Union if you like and then my first task would be an ultimatum to both sides.

SETTLE BY THE 14TH OR TAKE THE REST OF THE SEASON AND NEXT SEASON, because we wont be turning up, we wont be buying merchandise and we won't be buying cable or anything connected with the NHL.

Pickett the offices of the owners and the homes of the major players. I guarantee this dispute would end in a week.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#4505 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:00 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!


The players who have already signed those long term deals get to keep them.

Its just going forward teams will be able to sign their own players for 7 years max and another teams' UFA players for 5 years max.

Edited by WHL rocks, 07 December 2012 - 05:49 AM.

  • 0

#4506 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,476 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:52 AM

Typical union mentality. Players want long term contracts so that they don't have to prove that they are worth it game in and game out, year after year. Sign a 10 year contract and float around the ice like they are in Icecapades. IMHO, the contracts should be 1 year max. How the player performs for that contract determines whether he will get resigned and for how much.

Us working stiff have to prove our worth else we're out of a job. Same should be for these players.

Edited by Heretic, 07 December 2012 - 08:54 AM.

  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#4507 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,615 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:19 AM

Typical union mentality. Players want long term contracts so that they don't have to prove that they are worth it game in and game out, year after year. Sign a 10 year contract and float around the ice like they are in Icecapades. IMHO, the contracts should be 1 year max. How the player performs for that contract determines whether he will get resigned and for how much.

Us working stiff have to prove our worth else we're out of a job. Same should be for these players.


I agree but they will argue injuries are why they want the guaranteed contract. Otherwise they will not put themselves in danger to make plays and the game would suffer.

It's a bunch of BS from guys who have never had to actually work a real job. Just like spoiled rich kids, they're everywhere.
  • 1
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#4508 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,183 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:20 AM

*
POPULAR

The owners did vote, they voted no...

They voted to throw a temper tantrum and send things back to square one.. These cry baby billionaires are the reason there is no hockey. This entire lockout has been a player shakedown and the second it doesn't go in the owners favor, they pull everything off the table, say no more talks and point their finger at Fehr.

Nobody has a bigger ego than a billionaire businessman. They got there by being a money sucking vulcher. Problem is they're not dealing with middle class workers like me and you, they're dealing with elite athletes that they actually do not want to lose. I think they are trying to break the union and its not going to work. If the union holds strong the NHL will crack. I really don't think they can recover from losing another season.

If I was in the players accociation I'd just head to Europe, enjoy myself and say call me when you guys are done.
  • 5

#4509 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,476 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:26 AM

I agree but they will argue injuries are why they want the guaranteed contract. Otherwise they will not put themselves in danger to make plays and the game would suffer.

It's a bunch of BS from guys who have never had to actually work a real job. Just like spoiled rich kids, they're everywhere.


Yes, but injuries, just like any other workplace, would fall under long term disability. You know, like 60% of your wage, not 100% like these players get with their "guaranteed" salaries...
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#4510 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,157 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:35 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.

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.

When the annoucement was made that 4 new owners would meet with players and that Fehr and Bettmen would not participate I said that it did not make sense and that nothing would come of it. I think it was the Sabre goal tender, Miller, who made a similiar comment.

My take on this whole dispute is that ownership has a clear bottom line and the ebb and flow of negociations don't change the bottom line. Bettman alluded to that in his presser. His frustration with the union being that they were cherrypicking the negociations and returning with different demands. I don't blame Fehr for that it is his job. Fehr is faced with a tough job as he deals from a weak hand. Ownership comes into these negociations realizing that although they broke the union in 2005 the deal they forced did not resolve the game's financial problems. Hugh embarassment. Fans should not be surprised when ownership withdraws offers in this give and take. I am sure that every time the union says they will take the latest offer and come back the next day the ownership cringes.

SO why the meeting without Fehr and Bettman. I suspect that ownership wanted to send a message to the players that the 4 'doves' sitting across from them were their best chance at a deal. The bogeyman Bettman was sat out and subsituted with the new 'devil' J. Jacobs. The dominance of Bettmna's ego could be removed and rational negociation concluded. Crosby & Company from Pitt would save the season.

I suspect the NHL owners did put close to their best deal forward. This is all time sensitive and the offer could change again. The clear message and the one I think ownership wanted to communicate with or without a settlement was that the owners present were their best opportunity to settle. The PA might not have liked that reality but the message is clear. There is a bottom line and it is dollar driven. The contract concessions, the make whole and the term all have major dollars attached.

I suspect that Bettman will cancel games to the end of December at the beginning of next week and that a 'drop dead' date for the entire season is announced before Christmas.
  • 0

#4511 Get real canuck fans

Get real canuck fans

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:42 AM

This is from a blogger on hockeybuzz(Paul McCann),,,may not like ek but it pretty much sums up how I feel,,,

"I have to admit. I bought into the optimism, I bought in to the momentum. Now I look at the wreckage from last night and wonder why. Especially when I start hearing how and why this whole thing blew apart.

Let me start by saying, I have tried my best to keep to the middle here. As someone that walks in the business world, I understand the owners side in this dispute… as someone that also walks in the entertainment world the players points in this make sense as well. What follows is not a rip on the players, I know that the players want what’s best for the game, the problem is, they are being led by a person that had to “learn the game” and while he may have learned it... he doesn't understand it. This mess… this I lay at the feet of one person.

Donald Fehr.

Donald Fehr ruined one sport that I used to be incredibly passionate about. He can claim the Marvin Miller mantel… but this man is no Martin Miller, never has been, never will be. When the MLBPA struck, causing the loss of the World Series in ’94, I was basically done as a baseball fan. It was the end of season strike trying to use the Series as a bargaining chip. That’s why it is incredibly disingenuous to lay the lockout off solely on the owners. History shows that, if the NHL started the season without a CBA, you could’ve counted on a strike in March to put the playoffs at risk. I know that as well as I know my own name.

What crystallized all of this in my mind was a tweet from respected hockey writer, Adrian Dater. Now, if you have been following Adrian on Twitter… he is absolutely not a shill for either side of this dispute. He has been critical of both sides and is a highly respected journalist. If anything, he has been more supportive of the players side.

His tweet from last night…

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"


“We could get more and to hold out” Unbe-frickin’-lievable.

Dater’s take on this is that there is a split developing in the player's ranks, he characterized the player who made the comment he tweeted out last night as a “depth player.” The other key piece of the information Adrian sent out was that “top players still in Fehr camp.” This does make a little sense, considering that the PA is fighting hard for something that doesn’t happen very often… the beyond five year contract. Who gets those contracts? It certainly isn’t the “depth player.” Adrian wrote a great blog on this, here's the link.

The reality is this, Donald Fehr’s membership did an incredible job in doing his job, creating the bridge, opening the communication and moving the process along. Does anyone else find it interesting that as soon as Fehr came back into the room (upon his insistence)the process blew apart?

The attitude of “we could get more” is the biggest problem on both sides of this issue. The constantly shifting priorities (if true) put forth by the NHLPA is designed to drive frustration and is not bargaining in good faith. Did anyone else hear how important pensions were prior to Wednesday? Yeah, me neither. "We could get more" by losing more games and more time and more pay... flat out silly.

The “Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm” appearance in Donald Fehr’s first press conference last night was cold, calculated, manipulative and disgusting. It was also a stupid move on his part. Further proof in my mind that Donald Fehr doesn’t give a (expletive) about the game that we love. At least NHL commissioner Gary Bettman showed some emotion, some passion about our game in his press conference last night… and by the way, for those haters, Bettman understood that he needed to stay out of the room in order to get a deal, Fehr hasn’t learned that lesson yet.

The players want to play, that is undeniable. The owners want to get games on the ice that is also undeniable. The only one who doesn’t want a deal here seems to be Donald Fehr, and he continues to play upon the emotions of his charges. He plays the “owners don’t respect you” card with skill and relish. Fehr understands the mindset of the athlete and is now playing on it for all it is worth. I can imagine Fehr doing his best Reg Dunlap impersonation in a PA conference call… “those owners challenged the Cheifs… errrr… union!” The only problem with this strategy now is that it is exposed. Donald Fehr has now pissed off the moderate owners in this league. How does that help the players get more?

The endgame is now solidly underway. I know that... The shills are out in force on Twitter, blathering on depending on their agenda, casting blame depending on their bias but one thing is true. This is all part of the dirty little game being played out in front of TSN’s cameras, all part of the filthy underside of business negotiations. This process does undermine the fan’s belief and passion for the league, a necessary evil that should never have gotten to this point.

We like the sausage, we just don’t like seeing it made."
  • 0

#4512 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,183 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:46 AM

Yes, but injuries, just like any other workplace, would fall under long term disability. You know, like 60% of your wage, not 100% like these players get with their "guaranteed" salaries...


I'm currently on a claim from a sawmill explosion and I get 90%. Some how it works out that my cheques are actually slightly bigger than before and I don't quite understand why. I'm guessing it has to be much different for a professional athlete though.
  • 0

#4513 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,924 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:52 AM

Fehr is to blame for not getting the players to bend over, yes.

But the owners (primarily Jacobs) are to blame for locking out the players unneccessarily in the first place.

The NHL has gotten PA heads fired before. They may again. But we've seen this too many times before. They think we, the fans and the players, are stupid. It's time to make them pay for their arrogance.

The players may cave, but i'm not. I'm done. Not one dollar of mine is going to the NHL for the forseeable future.
  • 1
Posted Image

#4514 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,292 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:02 AM

I've been thinking that Fehr has told the union that losing a season, while not preferable especially to the older players, won't hurt their bottom line as the years and salary on their contracts won't change regardless.

Although it would be physically harder for a 35 year old to play at a high level compared to a 36 year old the players with contracts may not lose a dime by waiting.

Just speculation of course but it's the most recent thought I've got about the PA's motivations.
  • 0

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#4515 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:05 AM

I've been thinking that Fehr has told the union that losing a season, while not preferable especially to the older players, won't hurt their bottom line as the years and salary on their contracts won't change regardless.

Although it would be physically harder for a 35 year old to play at a high level compared to a 36 year old the players with contracts may not lose a dime by waiting.

Just speculation of course but it's the most recent thought I've got about the PA's motivations.


:huh:

But they lose a whole year of paycheques that way. Wouldn't that mean any deal accepted would need a 33% pay cut (presuming average contract and/or career is three years)?
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#4516 Lillooet_Hillbilly

Lillooet_Hillbilly

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:08 AM

I'm currently on a claim from a sawmill explosion and I get 90%. Some how it works out that my cheques are actually slightly bigger than before and I don't quite understand why. I'm guessing it has to be much different for a professional athlete though.

it could be you fall under a certain tax bracket making less, i used to do this by getting RRSP's taken off my check to bump me below a tax bracket. basically if i put $200 in RRSP's the government doesn't start taxing untill that $200 is taken out so it put me into the lower tax bracket, a nice legal way to save money
  • 0

#4517 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,292 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:10 AM

:huh:

But they lose a whole year of paycheques that way. Wouldn't that mean any deal accepted would need a 33% pay cut (presuming average contract and/or career is three years)?

Not if those years don't burn by a lost season.
  • 0

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#4518 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:14 AM

Not if those years don't burn by a lost season.


but a lost season means no paycheques........that definitely hurts their bottom line
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#4519 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,615 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:41 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...


How about limiting the number of 5+ year contracts each team can have to 1 or 2?
  • 0
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#4520 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:57 AM

And the more I read, it really sounds like Fehr royally screwed up this whole process ...

This was the deal ... This was the best that they were going to get ... and he didn't even vote on it.

I mean, the league agrees to move make-whole up to $300mil which was exactly half way from NHL and NHLPA's differences, agreed not to touch UFA eligibility, but decided to stay hard on the contract limits and CBA length ... That's 2 out of 4 on the major rifts, man (and considering what WHL Rocks said, I would say the NHL's proposal was reasonable on the contract limits) ... Most would call that good bargaining and compromising at the middle ...

He overplayed his hand and went for the win, hoping for the ace, when he could have broken even with the push at 20.

Busted.

The Make Whole aspect of the CBA is a stumbling block to the process. Its a means to give, then take back and not in the players best interest.
  • 0

#4521 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:57 AM

Not if those years don't burn by a lost season.


All players will lose a year of their contract if the season is cancelled.

The owners aren't going to let their contracts slide until next season.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#4522 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,464 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:57 AM

ya,,ask Expos fans how well it worked for them.
Many think MLB has never recovered from strike of 1994
Who wants to be like baseball? Some teams with the 200 mill payrolls and some at 50.


Why do you assume the baseball strike was Fehr's fault? According to MLB commissioner Bud Selig, "It was the eighth work stoppage, so it had been building up for a long time. The sport came to a crashing halt." I think we can all agree he knows more about the situation than any of us. (Source: http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=1856626)

Baseball absolutely suffered damage, but it's shortsighted to assume it was only the players' strike alone damaged a sport plagued by repeated work stoppages, lawsuits, repeated drug scandals, and racists owners. Oh, and don't forget Pete Rose.

As for the idea that baseball has "still not recovered," viewership returned to pre-strike level almost a decade ago, they've been setting record revenue highs for years, and according to Forbes only 3 MLB teams lost money last season. Who wants to be like baseball? Ask Phoenix, Columbus, NY Islanders, Tampa Bay, Florida, Anaheim, Buffalo, St. Louis, Carolina, Minnesota, Nashville, Washington, and San Jose.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4523 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:59 AM

The Make Whole aspect of the CBA is a stumbling block to the process. Its a means to give, then take back and not in the players best interest.


If the players weren't greedy, they would forget about the make whole aspect in order to get better contracting rights and maybe a shorter CBA.

At this rate they're going to lose at least one year of their contracts anyways. Why not just take a pay cut in order to get a better deal for the union. They're gonna lose that money anyways...

Edited by DeNiro, 07 December 2012 - 11:00 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#4524 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,933 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:02 AM

Hi guys, greetings from a wintry Scotland.

Each day I wake up, have breakfast, feed the dog and then open my laptop and log into this thread in the vain hope of good news.

Yesterday morning, or was it Wednesday (damn the time difference is awkward) I couldn't wait to log in after all the positive vibe from the previous day..........I should have known there was no good news as the Canucks front page was unchanged and I knew any "back to hockey" would have been plastered all over it.

At the time of writing this my soccer team is close to going out of business, players are not being paid, Directors are resigning and fans are taking up collections. Two groups of fans raised £4000 between them to help pay the Under 20 players last months salaries which amount to £10,500/month. The club still couldn't pay them.

There has been all manner of mis-administration at the Club over the past 10 years...........but at the end of the day it is the fans who suffer with the likely loss of their Club. These fans, coming up to Christmas are still digging into their pockets to try and save their football team (soccer) a team started in 1885, a team with a history of European success ............

The reasons for this in my view are the same as the reasons for the NHL lockout. The fans are not empowered and worse still are treated by those who run the game/their Club as cash cows who never learn and are so in love with their game/Club they will accept being treated like idiots and dip into their pockets to shell out no matter how they are treated.

I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the administration of the NHL and the players contracts to comment but one thing is certain there is a solution and there will be a settlement............so why is it taking so long? One reason is obvious. The fans have no say and no power to influence the outcome......OR DO THEY.

If I was a member of an NHL hockey club over there I would be trying to set up a fans committee, a Union if you like and then my first task would be an ultimatum to both sides.

SETTLE BY THE 14TH OR TAKE THE REST OF THE SEASON AND NEXT SEASON, because we wont be turning up, we wont be buying merchandise and we won't be buying cable or anything connected with the NHL.

Pickett the offices of the owners and the homes of the major players. I guarantee this dispute would end in a week.


Buddy that's awful? What team are we talking about that's in trouble? I was in Edinburgh and Loch Ness last spring, and I love Scotland. (It's where my Grandfather came from)
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#4525 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:25 AM

All players will lose a year of their contract if the season is cancelled.

The owners aren't going to let their contracts slide until next season.

The miserable financial state of the NHL is all on the owner's shoulders. It is they who have dug themselves the financial hole by agreeing and bidding against each other and signed stupid contracts with the players. Where is the logic or confidence for players to sign them when the owners want to claw back in next cba? Bettman, has had 3 stoppages during his tenure. How does that improve the leagues reputation or productivity. He has expanded into markets that cannot sustain a franchise and the increased revenues are pointless if the bottom line has not improved ! This in itelf has put the NHL in a precarious position. Small market teams are more at risk here, moreso than big market and profitable Canadian teams. Bettman has the little man syndrome and leads the NHL to instability and confusion. I hope the union holds firm, its the only way the NHL will look at iself and figure it out. The owners need some controls in place, like length of contracts etc because they are not smart enough to restrain themselves from offering stupid contracts without them. Junior hockey is getting my dime and the golf course. Sitting here fuming about the proceedings is not healthy, not going to change the outcome and a waste of energy.
  • 0

#4526 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:33 AM

If max contract length and % variance is "the hill they will die on", then perhaps the players should give up on that one. Either that, or kick them in the nuts and decertify the union and let them die on that hill.

The players need something else in return, and it should be higher revenue sharing than already proposed. How about 30-40% instead of a meaningless fixed amount? If 90% of the teams are profitable in the next CBA, what more could the owners ask for next time around?
  • 0

#4527 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,849 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:37 AM

Yes, but injuries, just like any other workplace, would fall under long term disability. You know, like 60% of your wage, not 100% like these players get with their "guaranteed" salaries...

Ah, but most people are contracted in the same way your suggesting. Most people have a salary that doesn't get renegotiated year to year, and while they do have to continue to perform at a reasonable level to keep their jobs, the potential for injury is negligible in all but a few jobs if you follow work safe guidelines.

In your example of year to year contracts for NHL players, long term disability would only last as long as their current contract did. So if Marc Savard was on a year to year deal, he would have stopped getting paid after the season ended in which he played his last game. Who would give him another contract considering the impact this injury has had on not only his paying career, but also his day to day life?

There's no such thing as being able to prevent injuries in sport by following work safe practices, since sport is unpredictable and athletes are put in positions that have injury as a possibility. The players have to have some protection for that and since there is only a small percentage of the world's population that can do what they do, they get paid more than people doing jobs that a majority of the population would be able to handle.

I'm not saying what they get paid is too much or too little, or that they are arguing for too much or too little for their side of the CBA. All I'm saying is they do deserve at least a good portion of what they do get - just as much as Lady Gaga and Tom Cruise deserve the money they earn. Do Fehr and Bettman deserve the salaries they get considering? Should we pay our teachers, doctors, police and fire fighters more than someone involved in a sport or entertainment industry, or does the fact that athletes and movie stars generate more revenue entitle them to that?
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#4528 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:44 AM

The  miserable financial state of the NHL is all on the owner's shoulders. It is they who have dug themselves the financial hole by agreeing and bidding against each other and signed stupid contracts with the players. Where is the logic or confidence for players to sign them when the owners want to claw back in next cba? Bettman, has had 3 stoppages during his tenure. How does that improve the leagues reputation or productivity. He has expanded into markets that cannot sustain a franchise and the increased revenues are pointless if the bottom line has not improved ! This in itelf has put the NHL in a precarious position. Small market teams are more at risk here, moreso than big market and profitable Canadian teams. Bettman has the little man syndrome and leads the NHL to instability and confusion. I hope the union holds firm, its the only way the NHL will look at iself and figure it out. The owners need some controls in place, like length of contracts etc because they are not smart enough to restrain themselves from  offering stupid contracts  without them. Junior hockey is getting my dime and the golf course. Sitting here fuming about the proceedings is not healthy, not going to change the outcome and a waste of energy.


Yeah and the Players and their agents are all so innocent and have nothing to do with a market team trying to stay competative...maybe this is one of the reason for the lockout and why the players are neglecting to sign a CBA...lol educate yourself.
  • 0

#4529 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,615 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:52 AM

Yes, but injuries, just like any other workplace, would fall under long term disability. You know, like 60% of your wage, not 100% like these players get with their "guaranteed" salaries...


Yeah, I was wondering how that worked exactly. Would they actually get that 60% until they reach 65 years of age, or say the until they are 35 (average hockey retirement), or as I think they only get that for the duration of the contract and then they would be on pension? I'm not sure though.

I think the biggest worrry is a guy like Iginla who plays a rough brand of hockey would be worried that his earning potential could get snuffed out after 5 years because of an injury in a unique environment.

In the end I think that's a risk players should have to take if they want to earn millions of dollars for playing a game, because in reality the discrepency between what decent hard working people make and athletes make is wrong.
  • 0
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#4530 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,849 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:52 AM

It's hard to say from what's being reported versus the actual wordage said in the meetings as to what is going on and who's being unreasonable. I can see the same basic meaning being reported but easily having a different connotation for multiple reports (how was the extra $100M in make whole presented to the players, and what was the actual 'silence' for instance to mean from the player's side when they heard it).

I still feel like the players have been more reasonable for the most part, especially with the NHL pulling deals when they don't get a yes/no answer and the NHLPA wants to negotiate. More importantly, I do feel that if the majority of players wanted to settle, Fehr would present that to the owners. From the other side, I don't feel that if the majority of owners wanted to settle, Bettman would allow that until the major players agreed.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 





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.