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

#4561 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,786 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:47 PM

As I stated before the meetings this week. I knew the player would be manhandled in that room alone with the Owners...why because they dont know anything beyond ice, hockey and dollar signs...and certain people here dont get that...I heard Bettman say the word FANS many times in his PR did Fehr?...NOPE~! He did mention Canada...lol but only because press brought it up...

GO OWNERS~!


Bettman is an idiot. A blind baby could see through that. I don't think for one second that any fan thinks the players or the owners give a flying puck about us.

Oh yeah, and your cheer should be

GO HOCKEY .... :picard:

Edited by Dogbyte, 07 December 2012 - 02:48 PM.

  • 1

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#4562 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,936 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:50 PM

Once Fehr got back involved everything went to sh!t, gg NHLPA


That was totally planned by the owners. Just like how they were completely unwilling to budge on major issues, until Fehr wasn't there.

Why? The owners know that Fehr is a master at negotiations. He broke the MLB owners, and the NHL is scared of the same. So they are attempting silly, childish ways to undermine him. Same idea of last lockout (casting off Goodenow), slightly different method.

The owners are the ones playing games here.
  • 4
Posted Image

#4563 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:53 PM

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.

But.....in the end, its what the owners agree to, not what the players ask for....owners set the bar...not the players. I can ask whatever I want for my car, but the buyers decide if its worth it and what they'll pay. Otherwise the car just sits in the driveway ..or ..I sell it for less.
  • 2

#4564 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,011 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:55 PM

NHL Apocalypse Watch: Its Rider Was Named Death, and Hades Was Following Close Behind Him (Hi, Gary!)

At the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference this past winter, Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke was asked to identify the best negotiator he'd worked with throughout his career.
"Gary Bettman," he said. "There's smart — and then there's Bettman smart. He's a very three-steps-ahead type guy."
Burke, who was onstage as part of a panel called "The Art and Analytics of Negotiation," gave an example of the NHL commissioner's inner Bobby Fischer.
"Actually had to ask him to slow down a few times when we were doing the CBA back in '94," he said. "Because he's getting ahead of all of us, talkin' to himself in the room: 'Well, this won't work,' 'Well, yeah, but in three years … ' … Huh?"
Last night Bettman once again delivered a speed-talking monologue on collective bargaining that left people bewildered, though this time it wasn't behind closed doors. Capping off an exhausting few days that contained all the emotional highs and lows of, say, a good hockey game, the NHL commissioner stood inside the Westin Times Square and addressed the assembled media.
Most of them were buzzing before he even spoke. Just 30 minutes earlier, NHLPA head Don Fehr had delivered a rather sunny assessment of the state of negotiations — "We think there is a complete agreement on dollars," he said. "There shouldn't be much reason why we can't get an agreement in the near term" — only to abruptly return and announce, "There has been a development. It's not positive." The league's side, he said, had just left a voice mail on his brother Steve's phone rejecting the players' most recent proposal. What's more, they had informed them that certain elements of the owners' offer were now off the table.
So when Bettman finally took the mic, he appeared uncharacteristically rattled. No longer abiding by his stated policy of "not negotiating in public," the NHL commissioner gave a blow-by-blow of (to hear him tell it) the massive compromises that had been made by the owners that had been unappreciated by the players. The league had gone as far as it possibly could go, he said, and then it had stretched just a little bit more in the spirit of getting something done.
And thus the hearts of hockey fans everywhere sank.
As Bettman spoke, a few NHL players gathered stone-faced in the back of the room, prompting many to wonder whether they were there to intimidate or to cause a disruption. The answer was far more benign: The TVs in their hotel rooms at the Westin Times Square didn't get TSN, and no American stations were broadcasting Bettman's words. (Hey, at least the Taiwanese news agencies care!)
For all the sound and fury, it seems clear the question of who will come out ahead in this deal has been settled: Almost all of the meaningful movement to this point has come from the players' side. They agreed to a 50-50 revenue split, down from the 57 percent they have been receiving. They budged on contract term limits and the length of the CBA (though not far enough to satisfy the NHL; those issues are two of the remaining sticking points). They submitted, implicitly, to the idea that teams may not wind up paying in full all the contracts that their front offices offered and inked — some of them just weeks before the expiration of the last CBA.
By comparison, the NHL hasn't yielded much of anything. Some of the items on which the league considers itself to have compromised — arbitration rights and the parameters surrounding free agency, for example — are merely remaining unchanged from the last (already owner-friendly) CBA. Others aren't exactly generous: One of the league's biggest concessions to date has been its willingness to create a "make whole" fund that would help ease the transition down to a 50-50 revenue split from 57-43 — meaning the NHL has grudgingly agreed to pay some, though likely not all, of the salaries it contractually owes.
So when considering this whole unholy mess, it's worth remembering that when the NHL talks about how far it has moved toward the middle in these labor discussions, it's not really in terms relative to the status quo, but rather in comparison to the lowball-y offer the league opened negotiations with back in July. Bettman himself admitted as much in a surprisingly frank comment to the Winnipeg Free Press's Gary Lawless back on November 19:


Free Press: Was the aggressive nature of your first offer to the players a mistake?
GB: I think the view some have of our first offer is fairly naive as it relates to collective bargaining. A sophisticated negotiator would have looked at it and said, 'Obviously they want a 50-50 split.' If we're at 57 and they propose 43, they must be telegraphing where they want to end. If your intention was to use it in an inflammatory way, you could do that. If your intention was to make a deal, you could pretty much chart out what the course should be.


His candor made me think of something else Burke had said during the Art and Analytics of Negotiation panel at the SSAC: "My theory is, make the first meeting as short and unpleasant as possible," he said. "Sometimes it's better to just punch the guy in the face."
Burke was hamming it up a bit for the audience then, but it's a good reminder of how much of this lockout is scripted. It's easy to read everything into a rejected offer or delivered ultimatum, but sometimes all it means is that a negotiation is going on. We're dealing with people who are trained to think three moves ahead.
Which is why it's alarming when you start to see emotion creep into the boardroom, especially from executives who ought to know better. "The owners were beside themselves," Bettman saidyesterday, explaining that their offer of an additional $89 million in "make whole" money to the players was not received gratefully enough. "Some of them I had never seen that emotional." Bill Daly characterized the response as "quite frankly … insulting" and added that "They wanted to leave the room; the players asked them to stay."
Aren't these guys supposed to be savvy businessmen? You think they acted this way, say, when they were in talks to purchase their teams? It's almost as if some Frank Luntz focus group determined that the owners were coming across too facelessly, and a rusty dial marked "emo" was cranked up. Or maybe it's just gotten personal.
During the Art and Analytics of Negotiation panel, Alec Scheiner, the general counsel for the Dallas Cowboys, talked about how losing your cool can lead negotiations right off the rails. "In complicated transactions, emotions will at some point get hot, and someone will say, 'Here's my dealbreaker, this is my walk-away point.' And I find that it usually isn't." Gary Gertzog, one of the NFL's lawyers, agreed: "We've seen situations where ultimatums have been issued, then it's, no, that's not really the deadline," he said. "Then you're not going to believe it the next time they tell you that it's truly a deadline."
The question that no one knows the answer to yet is what the league's true walk-away point or its true deadline is. Bettman called it "incomprehensible" that Fehr would try to paint a rosy picture of the state of affairs knowing full well that the players hadn't acquiesced to the league's three remaining untouchables: a CBA that lasts 10 seasons, no compliance buyouts or caps on player escrows, and a five-year cap on contract length (seven if you're re-signing your own player) limited to a 5 percent yearly variance. That last one, Daly vowed, is "the hill we will die on."
But if the NHLPA is guilty of trying, a bit disingenuously, to make the league look like the bad guys by overemphasizing just how close everyone is, the NHL has damaged its credibility too: by saying time and again that they are making a final, take-it-or-leave-it, we-can't-do-better-than-this offer — and then, weeks later, doing better than that.
If the league is serious this time about taking the "make whole" allowance off the table, then the players will likely counter with a push for decertification. (Here's a great primer on just what that nuclear option could mean.) And while at least one of the league's "depth" players anonymously questioned his union leader yesterday, the NHLPA appears to remain mostly united behind Fehr.As Jonathan Willis pointed out, by this point in the 2004 lockout many players had gone public with their doubts about former boss Bob Goodenow; as Bruce Arthur said, if in fact Fehr is advising the union to do something that he thinks will yield them more in the end, then he's "basically doing the job the players hired him to do." But the worry is that Fehr may be underestimating the owners' resolve — and, I guess, their feelings.
As Burke warned during the Sloan conference, "If you drive too hard a bargain, at some point it's gonna bite you right in the ass."
Burke wasn't the only one on the panel to be asked that day about the best negotiator he's ever seen. Joel Linzner, a bigwig at Electronic Arts, got the question too; he said that the most skilled people he's worked with have been mediators.
"I marveled sometimes at the way the mediator could actually take two warring parties — that's two people that [didn't have] any intention of actually doing business together, or even necessarily wanting to — to actually agree on a structure," he said. The NHL tried bringing in federal mediators last week — only to be told that the situation had grown too toxic to be mediated.
Still, it may help to take a bird's-eye view of what happened this week. The two sides inched ever closer to an agreement, with just a few small-seeming sticking points remaining between them. The league made a proposal. The players countered. The league pulled away mad. This is something that has happened numerous times since the summer, and every time talks have resumed and progressed. Bettman would not name any sort of "drop-dead date," though he did say that he wouldn't be interested in a season any shorter than 48 games, as in 1994-95. That comes out to a de facto deadline of somewhere around the New Year.
"You need to keep emotion out of it as much as possible," Scheiner said during the panel this winter. "There are times in any complicated negotiation where you'll be upset with the other party. You have to put that to the side and realize you're there to get the deal done. It's a good deal, and you're there to get it done."
And that's the biggest problem between the NHL and the NHLPA right now: Both sides are starting to wonder aloud whether what they're fighting so hard for is even a good deal at all. But if they want to get anything done, they'll have to start believing that somehow, it will be.


(emphasis mine)
  • 1

#4565 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,946 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:57 PM

I see an Idiot and it's not Bettman and its not me lol....why because if you for one second think the players give 2 sh!ts about you then you could not be more wrong...lol Who pays the players....NHL Owners....where do they get those dollars from ....? You...the Owners need you to come to games and fill those seats, to watch games on tv, to buy those HRR items jerseys, foam hats and fingers, hrr the players seem so obessed in claiming...

take tha crosby jersey off your face and open your eyes...don't fall for the Im the little player that you cheer for....NO~! You cheer for the goal scored by any player... just remember that...
  • 1

#4566 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,337 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:02 PM

I see an Idiot and it's not Bettman and its not me lol....why because if you for one second think the players give 2 sh!ts about you then you could not be more wrong...lol Who pays the players....NHL Owners....where do they get those dollars from ....? You...the Owners need you to come to games and fill those seats, to watch games on tv, to buy those HRR items jerseys, foam hats and fingers, hrr the players seem so obessed in claiming...

take tha crosby jersey off your face and open your eyes...don't fall for the Im the little player that you cheer for....NO~! You cheer for the goal scored by any player... just remember that...


Last time I checked - I have never seen Aquilini attending a random practice and playing hockey with pee-wee kids.

Personally - any player I have met, has been polite and courteous with me, and has always willingly taken a picture.

If you think for a second that the players don't see the fans as the most important part, then you are blind.
  • 0
Posted Image

#4567 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,031 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:03 PM

May have been said I just can't fathom going through so many pages.

If contract length and % variance are so crucial to the owners why don't they just stop signing ridiculous contracts. They want 5 years max? Then only sign 5 years max. Don't want contracts heavily weighted upfront and so low near the end then stop sigining them. Eventually we will find out who sticks for the money and who sticks to play the game.

As far as the free agency thing goes why change it? If owners want to keep players they should make an attempt to make the team appealing to the player.

This "three core items" thing is redundant in my books.
  • 0
Posted Image

#4568 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,337 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:06 PM

May have been said I just can't fathom going through so many pages.

If contract length and % variance are so crucial to the owners why don't they just stop signing ridiculous contracts. They want 5 years max? Then only sign 5 years max. Don't want contracts heavily weighted upfront and so low near the end then stop sigining them. Eventually we will find out who sticks for the money and who sticks to play the game.

As far as the free agency thing goes why change it? If owners want to keep players they should make an attempt to make the team appealing to the player.

This "three core items" thing is redundant in my books.


The contracting rights (UFA portion of it) are a benefit for the players - as a team could draft, develop and groom a player.... which all costs money out of the owners 50% HRR.

Then the player becomes a UFA and signs with another team - thus the owner wants to ensure that they get further return on their investment (aside from the players salary).

Edited by Squeak, 07 December 2012 - 03:08 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#4569 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,164 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:15 PM

I won't quote the whole article, but here's a snippet of what some have already suggested will happen to the bottom 6/9 type of players if contract lengths are reduced on top of other methods of avoiding back-end diving contracts:

How Zach Parise Signing for 13 Years Is Good for Kyle Brodziak

...
The issue of length of contract and variance in terms of annual salaries seems to be a big one and one that’s worth discussing in some more detail.

It’s pretty easy to understand why this is an issue for the owners. When you squeeze the money that can be paid to the players, as the 2005 CBA did, people competing for the services of highly coveted players are forced to compete on something else. Length of contract is a pretty obvious one. It’s the exact same problem (from the owners’ perspective) that existed prior to 2004: it only takes one person willing to go very long in terms of years in a contract to force other owners to match it if they want to be competitive in getting the best players. If you’re an owner motivated primarily by a desire to increase the profits and value of your hockey team, this would be infuriating. It’s easy enough to see.

The player interest in all of this has been a bit harder for me to see. Kevin Westgarth set it out late last month, in an interview with James Mirtle:


As a fringe player, Westgarth added that he realizes some of what players are fighting for will never affect him directly, but he also argued that the trickle-down effect of eliminating creative contracts for stars would mean less cap space for the remaining players.

He also believes those contract rights are worth fighting for after other players lost a season in 2004-05 to get them.

“I will stand up for what I think is right for all the guys on my team,” he said. “The reason those contracts exist is because, in a cap system, that’s how you make room for paying other players. If we gave up the rights that the league wants, I believe it would annihilate the middle class of the NHL.”

My initial reaction to this was “Nahhhh” and I started to write a sarcasm laden post arguing that it was nuts. As I played with some numbers, I encountered a problem: I could kind of see what Westgarth’s point was. I hate it when this happens.

While it's essentially the intent of a salary cap to make contracts more affordable as teams have to fit the same number of players under the limit, owners/GMs will still try and find ways to outbid other teams to get the top players. After the lockout in 2005, term became a way to do that and keep cap hits down. Now, if contract lengths are limited, then cap hits will be larger than they would be on a similar deal over longer term.

That leaves less cap space for guys playing outside your top 6 or top 4, and possibly even less term for a role player in case of cap issues further down the road. If Shea Weber can get a 14 year deal and Garrison can get a 6 year deal under the old rules, then how can a depth guy expect any kind of multi-year deal under the new rules? And what kind of cap hit could he expect it to be if players similar to Weber and Garrison see their cap hits increase as their term gets shorter to fit with in a 5 or 7 year limit?

Does anyone truly believe that the Penguins would prefer to be able to re-sign Malkin to a shorter deal that pays essentially the same salary (but with a higher cap hit) over the included years compared to what they did with Crosby this summer?

Edited by elvis15, 07 December 2012 - 03:23 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#4570 Scoobydooby

Scoobydooby

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,388 posts
  • Joined: 17-January 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

Can I just say how annoyedI am at this point with the league and pa constantly playing this game back and forth while maintaining this intention that they wish to still have a shortened season.. I mean honestly, every week I hear in the media, in the news, on here.. about how they can still have a 60, no 50, no 48 now game season..

Am I the only one who is hoping they DON'T have a shortened season? Not only do I not feel at all like either side deserves to actually have a season at this point, I wouldn't be that interested in watching a shortened season anyway, on top of the fact that I don't feel like I'd be willing to give the NHL any of my attention after all this. Christ we've all given enough attention to all this ridiculousness with the negotiation, or should I say lack of negotiation.

Seriously, if it were up to me I'd quash this season.. its DONE. Just regroup and take the time needed to hammer it out like they should have been doing since the start. Both sides absolutely deserve to be in this position and losing all the money they are and I hope they continue to lose money over their greed and ego trips.
  • 2

Posted Image


#4571 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,936 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:17 PM

Good post Bookie. This part of the article is key:

By comparison, the NHL hasn't yielded much of anything. Some of the items on which the league considers itself to have compromised arbitration rights and the parameters surrounding free agency, for example are merely remaining unchanged from the last (already owner-friendly) CBA. Others aren't exactly generous: One of the league's biggest concessions to date has been its willingness to create a "make whole" fund that would help ease the transition down to a 50-50 revenue split from 57-43 meaning the NHL has grudgingly agreed to pay some, though likely not all, of the salaries it contractually owes.

So when considering this whole unholy mess, it's worth remembering that when the NHL talks about how far it has moved toward the middle in these labor discussions, it's not really in terms relative to the status quo, but rather in comparison to the lowball-y offer the league opened negotiations with back in July.


Anybody who says the owners have given anything in this "negotiation" doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
  • 4
Posted Image

#4572 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,786 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:25 PM

May have been said I just can't fathom going through so many pages.

If contract length and % variance are so crucial to the owners why don't they just stop signing ridiculous contracts. They want 5 years max? Then only sign 5 years max. Don't want contracts heavily weighted upfront and so low near the end then stop sigining them. Eventually we will find out who sticks for the money and who sticks to play the game.

As far as the free agency thing goes why change it? If owners want to keep players they should make an attempt to make the team appealing to the player.

This "three core items" thing is redundant in my books.


It was mentioned the other night and you're absolutely right. It's like me going to by boss and demanding more money because I spent it all on beer.

Humans are so dumb, how the hell are we still alive? It just makes society seem like a huge joke. These a$$clowns have riches beyond compare but yet they are not happy unless their money is spoon fed to them.
  • 0

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#4573 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:26 PM

just cancel the season and end this nonsense.

Edited by WHL rocks, 07 December 2012 - 06:21 PM.

  • 1

#4574 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:41 PM

I am going to explain to you how stupid you sound when you call these guys greedy rich kids.


Most of them have been playing hockey since 7 or 8 and all of them have been putting tremendous effort to attain there dream of playing in the NHL. While you were going to school and doing jack squat, these kids were practicsing in ice rinks non stop to attain a dream. It is often said that hockey players are among the most dedicated athletes in the world. Majority of hockey players are lifting weights by 13 years of age. Prior to getting to junior developmental leagues, they practiced 4-5 times a week and had to do everything within there capabilities to stand out and become better players. They played in junior developmental leagues such as the CHL/etc where they were away from there family for 6-7 months of the year and had to balance school with this dream to play in the NHL. Oh, they also didnt get paid minus minor stipends for this. If they were lucky enough they got drafted into the NHL. They then spent on average 3-4 years playing pro hockey in lower leagues before finally getting a break and making the NHL. In the pro leagues, they spent 6-7 months away from family (more if you made the playoffs) with long gruelling bus rides and occasional air travel.

When they made it to the NHL they are expected to be the best they can be and have insane pressure on them. They also have to make sure they are a cut above other guys so that they can secure there roster spot on a team and hopefully contribute positively to there team. Majority of hockey players have 1 month off and then they start training again preparing for the next hockey season.

Do not call them spoiled rich kids. It makes you sound ignorant and very stupid. These individuals have put in tremendous effort to ge tto where they are and have worked harder than you or I can ever imagine.

I had no idea about all that! The brutality of it all. Without a doubt their parents should be turned into the Child Services Dept.
  • 0

#4575 Dragonfruits

Dragonfruits

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,498 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:42 PM

please bettman for the love of god cancel the season already do the negotiations with no press and if you reach a conclusion don't even mention it til the draft all you the owners and the players are doing is hurting the game with this childish pr battle

Edited by captaincanuck88, 07 December 2012 - 03:43 PM.

  • 0

#4576 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,786 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:59 PM

I am going to explain to you how stupid you sound when you call these guys greedy rich kids.


Most of them have been playing hockey since 7 or 8 and all of them have been putting tremendous effort to attain there dream of playing in the NHL. While you were going to school and doing jack squat, these kids were practicsing in ice rinks non stop to attain a dream. It is often said that hockey players are among the most dedicated athletes in the world. Majority of hockey players are lifting weights by 13 years of age. Prior to getting to junior developmental leagues, they practiced 4-5 times a week and had to do everything within there capabilities to stand out and become better players. They played in junior developmental leagues such as the CHL/etc where they were away from there family for 6-7 months of the year and had to balance school with this dream to play in the NHL. Oh, they also didnt get paid minus minor stipends for this. If they were lucky enough they got drafted into the NHL. They then spent on average 3-4 years playing pro hockey in lower leagues before finally getting a break and making the NHL. In the pro leagues, they spent 6-7 months away from family (more if you made the playoffs) with long gruelling bus rides and occasional air travel.

When they made it to the NHL they are expected to be the best they can be and have insane pressure on them. They also have to make sure they are a cut above other guys so that they can secure there roster spot on a team and hopefully contribute positively to there team. Majority of hockey players have 1 month off and then they start training again preparing for the next hockey season.

Do not call them spoiled rich kids. It makes you sound ignorant and very stupid. These individuals have put in tremendous effort to ge tto where they are and have worked harder than you or I can ever imagine.


I also have spent my entire youth playing serious sport 7 days a week and travelling all over North America and the world. I have an idea what it's like. I believe these guys are entitled to some reward for what they do but anyone who thinks that a guy like Kevin Bieksa is 100 times more valuable than your average hard working 5 day a week, 25 years long Canadian is off their rocker or has trouble with relativism.

I believe they deserve to be rewarded more for what they are but not at the point that it makes those around them peasants or slaves, or 100 times less valuable as a human being. It's ludicrous, I'm sure Parise needs that $98 mil to ensure that he can squeak by. Hopefully he doesn't run out of money like some of the old NHLer's ... cause that would be a gosh darn shame.
  • 0

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#4577 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,827 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:08 PM

I also have spent my entire youth playing serious sport 7 days a week and travelling all over North America and the world. I have an idea what it's like. I believe these guys are entitled to some reward for what they do but anyone who thinks that a guy like Kevin Bieksa is 100 times more valuable than your average hard working 5 day a week, 25 years long Canadian is off their rocker or has trouble with relativism.

I believe they deserve to be rewarded more for what they are but not at the point that it makes those around them peasants or slaves, or 100 times less valuable as a human being. It's ludicrous, I'm sure Parise needs that $98 mil to ensure that he can squeak by. Hopefully he doesn't run out of money like some of the old NHLer's ... cause that would be a gosh darn shame.


Well it`s not like the money is going back in the fans pockets if the players don`t get it. Your argument applies just the same to the owners as it does the players. Fact is both sides are taking for granted where that money comes from. The owners are just being bigger dicks about it while doing so.
  • 1
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#4578 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,946 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:23 PM

Last time I checked - I have never seen Aquilini attending a random practice and playing hockey with pee-wee kids.

Personally - any player I have met, has been polite and courteous with me, and has always willingly taken a picture.

If you think for a second that the players don't see the fans as the most important part, then you are blind.


Lol have you checked the foundations of charities that the Canucks have going. Goes to show how far your fandom goes and thats as far as the players names...So you met a player on the street or at some practice...so what...big whoop so have I. I have autographed jersey's...3 in fact along with items from the game used sales....I have met Sami, Nazzy, Burrows, Luo, Mo...but damn if I saw em on the street today I would hollar out at em to CAVE~!...even though they were kind enough to sign my "CANUCKS" Jersey...lol Where's Nazzy now...traded and retired number and all. What about Bertuzzi...pshhh, MO....Luo on his way out....nice guy ....what evs...All these players may be nice to you on the street but they dump you all for a better contract....where's the money at... Kesler anyone...not even worth the 5 million he is gettin paid...injury prone trying to boost up the CBA in their favour to ride out contracts if they get injured...lolFehr is a joke...NHLPA is a bunch of "Sucka's" Cave or not to Cave..and the NHL are riding the coaster and getting bored of the rides....
  • 0

#4579 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,847 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:24 PM

I'm pretty excited to see where things go from here. I highly doubt it will take long to restart talks but I hope to see the PA asking for more revenue sharing, more NHL payment into Make Whole in exchange for a slight give on contracting and CBA lengths.
  • 0

#4580 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

I also have spent my entire youth playing serious sport 7 days a week and travelling all over North America and the world. I have an idea what it's like. I believe these guys are entitled to some reward for what they do but anyone who thinks that a guy like Kevin Bieksa is 100 times more valuable than your average hard working 5 day a week, 25 years long Canadian is off their rocker or has trouble with relativism.

I believe they deserve to be rewarded more for what they are but not at the point that it makes those around them peasants or slaves, or 100 times less valuable as a human being. It's ludicrous, I'm sure Parise needs that $98 mil to ensure that he can squeak by. Hopefully he doesn't run out of money like some of the old NHLer's ... cause that would be a gosh darn shame.


I don't think you used the term "relativism" correctly, but I do understand what you mean. I just don't think anyone is saying hockey players are worth more than anyone else, and if they are they are absolutely wrong. How much money a person has or gets paid has nothing to do with their worth as a person.

The reality is that all around the world (and throughout human history) some people get overpaid for what they do while others doing far more valuable services or working even harder get less than they deserve. People are often willing to pay more for what they want than what they need. We need day care workers and firefighters but they get crap pay because we don't want to pay any more than we absolutely have to for those services. (Most firefighters in North America are actually volunteers.) We want sports, TV, movies and music, so athletes, actors and musicians practically get to print their own money.

And remember, players get paid so much because they generate so much revenue. The amount of revenue generated will likely remain the same whether the players who generated it get a bigger cut or if more of it just goes to the owner who didn't do anything to earn it. Frankly it's a matter of how many people are getting overpaid while average income earning fans are overcharged.

Depressing though it is, if you're waiting for life to be fair, take a knee. It's going to be a long wait.
  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4581 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,786 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:33 PM

Well it`s not like the money is going back in the fans pockets if the players don`t get it. Your argument applies just the same to the owners as it does the players. Fact is both sides are taking for granted where that money comes from. The owners are just being bigger dicks about it while doing so.


Exactly, I didn't mean to single out the players compared to the owners, my bad. It's a by product of capitalism that the seperation between personal worth is so large. My original comment was just that they are spoiled rich kids, meaning they have more than they need and most of them have never had to worry about how to make ends meet.

I agree the owners are total dicks. I accept it though ... because I have to.


I don't think you used the term "relativism" correctly, but I do understand what you mean. I just don't think anyone is saying hockey players are worth more than anyone else, and if they are they are absolutely wrong. How much money a person has or gets paid has nothing to do with their worth as a person.

The reality is that all around the world (and throughout human history) some people get overpaid for what they do while others doing far more valuable services or working even harder get less than they deserve. People are often willing to pay more for what they want than what they need. We need day care workers and firefighters but they get crap pay because we don't want to pay any more than we absolutely have to for those services. (Most firefighters in North America are actually volunteers.) We want sports, TV, movies and music, so athletes, actors and musicians practically get to print their own money.

And remember, players get paid so much because they generate so much revenue. The amount of revenue generated will likely remain the same whether the players who generated it get a bigger cut or if more of it just goes to the owner who didn't do anything to earn it. Frankly it's a matter of how many people are getting overpaid while average income earning fans are overcharged.

Depressing though it is, if you're waiting for life to be fair, take a knee. It's going to be a long wait.


Agreed 100%, I was going to say reality but I overuse that so much. I though relativsm would get it across though. :)

Depressing though it is, if you're waiting for life to be fair, take a knee. It's going to be a long wait.
-unfortunately I've accepted this sad reality a long time ago too.

Edited by Dogbyte, 07 December 2012 - 04:41 PM.

  • 0

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#4582 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,337 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:52 PM

Lol have you checked the foundations of charities that the Canucks have going. Goes to show how far your fandom goes and thats as far as the players names...So you met a player on the street or at some practice...so what...big whoop so have I. I have autographed jersey's...3 in fact along with items from the game used sales....I have met Sami, Nazzy, Burrows, Luo, Mo...but damn if I saw em on the street today I would hollar out at em to CAVE~!...even though they were kind enough to sign my "CANUCKS" Jersey...lol Where's Nazzy now...traded and retired number and all. What about Bertuzzi...pshhh, MO....Luo on his way out....nice guy ....what evs...All these players may be nice to you on the street but they dump you all for a better contract....where's the money at... Kesler anyone...not even worth the 5 million he is gettin paid...injury prone trying to boost up the CBA in their favour to ride out contracts if they get injured...lolFehr is a joke...NHLPA is a bunch of "Sucka's" Cave or not to Cave..and the NHL are riding the coaster and getting bored of the rides....


Those charities/events put on by the Canucks organization is due to the players being celebrities; and are able to market the ability to meet these players to leverage donations.

The raise a reader, thanksgiving dinner etc put on by the Canucks received minimal coverage this year due to the lockout, in large part due to the fact that they don't have the draw of the players.

Aside from the players engaging the fans through random events - there have been Bieksas Buddies, Hurricance Sandy Charity Game, the Quebec PA tour etc have all been put on and organized with the proceeds going to charity.

You obviously have never heard of 'supply and demand'. The players do not owe ME specifically to sign in Vancouver, especially if they can get a more lucrative offer doing the exact same thing.

Personally, if another company offers me more money for a job, then I will take it; I owe nothing to the company that I currently work for.

Furthermore - the players are not the ones presenting the contracts to themselves. The owners need to be accountable for their own decisions and actions.

Why would you yell at some players to cave? Do you go to other picket lines and berate the employees on strike? ( I won't have even go further with how TERRIBLE a point that was)

Sentence structure is your friend. (it may actually allow me to take your argument seriously)

Lastly - please don't ever question my 'fandom'

Edited by Squeak, 07 December 2012 - 04:59 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#4583 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:52 PM

As I stated before the meetings this week. I knew the player would be manhandled in that room alone with the Owners...why because they dont know anything beyond ice, hockey and dollar signs...and certain people here dont get that...I heard Bettman say the word FANS many times in his PR did Fehr?...NOPE~! He did mention Canada...lol but only because press brought it up...

GO OWNERS~!


They didn't get manhandled at all. They had, for the first time, a willing dance partner and managed to get some concessions. Not enough obviously, but they got more than ever before.

Although the fans are obviously critical to the business of hockey, they are relatively unimportant when discussing the details of a CBA. The fans don't have representation, they don't have a stake in the business, and they aren't mentioned in the legal document they are trying to create. Due to that, any mention of the fans is a peripheral and quite honestly an irrelevant statement when discussing the deal alone. If the conversation is on the state of the game, or the impact of the lockout they are certainly relevant and worth mentioning. Fehr didn't discuss those things yesterday so they weren't mentioned.

Gary mentioned them for pr impact, and to me at least, it rang hollow. If he cared about the fans he would have started negotiating a year ago, not December the 4th. He knew they were unwilling to play on the expired CBA, yet they waited until now to negotiate, and IIRC, they had an out clause for last season on the CBA that they decided not to take advantage of. So much for a CBA that wasn't working.
  • 3
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#4584 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,164 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:03 PM

...
Depressing though it is, if you're waiting for life to be fair, take a knee. It's going to be a long wait.

Pretty much the same points I made the page prior, but the 'take a knee' comment was worth a plus.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#4585 BCNeil

BCNeil

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts
  • Joined: 15-September 09

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:08 PM

So the 2 main issues are CBA length and individual contract lengths.
I find it ironic the players prefer an 8 year agreement with opt out at 6, compared the NHLs 10 year, with 8 year opt out.
One of the reasons was its so hard to predict how the economy of the game will be 10 years out.
Yet the same logic for some reason doesn't count for individual player contracts.

But really the length of the CBA is just nonsense. Can anyone see any scenario, where 6 years from now it would benefit the players to end the CBA? Whether this CBA is 6, 8 or 10 years. Whenever it ends the players will once again be the ones giving....it makes sense to put this off as long as possible.

For individual contracts. Take the NHLs 5 year or 7 year with your own team offer.
With 6-8 year contracts also allowed with addition rules.......no 5% a year variance, no front loading, no final couple years with less money...No, just a straightforward even contract.. You want a 7 year 49million contract, well then its exactly $7 million a year paid to the player, $7 million a year cap hit. Prevents all funny business
  • 0

#4586 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,786 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:19 PM

So the 2 main issues are CBA length and individual contract lengths.
I find it ironic the players prefer an 8 year agreement with opt out at 6, compared the NHLs 10 year, with 8 year opt out.
One of the reasons was its so hard to predict how the economy of the game will be 10 years out.
Yet the same logic for some reason doesn't count for individual player contracts.

But really the length of the CBA is just nonsense. Can anyone see any scenario, where 6 years from now it would benefit the players to end the CBA? Whether this CBA is 6, 8 or 10 years. Whenever it ends the players will once again be the ones giving....it makes sense to put this off as long as possible.

For individual contracts. Take the NHLs 5 year or 7 year with your own team offer.
With 6-8 year contracts also allowed with addition rules.......no 5% a year variance, no front loading, no final couple years with less money...No, just a straightforward even contract.. You want a 7 year 49million contract, well then its exactly $7 million a year paid to the player, $7 million a year cap hit. Prevents all funny business


For the owners to actually want a 10 year CBA that leads me to believe they think they are winning this big time and want to lock it in. As well, if they are actually sharing HRR 50/50 I don't see what the big deal is, even if economic conditions change.
  • 0

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#4587 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:33 PM

NHL won't reach out to union

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Friday that he is out of ideas on how to get negotiations back on track to save the hockey season.

Talks fell apart on Thursday night amid back-and-forth accusations, and the fallout was still being felt Friday. The two sides had no contact with each other on the 83rd day of the owners' lockout of players.

"I have no reason, nor any intention, of reaching out to the union right now," Daly said in an email to The Associated Press. "I have no new ideas. Maybe they do. We are happy to listen."

If the players do have a suggestion, they haven't offered it yet. Their most recent proposal was turned down quickly on Thursday by the NHL, which wanted a yes or no answer on three specific conditions the league said were non-negotiable. When the union tried to bargain the points, the meeting ended abruptly.

That has left the NHL's labor situation in limbo.

All games have been canceled through Dec. 14, which is only a week away, so more games will surely be wiped off the schedule soon. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said Thursday that he won't allow a season to be played that contains fewer than 48 games per team -- the length of the season that was played after a lockout ended in January 1995.




How freaking depressing is this sentence?! "When the union tried to bargain the points, the meeting ended abruptly."

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4588 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,011 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:35 PM

They really oughta change it to Selective Bargaining Agreement at this point.
  • 3

#4589 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,452 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:38 PM

Posted Image
  • 1

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#4590 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,011 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:42 PM

NHL and NHLPA take a deep breath after negotiations go off the rails

A calm settled over the NHL’s brewing labour storm one day after negotiations were untracked in spectacular fashion.
The league and NHL Players’ Association took a step back Friday to evaluate where they stand and start charting a path forward in negotiations. They have yet to set a date to resume talks, but know they’ll have to return to the table soon with the window to save a partial season narrowing.
Despite the fact that three days of negotiations ended with some personal public jabs between the sides, commissioner Gary Bettman balked at the notion a lack of trust with NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr was keeping them from closing a deal.
“There’s no reason for anybody to suggest that trust is an issue,” Bettman said Thursday night. “Listen, collective bargaining is hard stuff and sometimes it’s made even harder depending on the goals and objectives that people have and organizations have.
“But the fact is you have professionals in the room.”
The 12th week of the lockout was filled with spectacular highs and lows.
Optimism soared on Tuesday when four new owners joined the process and met well into the night with players, leading some close to the situation to believe that an agreement was at hand. Tempers flared during another marathon session Wednesday that saw the sides exchange offers and move closer together.
Then, on Thursday, Fehr handed over a comprehensive proposal to the NHL and told reporters that the sides had moved so close on key issues that a deal appeared to be imminent. Soon after, he returned to the conference room to say there had been a development — “it’s not a positive one” — and that deputy commissioner Bill Daly had left a voicemail with his brother, Steve Fehr, notifying the union that the league was rejecting the proposal and taking its own offer off the table.
It was a turn of events unlike anything the Fehr brothers had ever seen during the decades they spent working for the baseball players union.
“Not only is it unusual, I would be hard pressed to think of anything comparable in my experience earlier and anybody else’s that I’m aware of,” said Steve Fehr, the NHLPA’s special counsel.
To top things off, Bettman and Daly then held a 30-plus minute press conference where the commissioner was uncharacteristically angry. Among the shots he took at Fehr was questioning the union leader’s motives for raising hopes after making the proposal.
“I’m not sure that spinning us all into an emotional frenzy over ’maybe we’re close and we’re going to be playing hockey tomorrow’ (is productive),” said Bettman. “It’s terribly unfair to our fans and it’s unfair to this process. We’re going to take a deep breath and look back at where we are and what needs to be accomplished.”
There was no contact between the sides on Friday as both took some time to cool off.
The breakdown in talks was bitterly disappointing for both players and owners, particularly after the week started with such promise. Pittsburgh Penguins captain Sidney Crosby was among the players who attended the meetings and he expressed frustration after returning home on Friday.
“This stuff is getting ridiculous, (losing) all these games,” Crosby told reporters. “I’m here to play hockey, I’m not here to negotiate. I support the players. I witnessed how hard guys worked and how bad they want this to work.
“But to see this happen, it’s terrible. It makes everyone look bad.”
Progress has undeniably been made despite the fact a deal wasn’t signed.
The NHL offered US$300 million in deferred payments to help ease the transition from a system where players received 57 per cent of revenues to one where they get 50 per cent. It also backed off on proposed changes to unrestricted free agency, entry-level deals and salary arbitration.
However, Daly said the sides remain divided on three issues: the length of the CBA, a rule would that would limit player contracts at five years and the NHLPA’s desire to see compliance buyouts included as another way to help teams reduce payroll and get under the salary cap.
When negotiations eventually resume, those will undoubtedly be the key issues.
“The foundation is there,” said Crosby. “I don’t think those talks were for nothing.”


  • 0




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.