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

#4831 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,085 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:47 PM

Let me rephrase this more clearly. Two questions to discuss in the following "what if" scenario:
-Players accept 5 year contract term limit and 5% variance
-NHL accepts 5 year UFA

1) Would the players or NHL consider this as a viable option, and why or why not?
2) What are the side consequences that would follow such rule changes?

I suspect some other tweaks would have to be made like
-2 year ELC
-slightly smaller make whole
-ten year CBA
-contracts are guaranteed at face value upon expiry of next CBA or other clause?? (The players need some concession on how this won't happen again)
Also, the NHL wants the last word, so I felt the need to make adjustments after countering with 5 year UFA.
  • 0

#4832 Cromeslab

Cromeslab

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 10

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:50 PM

Quote:

Thank you for sharing this link. All I can say is, "holy crap!"

Well, I guess that's not "all" I can say being that more than a few 4-letter words come to mind when I think about these billionaire owners pleading poverty and whining that they "take all of the risks." $16 BILLION of tax payers' dollars spent on pro sports arenas in a 13 year period despite demonstrated proof that sports teams do not contribute to the local economy but may actually harm it and they think they take all of the risks?!



Yup,and next in line at the trough is Katz

Edited by Cromeslab, 12 December 2012 - 09:52 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

"Where you've been is good and gone,all you can keep is the gettin there"Townes Van Zandt

#4833 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,175 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:39 PM

Let me rephrase this more clearly. Two questions to discuss in the following "what if" scenario:
-Players accept 5 year contract term limit and 5% variance
-NHL accepts 5 year UFA

1) Would the players or NHL consider this as a viable option, and why or why not?
2) What are the side consequences that would follow such rule changes?

I suspect some other tweaks would have to be made like
-2 year ELC
-slightly smaller make whole
-ten year CBA
-contracts are guaranteed at face value upon expiry of next CBA or other clause?? (The players need some concession on how this won't happen again)
Also, the NHL wants the last word, so I felt the need to make adjustments after countering with 5 year UFA.


I believe the NHL has backed off the ELC changes, haven't they?

1. I don't think the players will accept a 5-year limit with 5% variance. If the NHL insists on limiting both I think 7-years and 10% is the compromise to be had. That's still added restrictions for owners who shouldn't need them to begin with, so they really should take that and say, "Thank you very much!"

Question: Does anyone know if the NHL has specifically said if bonuses are included in the 5% variance? I would assume they are because that would be completely pointless otherwise, but it is the NHL so common sense can't be assume.

I was actually curious as to how much the variance alone addressed the back diving issue, even with a longer contract. (Assuming my math is correct) a contract starting at $10M and dropping 5% every year after might look something like this:

Year 1 - $10M
Year 2 - $9,500,000
Year 3 - $9,025,000
Year 4 - $8,573,750
Year 5 - $8,145,062.5
___Cap Hit: $9,048,762.4
Year 6 - $7,737,809.37
Year 7 - $7,350,918.9
___Cap Hit: $8,618,934.40
Year 8 - $6,983372.95
___Cap Hit: $8,414,489.21

Notice that had the contract been capped at 5-years teams would only get a lowered cap hit in the first 2 years and have a higher cap hit in the final 3, so it wouldn't be helpful to a team long-term at all. They'd be better off just having a contract for the same amount each year.

With an 8-year deal teams have a lowered cap hit 4 years and a higher cap hit 4 years, which would give teams the chance to decide if the spread is worth it in light of their long-term goals.

2. I agree with the union position that it would handcuff GMs and end the middle class of players. Big name players will still get paid big dollars. Without being able to use lowered cap hits, that will just leave less for everyone else. I do see that leading to some players leaving the NHL for other leagues, or being pushed out when their value exceeds what any team is able to pay them. Despite my respect for them as professionals and true competitors, I can't help but wonder what most players being forced to get underpaid will do to team morale and their individual willingness to push through pain instead of just staying home and getting paid their artificially lowered salary. (Yes, I know, they all get disgustingly high salaries. Point made, point taken, point retired, and point's jersey hanging in the rafters.)

The big problem is that the system itself is flawed and no matter how they try to alter the rules to promote the idea the current system is based on, it will remain flawed. Parity, as the NHL seems to define it, is not only a myth, it's undesirable because they seem to mean "constant stability" across all teams. That means every team has its super stars. Every team has its future super stars. No team stands out in any given year. No team sucks worse than the others in any given year. There are no banner years, no rebuilding years, just year after year of the same "winning just depends on which team has the fewest sick/injured players" during any given game. Snore fest!

Of course there needs to be rules in place to help lower spending teams stay in the hunt, just not every single year. Instead of these nanny rules that take all of the power and responsibility off the GMs and scouting staff, the NHL needs to encourage competition and reward teams for doing well, while also helping teams that need it. That's why I've suggested a cap trading system. Higher spending teams could use it to invest in big name talent and the lower spending teams could use it to save money and, if draft picks were a necessary part of any cap trade, could also get more opportunity to build a successful team in the future.

Honestly, it's kind of like welfare at this point. The NHL wants to create a league of dependent weaklings unable to thrive in competition despite the fact that that's the very essence of their business. Instead, they should be creating strong, independent teams that thrive by trying to be better, not just waiting to be handed good enough.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4834 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,453 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:48 PM

"Believe it or not, the Professional Golfer’s Association and the National Hockey League also enjoy the same nonprofit status.
...
Maybe that’s why Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) included both the NFL and NHL in the 2012 edition of his annual government “Wastebook,” estimating that the two leagues’ 501©6 classifications cost taxpayers a combined $91 million."

Are you freakin' kidding me?!


It's nice to see the odd Republican speak out against 'Reaganomics' - or the art of transferring public money into private corporate hands.

I remember Burke lobbying for similar tax breaks in Canada (when he was the Canucks GM), feeling that the teams up here were at a financial competitive disadvantage.
I always find it particulary perplexing when conservative types ride these kinds of contradictions. Would have much preferred to hear him telling States to cut that out as opposed to hoping to see Canada parrot that. I see the "teams are losing money" claims in a similar light.

I've always liked a lot of things about Brian Burke, but that was disappointing and one of the few things he did while representing the Canucks that left a bad taste - considering all the ideology targetting people who are dependent upon 'government' handouts, you'd think it might be below the dignity of these proud billionaires to be commanding these subsidies.

And it's lways sad to let politics creep into sports. Hearing that the NHL hired a Republican PR firm also disappointing (which is not to say I'd prefer they went Democratic, but to say I'd prefer they simply spared us the spin). I come to sports hoping to find a context that is relativel politics-free, where the point of the abstractions are to create fairness, competition makes people better, and the playing field is as level as possible. These lockouts and public politicking just muddy things up for the game - just comes accross as pure fail - and such an odd set of contradictions...
Professional sports, in a capitalist economy, 'needing' 'welfare' to 'compete'...
And it's the spoiled players who are expecting too much?

Edited by oldnews, 13 December 2012 - 07:06 AM.

  • 0

#4835 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,453 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:56 PM

Not gonna copy/paste it here, as it's long and not particularly about the lockout, but if anyone's interested in an interesting read to get their mind off these frustrating 'negotiations', give this a try:

LET'S ELIMINATE SPORTS WELFARE


another quality offering Bookie.
  • 0

#4836 Raoul Duke

Raoul Duke

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,151 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 04

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:01 AM

Oh man, was so awesome today on the Lockout update, they showed Bettman coming up an escalator! Then I saw Doan and I think maybe Sid going through one of those fancy revolving doors at the hotel lobby!! Was CRAAAAZY!!!
  • 0

TomBrady.jpg


#4837 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,129 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:11 AM

At this pace, this thread will have more posts than the 'Count to 100,000' thread before this mess gets resolved.
  • 0
Posted Image

#4838 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,692 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:21 AM

...
Honestly, it's kind of like welfare at this point. The NHL wants to create a league of dependent weaklings unable to thrive in competition despite the fact that that's the very essence of their business. Instead, they should be creating strong, independent teams that thrive by trying to be better, not just waiting to be handed good enough.

Agreed on the whole post and I liked the point about how many years cap hit is above or below salary in the actual contract. That was something I didn't really look at when I did my contract comparisons a few pages back using a 5% variance. You've summed up the points I might have made to gizmo's interesting post.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#4839 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,453 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:23 AM

Oh man, was so awesome today on the Lockout update, they showed Bettman coming up an escalator! Then I saw Doan and I think maybe Sid going through one of those fancy revolving doors at the hotel lobby!! Was CRAAAAZY!!!

:lol:
  • 0

#4840 Scoobydooby

Scoobydooby

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:50 AM

Oh man, was so awesome today on the Lockout update, they showed Bettman coming up an escalator! Then I saw Doan and I think maybe Sid going through one of those fancy revolving doors at the hotel lobby!! Was CRAAAAZY!!!


How true.
When I was at the casino tonight playing some poker they had lockout footage on.. hilarious that cameras just follow these guys around in their suits going in and out of elevators... I dunno what's more pathetic the current lockout predicament or how closely the media follows it as if there is nothing better to report on.
  • 0

Posted Image


#4841 vv2

vv2

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,401 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 08

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:59 AM

lp
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#4842 Edler's Mind Tricks

Edler's Mind Tricks

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 10

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:12 AM

At this pace, this thread will have more posts than the 'Count to 100,000' thread before this mess gets resolved.

Nah, it won't touch my useless thread. It'll just get broken up into parts, Luongo style.
  • 0

Hockey Management Intern for UBC Thunderbirds.
Associate Editor for Dobber Sports Network.
Designing a UBC Hockey Management Degree.


#4843 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,275 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:22 AM

^^ All of the theatrics going on right now is all for show. They have to keep the fans interested until they're ready to make a deal. Because there would be nothing worse than if people stopped talking about hockey.

So all this over the top dramatic outbursts and one liners are nothing more than a sell job by the NHL to try and stay in the media.

I've said from day 1 that this is a planned lockout. The NHL always planned on missing at least half a season, despite what they say. They had a game plan and a deal date in mind when they started out. That's why when they are ready to make a deal, I think it will come together very quickly, and just in time for when they wanna start, which is looking like January 1st.

So your rationale is that it was planned all along? In what sense? How about that the owner have a bottom line (right or wrong) and they are not prepared to move off it. Possibly planned in the sense that they knew a new PA head, Don Fehr, would try and craft a beneficial deal for the players.

Yesterday I suspect that Fehr floated a few ideas out to the mediators to see what the NHL would do. Bettman did not bite so Fehr has to reassess. IMO the PA has to move to the NHL's last proposal. The PA has succeeded in establishing the willingness to sit out and that probably helps them in the next CBA. I do not see a 'revelation' from the NHL which leds to a deal based on a concession from their established position. That position has been communicated by Bettman and Daley and again by a panel dominated by 'doves' from ownership.

The question is whether either side is prepared to write off the year. I suspect ownership is. I also think they will set a 'drop dead' date for the season before Christmas. As much as fans dwell on Don Fehr's creditentials (substantial) they should also look at the legal firm hired by the NHL. I find it bizarre that the focus of this dispute by many stays with Bettman and Fehr, especially Bettman. If the player/ownership meetings did not convince people that ownership had a clear bottom line then losing a season probably becomes a reality. If so what next? Going into next October do we take bets on whether a deal is signed by December 2013?

At what point does the money lost in this dispute become an 'investment' in whatever position is eventually agreed to? Players do not have the latititude that ownership has. I really question any player who says he is doing this for those that follow. When your career might only last 4 - 5 years that is pretty magnanimous. It speaks to the fundamental weakness of the PA's negociating power.
  • 0

#4844 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,275 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:32 AM

It's nice to see the odd Republican speak out against 'Reaganomics' - or the art of transferring public money into private corporate hands.

I remember Burke lobbying for similar tax breaks in Canada (when he was the Canucks GM), feeling that the teams up here were at a financial competitive disadvantage.
I always find it particulary perplexing when conservative types ride these kinds of contradictions. Would have much preferred to hear him telling States to cut that out as opposed to hoping to see Canada parrot that. I see the "teams are losing money" claims in a similar light.

I've always liked a lot of things about Brian Burke, but that was disappointing and one of the few things he did while representing the Canucks that left a bad taste - considering all the ideology targetting people who are dependent upon 'government' handouts, you'd think it might be below the dignity of these proud billionaires to be commanding these subsidies.

And it's lways sad to let politics creep into sports. Hearing that the NHL hired a Republican PR firm also disappointing (which is not to say I'd prefer they went Democratic, but to say I'd prefer they simply spared us the spin). I come to sports hoping to find a context that is relativel politics-free, where the point of the abstractions are to create fairness, competition makes people better, and the playing field is as level as possible. These lockouts and public politicking just muddy things up for the game - just comes accross as pure fail - and such an odd set of contradictions...
Professional sports, in a capitalist economy, 'needing' 'welfare' to 'compete'...
And it's the spoiled players who are expecting too much?

Your position seems somewhat amusing. The Americans just finished an election where the people chose a government that is spending beyond their ability to pay. They could tax ALL the profits of corporate America and still not pay for their debt. In Canada we have higher personal debt than the Americans do! Left or Right makes no difference people usually get governments they deserve. How many people actually realize that they pay for government deficit spending through taxes to pay the servicing of that debt and the on going devaluation of their savings?

I did not realize that only NHL owners were on welfare in this country. I guess they must have been educated in the same schools as everyone else in this country.
  • 0

#4845 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,085 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:15 AM

Agreed on the whole post and I liked the point about how many years cap hit is above or below salary in the actual contract. That was something I didn't really look at when I did my contract comparisons a few pages back using a 5% variance. You've summed up the points I might have made to gizmo's interesting post.


Yes, I agree on these points as well, and surely teams would just sign the same number over the course of contract in most cases (aka Iginla style). I wasn't meaning that I was supporting the idea of 5 year limit 5% variance and 5 UFA, just pondering how the sides could solve this.

If the owners aren't going to move on the 5 and 5, then would 5 year UFA be enough of a concession to get the players to buy in? As a fan, it could ruin the continuity of building a team. I was simply thinking from player perspective that lowering to 5 year UFA might be enough to swallow the other garbage.
  • 0

#4846 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,742 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:23 AM

So your rationale is that it was planned all along? In what sense? How about that the owner have a bottom line (right or wrong) and they are not prepared to move off it. Possibly planned in the sense that they knew a new PA head, Don Fehr, would try and craft a beneficial deal for the players.

Yesterday I suspect that Fehr floated a few ideas out to the mediators to see what the NHL would do. Bettman did not bite so Fehr has to reassess. IMO the PA has to move to the NHL's last proposal. The PA has succeeded in establishing the willingness to sit out and that probably helps them in the next CBA. I do not see a 'revelation' from the NHL which leds to a deal based on a concession from their established position. That position has been communicated by Bettman and Daley and again by a panel dominated by 'doves' from ownership.

The question is whether either side is prepared to write off the year. I suspect ownership is. I also think they will set a 'drop dead' date for the season before Christmas. As much as fans dwell on Don Fehr's creditentials (substantial) they should also look at the legal firm hired by the NHL. I find it bizarre that the focus of this dispute by many stays with Bettman and Fehr, especially Bettman. If the player/ownership meetings did not convince people that ownership had a clear bottom line then losing a season probably becomes a reality. If so what next? Going into next October do we take bets on whether a deal is signed by December 2013?

At what point does the money lost in this dispute become an 'investment' in whatever position is eventually agreed to? Players do not have the latititude that ownership has. I really question any player who says he is doing this for those that follow. When your career might only last 4 - 5 years that is pretty magnanimous. It speaks to the fundamental weakness of the PA's negociating power.


I've seen Deniro mention this several times and I quietly thought to myself that it was a load of malarkey but it actually does make sense. The owners are lazy sons a bitches, they would actually like to do as little as possible and make as much as possible. It has been stated that American teams don't really make much money until the NFL has completed their season and the people turn to other places to spend their money. They spend a lot on the NFL. So as such the American teams don't really start making money until January when the NFL sched is significantly reduced.

This plays into the strike perfectly because in order to salvage the season they need to squeeze a bunch of games into a smaller timeframe, which in turn generates more money in a smaller timeframe. Travel costs are also reduced in a shortened sched as division games make up the bulk. Meanwhile during these lean months the American owners have no overhead costs, player salaries, or responsibilities. If the owners had a perfect world they would squeeze 82 games into 82 days and lockout the players every year.

However, in the end I just think they are a group of degenerate morons.
  • 0

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#4847 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:32 AM

So apparently I can't get back the money I put down on tickets, even though the games are officially cancelled now? Unless they cancel the entire season, or reach a deal and reschedule, they don't have to refund my money? I could sure use that money for Christmas-time, and I probably won't be able to go to any re-scheduled game anyways cause I specifically set those game-days aside ahead of time...NHL is screwing the fans once again. If you're not gonna play, at least give me back my money!

Edited by ThaBestPlaceOnEarth, 13 December 2012 - 10:32 AM.

  • 4

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#4848 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:00 AM

Oh man, was so awesome today on the Lockout update, they showed Bettman coming up an escalator!



When I was that small I liked that ride too.

::D
  • 2
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#4849 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,453 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:49 AM

Your position seems somewhat amusing. The Americans just finished an election where the people chose a government that is spending beyond their ability to pay. They could tax ALL the profits of corporate America and still not pay for their debt. In Canada we have higher personal debt than the Americans do! Left or Right makes no difference people usually get governments they deserve. How many people actually realize that they pay for government deficit spending through taxes to pay the servicing of that debt and the on going devaluation of their savings?

I did not realize that only NHL owners were on welfare in this country. I guess they must have been educated in the same schools as everyone else in this country.


I won't say your response is amusing - I will say it is confusing - and I'm pretty certain you didn't understood my position. It certainly was not that left and right make a difference - in fact I think I pretty clearly said that I was not suggesting that the NHL go 'Democratic' or that it would make a difference - what I suggested was sparing us a politically crafted spin.
The reason there are references to Republicans is due to the fact that I read that the NHL hired one of their PR firms. I'm well aware of the fact that governments, "left" and "right" share in corporate welfare state policies - I'm equally not dazzled by 'left' wing or Democratic ideology, or their contradictions.

No one said or suggested that "only the NHL owners" are on corporate welfare - they just happen to be the people we are talking about in this lockout, given it is an NHL lockout. I think virtually anyone would find the extreme of "non-profit" status in certain jurisdictions to be entirely ridiculous. I'm not sure what you are trying to claim when you suggest that taxing "All the profits of corporate America" would still not service their debt... are you suggesting that there is no point because the snowball rolling downhill is too large to deal with...? Who is the debt owed to? The banks. If the banks in Canada choose to lockout their employees citing losses, then perhaps we would be discussing their billions of dollars of deferred taxes...Whether or not they are a drop in the ocean of what "we" owe "them" / "they" owe "us" is another issue entirely.
In other words, I'm not really sure what your point was or where you found the humour.

Edited by oldnews, 13 December 2012 - 12:19 PM.

  • 0

#4850 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,046 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:49 AM

Your position seems somewhat amusing. The Americans just finished an election where the people chose a government that is spending beyond their ability to pay. They could tax ALL the profits of corporate America and still not pay for their debt. In Canada we have higher personal debt than the Americans do! Left or Right makes no difference people usually get governments they deserve. How many people actually realize that they pay for government deficit spending through taxes to pay the servicing of that debt and the on going devaluation of their savings?

I did not realize that only NHL owners were on welfare in this country. I guess they must have been educated in the same schools as everyone else in this country.


No to get too off topic but... what we are actually paying for is to decline our national option, as described in the Bank of Canada Act, to print and spend our own money into existence rather than borrow and lend it, the two monetary policies that are inherently inflationary.

There is no lack of money in this country, it is that we are servicing $40B annually on a debt that we didn't need to create to begin with.


Posted Image



Guess what year we changed how the Bank of Canada operated and decided to adopt Milton Friedman's policies?

/The bump starting in 1940 was WWII, when we created the 4th largest navy in the world. For perspective. Stop blaming government spending for inflation and taxes, it's a ruse and it's highly inaccurate.

Edited by theminister, 13 December 2012 - 12:06 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#4851 Li'l Fra

Li'l Fra

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 07

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:48 PM

Oh, man. Just look at this thread.

Do we need our hockey back or what?

Great read, gentlemen.
  • 0

#4852 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:56 PM

Nick Kypreos @RealKyper 28m
Elliotte. On my way!! RT "@FriedgeHNIC: Hotel next to meetings site is setting up a vodka bar. Suddenly, I see a solution to the lockout."


Nick Kypreos @RealKyper 8m
#NHL Batterman can't weigh more than buck 40. 2 shots his way and I say we play "@FriedgeHNIC Hotel next2 meeting site setting up vodka bar"


  • 0

Posted Image


#4853 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,656 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:06 PM

It's Alexander Mogilny day of the lockout.

Posted Image
  • 0

#4854 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,020 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:08 PM

So the mediators will determine today if the two sides are close enough to warrant another meeting this week.

I guess we'll find out if Fehr was accurate in saying that the two sides were close to a deal.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#4855 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,742 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:18 PM

It's Alexander Mogilny day of the lockout.

Posted Image


Tommorrow will be Joey Juneau day.
  • 0

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#4856 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

Compliance buyouts surface as key issue

On the surface, it looks like the most bizarre point of contention currently prolonging the NHL lockout: Players fighting to give owners the right to buy them out once a new collective bargaining agreement is signed.
However, there is good reason behind the fight.
In addition to the added flexibility the NHL Players’ Association feels compliance (or amnesty) buyouts will bring to the hard cap system — something the NHL is looking to tighten — is the fact that the only other time in league history they were offered buyouts, the players didn’t make out too badly.
Fourteen men had their contract terminated for two-thirds of its remaining value during the 10-day buyout window that opened after the last CBA was signed in July 2005. Of that group, only two saw their NHL career end immediately because of it.
The rest, including well-compensated Rangers centre Bobby Holik, found work elsewhere and didn’t end up taking much — or any — financial hit as a result.
“It kind of worked out,” Holik told The Canadian Press in September. “It was not a priority, but between the buyout and the [free-agent] contract from Atlanta it all worked out. The way my contract was structured, I don’t think I lost anything even because of the lockout.”
It’s interesting that the topic of one-time compliance buyouts only made its way into the current negotiations last week, when the NHL and NHLPA started getting closer to a deal. Ultimately, it may end up being the final significant hurdle to cross before a new CBA is signed.
Of the three remaining issues deputy commissioner Bill Daly recently identified, transition rules are the only one where the sides are diametrically opposed. The NHLPA has accepted term limits on contracts but hasn’t yet come as far as the NHL would like. Similarly, the sides remain separated by two years on the proposed length of the CBA.
As for transition, the NHL has offered one season with a salary cap of US$70.2 million before reverting to one based on a 50-50 split of revenues, which would likely see it drop by about US$10-million the following year.
If no special transition rules end up making their way into the new CBA, a number of teams would be forced to get creative with their rosters. For example, the Philadelphia Flyers already have US$57.4-million in cap space committed to 16 players for 2013-14, according to capgeek.com.
And they are far from alone.

Should they end up being allowed, the most likely candidates for compliance buyouts would be highly paid veterans like 35-year-old defenceman Wade Redden, who earned US$6.5-million last season while playing on the New York Rangers’ AHL team. Only two of the 14 players bought out in July 2005 were under the age of 30 and nine of them were scheduled to earn more than US$2.5-million.

The Detroit Red Wings used the amnesty to rid themselves of three players, the Columbus Blue Jackets and Dallas Stars each shed two players and the Philadelphia Flyers bid adieu to popular veterans John LeClair and Tony Amonte.
“It’s not based on their play, it’s based on the economics,” Ken Hitchcock, then the Flyers coach, said of the decision.
Even from an individual perspective, a buyout is not always a bad thing.
Ray Whitney was a 33-year-old set to earn US$2.66-million when the Red Wings cut him loose just days after the last lockout ended. Not only did he win a Stanley Cup in Carolina the following season, Whitney is still going strong at age 40 and signed a US$9-million, two-year contract with Dallas over the summer.


Edited by The Bookie, 13 December 2012 - 03:01 PM.

  • 0

#4857 John.Tallhouse

John.Tallhouse

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,577 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:08 PM

JohnLuTSNMtl: #NHLPA 's Steve Fehr hasn't ruled out the possibility of talks Friday, but whether it will be by phone or face to face is undetermined.
  • 0
Posted Image

#4858 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,692 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:08 PM

Yes, I agree on these points as well, and surely teams would just sign the same number over the course of contract in most cases (aka Iginla style). I wasn't meaning that I was supporting the idea of 5 year limit 5% variance and 5 UFA, just pondering how the sides could solve this.

If the owners aren't going to move on the 5 and 5, then would 5 year UFA be enough of a concession to get the players to buy in? As a fan, it could ruin the continuity of building a team. I was simply thinking from player perspective that lowering to 5 year UFA might be enough to swallow the other garbage.

I'm not sure it would be but I get what you're going for, trying to find ways for the players to get wins while letting the owners get more of what they want.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#4859 Stefan

Stefan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 03

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:13 PM

Lp
  • 0

gallery_9059_470_12899.jpg


(1 Peter 2:18)

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.



 

#4860 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,175 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:19 PM

Results: NHL Lockout Survey

NHL fans are angry, have little hope there's going to be a season and believe both the players and owners are responsible for the ongoing impasse in negotiations.

Those were the prevailing sentiments in an online survey concerning the NHL lockout conducted by CBCSports.ca.

The 10-question survey was taken more than 7,000 times during the four days it was online starting last Friday. The responses reveal a lot of bitterness over the league's second work stoppage in the last eight years.

The first question of the survey was the one that's on every hockey fan's mind — whether there will actually be a season. A large number of participants didn't feel confident there's going to be any hockey this year.

The survey, published to the website just one day after discussions between NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr fell apart in dramatic fashion last week, revealed a big majority, 68 per cent, felt there wouldn't be a season, compared to just 11 per cent who thought NHL hockey would begin in the foreseeable future.

In contrast to the last NHL lockout in 2004-05, where public opinion mostly sided with the owners, blame is being equally spread in this work stoppage among hockey fans, according to the survey.

When asked which side they supported, 55 per cent responded, "Neither." The players were next with 26 per cent of votes, nine points better than the owners.

On Monday, the NHL announced it was cancelling all of its games until Dec. 31. Nearly 43 per cent of the season — 526 games in total — have now been lost to this latest work stoppage.

Fans are "angry" at the lack of progress on a deal. That's the emotion 54 per cent most identified with when asked to describe their feelings on the lockout.

Twenty-six per cent said they "don't care" followed by 18 per cent who were "sad" the lockout delayed hockey for at least three months.

If the league does resume this season, fans feel leaders from both sides should be held responsible.

Fifty-five per cent of respondents believe both Bettman and Fehr should step down. Twenty-four per cent said only Bettman should leave his post, followed by 13 per cent who think only Fehr deserves to be shown the door.

If the survey is any indication, teams might be playing in front of a lot of empty seats when they return. Of our respondents, 78 per cent said they would not buy a ticket to an NHL game if the lockout ends this season.

What's the one thing that might bring fans back? Fifty-eight per cent of participants said less expensive tickets are adequate compensation for making them endure a lockout for the second time in the last eight years. Twenty-seven per cent asked for a public apology.

If history is any indication, fans might see a temporary rollback of ticket prices when the lockout is over.
In an effort to entice fans back after the cancelled 2004-05 season, average ticket prices dropped by just over $2 a game. The average cost of a single ticket back in 2005-06 was $41.19. Last season, it was $57.10.

To see the full results of our survey, click here for the PDF file.


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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.