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

#5101 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,304 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:15 AM

The 'cattle' description you appear fond in quoting was made as a generality that applied to both sides of the table. 'Expense' was my description as ownership is the the body that has to write a financial statement and players are in reality an expense.


? Below is the actual quote. There are a group of owners with representation on one side, and a group of players with representation on the other - which you somehow see as "a generality applied to both sides of that table"?
Devalano's self-depracating "me included" comment doesn't change the Ranch/Cattle analogy, and it's got a false modesty / in cahoots ring to it in any event - he's apparently just an average Joe like the rest of us, but nevertheless, it's not too complicated for him to understand - and he's going to explain the way it 'really' is. That as far as I'm concerned is a patronizing contradiction.

"It's very complicated and way too much for the average Joe to understand, but having said that, I will tell you this: The owners can basically be viewed as the Ranch, and the players, and me included, are the cattle. The owners own the Ranch and allow the players to eat there. That's the way its always been and that the way it will be forever. And the owners simply aren't going to let a union push them around. It's not going to happen."

I agree with Poetica. You characterize the players response as confrontational and not "collegial" enough, but I think you are denying the context of this lockout.

Edited by oldnews, 18 December 2012 - 02:22 AM.

  • 0

#5102 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,629 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:38 AM

You don't see labour battles like this in other sports.

Hockey players are warriors.
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#5103 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,016 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:42 AM

An excellent article, written by an actual lawyer.


http://www.sportsnet..._antitrust_law/

December 17, 2012, 8:22 pm

By Rob Becker, Sportsnet legal analyst
[/size]
[/color][/size][/font][/color]


nice article, thanks for posting it.
  • 0

#5104 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 08:52 AM

? Below is the actual quote. There are a group of owners with representation on one side, and a group of players with representation on the other - which you somehow see as "a generality applied to both sides of that table"?
Devalano's self-depracating "me included" comment doesn't change the Ranch/Cattle analogy, and it's got a false modesty / in cahoots ring to it in any event - he's apparently just an average Joe like the rest of us, but nevertheless, it's not too complicated for him to understand - and he's going to explain the way it 'really' is. That as far as I'm concerned is a patronizing contradiction.

"It's very complicated and way too much for the average Joe to understand, but having said that, I will tell you this: The owners can basically be viewed as the Ranch, and the players, and me included, are the cattle. The owners own the Ranch and allow the players to eat there. That's the way its always been and that the way it will be forever. And the owners simply aren't going to let a union push them around. It's not going to happen."

I agree with Poetica. You characterize the players response as confrontational and not "collegial" enough, but I think you are denying the context of this lockout.

My advocacy of the 'collegial' approach over confrontational goes back to the Paul Kelly era. The NHLPA had come off of two 'lockouts' which they viewed as very negative for their players. I completely understand that ownership has instigated all 3 disputes. The players attitude seems to be that if they had a better negociator that the result might have been better for them. IMO it ignores the fundamentally weak negociating position that the players have no matter whether Don Fehr or Larry Goodenow is leading them. Not only does ownership have deeper pockets but they have time on their side. Their franchises should be in business 50 years from now but the average player only has 5 years.

If this is the situation they faced then the Kelly approach might have garnered better results. I admit that we don't know what he would have achieved as Mr. Chelious and Mr. Lindros master minded the coup that disposed Kelly. After the two previous disputes the number one player concern should have been selling their value to the owners. People here get upset when I label the players as a cost to ownership but they are. Saying that is not belittlement or should not be. AS the biggest expense to ownership the players should sell recognition of the value represented by the enormous money spent on them. The NHL has a hugh potential to increase revenue. Owners and players working to do that in a united way has far more potential than the two groups fighting over a few % points. The proof is how much the player's real $ increased during the term of the last CBA.

The downside risk in the 'collegial' approach was that ownership ignored or even took advantage of this approach. If in fact that had happened the players could have 'drawn a line in the sand' in 2012 and had more support built within ownership ranks.
  • 1

#5105 Brambojoe

Brambojoe

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 07

Posted 18 December 2012 - 09:04 AM

Nothing will happen until the results of the vote are known, the NHL is as interested as Fehr to see where the players are at on this. I think this is the last play before an agreement is made. These are smart guys, if the players thought that the season was going to be gone then decertification would have been an opening move rather than a closing move (last pitch to get movement on a deal), it may be transparent as a negotiating tactic but no more so than the "time-limit" offers and a "lockout until we get what we need".

It's an ugly war between two parties who are competing to see who will cut themselves the deepest to get a better deal - terrible business model. I almost wish the players would decert just to change this mess into something different.
  • 0

#5106 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 10:03 AM

NHL lockout doing ‘alarming’ damage to brand

Wake up, NHL!

The league has a major marketing challenge facing it, whenever it decides to end the current lockout – and the longer it goes on, the worse it will get.

Such are the astonishing – yet, in other ways, not at all surprising – findings of a major survey conducted by Level5 Strategy Group, a survey that took place, significantly, in the slightly calmer period just prior to the recent press-conference histrionics in New York and the league deciding to sue the players’ union to determine, bizarrely, that it is in fact a union.

Level5 is a 10-year-old company based in Toronto that has done “brand” analysis for such major enterprises as the NFL, NBA, 3M Co., Rogers Communications Inc., Canadian Tire Corp. Ltd., Second Cup Ltd., BCE Inc., Petro-Canada and many others.

Its expertise lies in in-depth interviews that determine the “emotional attachment” people have to various products.

In the case of the NHL and its players, the abiding feelings of the moment are betrayal at one end of the scale and utter lack of interest at the other. If you’re looking for warm and fuzzy, get out a microscope – or, better yet, switch to curling.

According to Level5 chief executive officer David Kincaid, the survey was conducted not for the benefit of the league but as a tool that might be sold to the multiple corporate sponsors of professional hockey, in order to show what they need to tap into with hockey fans if they hope to regain their former good standing.

It will not be easy.

“We found damage at levels we have not seen,” Kincaid says. “It’s quite alarming, really.

“If anyone thinks that the lockout can end and everyone will come back to Happy Valley, it ain’t going to happen.”

The company’s methodology varies considerably from public opinion surveys. Level5 claims to have mastered its technique through four years of pilot testing involving 30,000 intensive interviews, all geared at determining what basis a consumer has for choosing a particular brand. Obviously, such matters and price and availability play a role, but Level5 maintains the relationship is 50-per-cent emotional.

“The product is part of the person’s identity,” says Kincaid, who previously worked in marketing for Labatt Breweries of Canada and was a founding member of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Following the interviews – in the case of hockey, 1,066 people were surveyed – computer programs produce emotional maps called the “emotisphere” that illustrates the good feelings and bad feelings concerning a product.

The maps are divided, pie-like, into eight colour zones – red (fun), yellow (interest), orange (inspirational), brown (knowledgeable), green (trustworthiness), grey (satisfaction), blue (nurturing) and purple (friendliness) – and the farther a core emotion drifts from the centre the greater the concern.

A near-perfect emotisphere would be the Walt Disney Co. brand, the centre almost entirely red and yellow, the only outer concern a slight boredom even among those who generally like and admire Disney.

A disastrous map would be the one Level5 created following the BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. It was the worst the company had seen – until it got around to the NHL this month.

The first surprise researchers found was passion for the national winter sport has slipped. One-third of Canadians polled consider themselves “passionate” about hockey, one-third is neutral on the topic and one-third has no interest at all.

“It surprised us,” Kincaid says. “If we had done this study 10 years ago, 20 years ago, we would have seen half of Canadians or more say they were passionate about the game.”

They found a lot of males have slipped into “neutrality” about the game – are now bored with hockey talk and feel they no longer relate to the game. Football – both CFL and NFL – is on the rise among those fans, who continue to be interested in sports.

“It’s not a sacred relationship with hockey,” says Behzad Ghotb, who led the analysis for Level5.

When they mapped out those who described themselves as passionate hockey fans, researchers found some core red and yellow feelings, but at the same time significant unhappiness, disappointment, confusion, irritation and frustration.

A great many feel “cheated” by the lockout.

As for neutral fans, the study found no red at all. On the outer edges, where brands don’t wish to be found, the poll found dislike and, tellingly, boredom with NHL hockey.

The emotionally-charged red showed up in the final third, those who described themselves as non-passionate fans of little or no interest. However, the red was in the outer edges of the charts, indicating a significant and strong emotion: disgust.

“Hate can come from love,” Ghotb says. “Anger comes from hurt.”

From a branding point of view, NHL hockey and its multiple corporate sponsors are facing a huge hurdle, Kincaid says. The passionate fans are angry, the neutral fans turned off and bored, the mostly non-fans – the people hockey needs to attract if it hopes to grow – disgusted.

“Think what this means to the sponsors of hockey,” Kincaid says. “For almost one-third of Canadians, you are wasting your time on them. You’ve lost them. They are not going to become even ‘neutral.’”

As for those who do care about the game and still feel cheated, Kincaid says anyone who believes all the NHL has to do is come back and all will go back to as it was should think again.

“It’s about damage control with these people,” he says, “not about action on the ice.”


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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5107 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 11:05 AM

lol Survey's lol what a load! People they interview at that moment in time maybe so pi$$ed at the NHL and the NHLPA they say they will never EVER watch hockey again...lol I call BS on those people. There is no way to avoid it. A person may have to change his line up of friends just to ensure he never watches another NHL game lol
  • 1

#5108 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 11:21 AM

Not only does ownership have deeper pockets but they have time on their side. Their franchises should be in business 50 years from now but the average player only has 5 years.


Check the article I posted above about the long-term brand damage they are doing. If this lockout continues, I guess we'll see how true that attitude (by the owners) really is.

After the two previous disputes the number one player concern should have been selling their value to the owners. People here get upset when I label the players as a cost to ownership but they are. Saying that is not belittlement or should not be. AS the biggest expense to ownership the players should sell recognition of the value represented by the enormous money spent on them.


I actually understand your point about the players being seen as an expense, but what I don't understand is why the players should have to sell themselves to the owners to begin with. I can see why in other industries, where there's more in between an employee's contributions and the company's bottom line, it's smart for employees to sell themselves to the owners, but the NHL is very different. It's pretty much a straight line between players and revenue, be it in ticket prices or merchandise sales. Shouldn't the owners understand their own business enough to know that the players are the products they sell? Shouldn't they understand that the players are expenses, yes, but expenses that directly generate the revenue? Couldn't players trying to sell their importance to owners just be seen as them trying to inflate their own value for more money, or open them up to even more complaints that they're trying to tell owners how to run their businesses? And again, owners should already know the players' value anyway. If owners actually do have that complete lack understanding of the business they are in, the league has far worse problems than player expenses!

The NHL has a hugh potential to increase revenue. Owners and players working to do that in a united way has far more potential than the two groups fighting over a few % points. The proof is how much the player's real $ increased during the term of the last CBA.


The players' share increased, but so did the owners. In fact, over the previous CBA the owners' share increased significantly more. (There was an article about it in this thread a few dozen or so pages back.) But, I agree, working together to increase the collective pie should be far more important than fighting over relatively small changes to the share of the existing pie. The problem is owners now assume growth will happen no matter what and want to ensure that future growth will be more for them. And, they also want to gain even more control over players, beyond the money, to the point that they can essentially control much of a players' career, which in turns affects their lives and families.

I am curious, though, in all seriousness what else do you think the players can/should do to help them? Owners obviously think it's an insult for players to offer their opinions on the state of hockey business, so what can they do to contribute to the revenue growth more than what they already offer? They play. They do public appearances. They let the NHL use their name and likeness on merchandising. They pose for photos that get sold or turned into posters, calendars, etc. They do charity events that promote the team and league. They do media interviews.

The downside risk in the 'collegial' approach was that ownership ignored or even took advantage of this approach. If in fact that had happened the players could have 'drawn a line in the sand' in 2012 and had more support built within ownership ranks.


I honestly am trying to understand your stance, but I don't understand why you are holding it against players for not behaving in a way you say is ineffectual anyway. Am I misunderstanding? Why would they do something that wouldn't work in hopes that it would just get more people on their side for some future negotiation? Or if you mean they should have been more "collegial" from the start this time and then moved to a more hardline stance when it didn't work, how would they have done that? How could they be collegial without giving any more than they already have? How much would they have to give to be considered "collegial" and at what point would it be reasonable for them to move to a more hardline approach?
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5109 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,304 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 18 December 2012 - 11:50 AM

My advocacy of the 'collegial' approach over confrontational goes back to the Paul Kelly era. The NHLPA had come off of two 'lockouts' which they viewed as very negative for their players. I completely understand that ownership has instigated all 3 disputes. The players attitude seems to be that if they had a better negociator that the result might have been better for them. IMO it ignores the fundamentally weak negociating position that the players have no matter whether Don Fehr or Larry Goodenow is leading them. Not only does ownership have deeper pockets but they have time on their side. Their franchises should be in business 50 years from now but the average player only has 5 years.

If this is the situation they faced then the Kelly approach might have garnered better results. I admit that we don't know what he would have achieved as Mr. Chelious and Mr. Lindros master minded the coup that disposed Kelly. After the two previous disputes the number one player concern should have been selling their value to the owners. People here get upset when I label the players as a cost to ownership but they are. Saying that is not belittlement or should not be. AS the biggest expense to ownership the players should sell recognition of the value represented by the enormous money spent on them. The NHL has a hugh potential to increase revenue. Owners and players working to do that in a united way has far more potential than the two groups fighting over a few % points. The proof is how much the player's real $ increased during the term of the last CBA.

The downside risk in the 'collegial' approach was that ownership ignored or even took advantage of this approach. If in fact that had happened the players could have 'drawn a line in the sand' in 2012 and had more support built within ownership ranks.


Collegial literally means to treat people like they are your colleagues.

I don't see any point in belabouring the point that the players haven't been 'nice' enough. To treat the owners collegially in a negotiation process where that is in no way reciprocated is worth nothing but a mere optical impression that would fade anyway once the players re-re-re-realized the business world reality that "nice guys finish last."

The owners behaviour essentially says a whole lot less than 'we are colleagues' - you are lesser men who will take what you are given would be more accurate. To say that they are bigger, better men than the players would be a step up from the Ranch/Cattle analogy - you didn't seem to look realistically at what was being said on behalf of the owners 'real' perspective.

I also think you lack balance when you see this as a severe power imbalance. Franchises may last 50 years - owners seldom do - they too change - and some of the have-nots in this dispute stand to lose a great, great deal if the structure of the NHL is levelled and the league proceeds without a CBA. Those teams that allege they can't make money or compete under the current equalizing structure stand to lose everything - and a 150 million dollar franchise isn't small peanuts. Do you think when Bettman set out to make the players subsidize these teams that those 'struggling' markets had this end-goal in mind?

Edited by oldnews, 18 December 2012 - 11:54 AM.

  • 0

#5110 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,304 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:19 PM

lol Survey's lol what a load! People they interview at that moment in time maybe so pi$$ed at the NHL and the NHLPA they say they will never EVER watch hockey again...lol I call BS on those people. There is no way to avoid it. A person may have to change his line up of friends just to ensure he never watches another NHL game lol


Yeah lol!!! The NFL, NBA, 3M Co., Rogers Communications Inc., Canadian Tire Corp. Ltd., Second Cup Ltd., BCE Inc - I mean come on - these fools know nothing about demographics or branding.

And the typical poll - I mean, they are unreliable... even the 'credible' pollsters tend to fall in the mere 95% range of assessing the real world opinions of people - within at worst, a 5 to 7 percentage point range. How are we supposed to take this crap seriously?
What shocks me is that these billion dollar corporate entities fall for this. Muahaha - they could just read this thread instead and look at the facts.

The NHL should dismiss these findings outright. The information was gathered before the latest round of breakdowns and legal positioning. Hockey fans (and potential hockey fans) are that much more happy with the 'product' since then. Our identification with the brand is strengthening - we are increasingly relating to the face of the NHL - we resent it when those middling players / mere employees, insist on being center stage. We want more of this Bettman guy. Where have they been hiding this fan-magnet all these years?

I for one would never switch my attention to the NFL or other sports - it's the same-old same-old out here on the coast... the Seahawks suck! No entertainment value there whatsoever. The NHL has nothing to concern itself with. Business is fine, as usual - nothing to see there Poetica!

Edited by oldnews, 18 December 2012 - 12:21 PM.

  • 3

#5111 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:37 PM

Latest buzz is, this "disclaimer of interest" isn't going to work (at least in the courts). Disclaimer of interest is when the union leaves the membership. What we have is the opposite (players voting to leave the union), which is decertification. The only process that will work is decertification, in my opinion.

I'd have to guess that post decertification (45+ days), antitrust could only be filed from period following decertification and not include wages lost previously from the lockout? The only way to really put the pressure on is full decertification and then filing law suits the way the NFL did. If the players proceed with the disclaimer route in court, I would expect them to lose. Gary just loves having all those suits in a court room in NY. You know he is going to take this seriously, because if he loses, he is also out of a (8 million dollar) job! Expect him to snap faster than a Chihuahua guarding a dog bone.
  • 0

#5112 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 18 December 2012 - 01:06 PM

^^^well Gary is governed/influenced by his former firm, and lawyers need work too. Now lawyers can hail at the influx of work for the coming months. The ordinary course of negotiating surely would have cut into their services prematurely, and considering Gary will need a job after this debacle, what a better way to suck up to your next potential employers then generating them some business. A waste of money in my opinion when every other sport has been able to agree on a CBA, and some without even losing a game. Whats unfortunate as the elitist battle continues, it is the common working class that gets the short end of the stick ie. no work/no hockey, the very same people that help sustain their businesses/paychecks. Again it's all about the mighty dollar and not about the game, the pride, the loyalty.

Edited by Mauii, 18 December 2012 - 01:21 PM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#5113 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 01:53 PM

NHL lockout doing ‘alarming’ damage to brand

Hockey Canada came out with a negative outlook for Canadian hockey as more kids do not put skates on. Currently +/- 500,000 kids a year play which is roughly equal to USA enrollments. The number one reason is cost but other factors such as ice time, and cultural problems with immigrant populations.
  • 0

#5114 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,016 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:11 PM

It's not just immigrants either. When I go home to Ontario to visit, almost everyone is talking about CFL and MLS, and probably this year there'll be a resurgence in MLB with the Jays hype these days. In addition, every summer I work here in BC with people from all across Canada, generally 20-35yrs of age. Very few follow hockey, and most that do are casual fans.

Hockey can no longer be taken for granted in this country the way it was 20 or 30 yrs ago. Anyone who thinks it can is living in a bubble.
  • 0

#5115 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,016 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:21 PM

NHL has an emotional neutrality problem with hockey fans thanks to lockout

Whenever a pundit wants to blame the fans for the NHL lockout, that belief is rooted in the idea that we'll always come back to the League no matter how many work stoppages we suffer through.
Darren Rovell of ESPN went as far as to write that "there will be virtually no consequences from losing a season"; a statement whose abject misunderstanding of hockey fans contradicts the author's standing as a sports marketing expert. A cancelled season would be devastating to the League's momentum in the U.S. and extraordinarily damaging to its standing with Canadian fans, perhaps irreparably so.
Will a Toronto Maple Leafs fan still be passionately engaged if, say, Roberto Luongo comes to town* and backstops the team into the conference semifinals? Of course; much like you might spend the night with an ex if you're ravenous enough.
Doesn't mean the engagement's back on.
The issue for the NHL as this juncture of the lockout isn't how angry the fans are, but how angry they're not.
Hockey is completely off the radar in the traditional sports media in the U.S.; we're talking a 'space probe flying past Pluto' distance from the rest of the ESPN-approved diet of sports talk. Fans that were engaged in the day-to-day of the lockout can no longer stomach it. If you thought apathy ruled the day before, you haven't seen the indifference dueling court filings can foster.
But let's assume the NHL isn't idiotic enough to cancel a second season in seven years and has a 2012- … OK, a 2013 campaign. The challenge isn't calming enraged fans; the challenge is convincing those who have lived their lives NHL free for months to make time and spend money on the League again.
The challenge may be more formidable for the NHL than previously imagined.

Roy MacGregor of the Globe & Mail had a piece on Tuesday that chronicled the work of Level5, a market research firm that tracks the emotions of different consumer bases. Their study covered 1,066 people; what did they find?


From a branding point of view, NHL hockey and its multiple corporate sponsors are facing a huge hurdle, Kincaid says. The passionate fans are angry, the neutral fans turned off and bored, the mostly non-fans — the people hockey needs to attract if it hopes to grow — disgusted.
"Think what this means to the sponsors of hockey," Kincaid says. "For almost one-third of Canadians, you are wasting your time on them. You've lost them. They are not going to become even 'neutral.'"
As for those who do care about the game and still feel cheated, Kincaid says anyone who believes all the NHL has to do is come back and all will go back to as it was should think again. "It's about damage control with these people," he says, "not about action on the ice."


Those "neutral fans" are the ones that we're most worried about. The 'take-it-or-leave-it' types that dip into hockey when there's something to watch — the Winter Classic, the Stanley Cup Playoffs, big rivalry games — but summarily ignore it otherwise.
Here's more evidence from a poll released on Tuesday:


Fifty-eight per cent of Canadians have no interest in the two sides reaching an agreement in the National Hockey League dispute, according to survey results out today. The telephone survey by NRG Research Group and Peak Communicators was completed between December 11th and 16th in six regions across Canada. It includes the responses of 801 individuals.
The survey results, which come out a week after the NHL announced the cancellation of games through to December 30th, also found that 25 per cent of Canadians don't believe the lockout will be resolved in time to salvage a season.
"Canadians are clearly becoming disillusioned with the dispute process," says Brian Owen, CEO and founder of NRG Research Group. "A large majority of us either don't care about a settlement or don't see an end in sight to the negotiations."


As André Richelieu, sports marketing professor at Université Laval, told Canadian Business last month:


It's marketing myopia to believe that because we have the best fans in the world, that they will come back to the NHL. There are other ways to watch hockey; there are other ways to entertain yourselves with sports or other artistic and cultural activities. And already, people are getting accustomed to spending their disposable income on other entertainment options. The biggest danger is that the NHL believes that everything starts and ends with the NHL. That's a recipe for disaster.
… The biggest danger—and this would appear if the season is totally cancelled—is that [the fans'] frustration and anger is transformed into apathy or indifference.


That danger's been realized. Fans don't care.
They're deaf to the back-and-forth between the players and the owners, especially after both sides cried wolf during their last round of intense negotiations. The issues between the two sides have been nebulous in this round of talks — hockey-related revenue, contractual issues, escrow. Now that we've reached the legal wrangling portion of this pathetic standoff, even the most engaged fans are reacting with a yawn and a "wake me when it's over."
What if they're still asleep to the NHL after the lockout ends?
(* C'mon, we all know this is happening, right?)


  • 0

#5116 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:38 PM

why not spend our money on things more important than making sure hockey players get lots of money, and sports owners get lots of money...
  • 1

#5117 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:40 PM

Check the article I posted above about the long-term brand damage they are doing. If this lockout continues, I guess we'll see how true that attitude (by the owners) really is.



I actually understand your point about the players being seen as an expense, but what I don't understand is why the players should have to sell themselves to the owners to begin with. I can see why in other industries, where there's more in between an employee's contributions and the company's bottom line, it's smart for employees to sell themselves to the owners, but the NHL is very different. It's pretty much a straight line between players and revenue, be it in ticket prices or merchandise sales. Shouldn't the owners understand their own business enough to know that the players are the products they sell? Shouldn't they understand that the players are expenses, yes, but expenses that directly generate the revenue? Couldn't players trying to sell their importance to owners just be seen as them trying to inflate their own value for more money, or open them up to even more complaints that they're trying to tell owners how to run their businesses? And again, owners should already know the players' value anyway. If owners actually do have that complete lack understanding of the business they are in, the league has far worse problems than player expenses!



The players' share increased, but so did the owners. In fact, over the previous CBA the owners' share increased significantly more. (There was an article about it in this thread a few dozen or so pages back.) But, I agree, working together to increase the collective pie should be far more important than fighting over relatively small changes to the share of the existing pie. The problem is owners now assume growth will happen no matter what and want to ensure that future growth will be more for them. And, they also want to gain even more control over players, beyond the money, to the point that they can essentially control much of a players' career, which in turns affects their lives and families.

I am curious, though, in all seriousness what else do you think the players can/should do to help them? Owners obviously think it's an insult for players to offer their opinions on the state of hockey business, so what can they do to contribute to the revenue growth more than what they already offer? They play. They do public appearances. They let the NHL use their name and likeness on merchandising. They pose for photos that get sold or turned into posters, calendars, etc. They do charity events that promote the team and league. They do media interviews.



I honestly am trying to understand your stance, but I don't understand why you are holding it against players for not behaving in a way you say is ineffectual anyway. Am I misunderstanding? Why would they do something that wouldn't work in hopes that it would just get more people on their side for some future negotiation? Or if you mean they should have been more "collegial" from the start this time and then moved to a more hardline stance when it didn't work, how would they have done that? How could they be collegial without giving any more than they already have? How much would they have to give to be considered "collegial" and at what point would it be reasonable for them to move to a more hardline approach?

* Long term brand damage: No doubt that will occur. I suspect ownership has some estimates as well as how long it will take to regain support. IMO they can lose a season but the ultimate settlement will have a hugh impact. Obviously the owners feal their position is worth pursuing. If that leds to decertification and lawsuits it could really hurt the NHL for several years.

* The players selling themselves to ownership in the sense of a partnership which benefits both parties. It has to happen over a long period of time. I wouldn't limit the approach to just the players but might include management and referees as well.

* Absolutely agree that ownership's negative reaction to these negociations could get far worse. The PA forecast revenue growth at 7% and the NHL at 5%. What happens if that number flatlines or even decreases. Let alone from the brand damage you identified above as a cause but also the very real potential of a serious economic recession. Again I go back to my concern about how the PA can change their perceived value to ownership. The more times there are disputes like this the more chance they will be used again.

* What more can the players do? On the whole I think the players do a great job promoting the game from a personal appearance perspective. IMO there has to be a $ figure put on that type of effort. It makes no dif to me if this type of work is done as part of their contract or not. A $ figure quatifies the effort as a group. Especially valuable in aggregate and if revenue growth can be directly attributed to it. Perhaps the PA is already doing this but I have never seen anything but individuals.

Another idea was the whole issue you were questioning on whether the owners knew their own businesses that well. Other than Lemieux and Gretzky I cannot think of any other players who joined actual ownership. (One of the former TB owners was NHL) Ownership doesn't hesitate hiring retired NHLers for management positions to actually run teams. If I was the PA I would be trying to integrate the management experience into the player/ex-player offer. Needless to say it would take a hugh level of trust which does not exist today. There are two very distinct sides to operating a franchise. Actual hockey management which ex-NHLers are well established in. We don't hear much about the otherside of the business which deals with the finance side. When you look at how many NHLers are coming from the college and university ranks I have to assume that opportunity must exist within the various franchises for post NHL career moves. How many employers have the opportunity to source employees from within and who have established public images and are known entitites. Hugh number of NHLers with MBAs.

* Collegial(Partnership) approach: I look at this approach as something that had/has a better long term chance of benefiting the players than a confrontational approach. If the players can decertify and get what they think they deserve through the courts then obviously their approach was right all along. The downside, which is probably more likely, being a relative win by ownership. Sorry but if the season is cancelled the union solidarity will crumble and the PA will be done. A third 'loss' by the PA is even more devestating than 2004. I put the ownership win as 'relative' because no owner should be happy with what has happened. I dwell on what the players could have done with a collegial approach but in all reality after 2004 the owners should have been very open to the same approach. A owner win under current circumstances is relative since the chance of it being repeated in 2020 is very high. Perhaps my wording of collegial is incorrect but I picked that up from some hockey article discussing Paul Kelly's approach.
  • 0

#5118 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:47 PM

It's not just immigrants either. When I go home to Ontario to visit, almost everyone is talking about CFL and MLS, and probably this year there'll be a resurgence in MLB with the Jays hype these days. In addition, every summer I work here in BC with people from all across Canada, generally 20-35yrs of age. Very few follow hockey, and most that do are casual fans.

Hockey can no longer be taken for granted in this country the way it was 20 or 30 yrs ago. Anyone who thinks it can is living in a bubble.

My home town of 5000 used (70's) to ice 18 teams in a commercial league which attracted sellout crowds of + 800 fans. That went on for years. The young kids got so excited that minor hockey was rejuvenated. Another reason for less kids in hockey is also because there is less natural ice. When I was a kid we had months of pond ice but now it is too warm. BC you know.
  • 0

#5119 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:51 PM

Real_ESPNLeBrun: Steve Fehr reached out to Bill Daly today. Short phone call. But still nothing scheduled in terms of resuming bargaining talks





Ho-hum..........
  • 1
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#5120 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 03:25 PM

I do agree that disclaimer is not the ultimate weapon in the players arsenal. However I sense that Fehr is pulling another act, behaving as though everything is going to Bettman's plan and he's just along for the ride as the NHL drags this battle into courts. Fehr has already pulled the rug out from under Bettman once and we saw how Bettman reacted to that. Fehr is clearly smart enough to know that if he can do that again, he's in a very good position.

I've been racking my brain as to how he would go about it but I recall when Bettman was flustered and he was quick to correct journalists that the league wouldn't file for decertification but disclaimer. Despite many fans lacking the foresight to ignore the league's bluff that they are willing to end an entire season, I think time is against the NHL. Fehr's best move right now is to drag his feet, slowly do everything that the league expects. He could have had a vote to start the disclaimer process a while ago if that was truly the players' "nuclear option". Fehr's slow pace may well drag the NHL back to the table.
  • 0

#5121 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,048 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 18 December 2012 - 03:29 PM

This disclaimer of interest vote is about the dumbest thing the NHLPA can do.

The NHL sees right through this little ploy to gain leverage. And now they have the upper hand again.

It's not going to make the NHL change its stance, so really it's just a waste of time that hurts their bargaining position.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5122 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,416 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 18 December 2012 - 03:37 PM

PA should offer 6 year contract length. But there are no extra years allowed for players re-signing with their current team.

Free Agent Frenzy can't die.


  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#5123 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 04:30 PM

* The players selling themselves to ownership in the sense of a partnership which benefits both parties. It has to happen over a long period of time. I wouldn't limit the approach to just the players but might include management and referees as well.


Again, I do understand what you're saying. I'm just not sure how they would go about doing that or why they should have to. It was the owners who named them "partners" last time, but mere "employees" this time. How do you prove your worth to someone who only sees it in terms of what they can get from you while taking for granted what they already have been getting?

Sadly, I don't see this lockout doing anything to help either side's warm and fuzzy feelings towards the other or fostering any sense of a real partnership. Bad corporate culture is bad for business, and business owners above all others should know that. So, why don't they care? We've seen how loyal fans can help a business prosper even when times are tough. We've seen how players will take "home town discounts" for teams they care about and feel care about them. So, why aren't owners more concerned about creating feelings of animosity with fans and players? Do they maybe just think that's management's job?

* Absolutely agree that ownership's negative reaction to these negociations could get far worse. The PA forecast revenue growth at 7% and the NHL at 5%. What happens if that number flatlines or even decreases. Let alone from the brand damage you identified above as a cause but also the very real potential of a serious economic recession. Again I go back to my concern about how the PA can change their perceived value to ownership. The more times there are disputes like this the more chance they will be used again.


Oh, I agree. I think about this point they can both throw out their numbers. They'll be lucky to climb back to last seasons' numbers any time soon. And frankly it's what they deserve. You shoot a horse that's lame, you don't wound your prize racehorse when it's winning.

* What more can the players do? On the whole I think the players do a great job promoting the game from a personal appearance perspective. IMO there has to be a $ figure put on that type of effort. It makes no dif to me if this type of work is done as part of their contract or not. A $ figure quatifies the effort as a group. Especially valuable in aggregate and if revenue growth can be directly attributed to it. Perhaps the PA is already doing this but I have never seen anything but individuals.


It's an interesting idea. I don't know how it would be received, though. Especially if done individually (say by agents), owners might think players are just trying to make a play for more money, as opposed to showing the value they already provide owners for their salaries. Also, even as a theoretical exercise (as opposed to players actually getting that money) it might increase the difficulty of already convoluted accounting. Still, as you suggested, it might be a good exercise for the PA to do at least once every few years to remind owners that players aren't just employees. They are revenue generators. (Hey, that's good! Maybe the PA needs to hire a Republican spin doctor of their own to sell them to the owners. *lol*)

Another idea was the whole issue you were questioning on whether the owners knew their own businesses that well. Other than Lemieux and Gretzky I cannot think of any other players who joined actual ownership. (One of the former TB owners was NHL) Ownership doesn't hesitate hiring retired NHLers for management positions to actually run teams. If I was the PA I would be trying to integrate the management experience into the player/ex-player offer. Needless to say it would take a hugh level of trust which does not exist today. There are two very distinct sides to operating a franchise. Actual hockey management which ex-NHLers are well established in. We don't hear much about the otherside of the business which deals with the finance side. When you look at how many NHLers are coming from the college and university ranks I have to assume that opportunity must exist within the various franchises for post NHL career moves. How many employers have the opportunity to source employees from within and who have established public images and are known entitites. Hugh number of NHLers with MBAs.


True, most owners aren't hockey people. Like you said, that's why they're smart to hire hockey people, especially those with ice cred to actually manage their teams. I know some people think owners' lack of hockey knowledge is a major problem and to some degree they're right. Pro sports aren't really like any other kind of business given the fishbowl kind of market they operate in and the rabid fan loyalty that is so easy to take for granted. However, business practices are essentially the same across all sectors. Business sense still applies even to a hockey team. So, I wasn't so much questioning how much owners know about hockey, but why they don't apply what I assume is their vast business knowledge to the business of hockey. They don't need to know even the basics of hockey to look at the books and see where their revenue comes from. They don't need to be able to tell a goalie from a forward to figure out what their product is, what their customers want from them, or what it takes to build and expand their brand loyalty.

* Collegial(Partnership) approach: I look at this approach as something that had/has a better long term chance of benefiting the players than a confrontational approach. If the players can decertify and get what they think they deserve through the courts then obviously their approach was right all along. The downside, which is probably more likely, being a relative win by ownership. Sorry but if the season is cancelled the union solidarity will crumble and the PA will be done. A third 'loss' by the PA is even more devestating than 2004. I put the ownership win as 'relative' because no owner should be happy with what has happened. I dwell on what the players could have done with a collegial approach but in all reality after 2004 the owners should have been very open to the same approach. A owner win under current circumstances is relative since the chance of it being repeated in 2020 is very high. Perhaps my wording of collegial is incorrect but I picked that up from some hockey article discussing Paul Kelly's approach.


We definitely don't know what will/would happen if the union did cease to exist, but I'm definitely of the mind that it wouldn't be good for either side, especially in the long-term. Rather, I think it would become a tale of warning for the other sports leagues trotted out every time they even approached a CBA negotiation. You're right. It would be measured in "relative win" terms. And in this case, the relative is the twin brother "loser."
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5124 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 04:49 PM

http://www.hockeybuz...ginla/131/47950

Wow, talk about closed doors on the NHLPA~!?! Could this be true? Could Fehr hire those who choose to belittle the NHL for personal gain...SCORNED lol Like some on this site. ;)
  • 0

#5125 Primus099

Primus099

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 12

Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:11 PM

this lockout hurts the players not the owners, all the players have is hockey. the owners are billionaires that probably have lots of other money invested in other business. if the NHL folds the players are screwed, owners will go make more millions elsewhere
  • 0

#5126 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:29 PM

If this season is lost and nothing resolved, its possible the NHL might have to face an internal fight from teams within who may have suffered irreprerable damage to their franchise and are forced to abandon it. Owners who have invested millions, only to see it go down the tube due to a prolonged lockout.?????
  • 0

#5127 vv2

vv2

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:33 PM

lp
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#5128 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 06:20 PM

http://www.hockeybuz...ginla/131/47950

Wow, talk about closed doors on the NHLPA~!?! Could this be true? Could Fehr hire those who choose to belittle the NHL for personal gain...SCORNED lol Like some on this site. ;)


Isn't it interesting that that his blog cites these unnamed "sources" but they don't seem to include Iginla himself? Likewise, I find it interesting that his blog failed to mention the fact that Iginla was actually involved in negotiations back in October, and that the PA has moved significantly in the NHL's direction in several proposals since then.

And what's with the snide comments about the fitness of the other players to represent the union? In Hainsey's case because, according to the blog, he "is near the end of his contract, and retirement awaits." And that's his argument to "prove" that players are being cherrypicked and not representative of players unlike Iginla, a 35-year-old player in the last year of his contract, would be? So, 31-year-old Hainsey is too old, but 35-year-old Iginla is just right? Hainsey's 1-year left on his contract is too little, but Iginla's 1-year left on his contract is just right? Did Goldilocks write this blog?

Also, interesting that his "sources" didn't address the comments Iginla himself made on record just a few months ago.

(Partial quote from an article.)

“Gary said last time, it was a deal that would work for everyone, be a win-win,” Iginla said Thursday after an informal session with more than a dozen other NHLers at WinSport. “If you had asked him, ‘Forecast the revenues and will it work?’ He’d have said, ‘Absolutely. This is perfect.’

“Now, we’re not talking 1% (back from the players). They’re talking 10% back, and that’s $300 million, and that doesn’t seem honest from where that was.

“So how can we trust them next time?”

Iginla is still hoping this stoppage will be a “short one” and is frustrated to be in this situation so soon after the 2004-05 lockout.

“Even though I didn’t agree with it last time, you could see their point. This time, I don’t,” Iginla said. “It’s like Gary enjoys battling, enjoys the argument.

“We’ve got to get it fixed. Fans have been very good in the past, and we can’t just rely they’ll come back strong. I know I would be ticked off.”

To Iginla, if the players relent too easily, the league will ask for more concessions every time.

“It’s not a matter of us trying to get anything back from the owners. We’re trying to find a way to get a deal that, in five years, Gary won’t be coming back and saying, ‘The game is better than ever, but there’s still a few teams (struggling) and instead of 50%, we want you to take 40%,’ ” Iginla said.

“We’re not trying to win. We’re not trying to get anything back.

“We’re trying to find agreement — you hear the word fair — but it’s not a right or wrong.

“We realize we’re not going to win without giving anything back. We want to make sure next time, when you say this is a fair deal — which you said last time and we exceeded all expectations as a group together — we’re not in the same boat.

“You could say, ‘You guys make great money,’ and we understand that, but next time, they’ll say, ‘Why not 40% of $5 billion or whatever. It’s a lot of money, but it’s not like it’s going to fans or other good causes. It just goes to the owners’ pockets and back to the Maple Leafs or the Rangers.”

Source: http://www.sportsnet...hockey_hearsay/

Or..

"I would rather not, but I am willing to," Calgary Flames captain Jarome Iginla said when asked Thursday if he was ready to sit out another season.

Source: http://www.torontosu...for-a-fair-deal
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5129 Cromeslab

Cromeslab

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 08:24 PM

why not spend our money on things more important than making sure hockey players get lots of money, and sports owners get lots of money...

This disclaimer of interest vote is about the dumbest thing the NHLPA can do.

The NHL sees right through this little ploy to gain leverage. And now they have the upper hand again.

It's not going to make the NHL change its stance, so really it's just a waste of time that hurts their bargaining position.



You would think Fehr knows this,if he doesn't then the players are doomed,maybe the players could have spent whatever they had more wisely.If it comes to a legal battle the players will fail .maybe they should have decertified instead of DOI because if that's the case Fher has major egg on his face.

Edited by Cromeslab, 18 December 2012 - 08:28 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

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

#5130 Canuck or Die

Canuck or Die

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,518 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 11

Posted 18 December 2012 - 10:06 PM

This is so bloody stupid! These idiots should be meeting EVERY DAY until they get a damn deal! But no, they still aren;t talking and things are being dragged out more. How pathetic!
  • 0
EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO CANUCKS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


We WILL be drinking from Lord Stanley's Cup soon, Canucks Nation!

Posted Image




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.