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

#5251 iLLmAtlc

iLLmAtlc

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 695 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 07

Posted 23 December 2012 - 05:39 PM

That would be stupid, nobody cares about exhibition games. See: all-star game/pre-season.
  • 1
Posted Image

#5252 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 23 December 2012 - 05:46 PM

That would be stupid, nobody cares about exhibition games. See: all-star game/pre-season.


During a lockout, I can personally guarantee that this game would be very well attended.

If no body cares about the All-Star game, why does it always sell out?
  • 0
CANUCKS TILL I DIE

#5253 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 64,859 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 23 December 2012 - 06:45 PM

No contact between NHL, NHLPA on quiet Sunday:

NEW YORK -- All is quiet between the NHL and the players' association, and there is no sign the sides will talk even by phone before Christmas.


"Nothing today," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told The Associated Press in an email Sunday night. "Don't know whether we will speak before the holiday."


Daly and players' association special counsel Steve Fehr spoke to each other Saturday, but nothing of note came out of those discussions. The union declined to comment Sunday, the 99th day of the NHL lockout.


The sides haven't met face to face since Dec. 13.


All games through Jan. 14 have already been called off, and if a new collective bargaining agreement isn't reached by then, the remainder of the schedule could be cancelled, too. So far, 625 games -- more than 50 per cent of the schedule -- have been wiped out, along with the Winter Classic and the All-Star game.


http://www.tsn.ca/nh...rce=twitterfeed
  • 0
Posted Image

#5254 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 64,859 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 23 December 2012 - 06:47 PM

KHL president bashes “egotistical” NHL for lockout:

KHL president Alexander Medvedev wasn’t shy about bashing the NHL for what he believes is an “egotistical” move to roll with another lengthy lockout, R-Sport reports.


“No one knows how the league will behave in his situation,” Medvedev said. “But it’s all generally showing how egotistical the NHL is. Financial issues trump the development of the game for them. But at the same time, this will all hit their pockets anyway.”


Of course, these comments could seem foolish in hindsight if Medvedev’s own league suffers a work stoppage. The KHL president was adamant that wouldn’t happen, however.


“No, we’re not that kind of league, because while we might have arguments with the players unions, we always think about the hockey first of all, and about everything else later,” Medvedev said.


Running (arguably?) the NHL’s greatest rival league naturally inspires a competitive desire, but if nothing else, his league has benefited from the lockout. Stars like Evgeni Malkin, Pavel Datsyuk and Alex Ovechkin wouldn’t normally spend months playing in the KHL league, after all.


http://prohockeytalk..._medium=twitter
  • 0
Posted Image

#5255 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 23 December 2012 - 07:33 PM

During a lockout, I can personally guarantee that this game would be very well attended.

If no body cares about the All-Star game, why does it always sell out?

I would be surprised if it was not boycotted to a certain extent.

It would likely sell out, but there would be a lot of negative sentiment involved.

I would probably not watch it.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#5256 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 64,859 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 23 December 2012 - 10:49 PM

NHL lockout hits its 100th day.
  • 0
Posted Image

#5257 gmen81

gmen81

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,232 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 07

Posted 23 December 2012 - 10:52 PM

Heard players will give in to the 10 year CBA. Owners will also change contract lengths from 5/7 to 6/8.

Edited by Bob Corkum, 23 December 2012 - 10:54 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#5258 Mr. Self Destruct

Mr. Self Destruct

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,866 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 03

Posted 23 December 2012 - 11:34 PM

Heard players will give in to the 10 year CBA. Owners will also change contract lengths from 5/7 to 6/8.

\

Source?
  • 0
Fire Bettman.

#5259 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,898 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 23 December 2012 - 11:37 PM

\

Source?

Bob Corkom doesn't need any damn sources. He's BOB ***** CORKOM!!!!
  • 1

#5260 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 23 December 2012 - 11:40 PM

I heard that most people don't give a damn who gives what.

I heard more people like drinking beer and watching a couple hockey games each week.

I heard that the Sea Hawks are doing well, and the Raptors might be turning it around, but I don't want to care.

I want hockey.
  • 1

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#5261 Canucks_fo_life

Canucks_fo_life

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,539 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 06

Posted 23 December 2012 - 11:57 PM

\

Source?


http://www.nypost.co...txbe05hiewpEqoL

Larry Brooks

"Negotiations are expected to resume either Wednesday or Thursday, leaving the parties a window of up to three weeks to reach an accord. When they do, the NHLPA has a chip to play beyond disclaiming, and that is to yield on the length of the CBA"

Edited by Canucks_fo_life, 23 December 2012 - 11:59 PM.

  • 0
I rather lose with the Canucks, than win with any other team

This is OUR year

GO CANUCKS GOOOOOO!!!!!!!

#5262 gmen81

gmen81

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,232 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 07

Posted 23 December 2012 - 11:58 PM

\

Source?


Larry Brooks's article earlier. He has been right most of the time when it comes to the PA.
  • 0
Posted Image

#5263 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,652 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 24 December 2012 - 07:54 AM

Well, you're certainly right there is some guess work involved. But I don't think it's any more fair to call their take "wishful thinking" than yours. Injunctions are not that uncommon, especially in the interest of minimizing loses for BOTH parties. (An injunction, for example, would allow owners to get back to playing and making money without giving up their bargaining power or legal claims.) Players playing without a union (if that's even possible) or creating a new one that just gives in to owners what the same players find objectionable now is not common or even likely.

And this is nothing like 2005. The league does not have the fan or sports industry support it did then. The world economy is not as strong. The league is not releasing a report to show how poor they are this time because it's no longer true. The league is richer than it ever has been and has been thriving (to the tune of a 50% revenue increase since the last CBA) under a system the owners themselves designed. Whereas last time people saw the problem and why it needed to be fixed with a salary cap system, this time many see the problems the NHL has as being the NHL's own fault and having always been within their control to fix. Many also understand that even the NHL's own first ridiculous proposal would not make all teams profitable as it fails to address the fundamental issues. While they like to use the money losing teams to try to force players into getting less, their own proposed rules do nothing to help those teams. Despite what other leagues do and its proven success in maintaining league health, owners only want to increase their team revenue sharing to the percent of HRR they are demanding the players give up in this CBA negotiations. (Or, stated another way, they want players to entirely fund their team revenue sharing.)

Even the drop in the players' share won't help the lower teams. The NHL's own early lockout estimations showed they expected HRR to grow at least 7% over last season as soon as season 2 of the new CBA, meaning teams would be spending exactly what they were last season but with the new rules proposed by the NHL itself teams would no longer be able to use unpaid bonuses to reach the cap floor, meaning the poorest teams would be paying more in real dollars to reach the same number they had to reach last season. The NHL is only making things worse for the bottom teams, not better. And that alone makes this very different from 2005.

But I couldn't agree more than it's all very sad.

:) Yes opinions are cheap. Especially mine. I've been a hockey fan all my life but this dispute has interested me from a business perspective as much as anything. Not knowing the 'real' inside story on motivation by either side simply makes the speculation endless.

Based on not knowing the detail of the arguments I will assume that no injunction will be granted. The PA would surely support such a move but ownership would not. Whether you agree or not the NHL says they want a CBA in place to do business and I suspect the courts would go along. There is no existing contract. The right or the wrong of the arguments mean little at this point.

Your comment about the NHL having fan and industry support in 2004 is not how I remember it. Much the same comments then as now. The NHL was cutting the players share of revenue and the players were screaming bloody murder. Avid fans and the talking heads in media played that dispute out until the end but most fans had moved on long before that. The same is happening now. What the fans think matters little IMO. Yes the treat to revenue is definitely there but it appears to be a risk that both sides are willing to take. I have always thought this is an argument between two very powerfull groups fighting over a rich sports niche. The players have a narrow perspective(money) of what the game can deliver to them over the length of their careers. The owners have a longer perspective as their time frame can last for decades. Ownership has a broader perspective as their investment goes beyond their direct involvement with players. Again, IMO, that is the fundamental weakness that players face. Their career time frame limits their negociating position.

Your comment about dropping the players share of HRR not helping the poorer teams but benefiting the richer ones might be very true. This could be a crucial point in this whole dispute. A lower share in HRR by players suggests an improvement to operating costs to all franchises. The more successfull teams would benefit the most. It is an indication to me that ownership believes that financial success of franchises should come from their individual markets and not through a 'stabilization fund'. This could be a critical stumbling block in negociations as the PA would certainly object. Does ownership think that they can put a competitive product on the ice with a salary CAP and no 'stabilization fund'? It appears so.

I expect the player position to deteriorate quickly once legal action starts. Their only hope is the threat of such action 'scaring' ownership straight. Highly doubtfull that ownership has not run their own scenarios on how this eventuality plays out. Courts never work quickly. Rich players can hold out but the majority are not rich and will not see what a long legal battle holds for them. Much of what is being fought over doesn't apply to them anyway. The only hope for the players is getting an injunction which I highly doubt.

Edited by Boudrias, 24 December 2012 - 08:08 AM.

  • 1

#5264 Mr. Self Destruct

Mr. Self Destruct

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,866 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 03

Posted 24 December 2012 - 11:27 AM

http://www.nypost.co...txbe05hiewpEqoL

Larry Brooks

"Negotiations are expected to resume either Wednesday or Thursday, leaving the parties a window of up to three weeks to reach an accord. When they do, the NHLPA has a chip to play beyond disclaiming, and that is to yield on the length of the CBA"


Thank you. I hope Brooks is right. This fiasco has gone on for far too long.
  • 0
Fire Bettman.

#5265 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,360 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 03:33 PM

Not knowing the 'real' inside story on motivation by either side simply makes the speculation endless.


Ain't that the truth! It's the new "sport" of the NHL.

Based on not knowing the detail of the arguments I will assume that no injunction will be granted. The PA would surely support such a move but ownership would not. Whether you agree or not the NHL says they want a CBA in place to do business and I suspect the courts would go along. There is no existing contract. The right or the wrong of the arguments mean little at this point.


I agree and that's the worst part for both sides. The legal right or wrong really won't come into it for years, but it's precisely for that reason that I think an injunction would be granted and that it's the best thing possible for both sides if they do take this through the courts. If there's no ruling on the legality of the lockout, the NHL can't get replacement players. They have a union and must deal with them. Even without an union, they have contracts with the players. Absent a ruling like the one they asked for saying player contracts are null and void (which I find incredibly hard to believe they would ever get anyway, and even if they did it would likely be stayed while players appealed in any number of courts and across 2 countries), they must deal with the players they have on contract. An injunction would only say they must work while waiting for the case to go through the courts, not make a ruling in either sides' favor, and would allow both sides to mitigate their damages while not diminishing either side's legal claims. Without it, the NHL can't operate and you can't tell me that would be preferable to owners, especially not since they did better under the last CBA than they ever have in the history of the league.

Your comment about the NHL having fan and industry support in 2004 is not how I remember it. Much the same comments then as now. The NHL was cutting the players share of revenue and the players were screaming bloody murder. Avid fans and the talking heads in media played that dispute out until the end but most fans had moved on long before that. The same is happening now. What the fans think matters little IMO.


Maybe I'm giving people too much credit, but I really do think the feeling is different this time. Last time, the NHL made public their financial report to demonstrate actual need, but this time they're just avoiding mentions of yet another year of record revenue. Last time, they pointed to a very real problem and were fighting for a system that actually addressed the problem. This time, they're fighting for stuff (contract length and variance limits, etc.) even they admit isn't a common problem and doesn't effect the bottom line of a single team. I think there are fewer journalists and bloggers who understand why the NHL is threatening yet another season this time, whereas last time people saw the salary cap as being necessary to ensure parity. And it was for that reason, the belief that it was for something real and needed, that people were so willing to forgive last time. I'm not convinced people will be so forgiving this time when all is said and done because, as you said, we aren't really sure what their motives are this time. And that is in a nutshell what makes this time very different.

The players have a narrow perspective(money) of what the game can deliver to them over the length of their careers. The owners have a longer perspective as their time frame can last for decades. Ownership has a broader perspective as their investment goes beyond their direct involvement with players. Again, IMO, that is the fundamental weakness that players face. Their career time frame limits their negociating position.


I agree. The individual player's perspective is rather limited if they think only in terms of their own career, but when bargaining they also have to remember and think of the players that come after them. As Fehr has said repeatedly, the NHL wants a CBA length that will ensure almost no one who had any vote in it will still be in the league when it finally expires. If careers are as short as everyone says, maybe they're right that it shouldn't be allowed to be so long that the majority of people obligated by it have no say in it.

That being said, I actually don't have a problem with a long-term CBA and actually think it'll work to the players' advantage, especially if they keep future players in mind. And I think they are. That's part of why they're fighting for ELC rights and free agency rights.

If Wikipedia's list of NHL owners is accurate, I don't think you're correct in assuming owners are taking a long view of decades. It seems few of them own the teams for that long. Most of the teams have switched hands at least once since 2000.

Given that, owners might take a longer-term view as you said, but it's likely really only in terms of selling. That's where sports franchise owners make their money. You buy a team, build the brand, and then sell it. That's the cash cow for most, not the daily operations. I absolutely agree with the multitude of experts who have voiced concerns that the NHL is seriously damaging its brand with this lockout, and in the owners' long-term view that should be absolutely unacceptable, especially in light of the fact that much of what they are now fighting for will not alter their bottom line by so much as a single penny. That is not acting in the long-term interest of your business. (And even non-hockey people are noticing. There was a story the other day about how the arenas home to some NHL franchises are being "monitored" in terms of their credit rating due to the damage the rating company sees the lockout doing. [Read the story])

Just like players need to remember and negotiate on behalf of the players that come into the league after them, owners need to think beyond their own bottom line. And that is, in my opinion, the crux of the problem in the league right now. Owners are thinking only of their own teams. Poor teams are begging for handouts, even after knowingly buying into money losing teams and a league of stingy owners. Rich teams are using the poor teams to make more money, be it from TV contracts or CBA "look how poor we are" ploys, but then forget those teams exist when they can't get anything from them. They need to decide once and for all if they are a collective, and as such responsible for one another, or a collection of individual businesses in it for themselves only. Either it's one for all and all for one, or every team for itself. The owners have no right to ask players to make sacrifices on every team because of the needs of a few teams if the owners aren't willing to do the same.

Does ownership think that they can put a competitive product on the ice with a salary CAP and no 'stabilization fund'? It appears so.


Yes, and as you said that is the major stumbling point. No other league is successful without team revenue sharing. It's necessary for a league to survive because, as some have pointed out, a league is not a single business. It still just boggles my mind why they are so resistant.

I expect the player position to deteriorate quickly once legal action starts. Their only hope is the threat of such action 'scaring' ownership straight. Highly doubtfull that ownership has not run their own scenarios on how this eventuality plays out. Courts never work quickly. Rich players can hold out but the majority are not rich and will not see what a long legal battle holds for them. Much of what is being fought over doesn't apply to them anyway. The only hope for the players is getting an injunction which I highly doubt.


Owners can't simply wait out players for years. A team that can't operate might as well not exist. It has no revenue and no resell value. Team value comes from the brand value and that comes from actually operating. So, the idea that teams could just sit for years, waiting out players who are free to work in other leagues, with even fewer restrictions as their NHL contracts run out (since the are counted against calendar years, not seasons played), seems rather shortsighted. The truth is, the league not operating would be the end of the NHL. Any legal action that would threaten the teams operating for any significant amount of time is very serious and should be treated as such by both owners and players.

I've said it before but I'll say it again, all of this legal crap is a world of bad for both sides. They both need to realize that they need one another. For either to truly thrive, the players need the league and the league needs the players. Why that simple truth is so hard for them to grasp is frankly beyond me.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5266 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,360 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 03:47 PM

NHL lockout's true cost is staggering

The year before the 2004-05 season was canceled because of a lockout, the NHL was a money-losing enterprise.

According to a league audit, it lost $232 million during the 2003-04 season.

While no audit was made public for 2011-12, the league is known to be in better financial shape than eight years ago, with record revenues of $3.3 billion driven by the increasing popularity of the game.

During the lost season, commissioner Gary Bettman and the owners harbored few worries about killing a golden goose, as they demanded and eventually received the first salary cap in the history of the sport.

This time, the goose may not be exactly golden, but it is more valuable. And the risks are higher.

On Friday, a financial ratings firm, Fitch Ratings, said it would likely assign a "negative outlook" to all NHL arenas, if the season is canceled. The move could affect the cost of borrowing for new construction, including for an arena Mike and Marian Ilitch intend to build in Detroit.

"Professional sports work stoppages risk alienating sports fans, corporate sponsorship and advertising partners in the short-term and may lead to increased revenue volatility," Fitch said in a news release.

As players, owners and Bettman whittle down the time left for tactical maneuvers to the last two weeks, if a 48-game season is to begin in mid-January, both sides will consider whether the cost of losing a season is greater than the cost of making a deal. Saving the season may depend on whether the price tag of not doing so is greater than any financial advantage gained by more bargaining.

Simple arithmetic suggests the NHL will lose an additional $2.75 billion in revenue if it cancels the full season and the Stanley Cup playoffs.

That sum includes $2.2 billion based on the economic performance of the NHL last year.

The league also would lose $330 million in additional revenue due the owners, now that the players have essentially agreed to a 50-50 split of the pot.

TV deal has huge impact

A considerable source of revenue is the lucrative, record-breaking television contract with NBC. A 10-year, $2 billion deal, now in its second year, helps finance the owners through the lockout, because it requires NBC to pay $200 million annually, regardless of a work stoppage.

But, if the season is canceled, the NHL must provide an additional season at the end of the contract, for free. Considering that the 2022-23 season is scheduled to be the first year of a next broadcasting agreement, the NHL likely risks losing even more than $200 million.


The value of sponsorships also is at risk during a lockout and ever more so if the season is canceled.

Sponsors can not be happy with the second lockout in eight years, but none has announced plans to abandon the NHL.

Molson-Coors, the largest sponsor, did announce last month that its sales have suffered without hockey, and Kraft announced the cancellation of its participation in Kraft Hockeyville — a major portion of the advertising campaign it ties to its sponsorship.

The lockout is currently costing the NHL about 25-30 percent of its sponsorship revenue, experts say. The league will have to write some checks to make sponsors whole. But if the full season is canceled, the dollar amount will increase considerably.

It took the NHL two years to recover sponsorship spending levels after the lost season, observers say.

A second lost season in eight years could have an even greater impact.


"There's a compounding effect to this. Fool me once, fool me twice and all that," said Bruno Delorme, a sports-marketing expert at Concordia University, according to The Globe and Mail in Toronto. "The longer the NHL is out of action, that trust breaks down a little bit more."

Are fans less forgiving?

Another potential cost is the further alienation of fans. While many say they are angry now, they said the same thing last time — only to return to arenas, broadcasts and souvenir shops in such large numbers that it drove record revenues.

Early in the lockout, Bettman said he was not concerned about losing fans. "We recovered well last time because we have the world's greatest fans," he said.

But there are some signs they will be less forgiving this time.

Level5 Strategy Group in Toronto, which specializes in building the brands of businesses, said it surveyed 1,066 Canadians and determined that there has been a long-term drop in the proportion of fans who feel "passionate" about the NHL and, among men, increasing interest in both the NFL and CFL.

The firm also said it discerned emotions associated with the NHL that are more negative than those the firm found with BP during the gulf oil spill.

"Hate to say it, but we could end up like bowling," Red Wings coach Mike Babcock told Sportsnet.ca last week. It was a veiled reference to the decline in viewership and attendance the NHL suffered after the lost season, when television ratings were about the same as bowling, before they eventually spiked.

The cost of the lockout to the players has been clear from the start. While the owners reap the revenue from broadcasting rights, the players miss paychecks.

But they are negotiating make-whole arrangements with the NHL, which likely would be lost, along with all of their salaries, if the season is canceled. That is an average of $2.4 million per player, and in the case of some of the highest paid, it is $10 million, and more. And the players' losses could be even more catastrophic.

In a suit pending in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, in which the NHL seeks to block any impact from a prospective move to disband the NHLPA, the league argues that if the union no longer exists, the court should declare that "all existing contracts between NHL players and NHL teams would be void and unenforceable."

In other words, every contract earned by every NHL player would be erased and subject to renegotiation.

Whether all of the costs on both sides drives them toward an agreement in the coming two weeks remains to be seen. But the costs are both evident, and large.

(Note: Emphasis is mine.)
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5267 surtur

surtur

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,474 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 04:03 PM

so if all contracts are erased ... then a team like Toronto could in theory pay huge bucks to get the roster of team Canada....
  • 0
Release The KraKassian
Posted Image

#5268 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,360 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 04:57 PM

so if all contracts are erased ... then a team like Toronto could in theory pay huge bucks to get the roster of team Canada....


Yes. Without a players' union the NHL can not legally have a salary cap or anything else that limits competition among teams, so if the union were disbanded and individual contracts were voided, the richest teams would be able to spend as much as they want to get the players they want. Can't imagine they'd limit themselves to just players from Team Canada, but if they wanted to...

Edited by poetica, 24 December 2012 - 04:59 PM.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5269 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 24 December 2012 - 05:00 PM

so if all contracts are erased ... then a team like Toronto could in theory pay huge bucks to get the roster of team Canada....


Pbbly Not. Before the salary cap TO had big bucks to spend on FA's, hardly any signed there or in any other Canadian market. It's more likely you'll see most big names sign in big US markets. Anyways... this is all fodder for hockey forums. It will never happen. Won't get that far. Courts would take years to decide the ultimate outcome.

If something like this ever did happen the league would get future employees "players" to form a union. The league could then handpick the union and negotiate favorable terms. Perhaps a $35 million hard cap ceiling and no cap floor, UFA at 35 etc. etc.

Xmas wishlist.

1. ........
2. ........
3. Bettman keeps the bums locked out until they break. Cancel the season and go from there.

Edited by WHL rocks, 24 December 2012 - 05:54 PM.

  • 1

#5270 Sully2Cool

Sully2Cool

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,551 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 11:15 PM

Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#5271 Pears

Pears

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,848 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 11:19 PM

Posted Image

That is not how you use the one does not simpley meme...Not even close actually.
  • 4
Posted Image

Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!!

#5272 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 24 December 2012 - 11:39 PM

Memo to Players: Go...pound...sand...

I don't care if this season and next season gets cancelled. I have so many other things to occupy my time with. I'm a 10+ year lower-bowl season ticket holder and...I just don't care any more...
  • 0

#5273 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,439 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 25 December 2012 - 01:57 AM

Heard players will give in to the 10 year CBA. Owners will also change contract lengths from 5/7 to 6/8.


Good, this should be enough to save the season, then just go 10% on the variance.

If this happens and doesn't save the season it will literally be them fighting over next to nothing, just to see who wins.

Hopefully we can see this be made pretty soon, once the Christmas passes (Anywhere from Dec 28th-Jan 6th) hopefully we can being to sit down, hammer it out and having hockey by mid January.
  • 0

zackass.png


#5274 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 25 December 2012 - 03:53 AM

Edit, It's just Brooks bashing Bettman again. Nothing new. No news, just his proposal on what the 2 sides should do.

Edited by WHL rocks, 25 December 2012 - 04:03 AM.

  • 0

#5275 vv2

vv2

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,398 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 08

Posted 25 December 2012 - 04:36 AM

w
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#5276 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,652 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 25 December 2012 - 11:29 AM

Pbbly Not. Before the salary cap TO had big bucks to spend on FA's, hardly any signed there or in any other Canadian market. It's more likely you'll see most big names sign in big US markets. Anyways... this is all fodder for hockey forums. It will never happen. Won't get that far. Courts would take years to decide the ultimate outcome.

If something like this ever did happen the league would get future employees "players" to form a union. The league could then handpick the union and negotiate favorable terms. Perhaps a $35 million hard cap ceiling and no cap floor, UFA at 35 etc. etc.

Xmas wishlist.

1. ........
2. ........
3. Bettman keeps the bums locked out until they break. Cancel the season and go from there.

Definitely an option. A total war option by ownership could be pretty brutal. Another union forming would almost be an automatic and I expect a goodly number of current NHLPA members to sign up. You have question a number of times how aware many NHL players are to the true ramifications of these negociations. No hockey until next fall, if then, will get everyone's attention. I do believe that many players think there will be a last minute deal. There might be but it will be all NHL talking points.
  • 0

#5277 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 25 December 2012 - 08:34 PM


merry xmas Boudrias.
  • 0

#5278 spliced

spliced

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,101 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 25 December 2012 - 09:11 PM

One thing that may be different about this lockout is the quality of the hockey when it comes back. Last time it went from pre-lockout clutching and grabbing to post lockout offensive explosions. I think that gave an extra spark when it came back last time, it wasn't just hockey coming back it was better more exciting hockey.

I'll be interested to see if they try to bring back some of the offence that has been lost these last few years. I think a short condensed schedule would get the excitement up if there is a this season. But in the off season I wouldn't be surprise to see them focus on some rule changes to get scoring up for 2013-2014.
  • 0

#5279 thad

thad

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,922 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 25 December 2012 - 09:38 PM

Lp
  • 0

#5280 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 26 December 2012 - 01:08 AM

As long as they didn't make the nets bigger to boost scoring I would be ok with it. We better see that verification line soon too.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s





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.