Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
6226 replies to this topic

#5431 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,214 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 07:32 PM

No, I'm almost positive that's not how it works. Take 10% of the first year of the contract. You can go up or down each year by that maximum dollar amount. So, you can do 10,9,8m or 8,8.8, 9.6m in reverse, but not 8,9,10m. The max variance between any years is 10% of year one. Not 10% variance across the entire contract


I read it as 10% up or down from the first years total money. ERgo:

8 million in year one then has a max in any given year of 8,800,000 and a minimum in any given year of 7,200,000

So as long as year one is 8m then year two can be 8.8m and the final year can be 7.2million. Lets pretend this is for a 3 year deal: the final product would be 24m but if its for say the max limit of 6 years: 8 - 8.8 to front load the first two years at 16.8million, the last four years at 7.2 each would make the cap hit 7.6million even though the player is getting a paycheck worth 8.8million in year two of the deal. That second year the cap hit is 1.2million below what the player is actually being paid.

So, I think that the idea of 10% variance from the first year, in essence gives the GM 20% wiggle room on contracts which is better than nothing, while still gutting the ridiculous front loaded 10 year deals. I am all for it.

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5432 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,199 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 07:38 PM

No, I'm almost positive that's not how it works. Take 10% of the first year of the contract. You can go up or down each year by that maximum dollar amount. So, you can do 10,9,8m or 8,8.8, 9.6m in reverse, but not 8,9,10m. The max variance between any years is 10% of year one. Not 10% variance across the entire contract

It depends on how you read it, which is why I mention the details would be crucial, but it could well be that each year is allowed that max variance. Either way, your point still stands that you would have a smaller variance if you start with a smaller number as would happen in a back loaded contract.

I'd be surprised if they wanted to give owners/GMs the room to have a 7 year contract that moves from $10M in year one to $5.3M in year seven, in case they find a way to manipulate the system and hurt themselves again.

Except they still want GM's to have some variability and creativity. I think the NHL wants exactly what it said: no more than 10% variance from the first year of a deal. They don't want "no more than 10% less than the highest year", as that is a different rig altogether than "10% variance from first year"...which in effect gives GM's room to wiggle around 20% dipsy doodling over the length of the contract. That is a big deal.

If the variance was calculated from only the first year and the last year then there would be a lot more ability for GMs to have whatever they want in between, which is what the NHL doesn't want. It's limited more so in the way they want in a comparison between whatever year has the max salary and whatever year has the minimum, but then you can't go with as small a percentage. In gizmo's example of 10/9/8, it'd be a ~20% variance from max to min, but I'd be curious if you have an example of how that could be mis-used or how it restricts the GMs.

Edited by elvis15, 28 December 2012 - 07:44 PM.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#5433 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 28 December 2012 - 07:43 PM

I read it as 10% up or down from the first years total money. ERgo:

8 million in year one then has a max in any given year of 8,800,000 and a minimum in any given year of 7,200,000

So as long as year one is 8m then year two can be 8.8m and the final year can be 7.2million. Lets pretend this is for a 3 year deal: the final product would be 24m but if its for say the max limit of 6 years: 8 - 8.8 to front load the first two years at 16.8million, the last four years at 7.2 each would make the cap hit 7.6million even though the player is getting a paycheck worth 8.8million in year two of the deal. That second year the cap hit is 1.2million below what the player is actually being paid.

So, I think that the idea of 10% variance from the first year, in essence gives the GM 20% wiggle room on contracts which is better than nothing, while still gutting the ridiculous front loaded 10 year deals. I am all for it.


Well I suppose this is one of those "clarification" things to be discovered over the next couple days. I read it the same as you guys at first, but realized it is worded 10% year to year, but that first year defines the amount.

In addition, year-to-year Salary variability will be limited
(up or down) to no more than 10% of the value of the first year of a multi-year SPC.



James Mirtle@mirtle

Okay, my mistake - the league says new proposal on variance would allow a contract to go from $10-million to $4-million over seven years.


#5434 iLLmAtlc

iLLmAtlc

    Comets Star

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

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:36 PM

I can see Fehr telling the players to hold off on this offer, because there might be one more before the drop dead date.

I'd understand that decision too, because he's been right about the league every time. A lot of people seem to think the last offer should have went to vote but Fehr said no, I guess anticipating there is at least one better offer to come. That turned out to be the right move because had the offer went to vote, it might have passed and the players would have settled for a lousier offer than they could have gotten. His job is to get the players' the best offer possible so he has to prevent the players from getting enticed by the NHL's negotiating tactics (give them so many crappy offers so their next offer seems like a must have).

Hopefully the league will allow this offer to be negotiable though and all of that becomes a moot point.
Posted Image

#5435 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,916 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:45 PM

Collection of Tweets from Kuklas Korner....

Lightning's Crombeen, a member of union negotiating committee, said NHL's offer is ":encouraging that they took some steps toward us."
— Damian Cristodero (@LightningTimes) December 29, 2012


More Crombeen: "But having said that, if they're going to continue negotiating with take it or leave it, I wouldn't be overly optimistic."
— Damian Cristodero (@LightningTimes) December 29, 2012


General consensus from players on PA call: League's movement wasn't all that much. It's enough to restart talks, however.
— James Mirtle (@mirtle) December 29, 2012


From what I'm hearing, NHL made move because several owners who have been eager to play had been pressuring Bettman to reach out.
— Helene Elliott (@helenenothelen) December 29, 2012



Also, NHL has given a drop dead date for the season...

Sources say the league wants a deal ratified and the players in camp by Jan. 12, with a Jan. 19 start date for at least a 48-game regular season. If that doesn't happen, there won't be hockey at all.

Source: http://www.ottawasun...-drop-dead-date
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5436 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,904 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:51 PM

The NHL's deal will be take it or leave it, therefore there likely won't be a season.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5437 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,531 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 28 December 2012 - 09:21 PM

I like the second half of Crombeen's quote, if the owners are going to do another 'take it or leave it' then whatever progress they attempted on their recent proposal would be lost. It's not negotiating to force the other side to settle, if anything the league should be optimistic that the players want a conference call.

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5438 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 28 December 2012 - 09:27 PM

The NHL's deal will be take it or leave it, therefore there likely won't be a season.


I hope this isn't the case, but you are probably right.

#5439 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,199 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:30 PM

Well I suppose this is one of those "clarification" things to be discovered over the next couple days. I read it the same as you guys at first, but realized it is worded 10% year to year, but that first year defines the amount.

James Mirtle@mirtle
Okay, my mistake - the league says new proposal on variance would allow a contract to go from $10-million to $4-million over seven years.

The more and more I read it that seems more correct than my original assumption, and if Mirtle's correct then that is what it is. A 7 year deal starting at $10M and going down to $4M would end up with a $7M cap hit - not enough to be completely back diving, but perhaps enough to allow GMs the chance to build their teams better than other GMs.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#5440 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,633 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:31 PM

The deal will get done. The true pressure point hasn't been reached yet.

Both parties are still playing games with each other. Fehr knows that Bettman is still holding their best offer and Bettman is waiting for the PA's best offer.

Both offers will come together at the pressure point and a deal will get done 100%

#5441 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:14 PM

The more and more I read it that seems more correct than my original assumption, and if Mirtle's correct then that is what it is. A 7 year deal starting at $10M and going down to $4M would end up with a $7M cap hit - not enough to be completely back diving, but perhaps enough to allow GMs the chance to build their teams better than other GMs.


I'm still not sure this is how it works. I guess we will have to wait for further clarification. The numbers seem ok to me for front loading. I don't like how the back loading isn't treated the same though. So, assuming this is the proposal, I don't like it. I'd rather see 10% maximum variance based on the highest year rather than the first year.

Then you could have a contract 10,9,8 or 8,9,10, or 10,8,9m and all would be treated the same, equal and legal. Worth losing a season over? Nope. Worth taking a risk of another lockout? Nope. Get it right

#5442 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,214 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:31 PM

Well I suppose this is one of those "clarification" things to be discovered over the next couple days. I read it the same as you guys at first, but realized it is worded 10% year to year, but that first year defines the amount.




James Mirtle@mirtle
Okay, my mistake - the league says new proposal on variance would allow a contract to go from $10-million to $4-million over seven years.

This is pretty mind blowing..that is a heck of a concession by the league. Dropping from say 10m to 4 million over the longest possible contract length of 7 years allows a 7m cap hit for a ten million dollar player...

although then in year 7 your 4 million dollar player has a cap hit of...yup 7million..but still this is way better for players and GM's than i had thought the offer would be. Wow.

Man i hope they get some work done the next few days.

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5443 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:49 PM

They are way too close not to get a deal done. If they cancelled the season because they can t agree on a 1-2 year difference in contracting rights, then both Fehr and Bettman are gonna lose their jobs.

#5444 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,199 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 29 December 2012 - 12:14 AM

They are way too close not to get a deal done. If they cancelled the season because they can t agree on a 1-2 year difference in contracting rights, then both Fehr and Bettman are gonna lose their jobs.

Well, there's a little more to it than just them arguing over a couple of years in contract lengths.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#5445 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:35 AM

The deal will get done. The true pressure point hasn't been reached yet.

Both parties are still playing games with each other. Fehr knows that Bettman is still holding their best offer and Bettman is waiting for the PA's best offer.

Both offers will come together at the pressure point and a deal will get done 100%


Can I say that whole post belongs in Disneyland.

There is far too much brinkmanship here manifesting itself as some kind of "game of chicken" In my opinion they will f-ck up the whole season for the fans and then jump up and down stamping their feet blaming the other side AND EACH OTHER.

These people haven't a clue on how to negotiate in a competent manner otherwise we wouldn't still be standing around playing pocket billiards.

Edited by Bodee, 29 December 2012 - 05:36 AM.

Kevin.jpg

#5446 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,121 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:00 AM

I find it amusing that there appears to be a universal assumption that HRR revenue will not go down. While fans speculate about how their teams will comply with the new CAP consider a further drop of 10 - 15 %.

#5447 wiseupsucker

wiseupsucker

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 09

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:52 AM

What I find amusing is that people talk about these vast sums of money like its guaranteed, when there's people like me(and presumably more) who will never buy another 11 game pack or anything NHL related ever again.

#5448 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,214 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:58 AM

What I find amusing is that people talk about these vast sums of money like its guaranteed, when there's people like me(and presumably more) who will never buy another 11 game pack or anything NHL related ever again.

But for every angry fan NOT renewing their season tickets there are 3 that want those seats, at least in good market teams locations like Vancouver. How long has the rink been sold out now? 11 years in a row? something like that. Lets face it, the struggling to put bums in the seats teams won't notice the hit so much since they were never a sold out show anyway..the exposure may actually increase sales. You would be surprised.

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5449 panelguy

panelguy

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 696 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 05

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:49 AM

According to Willie Mitchell if the team decides to buy out a contract, the money would come out of the players 50/50 revenue portion.
That's a concession on the owners side?
I don't think so !

#5450 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,754 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 29 December 2012 - 11:27 AM

Yeah, talking about boycotting is just silly. You might last one season, or another, but you'll be crawling back like the rest of us.

For every ticket that you don't buy there will be someone filling your seat.

The only one suffering will be you.

I got Canuck socks and boxers for Christmas. Hooray.

I get to go with a sports writer to an Oilers vs. Canucks game, and go to tour all the facilities, and post game interviews, and press conferences!

Why the hell would I boycott that? Why are we all here on CDC paying advertising money to the NHL? Cause we like NHL hockey.

Boycott... ha. my arse.

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

MirandaKerr.jpg
2 0 1 5 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#5451 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 80,692 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 29 December 2012 - 11:38 AM

@DarrenDreger
CBA conf calls\discussions expected to drift into early evening. Told calls are purely "informational." No bargaining going on.

307mg00.jpg


#5452 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 29 December 2012 - 11:41 AM

Speaking of boycott, the only boycott that I think would work, would be players not signing with the "hawk" team owners. Force them to sign bums, and suddenly their arena isn't so full anymore. It *could* force some teams to change ownership, which would be good for the league. *cough* goodbye Jacobs. Is it legal for players to do this though and collectively boycott a few teams?

#5453 sting

sting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,038 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 11

Posted 29 December 2012 - 12:31 PM

Speaking of boycott, the only boycott that I think would work, would be players not signing with the "hawk" team owners. Force them to sign bums, and suddenly their arena isn't so full anymore. It *could* force some teams to change ownership, which would be good for the league. *cough* goodbye Jacobs. Is it legal for players to do this though and collectively boycott a few teams?



You mean like Toronto?��

You do know that Jacobs is the chair of the Board of Governors?

The NHL is not about to implode. The World did not come to an end and it is laughable that the players will come up with any better option than the NHL in the near future.

Have you noticed the advertising on the boards at the World Juniors?

The worst part of the lockout for me is hearing stories about people and business' who are struggling due to the negotiating tactics imployed by the PA and owners. Hopefully a deal is done soon so I can watch NHL highlights instead of an ex player talking labour negotiations.



#5454 sting

sting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,038 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 11

Posted 29 December 2012 - 12:45 PM

But for every angry fan NOT renewing their season tickets there are 3 that want those seats, at least in good market teams locations like Vancouver. How long has the rink been sold out now? 11 years in a row? something like that. Lets face it, the struggling to put bums in the seats teams won't notice the hit so much since they were never a sold out show anyway..the exposure may actually increase sales. You would be surprised.


While I agree 100% on the hockey mad markets. If the season is lost many niche market teams may take years to recover.



#5455 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,270 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 01:21 PM

It is another offer by the league that doesn't really change anything in regards to the pure number. In reality, the 50/50 split is the only key number. You can reword every other clause, but it makes no difference to the bottom line unless you are taking money out of the revenue split.

Saying that buyouts will be allowed but it hits the players part of the revenue is actually something good for the league and not the players. It is the only way they can lower the cap from what it is mathematically. Effectively if you buy out a player, it will mean that you get to reduce the salary of your other players by that amount.

There is simply no way to lower the cap to $60 million next season. Putting that in there is just a way to try to get the players to agree to other things. There just simply aren't enough dollars available in cap space to make it happen and actually be able to fill out rosters. All the cap ceiling teams would have to shed salary (Canucks would have $55 million in 2013-2014 and need to sign like 8 players).... yet the lower cap teams don't have money to take on those contracts. Add in the fact you can't hide contracts in the minors AND have to start counting salaries that are already in the minors... no way it can happen. Every UFA this coming summer would have to sign for league minimum to even have a chance to make it work.

A formula similar to what the PA suggested where existing contracts are valued cap-wise at 83% of their value (a proportional drop from 57-50% revenue split) and paying a large amount of the difference out of the "make whole" money outside the system is the only real way to make it work if you aren't just going to roll back all salaries.

Effectively the cap stays at the same $70 number until the revenues catch up... but the current contracts are calculated in a way to make it possible to fit under the cap.

The Canucks current contracts would be worth about $56 million cap hit against a total cap of $59 million. You could gradually increase the % hit against the cap for the first 3 years to ease the transition period:

Eg.
2012-2013 - Existing contracts have a 83% cap hit of their existing cap value, and paid the same 83% in actual dollars within the "cap" system out of the player's share of revenue. Players will receive an additional 14% of their contract out of "make whole" money for that year outside the player % or cap calculation. This pays a total of 97% of the existing contract value in actual dollars. The remaining difference (3%) will be dealt with using existing escrow process. Pro-rating the season to 48 games, this uses up about $145-150 million of the "make whole" fund.

2013-2014 - Existing contracts have a 90% cap hit of their existing cap value, and paid the same 90% in actual dollars within the "cap" system out of the player's share of revenue. Players will receive an additional 7% of their contract out of "make whole" money for that year outside the player % or cap calculation. This pays a total of 97% of the existing contract value in actual dollars. The remaining difference (3%) will be dealt with using existing escrow process. This would use up $90-95 million of the "Make Whole" fund (total $235-245 million with yr 1 & 2 combined)


2014-2015 - Existing contracts have a 95% cap hit of their existing cap value, and paid the same 83% in actual dollars within the "cap" system out of the player's share of revenue.. Players will receive an additional 2% of their contract out of "make whole" money for that year outside the player % or cap calculation. this pays a total of 97% of the existing contract value in actual dollars. The remaining difference (3%) will be dealt with using existing escrow process. This would use up $15-17 million of the "Make Whole" fund (total $250-262 million in all years combined... right around what the league has offered already)

Remaining years of existing contracts will have a 100% cap hit of their existing cap value with no additional payments from "make whole" funds. Any remaining "make whole" funds are used to reduce any escrow amounts owed by players in the 2015-2016 contract year.

(I would even put in a clause that "existing contracts" are defined by contracts signed before July 1st 2012 and any contracts that were signed DURING negotiations don't get the break on the salary cap calculation, but the players still get the actual dollar values as noted above.

In the above transition type scenario it is very possible that revenue growth could mean that the players get all their escrow dollars back and even get paid more than the full value of their contracts in real dollars by the 3rd year.

Edited by Provost, 29 December 2012 - 03:44 PM.

Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5456 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 09

Posted 29 December 2012 - 01:27 PM

But for every angry fan NOT renewing their season tickets there are 3 that want those seats, at least in good market teams locations like Vancouver. How long has the rink been sold out now? 11 years in a row? something like that. Lets face it, the struggling to put bums in the seats teams won't notice the hit so much since they were never a sold out show anyway..the exposure may actually increase sales. You would be surprised.

You think the lockout has given teams exposure ?

I think with the frequency of the NHL owners to show or in this case claim such financial instability and poor ability to run there multi billion dollar industry has finally started to really drive people away .

The last lockout the consensus was people agreed a salary cap was need and stuck it out through a full season cancellation cause when the nhl came back it also came back with new rule changes with improved hockey too

But this time its different , from what i have seen and read this time people have a much different opinion then the previous lockout situation

The NHL has takin fans for granted and figured after seeing the NBA and NFL get a 50/50 deal with there players they were going to do the same with out any ramifications but what they did not consider that this is the 3rd time that huge portions or complete seasons have now been lost and when you keep doing this people start to find other things to spend there money on and interest them self with .

I for one have been a fan of the NHL for 25 yrs and been through all of Bettmans labor issues and find myself in this situation this time around were things just seem different and just dont really care and im not sure if they come back if my interest will be the same
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#5457 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,060 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 29 December 2012 - 02:14 PM

The deal will get done. The true pressure point hasn't been reached yet.

Both parties are still playing games with each other. Fehr knows that Bettman is still holding their best offer and Bettman is waiting for the PA's best offer.

Both offers will come together at the pressure point and a deal will get done 100%


This. CDCers just can't tell the ball from the bounce. People started saying the season was over because no one was talking last time. Everyone got in a tizzy at Fehr and yet it was the right call. The reality is that the PA knows the NHL has a deadline for when they want hockey to start. Bargaining before then means the NHL will simply give token concessions and try to get more from the PA. Not engaging is in their best interests at the moment. Anything else is just a bait and switch.

Keswho.jpg


#5458 TotesMagotes

TotesMagotes

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,337 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 29 December 2012 - 02:19 PM

Could the PA honestly get a better offer without having the season cancelled?? Just take the god damn offer Fehr! My best guess is if they throw in a counter proposal the owners will be up in arms again and instead of another long stand off without any talking they will simply cancel the season.
Posted Image

#5459 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,841 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 29 December 2012 - 02:42 PM

I think most people expected a deal in January, there's just no way they would cancel another season being this close. It really does seem like there's a timetable, how do they go from best offer, best offer again, not talking for weeks to all of the sudden a new proposal?

m97o1w.jpg

Credit to Parise11


#5460 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,214 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 02:48 PM

Speaking of boycott, the only boycott that I think would work, would be players not signing with the "hawk" team owners. Force them to sign bums, and suddenly their arena isn't so full anymore. It *could* force some teams to change ownership, which would be good for the league. *cough* goodbye Jacobs. Is it legal for players to do this though and collectively boycott a few teams?


would you refuse a contract with a rival company offering you 130 thousand so that you can 'teach them a lesson' by staying second fiddle at your current job for 98 thousand? That is what your proposing basically...since there are only 23 seats on the team bus in any city..if top end players stop signing with even 2 or 3 cities the seats become awefully scarce in the other 27 places.

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!





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.