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

#5641 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,120 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:43 PM

This is going to happen this week.

Yay?
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#5642 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,098 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:53 PM

Well if the house of Representatives can pass a deal regarding the fiscal cliff, these clowns should have no problem getting something done soon.
  • 0
Posted Image


#5643 Kyosama

Kyosama

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 09

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:54 PM

DP.

To think, if this was the case for last season, we could have ended up playing the flames or stars.


I wonder how they'd make that work past the 1st round.
  • 0

#5644 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,955 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:07 PM

Eh it's kypreos so I wouldn't read too much into it. I honestly don't understand how he's employed... anywhere.

20 teams making the playoffs would be a joke. It would just be a battle to not be one of the 10 worst teams. I'm assuming with the awkward number of 20 that 4/6 division winners would get a bye through the first round. Even then, do you want to risk an extra round of the Sedins getting crunched and our goalies getting plowed?
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5645 sting

sting

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 892 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:17 PM

To be fair, players didn't get 57% of "revenue", they got 57% of SOME revenue MINUS SOME costs known as "HRR." The owners specifically defined "HRR" to exclude some revenues (including, for example, the $60M paid to the NHL just for the right to relocate the Thrashers to Winnipeg) and to allow owners to deduct millions in costs BEFORE the players' share was determined. So, in reality players got around 51% of revenue last season.

Also, you will note that the players generated significantly more than 57% of the revenue. It's them playing we pay to see. It's their names we pay huge amounts to have sewn onto the back of an already overpriced jersey. It's their posters, signed pictures, growth charts, etc. that we pay to purchase. It's them people pay to go and see at fan events. It them people pay huge bucks to watch during the All Stars game.

And I absolutely think the owners are greedy because they get millions a year from taxpayers, starting with luxury tax breaks the likes of which other businesses that create far more jobs and actually help the local economy can only dream about. (If you're interested, look back in this thread and find the link to the research that's shown pro sports teams do not improve the local economy but might actually hurt it.) Some get arenas built for them at little or no cost to them while they get most of the profits. Some, including Phoenix and Florida, actually get taxpayers to pay them to keep their teams in town by giving them money to run the arena even though taxpayers get nothing in return but the bill for the loans to build it. (The mighty NHL, a registered not-for-profit in the US, if you can believe it, got paid $25M a year while they've owned the Coyotes to offset their costs for running the arena. In return, the taxpayers got to keep paying off the loans to build the arena. Oh, and politicians who just committed $308M more of taxpayers money over the next 20 years to keep the team in Arizona.)

Owners can whine to me about how much players are costing them when they stop costing taxpayers, even those who don't watch hockey, millions every single year at the expense of things that would actually help the community for their private profit.

So yes, private companies that make millions a year off of taxpayers are greedy. An organization, even by their own admission, that is in the "business of making money" that registers as a "not-for-profit" to save themselves tens of millions a year in taxes that any other business would have to pay, even as social safety nets are cut due to lack of funding, is greedy. Billionaires that get minimum wage taxpayers to foot the bill for their new arena they could have afforded to pay for out of their pocket change, while hospitals have to have charities just to be able to afford to upgrade their equipment, and cities (like Glendale) run deficits that result in blue collar people losing their jobs are greedy.

Maybe the players are greedy for wanting so much. That's a whole other debate to be honest. But at least what they want is just a part of they help to make, unlike the greedy owners who want yearly handouts from taxpayers when they had little or no part in generating that revenue.

Major sport franchises can create tremendous economic spin off for the cities they reside in. Many of the tax reliefs that the teams get come back to the city in the form of spending by the fans attending games , purchasing apparel or even the many who go to their local watering hole to watch games. Each teams city is responsible for negotiating their own terms for land, leases and taxes that they provide to ownership. This can have both a positive and negative effect. Big business is always greed on one level or another. Probably why everything you buy today is made in a sweat shop in China instead of your city.
Being a fan of the Canucks for example can provide camaraderie, road trips to other cities, high fives from complete strangers. Positive social spin off here.(Pretty sure the owners of Wal Mart or Home Depot etc. don't have these effects on the cities they reside??)
They also provide more importantly.....Jobs and many of them. All these paying tax.



  • 1

#5646 zombieksa

zombieksa

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:23 PM

Eh it's kypreos so I wouldn't read too much into it. I honestly don't understand how he's employed... anywhere.

20 teams making the playoffs would be a joke. It would just be a battle to not be one of the 10 worst teams. I'm assuming with the awkward number of 20 that 4/6 division winners would get a bye through the first round. Even then, do you want to risk an extra round of the Sedins getting crunched and our goalies getting plowed?


you could look at it as a blessing in disguise. If vancouver is top 2 in the conference again under these rules they get two, possibly 3 advantages.

1. Extra days rest
2. Play a team that just had to battle through another series (be it 1,3,5 or 7 games)
3. Possibly an even lower seeded opponent whom took advantage of the 7th or 8th seed team.
  • 0
"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."
-Edgar Allen Poe

#5647 sting

sting

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 892 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:27 PM

Not a fan of 20 playoff teams at all. What are all the other teams going to do in the mean time?
Really like the suggestion of a franchise player tag though. Would probably work well for the league as well as player. Could market big names in big cities that can afford Crosby, Ovechkin type players.
  • 0

#5648 BCNeil

BCNeil

    Comets Star

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:48 PM

Had Bettman and Daly not thrown their tantrum back in Dec 6th, i bet we coulda had 2-3 more weeks of hockey.


Thats what I was thinking, they were close before, then lost a whole month basically.
Are these improvements in the latest NHL offer even worth the months pay they just lost?
6 years instead of 5, 10% variance instead of 5??????

There becomes a point, where the sides are so close. That the revenue from lost games trumps any improvements either side can make. Example dicking over next years cap at 60 or 62 million, but losing an extra week of possible play.

It all reminds me of my brother selling his car...puts it up for $21,000. Very first day its for sale a guy offers $19,000.
Brother turns it down. Over the next 8 weeks has 20 people come over, drive it, test it out. Eventually sells it for $19,500. Eight weeks later.
  • 0

#5649 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:50 PM

Major sport franchises can create tremendous economic spin off for the cities they reside in. Many of the tax reliefs that the teams get come back to the city in the form of spending by the fans attending games , purchasing apparel or even the many who go to their local watering hole to watch games. Each teams city is responsible for negotiating their own terms for land, leases and taxes that they provide to ownership. This can have both a positive and negative effect. Big business is always greed on one level or another. Probably why everything you buy today is made in a sweat shop in China instead of your city.
Being a fan of the Canucks for example can provide camaraderie, road trips to other cities, high fives from complete strangers. Positive social spin off here.(Pretty sure the owners of Wal Mart or Home Depot etc. don't have these effects on the cities they reside??)
They also provide more importantly.....Jobs and many of them. All these paying tax.


Actually some cities buy the land and/or give it teams cheap for arenas. They also often get land tax breaks that other businesses on the same land would not get, meaning less tax revenue.

Also, most businesses encourage spending. Office buildings, for example, encourage food and drink sales within a few blocks. So, in that regard sports teams aren't any better, especially when they offer limited games for shorter periods of time as opposed to a full work week.

The big difference is the people who work in an office building tend to live near, meaning they also likely spend their salaries near, keeping that money in the local economy. Sports teams, on the other hand, often take money from the local economy and give it to people who will take a significant portion of it out of the local area when the return to their regular home. (Again, anyone interested can check back in this thread for a link to the research link.)

I am not, however, arguing the social aspect teams bring. Or, more accurately that FANS bring to a team. I just don't think that buys owners the right to millions in tax breaks and public handouts.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5650 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,124 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:53 PM

Nooooo! That means more chances of Leafs making the Playoffs.
  • 1

307mg00.jpg


#5651 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,558 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:29 PM

This is going to happen this week.

Yay?


Kind of 'Meh' at this point.

I'm sure I'll get more 'Yay' when teams are gearing up and the boredom of January has set in though.
  • 0

#5652 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:35 PM

more teams in the playoffs? No thanks. It would greatly reduce the importance of regular season games. Already more than half the league makes it into post season.
  • 0

#5653 ajhockey

ajhockey

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,669 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:01 AM

more teams in the playoffs? No thanks. It would greatly reduce the importance of regular season games. Already more than half the league makes it into post season.


Agreed. Though there used to be a higher percentage of teams in the playoffs, I like it the way it is now. With just 53% of teams making the playoffs each year, you actually have to be decent to make the playoffs. Back in the 80s when 16 of 21 teams made it, you could be terrible and make it every year. Heck the Canucks made the playoffs 6 years in a row back then.
  • 0

14ndb35.jpg
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for the awesome sig!

"Gino, Gino, Gino, Gino!"
Rest In Peace, Rypien, Demitra, and Bourdon


#5654 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:05 AM

@RealKyper
Stupidest move in negotiation history! Scheduling meeting in NYC on New Years eve. Scene outside #NHL office 6th ave

Posted Image

Hot chick looking at the camera!!
  • 0

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


#5655 bd71

bd71

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:19 AM

Actually some cities buy the land and/or give it teams cheap for arenas. They also often get land tax breaks that other businesses on the same land would not get, meaning less tax revenue.

Also, most businesses encourage spending. Office buildings, for example, encourage food and drink sales within a few blocks. So, in that regard sports teams aren't any better, especially when they offer limited games for shorter periods of time as opposed to a full work week.

The big difference is the people who work in an office building tend to live near, meaning they also likely spend their salaries near, keeping that money in the local economy. Sports teams, on the other hand, often take money from the local economy and give it to people who will take a significant portion of it out of the local area when the return to their regular home. (Again, anyone interested can check back in this thread for a link to the research link.)

I am not, however, arguing the social aspect teams bring. Or, more accurately that FANS bring to a team. I just don't think that buys owners the right to millions in tax breaks and public handouts.


Lots of industries that create large amounts of employment, economic spinoff and civic pride get tax breaks at the municipal, state/provincial and federal levels. Just go back to 2008 and look at all the very profitable corporations that received giant bailouts to keep the economy fluid. Some of those industries, auto manufacturing for example, also have very contentious labour disputes.
  • 1

#5656 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:39 AM

So... Is there gonna be hockey?

Sorry I've been... out... this weekend...
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#5657 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,297 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:46 AM

So... Is there gonna be hockey?

Sorry I've been... out... this weekend...


I would put it at 50/50, which means I have no idea.

If you believe some of the reports, a deal is close. Others say it isn't.

They are rumored to have come to an agreement on revenue sharing. And the make whole is apparently "close".

The players came towards the owners in terms of the 10 year CBA, but it has some conditions. And I'm guessing they asked for longer contract limits.

So basically they appear to be close, but there's so many moving parts it's hard to say. They did say they were close last time after all. I think we'll know alot more after tomorrow.
  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5658 Kyosama

Kyosama

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 09

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:50 AM

So... Is there gonna be hockey?

Sorry I've been... out... this weekend...



  • 1

#5659 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:58 AM

So basically they appear to be close, but there's so many moving parts it's hard to say. They did say they were close last time after all. I think we'll know alot more after tomorrow.


Thanks a bunch!



AH HA HA HA!!!

Best answer ever!

Thanks!

Edited by Gumballthechewy, 02 January 2013 - 03:00 AM.

  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#5660 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,136 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:35 AM

Get this done already
  • 0
Posted Image

#5661 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,778 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:02 AM

Nooooo! That means more chances of Leafs making the Playoffs.

Shortened season.. should have a greasy star beside it.
  • 0

#5662 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:07 AM

To be fair, players didn't get 57% of "revenue", they got 57% of SOME revenue MINUS SOME costs known as "HRR." The owners specifically defined "HRR" to exclude some revenues (including, for example, the $60M paid to the NHL just for the right to relocate the Thrashers to Winnipeg) and to allow owners to deduct millions in costs BEFORE the players' share was determined. So, in reality players got around 51% of revenue last season.

Also, you will note that the players generated significantly more than 57% of the revenue. It's them playing we pay to see. It's their names we pay huge amounts to have sewn onto the back of an already overpriced jersey. It's their posters, signed pictures, growth charts, etc. that we pay to purchase. It's them people pay to go and see at fan events. It them people pay huge bucks to watch during the All Stars game.

And I absolutely think the owners are greedy because they get millions a year from taxpayers, starting with luxury tax breaks the likes of which other businesses that create far more jobs and actually help the local economy can only dream about. (If you're interested, look back in this thread and find the link to the research that's shown pro sports teams do not improve the local economy but might actually hurt it.) Some get arenas built for them at little or no cost to them while they get most of the profits. Some, including Phoenix and Florida, actually get taxpayers to pay them to keep their teams in town by giving them money to run the arena even though taxpayers get nothing in return but the bill for the loans to build it. (The mighty NHL, a registered not-for-profit in the US, if you can believe it, got paid $25M a year while they've owned the Coyotes to offset their costs for running the arena. In return, the taxpayers got to keep paying off the loans to build the arena. Oh, and politicians who just committed $308M more of taxpayers money over the next 20 years to keep the team in Arizona.)

Owners can whine to me about how much players are costing them when they stop costing taxpayers, even those who don't watch hockey, millions every single year at the expense of things that would actually help the community for their private profit.

So yes, private companies that make millions a year off of taxpayers are greedy. An organization, even by their own admission, that is in the "business of making money" that registers as a "not-for-profit" to save themselves tens of millions a year in taxes that any other business would have to pay, even as social safety nets are cut due to lack of funding, is greedy. Billionaires that get minimum wage taxpayers to foot the bill for their new arena they could have afforded to pay for out of their pocket change, while hospitals have to have charities just to be able to afford to upgrade their equipment, and cities (like Glendale) run deficits that result in blue collar people losing their jobs are greedy.

Maybe the players are greedy for wanting so much. That's a whole other debate to be honest. But at least what they want is just a part of they help to make, unlike the greedy owners who want yearly handouts from taxpayers when they had little or no part in generating that revenue.

Your feelings about greedy owners and exploited players are well established but I would ask that you consider;
- the politicans who participate in arena development and cut deals with NHL developers to put up more than just a ice surface. Why do they do that if 'everyone' knows the greedy NHL owner is ripping them off? The only tough minded council I have seen has been Edmonton. Hamilton on the other hand couldn't even wait for a team. Owners usually get 'deals' becuase their arenas become focal points in further developments which the city's benefit from.
- if owners are busy ripping off the cities they locate in and the players they employ how about we look at the player side. A guarantee that all Canadian hockey players spend their youth playing the game in taxpayer supported arenas. My small town increased my property taxes $300 per year to rebuild the local sports complex. How do you figure that into what the game owes Canadian fans?
- you tend to play the 'greed & envy' side of the equation. Consider the total involvement of our political and societal process. You get very upset about NHL ownership and what benefits they draw from the system. What about the absolute 10's of billions of $ that Canadian taxpayers put into Ontario's auto industry. The 2008 fiasco is the latest of a long line of handouts. I highly doubt we will ever get that money back. I hope you won't suggest that this boondoggle was done to save the shareholders of GM or Chrysler.
For the record I am not for any of this BS. Politcans of any strip who think they can make better investment decisions with taxpayer's capital should be turfed. Capital should seek it's own return and sink or benefit from the result. Don't selectively pick those that play the game when the whole system is rigged that way. The majority of taxpayers are being played for patsies and don't even realize it.
  • 1

#5663 Cromeslab

Cromeslab

    Comets Star

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

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:29 AM

“@Real_ESPNLeBrun: Players remain sour over pension snag with league... Need to be resolved for any deal to get done”
  • 0
Posted Image

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

#5664 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,558 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:21 AM

talks akin to defusing a bomb

For a second straight day, the National Hockey League met with its Players’ Association in an attempt to solve a lockout that has now stretched into 2013. For a second straight day one side carefully planned before a full session; for a second straight day that session was delayed so both sides could more fully prepare for it. And for a second straight day, one side — the league, this time — made a proposal.
“The fact that we’re involved in a continuous process is something that I’m glad to see,” said NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. “But we’re clearly not done yet.” When asked if the gap between the two sides was narrowing, he said, “in our response there were certain things the players’ association asked for that we agreed to, there were some thing that we moved in their direction, and there were certain things where we said no.
“We’re trying to get an agreement.”
Both NHLPA executive Don Fehr and Bettman said they expected to meet again Wednesday, after the union had a chance to fully analyze the league’s proposal.
If there is going to be a new collective bargaining agreement, this is how it will proceed. They are handling this phase of negotiations like a bomb that needs to be carefully defused, wire by wire. Up until Tuesday, it went like this: The owners made a comprehensive offer to the players last week, and moved slightly on contract term limits, variance of salary increases from year to year, a few other things. It was comprehensively leaked to the media. The players went through it line by line, in concert with the NHL, clarifying and explaining, poking and prodding. This took three days. It was thorough.
Monday, the players presented a counter-proposal that moved slightly towards the owners, but the details were locked in a cone of silence; all the NHL would allow is that there was movement, and that gaps remained. The two sides met for about three hours, including breaks to talk amongst themselves, and parted with cautious words from their leaders to the media, who waited outside in the cold wind on Sixth Avenue. The league spent much of the next 24 hours going over that offer, in concert with the NHLPA. On Tuesday morning they exchanged information in smaller face-to-face meetings, or over conference calls conducted with the parties just a few blocks away.

A full bargaining session began Tuesday at NHL headquarters at 9 pm, several hours after it had been initially expected, and the league spent 45 minutes presenting its proposal.
Among the various issues, apparently pensions had become an issue again during afternoon meetings — previously it had been close to a done deal — but revenue sharing was close.
Beforehand, though, the proceedings were cloaked in a tentative and fragile sense of hope that there might be a path to a deal here. No details of the PA’s offer leaked out, which was a first over the course of these negotiations. With Bettman confirming the league’s Jan. 19 deadline for the beginning of a 48-game season — the minimum the NHL says it will support, and requiring a deal to be struck by Jan. 11 — the two sides appear to be proceeding with extreme care.

The last time the negotiations felt like this, of course, were back on Dec. 4 when deputy commissioner Bill Daly and union deputy Steve Fehr stood side-by-side at the end of the first day of direct player-owner talks. Two days later the talks exploded.
There is still room for that to happen, but the margin for error diminishes by the day. Players want a cap on escrow, to protect their paycheques in the event that revenues suffer in the wake of the league’s second lockout since 2004; the league has strongly opposed a cap on escrow. There remain other outstanding issues, though the financial basics are in place.
The players can also officially file for disclaimer of interest on Wednesday, which would introduce the possibility of antitrust law being brought to the table; aside from the mutually assured destruction of walking away from a season, the disclaimer of interest is seen as the biggest weapon the players have left. The league has expressed a willingness to continue negotiating should that occur, however.
There were always two big components of this process. One was the issues themselves, and how far apart the players and the league were; the other was the manner in which they negotiated, with Fehr purposefully refusing to use the league’s framework in his proposals. Both components were, and are, required to strike a deal.
What we have seen the past few days in New York has been a conciliatory tone on the process, and marginal progress on the issues. They are negotiating within the same basic framework, using common points. But even if these two sides refrain from the temptation of one more walk-away, one more dramatic exit from the stage, the gaps on the issues will require agreement. We have yet to see public optimism, though the occasional positive whisper has quietly floated around. A truce only lasts as long as it is better than the alternative. Still a ways to go.


  • 0

#5665 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,819 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:51 AM

talks akin to defusing a bomb

We have yet to see public optimism, though the occasional positive whisper has quietly floated around. A truce only lasts as long as it is better than the alternative. Still a ways to go.


It's hard to have optimism when they've been at it for so long and seemed like they were at least reasonably close multiple times in the past. If they hadn't let egos get in the way and kept taking their toys and going home when the other wanted to try and negotiate we could have gotten to this point at least in October.

Edited by elvis15, 02 January 2013 - 10:51 AM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#5666 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,558 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:55 AM

For sure, I'm done with optimism by now. Hence why I'm sticking with Meh over Yay to any news right now. For too long this has resembled children fighting in the sandbox, Bettman's "Collective bargaining is soooo hard" quotes be damned.
  • 0

#5667 Nino

Nino

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:05 AM

Looking good
  • 0

#5668 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:30 AM

Lots of industries that create large amounts of employment, economic spinoff and civic pride get tax breaks at the municipal, state/provincial and federal levels. Just go back to 2008 and look at all the very profitable corporations that received giant bailouts to keep the economy fluid. Some of those industries, auto manufacturing for example, also have very contentious labour disputes.


Aren't you conveniently forgetting the fact that the auto industry bailouts were loans that they have to repay? And that the auto industry had been struggling significantly for years and that the bailouts came only when it got so bad 2 of the big 3 companies had to file for bankruptcy, unlike the NHL who has had years of record revenue? And that following the bailout loans, the auto companies made major changes to their business models rather than just demanding their employees take less and have fewer rights to offset management's bad decisions?

As for that other industry that got an absolutely sickening bailout from taxpayers....well, if you want to compare the NHL to Wall Street, go ahead. You wouldn't be doing them any favours though.
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5669 cs2016

cs2016

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,358 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:37 PM


Renaud Lavoie@RenLavoieRDS

NHL CBA talks to start soon. Players at NHL office now.

  • 0

#5670 The-Impersonator

The-Impersonator

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,749 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:28 PM

Nooooo! That means more chances of Leafs making the Playoffs.


They could allow 28 teams in the playoffs and they still wouldn't make it.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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