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This topic has been archived.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

#5671 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:30 PM

Lp
Posted Image

#5672 cs2016

cs2016

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:40 PM


Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger

Mtngs resume tonight. Players made a presentation, countering leagues latest.


#5673 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 80,293 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:50 PM

@DarrenDreger
Overall pension debate evolves around complex differences. 2 sides hoping to meet around 8pm.

307mg00.jpg


#5674 bd71

bd71

    Comets Star

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

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:01 PM

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.


Not sure about that. I'm fairly certain GM is getting billions (up to 55B) in tax relief over the next 20 years that they shouldn't be getting. And UAW/CAW workers are making less now than they did in 2008 and seem to have to give back on every negotiations these days and jobs are reduced. Do the workers see the benefits from these tax breaks? Some I suppose but in the end it's going to stakeholders.

You seem to forget that the employee never really owns the ball and stake holders can always grab that ball and take it home anytime they like. It does suck sometimes but ultimately having a team in a city is very important to local politicians and they are easily held hostage. Is it right? Probably not but it happens. Look at Minnesota. In this wonderful coincidence, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf bought a $19 million dollar Manhattan condo on the same day his representatives were in the Minnesota Legislature begging for stadium funding. I believe he was also spotted in Los Angeles meeting with local officials there while the negotiations were ongoing. He of course flew to L.A. on a private jet. And in the end the state and city gave him $500,000,000 to build said stadium. It's insanity but the people wanted their Vikings and they have them. Sure they could tell Wilf how to run his business but they know if they do that he leaves. Same goes for most sports teams that have deep attachments to their community.

And revenues don't always equate to profits and because most sports organizations are privately held you and I will never get to see what those profits really are. In the end the owners won't start playing until they get a deal they want and they don't seem to care about the consequences. Pretty hard to negotiate against that kind of attitude.

#5675 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:05 PM

- 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.


Surely you know that politicians sometimes act in ways that are not in the best interest of their community because they want to say they did something noteworthy, or to go along with others in their party, or because a lobbyist got them to agree with gifts and promises, just as they often do what's in the best interest of the people with the most money to make significant contributions to their political campaigns later over what's right for the majority of taxpayers.

Look at the latest Glendale vote to continue funding the Coyotes. One of the 2 no votes (in the 4-2 vote) was the Mayor Elaine Scruggs because she knew the city could not afford to pay a sports team an average of $15M a year on top of the $12M loan repayments for the arena's building costs (and the one-time $24M in arena improvements even though the arena is only 9-years-old) when they only get about $2.2M in return. (Source)

"If you have less than zero in your checking account, do you go out and sign a long-term contract?" Scruggs asked.
The mayor said she supports police, firefighter and other city uniforms, rather than Coyotes uniforms.
Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete said the city would need to cut $20 million within five years in part to pay the arena-management fee. Without the team, Skeete estimated the city would need to cut about $12 million.

Source: http://www.usatoday....-lease/1730551/

And to put that in even more context, "The city had to deal with a $30-million shortfall last summer in preparing this year's budget, which saw city staff, police and firefighters laid off and city facilities closed." (Source) 49 people lost their jobs because of the shortfall, just so the NHL wouldn't have to relocate the Coyotes.

Worse still, they've never put this to a public vote. A small group of people are making the decision that literally costs millions more of taxpayers' dollars and, according to the Mayor herself, will mean more lost jobs as the city has to cut money from the budget. "The mayor said handing out $71 million to the team as proposed in the next five years would mean city employees would lose jobs and services would be cut." (Source)

Given how much they cost the taxpayers and will continue to cost them in higher taxes, lost jobs and lost tax revenue from those jobs, how much can the Coyotes really contribute to the local economy when last season they had the lowest attendance in the NHL, selling only 72.5% of home game tickets? (Source) Even the Islanders did better and they're the freaking Islanders! In fact, you have to go all the way back to 2008/09 to find a year when Phoenix had only the third worst overall attendance (and that was only because Winnipeg had just been relocated), and that's the only season since 2006/07 when they weren't the worst or second worst attended team.

Does that honestly sound like the politicians did the right thing for the taxpayers to you?

- 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?


I have repeatedly mentioned the fact that players are one of the main ways sports franchises move money out of the local economy. The problem is, they are people who have the right to live where they want. Sports franchises can't just employee local players and have no right to restrict where people can live. So, teams taking money out of the local economy and giving it to players (and owners, coaches, etc.) who will spend the bulk of it outside of the local economy is simply a fact of life with sports franchises, and one that has to be considered when talking about the supposed economic benefit of a team.

Youth hockey is a different matter and surely you understand that. Youth teams provide local entertainment and identity similar to (though in a smaller radius than) a pro sports franchise. The difference is, kids don't generate millions of yearly revenue. Most struggle just to pay the bills and are lucky to break even. Those teams are not money making ventures. They are supported specifically for the benefits they provide to the community and any money they do make goes into the community.

I never said the game owes anyone anything. I don't even think teams owe us anything....until they start asking for handouts. If they want to operate like a regular business and pay their taxes like a regular business, then they owe us nothing. If they want special treatment, they owe us something special in return.

As for the added taxes for the local sports arena, that does suck, but at least you're getting a community resource you can use. You don't get anything for the millions in tax breaks the Canucks get. I don't know how much the Canucks specifically get now, but I do know that back in 1999 they asked for $15M a year in luxury tax breaks to offset their loses (you know, those owner "risks.")

The government of Canada even helps teams further by "allowing businesses to write off as much as 50 per cent of tickets and luxury suites for sporting events" costing taxpayers about $15M a year. (Source) When the Liberal government threatened that tax, the Senators cried to the media that changing that rule might actually drive them out of business. That's the NHL's modus operandi. They tell fans "give us excessive tax breaks or we'll take the team you emotionally invested in because we asked you to and put it somewhere else that will."

The NHL is not a free market model where businesses can freely move to cities where the demand exists, the report explains. Instead it is a monopoly that has an interest in maintaining unrequited demand so that various markets are forced to fight for teams -- usually using massive subsidies such as tax breaks, or a shiny new arena such as Quebec City is considering, as enticement.

Source: http://www.ctvnews.c...t-says-1.630431

- 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.


The auto industry bailouts were not the same thing as luxury tax rates for pro sports teams, especially ones in a league making record revenue. In fact, the math has been pretty clear on the bailouts on both sides of the border. For Canada "[t]he price, including concessions from workers, was $14.4 billion. The cost of losing Canada’s share of the North American industry would have been $20 billion." (Source)

So, Canada was better off from the get go given what would have been lost. Even still, the loans are being repaid and with interest. Chrysler, for example, has paid back $7.6B in Canada and $5.1B in the US. And the auto industry has added jobs since the bailouts while most companies have continued to layoff workers. We can argue whether or not the bailouts were a good idea if you want, but it's simply not comparable to the NHL in any way.

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.


I agree that rich people scam the system and make poor people pay for it. I agree too that the system is made that way (because the rich people made the system), but I didn't selectively pick anyone. We're specifically talking about NHL owners getting public money and luxury tax rates because this is a NHL team forum. That's not being selective, it's being on topic. So, don't make assumptions about what I think, especially when you haven't actually asked me what I think. (For example, I'm not in favour of giving athletes lowered tax rates to help pro sports teams attract big name stars as some have suggested. The taxes we get from players' salaries is one of the few economic offsets for the amount of money the team gets in breaks.)
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5676 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:14 PM

You can see my loooong post above for more about the auto industry, but really it doesn't compare to the NHL in any way. We're not talking about a giant industry or business employing hundreds of thousands of people going out of business. At worst, teams not getting luxury tax breaks would just make them move. Being that teams don't generate that many local jobs anyway it's not really a big deal and certainly not comparable to the auto industry upon which entire towns were dependent.

In the same post I also talked too about how the NHL, and as you hinted at, all pro sports teams, use fan attachment as blackmail leverage. That does not make it right and it certainly does not mean that sports teams are not taking more out of the local economy than they are putting in simply because some of us are so emotionally attached to them.

And revenues don't always equate to profits and because most sports organizations are privately held you and I will never get to see what those profits really are.


Exactly. But if they don't want to show their books, they shouldn't get to ask for public handouts. The "you gotta give to get" rule should apply to them as equally as it does the rest of us. It's absolutely ridiculous someone asking for welfare should have to show more financial information than a billionaire asking for hundreds of millions for their private profit!

In the end the owners won't start playing until they get a deal they want and they don't seem to care about the consequences. Pretty hard to negotiate against that kind of attitude.


And that's just the godawful truth. :(
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5677 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,510 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:15 PM

The NHL and NHLPA have wrapped up a one-hour meeting in which the players' union gave a response to the league's latest offer. The league is going to review the latest information from the players, and meetings are expected to continue on Wednesday evening at around 8pm et in New York. The players have until midnight tonight to file a disclaimer of interest to effectively dissolve their union if they wish.


Oh shiznit! This is going to be tight! It's literally do or die (in terms of the union dissolving). The main issue seems to be pension at this point, owners should just concede. Far easier for the owners just to vote on the PA's latest.

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5678 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,063 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:03 PM

You can see my loooong post above for more about the auto industry, but really it doesn't compare to the NHL in any way. We're not talking about a giant industry or business employing hundreds of thousands of people going out of business. At worst, teams not getting luxury tax breaks would just make them move. Being that teams don't generate that many local jobs anyway it's not really a big deal and certainly not comparable to the auto industry upon which entire towns were dependent.

In the same post I also talked too about how the NHL, and as you hinted at, all pro sports teams, use fan attachment as blackmail leverage. That does not make it right and it certainly does not mean that sports teams are not taking more out of the local economy than they are putting in simply because some of us are so emotionally attached to them.



Exactly. But if they don't want to show their books, they shouldn't get to ask for public handouts. The "you gotta give to get" rule should apply to them as equally as it does the rest of us. It's absolutely ridiculous someone asking for welfare should have to show more financial information than a billionaire asking for hundreds of millions for their private profit!



And that's just the godawful truth. :(

The auto industry took loans and equity from government. The value of the shares held by Canada and indirectly Ontario are worth less than half of break even. The history of the auto industry is full of direct and indirect taxpayer subsidy for over 50 years. While the firms were making profits and big labout big hourly rates it was the taxpayer who got shafted. Most of management and labour kept their jobs but the shareholders were wiped out. The size of this boondoggle dwarfs anything the NHL owners ever considered. We won't even get into Air Canada!

The point about players learning their craft in taxpayer subsidized arenas is no different than owners who play the subsidy game other than the size of the take. It could even be argued tongue in cheek that Crosby not only got subsidized ice but took advantage of coaches who worked for free. At least NHL owners pay their people.

Again I go back to my point that you appear to object more about those with a sizeable net worth than the ethics of those who simply take what they can get. Those that vote in our system have absolutely no problem in spending money thru their politicans that they do not have. They know it isn't right but they do it anyway. My generation is the worst in history for downloading spending onto the next generation. Some might actually call it theft or fraud. I don't hesitate in calling it that. Putting it another way is to call this selfishness. Me, now, and to hell with tomorrow. There are no innocent victims in this.

Edited by Boudrias, 02 January 2013 - 03:07 PM.


#5679 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,590 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:40 PM

I don't think the disclaimer of interest will have much impact in their decisions. They're too close to getting a deal done to take that action now. No judge would side with them, because the NHL is showing that it's willing to bargain now.

That's all the disclaimer was meant to be used for. It was meant to get the NHL back to the bargaining table, and start negotiating seriously.

And plus, the disclaimer can still be filed after today. I don't know why some media types have latched onto the idea that it can't be filed after today. All they would have to do is take another vote, and file it.

Edited by DeNiro, 02 January 2013 - 03:41 PM.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5680 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:55 PM

Again I go back to my point that you appear to object more about those with a sizeable net worth than the ethics of those who simply take what they can get.


No, I just see a difference between a kid getting to play in a community center/rink paid for by taxpayers that's available for everyone's use and a business in a $3.3B industry of only 30 teams getting luxury tax rates and taxpayer handouts for a private arena for their private profit. I see the difference in a family that can't afford to put their kid in sports getting a little help, be it from a small tax break or (more likely) a charity, and a person asking taxpayers to give them money just so they don't have to spend their own. I'm just flummoxed that you don't see the difference.

My generation is the worst in history for downloading spending onto the next generation. Some might actually call it theft or fraud. I don't hesitate in calling it that. Putting it another way is to call this selfishness. Me, now, and to hell with tomorrow. There are no innocent victims in this.


I agree, there are far more people than just NHL owners who take whatever they can get regardless of the costs to others. I couldn't agree more. (I'm sure players, or at least their money managers, know and use every investment return shielding loophole there is.) I just don't think the "everyone else does it" argument makes it right.

I also disagree with your "everyone's guilty" attitude. I don't think honest people who pay their taxes and don't use/abuse welfare deserve to have their money given to billionaires, especially when it costs jobs and/or services that their taxes were supposed to pay for, anymore than I think it's right for healthy people to claim disability and live off their neighbors.

You want to lump the auto industry bailouts in, despite research that shows it was economically beneficial whereas no such proof of any NHL franchise economic benefit exists, go ahead. You want to lump in every single penny given to every single company ever, go ahead. Hell, you wanna lump in every single tax break anyone has ever gotten (even though individual tax breaks are meant to encourage immediate spending or lowered dependency on the government later), go ahead. It won't change anything. Billionaires asking for public money to fund their private projects is wrong. Franchises asking the government to keep lucrative tax breaks on the books to basically subsidize businesses buying their luxury products, allowing them to artificially inflate their prices out of the reach of most people, is wrong. Period.

"Keep in mind always the present you are constructing. It should be the future you want." --- from The Temple of My Familiar by Alice Walker
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5681 BoKnows53

BoKnows53

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:57 PM

I hope the players are going hard after a pension plan for the already older retired players who are having a hard time making ends meet. The average players salary is $2.4M. If these guys can't hire a financial advisor and figure it out for themselves, it boggles my mind.

#5682 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:59 PM

Oh shiznit! This is going to be tight! It's literally do or die (in terms of the union dissolving). The main issue seems to be pension at this point, owners should just concede. Far easier for the owners just to vote on the PA's latest.

That's not a hard deadline so that the NHLPA would be obstructed from filing a disclaimer of interest (which is different than decertification/dissolving the union), it's just that their recent vote gave permissions for a disclaimer to be filed within that timeframe. The players could easily vote again to allow for the possibility of a disclaimer of interest for another window of time if the negotiations don't go the way they want after today.

I don't think the disclaimer of interest will have much impact in their decisions. They're too close to getting a deal done to take that action now. No judge would side with them, because the NHL is showing that it's willing to bargain now.

That's all the disclaimer was meant to be used for. It was meant to get the NHL back to the bargaining table, and start negotiating seriously.

And plus, the disclaimer can still be filed after today. I don't know why some media types have latched onto the idea that it can't be filed after today. All they would have to do is take another vote, and file it.

Yeah, what he said.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#5683 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:01 PM

I hope the players are going hard after a pension plan for the already older retired players who are having a hard time making ends meet. The average players salary is $2.4M. If these guys can't hire a financial advisor and figure it out for themselves, it boggles my mind.

There is already a pension plan in place if I'm not mistaken, but the reason it has come up the last couple weeks is due to the owners wanting to contribute $50M of the make whole agreement in the form of pension payments after a player has retired rather than regular payments over the next several years.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#5684 Mr.Habitat

Mr.Habitat

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,746 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 03

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:05 PM

Boinl

#5685 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,990 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:39 PM

Lp

#5686 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,595 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:51 PM

Why is Rick DiPietro at the negotiations?
He should be sitting in Florida re-habbing and collecting his disability cheques.
His pension plan started the day he signed that 15 year contract.
FFS.

#5687 Gooseberries

Gooseberries

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,734 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:55 PM

Why is Rick DiPietro at the negotiations?
He should be sitting in Florida re-habbing and collecting his disability cheques.
His pension plan started the day he signed that 15 year contract.
FFS.

better hope he doesn't slip on the sidewalk outside!

20u7nh3.jpg

Credit to Vintage Canuck The Sig lord


ezgif-714024022.gif


#5688 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 80,293 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:48 PM

A shortened NHL season would still be a long haul for travel-tested Canucks:

VANCOUVER — It’s no secret significant travel challenges await the Vancouver Canucks should a collective bargaining agreement be struck and allow a 48-game schedule to commence Jan.19. What remains a mystery is how the process will actually play out.


The defending Presidents’ Trophy winners haven’t been told what to expect and how their slate of games will be divided between Northwest Division demands and remainder of the Western Conference. If they have a day between games on their existing schedule, there won’t be another jammed in the middle. That makes sense. And while that may be of some comfort, the Canucks know it’s going to be a grind. A real grind.


No matter what math or personal preference you apply to the 48-game equation — seven games against each of four division rivals and a home-and-away against 10 other conference teams or five versus each in the division and the same home-and-away in rest of the conference to allow for additional fan-appeasing Canadian content with home-and-away contests against Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Winnipeg — start by going to what would have been the entire 2012-13 schedule.


It stands to reason that dates already in place for the Canucks within the conference — at Rogers Arena or on the road — will remain to ease the logistical load and allow the league would work around them. That means while the season could open Jan. 19 and the Canucks playing that night, they were also scheduled to host Anaheim on Jan. 21 and be in Edmonton the next night. Then came a seven-day break for what would have been the All-Star Game in Columbus on Jan. 27, but it was cancelled Nov. 23. So add more games there before the Canucks host San Jose on Jan. 29 and Colorado two nights later. A three-day stretch of no games for the Canucks in February and a four-day break in March will likely be used to add another game or two. It’s basically three games one week and four the next and seven games every two weeks.


Regardless of the final draft, the schedule will make rest and recovery, the sleep doctor and proper nutrition as important as game preparation and execution. Which is nothing new for Alain Vigneault.


The Canucks coach was an assistant to Rick Bowness with Ottawa in the 1994-95 season that was shortened to 48 games because of a lockout. The Senators held a 10-day training camp and won just nine games. These Canucks are not those Senators, but that lockout produced a Jan. 20-June 24 season in which Detroit won the Presidents’ Trophy and swept by New Jersey in the Stanley Cup final. The Devils lost just four games in four playoff rounds after going 22-18-8 in the shortened season. The Wings were 33-11-4.


The Canucks can’t afford the 5-5-1 start they had last season in a projected sprint where improvements in Edmonton and Minnesota will make a fifth-consecutive division title tougher. However, the Canucks finished fourth on the power play and fifth in goals last season and were fourth in goals against and sixth in penalty killing.


“I don’t think we’re going to change a lot,” said Vigneault. “We’re used to a demanding schedule, but we’re going to have to get input from our players on how they feel energy wise and mentally. That’s where the strong leadership in the room comes in. They all have a team-first attitude and that’s what we’re going to need. These guys want to win and it just makes them more motivated because they know how challenging it is.”


The coaching staff convened the second week of August and planned out how to approach training camp and the season. The Canucks may spend as much time in the video room as the ice if camp commences Jan. 12 and there won’t be an exhibition season to determine who can eat up second-line minutes for Ryan Kesler and who’s best suited to be the third-line centre. Is it Maxim Lapierre, Jordan Schroeder or the rumoured Tyler Bozak via an expected Roberto Luongo trade?


“I’m a big fan of Lappy and a lot of our players are, too,” added Vigneault. “He works hard and comes to play. Obviously, he needs to adjust some things in his game and I’m real confident he’ll do well. We talk about our lineup on a daily basis and we feel we’ve got a good team. Let’s get through this lockout and get to camp and then we’ll figure out what we need to do.”


As long as Alex Edler (back) and Jason Garrison (groin) don’t have setbacks from respective injuries they successfully rehabbed during the lockout and the rigours of a one-week camp don’t claim others, the Canucks could transition well. But a short camp will go a long way in determining who’s really in top shape. That will be more important that honing a power play that was blanked 13 times in the final 18 regular-season games and went 3-for-21 in the postseason. But what will hurt more to start a short season, indifferent play or injuries?


“Probably injuries in trying to find that line of getting in shape and pushing it too hard,” said Canucks winger Chris Higgins, who could see some time at centre until Kesler recovers from offseason shoulder and wrist surgeries. “You have that normally with a regular start, but now there’s pressure to push a little harder than you can.”


http://blogs.theprov...tested-canucks/

307mg00.jpg


#5689 panelguy

panelguy

    Comets Star

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

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:52 PM

Bollocks on the owners, we watch the players bust their humps every night risk serious head injuries along with life long aches and pains, and some of you deny these guys a great salary and pension in favor of lining the owners pockets even more!
No Bollocks to fans of the owners who worry about their offshore bank accounts!

#5690 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 80,293 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:57 PM

@reporterchris
The NHL's next CBA session will start in 20 minutes.

307mg00.jpg


#5691 Caboose

Caboose

    Marlies Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,322 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:32 PM

Posted Image

kb71ZMt.jpg

 


#5692 John.Tallhouse

John.Tallhouse

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,720 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:56 PM

Strap yourself's in boys & girls, a potential BIG night awaits.... or just another underwhelming flop...
Posted Image

#5693 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,785 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:58 PM

How funny would it be if they made a 48 game season, but barely anyone went to the games and they still kept losing money.

m97o1w.jpg

Credit to Parise11


#5694 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 80,293 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:00 PM

@c_marotta23
chances of an agreement tonight?

@BroadStBull
3%.

307mg00.jpg


#5695 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,590 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:06 PM

@c_marotta23
chances of an agreement tonight?

@BroadStBull
3%.


These jokers won't make an agreement until the last minute if they do.

Right now each side is trying to see how far they can push. It has basically come down to nickel and diming on both sides. A real great tactic for building a strong relationship going forward.

You can tell each side wants to make the deal that "saves" the season. Ultimately it will take one side "caving", and my money's on the players. Because the reality is, they want a season more than the owners.

Edited by DeNiro, 02 January 2013 - 07:08 PM.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5696 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,595 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:23 PM

How funny would it be if they made a 48 game season, but barely anyone went to the games and they still kept losing money.

Rinks will be packed in Canada. But I could see it definitely happening some places.

#5697 Kyosama

Kyosama

    Comets Star

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

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:23 PM

These jokers won't make an agreement until the last minute if they do.

Right now each side is trying to see how far they can push. It has basically come down to nickel and diming on both sides. A real great tactic for building a strong relationship going forward.

You can tell each side wants to make the deal that "saves" the season. Ultimately it will take one side "caving", and my money's on the players. Because the reality is, they want a season more than the owners.


I think this is the last minute. Yes, they can re-vote on the ability to file a disclaimer of interest, but it would be another 5 day vote and it would ruin any sense that the two sides are anywhere close to each other. We know tonight if there'll be a season in my opinion, if the NHLPA files the disclaimer of interest they're not even close, the season is done. If they don't an agreement has been made in principle or the NHLPA feels they're close enough to cave to what's being asked of them and not feel as if they lost, but will fight to the Jan 11 deadline to get whatever extra they can. So yeah, the official agreement won't be made until the last day, but I think this is it myself.

#5698 cs2016

cs2016

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:24 PM

Not much news coming out right now. Hope that's a good sign.

#5699 Samuel Påhlsson

Samuel Påhlsson

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:34 PM

Every lockout always reminds me of the downloading music illegally episode of South Park. What about you guys?

Sig too big. -SN


#5700 Cromeslab

Cromeslab

    Comets Star

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

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:36 PM

The quiet before the storm perhaps?
Posted Image

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




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.