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

#5941 Garrison

Garrison

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 851 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:40 PM

‏@ElliottPap
D.Sedin on maybe going home to play if season axed: "We're going to talk to Markus (Naslund) in the next few days. You have to be prepared."


i miss Naslund :sadno:
  • 1

#5942 Alex Edler 23

Alex Edler 23

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 970 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:59 PM

Lp
  • 0
Sig too big.

#5943 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 69,130 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:51 PM

@EricOnSportsLaw
If the NHLPA disclaims - and that can be as soon as tomorrow at 6:01 - they do so to try and get this settled in short term and save season
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5944 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,328 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:00 PM

@EricOnSportsLaw
If the NHLPA disclaims - and that can be as soon as tomorrow at 6:01 - they do so to try and get this settled in short term and save season

It Was such a buzz kill 2 days ago when they didn't file a disclaimer.
  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#5945 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,948 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:16 PM

I think we all agree on that, although there's certainly some discussion on how best to eliminate cap circumvention and back diving contracts without unnecessarily punishing players and limited GM creativity. The players have agreed to less of the pie and realize future contracts will be signed for less as a result. They do ask the NHL is honest about HRR and stand behind contract agreements they made knowing full well the financial standing of the league despite record revenues over the last CBA. I don't think that's too much to ask.


I don't see putting limits on contract terms as "punishing the players". I see it as ensuring the integrity of the salary cap. The "for life" deals allow those teams to exceed the cap in payroll which in turn drives salaries upwards. Which in turn makes it difficult for the teams already losing money to retain players they've developed and compete. The whole idea of a salary cap is to create a level playing field. Allowing deals that circumvent the cap defeats the purpose of the cap. Without restrictions on contract terms you may as well do away with the false cap and let the money teams dominate the league as they did before the cap.
  • 2
Posted Image

#5946 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

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

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:29 PM

The real question is:

Does anybody really believe that there will actually be a season?
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#5947 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,353 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:35 PM

You need to go away now. Your ignorance contributes nothing here and you clearly have no desire to rectify that.


Oh tell me where I should go oh great wise one - you're so much wiser than everyone here - why on earth are you even wasting your time with us?

BTW - look in the mirror as far as your last comment Mr. Pot.
  • 2

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#5948 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,948 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:39 PM

The real question is:

Does anybody really believe that there will actually be a season?

The real question is:

Does anybody really believe that there will actually be a season?


I'm more optimistic than I was last summer. I honestly didn't think there would be. There's been enough movement now that there just might be. I'd say I'm guardedly optimistic now.
  • 0
Posted Image

#5949 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,738 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:42 PM

The real question is:

Does anybody really believe that there will actually be a season?


I was starting to think there would be until yesterday.

After the NHL tried to pull a fast one on the players, I'm having my doubts. The trust has been broken.

Now the players will likely file a disclaimer of interest, and the NHL will walk away from the negotiations like they've always done.

Sad really. If these people could act like professionals, a deal could have gotten done months ago. Too many egos, and too many people playing games to have any sort of real negotiations.
  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5950 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,793 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:57 PM

I think he said General Managers, not Owners.


It doesn't matter in this particular case. The GM is the legally authorized representative of the owner. I even suspect that it is the GM that signs the contracts.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5951 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:14 PM

There is one MASSIVE flaw with the players trying to say the NHL was trying to pull a fast one.

....the fact that Fehr won't comment, and the fact that they're not releasing anything or showing anything, just makes it seem like an attempt to smear and an excuse to start up another DOI/decertification vote.


I'm not sure why you're hinting that the PA made it up. It's been widely reported in a variety of media and the NHL has admitted it's true. They just said it was a mistake. Here are just a few of the available sources:

Source 1:

Elliotte Friedman@FriedgeHNIC
NHL has agreed to "restore" previous CBA penalties for "hiding" HRR. Sounds like a real waste of half a day, though.


Source 2:

Aaron Ward@aaronward_nhl
NHL has gone back to original language on HRR after they changed the language this week.Severe penalties still apply. #TSN


Source 3:

The union objected to the league’s attempt in its most recent proposal to remove or alter major penalties on teams that hide or do not report their full, annual Hockey Related Revenue (HRR). The NHL withdrew its proposed change after hearing the players’ objections in a small-group afternoon meeting, but the union viewed the NHL’s attempt at changing the HRR language as sneaky.

Source: http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1232937

Source 4:

In the version that rankled players, it was worded within the CBA draft that any attempts to hide revenue would be punished only at the discretion of the commissioner. It’s pretty easy to see why the NHLPA had an issue with that kind of stunt, though it should be noted the NHL claimed it was an honest mistake in drafting a nearly 300-page proposal.

Source: http://www.csnne.com...09&feedID=10428


And if you really wanted more details...

The NHL on Thursday attempted to change that so that Bettman himself would decide all the penalties. The league withdrew the changes when the PA objected.

Source: http://www.nypost.co...M#axzz2H1oOUkUY

The players were angered this morning because the HRR package received from the NHL was "missing" some key language. The critical part involved penalties for teams hiding HRR. In 2011, the two sides had a dispute over what was reported by Washington and Nashville, and with such erosion of trust right now, you can imagine the reaction to this.

This led to a meeting where the NHL restored the penalties.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/sp...bour-talks.html
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5952 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,793 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:14 PM

There is one MASSIVE flaw with the players trying to say the NHL was trying to pull a fast one.

If the NHLPA released the documents, and pointed this out, they could crap all over the NHL in the press and everything. They'd have the NHL's balls in a vice. But the fact that Fehr won't comment, and the fact that they're not releasing anything or showing anything, just makes it seem like an attempt to smear and an excuse to start up another DOI/decertification vote.


The league admitted that they redefined that HRR article. It isn't made up. Also, it is normal practice to have to sign a waiver that you won't copy or share a document like the offer the league gave... so they aren't about to fax it for you to see. Even if they didn't have a non-disclosure agreement with it, it is a hugely jerk move to share it. Almost as jerky as trying to bury changes in a large document on things that had already been agreed to.

On the other side, it is normal for any changes to existing contract language to be bolded or in red with the old language still there struck through. It is a way to quickly scan a big CBA to find only the differences. The league said they flagged the changes when they gave the document last week.

So there is only a range of possible things that happened:

1. Giving the owners the most benefit of the doubt, they went back to an already agreed upon clause that was the core of the entire negotiation and altered it unilaterally and presented it as part of a comprehensive 300 page agreement. They flagged it as a change and the PA didn't notice it right away or waited a few days to make a stink when they realized the negotiation was going off the rails. Fehr timed it to make his players mad right when they had to vote on DOI.

2. Giving the owners less credit, they unilaterally changed a core article and didn't bother flagging it as a change. Some PA technical lackey was going through the 300 pages and picked up on the change and realized what it meant. It meant that the PA wouldn't get access to audit some teams to ensure they counted all their revenue against HRR. If it was found that teams were cheating, Bettman gave himself the sole power to discipline them or not. It was a change to give teams a licence to under report revenue to cheat players out of cash.

In either case, I can tell you it is a cheap move to change things like that this late in the game.
  • 2
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5953 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:51 PM

Oh tell me where I should go oh great wise one - you're so much wiser than everyone here - why on earth are you even wasting your time with us?

BTW - look in the mirror as far as your last comment Mr. Pot.


You got it all wrong. I didn't say I'm smarter than everyone on here. Just that everyone on here is smarter than you.

Oh and look, a pot and the kettle joke. How quaint.
  • 4

#5954 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:21 AM

You got it all wrong. I didn't say I'm smarter than everyone on here. Just that everyone on here is smarter than you.

Oh and look, a pot and the kettle joke. How quaint.

I prefer the upright calling the grand piano polished ebony, but.. you know.
  • 0

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

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


#5955 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:30 AM

The real question is:

Does anybody really believe that there will actually be a season?


I think there has to be.

We are to close, and I don't think either side has the guts to destroy this season over issue's like this.

A few months ago everyone thought the HRR was the biggest problem and it was, but then we cleared that up and more issue's rose to the surface.

We have spent way to long trying to win this negotiation, (The Owner's have) They have already got a ton, the Players just gave in on contract limits and the term of the CBA aswell (They went to 10 year CBA and 7 and 7 with respect to player contract limits)

IMO the NHL should just stop at 65 with the cap, that is still over 5 Million less that it would have been regularly (If you count how much the cap normally would have risen)


But we will see what is more important in this negotiation, anything else that is left to fight over for the league won't help "the stability of the league" much more if they win or lose on these issues.

So we will see what the true intent of the Owner's is, if they want to play hockey and actually feel bad about this embaressment of a negotiation (IMO the biggest embaressment of all time in pro sports) or if they just want to win and send messages and all that other BS that has been going on for the last 5 months.

End of Rant.
  • 0

zackass.png


#5956 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,793 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:46 AM

I think there has to be.

We are to close, and I don't think either side has the guts to destroy this season over issue's like this.


That is trying to put a rational perspective on things. In reality there has been no real reason not to be playing since they agreed on 50/50 and $300 million in make whole funds (I think that was in mid November)

Nothing else matters much.

I can only assume that after this is all over we are going to find out some piece of information that makes sense of why they have missed all these games. Is the league relocating franchises soon? Are there several teams about to go bankrupt? Are they planning on expanding and making it look like a better business proposition with lower salaries? Is this all a way to make a Phoenix sale go through?

Edited by Provost, 05 January 2013 - 12:51 AM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5957 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,520 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:47 AM

I don't see putting limits on contract terms as "punishing the players". I see it as ensuring the integrity of the salary cap. The "for life" deals allow those teams to exceed the cap in payroll which in turn drives salaries upwards. Which in turn makes it difficult for the teams already losing money to retain players they've developed and compete. The whole idea of a salary cap is to create a level playing field. Allowing deals that circumvent the cap defeats the purpose of the cap. Without restrictions on contract terms you may as well do away with the false cap and let the money teams dominate the league as they did before the cap.

I agree with the premise, but not the way it's applied. To ask players to go from unlimited length contracts down to 5 year max contracts (their first offer) is overly excessive. It's even more so when you could control back diving contracts through variance rules rather than limiting contract term.

I do understand the argument around not being able to insure for longer than 7 years, and I generally don't see any need for teams to sign deals for longer than 8 years if the variance year to year and overall is controlled.

Worth the discussion, along with other 'must have ideas' the NHL has tried to negotiate that are there solely to not only keep their hands out of the cookie jar, but also locked in an airtight safe in an underwater lair protected by a giant squid.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#5958 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:49 AM

That is trying to put a rational perspective on things. In reality there has been no real reason not to be playing since they agreed on 50/50 and $300 million in make whole funds (I think that was in mid November)

Nothing else matters much.


Exactly, this just proves they are out to win tooth and nail and not play, and when you attack the players after everything they gave up they aren't going to back down and hand over what they have left, and why should they?

There is no reason for us to be at this point besides greedy and a bad mindset.
  • 0

zackass.png


#5959 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,520 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:53 AM

LP

Does anyone remember or have a link to the thread that showed how to get the last page while on mobile?

Go to whatever page comes up and edit the number at the end of the URL. Change that to a really large number and load the page and it will be the last one.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#5960 Canuck or Die

Canuck or Die

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 05 January 2013 - 01:16 AM

What a bloody gong show. Seriously, something needs to be done with the League to make it run better. This is just plain ridiculous.
  • 0
EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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


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

Posted Image

#5961 woot

woot

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 09

Posted 05 January 2013 - 01:17 AM

That is trying to put a rational perspective on things. In reality there has been no real reason not to be playing since they agreed on 50/50 and $300 million in make whole funds (I think that was in mid November)

Nothing else matters much.


Unless, you know, player's do actually care about contracting rights and the league really does care about parity.
  • 0
Formerly FANHL GM of NYR

#5962 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,793 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 05 January 2013 - 01:30 AM

Unless, you know, player's do actually care about contracting rights and the league really does care about parity.


There is no gap in the remaining issues that is big enough to lose games over. The league got what it wanted with the 50/50 and they could have ended the lockout.

All of the remaining issues should have been considered mop up stuff.

- A 7 or 10 year deal... not worth losing $600 million in salaries and $1.5 billion in revenue over
- 6 year or 8 year contract length maximums... not worth losing $600 million in salaries and $1.5 billion in revenue over
- A $70 million 2013/2014 cap and getting somewhere around 25% back in escrow for the teams (huge revenue sharing there by the way considering the escrow formula)... is not worth locking the players out for a minute
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5963 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 05 January 2013 - 01:39 AM

There is no gap in the remaining issues that is big enough to lose games over. The league got what it wanted with the 50/50 and they could have ended the lockout.

All of the remaining issues should have been considered mop up stuff.

- A 7 or 10 year deal... not worth losing $600 million in salaries and $1.5 billion in revenue over
- 6 year or 8 year contract length maximums... not worth losing $600 million in salaries and $1.5 billion in revenue over
- A $70 million 2013/2014 cap and getting somewhere around 25% back in escrow for the teams (huge revenue sharing there by the way considering the escrow formula)... is not worth locking the players out for a minute


yep, thats the way i see it as well. Seems like its just riding the storm out until the end to get the best deal possible which don fehr is famous for.
  • 0

#5964 Canuck or Die

Canuck or Die

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 05 January 2013 - 02:29 AM

There is no gap in the remaining issues that is big enough to lose games over. The league got what it wanted with the 50/50 and they could have ended the lockout.

All of the remaining issues should have been considered mop up stuff.

- A 7 or 10 year deal... not worth losing $600 million in salaries and $1.5 billion in revenue over
- 6 year or 8 year contract length maximums... not worth losing $600 million in salaries and $1.5 billion in revenue over
- A $70 million 2013/2014 cap and getting somewhere around 25% back in escrow for the teams (huge revenue sharing there by the way considering the escrow formula)... is not worth locking the players out for a minute


Yeah, but then you have to remember who's negotiating here. They don't like logic.
  • 0
EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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


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

Posted Image

#5965 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,353 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 05 January 2013 - 08:23 AM

You got it all wrong. I didn't say I'm smarter than everyone on here. Just that everyone on here is smarter than you.

Oh and look, a pot and the kettle joke. How quaint.


Well there's your pot/kettle for you, for you have no idea how smart I am nor who I am yet you presume to know that I am ignorant?

If that's not ignorance than I don't know what is.

Are you saying I'm ignorant because I'm on the owners side in this labour dispute?

Tell me, what side are you on?
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#5966 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:21 AM

Well there's your pot/kettle for you, for you have no idea how smart I am nor who I am yet you presume to know that I am ignorant?

If that's not ignorance than I don't know what is.

Are you saying I'm ignorant because I'm on the owners side in this labour dispute?

Tell me, what side are you on?

Well there's your pot/kettle for you, for you have no idea how smart I am nor who I am yet you presume to know that I am ignorant?

If that's not ignorance than I don't know what is.

Are you saying I'm ignorant because I'm on the owners side in this labour dispute?

Tell me, what side are you on?

I think most people are on the "Don't care" side.

I am.

All I want is hockey on my TV, and beyond that I don't care.

Why even pick a side? Most of us don't even understand the situation as a whole enough to make an informed choice of who's side to be on.

Screw sides, unless it is the home and away side in Rogers arena.

Enough of this board room ringette. Let's see some hockey.
  • 0

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

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


#5967 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,353 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:32 AM

I think most people are on the "Don't care" side.

I am.

All I want is hockey on my TV, and beyond that I don't care.

Why even pick a side? Most of us don't even understand the situation as a whole enough to make an informed choice of who's side to be on.

Screw sides, unless it is the home and away side in Rogers arena.

Enough of this board room ringette. Let's see some hockey.


Good perspective and well said.

Just don't be dissing Ringette :)
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#5968 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:07 AM

Good perspective and well said.

Just don't be dissing Ringette :)

Board room crotch fencing?

Board room crochet?

Board room WWE?
  • 0

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

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


#5969 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,111 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:15 AM

There is no gap in the remaining issues that is big enough to lose games over. The league got what it wanted with the 50/50 and they could have ended the lockout.

All of the remaining issues should have been considered mop up stuff.

- A 7 or 10 year deal... not worth losing $600 million in salaries and $1.5 billion in revenue over
- 6 year or 8 year contract length maximums... not worth losing $600 million in salaries and $1.5 billion in revenue over
- A $70 million 2013/2014 cap and getting somewhere around 25% back in escrow for the teams (huge revenue sharing there by the way considering the escrow formula)... is not worth locking the players out for a minute

We shall soon see what the NHL bottom line is as the days tic off. This dispute has always been about what the owners thought they needed to right the ship. Who's fault that the ship is in trouble means little IMO. Reducing the players share of revenue, forcing more of the cost of operation onto individual teams rather than from the richer teams and maintaining a competitve league, are their main goals. (forgot CBA length of 8 - 10 years)

It isn't about squeezing the last few bucks out of the deal. I suspect it is all about cost certainty over the term of the CBA so that the NHL can confidently make media deals going forward. I suspect a possible ESPN deal during the term of the new CBA. I think the NHL might feel they have a window of opportunity with a price advantage over the other major sports leagues.
  • 0

#5970 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:22 AM

Assuming the new disclaimer vote passes and they decide to use it today, what happens with Bettman? Would he no longer represent the owners and be removed from the process immediately, or what happens? With lack of CBA, wouldn't the owners be free to speak out (without fear of million dollar fines)? Seriously, I'd like to know. Can you imagine the gong show if the owners were allowed to start slinging mud at each other openly in the media?! This could be an exciting weekend for hockey. *grabs popcorn*
  • 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.