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

#571 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 01 September 2012 - 02:10 PM

Bluff? What bluff? I'm still pretty pissed off! And I'm sure millions of other NHL fans are too...

Yes you are damm mad about the last lock out and you will be damm mad about this one, but you will be glued to the TV when hockey comes back,like most other fans. That is what i mean, some fans say, that is it, if there is a lock out i walk away, well the NHL and the NHLPA have called that bluff- they know you and just about every other fan will be back, like they were in 2005 and like they were for the NBA.
  • 0

#572 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,557 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 01 September 2012 - 02:42 PM

Does anyone know how long the lockout would stretch on for before they cancel the entire season?
  • 0

#573 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,115 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 01 September 2012 - 04:27 PM

So are we gonna have a lockout or are they gonna figure it out?
  • 0
Posted Image
______________Eat, Sleep,Posted ImageRave, Repeat

#574 _aycee

_aycee

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 11

Posted 01 September 2012 - 04:56 PM

Posting to get to the last page
  • 0

#575 Raymond Ballard and a 1st

Raymond Ballard and a 1st

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 12

Posted 01 September 2012 - 05:04 PM

Bettman will do anything to make the owners happy and that includes lowering player's salaries. It all comes down to greed from both sides. It's really sad actually. :sadno:
  • 0

#576 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,036 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 01 September 2012 - 06:49 PM

The next deadlines after sept 15 are us thanksgiving long weekend and January 1 st. : if January comes and no games, season is done. The pace everything is going it'll be almost 1.5 years before the Canucks have played a game and add one that to the vet ages. Sick of the owners and players whining. And complaining about millions that nobody else ever gets
  • 0

#577 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 01 September 2012 - 07:07 PM

Does anyone know how long the lockout would stretch on for before they cancel the entire season?

If they cant play 45-50 games i think the season will be cancelled
  • 0
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#578 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,986 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 01 September 2012 - 07:47 PM

Does anyone know how long the lockout would stretch on for before they cancel the entire season?


Bettman announced the cancellation of the 2004–05 season on February 16, 2005. So around that time.
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#579 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,954 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 01 September 2012 - 07:55 PM

I've got a bad feeling about this season. :(
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#580 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,727 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 01 September 2012 - 08:26 PM

I hope the NHLPA doesn't back down like last time, make Bettman break under the pressure of 2 years of lockout and destroying a sport.
  • 2

#581 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 01 September 2012 - 09:49 PM

What nether region
are you pulling this projection out of?
The USA has been printing money by the trillions since they started trying to inflate their way out of debt.
How on earth is this going to make the US$ worth more than the Cdn$?


Natural Resources down = USD/CAD up AUD/USD down.
  • 0

#582 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:04 PM

I hope the NHLPA doesn't back down like last time, make Bettman break under the pressure of 2 years of lockout and destroying a sport.

Who would lose more in this scenario? The players who have a very short carreer and would waste 2 years of it and come back to much less income or the owners like Aquilini for whom this is a side business and for whom their main business carries on unaffected. I know who you HOPE willback down, but who do you THINK will back down?
  • 0

#583 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Joined: 18-December 11

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:14 PM

The sooner the players cave, the sooner they can start playing again and we'll all be happy.

A long term locout will do nothing but make them lose even more money. They don't have enough leverage to negotiate with the owners. There's too many teams that would be more than happy to miss a season i it means not having to play under the od CBA.
  • 0

#584 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:14 PM

I hope the NHLPA doesn't back down like last time, make Bettman break under the pressure of 2 years of lockout and destroying a sport.

Totally agree. The players have to make a stand somewhere. More revenue sharing between teams, and a little more even split on revenues between the teams and players, and they should have a lasting deal. What the owners are asking for in the first offer is ridiculous.
  • 0

#585 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 02 September 2012 - 02:16 PM

Totally agree. The players have to make a stand somewhere. More revenue sharing between teams, and a little more even split on revenues between the teams and players, and they should have a lasting deal. What the owners are asking for in the first offer is ridiculous.


Every team can pay players anywhere between 54M and 70M. The players are employee's not partners. Why should an owner that is selling out every game have to split money with a team that isn't even drawing 8 000 a game? In Vancouver's case we have 18 000+ potentional people buying food and drinks every game, unlike other cities that have to give 4 tickets,4 hot dogs and 4 pops for $99 just to get people in the building. Why would an owner that is losing money want to change anything if he is going to get money from the league to possibly break even every year? Screw the players, they make enough as is, lets see what kind of job they can get other then hockey out in the real world and see how much they make. Bring in replacement players if the players complain they can't live on an average of 2.2M a year.
  • 0

#586 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,986 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 02 September 2012 - 02:57 PM

Dave Bolland on possibility of playing in Europe: "I talked to my agent to see what the options are. We’ll see how this goes."
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#587 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 02 September 2012 - 05:28 PM

Once again, you are missing the point, and your reading comprehension is no better than a 1st grader. Relocation takes time, and no one is asking the league to relocate 10+ team all at once, but things need to be changed, and Bettman's personal agenda should be set aside instead of hindering the franchises. I have said it a good number of times that, you don't go and ask players to take a 20% paycut when the business is profitable and revenue is rising. Poor business decision such as adding or moving teams to unmarketable location is not the fault of the players. Shutting down 1 or 2 teams that should've no business in this league will no doubt means some not too talented players will have to go play in another league, but that would also boost the quality of current teams, while cutting dead weights that hinder the growth of the league as a whole.

As for the lease agreement, is it the players fault that the idiot owner decided to sign a 20 years lease for a franchise that has been losing money like a waterfall? The right move is to stop the bleeding, negotiate a buy out of the lease, and move to a more profitable location. Just because the people in Glendale think they deserve a hockey team, that doesn't mean they should get one if they have to use their tax money to keep the team afloat.

Do you have any knowledge of economics at all? You seem absolutely clueless when it comes to numbers. The buying power of 50 mil from 4 years ago is a lot more than what you could get 50 mil nowadays. That is inflation. Comparing Russia's inflation with Canada's means you have zero idea what the argument is about. KHL is already the next best league in the world right now, and some players are already planning to join KHL in the upcoming season if there is a lock out, so I am not sure why you think it is a wild thought for players to jump to KHL if NHL screws up once again with the new CBA.

I am going to ask you this again, are you Bettman? :bigblush:


OK genius. Instead of asking the players to take smaller share of revenue you are going to buy out Arena leases of all the money losing teams which will cost tens of millions of $'s. Is the union going to pay for this? What of the teams that are losing money but they own their own arenas. Only teams that don't have ownership or don't have rights to operate their arena are NYI, BUF, EDM, CLG. And the following teams operate their arena even thought they don't own it, NSH, ANA, CAR, FLD, SJS, MIN and WSH.

So you are proposing that owners move their teams to new cities while they own or operate their own Arena in the current market? Then they lose even more money to pay for an arena that sits empty? Great thinking genius.

Which cities are you going to move these teams to that could support a $70 million players salary? Name the markets and venues for 10 teams that you will move and I'm sure you will include market analysis on said markets.

As far as inflation goes. You threw out the word inflation and never provided one number to support your argument. Because 50 million is not what it was 4 years ago all the player's are going to rush to Russia? How much is that $50 million worth today? You have no freakin clue.

In Canada AAR of Inflation was 1.21% for a total of 4.92%. $50mill in 2008 is $52.4 mill now. That's a difference of $2.4 million. Hardly makes me want to move to Russia where the Inflation over the past 5 years is over 55%. And yes genius, the rate of Inflation does matter in Russia if that's where you intend to be living, earning your pay check and spending your money.

You think NHL stars would move to Russia because of a combined $2.4 million spread out between 23 players? Yeah right.

Now get this into you genius. The NHL cap was $39 mill in 2005. What is that in 2012 dollars? $44 million. Yes that's right, much less than $50 million. Did you see a mass exodus to Russia when the cap max was $39 mill ($44 mill in today's $)? I didn't.

Any ways the cap is not going to be $50 mill no matter what, no one has proposed it to be that low. but just so you know, do the math and you will see players will not be running away to Russia even with a $44 mill cap hit.


You seem like a union guy who dislikes mgmt no matter what. You have never run a business and have no clue on how to run a business. You don't have any formal business education. You continue to talk gibberish like contraction and buying out arena leases and moving almost half of the teams to some imagined hockey markets. Apparently billionaire team owners aren't smart enough to come up with your brilliant ideas.

I will guarantee you the following:

-In the new CBA the player's share of Revenue will be less than what it is in the current CBA. (players will take a cut)
-There will be no mass exodus to Russia. Players that do go over to play during the lockout will come back as soon as they can.(just like they did the last time)
-No contraction.
-All the money losing teams will not move to imaginary markets to play in imaginary arenas.
- Instead of all the nonsensical ideas you propose the major difference in this and next CBA will be the reduced percentage of revenue the players will receive in the future. This will happen because it makes sense.

After the new CBA is signed I look forward to hearing from you.
  • 0

#588 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 02 September 2012 - 08:27 PM

I hope the NHLPA doesn't back down like last time, make Bettman break under the pressure of 2 years of lockout and destroying a sport.


Players have the right guy in D. Fehr if that's what you want. Fehr will not back down for a long while. It's been said here many times that Fehr took the MLB players to strike that lost the World Series.

If the owners are going to lock out the players they might as well hold off until the players capitulate and we get a viable deal. Time to put the finishing touches on what was started during the last lock out and get player cost under control. This is something thats important for the health of the league.

If Zach Parise has a problem with Bettman after signing a deal that pays him $98 million I'd like to see how he will react when he starts missing pay checks. I bet he'll be on the phone to Fehr begging for an agreement so they can go back to work.

Personally I'm looking forward to the NFL season kicking off this week.

Edited by WHL rocks, 02 September 2012 - 08:29 PM.

  • 0

#589 Profanity

Profanity

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 09

Posted 02 September 2012 - 08:47 PM

OK genius. Instead of asking the players to take smaller share of revenue you are going to buy out Arena leases of all the money losing teams which will cost tens of millions of $'s. Is the union going to pay for this? What of the teams that are losing money but they own their own arenas. Only teams that don't have ownership or don't have rights to operate their arena are NYI, BUF, EDM, CLG. And the following teams operate their arena even thought they don't own it, NSH, ANA, CAR, FLD, SJS, MIN and WSH.

So you are proposing that owners move their teams to new cities while they own or operate their own Arena in the current market? Then they lose even more money to pay for an arena that sits empty? Great thinking genius.

Which cities are you going to move these teams to that could support a $70 million players salary? Name the markets and venues for 10 teams that you will move and I'm sure you will include market analysis on said markets.

As far as inflation goes. You threw out the word inflation and never provided one number to support your argument. Because 50 million is not what it was 4 years ago all the player's are going to rush to Russia? How much is that $50 million worth today? You have no freakin clue.

In Canada AAR of Inflation was 1.21% for a total of 4.92%. $50mill in 2008 is $52.4 mill now. That's a difference of $2.4 million. Hardly makes me want to move to Russia where the Inflation over the past 5 years is over 55%. And yes genius, the rate of Inflation does matter in Russia if that's where you intend to be living, earning your pay check and spending your money.

You think NHL stars would move to Russia because of a combined $2.4 million spread out between 23 players? Yeah right.

Now get this into you genius. The NHL cap was $39 mill in 2005. What is that in 2012 dollars? $44 million. Yes that's right, much less than $50 million. Did you see a mass exodus to Russia when the cap max was $39 mill ($44 mill in today's $)? I didn't.

Any ways the cap is not going to be $50 mill no matter what, no one has proposed it to be that low. but just so you know, do the math and you will see players will not be running away to Russia even with a $44 mill cap hit.


You seem like a union guy who dislikes mgmt no matter what. You have never run a business and have no clue on how to run a business. You don't have any formal business education. You continue to talk gibberish like contraction and buying out arena leases and moving almost half of the teams to some imagined hockey markets. Apparently billionaire team owners aren't smart enough to come up with your brilliant ideas.

I will guarantee you the following:

-In the new CBA the player's share of Revenue will be less than what it is in the current CBA. (players will take a cut)
-There will be no mass exodus to Russia. Players that do go over to play during the lockout will come back as soon as they can.(just like they did the last time)
-No contraction.
-All the money losing teams will not move to imaginary markets to play in imaginary arenas.
- Instead of all the nonsensical ideas you propose the major difference in this and next CBA will be the reduced percentage of revenue the players will receive in the future. This will happen because it makes sense.

After the new CBA is signed I look forward to hearing from you.


You really can't form a proper argument without attacking the stick man, don't you?

I've never once said there will be a mass exodus of players moving to KHL if the cap is low. Don't be a moron and start putting words in my mouth. I said NHL will have a tough time retaining some players if the cap is back to 50mil or 44 mil as you suggested. KHL has been looking to lure talented players from NHL for a long time with money, and if the NHL takes a big step back, there is no doubt KHL will pounce on this opportunity,

As for teams that own their arena and are losing money, tough luck for them. When you invested a large amount of money on fixed assets at a non profitable location, the owners have seriously no one to blame but themselves. Besides, why do should the players take a mass pay cut for certain owners' stupid decision? If said team is losing money with a high salary cap, then simply don't spend that much on salary then.

As for inflation, who cares about the Canada's inflation rate when the major problem is lie in the states and players are getting pay in US dollar? If you actually look at US's inflation rate since 2008, there is a roughly 8% increase, so if the league rolls back the cap to 2008's 50 mil as you've suggested, it is actually worth only 46mil.

Btw, I couldn't stop laughing when you said I've no formal business education. Sorry, but I am a CGA, and I look at financial numbers monday to friday from 9 to 5.

As for your guarantees, some of those are really no brainers.

- The CBA will of course be lower than the current one, more or less because the players simply don't have the bargaining power.
- Once again, no one is saying there will be a mass exodus to KHL, so why don't you also predict there will be no mass exodus to China while you are at it?
- Obviously, not all the teams will be able to relocate in short term, so I am not sure what you are trying to predict? However, I am not surprised if 2 teams will end up relocating by the end of next CBA. You simply can't durdle around for 10-20 years at a non profitable location and cry foul everytime CBA is up.

You are missing the point once again on the actual issue. The entire debate isn't about what will happen, but what should happen. Just because the owner will eventually get what they wanted, that doesn't mean it is the right and ethical thing to do.

I've never seen someone defend Bettman so ignorantly.

Btw, why don't Bettman take a paycut as well?

Edited by Profanity, 02 September 2012 - 08:51 PM.

  • 0

#590 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 02 September 2012 - 09:24 PM

You are missing the point once again on the actual issue. The entire debate isn't about what will happen, but what should happen. Just because the owner will eventually get what they wanted, that doesn't mean it is the right and ethical thing to do.

I've never seen someone defend Bettman so ignorantly.

Btw, why don't Bettman take a paycut as well?


What should happen according to who? Who decides what that "should" is. What should happen according to you is completely different from what should happen from the perspective of owners. The difference is the owners are the ones who lose tens of millions of $'s.

Both sides have resources to hire the best lawyers and accouniting firms in the world. What ever deal gets signed will be the best possible deal for both parties.

You and I have a fundamental difference in what each of thinks is right. I think owners deserve to make profits from their business. You think employees should be guaranteed money no matter the health of the business. You propose shutting down a few teams, I propose the players take a little less and keep those teams in business. Players do not want to lose their jobs, I don't want to lose my viewing pleasure. I don't see any stars leaving to play in KHL if the percentage of player's take is lowerd, you think there is a chance of that happening.

I don't see us agreeing on much. We are not going to change each other's mind.

BTW, Bettman taking a mill less than his 8 mill salary is not going to save a franchise, but the players taking 50% of $3.3 billion instead of 57% of $3.3 billion will save multiple franchises.
  • 0

#591 TACIC

TACIC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 12

Posted 02 September 2012 - 09:45 PM

I was going to suggest that a year without the NHL is an excellent time to get re-acquainted with the local junior team but, your profile says you live in PG. :lol: Better hope they resolve this thing!

the prince george cougars exist u know
  • 0
AUmxe4h.gif
Credit to JimLahey for this awesome sig

TACIC

Yes i am a Leafs fan too, DEAL WITH IT!!

Go Canucks Go!

#592 SynysterGates

SynysterGates

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,778 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 05

Posted 03 September 2012 - 01:12 AM

the prince george cougars exist u know


:picard:
  • 0

#593 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,986 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 11:04 AM

Best Saves Percentage Since The Lockout:

Yesterday I began to look at goaltenders in the current NHL era. This is the time since the 2004/05 lockout which is coming to an end with the upcoming lockout this season. It is a seven year period where the NHL operated under the current CBA with a salary cap imposed for the first time. In my first look at goaltending I posted the winningest goalies in the era. This does a good job of showing the goalies who played the most games in the era. It doesn't directly show which goalies was the best one. As long as the goalie maintained his starting job he had a chance to win. The more games he played the more games he would win.


The simplest stat to look at to show how well the goalies played is saves percentage. The problem is this is a rate stat and may show that somebody who played only a handful of games was the best. I will cutoff the goalies involved in the comparison to those who played 25 or more games in the era. This prevents us from getting a list of goalies who saved the only shot they faced. It will still rank some goalies who did not play many games among the top. That is an interesting thing because it helps to show how well some goalies played in limited playing time and also shows how well the best goalies who had a significant number of games played performed.


Here are the top 20 goalies by saves percentage since 2005:


Best Saves Percentage Since 2005 (min 25 GP) Rank Player Saves Pctg


1 Cory Schneider .928
2 Tuukka Rask .926
3 Tim Thomas .922
4 Tomas Vokoun .921
5 Pekka Rinne .921
6 Henrik Lundqvist .920
7 Roberto Luongo .919
8 Niklas Backstrom .918
9 Jonas Hiller .918
10 Jaroslav Halak .918
11 Jimmy Howard .917
12 Ryan Miller .916
13 Carey Price .916
14 Jonathan Quick .916
15 Josh Harding .916
16 Ilya Bryzgalov .915
17 Craig Anderson .915
18 Antti Niemi .915
19 Semyon Varlamov 915
20 Miikka Kiprusoff .914


My first observation from this list is that our two leaders have a limited number of games played. Cory Schneider appeared in 68 games and Tuukka Rask in 102. It is unlikely if they played as many games as the third and fourth place finishers Tim Thomas (374 GP) and Tomas Vokoun (401 GP) that they would have maintained as high a saves percentage. Nevertheless they are clearly some of the best young goalies in the game and could become future stars.


Saves percentages have been slowly creeping upward in this era. Thus we tend not to have as many older goalies on this list as younger ones. In fact every goalie on this list is currently active in the NHL This is in part because of the rising saves percentages with time and in part because of selection effects. If a goalie posts a season with a poor saves percentage he is less likely to appear on this list and also less likely to remain active in the NHL.


The wins leader in the era Miikka Kirprusoff ranks 20th by saves percentage. This shows that while he may have been the goalie who played the most games in the era, it is hard to argue that he was the bestgoalie in the era.


Sorting goalies by saves percentage in the most recent era gives us a ranking of modern goalies. Because of rising saves percentages with time we tend to lose the goalies who played in the early part of our seven year period.


http://kuklaskorner...._medium=twitter
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#594 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:12 PM

the prince george cougars exist u know


your money is better spent at a spruce kings game
  • 0

#595 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,557 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:30 PM

If the season starts late, do they even bother with preseason games? or do they just dive right in?
  • 0

#596 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,954 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:37 PM

Posted Image
  • 2
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#597 Karlsson`s Flo

Karlsson`s Flo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 09

Posted 03 September 2012 - 03:08 PM

If the season starts late, do they even bother with preseason games? or do they just dive right in?



Dive in
  • 0

#598 westcoast

westcoast

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 03

Posted 03 September 2012 - 05:08 PM

Last lockout they came out with a strong product that has grown ,but this time they'll just drive fans to the NFL.
  • 0

#599 Sully2Cool

Sully2Cool

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 September 2012 - 09:28 PM

Thought I'd post this in here in case anyone hasn't seen it yet. We the fans need to stand up to this crap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQs3O_IDas&feature=player_embedded



just saw the video really hope there is no Lockout
  • 0
Posted Image

#600 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,986 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 04 September 2012 - 11:40 AM

AHL has spoken with NBC Sports Net and regional sports networks about broadcasting games in event of an NHL lockout
  • 0

307mg00.jpg





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.