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

#631 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 07 September 2012 - 12:43 PM

I'm starting to wonder what Bettman gets paid 8 million dollars a year for if he can't even negotiate new CBA's...
  • 0

#632 VegasCanuck

VegasCanuck

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 06

Posted 07 September 2012 - 01:01 PM

The really unfortunate thing is, when they resolve the issues we'll all come storming back in full force.

If we collectively as fans of the league got together and boycotted even one game, it would send shock waves through both the NHL and the PA that we're not happy about this crap and that ultimately we are the ones who control whether any of them have jobs or businesses.

One game! Start of the season! A game that doesn't really mean anything at the end of the season but would send a clear message.

Could you imagine across the NHL if they only had 2000 - 3000 fans show up for opening night and TV only pulling 20% of normal market share? That would get a response and possibly Bettman fired!
  • 1

#633 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 07 September 2012 - 01:04 PM

I'm starting to wonder what Bettman gets paid 8 million dollars a year for if he can't even negotiate new CBA's...


His job is to get the best deal possible for ppl who hired him, the owners. Not just agree to a deal for the sake of agreeing. He is negotiating a new CBA. It's a process and he's going thru it.
  • 0

#634 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 07 September 2012 - 01:16 PM

His job is to get the best deal possible for ppl who hired him, the owners. Not just agree to a deal for the sake of agreeing. He is negotiating a new CBA. It's a process and he's going thru it.


The key to a successful negotiation is realizing that there are two parties with interests involved in a negotiation.

Bettman has failed 3 times now to realize this, and it has ultimately lead to 3 lockouts in his tenure.

Sure he got great deals for him and the owners, but each time he's hurt the NHL's reputation, cost them millions of dollars in lost revenues, and hurt the relationship between the owners and the players. I would call that failing.
  • 0

#635 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,309 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 07 September 2012 - 01:24 PM

The really unfortunate thing is, when they resolve the issues we'll all come storming back in full force.

If we collectively as fans of the league got together and boycotted even one game, it would send shock waves through both the NHL and the PA that we're not happy about this crap and that ultimately we are the ones who control whether any of them have jobs or businesses.

One game! Start of the season! A game that doesn't really mean anything at the end of the season but would send a clear message.

Could you imagine across the NHL if they only had 2000 - 3000 fans show up for opening night and TV only pulling 20% of normal market share? That would get a response and possibly Bettman fired!

No, I doubt it would do anything as severe as getting him fired. One game is a droop in the bucket and fans aren't capable of staying away en masse for long enough to make a significant impact.

The key to a successful negotiation is realizing that there are two parties with interests involved in a negotiation.

Bettman has failed 3 times now to realize this, and it has ultimately lead to 3 lockouts in his tenure.

Sure he got great deals for him and the owners, but each time he's hurt the NHL's reputation, cost them millions of dollars in lost revenues, and hurt the relationship between the owners and the players. I would call that failing.

There might have been lost revenues for games missed, but the money he's saved the owners with the concessions from the players has probably outweighed the losses. So long as the owners continue to make money overall Bettman will likely have a job.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#636 RWMc1

RWMc1

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,172 posts
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Posted 07 September 2012 - 01:29 PM

coastal1, on 06 September 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

"This is the honest answer for 99% of the fans and that is what it is, period. The owners know it, the NHLPA know it. What are you going to do, start folowing curling or european soccer? Won't happen. Nothing wrong with being mad but that doesn't change one's interest in the game."
No-one has to give up NHL hockey. People will watch. People will go to the games. What fans can do is, don't buy NHL merchandise, don't eat or drink at the game. If enough fans vow to do this and let the NHL know, it may actually make a difference and expedite the negotiations. We have to let the owners how we feel and how strongly we feel about this issue. Some-one should start a facebook page letting owners know fan intentions. If the owners lock out the players, I will never buy NHL merchandise again!!!!!! The potential loss of revenue is the only thing greedy people understand.
  • 0

Vancouver Canucks Stanley Cup Champions 2014/15 So let it be written, So let it be done!

 

My Cup Runneth. Go get it and bring it here!

 

Cupquester "Who are those horrible little men?"
 


#637 vavoom

vavoom

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 11

Posted 07 September 2012 - 01:44 PM

Its funny that anybody here thinks that Bettman cares about you.

Ironically, the more you care, the less he should care.
  • 0

#638 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 07 September 2012 - 01:55 PM

The key to a successful negotiation is realizing that there are two parties with interests involved in a negotiation.

Bettman has failed 3 times now to realize this, and it has ultimately lead to 3 lockouts in his tenure.

Sure he got great deals for him and the owners, but each time he's hurt the NHL's reputation, cost them millions of dollars in lost revenues, and hurt the relationship between the owners and the players. I would call that failing.


I think players got a great deal last time too. They just made over $1.5 billion last year. Many owners are still losing money, its Bettman's job to negotiate on behalf of all owners, not just the one's who's teams are profitable.
  • 0

#639 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 07 September 2012 - 02:48 PM

I think players got a great deal last time too. They just made over $1.5 billion last year. Many owners are still losing money, its Bettman's job to negotiate on behalf of all owners, not just the one's who's teams are profitable.


Many owners are losing money because they are in bad markets, and the rest of the owners have to bail them out.

If I'm the owners I'm questioning why Bettman put teams in Phoenix, Atlanta (second time), Florida, Nashville, and Columbus. They could be making a ton more money if they hadn't put teams in such horrible markets. And instead of correcting these mistakes by folding teams like Phoenix, they continue to let them sputter along and leech money from the more profitable teams.

He made the same classic mistake that the NBA made, which was expanding too quickly to try and make money, without thinking of the long term stability of the league. And now it's up to the players to pay for these floundering teams? That's BS.

This is all on Bettman and the owners for approving these ridiculous franchises. If they want their money, first step is to fold teams like Phoenix, Nashville, Florida, and Columbus. Sell new franchises to area like Seattle, San Fransisco, hell even Quebec City. You fold these teams, and sell them to new owners in better markets, that's a billion dollars in revenue for the NHL right there.

Right now all these teams are doing is leeching off the rest of the NHL. The solution is not to simply cut expenses, that's not addressing the real problem.
  • 0

#640 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 07 September 2012 - 03:06 PM

Many owners are losing money because they are in bad markets, and the rest of the owners have to bail them out.

If I'm the owners I'm questioning why Bettman put teams in Phoenix, Atlanta (second time), Florida, Nashville, and Columbus. They could be making a ton more money if they hadn't put teams in such horrible markets. And instead of correcting these mistakes by folding teams like Phoenix, they continue to let them sputter along and leech money from the more profitable teams.

He made the same classic mistake that the NBA made, which was expanding too quickly to try and make money, without thinking of the long term stability of the league. And now it's up to the players to pay for these floundering teams? That's BS.

This is all on Bettman and the owners for approving these ridiculous franchises. If they want their money, first step is to fold teams like Phoenix, Nashville, Florida, and Columbus. Sell new franchises to area like Seattle, San Fransisco, hell even Quebec City. You fold these teams, and sell them to new owners in better markets, that's a billion dollars in revenue for the NHL right there.

Right now all these teams are doing is leeching off the rest of the NHL. The solution is not to simply cut expenses, that's not addressing the real problem.


When looking for places to expand the NHL to, there are a few places that make most people stand back and say "What were they thinking...Florida, Phoenix?" When the NHL or any viable business is looking to expand, you do your demographic analysis, average age, working class, average income, population, etc. Surely if a market like Vancouver (population of 600,000) can sell out every night, a team like Phoenix (population 1,500,000) can do well as well? After your due diligence, these high populated cities should be able to support these teams, but they're not. In Arizona there's more than ten times the number of children under 12 playing hockey now than there was prior to the Coyotes setting up in Phoenix. Which indicates it can work. But it does take a great deal of time.

People often say "Move teams like Phoenix to a Canadian market, like Quebec"; common sense dictates that of course the new franchise will be tremendously more profitable then its current Market. But lets analyse the decision from a business standpoint.

Fans=Dollars
Will the net fans increase?
When you look at Quebec, what percentage of their population is already supporting NHL teams like Toronto and Ottawa? You don't want to simply absorb these fans, thus taking away from Toronto's and Ottawa's profits; you want to acquire new fans that didn't support any NHL team in the first place. These new fans you gain must exceed the fans Phoenix will loose due to the move.
This is the issue with relocating to a saturated market like most of Canadian cities, we are Hockeys greatest nation, were already loyal fans of current teams... giving them a local team will simply reallocate profits, not increase the fan base enough to compensate for the relocation costs.

In addition, past relocations are almost always due to arena issues. So do these prospect citys (Seattle, Quebec etc.) now have arenas to support an NHL team? Nope they would have to be built/renovated first.

Edited by Neufy161, 07 September 2012 - 03:09 PM.

  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#641 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 07 September 2012 - 03:26 PM

When looking for places to expand the NHL to, there are a few places that make most people stand back and say "What were they thinking...Florida, Phoenix?" When the NHL or any viable business is looking to expand, you do your demographic analysis, average age, working class, average income, population, etc. Surely if a market like Vancouver (population of 600,000) can sell out every night, a team like Phoenix (population 1,500,000) can do well as well? After your due diligence, these high populated cities should be able to support these teams, but they're not. In Arizona there's more than ten times the number of children under 12 playing hockey now than there was prior to the Coyotes setting up in Phoenix. Which indicates it can work. But it does take a great deal of time.

People often say "Move teams like Phoenix to a Canadian market, like Quebec"; common sense dictates that of course the new franchise will be tremendously more profitable then its current Market. But lets analyse the decision from a business standpoint.

Fans=Dollars
Will the net fans increase?
When you look at Quebec, what percentage of their population is already supporting NHL teams like Toronto and Ottawa? You don't want to simply absorb these fans, thus taking away from Toronto's and Ottawa's profits; you want to acquire new fans that didn't support any NHL team in the first place. These new fans you gain must exceed the fans Phoenix will loose due to the move.
This is the issue with relocating to a saturated market like most of Canadian cities, we are Hockeys greatest nation, were already loyal fans of current teams... giving them a local team will simply reallocate profits, not increase the fan base enough to compensate for the relocation costs.

In addition, past relocations are almost always due to arena issues. So do these prospect citys (Seattle, Quebec etc.) now have arenas to support an NHL team? Nope they would have to be built/renovated first.


Unfortunately, kids playing hockey doesn't equal $$'s for the NHL. And even if they have 10 times the amount of players enrolling in hockey, what's that like a couple hundred kids now? It's not enough reason to keep a team in a poor market.

Even a market like Dallas, who has seen the same grass roots expansion of the game, and has even won a Stanley Cup is struggling to make a profit. There's just not enough interest in these areas, when football, baseball, and even basketball take up so much of the sports market.

There's no reason why a team wouldn't work in Seattle. You've got the population in the Northwest, you've got the interest, you've got huge corporate sponsorship possibilities, and there's already a proposed arena deal for an NBA and NHL team. The NHL is crazy if they don't get on that right away.

And there's no reason why California can't have a 4th team, if the New York area can support 4 teams. A place like San Fransisco or Oakland would have the population and money to support another team.

I don't know about Quebec City, I'm not sure I'm sold on them. I do know that they would do better than Phoenix though. It's not like Phoenix has set the bar very high, losing 20 million dollars a year.
  • 0

#642 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 07 September 2012 - 03:40 PM

Unfortunately, kids playing hockey doesn't equal $$'s for the NHL. And even if they have 10 times the amount of players enrolling in hockey, what's that like a couple hundred kids now? It's not enough reason to keep a team in a poor market.

Even a market like Dallas, who has seen the same grass roots expansion of the game, and has even won a Stanley Cup is struggling to make a profit. There's just not enough interest in these areas, when football, baseball, and even basketball take up so much of the sports market.

There's no reason why a team wouldn't work in Seattle. You've got the population in the Northwest, you've got the interest, you've got huge corporate sponsorship possibilities, and there's already a proposed arena deal for an NBA and NHL team. The NHL is crazy if they don't get on that right away.

And there's no reason why California can't have a 4th team, if the New York area can support 4 teams. A place like San Fransisco or Oakland would have the population and money to support another team.

I don't know about Quebec City, I'm not sure I'm sold on them. I do know that they would do better than Phoenix though. It's not like Phoenix has set the bar very high, losing 20 million dollars a year.


I'm not positioning myself on any decision. The increase in kids enrolled in hockey suggests the game is becoming more and more popular; you're right, that doesn't translate into dollars now but I'm sure it will in the very distant future.
  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#643 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,532 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 07 September 2012 - 04:51 PM

And there's no reason why California can't have a 4th team, if the New York area can support 4 teams. A place like San Fransisco or Oakland would have the population and money to support another team.

I don't know about Quebec City, I'm not sure I'm sold on them. I do know that they would do better than Phoenix though. It's not like Phoenix has set the bar very high, losing 20 million dollars a year.


Oakland is basically the USA's biggest ghetto they just lost the Golden State warriors and will likely lose both the A's and the Raiders within 10 years, and Oakland and SF are only about 40 miles from San Jose. And New York isn't doing a very good job with 4 teams, the Isles and Devils are both in financial dire straits, and Buffalo has to depend on a foreign country and the NHL's fight to keep another team out of Southern Ontario for survival.
  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#644 Canucks_fo_life

Canucks_fo_life

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,584 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 06

Posted 07 September 2012 - 06:43 PM

They met for 4 hours today, hopefully somethin's a brewin
  • 0
I rather lose with the Canucks, than win with any other team

This is OUR year

GO CANUCKS GOOOOOO!!!!!!!

#645 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 71,001 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 07 September 2012 - 08:06 PM

Ribeiro: Union won’t make the same mistake again:

The NHLPA and NHL are talking again, but the threat of a lockout remains.


No one wants a lockout, but Washington’s Mike Ribeiro also doesn’t want to see the union cave to the owners’ demands.


“It’s hard to understand why they want another 20 percent back and keep the same contracts,” Ribeiro said, according to CSNWashington. “It’s hard to understand why, but I think this time we won’t make the same mistake we did a few years ago by giving them 24 percent. …Why would you give your boss back money he gave you?”


It’s the player’s belief that the NHL’s latest proposal will effectively result in a 19.3% salary rollback. However, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly disagrees.


“What I will tell you is that our proposal last Tuesday would have reduced the players share by 11 percent in Year One, … 8.5 percent in Year 2 and … 5.5 percent in Year 3,” Daly said. “In Years 4-6, it would have been at or above as we continue to grow revenues to prior levels. So I don’t know where they’re getting 20 percent.”


Ribeiro also doesn’t believe that the league’s proposal will help close the gap between the NHL’s financial juggernauts and struggling clubs. In Ribeiro’s eyes, “They want us to fix the mistakes they made.”


http://prohockeytalk...-mistake-again/
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#646 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,900 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 07 September 2012 - 08:38 PM

They met for 4 hours today, hopefully somethin's a brewin


Kind of funny given that only a day ago Fehr offered to meet and the NHL said there was nothing to talk about. My feeling always was that Bettman had far less leverage than he was implying with his "Lockout or Bust" actions. Sure enough, one day later there's a 4 hour meeting.
  • 0

#647 VancouverCanucksRock

VancouverCanucksRock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,412 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 09

Posted 07 September 2012 - 08:52 PM

Do we need to go to WW3 so we can draft these *#&%$ into a hellish endeavour? All of these losers involved sure do take a whole lot for granted!!!!

Edited by VancouverCanucksRock, 07 September 2012 - 08:52 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image WHen idiots think numbers are words, I do believe in 2012 for cleansing Earth of the idiots

#648 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 07 September 2012 - 08:55 PM

Kind of funny given that only a day ago Fehr offered to meet and the NHL said there was nothing to talk about. My feeling always was that Bettman had far less leverage than he was implying with his "Lockout or Bust" actions. Sure enough, one day later there's a 4 hour meeting.


Are you seriously reading your own psychological interpretation into this?

If Bettman closes down talks, he's unwilling to compromise.

If he agrees right away to talk, he's being "weak".

But you've got your side picked out, and you're gonna interpret everything through that lens. You can talk all day and still not want to make a deal, but it sure looks good for public consumption.

I don't take sides in this deal. Multimillionaires against richer millionaires and a few billionaires doesn't get me all stoked to care about any of the supposedly "downtrodden".

Interpreting any meaning behind being "willing to "talk", and either side's use of the media as a proxy negotiator, is a game for fools.
  • 0

#649 HockeyNut30

HockeyNut30

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,604 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 03

Posted 07 September 2012 - 10:27 PM

A guy on my hockey team said the NHL & NBC have a $2 billion TV broadcast deal involving American Thanksgiving (I assume over multiple years). Anyone heard about this or can shine light on it?
  • 0

Posted Image


#650 Garrison

Garrison

    Comets Star

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

Posted 07 September 2012 - 10:44 PM

Does anyone know how the draft next year would work? I remember Pittsburgh won the Crosby lottery. This is a very talented draft year. If we could get high it would be a major plus for our organization. I'm not saying Nathan Mckinnon high (We know the NHL would never let us get him) but it the top 10. Maybe we can get two first round picks and draft B.C. native Curtis Lazar later in the first round.
  • 0

#651 Maniwaki Canuck

Maniwaki Canuck

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 10

Posted 08 September 2012 - 04:55 AM

The reason we are going to have a lock-out is because the players (led by our own beloved Trevor Linden) caved last time. So Betman and the owners think they won by playing hardball, even though they now can't possibly live with the agreement they rammed down the players' throats at the time. There have already been 3 lock-outs on Betman's watch, and we are about to get a 4th: he's addicted to them, and until this blackmail tactic fails, he'll keep using it. The only thing that will stop this pattern from continuing is if the players stand up and don't back down. Since the players are millionaires, they ought to be able to hang in longer than your average working stiff. There are divisions among the owners, and they will surface eventually when the viable teams that would be making money get sick of the situation and break ranks with the teams that are losing money and hope to solve their problems on the players' backs. Betman is clearly aware of this potential fault-line, which is why he is now calling revenue-sharing a "distraction". But it's the only way (short of contraction) to fix the hare-brained expansion he did at the beginning of his two decades in office.
  • 0

#652 El_Capitan

El_Capitan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,609 posts
  • Joined: 24-December 03

Posted 08 September 2012 - 08:30 AM

I'm confused by this massive pro-NHLPA boner that everyone has, really I do.

The NHL is a business, no matter which way you look at it. Let's pretend that they're Subway franchises. If I owned a franchise, I hereby own the liability on the franchise, so if anyone is to ever go on the chopping block, it's me. Financial losses or lawsuits won't affect the players bank accounts so why should I even consider splitting revenues if they don't have any liability?

Why in the hell would I ever consider splitting revenues 50/50 with my employees. I pay them a salary (wage) and give them a benefit (pension, dental/health) package that is more than reasonable. Players are employees. Yes, they are talented and driven, but they are still employees.
  • 0

Posted Image


#653 zduck14

zduck14

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 695 posts
  • Joined: 03-March 04

Posted 08 September 2012 - 09:32 AM

I'm confused by this massive pro-NHLPA boner that everyone has, really I do.

The NHL is a business, no matter which way you look at it. Let's pretend that they're Subway franchises. If I owned a franchise, I hereby own the liability on the franchise, so if anyone is to ever go on the chopping block, it's me. Financial losses or lawsuits won't affect the players bank accounts so why should I even consider splitting revenues if they don't have any liability?

Why in the hell would I ever consider splitting revenues 50/50 with my employees. I pay them a salary (wage) and give them a benefit (pension, dental/health) package that is more than reasonable. Players are employees. Yes, they are talented and driven, but they are still employees.


As right as you are, imagine Crosby and Malkin both packed up and left for the KHL. Suddenly Pittsburgh is a bottom feeding team that starts losing money and the owner is screwed. Without these star players ("employees"), revenue isn`t nearly as high because it`s the players like Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos and the Sedin`s that fans pay money to watch.

That said, the NHL isn`t anything like a "Subway franchise".
  • 0

#654 El_Capitan

El_Capitan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,609 posts
  • Joined: 24-December 03

Posted 08 September 2012 - 09:38 AM

As right as you are, imagine Crosby and Malkin both packed up and left for the KHL. Suddenly Pittsburgh is a bottom feeding team that starts losing money and the owner is screwed. Without these star players ("employees"), revenue isn`t nearly as high because it`s the players like Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos and the Sedin`s that fans pay money to watch.

That said, the NHL isn`t anything like a "Subway franchise".


I take back the name Subway, just should have said X Franchise or something similar.

In regards to the stars driving revenue, I can't really argue with that.

But we all know the NHL is the greatest hockey league in the world, it goes beyond the skill of the players, but the way they are carted around North America like the celebrities they are. Think about the KHL, especially with the tragedy that occurred just one year ago.
  • 0

Posted Image


#655 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,532 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:08 AM

I'm confused by this massive pro-NHLPA boner that everyone has, really I do.

The NHL is a business, no matter which way you look at it. Let's pretend that they're Subway franchises. If I owned a franchise, I hereby own the liability on the franchise, so if anyone is to ever go on the chopping block, it's me. Financial losses or lawsuits won't affect the players bank accounts so why should I even consider splitting revenues if they don't have any liability?

Why in the hell would I ever consider splitting revenues 50/50 with my employees. I pay them a salary (wage) and give them a benefit (pension, dental/health) package that is more than reasonable. Players are employees. Yes, they are talented and driven, but they are still employees.


So if you owned the company, and one franchise was losing money hand over fist, you don't think your employees have a right to be pissed if you want to chop their wages to prop up your money losing franchise that you refuse to fold or move to a better location, even going so far as to buy it back to prevent a sale to someone who wanted to relocate it to a more profitable location? Especially when you have spent 7 years crowing about how much money you have been making? Do you think you will get any sympathy if you are dumb enough to pay your employees ridiculous salaries then claim you are losing money while at the same time continuing to offer ridiculous salaries? Or when you publicly make contract demands, then turn around and do exactly what you say you don't want?

Edited by Norman Clegg, 08 September 2012 - 03:59 PM.

  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#656 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,532 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:10 AM

As right as you are, imagine Crosby and Malkin both packed up and left for the KHL. Suddenly Pittsburgh is a bottom feeding team that starts losing money and the owner is screwed. Without these star players ("employees"), revenue isn`t nearly as high because it`s the players like Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos and the Sedin`s that fans pay money to watch.

That said, the NHL isn`t anything like a "Subway franchise".

No subway has much more competent management.
  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#657 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 71,001 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 08 September 2012 - 01:38 PM

If the lockout goes past December, Daniel Alfredsson said he’d consider playing in Europe.

https://twitter.com/...403140923891712
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#658 Mike Vanderhoek

Mike Vanderhoek

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,090 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 09

Posted 08 September 2012 - 02:26 PM

I don't see this as an issue where one side or figure mainly Bettman can be blamed. Both sides still cannot agree what revenues are to be split before even getting down to the splitting of the pie.

Both sides are at fault here and this will continue to happen time and again until they start speaking the same language.

In my opinion, the players should really just take it and play, do their job. They are by no means getting shafted here, its mainly both sides not trusting eachother and hence not conceding to the other.

Then again when it comes to healthcare,teachers,Ferries,etc,etc I am of the opinion people should be a little more appreciative of what they have in terms of employment/compensation.

But we're all greedy I suppose aren't we ? or is it called being fair ? lol
  • 0
Posted Image

#659 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 08 September 2012 - 02:44 PM

For the love of Teemu Selanne. The last lockout saved his career, this lockout is going to kill it.
  • 0

#660 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,414 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:03 PM

Cheer up fans....

Give a whistle!


  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image




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.