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

#811 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:05 PM

supposedly there is a deal in place with nbc to show ahl games in place of the nhl games if there is a lockout i think more station should be doing this tsn could be making money by showing the ahl games even chl games people will watch hockey


That's good for us cause the Wolves are a big market team.

Should be lots of Wolves matchups.
  • 1

#812 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:22 PM

I watched the Sfu team play last year and it was surprisingly good, fast, skilled and an entertaining game granted I believe they are one of the top teams in their league...I highly recommend it and I believe tix are $10 and in some occasions can get them for free. I've gone for free twice. My nephew's team was receiving some coaching from the Sfu coach and he had offered free tix to the team, and I believe if the kids wear their hockey jerseys to the game they get in for free. They should offer the same incentive to Canucks fans. If they wear their Canucks jerseys they get 10% off on concession food. Inject some team spirit in the arena and get people to buy and wear jerseys.

Edited by Mauii, 15 September 2012 - 11:48 PM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#813 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:29 PM

Honestly I don't see how anyone can really support the players here.

They've got nothing but huge raises in the last 7 years. Contracts have only grown in value and that's NOT because of the owners, it's because of how market value has risen along with the cap to match revenue growth. The owners really have no choice but to pay that player's "market value" or risk losing him.

The present CBA is flawed in the sense that it doesn't really take into account the rising costs of operating a franchise or economic impact when calculating player salaries. The increase in NHL revenue helps owners with the rising operating costs but that only gets them to offset it, while the players simply gain higher salaries with no rising costs whatsoever. The players are getting free raises (in a fragile economy), while all the expenses are on the owners.

The NHL clearly lowballed with their 43% with the aim of reaching 50/50. The players flat-out refusing to take any kind of paycut and do a "gradual" equalization is ridiculous. They continue to fall-back to the argument of how NHL revenue has grown by more than 50%, so why do they have to make less, but completely ignore the fact that said revenue is going towards increased operating costs. Only the players are benefiting from the current revenue model. 50/50 is not at all unreasonable.

Think of it this way. The owners represent the people way more than the players do. Think of the THOUSANDS of average joe people working in the various hockey operation departments both at the NHL offices and the arenas; they have to get paid by the owner as well, and they aren't making millions like the greedy players. If the owners were to get a little bit more of a share, that money can get funneled down into the entire organization and maybe that "nobody" marketing assistant or IT tech or accountant can make a little better of a living.

I have to disagree on what you deem"fair market value" The owners dictate what they will pay players. If owners are concerned about rising player saleries all they have to do..is band together, and decide salery ceilings and length of contracts. To commit to $96 million contracts is a recipe for financial disaster. They set the paramters by doing this and saleries soar !!
  • 0

#814 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:54 PM

I have to disagree on what you deem"fair market value" The owners dictate what they will pay players. If owners are concerned about rising player saleries all they have to do..is band together, and decide salery ceilings and length of contracts. To commit to $96 million contracts is a recipe for financial disaster. They set the paramters by doing this and saleries soar !!

That's what they're trying to do with the new CBA, I believe.
  • 0

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

MirandaKerr.jpg
2 0 1 5 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#815 Garrison

Garrison

    Comets Star

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

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:10 PM

I really hope the season starts before January.
  • 0

#816 drdeath

drdeath

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 03

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:11 PM

Short season will be good for the Canucks. I'm just slightly worried Bettman might foul this up and lose another season. I mean sure if that's what it takes for him to finally get the axe alright, but this uncertainty is killing me.
  • 0

aXmDa9t.gif


#817 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:21 AM

.

Latest tweet from BizNasty2point0 kind of ticked me off...

"Fans. The players understand your frustration. But at the end of the day we are fighting for our futures, not yours. That's the reality."



The power of Fehr. A few weeks ago BizNasty was on TSN radio or the fan and said a roll back would not effect him because he only makes $625 000, it's not that much of a difference, where the guys making 6M are going to feel it more.

So Paul, who has been actually signing your pay checks for the last few years? Not your NHLPA brothers!! Maybe if he understood that there are cities that have fans and support their hockey team. In these cities some of these fans have to spend a week or more salary to go and watch a game. Higher salaries mean higher ticket prices for fans, and fans Paul are people that sit in those empty set in your arena.
  • 0

#818 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,324 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 15 September 2012 - 07:55 AM

I have to disagree on what you deem"fair market value" The owners dictate what they will pay players. If owners are concerned about rising player saleries all they have to do..is band together, and decide salery ceilings and length of contracts. To commit to $96 million contracts is a recipe for financial disaster. They set the paramters by doing this and saleries soar !!

I think your suggestion is easier to make than the reality faced by owners. The CBA sets the maximum they can pay at $70M which some can afford and others cannot. In the case of Suter and Parise as UFA there was a bidding war. If you are an owner and think these two players (as did Minnie) can boost your teams playoff hopes and revenue from all other streams then you might take that gamble. Bottom line tho is it is a gamble. I don't know what the economics of that franchise are but their history over the past 5 years has not been very successful in the W/L column and they might have felt they had no choice. On the whole I do not think these ownership groups are foolish business people.Doesn't make sense.

The Sabre goaltender, Miller, suggested that he thought the player group was better informed than the owners who he suggested were 'spoon fed' info by Gary Bettman. I was absolutely floored that anyone would assume that business people heading teams in a multi-billion $ enterprise would not know what their businesses were about. The NHLPA seesm to have a strategy of trying to drive a wedge between the owners and Bettman. It was Bettman who stated at the presser that his group had supported the lockout 100%. To date the union has not had a vote and that came from Fehr.

Little discussion has taken place as to how well the players faired under this last CBA. When signed the NHL revenue was $1.8 billion so players take at 57% was about $1 B. At the conclusion of the contract revenue was $3.3B and the players take was $1.88B or a + 85% increase over 7 years. The NHL offer is proposing a $300M reduction of the $1.88B or 16%. Someone stated that the NHL revenue numbers could not be trusted and yet the NKLPA has never suggested that. They have a process in place to verify numbers which both sides approve of. THe NHLPA suggestion that revenues would grow at 7% thru the new contract is a red herring as well. No one can tell that especially in the USA today. I suspect most businesses would be estatic to have that kind of growth in today's economy.

If the NHL statement that only 7 - 8 teams make money with 15 breaking even and thusly 7 or 8 losing money then I do not see this lockout ending without the NHL recovering revenue from payroll costs. Again, players suggesting that the owners are in this mess because of Bettman is really naive. Bettman is the CEO but I consider him more a Chairman of the Board with enhanced operating authority. If the 2004 CBA did not fix the problem from the NHL perspective that was a joint agreement by all owners not just Gary Bettman. Why would players make the assumption that the 2004 agreement was written in stone? Business conditions change as issues are clarified and costs and revenue mature. I am sure that Don Fehr realizes all these conditions. IMHO he is trying minimize the expected damage in player salaries. I expect a comprimise at a 50/50 split in revenue.
  • 0

#819 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,336 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:41 AM

NHL says no bargaining with union will occur Saturday:

NEW YORK -- The NHL says there will be no bargaining with the union Saturday.


And with only hours until a threatened NHL lockout, it appears likely a new deal won't be struck.


For nearly a year, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has vowed to lock out players for the second time in eight years if a new collective bargaining agreement isn't reached by the time the current one expires at midnight EDT Saturday.


Bettman has repeatedly said that the NHL won't operate under the CBA that ended the previous lockout in July 2005. Under that scenario, it would appear unlikely that training camps will open next week as scheduled. The regular season, to begin Oct. 11, also would be in peril.


Once the lockout was imposed in September 2004, the sides didn't get back together again until December.


Players absorbed a salary-cap system and took an immediate 24 percent rollback of existing contracts in 2005 in exchange for 57 percent of hockey-related revenues. The NHL now says that figure is too high, and is willing to have another league shutdown to reduce that share to 49 percent to 47 percent.


Its original offer was to cut it to 43 percent, and an updated proposal raised it to 46 before another new offer pushed it a little higher Wednesday, the last time the sides met at the negotiating table.


The most recent proposal from the league -- with a six-year term -- came in direct response to one put forth by the union earlier Wednesday that was rejected as being similar to the players' two previous offers.


Instead of making a percentage-based offer, the union is seeking a deal that would guarantee players annually at least the $1.8 billion in salaries paid out last season


Bettman said the league's latest offer would be pulled off the table once the current CBA expired because immediate damage caused by a lockout would force the NHL to reassess what it could then offer.


In the previous lockout, both sides dug in over the salary cap. Owners wouldn't make a deal without it, and players sacrificed a full season before finally agreeing to a cost-certainty system for teams.


Without such a philosophical difference this time, the sides merely have to figure out a way to divide hockey revenues that grew from $2.1 billion to $3.3 billion under the expiring deal.


It remains unclear whether the sides will settle in time for the NHL to hold its marquee New Year's Day outdoor Winter Classic at 115,000-seat Michigan Stadium between the host Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs.


The All-Star Game is Jan. 27 and is to be hosted by the Columbus Blue Jackets, one of the league's struggling small-market teams.


On Friday, the Quebec labor relations board rejected a request from the players' association for a temporary injunction against a potential lockout in Quebec. But the board also ruled that more hearings are needed to make a final decision on a request by 16 members of the Montreal Canadiens and the players' association to declare a lockout illegal in the province. No date was set for further hearings.


With the ruling, Canadiens players will be locked out with their colleagues if a work stoppage goes ahead on schedule.


Daly said in a statement the league was "extremely appreciative" of the decision.


"We are hopeful that this ruling will cause the players' association to cease pursuing these needless distractions and instead focus all of its efforts and energies on making progress at the bargaining table," he said.


Likewise, the union was "pleased" with the ruling because it rejected the NHL's request to dismiss the case.


"The ruling acknowledges that the players have raised issues about the legality of the NHL's planned lockout that require a full hearing on the merits," players' association general counsel Don Zavelo said in a statement.


"We remain confident that the lockout is prohibited by the Quebec labor code and look forward to presenting our case to the commission in the near future. Should the NHL carry out its threat to lock out the players in Quebec, it will do so at its own risk."


A similar request was filed late Thursday with the Alberta labor relations board. NHLPA director of operations Alexandra Dagg said the aim was to prevent players from the Canadiens, Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames from being locked out.


The NHLPA argued that because it isn't certified as a union with the province, its members can't locked out under Quebec labor law. In Alberta, the union will argue that proper procedure wasn't followed, including using a mediator.


Following lockouts last year by basketball and football owners, Bettman says hockey management is determined to come away with economic gains, even if it forces another work stoppage.


Damage from another lockout will occur almost immediately, and there is no telling how jilted fans and sponsors will react to another shutdown, especially if it lasts through the fall and into the winter.


Players are concerned management hasn't addressed the league's financial problems by re-examining the teams' revenue-sharing formula. Having made several big concessions to reach a deal in 2005, the union doesn't think it should have to make more this time after record financial growth.


The current contract was agreed to in 2005, and Bob Goodenow resigned as union head two weeks later. After stints by Ted Saskin and Paul Kelly, the union in 2010 turned to Fehr, who led baseball players through three work stoppages in the 1980s and '90s.


Players struck in April 1992, causing 30 games to be postponed. This would be the third lockout under Bettman. The 1994-95 lockout ended after 103 days and the cancellation of 468 games.


The most recent lockout was finally settled in July 2005 -- 301 days into the work stoppage and a month after the league would usually have awarded the Stanley Cup. It marked the first time a North American professional sports league lost an entire season because of a labor dispute, and the first time the Stanley Cup wasn't handed out since 1919, when a flu epidemic caused no champion to be crowned.


http://espn.go.com/n...-occur-saturday
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#820 LeanBeef

LeanBeef

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,496 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 12:42 PM

I really hope this ends like the NBA lockout
  • 0
Sig too big.
"Being a Canuck fan, maybe sometime down the road be a Vancouver Canuck.... that would conquer all my dreams"
-Milan Lucic

#821 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,336 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 15 September 2012 - 12:50 PM

According to Yahoo Sports' Harrison Mooney, a particularly small group of NHL fans chose to protest outside the league headquarters on Saturday:

Devils and Rangers fans working together? This is serious.


With no meetings scheduled mere hours from the deadline, the NHL work stoppage is all but a certainty at this point. But that didn't prevents the folks behind No Hockey Lockout from protesting outside the NHL store in New York on Saturday.


It wasn't much. Only about 20 hockey fans showed up, according to Helene Elliott, disappointing organizers hoping for a larger presence.


Even more disheartening, efforts to organize similar protests in Montreal, Boston, and Tampa Bay didn't appear to amount to anything. "Not a [expletive] soul in Montreal", tweeted transplanted 18-year-old Rangers' fan Oliver Quintal, who was aiming to lead the protest at the Bell Centre.


Most disheartening of all, everybody on the Avenue of the Americas knew full well that it would do nothing to prevent the inevitable. Even so, the small group made their voices heard from noon to 3pm, just as they had planned.


Sure, it didn't change much, but it was a yet another reminder that NHL fans care deeply and, unlike the owners and the players -- who haven't met since Wednesday -- they are unwilling to go quietly into the lockout.


Protests like these have caught plenty of flak for being ineffective, even from yours truly, but as Quintal told the New York Hockey Journal on Friday, this protest wasn't about solving everything. It was simply about being heard:


"I fully understand the cynicism of the public and journalists," Quintal said. "I know that the protest will not change the world, but I feel it's necessary for me to express my anger and my sadness when I see owners and players… keeping us from having a season of watching our national sport. I would not feel right to let this happen without knowing that I did my small part."


http://sports.yahoo....04883--nhl.html

Edited by -Vintage Canuck-, 15 September 2012 - 12:51 PM.

  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#822 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 666 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 15 September 2012 - 01:40 PM

The power of Fehr. A few weeks ago BizNasty was on TSN radio or the fan and said a roll back would not effect him because he only makes $625 000, it's not that much of a difference, where the guys making 6M are going to feel it more.

So Paul, who has been actually signing your pay checks for the last few years? Not your NHLPA brothers!! Maybe if he understood that there are cities that have fans and support their hockey team. In these cities some of these fans have to spend a week or more salary to go and watch a game. Higher salaries mean higher ticket prices for fans, and fans Paul are people that sit in those empty set in your arena.


That's not true. Ticket prices are driven by supply and demand. The reason that Canucks tickets are so expensive is because so many people want to buy them. There is literally zero relationship between salaries and ticket prices.
  • 0

#823 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 666 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 15 September 2012 - 01:51 PM

Honestly I don't see how anyone can really support the players here.

They've got nothing but huge raises in the last 7 years. Contracts have only grown in value and that's NOT because of the owners, it's because of how market value has risen along with the cap to match revenue growth. The owners really have no choice but to pay that player's "market value" or risk losing him.

The present CBA is flawed in the sense that it doesn't really take into account the rising costs of operating a franchise or economic impact when calculating player salaries. The increase in NHL revenue helps owners with the rising operating costs but that only gets them to offset it, while the players simply gain higher salaries with no rising costs whatsoever. The players are getting free raises (in a fragile economy), while all the expenses are on the owners.

The NHL clearly lowballed with their 43% with the aim of reaching 50/50. The players flat-out refusing to take any kind of paycut and do a "gradual" equalization is ridiculous. They continue to fall-back to the argument of how NHL revenue has grown by more than 50%, so why do they have to make less, but completely ignore the fact that said revenue is going towards increased operating costs. Only the players are benefiting from the current revenue model. 50/50 is not at all unreasonable.

Think of it this way. The owners represent the people way more than the players do. Think of the THOUSANDS of average joe people working in the various hockey operation departments both at the NHL offices and the arenas; they have to get paid by the owner as well, and they aren't making millions like the greedy players. If the owners were to get a little bit more of a share, that money can get funneled down into the entire organization and maybe that "nobody" marketing assistant or IT tech or accountant can make a little better of a living.


It's easy. The players take all the risks. They're the ones who risk a career ending and life-altering injury every time they lace up their skates. They're the ones who have devoted their whole lives to being an NHL player, foregoing any other career opportunities. And they're the ones who were willing to play this year under the same CBA that has seen revenues just skyrocket in the last 7 years.

Meanwhile, the owners take no risks. Sure, some bad owners in terrible markets might run an operating loss every year. But they will more than make that up when they sell the franchise. Owning a sports team in North America is an incredibly good investment. Not only that, but they are so greedy that they weren't willing to accept a 50% increase in revenue over 7 years.

The really frustrating part about the owners, though, is that they're not trying to make more money by growing the game. They're so shortsighted and idiotic that the only way they can imagine making more money is to take it from the players. Donald Fehr is no dummy. He helped MLB install the best labour regime in North American sports. Every team in MLB, big markets and small markets, make money hand over fist. Fehr gave the owners a chance to have that same system, and they turned it down for no good reason other than pride. They don't eve know their own business better than the players.

So yes, I support the players. I support the group that takes all the risks, that was more than willing to play this year, and has proposed the system that would grow the sport and make it healthier in the long run. I do NOT support the group that takes no risks, is blinded by greed and spite, and is on the verge of cancelling games for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
  • 1

#824 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,910 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 02:09 PM

Well... if we're headed for another lockout within a decade of the last one I hope to see more legal challenges for the cup.
Reading up on the history it is possible that Lord Stanley's original "gift" may not even be valid and that technically the cup is still owned either by his heirs or by the current Governor General. If the original donation is valid, then the Trustees may actually be bound by the agreement to award the cup year to year (i.e Lord Stanley never meant for them to have any say in the matter whether it was awarded, regardless of what leagues challenge for it). In any case it is certainly not owned by the NHL and any modern agreements (such as the 1947 agreement essentially giving the NHL power over the cup) are not likely valid.

This is a long, but interesting, opinion by a property law professor who clearly was interested in the case:
http://www.jeremydeb... Study Scan.pdf
  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#825 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 02:15 PM

That's not true. Ticket prices are driven by supply and demand. The reason that Canucks tickets are so expensive is because so many people want to buy them. There is literally zero relationship between salaries and ticket prices.

Hence, marginalizing alot of the teams...despite little revenue coming and low ticket prices, the player's high salaries still gets paid and will put alot of companies in the red. Until this gets under control and be more manageable, the team will continue to bleed money and if not go bankrupt. A company simply cannot stay in business under these conditions. That's why the NHLP proposal seems odd. NHL says we need to correct this now because of the financial problems of some teams, but the NHLP's proposal says nah...how about you wait it out a couple of years in a slow and gradual process based on projected revenue increase..which doesn't really help the current state of things...and even if those increases don't happen...too bad that's your problem?? Well, it will be yours too if you don't have a team to play for because they've gone bankrupt because they couldn't afford to pay you. Hardly a solution to the current situation. It almost seems to suggest I just want to be paid now regardless and not really be considerate of the overall situation or irrespective of the league's current situation. They should add a clause in the new CBA where agreements can't be reached the matter goes to arbitration. This is to prevent any further lockout and loss wages/revenues, with the intent that at arbitration the issues will be addressed instead of having to take such dramatic losses by both parties. Then perhaps they'd be more willing to come to mutual agreements rather then having a 3rd party decide for them.

Edited by Mauii, 16 September 2012 - 10:24 AM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#826 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 15 September 2012 - 02:18 PM

*
POPULAR

I seldom post here any longer due to the proliferation of prepubescent morons allowed to run wild but I was asked by email to provide a historical quote from Bettman I posted on another forum, made during the last lockout during an interview with Peter Mansbridge on the CBC Town Hall discussing the lockout.

How about a trip down CBA memory lane? Here is was Bettman (aka Mr. Fix-It) said during the last lockout:

"With the right economic system, we can have 30 healthy, competitive franchises all with affordable ticket prices, which frankly all of this is about the fans.

We will have 30 teams going forward, 30 healthy, competitive teams if we have the right economic system.

But the owners have the right and the owners, having written too many cheques, have reached the point where they said, "We're not prepared to live with the current system. We think the current system is fatally flawed. We want it fixed. We know what the problems are, and we know how to fix it, and the best..." listen. Nobody is more unhappy about the fact that we're not playing games than I am. I assure you of that. But the fact of the matter is if we don't fix the problems, we don't have a future. So it's not about the timing. It's not about how many games we miss in the short term. It's about making sure we make the right deal.

What I say to him (a young boy in Montreal) is, like him, I watch games every night. I look at nhl.com first thing in the morning. Nobody will miss this more than he and I will. I say we're sorry. We're sorry we have to go through this, but we can't continue the way we're going, and we promise, we promise that we're going to fix it."

So Mr. Fix-It - what went wrong? Perhaps you really do not have a clue what the problems are, and do not know how to fix it.

The NHLPA has given you solutions including roll backs and increased revenue sharing to help out lower revenue teams but you and the NHL owners act as if you have no fault in this and try to place the blame completely on the players.

You tried to make an idiot -proof system the last time and all that has shown as that the GMs and owners are bigger idiots than you thought.

Posted Image


But this is all about the fans, right Gary?

To quote that noted deep thinker and philosopher, former US President George W. Bush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A
  • 6
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#827 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 15 September 2012 - 02:27 PM

I seldom post here any longer due to the proliferation of prepubescent morons allowed to run wild but I was asked by email to provide a historical quote from Bettman I posted on another forum, made during the last lockout during an interview with Peter Mansbridge on the CBC Town Hall discussing the lockout.

How about a trip down CBA memory lane? Here is was Bettman (aka Mr. Fix-It) said during the last lockout:

"With the right economic system, we can have 30 healthy, competitive franchises all with affordable ticket prices, which frankly all of this is about the fans.

We will have 30 teams going forward, 30 healthy, competitive teams if we have the right economic system.

But the owners have the right and the owners, having written too many cheques, have reached the point where they said, "We're not prepared to live with the current system. We think the current system is fatally flawed. We want it fixed. We know what the problems are, and we know how to fix it, and the best..." listen. Nobody is more unhappy about the fact that we're not playing games than I am. I assure you of that. But the fact of the matter is if we don't fix the problems, we don't have a future. So it's not about the timing. It's not about how many games we miss in the short term. It's about making sure we make the right deal.

What I say to him (a young boy in Montreal) is, like him, I watch games every night. I look at nhl.com first thing in the morning. Nobody will miss this more than he and I will. I say we're sorry. We're sorry we have to go through this, but we can't continue the way we're going, and we promise, we promise that we're going to fix it."

So Mr. Fix-It - what went wrong? Perhaps you really do not have a clue what the problems are, and do not know how to fix it.

The NHLPA has given you solutions including roll backs and increased revenue sharing to help out lower revenue teams but you and the NHL owners act as if you have no fault in this and try to place the blame completely on the players.

You tried to make an idiot -proof system the last time and all that has shown as that the GMs and owners are bigger idiots than you thought.

Posted Image


But this is all about the fans, right Gary?

To quote that noted deep thinker and philosopher, former US President George W. Bush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

Ha, awesome dig Wetcoaster.

I miss reading your posts on here.
  • 4

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

MirandaKerr.jpg
2 0 1 5 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#828 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 15 September 2012 - 02:36 PM

Ha, awesome dig Wetcoaster.

I miss reading your posts on here.

We all do
  • 0
Posted Image

#829 TowelPower12

TowelPower12

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 02:50 PM

looks like i'm going to watch alot more football this year, go frack yourselves nhl
  • 1

#830 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 15 September 2012 - 03:21 PM

The real issue is 50% of what.

As we learned during the last lockout, the NHL owners concealed a huge amount of hockey related revenue (HRR) when they cried poor - remember that fantastic work of fiction... the Leavitt Report that was never heard from again once the salary cap was achieved.

The owners want to totally re-define HRR and remove as much as they possibly can - so it is not just percentages.

And that is why you cannot compare the NFL or the NBA percentage splits as they have different definitions of the revenues that go in to be divided up between the players and owners.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#831 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,324 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 15 September 2012 - 03:24 PM

I seldom post here any longer due to the proliferation of prepubescent morons allowed to run wild but I was asked by email to provide a historical quote from Bettman I posted on another forum, made during the last lockout during an interview with Peter Mansbridge on the CBC Town Hall discussing the lockout.

How about a trip down CBA memory lane? Here is was Bettman (aka Mr. Fix-It) said during the last lockout:

"With the right economic system, we can have 30 healthy, competitive franchises all with affordable ticket prices, which frankly all of this is about the fans.

We will have 30 teams going forward, 30 healthy, competitive teams if we have the right economic system.

But the owners have the right and the owners, having written too many cheques, have reached the point where they said, "We're not prepared to live with the current system. We think the current system is fatally flawed. We want it fixed. We know what the problems are, and we know how to fix it, and the best..." listen. Nobody is more unhappy about the fact that we're not playing games than I am. I assure you of that. But the fact of the matter is if we don't fix the problems, we don't have a future. So it's not about the timing. It's not about how many games we miss in the short term. It's about making sure we make the right deal.

What I say to him (a young boy in Montreal) is, like him, I watch games every night. I look at nhl.com first thing in the morning. Nobody will miss this more than he and I will. I say we're sorry. We're sorry we have to go through this, but we can't continue the way we're going, and we promise, we promise that we're going to fix it."

So Mr. Fix-It - what went wrong? Perhaps you really do not have a clue what the problems are, and do not know how to fix it.

The NHLPA has given you solutions including roll backs and increased revenue sharing to help out lower revenue teams but you and the NHL owners act as if you have no fault in this and try to place the blame completely on the players.

You tried to make an idiot -proof system the last time and all that has shown as that the GMs and owners are bigger idiots than you thought.

Posted Image


But this is all about the fans, right Gary?

To quote that noted deep thinker and philosopher, former US President George W. Bush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

You seem to know a lot about how well the owners are doing. What is the average ROI these teams are getting on their investment? You say Bettman thought he 'fixed it' in 2004. What if the owners actually thought they needed a 48% cut in wages at that time instead of 24%. Bottom line is the NHL owners and players have a system for identifying revenue that both agree is working. How much the union knows about operating costs I am not aware of and I doubt you do either. If the union was demanding a method of identifying those costs (if they don't already know) I might go along with some of your thought process.

Edited by Boudrias, 15 September 2012 - 03:27 PM.

  • 0

#832 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 15 September 2012 - 03:44 PM

That's not true. Ticket prices are driven by supply and demand. The reason that Canucks tickets are so expensive is because so many people want to buy them. There is literally zero relationship between salaries and ticket prices.

you know that how?
  • 0

#833 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 03:58 PM

you know that how?

Economics 101...it's called "supply and demand"...look it up
  • 2
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#834 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:04 PM

That's not true. Ticket prices are driven by supply and demand. The reason that Canucks tickets are so expensive is because so many people want to buy them. There is literally zero relationship between salaries and ticket prices.


When the salary floor keeps growing every year (expense), if the owners don't get more people in the building (some can't because they are sold out) or raise ticket prices they will be losing money where the player still has his multi million dollar contract no matter how many people show up to the games.

Didn't some of these clowns file for UI during the last lock out as well?

Edited by canuckelhead70, 15 September 2012 - 05:05 PM.

  • 0

#835 mbal23

mbal23

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:29 PM

Last
  • 0

#836 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 666 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:54 PM

When the salary floor keeps growing every year (expense), if the owners don't get more people in the building (some can't because they are sold out) or raise ticket prices they will be losing money where the player still has his multi million dollar contract no matter how many people show up to the games.

Didn't some of these clowns file for UI during the last lock out as well?


The salary cap only goes up if revenues increase. Duh.
  • 0

#837 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 666 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:02 PM

Hence, marginalizing alot of the teams...despite little revenue coming and low ticket prices, the player's high salaries still gets paid and will put alot of companies in the red. Until this gets under control and be more manageable, the team will continue to bleed money and if not go bankrupt. A company simply cannot stay in business under these conditions. That's why the NHLP proposal seems odd. NHL says we need to correct this now because of the financial problems of some teams, but the NHLP's proposal says nah...how about you wait it out a couple of years in a slow and gradual process based on projected revenue increase..which doesn't really help the current state of things...and even if those increases don't happen...too bad that's your problem?? Well, it will be yours too if you don't have a team to play for because they've gone bankrupt because they couldn't afford to pay you. Hardly a solution to the current situation. It almost seems to suggest I just want to be paid now regardless and not really be considerate of the overall situation or irrespective of the league's current situation. They should add a clause in the new CBA where agreements can't be reached the matter goes to arbitration to prevent any further lockout and loss wages/revenues, with the intent that at arbitration the issues will be addressed instead of having to take such dramatic losses by both parties. Then perhaps they'd be more willing to come to mutual agreements rather then having a 3rd party decide for them.


There are a couple of things that would fix this:

1. Stronger revenue sharing.
2. No salary cap or floor.

MLB has shown that the best labour regime is one that allows both big market and small market teams to pay what they want in salaries, without artificial manipulation via a salary cap or floor. A luxury tax and revenue sharing system allows small market teams to make a lot of money.

Donald Fehr knows this. He invented it. And he gave the owners the opportunity to sign up for it. They spurned him because of pride and greed. They are obsessed with lowering the cap even though there is no evidence whatsoever that a lower salary cap will help grow revenues in the future. The owners are trying to get a bigger slice of a smaller pie. The union wants to grow the pie. It's really that simple.
  • 1

#838 Blackberries

Blackberries

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,958 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 07

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:05 PM

I seldom post here any longer due to the proliferation of prepubescent morons allowed to run wild but I was asked by email to provide a historical quote from Bettman I posted on another forum, made during the last lockout during an interview with Peter Mansbridge on the CBC Town Hall discussing the lockout.

How about a trip down CBA memory lane? Here is was Bettman (aka Mr. Fix-It) said during the last lockout:

"With the right economic system, we can have 30 healthy, competitive franchises all with affordable ticket prices, which frankly all of this is about the fans.

We will have 30 teams going forward, 30 healthy, competitive teams if we have the right economic system.

But the owners have the right and the owners, having written too many cheques, have reached the point where they said, "We're not prepared to live with the current system. We think the current system is fatally flawed. We want it fixed. We know what the problems are, and we know how to fix it, and the best..." listen. Nobody is more unhappy about the fact that we're not playing games than I am. I assure you of that. But the fact of the matter is if we don't fix the problems, we don't have a future. So it's not about the timing. It's not about how many games we miss in the short term. It's about making sure we make the right deal.

What I say to him (a young boy in Montreal) is, like him, I watch games every night. I look at nhl.com first thing in the morning. Nobody will miss this more than he and I will. I say we're sorry. We're sorry we have to go through this, but we can't continue the way we're going, and we promise, we promise that we're going to fix it."

So Mr. Fix-It - what went wrong? Perhaps you really do not have a clue what the problems are, and do not know how to fix it.

The NHLPA has given you solutions including roll backs and increased revenue sharing to help out lower revenue teams but you and the NHL owners act as if you have no fault in this and try to place the blame completely on the players.

You tried to make an idiot -proof system the last time and all that has shown as that the GMs and owners are bigger idiots than you thought.

Posted Image


But this is all about the fans, right Gary?

To quote that noted deep thinker and philosopher, former US President George W. Bush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A


Always appreciated your opinion, hopefully you'll come back and join us again.
  • 0
Posted Image
Movember Kassian

#839 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,126 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:06 PM

Economics 101...it's called "supply and demand"...look it up


You're missing a more basic part of economics. Expenses and Revenue. The expenses are things like cost of maintenance of the building, staff, marketing, and of course player wages. Once these expenses are paid the idea is to make a profit margin. Now the league (Whom as Wetcoaster points out) has not been honest with total revenue. The NHL isn't like the NBA/MLB/NFL with massive TV contracts (Once again something Gary has failed to provide). The total revenue is things like merchandise, parking, food, drinks etc. Without transparency how do we know what the teams are making?

I am certain that there are teams struggling (Coyotes, Florida among others). But the league "won" that last labour dispute. Despite this win, the GM's (under the approval by the owners) have been offering outrageous contracts to circumvent the cap. I've said this before and I'll say it again it's not the players fault for this situation. The players didn't say to move to Phoenix and other crappy markets. The owners and GM's clearly can't control themselves because of their egos. And the players are the ones who are willing to keep playing. It's the owners making the lockout.

Sorry that some of the dumb replies turn off people like Wetcoaster. The boards more interesting with people like him.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#840 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,960 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:12 PM

If they can figure this out in the next week (forever optimistic), then hopefully they will just cancel 2 preseason games and limit preseason rosters to 30 people.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to the rumoured Can-Rus series if lockout goes on.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-





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.