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

#991 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:23 PM

I want Rugby on TV, cause damn was the world cup entertaining.
  • 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


#992 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,129 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:40 PM

Yes the players would prefer to play under the old CBA. And yes the players will push the owners to lock them out because they will refuse to sign on for what the owners are offering. It is very simple. It is the players' decision to be locked out. It is NOT their first choice of course, but it is their decision. Accept the NHL offer or anything close to it and there is no lock out. Refuse and you are locked out. What is so hard to understand here? (and the escrow has nothing to do with this whatsoever)


Renengotiating is really difficult if someone has Billions more than you. It's like ... of wait it's like .. well all lot of things .... forced concilliation comes to mind.Whenever I renegotiate my contract they got a million (ha ha) reasons why it's not feasible or not gonna happen. All you can do is take it or move on. ... to the KHL.

This is the start of an international league, like futbol. They'll come to their senses before then because that's about 15 years in the future. Then we will be there.
  • 0

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#993 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,853 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:49 PM

I want Rugby on TV, cause damn was the world cup entertaining.

Sportsnet World has it (used to be called Setanta, is available online as well), but there is little else apart from the sometimes televised Canada or US local matches. Heineken Cup rugby and the Rugby Championship (formerly the Tri-Nations) are great to watch and can have some nailbiters.

I'll be checking out a few more rugby matches while also searching for AHL and junior games, for sure.
  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#994 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:05 PM

Theres no union over there fair game.No different then a lumber strike everyone goes finds a part time job during those also I guess were all Douches

Maybe we are all douches but we're not all multi- millionaires taking the jobs of working class hockey players to fight boredom and stay in shape.
  • 0

#995 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:08 PM

To all the people complaining about the players taking jobs in Europe - remember, the players wanted to play this year. They offered to play under the previous CBA, which has seen league revenues skyrocket. They also offered to take a smaller percentage of salary in their first offer, and their proposal was a better long term business model for the league.

Your friend in Europe only has the owners to blame.

Rick Nash doesn't need to steal the job of a working class professional hockey player.

Scumbag move.

http://capgeek.com/p...play.php?id=586
  • 1

#996 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:57 PM

Sportsnet World has it (used to be called Setanta, is available online as well), but there is little else apart from the sometimes televised Canada or US local matches. Heineken Cup rugby and the Rugby Championship (formerly the Tri-Nations) are great to watch and can have some nailbiters.

I'll be checking out a few more rugby matches while also searching for AHL and junior games, for sure.

I wish the top level north american rugby league would get some TV time. We need an MLS equivalent. I would watch the crap outta that. I played rugby in highschool, but never had a chance to watch it at a high level. I find it's continuous nature similar to hockey, and the hits are just as exciting too. I love the savage gentleman attitude of the players, and the big man athleticism is quite impressive too.
  • 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


#997 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,777 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 19 September 2012 - 10:11 PM

Rick Nash doesn't need to steal the job of a working class professional hockey player.

Scumbag move.

http://capgeek.com/p...play.php?id=586


I agree - db move by him and Thornton.
  • 0

#998 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,656 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 19 September 2012 - 10:36 PM

have you not been following the situation?

after each proposal they go on live television and break down the proposal and say this is why we disagree with it. they are all well aware of what is going on, the players themselves have said that. that was one of the big things fehr did was unite the players and are keeping them in the know. they even created a phone app to help lol

im not condoning what selanne said im just responding to you saying the players need to shut up because they dont know what is going on. They know everything that is going on and saying they dont know the details is 300% false


The specific details have not been presented. All the press conferences have been more about themselves and how the two sides are united. Everything is speculation at this point from the fans and spectators. Fehr hasn't said anything informative, and neither has the players. Bettman sort of gave an idea, but there is so specifics.

If they know the details, then they would shut up. Every comment that has been made by the players, have made the players look stupid. They are given the details, but as Fehr's latest conference. Lots of players are still learning the process. 'Learning". AKA, they have no idea what's going on. Many of the top guys(crosby, toews to name a couple)in the NHLPA are new to all this. It's the veterans that should stand up, and instead. Mr.Salenne throws out a useless comment, blaming Bettman for all of this. Well, GG. There's a reason why former players are more supportive to the Owners. People want to milk every cent they can get.

Edited by Rey, 19 September 2012 - 10:47 PM.

  • 0

#999 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 20 September 2012 - 01:59 AM

Sportsnet World has it (used to be called Setanta, is available online as well), but there is little else apart from the sometimes televised Canada or US local matches. Heineken Cup rugby and the Rugby Championship (formerly the Tri-Nations) are great to watch and can have some nailbiters.

I'll be checking out a few more rugby matches while also searching for AHL and junior games, for sure.


Got to agree about the Heineken Cup. It is absolutely brilliant. The English Premier League rugby is not very exciting imo (English rugby is too concentrated on forward play) try and find the French League on ESPN.

The best league for rugby excitement though is the RaboDirect Pro 12 which is the Irish, Welsh, Scottish Italian league.........fast, open attacking rugby where the forwards (the bigger guys) are much more mobile than in the English or French leagues. These games are carried by the local BBC networks only I'm afraid.

ESPN America also showed nearly all of the Wolves games over here in GB, even their playoff games so maybe you should check them out.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#1000 250Integra

250Integra

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,470 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 06

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:01 AM

LP
  • 0

naslundsig5.gif14326903821.giftowel.gif
Thanks for the Memories Canada!!!
Thanks for everything Naslund!
Original creator of the WWE and the Rate my sig / Showoff thread


#1001 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:10 AM

Posted Today, 08:44 PM


I cannot stand looking at, or listening whenever comes from Bettmans
mouth

At the same time it seems Hypocritical to me for NHL players to play overseas for any less money than they are willing to play here for.
Not to mention them taking jobs from Guys, who will never make in their Lifetime playing hockey what most average NHL players will make in 1 year, but do so because they like playing a hockey and making some money doing it

Plus what about there fellow NHL brothers who cannot play Overseas. They are fighting the fight for the prima donna guys while they continue on making an income overseas in other Leagues.

Then the High Profile guys go on about how this time they are more united ?
If they really are,then none of them should be playing anywhere

Maybe the other Leagues should make these players sign contracts,that once they sign they cannot go back to the NHL that year.
The pressure will be on the Owners if they see a few of these guys leave for the Year,and maybe settle this quicker?
Then the guys who stayed behind to support the new contract will be rewarded for more,than the guys who went Overseas


Lots of good points made here.

It seems that neither side really has any incentive to settle and that is a disaster in any negotiation. Players should NOT be allowed to flit over to Europe. As you say it is unfair on those who stay.

It is also unfair that some of the AHL bread and butter players will be forced out due to many teams, even the Canucks punting players down into that league.

It seems this hits everyone EXCEPT the players making most money out of the game. It is especially hard on the NHL fans.
  • 1
Kevin.jpg

#1002 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,559 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:34 AM

Does anyone know what the actually $$$$ guys like Nash and Thornton would get get in the Swiss League?

It cant be that much. Seems like they are just bored.
  • 0

#1003 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:45 AM

Does anyone know what the actually $$$$ guys like Nash and Thornton would get get in the Swiss League?

It cant be that much. Seems like they are just bored.

The average salary is around $170,000. Top salaries are in the $800,000-$900,000 range.
  • 0

#1004 Bill Sikes

Bill Sikes

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,603 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 03:52 AM

Sportsnet World has it (used to be called Setanta, is available online as well), but there is little else apart from the sometimes televised Canada or US local matches. Heineken Cup rugby and the Rugby Championship (formerly the Tri-Nations) are great to watch and can have some nailbiters.

I'll be checking out a few more rugby matches while also searching for AHL and junior games, for sure.

Actually Sportsnetworld has plenty of regular season Rugby, Aviva Premiereship (England) Rabodirect Pro12 (Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Italy) Currie Cup (South Africa), French top 14, in Feb the Super 14 (New Zealnd, Australia, S. Africa), as well as various divisions of league Rugby (slightly different game).

Edited by Norman Clegg, 20 September 2012 - 03:53 AM.

  • 0

#1005 Bill Sikes

Bill Sikes

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,603 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 03:58 AM

It's funny because a lot of these economic issues regarding small market teams would have been avoided for the most part at least if Bettman wasn't so insistent on keeping teams in Phoenix, Atlanta, Columbus, etc...

It's also funny because-...well this one's obvious. Players are complaining about MULTI-MILLION dollar salaries.

In the end, I'm against the players on this one. True, the NHL kept going back to the well when there was no water in it, but that doesn't justify the players' actions for the situation now. A 7-10% reduction in revenue sharing is NOTHING when you're making a minimum of half a million bucks a year. Give me a ****ing break will ya? If you want to keep playing in an economically stable league, give up some of your dough, you've got more than you need. The players have forgotten that they are the employees this working relationship with the owners. These guys are "sacrificing" squat; they need a reality check, and fast.

Leave your pride and ego at the door and get it done. For the love of god...this is so frustrating. It's like watching two five year olds fighting for the last chocolate chip cookie.

Its the owners who are being greedy, they have done nothing but brag about increased revenues, yet they still want a bigger piece, unwilling to share among themselves they just want to claw back from the players, this is like when Megabucks Inc. cries poor, lays off thousands of workers, wants bail outs , then gives their execs multi-million dollar bonuses. How can you possibly take the owners seriously when Craig Leopold signs two slightly above average players to nearly $200 million, then walks to the other side of the table and complains about the contract he just OFFERED? This is an owner vs owner problem, the revenue gap between strong and weak markets must be closed up, taking from the players won't fix that, only a decent revenue sharing plan wil work, if the owners get their way we will be right back here when the new CBA runs out.

Edited by Norman Clegg, 20 September 2012 - 03:59 AM.

  • 0

#1006 brewdog

brewdog

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 05:55 AM

Not sure if there's an answer to this, but I got to thinking. How short can the regular season be? If, for instance, the CBA is sorted in February, would they play a 20-game regular season? Can you imagine if there was such a regular season, and a quick-start squad like Minnesota or Toronto was awarded the President's Trophy? :lol:
  • 0

#1007 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 20 September 2012 - 08:43 AM

To all the people complaining about the players taking jobs in Europe - remember, the players wanted to play this year. They offered to play under the previous CBA, which has seen league revenues skyrocket. They also offered to take a smaller percentage of salary in their first offer, and their proposal was a better long term business model for the league.

Your friend in Europe only has the owners to blame.

Sure the players wanted to play under the terms of the expired CBA which the NHL has said back in the spring they would not extend. AT 57% of revenue the players benefited from the 'skyrocketing revenue more than the owners did. I guess they improved their calibur of play by 11% per year. Their offer was to take less of anticipated revenue growth of 7% per year which in today's economy is a head scratcher.

Other than the moral issue of playing for less money and taking jobs from other hockey players I don't have a problem with NHLers playing in Euroland. To remove the moral issue I suggest they would have to commit for the whole year not until the NHL play resumes. The NHL should honour those year long contracts if they settle. I would be curious to see how many would run over there in that circumstance.
  • 0

#1008 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:15 AM

Its the owners who are being greedy, they have done nothing but brag about increased revenues, yet they still want a bigger piece, unwilling to share among themselves they just want to claw back from the players, this is like when Megabucks Inc. cries poor, lays off thousands of workers, wants bail outs , then gives their execs multi-million dollar bonuses. How can you possibly take the owners seriously when Craig Leopold signs two slightly above average players to nearly $200 million, then walks to the other side of the table and complains about the contract he just OFFERED? This is an owner vs owner problem, the revenue gap between strong and weak markets must be closed up, taking from the players won't fix that, only a decent revenue sharing plan wil work, if the owners get their way we will be right back here when the new CBA runs out.

I haven't seen any numbers that support your claims suggesting that the revenue gap between rich and poor clubs can be fixed by rich teams increasing support to the poor. The woe is me crowd who defend the poorly paid NHL players tend to ignore their share growing from $1B to $1.8 billion over the 7 year term of the old CBA. Check out the media from that period and the NHLPA was saying it was the end of the world for the poor players.

The only rationale I can support for rich teams subsidizing poorer teams is to support the business plan for the NHL. My understanding is that the NHL business plan wants franchises in major media markets to attract media revenue sales ala the $2 billion $ NBC contract. I highly doubt the NHLPA would agree with shrinking the number of teams which would reduce their union membership. Nor would they agree if their share of the NBC contract $2 billion x 57% = $1.14 billion was lost. Any suggestion that NHL players have not done very well to date is BS.

Casting this dispute as a labour issue and insinuating NHLers are poor minions of billionaire owners is laughable. This is simply a battle of corporate interests fighting over a pool of revenue dollars. In fact I suspect a goodly number of player contracts are in the name of corporations the players have created to protect some of their revenue from taxation. I have never heard that player endorsement revenue was ever considered as hockey revenue in CBA talks. Funny how that works.

A more forthright approach for these two groups would be a budgeting foremat that recognized not only the player share of revenue but also a return on investment share for ownership. The NHLPA seems to be satisfied that revenue figures for the NHL are accurate. Why couldn't the same framework be used for expenses? Reducing the player and ownership returns as a line item on a budget sheet is more realistic approach. My suspicion is that in fact much of this work has already been done. To date we know the NHLPA has refused to take any less than the $1.8 billion they receive now. All they have conceded is to take less of the 7% per year they are forcasting revenue will increase but then saying that they want their 57% re-instated by the end of the contract. In today's economy assuming a 7% revenue growth per year over multiple years is a stretch. In fairness to the NHLPA we don't know what NHL expense figures are. While I expect the owners will have to share those numbers with the players I do not think they have to with the public.
  • 0

#1009 Bill Sikes

Bill Sikes

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,603 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:37 AM

I haven't seen any numbers that support your claims suggesting that the revenue gap between rich and poor clubs can be fixed by rich teams increasing support to the poor. The woe is me crowd who defend the poorly paid NHL players tend to ignore their share growing from $1B to $1.8 billion over the 7 year term of the old CBA. Check out the media from that period and the NHLPA was saying it was the end of the world for the poor players.

The only rationale I can support for rich teams subsidizing poorer teams is to support the business plan for the NHL. My understanding is that the NHL business plan wants franchises in major media markets to attract media revenue sales ala the $2 billion $ NBC contract. I highly doubt the NHLPA would agree with shrinking the number of teams which would reduce their union membership. Nor would they agree if their share of the NBC contract $2 billion x 57% = $1.14 billion was lost. Any suggestion that NHL players have not done very well to date is BS.

Casting this dispute as a labour issue and insinuating NHLers are poor minions of billionaire owners is laughable. This is simply a battle of corporate interests fighting over a pool of revenue dollars. In fact I suspect a goodly number of player contracts are in the name of corporations the players have created to protect some of their revenue from taxation. I have never heard that player endorsement revenue was ever considered as hockey revenue in CBA talks. Funny how that works.

A more forthright approach for these two groups would be a budgeting foremat that recognized not only the player share of revenue but also a return on investment share for ownership. The NHLPA seems to be satisfied that revenue figures for the NHL are accurate. Why couldn't the same framework be used for expenses? Reducing the player and ownership returns as a line item on a budget sheet is more realistic approach. My suspicion is that in fact much of this work has already been done. To date we know the NHLPA has refused to take any less than the $1.8 billion they receive now. All they have conceded is to take less of the 7% per year they are forcasting revenue will increase but then saying that they want their 57% re-instated by the end of the contract. In today's economy assuming a 7% revenue growth per year over multiple years is a stretch. In fairness to the NHLPA we don't know what NHL expense figures are. While I expect the owners will have to share those numbers with the players I do not think they have to with the public.

You seem to be ignoring two key questions: WHO WROTE THE CURRENT CBA? The owners with no input from the players, they forced the players to take it (same as they are trying to do again) now the complain about the contract they didn't have the foresight to see problems with, a contract that the owners themselves immediately went about sabotaging with mega long front loaded contracts. The players seem more willing to give than the owners, or should I say the few mega rich elite owners who want the players to pay for their own bad business decisions. Seems to me the owners let the genie out of the bottle and now find that it is very difficult to put him back.

WHO IS MAKING THESE RIDICULOUS OFFERS? The players aren't demanding the huge contracts the owners are offering them, are the players supposed to say "No please that is far to much, I am not worth that"

Also note it is not the players refusing to play, it is the owners refusing to let them.
  • 0

#1010 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,477 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:44 AM

Not sure if there's an answer to this, but I got to thinking. How short can the regular season be? If, for instance, the CBA is sorted in February, would they play a 20-game regular season? Can you imagine if there was such a regular season, and a quick-start squad like Minnesota or Toronto was awarded the President's Trophy? :lol:


In 94-95 - the lockout ended on January 11, and they crammed a 48 game season.

I would assume that the shortest season that would be allowed would be a 41 game season (exactly 1/2 season)
  • 0
Posted Image

#1011 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:30 AM

Last
  • 0

#1012 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 20 September 2012 - 12:15 PM

In 94-95 - the lockout ended on January 11, and they crammed a 48 game season.

I would assume that the shortest season that would be allowed would be a 41 game season (exactly 1/2 season)


Yea, I'm pretty sure once they go past the halfway point, they just cancel the season.

Winning the Stanley Cup after only playing like 20-30 regular season games would be a little ridiculous.
  • 1

#1013 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 20 September 2012 - 12:25 PM

You seem to be ignoring two key questions: WHO WROTE THE CURRENT CBA? The owners with no input from the players, they forced the players to take it (same as they are trying to do again) now the complain about the contract they didn't have the foresight to see problems with, a contract that the owners themselves immediately went about sabotaging with mega long front loaded contracts. The players seem more willing to give than the owners, or should I say the few mega rich elite owners who want the players to pay for their own bad business decisions. Seems to me the owners let the genie out of the bottle and now find that it is very difficult to put him back.

WHO IS MAKING THESE RIDICULOUS OFFERS? The players aren't demanding the huge contracts the owners are offering them, are the players supposed to say "No please that is far to much, I am not worth that"

Also note it is not the players refusing to play, it is the owners refusing to let them.

At the end of the day it is the owners responsibility to ensure the NHL survives. Players come and go. You seem to want to cast this dispute as a big guy vs little guy and I cannot agree. To my knowledge both these groups honoured the CBA once signed. Neither party had a gun to their head. The players had the KHL option in 2004 or the Euro leagues. Bottom line is they make top money in the NHL. You seem to suggest that the 2004 CBA was cast in stone and the owners should simply continue with the basic context (which the players rejected in 2004 by the way). You choose to ignore how well the players benefited from that deal. People who have business experience realize that conditions do not remain static. The idea that the owners would refine conditions or make new demands should not be a surprise.

Ridiculous Offers! I didn't see any players turning down a ridiculous offer. In fact they actively played teams off against one another to raise their take. Not sound business practise you say. My question would be whether they were CAP compliant or not? No Canuck fan complained when Lawrence Gillman juggled the Canuck CAP ledger in the run to the CUP. The NHL felt Vancouver honoured the CBA. Your insinuation is that ownership is irresponsible making these offers. My question would be where would the Preds be if they didn't match the offer sheet for Shea Weber? Here was a franchise which was in a weak market trying to maintain their fan base and competitiveness. What caused the bidding war but UFA status for Weber at 27. Who carried the tab for his development, Nashville. Was the offer sheet by Philly CAP compliant, yes.

ANother example of two UFA signings were Parise and Suter to Minny. Two $100 mil contracts over 13 years. Good business or not? CAP & CBA compliant. Two players who wanted to sign. No protestation by them that their deals would destroy Nashville or NJD or that they were simply being paid to much. Both actively played the free agency game. Minny a franchise which has struggled in the win column for many years. A city and fan base that had seen one franchise (Dallas) pull out of town years ago. Do you know the economics of that business. Was it a irresponsible move by 'uber rich billionaires' or a calculated move to move the team up the playoff ladder and secure a future in that area? If the NHL cannot survive in Minny then you had better shrink the league to 15 teams. Not sure how the NHLPA will view that idea.

Again I pitch my idea of a negociation recognizing legitimate business expense with owner return on investment a cost item. It will not change the reality that not all teams have the same business conditions. The players will remain a cost of doing business. They are NOT equity partners in this business. I am not suggesting that they are not important to the NHL and their current and proposed % of revenue indicate they are. They are the largest cost of doing business and any team that does not recognize how valuable they are to the business success will pay a hugh price. Again I would point to the Canucks who receive universal praise from the players on how well they are treated. Another team that pays players to the MAX CAP rate. These are big boys on both sides. It is in both their interest to start talking and build a formula that will address their concerns.

Edited by Boudrias, 20 September 2012 - 12:31 PM.

  • 1

#1014 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 20 September 2012 - 12:29 PM

Gawd, I just want to hear that the two sides are talking - that is all.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1015 Bill Sikes

Bill Sikes

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,603 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:34 PM

If the owners are responsible for keeping the NHL in business they should stop spending money they don't have, recognize that the players are not some minimum wage stockboy they are employee as well as product and the marketing campaign, and maybe they should stop stabbing each other in the back. More importantly they should realize that the fans are the source of ALL the money and they shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.

Edited by Norman Clegg, 20 September 2012 - 02:36 PM.

  • 0

#1016 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,144 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:44 PM

If the owners are responsible for keeping the NHL in business they should stop spending money they don't have, recognize that the players are not some minimum wage stockboy they are employee as well as product and the marketing campaign, and maybe they should stop stabbing each other in the back. More importantly they should realize that the fans are the source of ALL the money and they shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.


So are you suggesting that Nashville should have just let Weber walk to Philly? And are you also suggesting that the owners collude to keep salaries down?

The owners have played within the rules of the old CBA. They just need to tweak the new CBA to keep things from getting out of hand.
  • 1
Posted Image

#1017 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:57 PM

If the owners are responsible for keeping the NHL in business they should stop spending money they don't have, recognize that the players are not some minimum wage stockboy they are employee as well as product and the marketing campaign, and maybe they should stop stabbing each other in the back. More importantly they should realize that the fans are the source of ALL the money and they shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.


The owners HAVE to spend a minimium of $54M. Add something constructive to your comments you keep sying the same thing over and over and over again.





The NHL locked out its players Saturday night at midnight when its collective bargaining agreement expired. It is the league’s fourth work stoppage in the last 20 years. Like every stoppage, this one is about money and how to divvy up what is now a $3.3 billion pie.
If you are looking for comparisons among sports leagues, think NBA and not NFL, which both had lockouts over the past 14 months. The NFL lockout had only a single preseason game cancelled, while NBA owners lost 20% of their regular season and had to pack in the remaining 80% of games in five months. The NHL is scheduled to begin its regular season October 11 and that date is in serious jeopardy.
Move up http://i.forbesimg.com tMove down

The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million.
The concentration of wealth at the top is similar in the NBA. The three most profitable teams during the 2010-11 season, New York Knicks, Chicago Bulls and Cleveland Cavaliers (a 1-year anomaly where the team sold out its arena with a cut-rate payroll ahead of LeBron James skipping town), earned $167 million. The total represented 96% of the league’s estimated profits of $175 million. The NBA tripled revenue sharing in its new CBA to help prop up small market teams.
Why did the NFL settle with its players before any regular season games were lost? Look at the numbers. The NFL’s richest teams, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots and Washington Redskins, earned a staggering $454 million last season. Yet, that total represented just 35% of the NFL’s $1.3 billion in total operating profit. The NFL cut back its supplemental revenue sharing program in its latest CBA. It expects $45 billion in new TV agreements to prop up the low revenue teams and keep their profit margins high.
Baseball is the most equitable major U.S. sports league when it comes to sharing the wealth. No wonder it will have had 21 years of labor peace by the time its current CBA expires in 2016. The top three earners last season, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Royals and Chicago Cubs, made $87 million, which is only 20% of MLB’s $432 million in operating profit. High-revenue teams like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox are content to run baseball operations with small profits, while making a killing through their ownership stakes in the regional sports networks that broadcast their games.
MLB has the heftiest supplemental revenue sharing system with roughly $400 million changing hands last season from the high revenue teams to the low revenue ones. The Yankees alone kicked in $110 million in revenue sharing in 2011.
The NHL is not in dire financial straits as it was in 2004 when a lockout caused the cancellation of an entire season. It does need the top teams to share more of the wealth if it wants to be healthier financially. The league currently shares about $150 million of its revenue and the league has proposed bumping that up to $190 million. The players association is looking for revenue sharing closer to $250 million. We know why the Maple Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens do not want that much revenue sharing. What about the other 27 teams?
  • 0

#1018 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:22 PM

The owners HAVE to spend a minimium of $54M. Add something constructive to your comments you keep sying the same thing over and over and over again.





The NHL locked out its players Saturday night at midnight when its collective bargaining agreement expired. It is the league’s fourth work stoppage in the last 20 years. Like every stoppage, this one is about money and how to divvy up what is now a $3.3 billion pie.
If you are looking for comparisons among sports leagues, think NBA and not NFL, which both had lockouts over the past 14 months. The NFL lockout had only a single preseason game cancelled, while NBA owners lost 20% of their regular season and had to pack in the remaining 80% of games in five months. The NHL is scheduled to begin its regular season October 11 and that date is in serious jeopardy.
Move down

The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million.
The concentration of wealth at the top is similar in the NBA. The three most profitable teams during the 2010-11 season, New York Knicks, Chicago Bulls and Cleveland Cavaliers (a 1-year anomaly where the team sold out its arena with a cut-rate payroll ahead of LeBron James skipping town), earned $167 million. The total represented 96% of the league’s estimated profits of $175 million. The NBA tripled revenue sharing in its new CBA to help prop up small market teams.
Why did the NFL settle with its players before any regular season games were lost? Look at the numbers. The NFL’s richest teams, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots and Washington Redskins, earned a staggering $454 million last season. Yet, that total represented just 35% of the NFL’s $1.3 billion in total operating profit. The NFL cut back its supplemental revenue sharing program in its latest CBA. It expects $45 billion in new TV agreements to prop up the low revenue teams and keep their profit margins high.
Baseball is the most equitable major U.S. sports league when it comes to sharing the wealth. No wonder it will have had 21 years of labor peace by the time its current CBA expires in 2016. The top three earners last season, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Royals and Chicago Cubs, made $87 million, which is only 20% of MLB’s $432 million in operating profit. High-revenue teams like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox are content to run baseball operations with small profits, while making a killing through their ownership stakes in the regional sports networks that broadcast their games.
MLB has the heftiest supplemental revenue sharing system with roughly $400 million changing hands last season from the high revenue teams to the low revenue ones. The Yankees alone kicked in $110 million in revenue sharing in 2011.
The NHL is not in dire financial straits as it was in 2004 when a lockout caused the cancellation of an entire season. It does need the top teams to share more of the wealth if it wants to be healthier financially. The league currently shares about $150 million of its revenue and the league has proposed bumping that up to $190 million. The players association is looking for revenue sharing closer to $250 million. We know why the Maple Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens do not want that much revenue sharing. What about the other 27 teams?

Great info, appreciated. My only add on would be the addition of a return on investment figure for ownership. There are only six teams that are making any real money. In fact there are a goodly number of players who are making more money than most franchises.
  • 1

#1019 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,559 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 20 September 2012 - 06:16 PM

The owners HAVE to spend a minimium of $54M. Add something constructive to your comments you keep sying the same thing over and over and over again.





The NHL locked out its players Saturday night at midnight when its collective bargaining agreement expired. It is the league’s fourth work stoppage in the last 20 years. Like every stoppage, this one is about money and how to divvy up what is now a $3.3 billion pie.
If you are looking for comparisons among sports leagues, think NBA and not NFL, which both had lockouts over the past 14 months. The NFL lockout had only a single preseason game cancelled, while NBA owners lost 20% of their regular season and had to pack in the remaining 80% of games in five months. The NHL is scheduled to begin its regular season October 11 and that date is in serious jeopardy.
Move down

The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million.
The concentration of wealth at the top is similar in the NBA. The three most profitable teams during the 2010-11 season, New York Knicks, Chicago Bulls and Cleveland Cavaliers (a 1-year anomaly where the team sold out its arena with a cut-rate payroll ahead of LeBron James skipping town), earned $167 million. The total represented 96% of the league’s estimated profits of $175 million. The NBA tripled revenue sharing in its new CBA to help prop up small market teams.
Why did the NFL settle with its players before any regular season games were lost? Look at the numbers. The NFL’s richest teams, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots and Washington Redskins, earned a staggering $454 million last season. Yet, that total represented just 35% of the NFL’s $1.3 billion in total operating profit. The NFL cut back its supplemental revenue sharing program in its latest CBA. It expects $45 billion in new TV agreements to prop up the low revenue teams and keep their profit margins high.
Baseball is the most equitable major U.S. sports league when it comes to sharing the wealth. No wonder it will have had 21 years of labor peace by the time its current CBA expires in 2016. The top three earners last season, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Royals and Chicago Cubs, made $87 million, which is only 20% of MLB’s $432 million in operating profit. High-revenue teams like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox are content to run baseball operations with small profits, while making a killing through their ownership stakes in the regional sports networks that broadcast their games.
MLB has the heftiest supplemental revenue sharing system with roughly $400 million changing hands last season from the high revenue teams to the low revenue ones. The Yankees alone kicked in $110 million in revenue sharing in 2011.
The NHL is not in dire financial straits as it was in 2004 when a lockout caused the cancellation of an entire season. It does need the top teams to share more of the wealth if it wants to be healthier financially. The league currently shares about $150 million of its revenue and the league has proposed bumping that up to $190 million. The players association is looking for revenue sharing closer to $250 million. We know why the Maple Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens do not want that much revenue sharing. What about the other 27 teams?


Geez....wonder what kind of profit the leafs could make if they had a half decent team.
  • 1

#1020 NightHawkSniper

NightHawkSniper

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,502 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:06 AM

TSN has KHL highlights lol
  • 0

5577747361_37d631069c_m.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.