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

#1021 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,509 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:21 AM

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.

I am suggesting Philly shouldn't offer 100 times what a player is worth for the purpose of destroying a team either on the ice or financially, do you think they would have made such a ludicrous offer if Webber played for a team like the Rangers who could easily match?
  • 1
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#1022 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,509 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:32 AM

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.

Your the one with nothing constructive to say, this minimum is what the owners wrote into the deal with NO PLAYER INPUT, in fact, the palyers said right away that it wouldn't work and we'd be right back here, and you seem to be surprised by this. The owners crow about their INCREASED revenues for years, then when the CBA expires they suddenly cry poor and try to take away player salaries while at the same time making the very deals they complain about in the CBA, they want to cap deals a 5 years, yet they all scramble to sign 6-10 year deals.

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?


Way to go, you actually helped my case rather than hurt it, that whole article points to better revenue sharing as the way to go, problem is the elites like Snider and Jacobs don't want it.
  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#1023 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,166 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:53 AM

Your the one with nothing constructive to say, this minimum is what the owners wrote into the deal with NO PLAYER INPUT, in fact, the palyers said right away that it wouldn't work and we'd be right back here, and you seem to be surprised by this. The owners crow about their INCREASED revenues for years, then when the CBA expires they suddenly cry poor and try to take away player salaries while at the same time making the very deals they complain about in the CBA, they want to cap deals a 5 years, yet they all scramble to sign 6-10 year deals.



Way to go, you actually helped my case rather than hurt it, that whole article points to better revenue sharing as the way to go, problem is the elites like Snider and Jacobs don't want it.

You don't present a case. You simply chirp out a repetitive missive about the poor exploited NHL workers. You seem to have trouble reading thru posts and comprehending. Either way I cannot be bothered.
  • 0

#1024 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,097 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:21 AM

I am suggesting Philly shouldn't offer 100 times what a player is worth for the purpose of destroying a team either on the ice or financially, do you think they would have made such a ludicrous offer if Webber played for a team like the Rangers who could easily match?


And did Philly do anything that was not allowed within the CBA? As a team, do they not have the right to do anything they can (within the rules) to win?

I agree that it's the owners fault for driving salaries up, but they can only do so because the CBA allows them. Although the current, expired CBA was a step in the right direction, it is still flawed. Maybe if they get it right this time, we won't have to worry about labour disruptions anymore.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1025 PunPryde

PunPryde

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 09

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:38 AM

Naw, a $2.4 million average salary is not enough compensation for me to play a game I love (apparently). Greedy greedy.

Edited by PunPryde, 21 September 2012 - 09:39 AM.

  • 0

#1026 Brick Tamland

Brick Tamland

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:10 PM

Owners = 8 profitable, 14 marginal in playoff years, 8 not profitable

Players = too many, watered down game, too much salary

Fans = pay too much, often mediocre product

Solution = Remove 6 teams that are turning the least profit. Phx, NYI, FLA, Columbus, Anaheim and then pick from Nash, STL and NJ

The play gets better, the game gets better, the league makes more money (not funding the bottom teams). Revenue can be shared properly.
  • 1
I Love Lamp...

#1027 RWMc1

RWMc1

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,149 posts
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:39 PM

I see that the NHL players, the wealthy elite, have decided to go overseas and steal jobs from working class players in Europe again just like last time. Screw em, I hope the league breaks their backs.

Scumbags.

If any other profession were locked out, they would seek temporary employment elsewhere. The teams that are hiring these players are also businesses. Another hypocritical stance by owner backers.
  • 1

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

 

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

 

Cupquester "Who are those horrible little men?"
 


#1028 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,097 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:45 PM

If any other profession were locked out, they would seek temporary employment elsewhere. The teams that are hiring these players are also businesses. Another hypocritical stance by owner backers.


It's a ridiculous analogy. Any other profession doesn't have a minimum wage of $500,000+ per year and an average salary over $2M.

And in any other profession, when they go seek temporary employment elsewhere, they get jobs where there are job openings. They don't bump other people out of jobs they already have.
  • 2
Posted Image

#1029 derr12

derr12

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:16 PM

It's a ridiculous analogy. Any other profession doesn't have a minimum wage of $500,000+ per year and an average salary over $2M.

And in any other profession, when they go seek temporary employment elsewhere, they get jobs where there are job openings. They don't bump other people out of jobs they already have.



KHL 1 way contracts still need to be paid weather or not the player bumped down is in the lineup or not. doofus. Nobody is out of a job.
  • 0

#1030 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,097 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:31 PM

KHL 1 way contracts still need to be paid weather or not the player bumped down is in the lineup or not. doofus. Nobody is out of a job.


The KHL is not the only league out there. Thanks for keeping it mature, btw.

Besides, it's not the top guys that have anything to worry about. They might lose a little ice time, but that's it. What about the guy at the other end of the roster? Are they going to expand the roster so he gets to keep his job when they add a couple of NHLers?

And I stand by my comment. It's ridiculous to compare the NHL lockout to a regular working person's labour dispute. This is a whole different situation.
  • 1
Posted Image

#1031 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,771 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:35 PM

It's a ridiculous analogy. Any other profession doesn't have a minimum wage of $500,000+ per year and an average salary over $2M.

And in any other profession, when they go seek temporary employment elsewhere, they get jobs where there are job openings. They don't bump other people out of jobs they already have.


Untrue. If the biggest, baddest financial company was pulling what the owners are, and everyone knew their employees were the most gifted, well-trained and reputable folks in the industry, every other competitor would hire those employees in a heartbeat. The only difference is that in the case of hockey, they can only hire the NHL players for a limited time, which they are clearly happy with or they would not be signing NHL players left and right.
  • 0

#1032 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,097 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:44 PM

Untrue. If the biggest, baddest financial company was pulling what the owners are, and everyone knew their employees were the most gifted, well-trained and reputable folks in the industry, every other competitor would hire those employees in a heartbeat. The only difference is that in the case of hockey, they can only hire the NHL players for a limited time, which they are clearly happy with or they would not be signing NHL players left and right.


Except your comparison is imaginary. The difference with NHL hockey is it is happening for real.

Besides that, sure the European teams are happy to sign NHL players, but how do you think the displaced players feel about it? It's not like the NHLers going overseas need the money. These are all extremely high paid players that are going over there.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1033 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,746 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:35 PM

TEAM1040 reports that NHL will shut down the Winter Classic if CBA is not signed by November...(aka the NEXT DEADLINE).

Threat from Buttman? or is this just the beginning of the end of the season?
  • 0

#1034 JesseBlue

JesseBlue

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Joined: 17-September 10

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:44 PM

boohoo for the leafs if that's the case...

anyways...this is becoming more of an owner versus owner where bettman doesn't want to be, so since he works for the owners, he'll try to get the loss from the players pockets...he doesn't want to acknowledge that he's the one who put teams in non-profitable markets...

funny thing is that they don't want to relocate just any team to the southern ontario market because they'll make a killing in franchising it instead...with that said, franchising one to the southern ontario market should be looked as a way to stop this stupid lockout...
  • 0

#1035 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,544 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:02 PM

Seems to me like the top owners are having to bend over backwards to help out these lower market teams. Not only have they had to provide millions of dollars out of their own pockets to subsidize these small market teams, (Some in ridiculous locations proposed by Bettman).....but they might poententially lose millions more in a lockout.
  • 0

#1036 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,771 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:06 PM

Except your comparison is imaginary. The difference with NHL hockey is it is happening for real.

Besides that, sure the European teams are happy to sign NHL players, but how do you think the displaced players feel about it? It's not like the NHLers going overseas need the money. These are all extremely high paid players that are going over there.


This whole disagreement goes back to your misconception that because players get paid significantly more than you, they are exempt from the hardships a lack of work causes. In your words "It's a ridiculous analogy. Any other profession doesn't have a minimum wage of $500,000+ per year and an average salary over $2M." I believe you're too busy thinking "I make way less than that and I'm fine!" to understand that players need to keep playing to stay fit, stay mentally in the game, be ready when the lockout ends and still be a force for years to come. Money is irrelevant. Players look elsewhere to play because not playing is damaging to their abilities.

Is this not the case? If you don't think so, explain to me how a higher wage means players shouldn't look for work elsewhere. And if your argument is simply that they shouldn't because it puts other non-NHL players out of work, I would remind you that you just used the argument "The owners can be dicks if the CBA allows it". "Players can push other players out of work because other leagues allow it" would be no less valid.
  • 0

#1037 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,993 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:50 PM

Ryan Miller: ‘It is hard to trust the owners’



Things are very, very quiet right now on the NHL lockout front.

Other than stories about the mass exodus of players signing in Europe and the issues getting insurance coverage (note: it’s expensive) we’re hearing very little else in the way of news.

It’s almost to the point that there’s little left for either side to say, at least until the next round of negotiations finally start up again.

That said, I’ve had the chance to survey the mood among at least a dozen players this week, and the feeling more than anything is one of frustration. At the NHLPA meetings last week in New York, players were all told what had been offered to the league was a considerable giveback of future revenues while ensuring they’d receive their current contracts.

When the NHL dismissed it out of hand, it sparked outrage among a portion of the players, with some of that bubbling over onto Twitter (i.e. John-Michael Liles) when the lockout finally began on Sunday.

One of those who has been relatively outspoken about the situation is Buffalo Sabres netminder Ryan Miller, who I have generally found to be one of the more level-headed and intelligent players in the league.

A situation like this, however, is enough to put even those types on edge.

I touched base with Miller a few days ago, and he said part of what’s so difficult about these negotiations is an immense distrust of the owners and their motives in this fight.

It’s still hard for many players to look past what happened during the last lockout, when a win for the league resulted in a large share of those new revenues going to the wealthy teams.

I think the anger and frustration comes from knowing what the owners are capable of under the guidance of Gary Bettman,” Miller said in an e-mail. “They are willing to let a season burn as shown in 2004-05, and it is a path that they are comfortable taking as their choice form of negotiating.

This is the third time and no matter how the NHL spins it, the same story is being told. They claim teams are struggling financially and player salary restriction is the only way to address the inevitable disasters. It is hard to trust the owners when it is the same story after years of documented growth and increasing revenue.”

The players insist they realize some teams are losing money, and that’s why they’ve proposed to increase revenue sharing from $150-million to $260-million for next season.

(The league has offered to raise it to $190-million, which is why Bettman says they’re not far apart on the issue.)

That extra $110-million would then go directly to the six or seven teams that need it most, meaning $15- to $20-million per troubled team on top of what they were already receiving under the last agreement.

What the NHLPA and players like Miller have consistently said they will never do is give even more money back to the teams on the top end.

After the last collective bargaining agreement came in, the Toronto Maple Leafs, Montreal Canadiens and New York Rangers (among others) all made incredible profits in part because their spending on salaries was limited by the cap and their revenue sharing commitments were so low.

The Leafs, I’m told, only paid $20-million into that shared pot last season, for example, which is believed to be roughly 10 per cent of their total revenues.

(Some of the NHL’s revenue sharing pot comes out of playoff revenues, which means the Phoenix Coyotes paid more into that portion of sharing than the Leafs last season.)

By comparison, rich teams in baseball are forced to share at least 31 per cent of their local revenue. It’s even higher in the NFL and the NBA’s new CBA calls on teams like the Los Angeles Lakers to pay up far more than ever before.

And all those leagues have much larger sources of shared league revenue to supplement that local revenue sharing.

If the NHLPA could get a deal where Toronto is putting in triple the amount of revenue sharing they do now, there’s another $40-million or so that can go to fixing some of the economic issues. The same goes for a few of the other wealthy teams, albeit to a lesser extent.

That wouldn’t get them all the way to where every franchise is healthy, but you can see why players believe it’s part of a potential solution.

If revenue sharing is left relatively untouched, however, most of the burden of helping the Phoenixes of the league will fall on the players, which they argue is where the cut from 57 per cent of revenues down to 47 per cent the league is asking for comes in.

That is why our proposal builds in more responsibility to league health as a whole through defined revenue sharing that gets money to the teams that need it,” Miller said. “The proposal is based on Don Fehr spending a lot of time talking to the players and listening to our concerns.

We want a healthy NHL and a league that starts to move past the labour mistrust so that hockey could grow and flourish... And yet here we are again.”

Here” being a stalemate of familiar proportions, even as the two sides don’t really appear to be all that far apart in terms of the overall percentages.

Ending it, however, isn’t as simple as it may seem.

While many are forecasting that this will all end with the players taking a 50-50 share, their reluctance to do so stems directly from what happened the last time around.

The players don’t believe giving back to the wealthy teams will solve much of anything and that, when it comes time for the next agreement in another six or seven years, the league will again be asking for more across the board to help teams on the bottom.

And that’s where the frustration comes in.


http://www.theglobea...article4557473/

Edited by STiBlammo, 21 September 2012 - 07:17 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#1038 Garrison

Garrison

    Comets Star

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

Posted 21 September 2012 - 07:26 PM

Wouldn't mind if the Winter Classic was cancelled. Toronto and Detroit? Really NHL? Anyways are the two sides talking yet.
  • 0

#1039 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:07 PM

I think the problem is that the players don't have enough business sense to understand the real problems with the NHL. Yes revenues have been going up, but so have expenses, which includes players salaries.

So just because revenue is growing, does not mean that profit is growing. They can't just expect that their salaries will continue to keep rising year after year. Things need to be slowed down, because the league isn't growing as fast as players salaries are increasing right now. Something has to give.

Don't kid yourselves if you think that the players are not being the greedier ones here.
  • 1

#1040 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:09 PM

Wouldn't mind if the Winter Classic was cancelled. Toronto and Detroit? Really NHL? Anyways are the two sides talking yet.


I wouldn't underestimate the league's desire to get something done before the winter classic. That equals huge advertising revenue, not to mention exposure, that they likely do not want to give up.
  • 0

#1041 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,993 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:35 PM

NHLPA head Donad Fehr came on the TEAM1040 Friday afternoon to talk about the ongoing labour dispute between the NHL and players.

Fehr seems frustrated with the League owners, insisting the PA is available to get back to the bargaining table any time .

Donald Fehr w/ Sekeres and Price

Preseason games through to the end of September have already been cancelled with many more games expected to be axed very soon.


http://teamradio.ca/...hr-on-team1040/

Edited by STiBlammo, 21 September 2012 - 09:36 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#1042 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,771 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:45 PM

I think the problem is that the players don't have enough business sense to understand the real problems with the NHL. Yes revenues have been going up, but so have expenses, which includes players salaries.

So just because revenue is growing, does not mean that profit is growing. They can't just expect that their salaries will continue to keep rising year after year. Things need to be slowed down, because the league isn't growing as fast as players salaries are increasing right now. Something has to give.

Don't kid yourselves if you think that the players are not being the greedier ones here.


The players have offered to reduce their share of revenues while predicting the average growth that this CBA has had. That's actually generous because the last 2 years have actually seen way more growth than that average and that's likely to continue with any such increases above the projected revenue going to the owners. The owners are just playing poor and projecting no growth so when they say 50%, they actually mean less.

Meanwhile the players insist on much more revenue sharing in the MLB model because they wanted it last time instead of a 24% reduction in player salaries because they knew that wouldn't fix it. Voila, the CBA ends and we're back to the same discussion. It seems the players want to play hockey. Crazy idea. Kind of makes sense since they're willing to go across the world to play for anyone who will take them. Greed is not in the player's vocabulary this time around.
  • 1

#1043 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,377 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:21 PM

Bettman should take the same roll back in his salary as the players.
  • 1

Subbancopy.jpg


#1044 Dragonfruits

Dragonfruits

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,496 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:31 PM

its happening i am selling my jersies my burrows third went for 75 dollars and still left are my kesler home 100 and blank orca navy for 40 guess i can't sell t-shirts so those go to value village donation

and i am very close to canceling my sports channels although i am enjoying watching the nfl and cfl and even college football
  • 0

#1045 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:16 PM

The CBA expired. The owners want a new agreement. They have said so for an entire year. The union wanted a different deal. Even with no deal they want to just carry on with the same one until a new deal.

Owners hate the cba and want a new deal. The old one is expired and they cant have it back. Either negotiate a new one or you cant play in the NHL.

The owners OWN the NHL . They OWN the rights to the Stanley Cup.

The union OWNS nothing. They have the current talent. That is all they own.


The NHL are the only ones who can give out the Stanley Cup. The players can TRY to start up their own form of 'WHA' in an attempt to be owners and players at the same time thus have any 'CBA' they want.

Good luck. They manpower, skill and financial backing it takes to build arenas , get political consensus , market the game , scout new talent , develop minor league teams blah blah blah is WAY beyond the scope of the NHPLA.

The only reason why the WHA worked is because the owners were trying to lowball so badly that major stars signed for literally 3 to 5 times as much in a new league , and even in this once in a lifetime situation, it only lasted 7 years.

The owners have LOCKED OUT the players, inviting them to go ahead and start their own league. Even if Atlanta , Phoenix and several other NHL teams are losing money Im sure the NHLPA can somehow start its own VIABLE league right?

Meanwhile the NHL should simply fire the players if they want to play hardball and simply sign new guys to the teams. Within 2 or 3 years the NHL draft will start to replace the current stars with new ones. Just like the normal way of life for NHL players. Its a 6 years average career.

You guys wanna whine from the players point of view? What LEVERAGE do they have?

None.

If I was the owners I fire their asses unless they accept 50% and 5 year maximum contracts.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1046 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,771 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 22 September 2012 - 12:04 AM

Which replacement player NHL 13 does EA want to put on their cover? Which advertiser wants their logo on the shirt of a nobody? Owners can't fire Sidney Crosby and all the marketing that's been poured into making him an icon. No players, no advertising, no fan interest, no ticket sales. Not enough to matter anyways.

You also don't seem to get that the owners are not a united front. They are a bickering mess. Many don't want a lockout at all, so only certain GMs would fire players, and they'd be left with crap teams.
  • 0

#1047 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,572 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 22 September 2012 - 12:47 AM

Except your comparison is imaginary. The difference with NHL hockey is it is happening for real.

Besides that, sure the European teams are happy to sign NHL players, but how do you think the displaced players feel about it? It's not like the NHLers going overseas need the money. These are all extremely high paid players that are going over there.

Just imagine if Tom Cruise comes up here and takes John Mckeachie's Key West Ford radio commercial during the next labor dispute in Hollywood. Wouldn't that be swell!
  • 1

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#1048 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:12 AM

that is mighty big of the players to tell then owners to chip in another 100M to revenue sharing. Players tell owners to put in another 66% into team revenue sharing but the players will not except a 7% cut in revenue splitting.

some people post that the playes are the product and they are partners and should not be viewed as employees. If that is the case should the owners then get 43% of all the players endorsements then? If it wasn't for the owners giving these joe's a job, they would not be able brand themselves for endorsements. Why is it a crime for the owners to make money outside of hockey (other businesses) but it is ok for the players to make money off the ice but they are using the owners team to make that money?

Edited by canuckelhead70, 22 September 2012 - 08:21 AM.

  • 0

#1049 Scoobydooby

Scoobydooby

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,388 posts
  • Joined: 17-January 08

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:47 AM

The CBA expired. The owners want a new agreement. They have said so for an entire year. The union wanted a different deal. Even with no deal they want to just carry on with the same one until a new deal.

Owners hate the cba and want a new deal. The old one is expired and they cant have it back. Either negotiate a new one or you cant play in the NHL.

The owners OWN the NHL . They OWN the rights to the Stanley Cup.

The union OWNS nothing. They have the current talent. That is all they own.


The NHL are the only ones who can give out the Stanley Cup. The players can TRY to start up their own form of 'WHA' in an attempt to be owners and players at the same time thus have any 'CBA' they want.

Good luck. They manpower, skill and financial backing it takes to build arenas , get political consensus , market the game , scout new talent , develop minor league teams blah blah blah is WAY beyond the scope of the NHPLA.

The only reason why the WHA worked is because the owners were trying to lowball so badly that major stars signed for literally 3 to 5 times as much in a new league , and even in this once in a lifetime situation, it only lasted 7 years.

The owners have LOCKED OUT the players, inviting them to go ahead and start their own league. Even if Atlanta , Phoenix and several other NHL teams are losing money Im sure the NHLPA can somehow start its own VIABLE league right?

Meanwhile the NHL should simply fire the players if they want to play hardball and simply sign new guys to the teams. Within 2 or 3 years the NHL draft will start to replace the current stars with new ones. Just like the normal way of life for NHL players. Its a 6 years average career.

You guys wanna whine from the players point of view? What LEVERAGE do they have?

None.

If I was the owners I fire their asses unless they accept 50% and 5 year maximum contracts.


uhhh...?

you actually think that firing all the players and bringing in othet players would be an option for the nhl?
It would be if they were trying to royally screw themselves, otherwise this is idea is borderline retardation.
  • 2

Posted Image


#1050 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,166 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:59 AM

It would appear that if the players position is that ownership should cover the subidizing of those teams that are struggling then that increased 'sharing' has to come from TO, NYR, Habs and possibly Vancouver. Those are the only teams making over $20 M profit. I am assuming that current subsidies are already accounted for in their P&L statements.

Again I make the point of the Laffers biggest shareholder, the Ontario Teachers Retirement Fund, asking themselves why they would do that? Their purpose is to invest money to pay teacher pensions in Ontario.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.