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

#1051 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,304 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:07 AM

@Guggti: Nash scores! Assisted by Tim Ramholt and Big Joe. 1-0 Davos.
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#1052 Garrison

Garrison

    Comets Star

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

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:20 AM

@Guggti: Nash scores! Assisted by Tim Ramholt and Big Joe. 1-0 Davos.


Will be hearing a lot more of this.
  • 0

#1053 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:25 AM

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.

Borderline?

It's something that a 12 year old might blurt out in passing ignorant thought.

It's unrealistic, and a terrible idea to begin with.
  • 1

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


#1054 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:57 AM

@Guggti: Nash scores! Assisted by Tim Ramholt and Big Joe. 1-0 Davos.


Who cares, it's the swiss league. That's like the equivalent of scoring in the ECHL.
  • 1

#1055 Scoobydooby

Scoobydooby

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 September 2012 - 05:19 PM

Borderline?

It's something that a 12 year old might blurt out in passing ignorant thought.

It's unrealistic, and a terrible idea to begin with.


indeed.. just figured Id try to be as nice about calling him retarded as possible. :D
  • 1

Posted Image


#1056 duchene9

duchene9

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 22 September 2012 - 06:35 PM

Posted Image
  • 2

#1057 scooter23222

scooter23222

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 09

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:21 PM

What i dont understand is that if the players would play under this agreement while they negotiate why didnt they have the foresight to write into the last agreement.Honestly what have they been doing for the last year? Why wait until the season is gonna start before going to work on this agreement( I understand leverage but it really doesnt benefit anyone)?It reminds me of the person we all know who arrives to work one minute before its starts or waits at a greenlight while texting unaware of the people around them. This isnt a surprise. Must be nice to have millions of dollars in the bank to sit and pout.Many people cant even afford to lose a day of work without it screwing up a tight budget. What about all the little people who now are looking for work elsewhere.What about the people that now have to use tax payer subsidies to help them out.Who pays for that? Oh yeah Taxpayers even people who dont watch hockey.Its such a S@#t rolls downhill effect. Anyways Just wanted to rant.I want a season and i am sure i will watch again but i have lost a lot of respect for the GAME. Its Like having a bad girlfriend that you want to get rid of but the sex is just too good and keep going back for more.
  • 1

#1058 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,304 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:54 PM

Canucks GM Mike Gillis tight-lipped about lockout, but confirms Tanev to Wolves:

For many in the hockey community who have been around a while, this lockout has very much the same feel and complexion as the last one, give or take several of the issues.


The players, owners, employees and the people in the adjoining businesses that are suffering the collateral damage of this difficult situation are all experiencing very much the same thoughts and emotions from 2004 when a stoppage with this same feel first started with everyone hoping it doesn’t go a full season like last time, or longer.


But that’s decidedly not the case for Vancouver Canucks general manager Mike Gills.


During the last go-round, Gills was one of the leading agents in the game with a group of outstanding players of all ages who relied on his counsel with respect to setting direction for their own careers on the ice in some ways as well as every conceivable way off it. As a businessman he had a reputation for running perhaps the most efficient agent operation in the game given the low overhead he maintained, augmented by a few carefully selected associates and close friends he’d encountered over the years who provided other services to his clients, including financial advise on an independent basis if they so wished.


So impressive was the whole package that he was one of the inner sanctum of agents who would sometimes be asked for their opinions, although to what degree those views affected what transpired isn’t known. Gillis didn’t say much publicly other than one well-watched and enjoyed appearance on TSN’s Off the Record show along with fellow agent at the time J. P. Barry and commissioner Gary Bettman’s right-hand man Bill Daly, which certainly uplifted the level of debate if only for a day. For the most part he kept his clients informed and off the back of the Association leadership and waited for the conflict to end so his clients and thus he himself could start getting paid again.


Fast forward to right now and at least Gillis feels he can do some things to get ready for a season everyone in the industry hopes happens. And he gets paid, too, perhaps not the full amount, although he says that hasn’t been determined yet. But as everyone knows, Detroit’s Jimmy Devellano more than most, there is a gag order on NHL personnel during these lockouts so nobody with any team says much of anything lest they incur a considerable fine from the league if it’s deemed to be the wrong comment. So Gillis was understandably reluctant to say too much.


“Last time I could talk about it but not do anything and now really there’s nothing much to say,” he says. “I didn’t really say anything last time either.


“We’re working on our cap issues right now carefully calculating a number of different scenarios that may occur after this is over and we’re trying to be as ready as we possibly can be when play starts again.


“I’m going to go to Chicago in early October to watch most of their training camp down there and keep as good a tab on our young players as we can.”


The Canucks will be assigning Chris Tanev to Chicago although you have to wonder whether it wouldn’t be a better idea to keep him up here working on his size and physical strength for a longer period of time, giving him that lift in strength that would serve him so well. After all, he’s dominated at that level already. Another player slated for Vancouver this year but going down now is Zack Kassian, but he’s still pretty green, Tanev having an exceptional head for the game not a lot of 22-year-old defencemen enjoy.


“Zack is still very young and hasn’t really played that much so he’s going as well,” said Gillis of the big forward with 74 pro games under his belt, including 33 at the AHL level where he had considerable success. He spent some time working out with the Sedins this spring and if he could copy their career improvement pattern in any way, Gillis would certainly have something to smile about.


http://www.theprovin..._medium=twitter
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#1059 NightHawkSniper

NightHawkSniper

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,501 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 10

Posted 23 September 2012 - 01:21 PM



Time to break down this serious thread
  • 1

5577747361_37d631069c_m.jpg
 


#1060 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,304 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 23 September 2012 - 06:07 PM

Steven Stamkos’ agent, Mark Guy, confirmed that Stamkos “has been contacted by many teams,” but is not close to making a decision. HC Lugano of the Swiss National League A League is one of the teams that is reportedly interested in Stamkos.

http://www.thefourth.../tbl120922.html
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#1061 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

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

Posted 23 September 2012 - 09:05 PM

*
POPULAR

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.


I still stand by my original comment. To compare NHL players to average working people is ridiculous. And, I never said going overseas was against any rules. I just personally don't like it.


If it was just about staying in shape, there are lots of ways to do that without going overseas. And to say that NHL players being locked out is a hardship, is an insult to every person that has real hardships. To simply say they make a 'higher wage' is over-simplifying it. They make an insane amount of money compared to the guys they are bumping out of roster spots. Have you noticed it's not Joe Average going overseas? It's mostly the stars who make more in a season than many of the guys they will be playing against make in a career. If it was just about staying in game shape, why aren't they all doing it?

It sounds like you are taking my stance too personally. I'm not on the side of either the owners or the players. I just want to see both sides get a deal done that makes sense and will be the kind of deal that they can use for decades to come, without further threat of labour disruptions.
  • 5
Posted Image

#1062 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

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

Posted 23 September 2012 - 09:08 PM

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.


Just so you know, the Teachers Fund sold their stake to Bell & Rogers.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1063 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,221 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:10 AM

I still stand by my original comment. To compare NHL players to average working people is ridiculous. And, I never said going overseas was against any rules. I just personally don't like it.

If it was just about staying in shape, there are lots of ways to do that without going overseas. And to say that NHL players being locked out is a hardship, is an insult to every person that has real hardships. To simply say they make a 'higher wage' is over-simplifying it. They make an insane amount of money compared to the guys they are bumping out of roster spots. Have you noticed it's not Joe Average going overseas? It's mostly the stars who make more in a season than many of the guys they will be playing against make in a career. If it was just about staying in game shape, why aren't they all doing it?

It sounds like you are taking my stance too personally. I'm not on the side of either the owners or the players. I just want to see both sides get a deal done that makes sense and will be the kind of deal that they can use for decades to come, without further threat of labour disruptions.


Timeout. The quality of this discussion is degrading fast. The culprit? Your response is filled with non-sequiturs.

I say "Players need to stay fit but also play the game to keep sharp" and you go "It's not just about being fit". Really? No crap. That's what literally the other 90% of that post I spent my time typing was about. Thanks for reading it so thoroughly. Really, it makes me feel special.

I say "Salary is not the only issue here. This affects players negatively in other ways" and you reply "Players make lots of money". No way! I never said they didn't. I actually typed out the words "Money is irrelevant" specifically referring to why players are looking for places to play. How did you miss that?

You're right, I am taking this personally. Not the fact that you disagree with me. That's fine. Preferred even. This all becomes redundant if we all agree. But the fact I type out all these words, construct them into sentences and fill them with knowledge and observation. Then in kicks your mental pre-editing function when reading my posts which means I might as well have written "All work and and no play makes Johnny a dull boy" over and over. I write something, you see it with your eyes, and then most of the relevant information is intercepted before your conscious mind interprets the act as "reading".

I suspect you can't be wrong when you don't properly acknowledge what others say, but then you couldn't be more wrong as you continue to drown out any rebuttals with words. Just words. Sure they have meaning, but they reply to questions never asked, and rebut points never made. How is that a conversation?

_____________________________________________________________________________

So let's reset. I feel the players are more honourable than the owners. They aren't striking, they want to fix a system that keeps breaking and, despite the fact they have already been promised money through contracts, they are willing to give a bit back so we can have hockey again. Are they poor? No. But should they be for us to agree that the pieces of paper they signed should be honoured? No.

Does it suck that, to stay in game shape, players who CAN do so (and many can't) are signing with other teams? Yes. But it's a tiny fraction of players. A few handfuls across many leagues is not causing some mass unemployment for grassroots hockey players (are they grassroots simply because they're not as good at the game?).

Most importantly, are the owners greedy? People seem confused on this one but as I keep saying, sports teams change hands a lot and the reason is the resale. You've got to spend money to make money, whether it's putting in a new oven in that house you're flipping, or pouring some extra dollars into player contracts in the hopes that you'll boost advertising revenue by making the playoffs. Then, when your team is worth more, you sell it for a big, fat profit. Whining that you're spending money while you're building a franchise is an absurd complaint. The fact some sports teams don't post a loss is what makes them worth so much, more than even many hockey team owners could afford. So this is a riskier investment, yes. But owners knew what they were getting into, and every one of their paydays is coming and they know it. To ask for more is plain greed.
  • 1

Keswho.jpg


#1064 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:57 AM

I think you are making some assumptions that are debateable. Your biggest being that 'operating costs are somewhat irrelvant' as the payday is when the team is sold. I won't argue that the big return can be when a business is sold and that is true throughout most businesses. A lot of startup investors cash out by selling.

Extending this concept to the NHL is a bit of a stretch. TBay, Atlanta, Phx, Nashville, Dallas were all sold because they were losing money and little capital gain was made on those sales. Currently the NYI and NJD are classic examples of teams losing money with those loses accumlating on the books year after year. I highly doubt there is some pot of gold at the end of those teams were sold. The only teams I can think of that have sold for a profit are the TO Laffers and the Habs. Ontario Teachers owned the Laffers and made money selling but then they made money operationally as well. The Molson's came back into ownership by re-buying the Habs. I assume the previous owner made money but again, operationally the Habs make money.

You seem to think that these Hockey teams are being flipped on a regular basis but I don't see that. When they do sell it appears to me that they are most often distress sales. I suspect it is more likely that losses generated by these clubs can be written off against profits generated in other areas of the corporate structure rather than capital gain profits on sale. Even in this instance the rationale could be questionable. If NHL franchises average $200 to $300 million in invested capital the anticipated return should be in the 15% area. Thusly a $200 m franchise should generate $30 m per year in returns. On that basis assuming losses can be recaptured on sale or that the ROI can be recovered by writting losses against profit in other areas become questionable as well.

If this is the case then I have to assume that ownership is generating other revenue ie media content. The CBA has a method for accounting for team revenues which both ownership and the NHLPA seem to agree with. They have a meeting today to discuss this very thing. If invested money does not generate a return usually the business dies. I also realize that some of these teams appeal to their owners as 'pet' projects. Not being insiders we have no real way of knowing ownership economics. I just don't see how your capital gain theory of return stands up.
  • 0

#1065 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,160 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 24 September 2012 - 10:56 AM

"The idea of 50-50 – similar to the NFL and the NBA – is seen as a “fair” split for the NHL. For Vancouver Canucks defenceman Kevin Bieksa and other players, the league’s problems are the owners’ fault. And they’re irked that the idea of 50-50 is viewed as “fair.”

“We’ll take 50-50, for sure, put more into the pie, and we’ll take 50-50,” Bieksa says."

I lol'd at this....only becuase it's Bieksa....I can see Henrik, Ovi or even Crosby saying this but to have a a lack luster player like Bieksa come out to the media lol get better guns the NHLPA.

As for the owners "problems" well the are gung ho in fixing that right now starting with the lock out.

They may put more in the pie Kevin only if you put out more effort. {and stop using the lame wrist shot you have}


GO OWNERS~!
  • 0

#1066 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:32 PM

"The idea of 50-50 – similar to the NFL and the NBA – is seen as a "fair" split for the NHL. For Vancouver Canucks defenceman Kevin Bieksa and other players, the league's problems are the owners' fault. And they're irked that the idea of 50-50 is viewed as "fair."

"We'll take 50-50, for sure, put more into the pie, and we'll take 50-50," Bieksa says."

I lol'd at this....only becuase it's Bieksa....I can see Henrik, Ovi or even Crosby saying this but to have a a lack luster player like Bieksa come out to the media lol get better guns the NHLPA.

As for the owners "problems" well the are gung ho in fixing that right now starting with the lock out.

They may put more in the pie Kevin only if you put out more effort. {and stop using the lame wrist shot you have}


GO OWNERS~!

That quote seems to indicate Bieksa is willing to take 50% if the owners take the 7% the players are giving up and put it to subsidizing weaker franchises. I know Bieksa took business admin in college and it appears he learned his lessons well. Take back in one hand what you gave with the other. Just goes to show you canna trust those business types! Also knowing KB's sarcastic wit he probably was tongue in cheek.
  • 0

#1067 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:40 PM

Actually what Bieksa said was quite witty. I think it may go over some people's heads though.

Right now the NHLPA wants to define what hockey related revenue is exactly. They believe that certain revenues that NHL owners are making should be included in HRR.

Therefore all Bieksa was saying is that they'll take 50/50, but they believe it should be 50/50 of a bigger pie (more revenue accounted for).
  • 0

#1068 Canucks_fo_life

Canucks_fo_life

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,601 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 06

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:53 PM

"The idea of 50-50 – similar to the NFL and the NBA – is seen as a "fair" split for the NHL. For Vancouver Canucks defenceman Kevin Bieksa and other players, the league's problems are the owners' fault. And they're irked that the idea of 50-50 is viewed as "fair."

"We'll take 50-50, for sure, put more into the pie, and we'll take 50-50," Bieksa says."

I lol'd at this....only becuase it's Bieksa....I can see Henrik, Ovi or even Crosby saying this but to have a a lack luster player like Bieksa come out to the media lol get better guns the NHLPA.

As for the owners "problems" well the are gung ho in fixing that right now starting with the lock out.

They may put more in the pie Kevin only if you put out more effort. {and stop using the lame wrist shot you have}


GO OWNERS~!














Yes Kevin, stay away from that "lame" wrist shot, cause it certainly doesn't lead to goals.......
  • 0
I rather lose with the Canucks, than win with any other team

This is OUR year

GO CANUCKS GOOOOOO!!!!!!!

#1069 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:53 PM

"The idea of 50-50 – similar to the NFL and the NBA – is seen as a "fair" split for the NHL. For Vancouver Canucks defenceman Kevin Bieksa and other players, the league's problems are the owners' fault. And they're irked that the idea of 50-50 is viewed as "fair."

"We'll take 50-50, for sure, put more into the pie, and we'll take 50-50," Bieksa says."

I lol'd at this....only becuase it's Bieksa....I can see Henrik, Ovi or even Crosby saying this but to have a a lack luster player like Bieksa come out to the media lol get better guns the NHLPA.

As for the owners "problems" well the are gung ho in fixing that right now starting with the lock out.

They may put more in the pie Kevin only if you put out more effort. {and stop using the lame wrist shot you have}


GO OWNERS~!


This sailed right over your head. What is it about billionaires with investments in many other areas that having an NHL franchise somehow requires your support against the ominous players' association?

Bieksa was saying that players would take 50% of a larger pot. He was not saying that the players should concede to owners demands, which btw I have yet to see the owners even offer 50%. Owners want to pay the players less immediately, it's like your boss cutting your salary when your business is actually growing. It's counter intuitive to believe that the owners share your perspective.
  • 2

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1070 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,160 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:53 PM

Go OWNER's YAY!

Leading to goals and scoring are 2 different things lol

Super fan!
  • 0

#1071 crazyforhockey

crazyforhockey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,218 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:27 PM

owners we take this pie and cut it half n half........players hmmm might be okay,that was a good size looking pie last year...


owners...wait wait its not the same size pie as last year....we had to trim a 'little bit off the HRR pie"

players...that doesnt look like the same pie.......


owners...but its still a pie....and by the way we have to pump your stomach for some of the pie you ate last year......




playes we dont like that at all....anyways I do hope you intend to share most of that with the small market teams...



owners weelll sort of...snider and jacobs needs  a big chunk of that...since they are sort of running the show.......


lol

Edited by crazyforhockey, 24 September 2012 - 02:28 PM.

  • 0

#1072 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,618 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:52 PM

LP
  • 0

#1073 kilgore

kilgore

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,791 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:14 PM

So the owners lock out the players AND THE FANS from their buildings, even though the players say they are willing to continue to play under the terms of the expired agreement while negotiating and have already offered to cut their own pay and handing it over to their billionaire bosses.

This from the owners and Bettman who battered the players into submitting to this last agreement and now want to re-write it to be even more favorable financially to them.

Last time one could make an argument for the owners insisting on a salary cap, but this time our hockey starvation is solely on the spiny little shoulders of Bettman and the owners. To try and sugarcoat their postion and distain for the hockey fan as anything other than sheer greed is ignorant.

The players had come down from 57% to 54% and the League had also modified their initial postion. So there was no need to NOT allow the season to start while whittling down their positions until a deal was made. It will most likely be a 50/50 split, or somewhere close to that, when its all finally done anyways. Why not allow the fans to watch hockey in the meanwhile.......other than to put pressure on the players, especially those 3rd and 4th liners that will feel it the most, and hoping for a revolt.

I think some on here don't understand the difference between a strike and a lock-out. And in this case, its not like other businesses where a customer can go to a competitor, we, the customer, are also locked out. I question the validity of anyone calling themselves a "fan" of hockey and the Canucks who cheer on the owners and thus encouraging them to lock out all of us real fans for months maybe years.
  • 2

30rw2li.jpg   ..................... Put Gino in the Ring of Honour!  .......................  2hg788l.jpg


#1074 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:26 PM

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.


I was watching this game before you were born. Its obvious you have no idea how it actually works. The players come and go. If they leave now, its just a matter of time before new ones take their place.

Regardless of whether there is a strike or not or there is a lock out or not.

You cite Sidney Crosby (who was out of the game for near 2 years and is one good hit away from permanent brain damage by the way) as the only way the NHL can make money.

The players are replaced. They have been replaced and will be replaced. The NHL will still be here.

Its irrelevant that YOU dont like it. The players cant start their own league so they can go play in the KHL and Swedish Leagues if they want.

The players have no RIGHT to play in the NHL . That expired September 15th. There is no salary cap. There is no bargaining agreement. The players only trump card is they have the best TALENT . But only right now. The fans will still watch the game without these stars.

The league survived and in fact thrived long before Crosby showed up here or Ovechkin or whomever the next fad is. The NHL can kick the players out and replace them .

Yes the owners suffer . But for what? 43% of their own money? Considering how many teams lose money, it aint a lot. There are 15 teams right now SAVING MONEY by not playing a single game.

Look, I dont know how much the league makes PROFIT after all loses are deducted and other expenses. But I will guarantee you it ain the 57% GUARANTEED profit the players get.

Now, lets get real. The owners are the ones who OWN the NHL. Not the players. If the players cannot accept a 50/50 split and 5 year max in contracts, then they are FIRED.

I can guarantee you there will be more than enough players EAGER to start another players union and accept a 50/50 deal. The NHL can play with those players until the draft replaces all the talent.

In the long run its way worth firing the entire NHLPA and invite new players to form another union.
  • 2
Posted Image

#1075 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,775 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 24 September 2012 - 07:14 PM

I was watching this game before you were born. Its obvious you have no idea how it actually works. The players come and go. If they leave now, its just a matter of time before new ones take their place.

Regardless of whether there is a strike or not or there is a lock out or not.

You cite Sidney Crosby (who was out of the game for near 2 years and is one good hit away from permanent brain damage by the way) as the only way the NHL can make money.

The players are replaced. They have been replaced and will be replaced. The NHL will still be here.

Its irrelevant that YOU dont like it. The players cant start their own league so they can go play in the KHL and Swedish Leagues if they want.

The players have no RIGHT to play in the NHL . That expired September 15th. There is no salary cap. There is no bargaining agreement. The players only trump card is they have the best TALENT . But only right now. The fans will still watch the game without these stars.

The league survived and in fact thrived long before Crosby showed up here or Ovechkin or whomever the next fad is. The NHL can kick the players out and replace them .

Yes the owners suffer . But for what? 43% of their own money? Considering how many teams lose money, it aint a lot. There are 15 teams right now SAVING MONEY by not playing a single game.

Look, I dont know how much the league makes PROFIT after all loses are deducted and other expenses. But I will guarantee you it ain the 57% GUARANTEED profit the players get.

Now, lets get real. The owners are the ones who OWN the NHL. Not the players. If the players cannot accept a 50/50 split and 5 year max in contracts, then they are FIRED.

I can guarantee you there will be more than enough players EAGER to start another players union and accept a 50/50 deal. The NHL can play with those players until the draft replaces all the talent.

In the long run its way worth firing the entire NHLPA and invite new players to form another union.


OK there Drybone - I think we get who your role model is...

Posted Image
  • 1

#1076 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,917 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 07:41 PM

I was watching this game before you were born. Its obvious you have no idea how it actually works. The players come and go. If they leave now, its just a matter of time before new ones take their place.

Regardless of whether there is a strike or not or there is a lock out or not.

You cite Sidney Crosby (who was out of the game for near 2 years and is one good hit away from permanent brain damage by the way) as the only way the NHL can make money.

The players are replaced. They have been replaced and will be replaced. The NHL will still be here.

Its irrelevant that YOU dont like it. The players cant start their own league so they can go play in the KHL and Swedish Leagues if they want.

The players have no RIGHT to play in the NHL . That expired September 15th. There is no salary cap. There is no bargaining agreement. The players only trump card is they have the best TALENT . But only right now. The fans will still watch the game without these stars.

The league survived and in fact thrived long before Crosby showed up here or Ovechkin or whomever the next fad is. The NHL can kick the players out and replace them .

Yes the owners suffer . But for what? 43% of their own money? Considering how many teams lose money, it aint a lot. There are 15 teams right now SAVING MONEY by not playing a single game.

Look, I dont know how much the league makes PROFIT after all loses are deducted and other expenses. But I will guarantee you it ain the 57% GUARANTEED profit the players get.

Now, lets get real. The owners are the ones who OWN the NHL. Not the players. If the players cannot accept a 50/50 split and 5 year max in contracts, then they are FIRED.

I can guarantee you there will be more than enough players EAGER to start another players union and accept a 50/50 deal. The NHL can play with those players until the draft replaces all the talent.

In the long run its way worth firing the entire NHLPA and invite new players to form another union.


Probably the stupidest comment I have ever read on CDC
  • 1

#1077 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,917 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 24 September 2012 - 07:43 PM

It appears Danny Cleary and his fellow NHL players are prepared to lose a season or more before the current NHL lockout is resolved.
According to the Detroit Free Press, the veteran Red Wings forward thinks the lockout could last longer than the 2004 edition which saw an entire season cancelled.
"I think people don't think it can go a year," Cleary told the Free Press on Sunday. "As players, we think it can. Maybe longer."
Cleary feels both sides are waiting for the other side to blink in the current labour showdown and he is confident the players will not cave this time.
"I think the league is waiting for us to make the move, and we're waiting for them to move. So someone has to move. And I don't see it coming from our end," Cleary told the newspaper. "We've given them a couple of good options that they can work with, and they, obviously, feel it's not good enough."
The league has already cancelled some pre-season games and the Red Wings are scheduled to open the season in three weeks but Cleary doesn't himself in a game by then.
"It's not going to start on time," he said. "No way."
The NHL and NHL Players' Association are holding informal discussions in Toronto on Monday.




http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405999


Now many of you may argue I am reading too much into this and truth be told I kind of am but I found these comments interesting for 1 reason.

Bob Mckenzie has numerously said if we lose this season then that is where it will get interesting. He believes the players will wanrt to get rid of the cap to compensate for the wages they lost.


For this to actually happen things would have to work out terribly in the next 6 months in terms of negotiations and the players would have to show something they didnt have last time which is solidarity. Do I believe the players have enough solidary to make this happen?

I do not know. My gut tells me frack no but I also understand that the NHL picked Donald Fehr as union leader for a reason. He is one of the biggest reasons the MLB does not have a cap until this day and he is a tough match for Bettman who has not had to face such a formidable PA leader. I also knwo that Fehr knows how to keep his ducks in a row and he is not your typical union leader.

If your answer to the question that the PA does have enough solidarity is yes then this is where it gets interesting.

We know right now it is a blinking match (Cleary summed it up damn well). However, we also know that the owners are relying on the players caving or else there first two offers wouldnt have been so terrible. If the players dont cave then things will get ugly. This is where the comments become real explosive. Hypothetically, we could have a lockout that is way longer than any of us EVER imagined. Does the NHL have an exit strategy if the lockout lasts more than one season? Yeah they probably do and the logical manoever would be bringing in replacement players? But I also believe that will not get them much revenue. Majority of fans watch the major leagues such as the NHL because they see the best players in the world. I dont think bringing in guys from the KHL/AHL/ Euro leagues would help the NHL.


So what would the NHL do at that point? This is where it gets REAL interesting.


I know I shoved a lot of scenarios here but I really do not believe it is as crazy as some of you may think.

The NHL feels like they can win right now because they won in 04 and they see the players self destructing. However, it could get real interesting if we lose this season and the players dont self destruct.

Edited by canuckbeliever, 24 September 2012 - 07:44 PM.

  • 1

#1078 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:29 PM

So the owners lock out the players AND THE FANS from their buildings, even though the players say they are willing to continue to play under the terms of the expired agreement while negotiating and have already offered to cut their own pay and handing it over to their billionaire bosses.

This from the owners and Bettman who battered the players into submitting to this last agreement and now want to re-write it to be even more favorable financially to them.

Last time one could make an argument for the owners insisting on a salary cap, but this time our hockey starvation is solely on the spiny little shoulders of Bettman and the owners. To try and sugarcoat their postion and distain for the hockey fan as anything other than sheer greed is ignorant.

The players had come down from 57% to 54% and the League had also modified their initial postion. So there was no need to NOT allow the season to start while whittling down their positions until a deal was made. It will most likely be a 50/50 split, or somewhere close to that, when its all finally done anyways. Why not allow the fans to watch hockey in the meanwhile.......other than to put pressure on the players, especially those 3rd and 4th liners that will feel it the most, and hoping for a revolt.

I think some on here don't understand the difference between a strike and a lock-out. And in this case, its not like other businesses where a customer can go to a competitor, we, the customer, are also locked out. I question the validity of anyone calling themselves a "fan" of hockey and the Canucks who cheer on the owners and thus encouraging them to lock out all of us real fans for months maybe years.

Of course the NHL isn't going to do that. They would be at risk of allowing a strike during the season, which would be worse for everyone. I'm not surprised at all.
  • 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


#1079 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:54 PM

I know a lot of us have been saying on here that this lockout is motivated by politics more than business, and I think the debacle happening with the NFL replacement refs is a good analogy to understand that point.

The NFL clearly doesn't have a leg to stand on in its lockout of the normal refs. Their demands are totally reasonable, and add up to a miniscule fraction of the NFL's revenues. And of course, the scab refs are completely incompetent and embarrassing. The NFL is only locking them out because they think they can get away with it without losing money. And they're probably right. But they're just more concerned with union busting.

Similarly, the NHL owners have no leg to stand on in their dispute with the players. When you won everything you wanted in the last labour dispute 7 years ago and since then have seen your revenues sky-rocket, you simply can not credibly claim that the economic model of the league is unsustainable. It's farcical, and that's just not what this lockout is about.

The NHL simply wants to kill the player's union. That's all. They see them as a problem rather than partners. It really is that simple. We're probably going to miss a season just so the owners can try to advance their idiotic political views.
  • 0

#1080 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 25 September 2012 - 08:35 AM

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405999


Now many of you may argue I am reading too much into this and truth be told I kind of am but I found these comments interesting for 1 reason.

Bob Mckenzie has numerously said if we lose this season then that is where it will get interesting. He believes the players will wanrt to get rid of the cap to compensate for the wages they lost.


For this to actually happen things would have to work out terribly in the next 6 months in terms of negotiations and the players would have to show something they didnt have last time which is solidarity. Do I believe the players have enough solidary to make this happen?

I do not know. My gut tells me frack no but I also understand that the NHL picked Donald Fehr as union leader for a reason. He is one of the biggest reasons the MLB does not have a cap until this day and he is a tough match for Bettman who has not had to face such a formidable PA leader. I also knwo that Fehr knows how to keep his ducks in a row and he is not your typical union leader.

If your answer to the question that the PA does have enough solidarity is yes then this is where it gets interesting.

We know right now it is a blinking match (Cleary summed it up damn well). However, we also know that the owners are relying on the players caving or else there first two offers wouldnt have been so terrible. If the players dont cave then things will get ugly. This is where the comments become real explosive. Hypothetically, we could have a lockout that is way longer than any of us EVER imagined. Does the NHL have an exit strategy if the lockout lasts more than one season? Yeah they probably do and the logical manoever would be bringing in replacement players? But I also believe that will not get them much revenue. Majority of fans watch the major leagues such as the NHL because they see the best players in the world. I dont think bringing in guys from the KHL/AHL/ Euro leagues would help the NHL.


So what would the NHL do at that point? This is where it gets REAL interesting.


I know I shoved a lot of scenarios here but I really do not believe it is as crazy as some of you may think.

The NHL feels like they can win right now because they won in 04 and they see the players self destructing. However, it could get real interesting if we lose this season and the players dont self destruct.

Since the players won't miss a pay day until October most to date lockout impact is neglible. If you think the only owners option would be hiring replacement players and that this would fail I might not agree. You are assuming NHLPA unity where I suspect a goodly number would abandon the cause. Maybe not thru lack of conviction but for simple economic reasons and career limitations.

If the NHL started hiring non-NHLPA players the only option for the NHLPA would be to start another league. That would be an absolute leap of faith on the players part. They would lose another % of players who would go back to the new NHL. Top that with all the young talent coming up who would have a choice between the new players league and the NHL.

Sorry but the NHL holds all the cards here no matter what Mr. Fehr tells them. All this said the downside risk to the NHL is how much damage that an extended lockout or replacement players could do to the borderline teams viability. Of course that risk extends to the players as well if a worse case scenario requires a shrinking of the number of teams.
  • 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.