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

#1081 Rusty_Element

Rusty_Element

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 10

Posted 25 September 2012 - 09:18 AM

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.


+1 Buddy. You're obviously gonna get some haters for your comment but it's the cold, hard truth. Favorite quote from your post:

"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".

Not sure, but isn't the players cut based on gross revenue, not net revenue. So out of the 50 or 55% cut the owners get, they still have to pay for all the overhead leaving them far less than the players which pay taxes and spend the rest on cars and houses.
  • 0

#1082 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 25 September 2012 - 01:11 PM

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406070

NHL AND NHLPA RESUMING CBA NEGOTIATIONS ON FRIDAY


TORONTO - The NHL and NHL Players' Association have agreed to return to the bargaining table.

Deputy commissioner Bill Daly and NHL Players' Association special counsel Steve Fehr had a face-to-face meeting Tuesday in Toronto and scheduled a formal negotiating session between the sides for Friday in New York.

A location for the talks has yet to be determined.

The first collective bargaining negotiations since Sept. 12 are expected to focus on non-core economic issues, a departure from the approach taken in the final weeks before the lockout was enacted.

The sides were unable to make much progress on economics - they were $1 billion apart on their most recent proposals - and have instead decided to work on other issues that will make up the agreement.

Top officials from the NHL and NHLPA met Monday to review last season's economics and finalize escrow payments due to players. The CBA was not discussed.

After the session, Daly told reporters that the league was looking for some movement from the union because the NHL had tabled the most recent offer.

"Obviously, we've got to talk before you can get a deal, so I think it's important to get the talks going again," said Daly. "But you also have to have something to say. I think it's fair to say we feel like we need to hear from the players' association in a meaningful way because I don't think that they've really moved off their initial proposal, which was made more than a month ago now."

The NHL is currently engaged in its fourth work stoppage in the last 20 years. Since the lockout started a midnight on Sept. 15, a handful of players have expressed concern that it could last the entire season, with Detroit Red Wings forward Danny Cleary telling reporters Monday that he was "just trying to be realistic."

It took three months for the NHL and NHLPA to resume bargaining after the lockout began in 2004. That season was ultimately wiped out by the labour dispute.

  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1083 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 25 September 2012 - 01:14 PM

I have to think it's counter intuitive to begin discussing non-economic matters when they can't even agree on the core issue. I mean if it becomes the case that both sides start disagreeing about the length of player contracts, RFA/UFA status etc. it will be more damaging to the discussions than not meeting at all.

Fingers crossed that things go well on Friday and that player contracts are status quo for the most part. Maybe Fehr can use contract issues as a bargaining chip towards economic matters, time will tell.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1084 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 25 September 2012 - 04:09 PM

<p>This sums up what I think about the CBA lately...Posted Image

Edited by Here's Johnny, 25 September 2012 - 04:10 PM.

  • 0

#1085 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,710 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 25 September 2012 - 05:03 PM

This sh*ts so retarded...........
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1086 JoGuitar

JoGuitar

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,226 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 07

Posted 25 September 2012 - 05:23 PM

Oh just get in a room and end this ridiculous pissing contest already...
  • 0
Posted Image

#1087 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 25 September 2012 - 05:44 PM

players have 8% or 8.5% coming to them depending on who you talk to in October so that brings them close to 10 games which means they won't be missing pay checks till Nov 15th. Then the players start losing money that they won't make up. The league already revenue shares and I don't thinks it's fair that 5 or 6 teams have to bail out the rest of the league. As much as I hate to say it but the Leafs make a cool $80M a year, they shouldn't have to give up $20 to $25M to other teams.

I think this is going to be a long one, no deal til Nov 2013

Edited by canuckelhead70, 25 September 2012 - 05:44 PM.

  • 0

#1088 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 25 September 2012 - 06:33 PM

players have 8% or 8.5% coming to them depending on who you talk to in October so that brings them close to 10 games which means they won't be missing pay checks till Nov 15th. Then the players start losing money that they won't make up. The league already revenue shares and I don't thinks it's fair that 5 or 6 teams have to bail out the rest of the league. As much as I hate to say it but the Leafs make a cool $80M a year, they shouldn't have to give up $20 to $25M to other teams.

I think this is going to be a long one, no deal til Nov 2013


You got the first part right, but it's actually more like 10 teams that are healthy and 8 of those teams paying a transfer payment towards the rest of the league at $15M annually. Revenue sharing would be more balanced if not for some of the money pits in the southern US. Nashville, Florida, Tampa Bay and Pheonix especially make losses annually because they can't seem to attract fans even with 20$ tickets. What the players propose makes sense, to take some of the revenue they are conceding and give it to the struggling markets. The rich stay rich and struggling markets get by.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1089 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 25 September 2012 - 09:42 PM

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.



Sorry but the NHL holds all the cards here no matter what Mr. Fehr tells them.


Yep.

No different from last time, really. Of course players are going to put up a brave front at first to display solidarity. But when the (past) regular cheques stop coming month after month, you can bet that those players who make up the bulk of the union -- i.e. Andrew Alberts, Mason Raymond, and on and on -- will be burning the ears off their team reps, who will then be relaying the message to Fehr. And I don't fault those players a bit. People talk about the inequities amongst the owners' clan, but the division is also sharp on the players' side. Kovalchuk and Suter can shrug off a lost season; plugs and journeymen (and again, they make up the majority) like Chris Butler and Derek MacKenzie will be seeing their brief ticket to financial security get torn up or at least severely compromised.

The owners can take the hit. They're richer, and have more lucrative revenue streams.

Again, I don't take sides. I don't care who "wins". I just want to see hockey, but it's good to try to get a sense of the end game here. And I don't believe the majority of owners (and it only takes 8 owner votes to secure the go-ahead on any Bettman idea, itself informed by the top owners' group) will be too alarmed about another one year lockout, especially when they're confident of getting most of what they want.

Edited by Barry_Wilkins, 25 September 2012 - 09:45 PM.

  • 0

#1090 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 25 September 2012 - 10:38 PM

I think it's misleading to say the owners have less to lose. If players are out of work for a while, many guys who can't go down to the AHL or get a contract in the Swiss League or something will suffer. But what is their tolerance for not collecting their paychecks? It was pretty damn long last time. Meanwhile owners have less to complain about compared to last CBA. There are more teams making money, those in the black are making FAR more money, and a few are losing money. What is the tolerance of the majority of owners to stick it out until they get a deal that saves them a mil or a few hundred thousand a year in revenue sharing? When leveled against the cost of not running a season, my guess is that they actually will be less tolerant of Bettman's waiting game.

Players may have more to lose but they also seem far more willing to take the hit. That said, Fehr is reasonable. He isn't playing pissing contest with Bettman. If he was, we'd be waiting 3 months just for talks to restart like last lockout.
  • 0

#1091 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,068 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 25 September 2012 - 11:15 PM

I have to think it's counter intuitive to begin discussing non-economic matters when they can't even agree on the core issue. I mean if it becomes the case that both sides start disagreeing about the length of player contracts, RFA/UFA status etc. it will be more damaging to the discussions than not meeting at all.

Fingers crossed that things go well on Friday and that player contracts are status quo for the most part. Maybe Fehr can use contract issues as a bargaining chip towards economic matters, time will tell.


Or... maybe getting some of the other issues out of the way, it will give them a little momentum to tackle the bigger issues?
  • 0
Posted Image

#1092 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,339 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 25 September 2012 - 11:39 PM

Or... maybe getting some of the other issues out of the way, it will give them a little momentum to tackle the bigger issues?

That's my thought. If they can agree on one thing, it might help show them they can agree on another.

After all, this is better than not talking for 3 months (like with the last lockout) because they were waiting for the other side to budge on what is a major issue but only a small portion of what comprises the CBA.
  • 0

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1093 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:28 AM

Or... maybe getting some of the other issues out of the way, it will give them a little momentum to tackle the bigger issues?


That's my thought. If they can agree on one thing, it might help show them they can agree on another.

After all, this is better than not talking for 3 months (like with the last lockout) because they were waiting for the other side to budge on what is a major issue but only a small portion of what comprises the CBA.


You guys are very optimistic. I didn't rule out the possibility of things going well, but based on the NHL's initial proposal, 10 year RFA 5 year ELC and 6 year max contract length, I can't see the players agreeing on any of this. What I hope is that Bettman and company say they will keep status quo on contract issues, if the NHLPA agrees to move on revenue division. This would be ideal; hell I'm just happy both sides are talking.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1094 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,068 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:35 AM

Hell I'm just happy both sides are talking.


Agreed.

I was thinking even more minor issues just to get things going. I'm sure there are some things they could probably get out of the way before tackling the nasty issues.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1095 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,053 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:55 AM

You got the first part right, but it's actually more like 10 teams that are healthy and 8 of those teams paying a transfer payment towards the rest of the league at $15M annually. Revenue sharing would be more balanced if not for some of the money pits in the southern US. Nashville, Florida, Tampa Bay and Pheonix especially make losses annually because they can't seem to attract fans even with 20$ tickets. What the players propose makes sense, to take some of the revenue they are conceding and give it to the struggling markets. The rich stay rich and struggling markets get by.

What money is the NHLPA conceding? They have not wavered in sayin they would not give up any of the
$1.8B they were receiving under the old CBA. They made a case that revenues would grow at 7% per year over the next 7 years and that they would take less of that growth. The NHL was not prepared to take that gamble that revenue would continue to grow at that pace in a weak economy.

Where did you get the stat that 8 teams were paying $15M into a sharing pool? The Forbes article indicated there were only 4 teams making over a $20M profit. TO, Habs, NYR and the Canucks. The other 4 teams making money were all borderline. I do not know whether the profit figures were with the $15M you are talking about already removed. This is another reason why I think a 'return on investment (ROI)' expense line has to be included in the negociations. Successful teams also have to be able to have their profitability recognized by being able to keep more revenue. If your $15M figure is accurate a more equitable calculation for funding the 'sharing pool' might be a % of profit after a ROI recognition.
  • 0

#1096 kilgore

kilgore

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,401 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 11:42 AM

I said:
"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"

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.


I don't see why the players would strike if they said they are happy to play under the expired agreement until an agreement was reached by both sides. It would be more likely that the owners would initiate a lock-out midseason if they didn't like how the negotiations were going.


+1 Buddy. You're obviously gonna get some haters for your comment but it's the cold, hard truth. Favorite quote from your post:

"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".

Not sure, but isn't the players cut based on gross revenue, not net revenue. So out of the 50 or 55% cut the owners get, they still have to pay for all the overhead leaving them far less than the players which pay taxes and spend the rest on cars and houses.


You DO understand that there are 20 x more players than owners. And 40 x more if you include minor league players under contracts with their big clubs. So 43% to an owner is much more than the 57% that his team splits up.

Also sure there is overhead, but that owner also gets new expansion money, and revenue from all other events in his building. Besides that, the main money maker for sports franchises is in the re-sell. Even if they just broke even they'd be in a win situation eventually.

Bettman and the owners are simply p'd off that the contract they rammed down the players throats last time has not panned out in their favour as much as they thought, and so they block hockey from fans and these silver-spoon billionaires pout and stamp their feet like children until they get another lolipop even though they have 4 others crammed into their greedy little mouths.
  • 0

#1097 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:21 PM

What money is the NHLPA conceding? They have not wavered in sayin they would not give up any of the
$1.8B they were receiving under the old CBA. They made a case that revenues would grow at 7% per year over the next 7 years and that they would take less of that growth. The NHL was not prepared to take that gamble that revenue would continue to grow at that pace in a weak economy.

Where did you get the stat that 8 teams were paying $15M into a sharing pool? The Forbes article indicated there were only 4 teams making over a $20M profit. TO, Habs, NYR and the Canucks. The other 4 teams making money were all borderline. I do not know whether the profit figures were with the $15M you are talking about already removed. This is another reason why I think a 'return on investment (ROI)' expense line has to be included in the negociations. Successful teams also have to be able to have their profitability recognized by being able to keep more revenue. If your $15M figure is accurate a more equitable calculation for funding the 'sharing pool' might be a % of profit after a ROI recognition.


In their last proposal that was quickly buried by an NHL counter proposal, the players offered to move to 54.5 for the first year and down to 52.5 over 4 years. The players have offered to make these revenue concessions on the basis that this revenue go to the struggling markets.

The article from which I got my information: http://www.examiner....g-part-1-of-2-1 this was close to a month ago. Under the paragraph team/team it names the 8 teams paying the transfer payment to the struggling markets.

The situation is not nearly as dire as only 4 teams making an annual profit. Once again I do not understand the support for the owners, they have other investments. The Forbes numbers did not include concession sales or use of the building for other purposes, monster truck shows, concerts, motorcross, conventions etc. which many of the owners of NHL teams also own the building from which they further profit.


"According to the 2011-2012 individual team reported revenue, this highest earning teams were the Maple Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, Canucks, Red Wings, Bruins, Blackhawks, Flyers, Penguins and Flames). For their economic success they get taxed an average of $15 million each, which will then be split, based on certain factors, to the following teams: Coyotes (League-owned which creates problems, too), Winnipeg Jets (formerly Atlanta Thrashers), Blues, Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, Panthers, Predators, Avalanche, Lightning, Sabres, Capitals, Oilers, Wild. It’s also important to note that the Islanders, who grossed the least amount of money (63M, barely covering salary floor), is excluded from the benefits as the Dallas Stars (90M) and Anaheim Ducks (84M) because of the large market provision."

My point from which you built your argument, was that the notion that revenue given up by the players would ideally go to the struggling markets. This would also help the successful teams as they might take less of a transfer payment. It is in the players interest to keep the teams instead of folding them as the teams employ 22 regulars and up to 50 total contracts. Both sides want to keep a 30 team league, the players just want to see poorer teams looked after.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1098 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,053 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 26 September 2012 - 01:36 PM

In their last proposal that was quickly buried by an NHL counter proposal, the players offered to move to 54.5 for the first year and down to 52.5 over 4 years. The players have offered to make these revenue concessions on the basis that this revenue go to the struggling markets.

The article from which I got my information: http://www.examiner....g-part-1-of-2-1 this was close to a month ago. Under the paragraph team/team it names the 8 teams paying the transfer payment to the struggling markets.

The situation is not nearly as dire as only 4 teams making an annual profit. Once again I do not understand the support for the owners, they have other investments. The Forbes numbers did not include concession sales or use of the building for other purposes, monster truck shows, concerts, motorcross, conventions etc. which many of the owners of NHL teams also own the building from which they further profit.


"According to the 2011-2012 individual team reported revenue, this highest earning teams were the Maple Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, Canucks, Red Wings, Bruins, Blackhawks, Flyers, Penguins and Flames). For their economic success they get taxed an average of $15 million each, which will then be split, based on certain factors, to the following teams: Coyotes (League-owned which creates problems, too), Winnipeg Jets (formerly Atlanta Thrashers), Blues, Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, Panthers, Predators, Avalanche, Lightning, Sabres, Capitals, Oilers, Wild. It’s also important to note that the Islanders, who grossed the least amount of money (63M, barely covering salary floor), is excluded from the benefits as the Dallas Stars (90M) and Anaheim Ducks (84M) because of the large market provision."

My point from which you built your argument, was that the notion that revenue given up by the players would ideally go to the struggling markets. This would also help the successful teams as they might take less of a transfer payment. It is in the players interest to keep the teams instead of folding them as the teams employ 22 regulars and up to 50 total contracts. Both sides want to keep a 30 team league, the players just want to see poorer teams looked after.

Great stuff. Thanks for the link. I wasn't suggestion 4 teams made money only that 4 made significant money at +$20 M a year. Again I was fixated on a ROI expense line to compensate owners for their capital investment. Very interesting fact that the NJD and NYI are not eligible for transfer payments.
  • 1

#1099 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 26 September 2012 - 02:20 PM

The situation is not nearly as dire as only 4 teams making an annual profit. Once again I do not understand the support for the owners, they have other investments. The Forbes numbers did not include concession sales or use of the building for other purposes, monster truck shows, concerts, motorcross, conventions etc. which many of the owners of NHL teams also own the building from which they further profit.









Does it matter what other investments these owners have? Basically you are saying, if you have invested in 5 mutual fund and 4 are making money but one is not, and you are losing money year after year on it, you are going to leave it alone and not move it or care because you have 4 other investments that are making you money? I am pretty sure we all invest money to make money not lose and the owners are no different. We need not worry what other investments the owners have, we need to worry that we can find investors to buy teams. Last time I looked there seem to be a lot of people willing to play hockey but not a heck of a lot of people willing to buy hockey teams.

Edited by canuckelhead70, 26 September 2012 - 02:24 PM.

  • 1

#1100 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,630 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 02:33 PM

In their last proposal that was quickly buried by an NHL counter proposal, the players offered to move to 54.5 for the first year and down to 52.5 over 4 years. The players have offered to make these revenue concessions on the basis that this revenue go to the struggling markets.

The article from which I got my information: http://www.examiner....g-part-1-of-2-1 this was close to a month ago. Under the paragraph team/team it names the 8 teams paying the transfer payment to the struggling markets.

The situation is not nearly as dire as only 4 teams making an annual profit. Once again I do not understand the support for the owners, they have other investments. The Forbes numbers did not include concession sales or use of the building for other purposes, monster truck shows, concerts, motorcross, conventions etc. which many of the owners of NHL teams also own the building from which they further profit.


"According to the 2011-2012 individual team reported revenue, this highest earning teams were the Maple Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, Canucks, Red Wings, Bruins, Blackhawks, Flyers, Penguins and Flames). For their economic success they get taxed an average of $15 million each, which will then be split, based on certain factors, to the following teams: Coyotes (League-owned which creates problems, too), Winnipeg Jets (formerly Atlanta Thrashers), Blues, Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, Panthers, Predators, Avalanche, Lightning, Sabres, Capitals, Oilers, Wild. It’s also important to note that the Islanders, who grossed the least amount of money (63M, barely covering salary floor), is excluded from the benefits as the Dallas Stars (90M) and Anaheim Ducks (84M) because of the large market provision."

My point from which you built your argument, was that the notion that revenue given up by the players would ideally go to the struggling markets. This would also help the successful teams as they might take less of a transfer payment. It is in the players interest to keep the teams instead of folding them as the teams employ 22 regulars and up to 50 total contracts. Both sides want to keep a 30 team league, the players just want to see poorer teams looked after.


Winnipeg received revenue sharing for this past season?!? :huh:
  • 0

#1101 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68,317 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:28 PM

CBA meeting on Friday will be in New York and will address non core-economic issues (Pensions, Medical, Travel, Benefits).
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#1102 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:44 PM

CBA meeting on Friday will be in New York and will address non core-economic issues (Pensions, Medical, Travel, Benefits).


I don't see the problem with getting the smaller issues out of the way. It may build some good momentum and cooperation that will help them move towards tackling the bigger stuff.

And then things might be able to wrap up quicker if they can just find a middle ground on revenue sharing.

Edited by D-Bo7, 26 September 2012 - 04:44 PM.

  • 0

#1103 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:47 PM

Does it matter what other investments these owners have? Basically you are saying, if you have invested in 5 mutual fund and 4 are making money but one is not, and you are losing money year after year on it, you are going to leave it alone and not move it or care because you have 4 other investments that are making you money? I am pretty sure we all invest money to make money not lose and the owners are no different. We need not worry what other investments the owners have, we need to worry that we can find investors to buy teams. Last time I looked there seem to be a lot of people willing to play hockey but not a heck of a lot of people willing to buy hockey teams.


I really shouldn't even dignify this half baked response. All NHL teams are making money with the exception of the Islanders which could barely cover their cap. If you're going to pluck one paragraph out of an entire post then you are less educated than I thought. Take the time to either read the article or the rest of my post. Having an NHL franchise is a sure bet to make millions a year, the issue is whether they are making enough.

Once again I do not understand how you can glorify the owners in this situation. It's the equivalent of your boss trying to cut your salary when the business is actually growing. Your boss in this situation would have to be particularly greedy.

It doesn't take any special virtue to be an NHL owner, and yes there was a number of suitors when teams like Nashville went up for sale, it's not the case for Pheonix as it's a failure regardless of ownership. Players on the other hand start skating at 5, and make it a life dream to one day play in the NHL. These are guys who put their bodies through torture to maybe have a chance at playing for a decade. With the increase in head injuries as of late, players are brave to continue.

Go support your owners, pay another 20% for a Canucks ticket because Aquilini doesn't have his own island like his other billionaire friends. Glad to see someone has fallen for Daly's rhetoric.
  • 1

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1104 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 26 September 2012 - 06:32 PM

More than anything, it blows my mind that people who back the owners say "They're losing money!". Yes, billionaire businessmen are claiming they're losing money while having no third party actually take a look at their books to verify it. I could tell you I'm making a million dollars a week and it would mean as much as the expense figures offered to us by people who have a vested interest in lying about their expenses. Sure sounds like figures we should take at face value.

For people like Boudrias (thanks for the intelligent post btw) who question whether franchises are a money maker in the same way as flipping houses, think longer term. Franchises don't sell every week, but think about how much money has been made by owners compared to 2 CBAs ago? Even if they have lost money on some of those years, their investments have only grown in value with the promise of collecting a greater portion of revenues and ability to sign players for much less. The instituting of the cap alone could have upped a franchise's value by millions if it was bought before the last CBA. Operating losses for the owners are laughable, and they know it.

A final observation: remember a few weeks ago, before there was widespread talk about a possible lockout? Here on CDC people knew it was very likely, and there were discussions about it earlier in this very thread. And they were vastly more pro-players. Then the lockout was confirmed and boom, suddenly that was drowned out by people claiming the owners are in the right. It's as though the more casual fans suddenly went "Oh crap? Lockout? I have no idea who the owners are so I will take out my frustration on the only public figures I know of who are involved in this dispute! This must be the players fault!". I can't imagine anyone in their right mind who would think otherwise given the fact that the owners wrote the last CBA. Its so telling and so interesting when the conversation suddenly changed.
  • 2

#1105 niklas

niklas

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 236 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 09

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:27 PM

Lp
  • 0

#1106 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:53 PM

I don't see why the players would strike if they said they are happy to play under the expired agreement until an agreement was reached by both sides. It would be more likely that the owners would initiate a lock-out midseason if they didn't like how the negotiations were going.

I wouldn't say it's likely either, but the NHL enters in to a much riskier situation by accepting the NHLPA's offer to play under the old CBA.
  • 0

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

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#1107 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 26 September 2012 - 10:14 PM

The owners said they wouldn't play under the old CBA. I don't think alot of people realize that the NHL can't continue the way it was for 1 more season.

There's too many teams now in financial turmoil. Something needs to be done now before it's too late and the NHL is forced to start folding teams left right and center.
  • 0

#1108 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68,317 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 26 September 2012 - 10:16 PM

An NHL agent predicts that when the new CBA is signed, Gary Bettman will try to save his reputation by announcing 2 expansion team for Canada.

https://twitter.com/...630213858365441
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#1109 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 26 September 2012 - 10:22 PM

An NHL agent predicts that when the new CBA is signed, Gary Bettman will try to save his reputation by announcing 2 expansion team for Canada.

https://twitter.com/...630213858365441


Hmm, I don't know about two expansion teams...

Quebec City and Hamilton?

I think the NHL would be spreading it's brand too thin in Canada. I'd say one or the other, not both.
  • 0

#1110 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,175 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 27 September 2012 - 03:19 AM

Not sure if posted yet, but here are 2 of the funniest lockout vids I've seen:



This one looks like it was created by Nucks fans:

Edited by RunningWild, 27 September 2012 - 03:19 AM.

  • 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.