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

#91 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:58 PM

I understand what you mean about the owner's POV, but you also have to think about this as well. The owners are the ones who approve and pay out these huge contracts and have their GM's offer them and everything. Owners should've learned from the whole NYI/Rick DiPietro huge contract fiasco, but instead, they did the total opposite. Owners should have a right to step in and intervene when a GM offers a player, on the team or not, an insanely large contract of money.

Oh yes, i would love to see what the canucks fan would say if MG had to pull his offer for Doan off the table because Aquillini thought it was an insanely large contract. That would work well to have owners tell their GMs that they can't do what is allowed under the CBA that they themselves have negotiated with the NHLPA.
  • 0

#92 allkill326

allkill326

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,270 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 11:14 PM

Bettman hates the NHL. Why be a commissioner then?
  • 0
Posted Image

#93 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,444 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 11:24 PM

My goodness the ignorance on this board is staggering - although this should be of absolutely no surprise unfortunately.

First of all, Bettman is simply a puppet figure for the owners. He doesn't make a negotiating move or a public statement unless he has a mandate from the majority of the owners. People out there blaming Bettman for ruining this or destroying that should realize that all along it has been the owners telling Bettman what to do. Any hate for Bettman is completely misdirected and should be sent towards the owners - Bettman is nothing and doesn't even schedule a meeting with the NHLPA without the consent of the owners.

Second, greed is a two-sided evil in this case. Neither the owners nor the NHLPA are innocent in the greed department. To blame either side and let the other off the hook is to be completely ignorant of the process or the issues. This is a negotiations. Anyone thinking that one side will simply give their final offer right off the bat is truly naive and has no business commenting on the proceedings, they'll just sound foolish.

Last, if the NHL season does get postponed, cancelled or delayed, I for one will not lose any sleep over it. There is so much hockey out there to follow at various levels I don't have the time to get into it to the point I would like to - this would give me the opportunity to appreciate what makes the NHL even exist - GRASSROOTS Canadian hockey!


What he said. Well said. Bettman is just respresenting the owners, and it sounds like probably majority of the owners do not like the new CBA. That's all. He's doing whats best for the owners. Right now Owners should have the say, as they are the ones who pay the NHL players. I just hope something gets done quick. That being said, as a die hard hockey fan, I know there are other levels of hockey, but cmon..... nothing comes close to the NHL not even KHL.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#94 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,892 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:01 AM

Well if there's one positive about this entire thing is that there is a proposal - counter proposal going on. This means the sides are talking and can hopefully find a medium. If player revenue does decline we will also see a decrease in the salary cap. I'm happy that Gillis saved an extra 3 mil in cap space but it might not be enough.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#95 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,039 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:46 AM

I think a lot of the hatred for Bettman stems from the fact that he's just not likable, and is not a hockey guy.

he has no roots in hockey, so he comes off as not caring or being personally invested in the actual game of hockey. He comes off as a shrewd, calculating rat.

While it's true that he was hired by the owners, do no for one second think Bettman is powerless. That would be naive to think so.


I wouldn't worry too much about this statement, it's posturing in hopes to speed up the process. My guess is that eventually the revenue sharing will be 50/50, and the show will go on. The league might not start on time, but we won't go an entire season without NHL hockey, I wouldn't worry.

I do, however, find it hilarious that the owners are crying over salary costs when they went and dished out a bunch of ridiculous contracts to Parise, Suter and Weber just this past summer. The hypocrisy is astounding.
  • 0

RIP LB RR PD


#96 Revanbc

Revanbc

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:40 AM

a lockout would be bad
  • 0
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/ptparatroopa/billy.jpg[/img]

#97 Burnsey

Burnsey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,807 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:16 AM

so this would be the 3rd lock-out in his time and he will probably still keep his job. Expanding the NHL was the only good thing that I'm aware of that he's done. Lets just hope the NHL agree's with the counter proposal...I doubt it though :S
  • 0

team-canada-jarome-iginla-photo.jpg


#98 Lychees

Lychees

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,101 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 04:17 AM

Guiness world records? Yes I'd like to enter Gary Bettman for having 3 lockouts in the span of 20 years of running a "national" sports league

Edited by HiChui, 10 August 2012 - 04:18 AM.

  • 0

#99 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,533 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 04:42 AM

Maybe it is time for the fans to lock out the NHL and show these greedy S.O.B's owners, players and Herr Bettman, where the money really comes from and who they all work for. There is plenty of high quality hockey out there if you are willing to look for it, there is a four game Canada/Russia junior series that started last night, sportsnet showed CHL every Friday last year, anyone with a computer can livestream CHL and AHL if you don't have them in your city. NCAA and Canadian University hockey, even walk to a local rink and watch the kids play, might bring back some fond memories, maybe too many of us have become spoiled with the amount of NHL on TV at the moment and we have forgotten our love of the GAME itself.
  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#100 consciouscanadian

consciouscanadian

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 06:39 AM

Mr. Spector has a weak grasp of economics. And while he accuses the League and the Players of pandering to `the fans`, he's doing the same himself through this article.
  • 0

#101 JLumme

JLumme

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,106 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 06:59 AM

so this would be the 3rd lock-out in his time and he will probably still keep his job. Expanding the NHL was the only good thing that I'm aware of that he's done. Lets just hope the NHL agree's with the counter proposal...I doubt it though :S


Wasn't expanding the NHL to places like Phoenix, Dallas, Colombus, Nashville & Florida exactly what got the league into this revenue sharing mess in the first place? Me thinks yes.
  • 2

#102 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,428 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:27 AM

Who was offering long term front loaded contracts? Owners and GM's.
Who makes crazy RFA contract offers and drives up salaries? Again Owners and GM's
Who decided to go to places like Phoenix and water down the league? Owners and Bettman.

Not one of the current problems was created by the players.

And who in the end pays the freight? The Fans.

Who gets screwed by having a lockout. Once again...the fans.

And Gary deserves support because?
  • 1
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#103 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:57 AM

Who was offering long term front loaded contracts? Owners and GM's.
Who makes crazy RFA contract offers and drives up salaries? Again Owners and GM's
Who decided to go to places like Phoenix and water down the league? Owners and Bettman.

Not one of the current problems was created by the players.

And who in the end pays the freight? The Fans.

Who gets screwed by having a lockout. Once again...the Canadian fans.

And Gary deserves support because?

Thought I'd fix it a bit for you. The NHL would be screwed if it weren't for fans in Canada, if all he (Bettman) talks about is revenue.
  • 0

#104 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,311 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 10 August 2012 - 08:49 AM

Would've read that if it wasn't written by Spector.
  • 0
Posted Image

#105 Prngr44

Prngr44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,488 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:06 AM

If what I heard was right, players are at 57% right now. Owners/league wants to bring it down to 43%. Every other league is currently 50/50, but the players won't even wanna drop the 7% to get to 50/50, let alone 43%.


Not quite.

MLB is ~51%, NFL is 46-48%, NBA is 50-51%.

I do think the owners lowballed 43 in the hopes to get to 50/50.


There's too many moving parts to pinpoint any particular one. Like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, Aquilini sure doesn't like sending any of his profits to the Coyotes. Who would?? But I GUARANTEE Aquilini wouldn't have as much profits without Phoenix. The largest issue in my opinion is between the "have" owners and the "have not" owners.

I think a better control to out-of-control salaries, is to calculate the cap ceiling and floor differently. Trim the top 2 and bottom 2 clubs and THEN calculate your levels. The haves will have less ability to crank the ceiling up so far so fast. I mean the current floor was the ceiling 7 years ago!!
  • 0
I hate the Canucks so much they're my second favorite team.
Posted Image

#106 Xbox

Xbox

    Formerly Lups

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,735 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 11

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:50 AM

Wait so that means that the CHL will play for the Stanley Cup next season if there is a lockout? Since in 2006 they said the cup can be win by the highest level of hockey in CANADA?


AHL
  • 0

2yo50sh.jpg

small.pngGM - STHS                                  Sig Cred to -Vintage Canuck-

 

 


#107 canacks1970

canacks1970

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,617 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:51 AM

Nothing wrong with Bettman's stance IMO. The CBA has some loopholes that need to be closed, ie: cap circumvention. The revenue sharing needs to be revised to match other leagues. It needs to be at least 50/50. If there needs to be a lockout then so be it.

At least the league will be healthier going forward. I can take a couple of months delay in start to the season in exchange for long-term health of the NHL.

The only way to really put pressure on the players and let them know the league is serious is by threatening and following thru with a lockout. Nothing will get their attention like a few missed pay cheques.




I respect what your getting at and I agree to a certain point, but isn't this the same man who been let go by the Nba? The same man who can't figure out that certain cities shouldn't have nhl teams. The fact he's having a hard time trying to figure out how to slow down head injuries and only after the fact seeing his star players like Crosby go down before he realized that something had to be done. The same Bettmen who has a hand of inconsistencies of discipline or suspensions of a player?? A head shot is a head shot. I shouldn't matter if your name is Shea Weber or Joe Smith. Why should it matter how you give a suspension based on a players statues with the league. Star or not!!
Wasn't the point of the last lockout was to solve all these problems the league is having now. The problem is as long as you have the same monkies running this league you wil always have the same problems.
IMO Betmen and his cronies mismanaged the league and letting the owners spending get out of hand . You can have as many lockouts you want but if you have the same people running the it and making the same excuses over and over again then what was the point of the last two lockouts When they haven't learn from their previous mistakes?
Chances are we are going see lockout after lockout as long as you have Bettmen and his cronies running the show.

Edited by canacks1970, 10 August 2012 - 10:34 AM.

  • 0

#108 Jaku

Jaku

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,186 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 08

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:52 AM

Bettman the reason there has been 3 lockouts in the last 18 years. What a friggen clown. This guy is the biggest joke in the history of hockey.
  • 0
R.I.P- #37 Rick Rypien, #28 Luc Bourdon, #38 Pavol Demitra Forever Canucks.
Posted Image
Credit to Khalifawiz501 for the Sig.
Posted ImageColorado Avalanche GM in CDC STHS Sim League

#109 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,364 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:06 AM

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

IT IS NOT THE PLAYERS DECISION TO BE LOCKED OUT!!! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

Think of it this way the owners have the keys to the arenas and therefore are the ones who get to fricken lock the doors on the players. Thereby Locking out the players who want to come in and play hockey. The players could all stand up and say lock us out but if the owners don't do it there is no lockout. What is so hard to understand about that?

IF THERE IS A LOCKOUT THE MONEY THE PLAYERS WILL EARN COMES FROM THE NHLPA ESCROW HOLDINGS SO IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH A LOCKOUT!!!!

If you can't understand this then I see you have zero understanding of the situation and a very limited intellgence to be able to grasp very simple concepts and I wish you luck in your life.
  • 1
Posted Image

#110 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:50 AM

I'm just trying to understand the logistics of this a bit better. Assuming the NHL and NHLPA split 50%

When a team makes its revenue they put them all in the middle give the NHLPA 50% Then split their 50% amongst 30 teams, then pay there expenses?

Does the NHLPA pay the players salarys with there 50% or is that an expense the NHL owners are paying with their share of their revenues 1.67% of total revenues?

Edited by Neufy161, 10 August 2012 - 10:58 AM.

  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#111 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:09 AM

They should add into this CBA that negotiations will commence in the summer 1 year before the CBA expires.

Clearly 3 month's isn't enough time, you would think they would have figured this out by now.
  • 1

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#112 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,364 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:24 AM

I'm just trying to understand the logistics of this a bit better. Assuming the NHL and NHLPA split 50%

When a team makes its revenue they put them all in the middle give the NHLPA 50% Then split their 50% amongst 30 teams, then pay there expenses?

Does the NHLPA pay the players salarys with there 50% or is that an expense the NHL owners are paying with their share of their revenues 1.67% of total revenues?

The 50% or whatever it ends up being is calculated by the combined salaries of all the NHL players or at least the allowable amount ie the Cap. So lets stick with the 50-50 share. if the Salary Cap is say $70,000,000 we would times that by 30 teams = 2.1 Billion meaning the total league revenue was 4.2 Billion. From the owners 2.1 Billion that they make they would still have to pay for operating costs like advertising, travel expenses etc. where the players 2.1 Billion would still have to go pay income tax etc.

As a note the NHLPA does not actually make money from the revenue of the NHL but rather the fees and stuff associated with being a member of the Union which all player pay into (They are paid by their respective teams not the NHLPA), and the % of player income and fines levied by the league ect that is held in escrow for the player should there be a lockout or strike. So that they have some money rather than having potentially no work income for the year.

Edited by Hamhuis' Beard, 10 August 2012 - 11:32 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#113 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:28 AM

No hockey until after Christmas is my bet.

This is going to be terrible for the southern teams who have enough of a tough time keeping fans. I guess we also have another 6 months to trade Luongo though!

Two lockouts in a short period is a joke, I think the owners will find a lot less sympathy than they did last time. The players entirely caved last time and gave the owner's "cost certainty"... now they are saying that what they had asked for last time wasn't really good enough.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#114 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:33 AM

The 50% or whatever it ends up being is calculated by the combined salaries of all the NHL players or at least the allowable amount ie the Cap. So lets stick with the 50-50 share. if the Salary Cap is say $70,000,000 we would times that by 30 teams = 2.1 Billion meaning the total league revenue was 4.2 Billion. From the owners 2.1 Billion that they make they would still have to pay for operating costs like advertising, travel expenses etc. where the players 2.1 Billion would still have to go pay income tax etc.


So currently the NHLPA makes 57% and the NHL is trying to cut that down to 43%.

Hypothetically speaking, lets say this happened before last season.

Does this mean that players salary's will be readjusted to fit the new Cap?
If the Cap last season was 64.3 million, then it would have been rolled back to 50.8 million and a player making $1,000,000 that year before would have been readjusted to make $760,000?

Edited by Neufy161, 10 August 2012 - 11:35 AM.

  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#115 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:34 AM

DP

Edited by Neufy161, 10 August 2012 - 11:34 AM.

  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#116 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,364 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:39 AM

So currently the NHLPA makes 57% and the NHL is trying to cut that down to 43%.

Hypothetically speaking, lets say this happened before last season.

Does this mean that players salary's will be readjusted to fit the new Cap?
If the Cap last season was 64.3 million, then it would have been rolled back to 50.8 million and a player making $1,000,000 that year before would have been readjusted to make $760,000?

Thats really is the sticking point. Any rollback would mean a rollback in player salaries. Since the owners signed the contracts saying that their salary amount is what it is for some odd reason the players feel that this is wrong LOL.

It is kind of like going to your bank and saying that what you owe on your mortgage should be taken down 24% and the payments should refletct that. Not really going to fly but then again we don't have a team of corporate lawyers picking apart every word of the law into our favor ROFL.
  • 0
Posted Image

#117 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,876 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:41 AM

Nothing wrong with Bettman's stance IMO. The CBA has some loopholes that need to be closed, ie: cap circumvention. The revenue sharing needs to be revised to match other leagues. It needs to be at least 50/50. If there needs to be a lockout then so be it.


Your post shows a fairly stunning ignorance of the actual issues at hand.

1. You can't compare to any other leagues because the players don't even have access to the financial records of the teams to determine revenue. It also isn't ALL revenue, it is "hockey related" revenue which means there are a ton of revenue streams that the players get no part of. Each team has a set of various corporate shell structures where things like concessions, parking, arena rentals, etc get put into different company ledgers. They have made it almost impossible to determine how much a team makes. You can easily make it so the team itself loses $ 100 million a year, but the company that owns the arena (even with the same owner as the team) makes $150 million profit at the same time.

2. The 50/50 split concern is entirely bogus, not only for the reasons above, but also because in basketball for example it is a soft cap and you are allowed to designate a franchise player that doesn't count towards the cap. Other leagues have luxury tax systems and no league has a hard cap like the NHL.

3. Revenue sharing is something the PLAYERS want and not the league. The NHL through terrible business decisions has made a lot of franchises in places where they are not able to sustain themselves. Instead of having the very rich teams help out with revenue sharing to even the playing field, the league wants salaries low enough so that the worst run teams can make money and the better teams can make an even more obscene amount of money. Better decision... let the crappy teams fold or move to places where they can make money. Either way, it is not the player's problems to sort out bad practices by the league.

4. Bettman is supported by the low revenue teams who outvote the high revenue teams... at some point you are going to see a division and the high revenue teams could go and make their own league and afford all the best players. They are already losing millions to keep Phoenix afloat (imagine being the Chicago owner paying millions of your money to Phoenix and then getting beaten by them in the playoffs)... and to lose hundreds of millions during a shortened season is going to cause some problems.

5. It is the TEAMS doing the cap circumvention, no matter what rules are put in place they are finding ways around it (even while crying poor and negotiating a new deal). To expect the players to take the responsibility for policing the owner's behaviours is ridiculous. The league has all the power in the world to police it's own teams. They could have and should have denied the recent Weber/Suter/Parise contracts and stripped the teams of draft picks in addition to fines for trying to put those deals through... they chose not to do that.

Edited by Provost, 10 August 2012 - 11:48 AM.

  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#118 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:47 AM

The 50% or whatever it ends up being is calculated by the combined salaries of all the NHL players or at least the allowable amount ie the Cap. So lets stick with the 50-50 share. if the Salary Cap is say $70,000,000 we would times that by 30 teams = 2.1 Billion meaning the total league revenue was 4.2 Billion. From the owners 2.1 Billion that they make they would still have to pay for operating costs like advertising, travel expenses etc. where the players 2.1 Billion would still have to go pay income tax etc.

As a note the NHLPA does not actually make money from the revenue of the NHL but rather the fees and stuff associated with being a member of the Union which all player pay into (They are paid by their respective teams not the NHLPA), and the % of player income and fines levied by the league ect that is held in escrow for the player should there be a lockout or strike. So that they have some money rather than having potentially no work income for the year.


So essentially the big profit teams (Toronto, Vancouver) are completely supporting the low balled teams. (Florida, Phoenix) Since all Revenues get thrown in the middle, NHLPA gets paid 57%; leaving 47% that gets split 30 ways. Then Phoenix gets their 1.57% of total revenues (like every other team)

The revenue they're contributing to the pool is less then the expenses they will inevitably pay; but they still come out profitable once they get their 1.57%

Maybe instead of trying to increase their pockets at the players expense and readjusting contracts that they agreed to sign; and frankly have no right in changing. They should kick out the Dog teams that are dragging profits down.

3. Revenue sharing is something the PLAYERS want and not the league. The NHL through terrible business decisions has made a lot of franchises in places where they are not able to sustain themselves. Instead of having the very rich teams help out with revenue sharing to even the playing field, the league wants salaries low enough so that the worst run teams can make money and the better teams can make an even more obscene amount of money. Better decision... let the crappy teams fold or move to places where they can make money. Either way, it is not the player's problems to sort out bad practices by the league.


^ This

Edited by Neufy161, 10 August 2012 - 11:52 AM.

  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#119 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 71,036 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:05 PM

Hainsey: New CBA can “absolutely” be reached by Sept. 15:

Members of the NHLPA’s negotiating committee continue to preach optimism regarding a new collective bargaining agreement.


On Friday, Winnipeg Jets defenseman Ron Hainsey spoke on behalf of the committee and sounded confident a deal could be reached by Sept. 15 — the date when the current CBA expires.


More, from ESPN’s Katie Strang:


Hainsey just spoke on behalf of NHLPA, said he “absolutely” thinks a new deal can be done by September 15.


NHL Deputy commissioner Bill Daly also “optimistic” a deal can get done but admits it will require a lot of “hard work.”


Yesterday, Hainsey’s fellow committee member — Tampa Bay forward B.J. Crombeen — expressed a similar level of optimism regarding CBA talks.


Crombeen told the St. Petersburg Times he’s hopeful the NHLPA’s counter proposal, to be presented on Tuesday, will go a long way in getting a new CBA.


“Our proposal is a good proposal,” he said. “With our proposal we feel we’ll be closer to getting that agreement done.”


Yesterday, Bettman said owners wouldn’t play another year under the current collective bargaining agreement, eschewing NHLPA boss Donald Fehr”s remarks that play could continue under the existing CBA while the two parties worked on a new deal.


Translation: No deal by Sept. 15? Lockout.


Crombeen said Bettman’s comments were “something you don’t want to hear,” but was “confident there’s still a lot of time left to get a deal done.”


Of note: Friday’s meetings dealt primarily with hockey-related issues, according to Strang. Among the topics discussed were supplementary discipline, travel and ice conditions.


http://prohockeytalk...hed-by-sept-15/

Edited by -Vintage Canuck-, 10 August 2012 - 12:05 PM.

  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#120 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 71,036 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:15 PM

Mitchell to NHL - 'We Will Dig In':

Former Canuck Willie Mitchell is bringing home the Stanley Cup to Port McNeill this weekend...and also may have launched the first public volley against the NHL on CKNW. Speaking to David Pratt in an interview that you can hear on Sportstalk tonight, Mitchell gives us the first real indication that despite all of the public smiles and good will by the NHL Player's Association, there probably will not be hockey in October.


Among many topics discussed, Mitchell indicated the players will dig in on this negotiation as they gave up everything in the last CBA. Mitchell reiterated that the players want to play hockey in the fall, but will not be pushed around.


You can hear the entire Mitchell interview tonight on Sportstalk with David Pratt beginning at 9:05 PM.


http://www.cknw.com/...aspx?ID=1754364
  • 0

307mg00.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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