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

#1531 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:35 PM

Thats it. I have had enough of the nhl and the business posturing. constant work stoppages and the "who cares about the hockey fan". Had enough of Bettmans press conferences and had enough of Allan Alda or should I say Donald "fehr" me. I'm done following it.

I'm actually enjoying watching nfl, cfl all the while saving my time and money. I ll watch ahl:cheap tickets, nhl like games without the whining and constant power and money struggles who are happy to keep and entice any hockey fan.C Ya nhl!
  • 0

#1532 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,343 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:39 PM

It's amazing how quickly the public perception changed this week. Most fans were on the players side last week, now most of us would side with owners. I don't think much as changed in the overall lockout situation, but new information has come to light (i.e. proposals) and the owners (via Bettman) have don't a masterful job of manipulating the situation via their "50/50 82 game" proposal.

Right now it seems like the players are being greedy and focusing a lot on how much they gave up last time. But I'm sure more information will come out in the next few days about the PA's position.

To be fair though, fans flip flop on hockey more than Mitt Romney on national issues.
  • 2

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1533 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,343 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:40 PM

Way to quote poetica's huge post twice, but have nothing to say about it. Keep up the good work.
  • 1

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1534 zombieksa

zombieksa

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,929 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 11

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:40 PM

I am still cautiously optimistic. Was expecting much worse reactions than what was seen from bettman. Deal will get done i think.
  • 0
"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."
-Edgar Allen Poe

#1535 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:41 PM

Way to quote poetica's huge post twice, but have nothing to say about it. Keep up the good work.


His response was embedded at the top of the second quote.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#1536 The Big Luongo

The Big Luongo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 06

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:41 PM

I have never swayed in my opinion that the players are to blame need to give back and now its just getting clearer and clearer that i am right and they are all a bunch of greedy spoiled brats or at least the leaders who are leading them.

Its time the decent players who appreciate what they do for a living and make outragious money playing the game they love step up and stop this.

In this game of hockey the players are all winning and only a few owners are and thats the bottom line nothing else.
  • 0

#1537 Mighty Walrus

Mighty Walrus

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 12

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:41 PM

.
  • 0

#1538 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,343 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:43 PM

His response was embedded at the top of the second quote.

Two short sentences posted inside the second set of quote tags somehow makes it worse.

.

At least the people wanting to see the last page from their phones have the decency to keep it short!

Edited by elvis15, 18 October 2012 - 01:44 PM.

  • 1

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1539 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:45 PM

Two short sentences posted inside the second set of quote tags somehow makes it worse.


Agreed, it was a mess to look at.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#1540 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:46 PM

Such BS.

At the end of the day you're both rich. Make a freakin deal already.
  • 2
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1541 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:46 PM

To be fair though, fans flip flop on hockey more than Mitt Romney on national issues.


True, but the "PR" side of the lockout is huge, just like it was last time. If the players are losing the PR war it puts more pressure on them to conceed. I'm not saying its the deciding factor, but it has an impact. Also, the more "educated" fans will see both proposals for what they are. But the all the average fan will remember is that the players turned down a "50/50 82 game" proposal.
  • 0

#1542 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,746 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:46 PM

The knee jerk SEASONS OVER reactions are cracking me up, we're finally making progress here people!

I'm still not convinced some of the people posting on this forum aren't cats and dogs using their owners computers while they're at work.
  • 0

#1543 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:49 PM

I have never swayed in my opinion that the players are to blame need to give back and now its just getting clearer and clearer that i am right and they are all a bunch of greedy spoiled brats or at least the leaders who are leading them.

Its time the decent players who appreciate what they do for a living and make outragious money playing the game they love step up and stop this.

In this game of hockey the players are all winning and only a few owners are and thats the bottom line nothing else.


Or the reality that BOTH sides need to give more than they currently are so that a truly fair agreement can be had?
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1544 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:49 PM

Such BS.

At the end of the day you're both rich. Make a freakin deal already.


There's a lot of money at stake so I have no issue with both sides fighting for what they feel is fair. But I do take issue with the impact the lockout has on all the average people that normally rely on the NHL for their livelihood (i.e. Canucks head office employees, stadium employees). These guys aren't rich and they'll have to find ways to supplement their income of suffer.
  • 0

#1545 hockeyville88

hockeyville88

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,408 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:50 PM

Damn it :(

Here i was starting to stock up the fridge with game day snacks
  • 0
Posted Image
Sig credit: GoaltenderInterference. Thanks!

#1546 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:51 PM

The knee jerk SEASONS OVER reactions are cracking me up, we're finally making progress here people!

I'm still not convinced some of the people posting on this forum aren't cats and dogs using their owners computers while they're at work.


The season may not be over, but I don't think any real progress was made. But the next week or so will really tell us the state of the NHL. If we see another proposal within 7-10 days I will be more hopeful, if not then it's not looking so good.
  • 0

#1547 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,460 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:53 PM

Look i don't have the time to go through your whole post but i will say that the owners have invested and made their money to buy a franchise and deserve return on their investments. The owners take all the risks at profitting or losing tons of money. There is several teams losing money and lots barely break even and insane high ticket prices and it's all due to players salaries being astronomical thats the bottom line. Why should owners lose money when overpayed spoiled players get their contracts no matter how their team does financially or how much the players underachieve. If a player gets paid to score 40 plus goals and drops to 20 he gets the same there is never a threat he won't get paid so that in itself imo is enough reason for players to shut up and sign a deal and get back at it. Average salaries in the 3+ million range living the lives they live and whining is downright ridiculous. I have no sympathy for the players in this whatsoever.


Surely you are intelligent enough to see the major contradiction in your point of view, right? If the owners "take all of the risks" shouldn't that by definition mean they suffer the consequences of their actions? If players are forced to pay for the bad decisions of the owners and the league, then owners do not take "all of the risks" now do they? In fact, it seems that owners aren't facing any consequences (you know, the outcome of taking all those risks) at all.

I'm not arguing that players are overpaid, I just remember that it's the OWNERS who set the salaries. If they think they're overpaying players, it's on them to make the proper decisions for their business's health rather than assuming the employees will take the hit so owners don't have to behave like actual business people. That's not taking all of the risk or responsibility, that's passing the buck!

Furthermore, the idea that owners "take all of the risks" is patently ridiculous in and of itself. For owners to actually take risks, they would have to be allowed to thrive or fail on their own. That doesn't happen. In the real world, business risks mean you make your decisions and live with the consequences, which could mean your business booms or closes its doors. That's not the world NHL franchises operate in, however. Unlike other businesses, NHL franchises operate in an artificially constrained system with the rules set largely by the owners for their benefit. That alone negates the risks other businesses face relating to operating in a free market.

But their risk negations don't end there. Not only do NHL franchises enjoy huge tax breaks the likes of which any other industry would offer to do disgusting things to politicians to get, they often get huge taxpayer handouts for arenas and the like despite the fact that they do not contribute any more to the local economy than other businesses that get less from taxpayers. (Which, if you're doing the math, means they cost the local economy.) Meaning, owners of these private corporations, unlike almost any others, are allowed to dip into the pockets of taxpayers to offset their financial risk while still allowing them to keep all of the profit.

And, if they still can't make it work the league offers them handouts in the form of team revenue sharing (which will likely be expanded to the bottom 20 teams in the league in the next CBA) to teams that reported a loss, making teams that reported a loss actually profitable. (A full share in 2010 was $10 million but only 2 teams reported operating losses of more than $10 million, meaning the teams that got the handout took home a profit while claiming poverty. Does that sound like "risk" to you? Know another industry where businesses that report an operating loss actually make a profit?)

If you honestly think owners are smart enough in business to have amassed the kind of wealth it takes to own an NHL franchise, why would you think they're dumb enough to stay in the NHL business if there wasn't money to be made?


....



Boudrias, huh?
  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1548 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:56 PM

Last page

  • 0
Posted Image

#1549 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,485 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:00 PM

I'm actually so sick of this.

50/50 is acceptable, I thought they wanted to create a plan for the future, this makes sense to me.
6 year contracts are ideal
3 year ELC is fair

Just figure this out already, you're all a bunch of egotistical maniacs drunk on wealth!
  • 0
Posted Image

#1550 The Big Luongo

The Big Luongo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 06

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:00 PM

Or the reality that BOTH sides need to give more than they currently are so that a truly fair agreement can be had?


Tell me this!

Why the hell should owners have to give more then they already have agreed to when no players lose money and owners do?

Jay Bouwmeester probably clears more then half of the NHL owners do a season!!

To me it's pretty foolish to think the owners should be giving more. The players will always be winning no matter what deal they sign and it's on them.


  • 0

#1551 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,343 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:07 PM

Tell me this!

Why the hell should owners have to give more then they already have agreed to when no players lose money and owners do?

Jay Bouwmeester probably clears more then half of the NHL owners do a season!!

To me it's pretty foolish to think the owners should be giving more. The players will always be winning no matter what deal they sign and it's on them.

I don't think anyone has said the owners should give more, it's just that the players shouldn't have to keep giving the same concessions they did last time. They'd like to keep what they ended up with in the last CBA, but have conceded they need to come down. That's hardly the owners giving more than what they'd already agreed to.

Edited by elvis15, 18 October 2012 - 02:12 PM.

  • 0

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1552 The Big Luongo

The Big Luongo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 06

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:08 PM

Surely you are intelligent enough to see the major contradiction in your point of view, right? If the owners "take all of the risks" shouldn't that by definition mean they suffer the consequences of their actions? If players are forced to pay for the bad decisions of the owners and the league, then owners do not take "all of the risks" now do they? In fact, it seems that owners aren't facing any consequences (you know, the outcome of taking all those risks) at all.

I'm not arguing that players are overpaid, I just remember that it's the OWNERS who set the salaries. If they think they're overpaying players, it's on them to make the proper decisions for their business's health rather than assuming the employees will take the hit so owners don't have to behave like actual business people. That's not taking all of the risk or responsibility, that's passing the buck!

Furthermore, the idea that owners "take all of the risks" is patently ridiculous in and of itself. For owners to actually take risks, they would have to be allowed to thrive or fail on their own. That doesn't happen. In the real world, business risks mean you make your decisions and live with the consequences, which could mean your business booms or closes its doors. That's not the world NHL franchises operate in, however. Unlike other businesses, NHL franchises operate in an artificially constrained system with the rules set largely by the owners for their benefit. That alone negates the risks other businesses face relating to operating in a free market.

But their risk negations don't end there. Not only do NHL franchises enjoy huge tax breaks the likes of which any other industry would offer to do disgusting things to politicians to get, they often get huge taxpayer handouts for arenas and the like despite the fact that they do not contribute any more to the local economy than other businesses that get less from taxpayers. (Which, if you're doing the math, means they cost the local economy.) Meaning, owners of these private corporations, unlike almost any others, are allowed to dip into the pockets of taxpayers to offset their financial risk while still allowing them to keep all of the profit.

And, if they still can't make it work the league offers them handouts in the form of team revenue sharing (which will likely be expanded to the bottom 20 teams in the league in the next CBA) to teams that reported a loss, making teams that reported a loss actually profitable. (A full share in 2010 was $10 million but only 2 teams reported operating losses of more than $10 million, meaning the teams that got the handout took home a profit while claiming poverty. Does that sound like "risk" to you? Know another industry where businesses that report an operating loss actually make a profit?)

If you honestly think owners are smart enough in business to have amassed the kind of wealth it takes to own an NHL franchise, why would you think they're dumb enough to stay in the NHL business if there wasn't money to be made?


....



Boudrias, huh?


The owners have to lure big players or they would be screwed more then they already are in their markets.

What do you suggest teams don't lure free agents and turn into AHL rosters losing all the time expecting to fill seats and generate revenue in make it or break it NHL cities?

This blaming owners for this is just another players spin to make themselves out to be hard done by its a joke.
  • 0

#1553 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,460 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:09 PM

Tell me this!

Why the hell should owners have to give more then they already have agreed to when no players lose money and owners do?

Jay Bouwmeester probably clears more then half of the NHL owners do a season!!

To me it's pretty foolish to think the owners should be giving more. The players will always be winning no matter what deal they sign and it's on them.


No one is saying the owners should have to pay the players more, just that they need to take a little less from the players (who were the only ones who gave anything last time.) Even the players themselves have always said they would be taking a reduction in their share. However, why should owners get to just keep making more and more demands on top of taking away salary from the players? Why should the owners get to keep making players pay for their mistakes?

I said it before and I'll say it again. Mark my words, people. If owners continue to get this kind of positive reinforcement for lockouts they will lockout the players every time the CBA expires. Why wouldn't they if it means they get to use public opinion to force players into accepting deals that give the owners everything they want while requiring they give nothing? If there are no consequences for owners, there will always be lockouts.




The owners have to lure big players or they would be screwed more then they already are in their markets.

What do you suggest teams don't lure free agents and turn into AHL rosters losing all the time expecting to fill seats and generate revenue in make it or break it NHL cities?

This blaming owners for this is just another players spin to make themselves out to be hard done by its a joke.


So, you admit players generate the revenue and owners pay them big bucks because they generate even bigger bucks, but you still think players should have to pay for the bad decisions of owners? If the owners are in bad markets, whose fault is that?

Edited by poetica, 18 October 2012 - 02:11 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1554 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,343 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:10 PM

From Elliote Freidman (@FriedgeHNIC ) about what Fehr's saying at his presser:

Proposal 1: fixed player share next three years, then options for how much it would be depending on growth. Fehr says it would have dropped toward 50 depending on that growth.
Option 2: let's use owners 5 per cent growth number. Instead of 57 per cent of that, we take 24 per cent of that growth... He says overall number would drop closer to 50 as growth increases.
Proposal 3: we'll move to 50/50 as long as you honour contracts that are signed.
Says option 1 saves owners between $800M-1.1B. Sorry I missed numbers for second


So to say the NHLPA didn't try and find concessions for the NHL is false. They have come down, but want things to be fair.

Edited by elvis15, 18 October 2012 - 02:13 PM.

  • 0

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1555 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:14 PM

Tell me this!

Why the hell should owners have to give more then they already have agreed to when no players lose money and owners do?

Jay Bouwmeester probably clears more then half of the NHL owners do a season!!

To me it's pretty foolish to think the owners should be giving more. The players will always be winning no matter what deal they sign and it's on them.


Owners have revenue sharing that all but guarantees they don't lose money.

Players didn't expand the league to questionable markets.

People keep spouting off that "owners take all the risks". Shouldn't one of those risks be that if you buy a team/move a team to a bad market and manage it poorly....that you'll lose money? Why are the players responsible for poor management and decision making?

Owners are the ones who offer the contracts to players at a given value. Why is it the players responsibility to cover costs owners can't "afford" that the owners agreed to?
  • 1

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1556 Spitfire_Spiky

Spitfire_Spiky

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:14 PM

Well after another failed meeting today the lockout looks like it could drag on longer. Both sides say they are asking for whats best for the game but do they not realize they are only hurting the game by dragging this on?
  • 0
Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest

#1557 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:18 PM

From Elliote Freidman (@FriedgeHNIC ) about what Fehr's saying at his presser:



So to say the NHLPA didn't try and find concessions for the NHL is false. They have come down, but want things to be fair.


As I said, BOTH sides need to give more. The players are going to have to accept a reduction of revenue and the owners need to accept that that can't happen overnight. It will have to be at a more gradual pace.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1558 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,675 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:19 PM

The owners have to lure big players or they would be screwed more then they already are in their markets.

What do you suggest teams don't lure free agents and turn into AHL rosters losing all the time expecting to fill seats and generate revenue in make it or break it NHL cities?

This blaming owners for this is just another players spin to make themselves out to be hard done by its a joke.

Posted Image
  • 4

#1559 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:23 PM

To be fair, I can see why the players want the NHL to honor current contracts. I mean these players were promised the money they signed for.
  • 0

#1560 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,178 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:25 PM

It's amazing how quickly the public perception changed this week. Most fans were on the players side last week, now most of us would side with owners. I don't think much as changed in the overall lockout situation, but new information has come to light (i.e. proposals) and the owners (via Bettman) have don't a masterful job of manipulating the situation via their "50/50 82 game" proposal.

Right now it seems like the players are being greedy and focusing a lot on how much they gave up last time. But I'm sure more information will come out in the next few days about the PA's position.


hahaha if the blackhawks hired Frank Luntz, duncan keith jersey sales in vancouver would skyrocket
  • 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.