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

#1561 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,680 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:26 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.


The owners shold honor the current contracts, but maybe they could be given a prorated cap hit in the short term to help clubs get under the cap (i.e. a $4 million contract has a $3.0 million cap hit).
  • 0

#1562 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:32 PM

Gotta say I'm really proud of the players. The owners are completely full of it and are not interested in real negotiations. For the owners this is all about their bloated egos and far right wing ideology. That's it. The players are the only ones interested in making a fair deal and creating a structure to grow the game in the future. Good for them!

It's sad to see how many posters on here have bought in to the owner's propaganda, though.
  • 2

#1563 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,797 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:34 PM

The owners shold honor the current contracts, but maybe they could be given a prorated cap hit in the short term to help clubs get under the cap (i.e. a $4 million contract has a $3.0 million cap hit).

Even if they met partway on that, where the owners didn't use the player's revenue share to pay them back the money they'd lose under their latest proposal. You have those 10+ year deals and you could look to honour the next 4-5 years of what was there (with adjustments for how they work against the cap as you've mentioned) but have the players take a straight reduction after that.

For the players to say, "Ok, 50/50, we're on board, just give us the contracts - particularly the one's you signed in good faith this summer - at their face value," is significant. It can't all be the owners just negotiating themselves to their side of halfway and hoping the players give up a lot like they did the last time around.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1564 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:42 PM

I think it's time to get rid of guarenteed contracts, to show these boys how quickly things can change in your life, you know like the rest of us have to deal with.

Edited by canuckelhead70, 18 October 2012 - 02:54 PM.

  • 1

#1565 woot

woot

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:48 PM

The number of people falling for the "golden mean" fallacy is astonishing. At the end of the day, it's completely unfair that the owners locked the players out. The players already negotiate for contracts in an artificially restricted marketplace, and now the owners want to tighten the cap so that a team in Arizona can make money without assistance. It's bizarre.
  • 0

#1566 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:54 PM

I think it's time to get rid of guarenteed contacts, to show these boys how quickly things can change in your life, you know like the rest of us have to deal with.


Why would that be good?
  • 0

#1567 TVank15

TVank15

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:56 PM

I'm not really on either side of this, I can't take the owners side because they are asking players to give up money promised by contract. The owners were also allowing their GMs to offer those ridiculous contract in the summer but are now trying to reduce contract lengths which seems contradictory.

But at the same time the players are getting paid millions to play a game that they supposedly love to play, if they really cared so much about the game they would have not hired Donald Fehr to play hardball against the owners and risk the loss of another season, they should have known what they were getting themselves into.

But all in all, this is how the lockout is summed up to me, millionaires fighting with billionaires while giving the fans and other NHL employees (area workers and such) the finger.
  • 0
Posted Image
Thanks to 23Qwerty

#1568 gmen81

gmen81

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,341 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:59 PM

I hate the fact that the owners took about 15 minutes to reject the PA's latest offers. Just goes to show that they aren't willing to negotiate a deal that is fair for both sides. At least that is how I see it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1569 RonMexico

RonMexico

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 12

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:00 PM

Gotta say I'm really proud of the players.  The owners are completely full of it and are not interested in real negotiations.  For the owners this is all about their bloated egos and far right wing ideology.  That's it.  The players are the only ones interested in making a fair deal and creating a structure to grow the game in the future.  Good for them!

It's sad to see how many posters on here have bought in to the owner's propaganda, though.


No kidding. The alleged hate for greedy players will instantly disappear in this market whenever hockey comes back. Unfortunately, I dont see it anytime soon after this latest 'effort' by both sides.
  • 0

#1570 LeanBeef

LeanBeef

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,433 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 11

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:00 PM

Mobile
  • 0
Sig too big.
"Being a Canuck fan, maybe sometime down the road be a Vancouver Canuck.... that would conquer all my dreams"
-Milan Lucic

#1571 250Integra

250Integra

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,449 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 06

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:02 PM

LP
  • 0

naslundsig5.gif14326903821.giftowel.gif
Thanks for the Memories Canada!!!
Thanks for everything Naslund!
Original creator of the WWE and the Rate my sig / Showoff thread


#1572 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,143 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:04 PM

The number of people falling for the "golden mean" fallacy is astonishing. At the end of the day, it's completely unfair that the owners locked the players out. The players already negotiate for contracts in an artificially restricted marketplace, and now the owners want to tighten the cap so that a team in Arizona can make money without assistance. It's bizarre.


I don't know about completely unfair. If they continued to play under the terms of the expired CBA while negotiating a new deal, the players could possibly stage a strike right before the playoffs which is the owner's most lucrative time of year. Fehr did this with baseball a couple of times.

It's completely within the rights of the owners to lock the players out just as would have been completely within the players' rights to strike. It's just that the NHL / owners pulled the trigger first.

It's not just about Arizona either. I believe they are trying to make it so as many southern teams as possible can survive in the markets they are in, all in the pursuit of that big U.S. TV contract they are probably never going to get.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1573 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,004 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:05 PM

I still like my proposal from like a month ago...

Neither side is 100% "right". All this "us or them" is ridiculous. BOTH sides need to make concessions.

Owners:
-Need to accept more revenue sharing to "poor" teams for the health of the league and not rely entirely on the players (reducing their share) to better fund poor teams.
-Need to accept a more gradual player percentage reduction and something ending up a LOT closer to 50%.

Players:
-Need to accept a gradual reduction in profit share (to ensure league health and hence more jobs for their "brothers").
-Need to except contract term limits (to save the owners from themselves sadly).

I say go for an 8 year deal with a 1% reduction in revenue every year. You start at the current 57% going to 56% and end up at 49% in the final year of the agreement (where it should stay IMO). With rising league revenues this should have little to no overall effect on player salaries.

Owner can increase profit sharing at say half the rate. They give 1% more every other year which mean rich teams get more profit and poor teams get more help gradually.

Allow teams the option to calculate cap hits of players currently under contract with either the appropriate % reduction if they're a cap limit team or by the original values if they're a cap basement team.


  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1574 TVank15

TVank15

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:13 PM

I don't know about completely unfair. If they continued to play under the terms of the expired CBA while negotiating a new deal, the players could possibly stage a strike right before the playoffs which is the owner's most lucrative time of year. Fehr did this with baseball a couple of times.

It's completely within the rights of the owners to lock the players out just as would have been completely within the players' rights to strike. It's just that the NHL / owners pulled the trigger first.

It's not just about Arizona either. I believe they are trying to make it so as many southern teams as possible can survive in the markets they are in, all in the pursuit of that big U.S. TV contract they are probably never going to get.


This. Fehr would have continued to not negotiate and then gone on strike during the playoffs, so while it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, how disappointing would it have been to watch the regular season and not have the playoffs or Stanley Cup?
  • 0
Posted Image
Thanks to 23Qwerty

#1575 EvoLu7ioN

EvoLu7ioN

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:18 PM

The players are acting like buffoons here and are completely overplaying their hand. They have absolutely ZERO leverage. 3/4 of the teams in the league are losing money, so cancelling a season to get a better deal is obviously a no-brainer.

How they believe playing hardball is going to get them the deal they want is beyond me. Owners know what their bottom line is, they made an offer that was close to it in their last proposal, and instead of going for tweaks the players tried to change too much. The players and Fehr should just try to find where the bottom line is now before they lose the season, because if the season is lost the offers from the owners will continue to get worse.

In the 94 lockout the league demanded a cap system, the players resisted with a year lockout before caving in for a terrible deal. This time around it's 50/50 the owners want, give it to them and take what you can before you lose even more. Yes the owners are dicks, we all know this. And yes they should be compromising more, but they aren't going to start, regardless of how long the players decide to hold out. The longer this goes on the worse the deal will get.

Edited by EvoLu7ioN, 18 October 2012 - 03:22 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#1576 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:18 PM

Greed - is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.
  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#1577 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:19 PM

Sounds like the players are making a counter-offer. I hope it's just a bit of tweaking and not some big huge rebuttal.


Google D Fehr. He almost destroyed the MLB.

The guy is a cancer to the NHL.

This Fehr character has the potential to destroy the NHL.
  • 0

#1578 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:22 PM

This. Fehr would have continued to not negotiate and then gone on strike during the playoffs, so while it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, how disappointing would it have been to watch the regular season and not have the playoffs or Stanley Cup?

Then by default the President Trophy winners win the Cup!

Canucks first Cup is by default... :P
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1579 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,933 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:23 PM

Well in the end between the two proposals the basic issue is that the owners want to get to 50/50 starting immediately.... the players want to have that reduction to the same split gradually come over the next 3-4 years.

Pretty tough to side with the owners as that with the basic argument
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#1580 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:24 PM

The number of people falling for the "golden mean" fallacy is astonishing. At the end of the day, it's completely unfair that the owners locked the players out. The players already negotiate for contracts in an artificially restricted marketplace, and now the owners want to tighten the cap so that a team in Arizona can make money without assistance. It's bizarre.

What's truly astonishing is the entitlement society we live in.

You want the NHL owners to pay millions per year for your entertainment. Would you be willing to pay a percentage of ur pay for my entertainment?
  • 0

#1581 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:25 PM

The number of people falling for the "golden mean" fallacy is astonishing. At the end of the day, it's completely unfair that the owners locked the players out. The players already negotiate for contracts in an artificially restricted marketplace, and now the owners want to tighten the cap so that a team in Arizona can make money without assistance. It's bizarre.

What's truly astonishing is the entitlement society we live in.

You want the NHL owners to pay millions per year for your entertainment. Would you be willing to pay a percentage of ur pay for my entertainment?
  • 0

#1582 RonMexico

RonMexico

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 12

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:28 PM

I don't know about completely unfair.  If they continued to play under the terms of the expired CBA while negotiating a new deal, the players could possibly stage a strike right before the playoffs which is the owner's most lucrative time of year.  Fehr did this with baseball a couple of times.

It's completely within the rights of the owners to lock the players out just as would have been completely within the players' rights to strike.  It's just that the NHL / owners pulled the trigger first.

It's not just about Arizona either.  I believe they are trying to make it so as many southern teams as possible can survive in the markets they are in, all in the pursuit of that big U.S. TV contract they are probably never going to get.


They need Phoenix to even be considered to get that coveted major US TV contract. Phoenix is the 12th largest TV market in the US.
  • 0

#1583 TVank15

TVank15

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:29 PM

Then by default the President Trophy winners win the Cup!

Canucks first Cup is by default... :P


All the reaction this would get from all the Canuck haters actually may have been worth us winning by default. I retract my statement. Screw the owners for the lockout!! haha :lol:
  • 0
Posted Image
Thanks to 23Qwerty

#1584 EvoLu7ioN

EvoLu7ioN

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:30 PM

Daly just flat out denied the NHLPA's 3rd offer as being 50-50 from the start, "more like 57% in year 1 then going down.

Edited by EvoLu7ioN, 18 October 2012 - 03:31 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#1585 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,111 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:35 PM

I still like my proposal from like a month ago...

I think your proposal is fair and logical, J.R., but unfortunately this would also be in the realm of the 'other language ' that Bettman is referring to.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1586 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:41 PM

Google D Fehr. He almost destroyed the MLB.

The guy is a cancer to the NHL.

This Fehr character has the potential to destroy the NHL.


Actually, because of Fehr MLB has record revenues and attendance, and the best labour relations in pro sports.
  • 1

#1587 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,933 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:42 PM

Daly just flat out denied the NHLPA's 3rd offer as being 50-50 from the start, "more like 57% in year 1 then going down.


That is right... it reduces slowly over the course of the agreement. It is not an immediate claw-back on existing contracts as the NHL wants.

I don't know many businesses where the owners can lookan employee in the eye, shake hands, and sign contracts.... and then turnaround the next hour getting on a conference call with the league demanding that they negotiate a way not to honour it.

That is exactly what has been happening over the past few months since July 1st.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#1588 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:43 PM

Actually, because of Fehr MLB has record revenues and attendance, and the best labour relations in pro sports.


Actually its because if Steroids and a well known home run race.

Before that MLB was struggling to get ppl into seats. I'm old enough to remember it all.
  • 0

#1589 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,707 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:47 PM

Jump
  • 0

#1590 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:48 PM

Well in the end between the two proposals the basic issue is that the owners want to get to 50/50 starting immediately.... the players want to have that reduction to the same split gradually come over the next 3-4 years.

Pretty tough to side with the owners as that with the basic argument


Really? Pretty tough to side with a business owner who loses millions per year?
Weird.
  • 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.