Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


Recommended Posts

This whole disagreement goes back to your misconception that because players get paid significantly more than you, they are exempt from the hardships a lack of work causes. In your words "It's a ridiculous analogy. Any other profession doesn't have a minimum wage of $500,000+ per year and an average salary over $2M." I believe you're too busy thinking "I make way less than that and I'm fine!" to understand that players need to keep playing to stay fit, stay mentally in the game, be ready when the lockout ends and still be a force for years to come. Money is irrelevant. Players look elsewhere to play because not playing is damaging to their abilities.

Is this not the case? If you don't think so, explain to me how a higher wage means players shouldn't look for work elsewhere. And if your argument is simply that they shouldn't because it puts other non-NHL players out of work, I would remind you that you just used the argument "The owners can be dicks if the CBA allows it". "Players can push other players out of work because other leagues allow it" would be no less valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

GO OWNERS~!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

GO OWNERS~!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

GO OWNERS~!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

GO OWNERS~!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which replacement player NHL 13 does EA want to put on their cover? Which advertiser wants their logo on the shirt of a nobody? Owners can't fire Sidney Crosby and all the marketing that's been poured into making him an icon. No players, no advertising, no fan interest, no ticket sales. Not enough to matter anyways.

You also don't seem to get that the owners are not a united front. They are a bickering mess. Many don't want a lockout at all, so only certain GMs would fire players, and they'd be left with crap teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears Danny Cleary and his fellow NHL players are prepared to lose a season or more before the current NHL lockout is resolved.

According to the Detroit Free Press, the veteran Red Wings forward thinks the lockout could last longer than the 2004 edition which saw an entire season cancelled.

"I think people don't think it can go a year," Cleary told the Free Press on Sunday. "As players, we think it can. Maybe longer."

Cleary feels both sides are waiting for the other side to blink in the current labour showdown and he is confident the players will not cave this time.

"I think the league is waiting for us to make the move, and we're waiting for them to move. So someone has to move. And I don't see it coming from our end," Cleary told the newspaper. "We've given them a couple of good options that they can work with, and they, obviously, feel it's not good enough."

The league has already cancelled some pre-season games and the Red Wings are scheduled to open the season in three weeks but Cleary doesn't himself in a game by then.

"It's not going to start on time," he said. "No way."

The NHL and NHL Players' Association are holding informal discussions in Toronto on Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...