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

#1741 M A K A V E L I 96

M A K A V E L I 96

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 20 October 2012 - 02:37 PM

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
  • 1
Posted Image

#1742 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,253 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 20 October 2012 - 02:48 PM

I've come up with own twist on the accounting end of the CBA. It would work as follows:

-players agree to declining percentage over course of CBA until 49% is reached for players
-players HRR remains frozen based on 2012, until growth level allows 49% split
-cap is based is player percentage/30teams for midpoint
-upper cap and lower cap is 8mil above and 12mil below midpoint
-teams exceeding the midpoint pay more into revenue sharing
-teams below cap receive more revenue sharing

with 5% growth, it looks like this with 1.58b savings to owners over course of deal. In order for the players to do this, the teams spending over the midpoint would need to contribute more (escalating tax?) to the lower revenue teams. Teams that are on tighter budget are rewarded for spending within their means (direct savings on players salary and higher revenue sharing).

yr revenue player cut player% owner savings cap mid
2013 3.44b 1.870b 54.3 93m 62m
2014 3.61b 1.870b 51.7 191m 62m
2015 3.80b 1.870b 49.2 294m 62m
2016 3.99b 1.95b 49 319m 65m
2017 4.19b 2.05b 49 335m 68m
2018 4.40b 2.15b 49 352m 72m

Now, what this doesn't address is how the owners get immediate relief in the first three years. Somehow that owner savings needs to be averaged out over the deal while still allowing the players to get their money. Maybe a deferred make whole payment where the players just get that money later?

In order for the players to concede 49%, I think they should be rewarded with a longer deal, and even more revenue sharing between teams than has been suggested.

Thoughts?


It's a fair deal but the problem is that players giving up this much money will expect no significant changes to free agency, arbitration, and maybe a reasonable contract limit concession. The owners won't bite, they already haven't. The players have offered more than this in their last 3 offers. The last proposal in particular where they drop to 50% immediately if old contracts are honoured would save the owners more than this plan. But owners don't want just a bigger share of revenue, they also want to introduce a dozen other clauses to reduce player salaries in different ways (ie. no more contract burying in the AHL). For all the owners talk of "50% is fair", HRR is a fake number and when you look at total revenue, the PA is currently bringing in 51%. 50% of HRR with no other contracting changes would mean ~45%, and with the contracting changes the league proposed would be closer to 40%. A fair and reasonable deal is not the goal.

Given this, I think Fehr is doing an admirable job playing hard ball. I think he will get a deal done that is not only is acceptable to the players, but also saves owners from themselves to a degree (revenue sharing!). However he knows it will take time, as do players. But salary lost, even for an entire year, is easily worth the insurance that you aren't going to have a boss trying to take a quarter of your earnings compounded 3 or 4 times over your career.

Edited by nateb123, 20 October 2012 - 02:50 PM.

  • 1

#1743 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,059 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:08 PM

I've come up with own twist on the accounting end of the CBA. It would work as follows:

-players agree to declining percentage over course of CBA until 49% is reached for players
-players HRR remains frozen based on 2012, until growth level allows 49% split
-cap is based is player percentage/30teams for midpoint
-upper cap and lower cap is 8mil above and 12mil below midpoint
-teams exceeding the midpoint pay more into revenue sharing
-teams below cap receive more revenue sharing

with 5% growth, it looks like this with 1.58b savings to owners over course of deal. In order for the players to do this, the teams spending over the midpoint would need to contribute more (escalating tax?) to the lower revenue teams. Teams that are on tighter budget are rewarded for spending within their means (direct savings on players salary and higher revenue sharing).

yr revenue player cut player% owner savings cap mid
2013 3.44b 1.870b 54.3 93m 62m
2014 3.61b 1.870b 51.7 191m 62m
2015 3.80b 1.870b 49.2 294m 62m
2016 3.99b 1.95b 49 319m 65m
2017 4.19b 2.05b 49 335m 68m
2018 4.40b 2.15b 49 352m 72m

Now, what this doesn't address is how the owners get immediate relief in the first three years. Somehow that owner savings needs to be averaged out over the deal while still allowing the players to get their money. Maybe a deferred make whole payment where the players just get that money later?

In order for the players to concede 49%, I think they should be rewarded with a longer deal, and even more revenue sharing between teams than has been suggested.

Thoughts?


I'll give you my own twist....

The NHL accept the players 3rd option for existing contracts, with all other parameters in the NHL offer accepted by the NHLPA excluding 'tweaks', but in exchange for this all existing NHL contracts will immediately include a two-way option as defined below but will not supersede a previous two-way agreement that was contractually agreed upon. These salaries will be included against the salary cap share and count against the cap. Players refusing the assignment are declared UFA with no further compensation. Waivers and Re-entry Waivers eliminated.


- Under $ 1 million = $105,000 AHL contract
- Between $1 mil - $2.999 mil = $250,000 AHL contract
- $3 mil or greater = $500,000 AHL contract

-----------------------

This additional clause will allow NHL member teams to reduce real immediate payroll by enabling them to relegate contracts for which they believe are not being met by performance.

All NHL contracts are then guaranteed at face value for players actively playing in the NHL. It will also make the provision to have back-diving contracts count for their full term negligible as these players will be assigned to the minor leagues

Edited by theminister, 20 October 2012 - 03:14 PM.

  • 0

#1744 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 911 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:09 PM

The players have offered more than this in their last 3 offers. The last proposal in particular where they drop to 50% immediately if old contracts are honoured would save the owners more than this plan.


From what I can tell, the NHL offer saves around 1.9b over the course of agreement. The NHLPA offer(s) are in the range of 600m-1b. My offer above comes in at 1.58b, but with 49% share, it would eventually exceed the 1.9b if the agreement was a year or two longer. The players could probably swallow the other contract changes except for the term limit should probably be 7-8 years.
  • 0

#1745 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,117 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:21 PM

If nothing good is done by wednesday, they better f-ing lock themselves in a room until a deal is reached .. Enough of this proposal, then take a week off.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1746 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,233 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 20 October 2012 - 08:01 PM

Posted Image




Bettman is a Ferengie. It explains everything.
  • 2

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#1747 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,347 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 20 October 2012 - 08:20 PM

Bettman is a Ferengie. It explains everything.


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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1748 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 911 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 20 October 2012 - 09:17 PM

I would think the clause to have contract number variability at 5% would kill the back ended contracts. Its either that or limit the length I suppose, so nobody can cheat. I think the Redden rule is fair, but those things should be moving forward to fix the greater problem.
  • 0

#1749 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,988 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:05 AM

Understand this. Gary Bettman is huffing, puffing and threatening to blow all of the NHL houses down over a difference of about $3 million per team per season over the life of the six-year CBA proposal offered on Thursday by the NHLPA.
This is the language spoken by the NHL commissioner not only to the players, 18 of whom he treated with disdain and disrespect while they shared a room with him in Toronto, but to the owners.
He is telling the Rangers they can’t open the doors to the transformed money-printing Garden because of $3 million season — at most, given the negotiable nature of the NHLPA’s “50-50” proposal and the prospect of annual revenue growth well beyond the league’s conservative five-percent projections.

He is telling the Predators — who already have paid Shea Weber $13 million for this season on a signing bonus — they can’t begin to collect gate receipts or enhanced revenue sharing dollars as proposed by the union.
He is telling the Coyotes there will be no money coming into the operation. He is telling the Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Flyers, Canucks and all of the NHL’s economic powerhouses he would rather close up shop than negotiate over a difference of $3 million per year for those ownerships, which, by the way, would reap windfall gains if the PA’s latest proposal were adopted.
But that’s Bettman’s history. He canceled the 2004-05 season, remember, over a hypothetical difference of $2.5 million per year per team when he rejected the NHLPA’s proposal of a de-linked $45 million cap after the league proposed a de-linked cap of $42.5 million per.
This isn’t someone whose first instinct is to close a deal. This is someone whose first instinct is to close the league.
* It’s true. The players are asking the league to guarantee 100 cents on the dollar of all existing contracts when the players never had that protection in the expired CBA. The players lost an average of 3.2 percent of their salaries to escrow over the course of the CBA, approximately 4.5 percent over the final six years of the agreement.
So it’s there to be negotiated. It’s there for the league to propose paying 92 or 94 cents on the dollar, for the union to counter by asking for 96, for the parties to reach an agreement under which the owners live up to the spirit of a signed contract and the players don’t wind up paying deferred money to each other.
Bettman loves to cite the NBA and NFL within the context of the 50-50 split he now seeks. But it is worth repeating again and again and again. The value of existing contracts in those leagues remained untouched even as the players agreed to take smaller cuts of revenue after being locked out.
It is only the NHL among sports leagues that uses the expiration of labor agreements as a tool to empower owners to welch on their collective word. To NHL owners, it’s monopoly money.
* The NHL’s latest proposal is as much an attack on big-market teams and creative general managers as it is on the players — perhaps even more so.
The five-year contract term limit accompanied by the severe restriction on the annual salary variance is aimed straight at the heart of those franchises, as is the proposal that players earning in excess of $105,000 in the AHL or Europe (after being waived) be counted against the cap.
The latter might as well be known as “The Wade Redden Rule,” in honor of the Rangers defenseman who has played the past two seasons — the middle two of his six-year, $39 million deal — in the AHL and thus has not counted against the cap.
Ironically, “The Wade Redden Rule” would harm Redden himself if adopted as written. An amnesty buyout would allow the 35-year-old to sign with another team as a free agent. But denied that opportunity (there is no amnesty buyout provision in the NHL’s proposal), Redden will be consigned to the AHL for the next two seasons while the Rangers operate with $6.5 million of dead cap space. They are not adding him to the roster.
Kind of a coincidence, isn’t it, that the NHL made its not quite “50-50” offer on Oct. 16, when the NBA made its “50-50” offer a year ago to the basketball players during meetings of Oct.18-20, or is it instead simply off a script?
The vindictive nature of Bettman and the board is reflected by the proposal under which teams would be charged with dead cap space for players currently on contracts of at least six years who retire before the end of their respective deals.
This is the league attempting to impose punishment for business that was legal when conducted and for contracts that the league registered. It is about Bettman and allies on the Board using collective bargaining to settle vendettas.
It is as if the City of New York could issue summonses today to an individual for smoking a cigarette in a bar in 2000.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/don_bett_on_deal_ONtdsSgzTunNVQ9lZXudCI
  • 0

Posted Image


#1750 VancouverCanucksRock

VancouverCanucksRock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,258 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 09

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:21 PM

I see the same ol people vying for player love lol,,,,get over it and let go of the jock strap son...lol

please don't use fans and NHLPA feeling the same pain lol I don't make 450 G's to play hockey...Once they realize how good they have it already and they lose it then we'll see who is the boss....the fans..hahaa

I don't get 450 G's/year to work hard 8 hours/day, 5 days/week at some blue collar job......The players wouldn't even be content with 200 G's a year(well over what many m,any people make), TO PLAY HOCKEY!!!!!!!!!!!! Eff off.... sickening humans man
  • 0
Posted Image WHen idiots think numbers are words, I do believe in 2012 for cleansing Earth of the idiots

#1751 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,117 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:32 PM

I feel terrible for the mass of people whos jobs have been affected by these scumbags
  • 1
Posted Image

#1752 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,123 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:58 PM

Bettman looks like he's (professionally) decided to fall on his sword.

Can't see how he survives the internal conflicting interests on the ownership side of things.

Edited by oldnews, 21 October 2012 - 02:04 PM.

  • 0

#1753 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,117 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:17 PM

@tpanotchCSN: #NHL, #NHLPA held conf call today to get clarification on HRR and revenue sharing. No meetings sked...


For F... Sakes!
  • 0
Posted Image

#1754 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,117 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:17 PM

@tpanotchCSN: #NHL, #NHLPA held conf call today to get clarification on HRR and revenue sharing. No meetings sked...


For F... Sakes!
  • 0
Posted Image

#1755 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,936 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:51 PM

Yeah it's all Bettman lol Not the spoiled crys'by's out there in neverland
  • 0

#1756 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,347 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:58 PM

Yeah it's all Bettman lol Not the spoiled crys'by's out there in neverland


Oh, absolutely. It's totally the fault of the people who've already offered to make concessions in almost every regard and not the people who haven't offered to make a single concession except one that benefits them directly (i.e. enhanced team revenue sharing).

Edited by poetica, 21 October 2012 - 02:58 PM.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1757 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,117 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 21 October 2012 - 03:30 PM

@seangentille: Steve Fehr to AP: League has "essentially said that they are not moving off their last proposal."
  • 0
Posted Image

#1758 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,944 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 03:54 PM

I agree.

50/50 sounded good but is really less (compared to the old CBA) as they also proposed favourable HRR changes.

But the offer was, in fact, disingenuous. A 5 year cap on deals, and one requiring cap hits to remain with teams when players retire (even when traded) had serious implications completely smothering a players ability to get a big deal. It would have accomplished reigns on spending. The players will stay behind the line until they retain some negotiating power.

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

#1759 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:21 PM

Are those pics of Bettman up above chronological? He appears to be gradually getting more frazzled, got some stubble going on and his hair is getting out of whack.
  • 0

#1760 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,117 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:27 PM

@helenenothelen: NHL and union had 2 conference calls this weekend, union supposedly asking questions about NHL proposal. But no negotiations scheduled.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1761 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,253 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:56 PM

Bettman looks like he's (professionally) decided to fall on his sword.

Can't see how he survives the internal conflicting interests on the ownership side of things.


Agreed. He seems to be catering to a shrinking minority of owners with his lockout approach. He's losing financially sound teams a lot of money, while fighting against revenue sharing. The amount of revenue sharing isn't enough to have the top teams worried either so it just alienates the struggling teams who want more of it. It seems like Bettman is really on the side of a few irresponsible owners who signed stupid contracts and want to take back promises they made to players. As money is lost that group will thin.
  • 2

#1762 Brambojoe

Brambojoe

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 07

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:17 PM

Since the deadlock appears to be on how to pay for the "already signed" contracts based on a 57% split perhaps the 50/50 approach can work there as well.

50% of the difference is covered based on players proposal 3 (basically 6.5% of player salary doesn't count against player share)
50% of the difference is covered based on the owners proposal (wasn't really clear how this was handled except that it comes from player share)

A thought...
  • 0

#1763 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,866 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:28 PM

I don't get 450 G's/year to work hard 8 hours/day, 5 days/week at some blue collar job......The players wouldn't even be content with 200 G's a year(well over what many m,any people make), TO PLAY HOCKEY!!!!!!!!!!!! Eff off.... sickening humans man


I'm willing to guess that nobody pays to watch you work either.

That's where the comparison falls apart. It's all about the entertainment dollar. As people are coming out to watch the players play, why shouldn't they get their fair share? And since people tend to follow specific teams, why shouldn't the team owners be able to get their fair share, or at least not lose money on owning the team? It's just a matter of finding the magic formula that works well enough for both sides. We just happen to be trapped in the middle.
  • 1
Posted Image

#1764 sameer666

sameer666

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:23 AM

I don't get 450 G's/year to work hard 8 hours/day, 5 days/week at some blue collar job......The players wouldn't even be content with 200 G's a year(well over what many m,any people make), TO PLAY HOCKEY!!!!!!!!!!!! Eff off.... sickening humans man


Yeah! Romney for president!
  • 0

#1765 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 64,352 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:33 AM

@benkuzma: Canucks defenceman Garrison (groin) said he'd be ready if NHL season starts Nov.2.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1766 Sanj

Sanj

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:33 PM

@benkuzma: Canucks defenceman Garrison (groin) said he'd be ready if NHL season starts Nov.2.

of course he would be....does that surprise anyone? :P
  • 0

#1767 Go JETS Go

Go JETS Go

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 09

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:11 PM

A Little Perspective on who is being greedy and who is being bent over the barrel.

Whether you are on the owners side or the players it is of little significance. The reality or my challenge for you to think about is not who is right or wrong but who is graciously volunteering to be the victim which is us the fans, the people who spend their hard earned dollar, and the ones who look to this game as entertainment or an escape from the daily grind.

Both parties are fighting over how they are going to divide up the money they are taking from our wallets with no concern or thought that the wallet one day won't be there. In fact they haven't even asked our permission to fight over our money!

Think about it if you lost your wallet and after retracing your steps you come accross two individuals fighting over how much of your money they were going to take, what would you do? Well I know what I would and most of you reading this would do; I would grab a jersey pull it over their heads and lay the beat down. But in the case of the Lockout we stand by waiting for them to argue over what is not their property and blindly hope that once their unjust battle is over we can throw more money at them.

We built this league! not the owners or the players! It was and always has been the fans,the parents who drove the kids to early morning practice to become NHL players, the ones who tredge through snow and traffic jams to get to games, the one's who cheered the loudest or invented the wave, the ones who have invested billions in tickets so that they could build the fancy arena's and sell useless trinkets.

To hell with you owners and shame on you for only thinking of your purse!

To hell with you players you should be ashamed of yourselves this is not what your parents raised you to be!

And to hell with all of us that gave up the control to what is rightfully ours, or money and our loyalty!

Think about it!
  • 0

#1768 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,347 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:15 PM

Well, to be fair, once we give them our money it becomes theirs. So, they're not fighting over our money, just money that we gave them willingly. (It's not really akin to them finding a lost wallet.)

But I absolutely support your idea that fans need to use our power as the revenue source to ensure that the NHL (owners and players) are held accountable. This is an entertainment industry, so entertain us! If we keep letting them have work stoppages but never make them pay for it by withholding our money, they'll just keep doing it. The only way we can protect our interest in having hockey to watch is to punish them for work stoppages by withholding our money when they return.

(See my signature!)
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1769 Islandboss

Islandboss

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 06

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:33 PM

It dosen't matter what the percentage is owners don't have to spend to the cap.If they had any self control they wouldn't need a lower agreement to protect them from themselves.Its all hog wash
  • 0
A statistician is a person who draws a mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion.

Kelly is a great gal

#1770 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,866 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:38 PM

It dosen't matter what the percentage is owners don't have to spend to the cap.If they had any self control they wouldn't need a lower agreement to protect them from themselves.Its all hog wash


Actually it does. Some of them would still lose money even if they only spend to the cap floor. That's why the players are advocating a better venue sharing system.
  • 0
Posted Image




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.