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

#1801 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 64,527 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:42 AM

@News1130Sports: In 14 games with the ZSC Lions in the Swiss league, Brule had no goals and 6 assists before Marc Crawford cut him.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1802 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,611 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:46 AM

Not looking like the players think a deal is going to happen any time soon. P. Kane just signed with EHC of the Swiss league, and Enstrom is going to Red Bull Salzburg to join our Grenier. You think that these guys would have signed sooner if they were pessimistic about negotiations, I guess attitudes change.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1803 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,037 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:57 AM

@News1130Sports: In 14 games with the ZSC Lions in the Swiss league, Brule had no goals and 6 assists before Marc Crawford cut him.

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

But back to the topic at hand, players waiting and now signing isn't damning evidence of anything in particular. They might just want to do more than scrimmages and power skating drills all day in order to keep in game shape. They can read into what's happening with the negotiations as much as anyone else, we all know another block of games is going to be cancelled this week if an agreement isn't reached in the next few days. It doesn't mean they know that the NHL is going to shutdown the season or anything.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#1804 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,037 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:14 PM

Hadn't seen this posted yet and thought it was a reasonable read:

10 things that must happen for NHL lockout to end


The NHL lockout has lasted more than a month and a key Thursday deadline looms for the league to hold a full season. What needs to happen for the lockout to end?

1. Individual contracts have to be honored
Players are more unified on this issue than they were about preventing a salary cap in 2004-05. It has become a rallying cry, a symbol of solidarity, and owners have no one to blame but themselves. Teams were way too eager to sign players to long-term deals this summer (such as the 13-year, $98 million deals to new Minnesota Wild teammates Zach Parise and Ryan Suter), and now the impression is that they signed those players believing the deals would be reduced by the new labor agreement. Does that seem like good-faith bargaining? Any new collective bargaining agreement will have to include real protection for those contracts. That means it will have to have minimal salary rollback in the first couple of seasons.

2. Deal has to end with a true 50-50 split
That has been the owners' objective from the beginning, and there will have to be an absolute in at least the final two years of the deal. Players are offering legitimate concessions, but they are still dancing around the 50-50 number without embracing it. Owners will want a hard 50-50 number at the end, and not an "if-then" proposal.

3. Players need to win on vast majority of secondary issues
When you are asking players for more than $1 billion in concessions, you can't also ask them to accept a longer wait for free agency, reduced arbitration rights or more restrictive individual contract conditions. With a salary cap and a 50-50 split, why do owners need a more restrictive player environment?

4. Stop trying to win public relations war
The PR war is over and both sides lost. Fans are generally blaming both sides for the lack of progress, and it will be a PR disaster for both sides if there is no season. Let's just stipulate that players are mad at Commissioner Gary Bettman and believe this is a money grab, and then let's stipulate that owners are miffed because they believe players are making proposals with a theme they know owners won't accept. Nobody wins the blame game, except the journalists who write about it.

5. The stars must be stars
Bettman and NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr are highly experienced at high-level negotiations, and they need to get in a room and talk in practical terms about an end game to this lockout. Straight talk. No spin. No news conferences afterward. It's really a misnomer to suggest that the two sides have been engaged in negotiations. There has been almost no negotiating. It's like having Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin on the bench, and neither is playing.

6. Players need to embrace practicality instead of principle
What you hear around the hockey world is both sides believe this will end in November and the season will start after Thanksgiving. With that scenario, players would lose about five weeks (roughly 19.2%) of their pay, a bigger cut than the NHL is seeking with a drop in the players' share was trying to take from them in the demand that players share drop from 57% to 50%. Players seem to believe that has been the owners' plan all along to squeeze them as much as they could until then. If players believe that, they should make another offer this week with the idea of giving to give themselves a chance to play a full season and not miss any paycheck? Some modest movement in years three and four might be enough to prevent lost paychecks. Is there really principle involved when you are dividing up $3.3 billion? Or is simply a matter of getting as many dollars as you can?

7. Owners must accept this isn't 2004-05
Fehr has done a masterful job of unifying his group. He is a skilled communicator, and players say they are much better informed than they were the last time around. Owners can't target the NHLPA's No. 2 man either because the job is held by Fehr's brother, Steve, who is highly experienced in his own right. Plus, he seems to be the likely successor when Fehr retires. The NHL won't wear down this group.

8. Stop playing serve-and-volley on proposals
Does it matter whose turn it is to make a proposal? Instead of worrying about who blinked first, or if they look weak by making two proposals in a row, let's concentrate simply on getting a proposal. They have to get in a room this week and make a painful effort to reach a deal that will allow a full season to be played. Both sides would have to feel some pain to make this compromise work. It might help if they simply talk about the $1.65 billion they are arguing instead of percentages, and then work back from the money to the percentages.

9. Outside pressures needed
How about NBC reminding the NHL how committed it has been to giving the league first-class treatment? The NBC Sports Network clearly counts on the league for programming, and it can't be pleased by this turn of events. Presumably, NBC also isn't happy that the NHL is considering canceling the Winter Classic in Ann Arbor, Mich. That should draw high ratings as people tune in to see if 120,000 fans come to the Big House to watch outdoor hockey.

10. View a lost season as Armageddon
Although the league continued to prosper after the last lockout, there is no guarantee that will happen again. In fact, it is plausible that some fans won't return. In the last lockout, most fans accepted the need for a lockout to bring about a salary cap that would allow competitive balance. Most fans view this fight as simply a battle over dollars. There seems to be a chance that an extended lockout would do damage to the sport.


  • 3
Posted ImagePosted Image

#1805 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,846 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:40 PM

Hadn't seen this posted yet and thought it was a reasonable read:

10 things that must happen for NHL lockout to end


This is absolutely correct in my opinion.
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#1806 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,622 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:42 PM

Players like Ovechkin and Kovalchuk say if their salaries are cut they will not return to the NHL. Truth is, Ovechkin is not really an exciting player anymore and does not draw my attention to watch him play. Sure I want hockey back but listening to Ovechkin makes me sick to my stomach.
  • 2
Posted Image


#1807 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,611 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:54 PM

Players like Ovechkin and Kovalchuk say if their salaries are cut they will not return to the NHL. Truth is, Ovechkin is not really an exciting player anymore and does not draw my attention to watch him play. Sure I want hockey back but listening to Ovechkin makes me sick to my stomach.


I'd rather the Ruskies stay in the KHL, means teams like Canucks become stronger for not having any. No taxes on their money earned over there, no contract disputes, they are already heroes over there, similar deals to the NHL, and they speak the language. No reason for any of these guys to comeback to the NHL where there will be cuts to their deals and limited contractual freedoms. If they do leave the NHL, it should also teach a lesson to the owners like Capitals' Ted Leonsis - that their franchises were built by players.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1808 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:28 PM

It could come directly from the portion of revenue directed to each franchise with an expansion in 2014 or 15. Its probably going to happen and it could bring over a billion dollars into the league.


Nice point! They are almost certainly going to add two teams within the next CBA period I would think. My guess would be Quebec and Seattle, although you could argue Vegas or Kansas City as well. I would think 32 teams total would be the target, so two teams for now. Expansion fees could help "make whole" much quicker. I see no mention of this in CBA proposal, probably because the players don't normally get any of that money.
  • 0

#1809 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,037 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:46 PM

This is absolutely correct in my opinion.

While I don't 100% agree with all his points, the majority makes sense. Both sides need to start negotiating specifics at this point to create a blended proposal both sides can sign off on.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#1810 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:22 PM

Players like Ovechkin and Kovalchuk say if their salaries are cut they will not return to the NHL. Truth is, Ovechkin is not really an exciting player anymore and does not draw my attention to watch him play. Sure I want hockey back but listening to Ovechkin makes me sick to my stomach.


Impossible. KHL and NHL have an agreement in place to honor each others contracts since the Radilov situation several years ago.

If OC and Kovy don't return to honor their contract they will not be allowed to play in the Olympics or WCs.

The next Olympics and Worlds are in Russi.

They will most definetly return when a new CBA is agreed upon.
  • 0

#1811 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,846 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:56 PM

If there is no NHL season any hockey teams can play for the Stanley Cup right?

And if so why wasn't it played for last lockout?
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#1812 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,871 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:01 PM

If there is no NHL season any hockey teams can play for the Stanley Cup right?

And if so why wasn't it played for last lockout?


I remember that too. There was a court challenge, but it took so long that the lockout was over.

Here's what I found on Wikipedia...

On February 7, 2006, a settlement was reached in which the trophy could be awarded to non-NHL teams should the league not operate for a season. The dispute lasted so long that, by the time it was settled, the NHL had resumed operating for the 2005–06 season, and the Stanley Cup went unclaimed for the 2004–05 season. Furthermore, when another NHL lockout commenced in 2012 the Trustees stated that the 2006 agreement did not oblige them to award the Cup in the event of a lost season, and that they were likely to reject any non-NHL challenges for the Cup in the event the 2012-13 season were cancelled.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1813 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,283 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:37 PM

Question is, where does the money come from that pays the players back? From the owners pocket? imo, it probably needs to come from the future growth pool somehow.


That's it exactly, (I didnt really explain part of it well enough, but that's why it is a few years down the road so that they can build that pool.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1814 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,283 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:42 PM

I wanted to link spending above the midpoint to revenue sharing tax to encourage good business sense. For instance, if San Jose is losing money, then why the heck are they spending to the cap limit?!! Understood it could go the other way too where a team like NYR would be below the midpoint and get revenue sharing (well not after the Redden rule kicks in).

Teams like VAN,BOS,PHI,CGY,CHI,MTL,TOR should be happy enough to contribute more to revenue pool for the option to spend to upper cap limit. If they don't like it, then just reduce the roster spending a bit. My gut feeling says they would spend to the cap limit every time.

Right now according to capgeek: PHX,NYI,OTT,DAL,STL,FLA,COL,NSH,ANA,NJD,WPG,CLB,CAR,PIT,DET are below that midpoint roughly. Seems like a good starting point to receive revenue sharing.

Perhaps it should be a formula that combines (total revenue, profit level, cap spending).

For instance, I would frown upon on a team like phoenix spending to the cap limit, having little revenue, negative profit margin. In that sort of case, maybe they shouldn't get revenue sharing due to bad business sense? Alternatively, if they spent closer to the cap floor, give them higher % revenue sharing.

Curious to hear more ideas on revenue sharing split. What's a fair system for all owners that encourages good business sense?

Edit
Would also like to see "making the playoffs" a factor in receiving revenue sharing for the bottom teams. A team managed well near the cap floor like Phoenix and Florida can make the playoffs and should get more somehow.


I see that explains it a bit better. but I think the issue with basing on how much of the cap you spend is that you get teams like Winnipeg for example that doesn't spend up the the cap like the previous teams you mentioned yet they don't need revenue sharing (atleast I dont believe they do).

I do like your ideas though, especially about the playoff reward possibilty.

Edit: And I do think those upper level teams that make alot of money (NYR, VAN, BOS so-on) should have to contribute to the revenue sharing regardless of if they are spending to the cap of not because they are still the one's making the most money regardless.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1815 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,990 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:51 PM

Last Page
  • 0
Posted Image

#1816 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,846 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:36 PM

I remember that too. There was a court challenge, but it took so long that the lockout was over.

Here's what I found on Wikipedia...

On February 7, 2006, a settlement was reached in which the trophy could be awarded to non-NHL teams should the league not operate for a season. The dispute lasted so long that, by the time it was settled, the NHL had resumed operating for the 200506 season, and the Stanley Cup went unclaimed for the 200405 season. Furthermore, when another NHL lockout commenced in 2012 the Trustees stated that the 2006 agreement did not oblige them to award the Cup in the event of a lost season, and that they were likely to reject any non-NHL challenges for the Cup in the event the 2012-13 season were cancelled.


Wow... That's sad and petty really...

Thanks for the info by the way.
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#1817 bd71

bd71

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:29 PM

The problem with the cap circumventing deals is that it seems as though there is a sizeable contingent of owners who want to punish those that came up with those deals. I'm not sure that clause is going anywhere.

Donald Fehr is a dangerous man. It seems as though Paul Kelly had built a good relationship with the owners and Fehr has burned those bridges quickly.

I know that lots don't like Cox but this is a scary article if even somewhat true.

http://www.thestar.c...-nhlpa-coup-cox
  • 0

#1818 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:36 PM

I wanted to link spending above the midpoint to revenue sharing tax to encourage good business sense. For instance, if San Jose is losing money, then why the heck are they spending to the cap limit?!! Understood it could go the other way too where a team like NYR would be below the midpoint and get revenue sharing (well not after the Redden rule kicks in).

Teams like VAN,BOS,PHI,CGY,CHI,MTL,TOR should be happy enough to contribute more to revenue pool for the option to spend to upper cap limit. If they don't like it, then just reduce the roster spending a bit. My gut feeling says they would spend to the cap limit every time.

Right now according to capgeek: PHX,NYI,OTT,DAL,STL,FLA,COL,NSH,ANA,NJD,WPG,CLB,CAR,PIT,DET are below that midpoint roughly. Seems like a good starting point to receive revenue sharing.

Perhaps it should be a formula that combines (total revenue, profit level, cap spending).

For instance, I would frown upon on a team like phoenix spending to the cap limit, having little revenue, negative profit margin. In that sort of case, maybe they shouldn't get revenue sharing due to bad business sense? Alternatively, if they spent closer to the cap floor, give them higher % revenue sharing.

Curious to hear more ideas on revenue sharing split. What's a fair system for all owners that encourages good business sense?

Edit
Would also like to see "making the playoffs" a factor in receiving revenue sharing for the bottom teams. A team managed well near the cap floor like Phoenix and Florida can make the playoffs and should get more somehow.


I think we have to leave Phoenix out of any conversation until they get an actual owner instead of the NHL footing the bill for the club.

As for revenue sharing, maybe the players could kick in some money to help their own instead of having 6 or 7 teams (owners) have to pool money to help pay for 300 players playing on revenue losing teams. 1% of players share (salary) would be 18.7M that would go directly to players salaries on losing/small market teams. So yes players paying players.

Edited by canuckelhead70, 23 October 2012 - 05:37 PM.

  • 0

#1819 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:44 PM

For the second time in as many months NHLers have been compared to livestock.
A month after Red Wings’ senior VP Jimmy Devellano received a fine for comments comparing professional hockey players to “cattle,” Bruins centre David Krejci went a similar route, slamming NHL commissioner Gary Bettman along the way over the weekend.
“(Bettman) does what he wants," Krejci told Czech publication iSport.cz. “We want to play, we're the ones who are (negotiating).
“It is unfortunate that the NHL have such a guy," he said in a translated interview. "It's a shame for the entire hockey world. (He) treats us like animals.”
Krejci, who was selected by Boston in the second round of the 2004 NHL draft, then targeted Bettman’s significant salary increase since the last lockout.
“Bettman took during the last lockout $3.5 million,” Krejci said, “now it's at $8 million.”
The Bruins re-upped Krejci late last year with a three-year deal reported to be worth close to $16 million.
  • 0

#1820 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 64,527 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:04 PM

@tpanotchCSN
Bill Daly says given NHLPA position on league's last proposal and "unwillingness" to offer a new one, he's unsure why 2 sides would meet.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1821 Pears

Pears

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,841 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:10 PM

Just do these steps:

1) Propose a deal
2) Accept a deal
3) Drop the puck

...now if only it were that easy...
  • 0
Posted Image

Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!!

#1822 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:50 PM

OMG THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING! The NHL won't even accept a request to meet, forget accepting any proposal.

Franking Brutal.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1823 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:25 PM

Good thing there's no crying in hockey or I might be a little misty eyed over this apparent setback.

Pick a proposal, boys! Any proposal will do. Squabble over the details until you both give and take enough to be only a little miserable. Sign it and be grateful every single one of you gets paid to play the game of hockey (as a player or owner.)

Edited by poetica, 23 October 2012 - 08:28 PM.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1824 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,611 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:21 PM

@tpanotchCSN
Bill Daly says given NHLPA position on league's last proposal and "unwillingness" to offer a new one, he's unsure why 2 sides would meet.


... the PA offered 3 different proposals in response to the NHL's most recent one. Classic Daly, trying to get fans on their side while clearly avoiding fact. Ball is in the NHL's court if they really want this deal signed by thursday then make some concessions to contractual freedoms. In what way is proposing a new CBA, and then saying take it or leave it 'negotiating'? It was expected that the PA would offer some tweaks. Respond with another proposal, don't make this out to be non-cooperation when it's your side that isn't negotiating.

Edited by Ossi Vaananen, 23 October 2012 - 09:21 PM.

  • 3

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1825 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:54 PM

Baffles my mind that players wont take 7% roll back but are willing to take 100% role back in a missed year ..
  • 0
Posted Image

#1826 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:10 PM

Something tells me that the players will cave in and sign the latest proposal by Thursday :)
  • 0
Posted Image

#1827 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,856 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:32 PM

Baffles my mind that players wont take 7% roll back but are willing to take 100% role back in a missed year ..

They're taking a stand on principle. They want their current contracts honored in full.
But like you said they will lose 100% of this year's salary. Which would end up being equal to or more damage than cutting their contracts over their duration like the NHL wants.

On the NHL side, they don't want to lose revenue.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1828 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,871 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:49 PM

Baffles my mind that players wont take 7% roll back but are willing to take 100% role back in a missed year ..


Last time they skipped a year, they wound up with a 24% rollback on top of it. And they still came out far wealthier in the long run.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1829 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,283 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:58 PM

I think Fehr's got it in the players heads that they got screwed in the last deal, and that this is their time to stand and fight. And that if they out-wait the owners, they'll get what they want.

This is the wrong attitude. They're not gonna get their way. And waiting longer, doesn't ever equal a more positive result.

They needed to push back on the deal that the NHL offered, not offer 3 completely different proposals. I have a feeling Fehr's ego is in play a bit here though. And the players are believing in him too much.

Edited by DeNiro, 23 October 2012 - 10:58 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#1830 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,471 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:25 PM

Over till end of December. Good job money mongers
  • 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.