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

#1831 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:23 AM

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


And with the NHLPA stating the game will grow 7% every year for the next 5 years, they would get their 7% back next season according to their numbers unless they are not being truthful with the numbers and growth projections.
  • 0

#1832 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 24 October 2012 - 08:16 AM

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.

What a joke. So we are suposed to feel bad for those poor players, treated like 'animals'. Some players have totally lost track of reality. Next thing we know they will compare themselves to holocaust victims.
  • 0

#1833 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,195 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 24 October 2012 - 08:58 AM

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

Great link.
What amazes me is how this dispute has been presented as a labour vs management scenario. I guess if it can be simplified as such then it is easier for more people, particularly NHL players, to accept.

This is a fight over money by two very powerfull groups. The power of the NHLPA is defined by the income the union members share. $1.7 billion dollars! As much as many on here want to believe these boys work under onerous task masters I have a hard time with that.

The only untouchable in any deal would be the sanctity of existing contracts. Everything else has to be on the table.
  • 0

#1834 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,692 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:30 AM

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.


I think it's more accurate that he's "got in the players heads" that they made most of the concessions last lockout and that BOTH sides need to compromise this time, not just one side or it sets a dangerous precedent that at the end of every CBA thew owners simply lockout the players until they get ever bigger pieces of the pie. I tend to agree.

And I think Bettman's got it in the owners heads that they've got to put the screws to the players and get as much as they can and try to set that precedent. It's quite clear the owners/league have little interest in actual negotiation or discussion with their "take it or leave it" offers and clever re-wording of the same offers/numbers disguised as "progress".
  • 2
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1835 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:43 AM

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.


I found this at puckonomics.com, which quoted numbers from forbes magazine. According to this, Winnipeg did post a loss and could use a little revenue sharing. I'd say they managed their spending almost as best they could given the cap floor.
http://tinyurl.com/9qlqtx6
http://www.forbes.co...aluations/list/

Just for kicks, lets take a close look at the owners attending the last NHL meeting. WAS,CGY,MIN,BOS. Now compare this to COL for example. Notice how those teams have enough revenue coming in, but their spending is too high. COL has less revenue, and managed to post a profit. If you look carefully, its clear to me that some of these owners are just spending too much on player contracts, when they should be targeting closer to the midpoint. CGY, spent to the cap, didn't make the playoffs and practically broke even. If they traded Boumeaster or Iginilia, they probably would have posted a nice 10m profit and started a proper rebuild movement. WAS brought in more revenue than COL, made the playoffs and posted a loss? I'm not sure how that happens, but again probably just poor management.


Edit
Honourable mention goes to TOR for consistently spending to the cap ceiling, highest revenue team and failing to make the playoffs for the entire previous CBA.

Edited by gizmo2337, 24 October 2012 - 09:52 AM.

  • 1

#1836 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:18 AM

I think it's more accurate that he's "got in the players heads" that they made most of the concessions last lockout and that BOTH sides need to compromise this time, not just one side or it sets a dangerous precedent that at the end of every CBA thew owners simply lockout the players until they get ever bigger pieces of the pie. I tend to agree.

And I think Bettman's got it in the owners heads that they've got to put the screws to the players and get as much as they can and try to set that precedent. It's quite clear the owners/league have little interest in actual negotiation or discussion with their "take it or leave it" offers and clever re-wording of the same offers/numbers disguised as "progress".


Thank you! I'm so glad that someone else gets that there are reasons other than money the players are holding out. And frankly that there are 3 sides in this negotiation: the owners, the players, and the fans. It' not even about which side (owners or players) is right, what's fair, or even the reality of their unique business, fans absolutely have our own stake in this negotiation and too many of us are taking the wrong stance!

Only shortsighted fans incorrectly believe that just forcing players to take whatever deal offered to them so we can get our hockey back now is what's best for us. In the long run, it all but guarantees many more work stoppages of longer durations as we are helping to positively reinforce the idea that locking out the players and denying the fans hockey will always result in owners getting even more advantageous CBAs, fewer actual business risks (as players are paying for them with added restrictions and lowered wages), and little if any long term consequences from fans. Even under the NHL's proposal they state that they assume the next season's revenue will just continue to grow at the 5% yearly rate they're predicting. They don't even account for a tiny drop in revenue growth following a major work stoppage. Because they've never had to face one. It's time they did!
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1837 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,753 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:56 AM

http://www.insiderru...on-on-the-line/

season might be saved?

Edited by TheGame., 24 October 2012 - 10:56 AM.

  • 0

m97o1w.jpg

Credit to Parise11


#1838 Shaelon

Shaelon

    Magic Number Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 07

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:16 AM

http://www.insiderru...on-on-the-line/

season might be saved?


wasn't hockeyyinsiderr proven to be a fake?
  • 0

#1839 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:24 AM

http://www.insiderru...on-on-the-line/

season might be saved?


This is fake.

In fact, I fully expect the deadline to pass with no movement. The NHL won't even pick up the phone right now. The Players will bunker down until the owners find a way to keep their promises, and I think it is as simple as that.
  • 0

#1840 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:26 AM

The NHL says a full 82-game season is not possible if a new collective bargaining agreement isn't reached by Thursday.

.....

An invitation from the NHL Players' Association to reopen talks "without preconditions" was quickly denied by the NHL on Tuesday night.

Source: http://www.ctvnews.c...asses-1.1008352

So now the NHL isn't even pretending to be open to negotiation? It's just, "Accept by Thursday or we'll lose a whole season and it's all your fault?"

:sadno: :( :mad: :angry:
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1841 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,490 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:34 AM

wasn't hockeyyinsiderr proven to be a fake?

yup
  • 0

#1842 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:37 AM

Source: http://www.ctvnews.c...asses-1.1008352

So now the NHL isn't even pretending to be open to negotiation? It's just, "Accept by Thursday or we'll lose a whole season and it's all your fault?"

:sadno: :( :mad: :angry:

Exactly, there is not much more the NHL can do after having gone up to 50-50 which just about every fan thinks is fair. The players have no support amongst fans anymore and should stop wasting the NHL time. The deal is done, it's 50-50. The players have to let us know when they wil accept that. Don't bother us or Bettman in the meantime.
  • 0

#1843 The-Impersonator

The-Impersonator

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,727 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:39 AM

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.


Your bang on. Fehr has them believing this is more than a $$ issue and a real moral issue. He's telling the players they got screwed last time so why bend over and take up the wazooo from Gary Buttman again.

Edited by The-Impersonator, 24 October 2012 - 11:39 AM.

  • 0

#1844 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,692 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:47 AM

Exactly, there is not much more the NHL can do after having gone up to 50-50 which just about every fan thinks is fair. The players have no support amongst fans anymore and should stop wasting the NHL time. The deal is done, it's 50-50. The players have to let us know when they wil accept that. Don't bother us or Bettman in the meantime.


Wrong.
  • 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

#1845 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,084 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 24 October 2012 - 12:18 PM

Source: http://www.ctvnews.c...asses-1.1008352

So now the NHL isn't even pretending to be open to negotiation? It's just, "Accept by Thursday or we'll lose a whole season and it's all your fault?"

:sadno: :( :mad: :angry:

They've said the only way they'd be open to meeting now is building of their last proposal. They don't want any different proposals or open talks at this point as they're sticking to their "that's the best offer we could possibly do" guns.

Exactly, there is not much more the NHL can do after having gone up to 50-50 which just about every fan thinks is fair. The players have no support amongst fans anymore and should stop wasting the NHL time. The deal is done, it's 50-50. The players have to let us know when they wil accept that. Don't bother us or Bettman in the meantime.

Charles Wang, is that you? Don't you have an arena announcement to make?

But sadly, no. Not "just about every fan" thinks the NHL deal was fair. An actual 50/50 may be fair but they're relying on the uneducated fans (or those who just won't take the time to actually understand their proposal) to not factor in how much the other clauses they've submitted along with it are in their favour. Some of those clauses actually make the 50/50 much less than that in the real world numbers.
  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1846 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 October 2012 - 12:29 PM

Exactly, there is not much more the NHL can do after having gone up to 50-50 which just about every fan thinks is fair. The players have no support amongst fans anymore and should stop wasting the NHL time. The deal is done, it's 50-50. The players have to let us know when they wil accept that. Don't bother us or Bettman in the meantime.


Actually, there's a LOT the NHL can do besides "go up to" the 50-50 split (which is actually just going down less.)

The union's offers got them to a 50/50 split, just over a few years to ensure owners honor the existing contracts they signed rather than allowing owners to pretend to honor them but actually make the players pay for them by counting the "make whole" payments against the players' share in the future. So, the NHL could agree to honor those contracts after the 7% HRR drop (so they actually would drop) but without punishing all players in the future for the bad contracts made by owners, some just months ago by making those "make whole" payments never count against the players' share OR by agreeing to a staggered drop in players' share, starting by several percent in the first year (add to that the revenue growth from the last HRR number and owners should already see a benefit even with just a few percent drop in the first season!) and getting to the full 50/50 split within 3-4 years.

The NHL could also make compromises on their many demands relating to contract limitations, both on limiting contract lengths and allowed yearly percent increases, and on extending UFA years of service requirements.

There is lot of room on both sides for actually negotiate. Unfortunately, just like last time only one side is making any concessions at all. And fans are again supporting the owners' tantrums because of our own selfish interest to get hockey back at whatever cost, even though the reality is it will cost us the most in the long run by ensuring that owners will continue to lockout players every time the CBA expires because in the past they have always benefited in the long term from doing so thanks to us.
  • 3
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1847 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 October 2012 - 12:39 PM

They've said the only way they'd be open to meeting now is building of their last proposal. They don't want any different proposals or open talks at this point as they're sticking to their "that's the best offer we could possibly do" guns.


The article I linked above also included the following quote:

"They have indicated a willingness to meet, but they also told us they had very little interest in the proposal we tabled last Tuesday," said Daly. "(They) also said they weren't making a new proposal. What would we be meeting about?"


So, that would seem to indicate they aren't openly saying they wouldn't take another 3 minutes to reject another proposal. But, that they aren't willing to even get into a room and start talking unless the union is ready to accept at least parts of their offer without negotiation or moving from their previous positions by offering a new proposal.

Like I said at TSN, if both sides really care about getting a deal done they need to stop worrying about who's proposal is the starting point for negotiations, just pick one and start working out the details! We all know they're going to end up where they end up regardless of where they start. But from that statement it certainly seems that despite their cries about wanting to salvage the full season it's the owners who are unwilling to put their pride aside long enough to start negotiating from a proposal they didn't make.

Frankly, It's a full on p*ssing contest and fans are on the ground floor.

Edited by poetica, 24 October 2012 - 12:43 PM.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1848 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,394 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 24 October 2012 - 12:52 PM

The way I see it the NHLPA made a major miscalculation by not choosing the single concession that they could make that would have the owners playing in their court rather than the other way around. The PA knew what they wanted but didn't come up with a realistic way of getting there.

Simply, the PA wanted all of the contracts honoured, the NHL wants immediate significant reduction in player costs, and neither came up with a real solution to the quandry.

As I proposed earlier in the thread, the easiest way to accomplish this is to allow the NHL member teams to relegate underperforming contracts immediately. The NHLPA's insistence to protect 100% of their membership, including those that are being paid to not play at an NHL level commensurate with their salary (Gomez, Redden, etc), is the major stumbling block. Had the NHLPA made a reasoned plea to their membership to allow a mechanism for teams to jettison those contracts, preferably on a two-way basis, then I believe the NHL would have accepted the PA's 'make whole' suggestion.

Put another way, the League, the PA and the fans are being held hostage by the percentage of contracts which are not meeting performance. These few (I would estimate 20-30 contracts) are what is truly bridging the gap between the parties and could easily account for the $90-100 mil they are apart.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1849 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 09

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:14 PM

Exactly, there is not much more the NHL can do after having gone up to 50-50 which just about every fan thinks is fair. The players have no support amongst fans anymore and should stop wasting the NHL time. The deal is done, it's 50-50. The players have to let us know when they wil accept that. Don't bother us or Bettman in the meantime.

it does not matter what the fans think is fair ,The only right a fan has if they will continue to support the entertainment they supply once the lockout is lifted
  • 0
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#1850 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 09

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:28 PM

The way I see it the NHLPA made a major miscalculation by not choosing the single concession that they could make that would have the owners playing in their court rather than the other way around. The PA knew what they wanted but didn't come up with a realistic way of getting there.

Simply, the PA wanted all of the contracts honoured, the NHL wants immediate significant reduction in player costs, and neither came up with a real solution to the quandry.

As I proposed earlier in the thread, the easiest way to accomplish this is to allow the NHL member teams to relegate underperforming contracts immediately. The NHLPA's insistence to protect 100% of their membership, including those that are being paid to not play at an NHL level commensurate with their salary (Gomez, Redden, etc), is the major stumbling block. Had the NHLPA made a reasoned plea to their membership to allow a mechanism for teams to jettison those contracts, preferably on a two-way basis, then I believe the NHL would have accepted the PA's 'make whole' suggestion.

Put another way, the League, the PA and the fans are being held hostage by the percentage of contracts which are not meeting performance. These few (I would estimate 20-30 contracts) are what is truly bridging the gap between the parties and could easily account for the $90-100 mil they are apart.

A legal contract needs to be paid no questions asked , You cant re-negotiate the sale price on a house if the market crashes so why is this any different .

Billionaire owners need to take responsibility for giving there GMs approval to make poor business decisions on the contracts there handing out and to be honest its obvious that there business skills has not been the reason to why they made hundreds of millions and billions because half the teams in the NHL are absolute terrible investments in the first place
  • 1
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#1851 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:36 PM

As I proposed earlier in the thread, the easiest way to accomplish this is to allow the NHL member teams to relegate underperforming contracts immediately. The NHLPA's insistence to protect 100% of their membership, including those that are being paid to not play at an NHL level commensurate with their salary (Gomez, Redden, etc), is the major stumbling block. Had the NHLPA made a reasoned plea to their membership to allow a mechanism for teams to jettison those contracts, preferably on a two-way basis, then I believe the NHL would have accepted the PA's 'make whole' suggestion.


Any chance that Leipold might reconsider that contract with Weber and "jettison" it? I'm not suggesting he is under-performing. He could refuse to report to AHL and become UFA? One can dream... :bigblush:
  • 0

#1852 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,394 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 24 October 2012 - 01:42 PM

A legal contract needs to be paid no questions asked , You cant re-negotiate the sale price on a house if the market crashes so why is this any different .

Billionaire owners need to take responsibility for giving there GMs approval to make poor business decisions on the contracts there handing out and to be honest its obvious that there business skills has not been the reason to why they made hundreds of millions and billions because half the teams in the NHL are absolute terrible investments in the first place


You won't get any argument from me.... I've been saying the same thing all the way through this thread. Look back through the previous pages and you'll see that I believe that the NHL could solve their financial problems simply by changing the cap floor and a small increase in revenue sharing.

However.... being practical doesn't necessarily equate to being fair. I agree it is hard to justify the owners' position, when they give out $4.0 mil to Jiri Hudler and re-up Ales Hemsky and Andrei Markov with raises, but it is impractical to continue to expect to pay major league dollars for minor league play. As fans we shouldn't want it, shouldn't accept it, and shouldn't be hold hostage by poor management decisions as we are right now.

Here is a small list of contracts that are a major problem for the league shown in real actual payroll for 2012-2013. I didn't even include any signings made within the last two years which are also a big problem.

1) Redden - $ 5.0 mil
2) Gomez - $5.5 mil
3) DiPietro - $ 4.5 mil
4) Lecavalier - $10.0 mil
5) Ballard - $4.2 mil
6) Thomas - $3.0 mil
7) Olesz - $4.0 mil
8) Horcoff - $6.0 mil
9) Komisarek - $3.5 mil
10) Yashin - $2.2 mil
11) Drury - $1.7 mil
12) Walker - $1.7 mil


This alone equals $51.3 mil just for this year and it is not rationally justifiable that these dollars get paid out.

You can't tell me that doesn't need to be fixed and is the single biggest obstacle in the CBA, hence the call for short contract limits.

Edited by theminister, 24 October 2012 - 01:45 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1853 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 09

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:14 PM

You won't get any argument from me.... I've been saying the same thing all the way through this thread. Look back through the previous pages and you'll see that I believe that the NHL could solve their financial problems simply by changing the cap floor and a small increase in revenue sharing.

However.... being practical doesn't necessarily equate to being fair. I agree it is hard to justify the owners' position, when they give out $4.0 mil to Jiri Hudler and re-up Ales Hemsky and Andrei Markov with raises, but it is impractical to continue to expect to pay major league dollars for minor league play. As fans we shouldn't want it, shouldn't accept it, and shouldn't be hold hostage by poor management decisions as we are right now.

Here is a small list of contracts that are a major problem for the league shown in real actual payroll for 2012-2013. I didn't even include any signings made within the last two years which are also a big problem.

1) Redden - $ 5.0 mil
2) Gomez - $5.5 mil
3) DiPietro - $ 4.5 mil
4) Lecavalier - $10.0 mil
5) Ballard - $4.2 mil
6) Thomas - $3.0 mil
7) Olesz - $4.0 mil
8) Horcoff - $6.0 mil
9) Komisarek - $3.5 mil
10) Yashin - $2.2 mil
11) Drury - $1.7 mil
12) Walker - $1.7 mil


This alone equals $51.3 mil just for this year and it is not rationally justifiable that these dollars get paid out.

You can't tell me that doesn't need to be fixed and is the single biggest obstacle in the CBA, hence the call for short contract limits.

I agree all the above contracts are not good ones and some are worse then others , I like the idea of them paying them out in full with out any hit against the cap .

I think the big issue us fans who live in strong hockey markets who pay 150 bucks or more for a good seat should be the ones who are angry because we are supporting the other half of the NHL with this shared revenue so the teams in non traditional hockey markets can sell there tickets for a fraction of what we pay so they can fill half there building .

They need to start relocating these floundering teams to more traditional markets or start marketing the crap out of them in there current location like any other business has to do to be successful or if they cant move all of them and the marketing is not working then its time to start folding some of them .

Bettman has run the NHL into the current situation and the only solution he can come up with is keep taking from the employees instead going after the real issues and making the hard decisions and admit that the majority of expansion that he has approved over the years is the real issue hear and that these failing teams need to moved or shutdown for the better of the league
  • 1
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#1854 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,098 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

I'm listening to Bob McCown right now and he had an interesting theory that reportedly came from an owner. I may have some of the details wrong, but the basic theory was that if they cancel the season, in the spring the NHL could say "Here is the new deal, take it or leave it", and drop the lockout. Then the players would be forced to either accept the deal, or go on strike. However, his speculation was, at that point, at least a third of the players, maybe even half, would opt to cross the picket line and report to work. This would essentially break the back of the union.

My question is... legally, can the NHL even do that if they wanted to? Or are they required to come to an agreement with the NHLPA before opening the doors?
  • 0
Posted Image

#1855 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,394 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

They need to start relocating these floundering teams to more traditional markets or start marketing the crap out of them in there current location like any other business has to do to be successful or if they cant move all of them and the marketing is not working then its time to start folding some of them .

Bettman has run the NHL into the current situation and the only solution he can come up with is keep taking from the employees instead going after the real issues and making the hard decisions and admit that the majority of expansion that he has approved over the years is the real issue hear and that these failing teams need to moved or shutdown for the better of the league


Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.

The other consideration to relocation and contraction for these teams is to redefine our expectation of 'parity' that we have now. By lowering the cap floor by a few million would allow the financial burden of player costs to be lifted off of the low revenue teams and shift it back onto the true moneymakers of the league. It may not be 'fair' but I don't see a reason why Columbus or Florida should have such an artificial playing field compared to the top 33% of the league.

When the CBA was signed in '05 the average salary was $31 mil with a floor of $23 mil and a cap of $39 mil, the $16 mil variation accounted for a full 51% of median payroll.

Using this percentage, based on an average $62 mil payroll based on 12-13 projections, the cap variance should jump from $16 mil to $32 mil meaning the cap would be 62+16 and the floor would be 62-16, ie. cap 78, floor 46.

Edited by theminister, 24 October 2012 - 02:58 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1856 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,394 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:53 PM

I'm listening to Bob McCown right now and he had an interesting theory that reportedly came from an owner. I may have some of the details wrong, but the basic theory was that if they cancel the season, in the spring the NHL could say "Here is the new deal, take it or leave it", and drop the lockout. Then the players would be forced to either accept the deal, or go on strike. However, his speculation was, at that point, at least a third of the players, maybe even half, would opt to cross the picket line and report to work. This would essentially break the back of the union.

My question is... legally, can the NHL even do that if they wanted to? Or are they required to come to an agreement with the NHLPA before opening the doors?


No, they can do that if they wish but then you can expect one of the biggest anti-trust lawsuits in modern history to unfold and there is no way that NHL teams are going to risk their other business endeavours over what amounts to currently a $2.5 mil per year difference with the players.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1857 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,394 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:53 PM

dp

Edited by theminister, 24 October 2012 - 02:53 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1858 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:08 PM

Even if they could (though I don't believe they could...see TheMinster's post), without enough of the players coming back the roosters would be pretty pathetic. And that might very well make an agreement with the players impossible as the offered CBA is between the NHL and a union representing players' interest collectively, not the league and individual players. As such, without the definitions and restrictions relating to a union I don't see how individuals signing a contract individually could legally obligate them to the collective portions, such as revenue portion sharing.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1859 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,098 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:11 PM

the roosters would be pretty pathetic.


And who wants to see a pathetic rooster? :lol: Sorry, the typo struck me as funny.

For the record, I agree with you. I just didn't think that the league could even do that from a legal standpoint. I thought the only person that could impose a contract would be an independent arbitrator or someone like that.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1860 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:21 PM

And who wants to see a pathetic rooster? :lol: Sorry, the typo struck me as funny.

For the record, I agree with you. I just didn't think that the league could even do that from a legal standpoint. I thought the only person that could impose a contract would be an independent arbitrator or someone like that.


:lol: That IS funny. I'll leave it. (And that's what I get for rushing off before re-reading my post.)
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(




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.