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

#1921 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:28 PM

dp

Edited by lorentjd, 25 October 2012 - 11:29 PM.

  • 0

#1922 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:28 PM

dp

Edited by lorentjd, 25 October 2012 - 11:29 PM.

  • 0

#1923 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:32 PM

OP is chalk full of ignorance


Specifically?
  • 0

#1924 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:35 PM

I'm pretty sure retired NHLers don't need to work regular jobs for little coin after they stop playing hockey, they've either made so much money that they don't need to do anything or they become announcers/analysts


I think you might be surprised at how many former pro athletes have to work regular jobs after their careers are over. Losing a full season of pro hockey player salary, while the gettin' is good, would be stupid.
  • 0

#1925 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:42 PM

Lorentjd, I am going to simplify things for you here.

In theory, 50/50 sharing would work, except for the %12 reduction in salary. Why, you say? because if you are hired and negotiated a contract to perform a specific job. Than those who dealt the contract with you come back a mere couple weeks/months later and told you sorry we can't pay you and now you have to take a %12 reduction. You would not call it a haircut.

I am just as frustrated as you with both sides on this but how is that fair to have one side unwilling to keep the promise and in good faith with there dealings. I for one don't blame players who have said they may not return if this is the case. If my employer was doing this to me I would look elsewhere too. And you can take your "haircut" analogy out the door because it is so far off what it really means.
  • 3
virtus junxit mors non separabit.

View PostGumballthechewy, on 10 January 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....

#1926 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:01 AM

In theory, 50/50 sharing would work, except for the %12 reduction in salary. Why, you say? because if you are hired and negotiated a contract to perform a specific job. Than those who dealt the contract with you come back a mere couple weeks/months later and told you sorry we can't pay you and now you have to take a %12 reduction. You would not call it a haircut.


If I signed a contract and my employer wanted to cut my pay, contrary to the contract, I'd be pissed. But NHL contracts are subject to whatever CBA is in place at the time. A new CBA could result in payments that are higher or lower than those stipulates in a player's contract.

Now, if player contracts said that the stipulated salaries were not subject to a CBA (and that the salaries would be paid regardless of what a CBA said), then that would be a different story. But that's not how these professional player contracts work -- they are all subject to an overriding CBA and, as I understand it, every one of those contracts where signed with that proviso in the contracts.

That all being said, mathematically, most players will be worse off losing an entire season of income, even if the league eventually agrees to a CBA with a 57% cut going to the players, than to take the league's 50-50 deal.
  • 0

#1927 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:05 AM

In theory, 50/50 sharing would work, except for the %12 reduction in salary. Why, you say? because if you are hired and negotiated a contract to perform a specific job. Than those who dealt the contract with you come back a mere couple weeks/months later and told you sorry we can't pay you and now you have to take a %12 reduction. You would not call it a haircut.


If I signed a contract and my employer wanted to cut my pay, contrary to the contract, I'd be pissed. But NHL contracts are subject to whatever CBA is in place at the time. A new CBA could result in payments that are higher or lower than those stipulates in a player's contract.

Now, if player contracts said that the stipulated salaries were not subject to a CBA (and that the salaries would be paid regardless of what a CBA said), then that would be a different story. But that's not how these professional player contracts work -- they are all subject to an overriding CBA and, as I understand it, every one of those contracts were signed with that proviso in the contracts.

That all being said, mathematically, most players will be worse off losing an entire season of income, even if the league eventually agrees to a CBA with a 57% cut going to the players, than to take the league's 50-50 deal.

Edited by lorentjd, 26 October 2012 - 12:05 AM.

  • 0

#1928 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:14 AM

If I signed a contract and my employer wanted to cut my pay, contrary to the contract, I'd be pissed. But NHL contracts are subject to whatever CBA is in place at the time. A new CBA could result in payments that are higher or lower than those stipulates in a player's contract.

Now, if player contracts said that the stipulated salaries were not subject to a CBA (and that the salaries would be paid regardless of what a CBA said), then that would be a different story. But that's not how these professional player contracts work -- they are all subject to an overriding CBA and, as I understand it, every one of those contracts were signed with that proviso in the contracts.

That all being said, mathematically, most players will be worse off losing an entire season of income, even if the league eventually agrees to a CBA with a 57% cut going to the players, than to take the league's 50-50 deal.


The 50/50 deal will only be agreed upon if the league honours previous CBA contracts.

Why would you sign an NHL contract if every 8 years or so its no longer valid or honoured. I would say that company is terrible to work for and the owners are doing so in bad faith. And on top of that you know the major revenue that as a whole your employer is making, that's a major piss off.

If I can't have my %12 honoured in good faith as promised why the hell are you running a business. You can screw a few around, but once they know your game the talent will be going elsewhere.
  • 2
virtus junxit mors non separabit.

View PostGumballthechewy, on 10 January 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....

#1929 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,227 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:28 AM

i dont know how the players can look themselves in the mirror when they say "we dont see why the nhl needs a salary reduction".

gee maybe look at how many franchises are in financial trouble?

new jersey
dallas
phoenix
Sanjose (has never made money despite its attendance)
LA (same as sanjose)
anaheim
carolina
colombus
florida
tampa bay
colorado (not quite yet but they are drawing significantly less fans than 5 years ago)
st louis (maybe not after last year but they were every other year not sure on them)
buffalo (was in serious trouble until an idiot with a wad of money bought them)

^
that is 13 teams i listed above that are/were in financial trouble at some point over the last 3 years that is 43% of the franchises. Right now this league is being carried by the strong canadian dollar, that could EASILY reverse in the next 5 years.

the players are totally out to lunch on the state of the league and just cling to their 3.3billion dollar revenue number.
  • 0

#1930 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:32 AM

i dont know how the players can look themselves in the mirror when they say "we dont see why the nhl needs a salary reduction".

gee maybe look at how many franchises are in financial trouble?

new jersey
dallas
phoenix
Sanjose (has never made money despite its attendance)
LA (same as sanjose)
anaheim
carolina
colombus
florida
tampa bay
colorado (not quite yet but they are drawing significantly less fans than 5 years ago)
st louis (maybe not after last year but they were every other year not sure on them)
buffalo (was in serious trouble until an idiot with a wad of money bought them)

^
that is 13 teams i listed above that are/were in financial trouble at some point over the last 3 years that is 43% of the franchises. Right now this league is being carried by the strong canadian dollar, that could EASILY reverse in the next 5 years.

the players are totally out to lunch on the state of the league and just cling to their 3.3billion dollar revenue number.


I want to counter this but it feels like you have just put up your opinion on which teams shouldn't be and that's why they suck. Where are you getting your facts and numbers from? and no, Hockeyinsiderr is not a source.
  • 0
virtus junxit mors non separabit.

View PostGumballthechewy, on 10 January 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....

#1931 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,227 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:50 AM

I want to counter this but it feels like you have just put up your opinion on which teams shouldn't be and that's why they suck. Where are you getting your facts and numbers from? and no, Hockeyinsiderr is not a source.


that list of teams besides the ones i added ( ) on were reported by sportsnet as being in financial difficulty last week by darren millard on their noonhour hockey show. sanjose pierre lebrun said had never made $,

Yes some of it my own opinion but even a franchise like detroit was having a hard time early on last year drawing fans. You are right some of those teams shouldnt be in those markets but that isnt really a problem for the NHLPA would have a sh|tfit if they folded those franchises and replaced them in 3-5years when seattle/quebec build their arenas as they would lose 60-100jobs.

who is hockeyinsiderr? sounds like a moron.
  • 0

#1932 Primus099

Primus099

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:51 AM

I think you might be surprised at how many former pro athletes have to work regular jobs after their careers are over. Losing a full season of pro hockey player salary, while the gettin' is good, would be stupid.


Theo Fleury pissed alot of his money away and went to rehab and he doesn't even need to do that so..yeah

you really think a former pro athlete is going to go work at walmart?
  • 0

#1933 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:50 AM

Well, the answer SHOULD be obvious, but apparently the NHPLA doesn't understand basic math.

Also, let's say you're an NHL player and you have no more than six years left in your playing career. You have a choice: [A] Take a 12% haircut on your current salary but play for six years or [B] Lose a full year's salary and forego AT LEAST 17% of the rest of your professional hockey income that you'll ever make? I say "AT LEAST" because that assumes that after a lost season they go right back to getting 57% of league revenue (which is NOT going to happen). So, that player is more likely to lose 20%-25% of the rest of his career's income by losing a full season.

Do players understand BASIC math?


"BASIC math" would also conclude that 45% of $3B is also greater than 57% of $0...then 35%...then 25%....etc. Which is the path that the owners will always be on now that they have a cap. Now that a cap is in place, the owners will just continue with the lockouts and demands for greater HRR percentages.

...which is horsecrap. The union needs to stand their ground, and I think/hope they will. I'd love to see Bettman & Daly lose their jobs over this. No way can those two be trusted, and no way will the partnership go in any positive direction with these two slimy pieces of human excrement leading the owners' march.
  • 0

#1934 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:52 AM

Any way you slice it, a player with only six years remaining in his career is going to end up far worse off by losing a full season than by taking a 12% haircut in his current salary but not losing a full season.

If I were such a player, I'd take the haircut and keep playing. It would be a no-brainer.


You're right that the calculation is not complex; the PA is doing what they're doing to protect future generations of hockey players, much like what prior generations did for them. Owners wanting more for the sake of wanting more can't be allowed. There is no fundamental reason for the owners' desire for a bigger split. They're just greedy.
  • 1

#1935 Wh!stler R!der

Wh!stler R!der

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 09

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:59 AM

Will the fans show more anger if there is only half a season than a full season? If the NHL is locked out until the summer I think the edge and anger of the fans would die down because it would be so long since we saw hockey. I hope there is half a season so there will be some revolt from the fans. Season ticket holders will be back but I think our sellout streak will end after the lockout if it's a half season.

Edited by Wh!stler R!der, 26 October 2012 - 06:00 AM.

  • 0
This city deserves a championship. This is the best era in Canucks history, keep bleeding blue n green always!
Win it for Ripper, Luc and Demo.

#1936 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:16 AM

You're right that the calculation is not complex; the PA is doing what they're doing to protect future generations of hockey players, much like what prior generations did for them. Owners wanting more for the sake of wanting more can't be allowed. There is no fundamental reason for the owners' desire for a bigger split. They're just greedy.


You think the NHLPA is taking the position they are taking to protect the livelihood of future union brothers...while the owners are "just greedy"?

Is that why the NHLPA is willing to go 50-50 on league revenue for FUTURE contracts and players as long as the CURRENT players' contracts are honored?

The players are no less (and no more) "greedy" than the owners are...but let's not pretend that the union's objective is "to protect future generations of hockey players".
  • 0

#1937 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:23 AM

"BASIC math" would also conclude that 45% of $3B is also greater than 57% of $0...then 35%...then 25%....etc. Which is the path that the owners will always be on now that they have a cap. Now that a cap is in place, the owners will just continue with the lockouts and demands for greater HRR percentages.


Maybe so. But if this would truly be a long-term CBA that the owners want (like ten years), then whatever future path the owners may want to take the next CBA is going to be irrelevant to most CURRENT players.

My basic math assessment is looking at what is on the table now through the eyes of a current player, especially a player with just a few years left in their playing career. For them, it's a no-brainer to take the owners' offer and play this year.
  • 0

#1938 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:25 AM

You think the NHLPA is taking the position they are taking to protect the livelihood of future union brothers...while the owners are "just greedy"?

Is that why the NHLPA is willing to go 50-50 on league revenue for FUTURE contracts and players as long as the CURRENT players' contracts are honored?

The players are no less (and no more) "greedy" than the owners are...but let's not pretend that the union's objective is "to protect future generations of hockey players".


What's the problem with that? Some of those contracts were signed only weeks ago. They were bargained in good faith. Why should they be rolled back? Where, anywhere, in life, is that a reasonable thing to do? Should we all try calling the Canucks and asking for a 12% reduction in season ticket prices, because, well, they're pretty expensive? Think that'd work?

The players have already agreed to transfer > $1B in wealth to the owners, for really no reason, at a time when hockey is booming. That's greed?
  • 0

#1939 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:27 AM

My basic math assessment is looking at what is on the table now through the eyes of a current player, especially a player with just a few years left in their playing career. For them, it's a no-brainer to take the owners' offer and play this year.


Yes, sure, mathematically, you're correct. But this is just more evidence that the PA is worried about future generations - not greed. They are concerned with not just bending over and taking it from the owners, because, as I alluded to, it'll just keep happening again, and again, and again.
  • 0

#1940 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:34 AM

What's the problem with that? Some of those contracts were signed only weeks ago. They were bargained in good faith. Why should they be rolled back? Where, anywhere, in life, is that a reasonable thing to do? Should we all try calling the Canucks and asking for a 12% reduction in season ticket prices, because, well, they're pretty expensive? Think that'd work?

The players have already agreed to transfer > $1B in wealth to the owners, for really no reason, at a time when hockey is booming. That's greed?


Are you now at least acknowledging that what the union is doing is NOT "to protect future players"?
  • 0

#1941 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:35 AM

Are you now at least acknowledging that what the union is doing is NOT "to protect future players"?


No. If they didn't care about future players/setting precedents, they'd basically just accept whatever the owners offer, because, as you've said, it would mathematically be in their own personal interest to do so.
  • 0

#1942 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,776 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:36 AM

Well, the answer SHOULD be obvious, but apparently the NHPLA doesn't understand basic math.

Also, let's say you're an NHL player and you have no more than six years left in your playing career. You have a choice: [A] Take a 12% haircut on your current salary but play for six years or [B] Lose a full year's salary and forego AT LEAST 17% of the rest of your professional hockey income that you'll ever make? I say "AT LEAST" because that assumes that after a lost season they go right back to getting 57% of league revenue (which is NOT going to happen). So, that player is more likely to lose 20%-25% of the rest of his career's income by losing a full season.

Do players understand BASIC math?

However one may argue that 43-45% of 3.3billion is better than absolutely nothing. Both sides are to blame but somehow people like you are believing the nhl's spin doctor(Frank Luntz) and only blame the PA.
To turn down 3-4 offers in 10minutes show that the NHL isn't trying. To make your offer a take it or leave it is not negotiating. To try and start your 82 game season the day after the world series is odd. The NHL has some hidden agenda here. Your not getting the full scoop. Also the issue is that the owners are trying to make HRR definition different. Say they decide HRR is only income from ticket sales. Then maybe the players only get 57% of 500 million while the owners get 100% of 2.8 billion and 43% of 500 million.
I think the real question is do you understand BIG business?

Please do us a favour and never ever represent someone as a shop steward or work comitee or workers rights board. As it appears labour conditions for those you would represent would deteriorate almost as fast as their pay would drop. :picard:

Nhlpa is proving that they would rather die on their feet rather than live on their knees and I respect them off that but at the end of the day I blame both sides.

Edited by Standing_Tall#37, 26 October 2012 - 06:37 AM.

  • 0

#1943 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:41 AM

Yes, sure, mathematically, you're correct. But this is just more evidence that the PA is worried about future generations - not greed. They are concerned with not just bending over and taking it from the owners, because, as I alluded to, it'll just keep happening again, and again, and again.


Here's my assessment:

(1) FUTURE Players: if the union was trying "to protect future players," then the union would never agree to a 50-50 split for future contracts and players...but that is exactly what the union IS agreeing to accept.

(2) CURRENT Players: The union's position is mathematically flawed for a significant portion of current players (losing a season is the worst thing that can happen to them). So, I think that this is being irrationally driven by competitive emotion: The players don't want to "lose" to the owners (which is an emotional response) and they are willing to avoid that even if it costs them more money to lose an entire season than to accept the leagues offer.
  • 0

#1944 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,776 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:45 AM

i dont know how the players can look themselves in the mirror when they say "we dont see why the nhl needs a salary reduction".

gee maybe look at how many franchises are in financial trouble?

new jersey
dallas
phoenix
Sanjose (has never made money despite its attendance)
LA (same as sanjose)
anaheim
carolina
colombus
florida
tampa bay
colorado (not quite yet but they are drawing significantly less fans than 5 years ago)
st louis (maybe not after last year but they were every other year not sure on them)
buffalo (was in serious trouble until an idiot with a wad of money bought them)

^
that is 13 teams i listed above that are/were in financial trouble at some point over the last 3 years that is 43% of the franchises. Right now this league is being carried by the strong canadian dollar, that could EASILY reverse in the next 5 years.

the players are totally out to lunch on the state of the league and just cling to their 3.3billion dollar revenue number.

Fold them then!!! Why should employees be held responsible for owners being incapable of running a business to make money? I bet if you got to look at the books, you'd find that about half of those teams are only losing money on paper. #goodaccountantworth10xWeightingold
  • 0

#1945 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:46 AM

No. If they didn't care about future players/setting precedents, they'd basically just accept whatever the owners offer, because, as you've said, it would mathematically be in their own personal interest to do so.


So, how is accepting 50-50 for all FUTURE contracts and players protecting FUTURE players??
  • 0

#1946 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:53 AM

Because there is such a strong emotional element in the players' position, as opposed to that position being driven by rationality, if I were the league I would agree to a hard cap of 56% for year one, 55% for year two, etc. until we get to 50-50 and I would want a ten-year contract. That would help alleviate the issue about current contracts and make the specter of losing a full season look positively stupid from a player's perspective.
  • 0

#1947 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:58 AM

So, how is accepting 50-50 for all FUTURE contracts and players protecting FUTURE players??


The players are demonstrating a willingness to negotiate - and give.

The owners are not, which is why they rejected 3 separate offers within 10 minutes.
  • 0

#1948 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:59 AM

Because there is such a strong emotional element in the players' position, as opposed to that position being driven by rationality, if I were the league I would agree to a hard cap of 56% for year one, 55% for year two, etc. until we get to 50-50 and I would want a ten-year contract. That would help alleviate the issue about current contracts and make the specter of losing a full season look positively stupid from a player's perspective.


50/50 is fine, as the players have said. All they want is their contracts - again, some of which were signed only weeks ago - to be honoured. Where/how/in what world is that unreasonable?

And does "rationality", in your world, mean just adhering to whatever those smart, trustworthy owners (operating under a gag order by Bettman) deem is fair?
  • 0

#1949 George_Costanza

George_Costanza

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: 03-March 04

Posted 26 October 2012 - 08:32 AM

To date no one's matched Bure's calibre, hence, my jersey remains unnamed, however, I do like the players we have on our team but no one player stands. I was having really high hopes for Hodgson.


I'm sorry, but that is just plain funny.
  • 2
Posted Image

#1950 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,906 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 26 October 2012 - 08:44 AM

The only thing i took away from this thread is that the OP thinks hockey players spend 123,000 on their haircuts. no wonder he thinks this lockout is so detrimental to them

Edited by avelanch, 26 October 2012 - 08:44 AM.

  • 1




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.