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

#1981 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,108 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 26 October 2012 - 02:32 PM

So you have to shave everyone salary which becomes legally problematic .


That's the problem with having a CBA that deals in percentages of HRR and player contracts that are in hard dollar amounts. There's always a chance that the total of all the contracts exceeds the set percentage of HRR.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1982 Trebreh

Trebreh

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,965 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 26 October 2012 - 02:33 PM

how often do they negotiate? it seems like theyre wasting alot of time.. Shouldnt they be negotiating atleast 2-3 times a week so they can find a solution sooner rather than later while they can still save a chunk of games?!
  • 0

#1983 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 02:37 PM

Nope. Pretty clearly, the owners are the greedy ones. And, from what the reports suggest, a group of 4 pigs from Boston, Minnesota, Philadelphia, and one other swine that's not coming to me at the moment. It's them who's controlling this whole thing.

The owners locked them out for no other reason than locking them out - NO other reason than greed. Record revenues, record growth. On the precipice of perhaps a major boom in the United States, with the Kings just winning the Cup, the Rangers doing good, the Hawks doing good, the Isles moving to a better market, etc.

The league could've continued on with this season without a CBA, or with a simple 1-year extension during which they could negotiate throughout the year. The NHL - not the PA - didn't want to do that. It's their fault.

Using a word like precipice in a sentence is completely overshadowed when you say Rangers doing good, Hawks doing good. It's well.
  • 1

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#1984 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 04:54 PM

That's the problem with having a CBA that deals in percentages of HRR and player contracts that are in hard dollar amounts. There's always a chance that the total of all the contracts exceeds the set percentage of HRR.


Agreed.

So I decided that leaving the cap at 70mil and freezing it until it drops below 50% HRR was the way to go. Its easiest and both sides win. The players still get their contracts and and the owners get their long term goals.

It sucks a bit for the owners in the short term because until revenue catches up it will be 57 then 54 then 52 then 50 % , but in return the NHLPA should give up concessions such as 5 year max contracts, UFA eligibility at age 28 or 10 years , and more flexible exceptions to waivers so teams can send more players up and down without exposing them.

I think if the NHLPA gives up these concessions the NHL will allow the 70mil cap and 50% HRR.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1985 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,059 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:10 PM

how often do they negotiate? it seems like theyre wasting alot of time.. Shouldnt they be negotiating atleast 2-3 times a week so they can find a solution sooner rather than later while they can still save a chunk of games?!


You would think, but no. Hence the reason more and more people are criticizing these 'negotations' as anything but. It really does look like two petulant children sitting at a table, scowling and refusing to look at one another because they can't agree how to share their cookies.
  • 0

#1986 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,129 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:12 PM

Mobile
  • 0
Posted Image

#1987 ba;;isticsports

ba;;isticsports

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 03

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:27 PM

However, you are forgetting a key factor, the NHLPA is a union. They aren't bargaining on an individual basis, they are bargaining for the collective group. As an older player near the end of his playing career, he would likely choose to play now instead of losing money. This is his perogative. However, unions typically see the long term. They don't just settle for what is good for a small part of the whole. They want a deal that will favour the majority of members for as long as possible. Not everyone is going to be happy with the final agreement and how much money is lost in getting the new deal, but that is the breaks of being unionized. Once you are on strike or locked out, it's generally accepted that you will never be able to regain the lost income from being out of work. Taking some short term losses for the benefit of future members is also at play here.


I agree that they are not bargaining on a individual Basis
But are not the Superstars doing that themselves?
They can continue to work, while the majority of its lesser paid members will not be able too, and quite a few of they will be replaced with New draft picks replacing them for good

I have said this before to people who have stated,if my employer asked me to take a 12 % paycut I would leave the horrible Company
Would You? Even if NO other company came CLOSE to paying you the amount you are to make after the paycut ?
No other League has the Wages, Benefits, luxuries that the NHL does either
No one way,Guaranteed contracts either,You dont perform,You are cut ! ( I wish the League would abolish these too)
With all these,The players still have it good compared to ANY other hockey players, playing anywhere else in the world
  • 0

#1988 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,496 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:26 PM

Agreed.

So I decided that leaving the cap at 70mil and freezing it until it drops below 50% HRR was the way to go. Its easiest and both sides win. The players still get their contracts and and the owners get their long term goals.

It sucks a bit for the owners in the short term because until revenue catches up it will be 57 then 54 then 52 then 50 % , but in return the NHLPA should give up concessions such as 5 year max contracts, UFA eligibility at age 28 or 10 years , and more flexible exceptions to waivers so teams can send more players up and down without exposing them.

I think if the NHLPA gives up these concessions the NHL will allow the 70mil cap and 50% HRR.


I think that is the type of concession that the owners have to make - imo their reneg is simply not how business should be conducted. I also don't think the complications of dropping the cap are acceptable - it goes too far in undermining the structure of teams. On the other hand, I'd be more inclined to allow the floor to drop - but only for teams that evidence the financial necessity of circumventing the floor.
I'm not stuck on limiting contracts to 5 year terms - I think that GMs are the owners agents and there is a great deal of irony in demands that contracts be that limited when teams freely enter into ridiculous terms. If the limit were more in 7 to 8 year range I think that would be an acceptable compromise.
I also like the idea of relaxing the rules around waivers - especially in the context of replacing an injured roster player or making space for a player returning from injury.
  • 0

#1989 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

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

Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:12 AM

I think that is the type of concession that the owners have to make - imo their reneg is simply not how business should be conducted. I also don't think the complications of dropping the cap are acceptable - it goes too far in undermining the structure of teams.

Too bad you are not an influential owner. The reality is that while you think this is what the owners have to do, thye said very clearly they they don't want to do that, and guess what, they have all the power- they can keep the league closed for the entire year, and next year if they have to, and the one after that.The players say they will never accept a rollback, well guess what, their salaries are already being rolled back by the lockout. The league is asking for about 10% rolback total net, and many players will loose that after 20 games cancelled. They have to get their heads out of their asses and agree to 50/50 starting now, the only possible result of their action is less money than the current deal (which was already withdrawn by the way).
  • 0

#1990 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,492 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 27 October 2012 - 11:34 AM

Too bad you are not an influential owner. The reality is that while you think this is what the owners have to do, thye said very clearly they they don't want to do that, and guess what, they have all the power- they can keep the league closed for the entire year, and next year if they have to, and the one after that.The players say they will never accept a rollback, well guess what, their salaries are already being rolled back by the lockout. The league is asking for about 10% rolback total net, and many players will loose that after 20 games cancelled. They have to get their heads out of their asses and agree to 50/50 starting now, the only possible result of their action is less money than the current deal (which was already withdrawn by the way).


Please read the previous pages of this thread. There are lots of previous posts (by me and others) explaining the many issues, not just money, at stake for the players and explaining why the players simply caving in to the owners demands yet again will only ensure future lengthy lockouts.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1991 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 27 October 2012 - 02:20 PM

I think that is the type of concession that the owners have to make - imo their reneg is simply not how business should be conducted. I also don't think the complications of dropping the cap are acceptable - it goes too far in undermining the structure of teams. On the other hand, I'd be more inclined to allow the floor to drop - but only for teams that evidence the financial necessity of circumventing the floor.
I'm not stuck on limiting contracts to 5 year terms - I think that GMs are the owners agents and there is a great deal of irony in demands that contracts be that limited when teams freely enter into ridiculous terms. If the limit were more in 7 to 8 year range I think that would be an acceptable compromise.
I also like the idea of relaxing the rules around waivers - especially in the context of replacing an injured roster player or making space for a player returning from injury.


Good post but I do want the 5 years. It prevents cap circumvention contracts and is a reasonable time to foresee into the future. You take a chance either way but I would rather have to re sign a good player after 5 years for more because they over achieved than I would have to be STUCK with an over paid guy for 8 .

I agree with the rest of your post.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1992 Apricot

Apricot

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,632 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 07

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:08 PM

Lp
  • 0

ahmet-maranki-kayisi-yagi.jpg

Previously known as CanucksRuleAll, CRA or Cantaloupe.



RIP RR, LB, PD. Forever in our hearts <3


#1993 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:39 PM

Please read the previous pages of this thread. There are lots of previous posts (by me and others) explaining the many issues, not just money, at stake for the players and explaining why the players simply caving in to the owners demands yet again will only ensure future lengthy lockouts.


The players dont have to 'cave ' . They can be FIRED and go play in the KHL .

The league can invite new players to go form a new union and keep drafting.
  • 1
Posted Image

#1994 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,059 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:47 PM

Great idea yeah, they'll just send Bill Daly down to the Superstar International Hockey Player store and get him to pick up a few hundred new players. Do you think he can fit them in his SUV or should he rent a truck?
  • 3

#1995 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:53 PM

The players dont have to 'cave ' . They can be FIRED and go play in the KHL .

The league can invite new players to go form a new union and keep drafting.


That is not how unions work.
  • 1

#1996 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,309 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 27 October 2012 - 04:03 PM

The players dont have to 'cave ' . They can be FIRED and go play in the KHL .

The league can invite new players to go form a new union and keep drafting.

The players have a contract and the only way they could be 'fired' is if they refuse to play once a CBA is agreed upon. I say fired, but actually mean if they don't show up and their contract is broken as a result. The NHL can't just fire them, and like I already mentioned, it'd still take an agreed upon CBA.

An example would be if Ovechkin or Kovi do refuse to return from Russia. The NHL couldn't force the KHL to refuse them spots on teams, but the NHL (or their team actually) could then negate their contract if they wanted to do so. That wouldn't do anything to help the NHL though.

In the event the NHL decided to go with replacement players, they wouldn't be able to attract good talent. The better payers would side with the players that are currently locked out, so you could draft all the players you like but it doesn't matter if they won't sign with you or play in a league that won't work with the existing union.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1997 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,901 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 27 October 2012 - 04:14 PM

Some people need to allocate more of their time to reading about the issues at hand and less time posting baseless opinions....

This thread would have been 20 pages not 67 if this were the case.
  • 2

#1998 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 71,014 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 27 October 2012 - 04:41 PM

The NHL claims they will lose $720 million after canceling all of Novembers games.

https://twitter.com/...906915582431233

After yesterday’s cancelled games, Gary Bettman has cancelled a total of 2,024 regular season games so far.

https://twitter.com/...855181438857216
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#1999 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,496 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 27 October 2012 - 04:48 PM

Too bad you are not an influential owner. The reality is that while you think this is what the owners have to do, thye said very clearly they they don't want to do that, and guess what, they have all the power- they can keep the league closed for the entire year, and next year if they have to, and the one after that.The players say they will never accept a rollback, well guess what, their salaries are already being rolled back by the lockout. The league is asking for about 10% rolback total net, and many players will loose that after 20 games cancelled. They have to get their heads out of their asses and agree to 50/50 starting now, the only possible result of their action is less money than the current deal (which was already withdrawn by the way).


Thanks for sharing your reality with us - you're deluded if you think the owners have all the power.
First, the most powerful franchises will lose a great deal of money in a hurry as a result of this lockout. Apparently you are oblivious to the fact that some franchises rake in a great deal of revenue, while some of Bettman's peripheral odd-ball markets claim they won't be losing, will even save money, during a lockout (if you buy that line). So the rudimentary math regarding player losses that you shared in your post most certainly applies to the most profitable franchises in the NHL. In case you aren't aware, Columbus does not pull the strings in the NHL - and were it not for Bettman being strung between the interests of Philly, Toronto etc, and the bandaged Phoenix Coyotes as well as other head scratcher markets he advocated, the cracks in ownership - the contradictions - would be even more obvious. The gag order might just be your first clue. The basis of unity among owners is so strong that Bettman had to threaten fines for speaking...."Influential owners" don't have any interest in a prolonged lockout. Bettman's bluff is to try to use the players to prop up weak markets - what is interesting about that is that his ownerhip group is less willing to revenue share than the players are. Do you think that is a sign of unity and vote-of-confidence? I think Bettman stands to lose a great deal more than you realize - and imo, he's played the lockout card too many times.

Edited by oldnews, 27 October 2012 - 04:50 PM.

  • 0

#2000 ba;;isticsports

ba;;isticsports

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 03

Posted 27 October 2012 - 06:45 PM

. Bettman's bluff is to try to use the players to prop up weak markets - what is interesting about that is that his ownerhip group is less willing to revenue share than the players are. Do you think that is a sign of unity and vote-of-confidence? I think Bettman stands to lose a great deal more than you realize - and imo, he's played the lockout card too many times.


Why shouldnt the players pay the Bulk of it?
They are the ones employed by the weaker markets !
What do strong Teams like the Canucks have to gain, continually paying for those Owners and all the players on those Teams?
Also, why should the fans be subject to those Teams as well.
Let them fold then, The Union and the Players will be hurt from it,more than the Owners will be

I do agree the Lockout card has been played too many times. The Owners know that, and they knew it was happening this time,
Bettman isn't going anywhere They just rewarded him with a huge long contract this Summer

I am tired of the whining that Oh the League made money
Only certain teams brought that number up,Not the majority
Not all the players can play for those Top revenue Teams

Also the whining regarding how they are horrible to sign players and ask them for a cut after signing a contract (Like what happened to the nurses- where was your outrage then, when it happened to someone who helps save lives,than a player who chases a puck for your entertainment))? They certainately are not millionaires ! Also going on, "what if Your boss did that to You"?

#1 if my Boss did come to me and say Times are tough we need to cut back your wages (Obviously a lot harder on the average Joe who lives pay cheque to pay cheque) I could either say see ya or realize I had nowhere else to go that came close to what I would still earn by staying !
I could care less who is right and who is wrong,taking sides does not change anything
I was a die hard fan, but it has become enough that I dont care as much if they come back or not
Strike and lock outs have done this
I will watch when it comes back, I may never go to a game again at this point
Pampered players with 1way contracts,no trade contracts,no termination of contracts,infinate long term deals,bad league rules that change from period to period,depending on score,teams,importance. I feel they are managing the league so every fan feels their team has a chance to win, and it has all become about making money and the game has lost integrity and passion

Sorry, I dont feel sorry for Millionaires who chase after a disc for fun. These players knew what they were getting into when they signed Fehr and got rid of the Last guy !
  • 0

#2001 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,830 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:46 PM

Lp
  • 0

#2002 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,496 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 27 October 2012 - 09:50 PM

Why shouldnt the players pay the Bulk of it?
They are the ones employed by the weaker markets !
What do strong Teams like the Canucks have to gain, continually paying for those Owners and all the players on those Teams?
Also, why should the fans be subject to those Teams as well.
Let them fold then, The Union and the Players will be hurt from it,more than the Owners will be

I do agree the Lockout card has been played too many times. The Owners know that, and they knew it was happening this time,
Bettman isn't going anywhere They just rewarded him with a huge long contract this Summer

I am tired of the whining that Oh the League made money
Only certain teams brought that number up,Not the majority
Not all the players can play for those Top revenue Teams

Also the whining regarding how they are horrible to sign players and ask them for a cut after signing a contract (Like what happened to the nurses- where was your outrage then, when it happened to someone who helps save lives,than a player who chases a puck for your entertainment))? They certainately are not millionaires ! Also going on, "what if Your boss did that to You"?

#1 if my Boss did come to me and say Times are tough we need to cut back your wages (Obviously a lot harder on the average Joe who lives pay cheque to pay cheque) I could either say see ya or realize I had nowhere else to go that came close to what I would still earn by staying !
I could care less who is right and who is wrong,taking sides does not change anything
I was a die hard fan, but it has become enough that I dont care as much if they come back or not
Strike and lock outs have done this
I will watch when it comes back, I may never go to a game again at this point
Pampered players with 1way contracts,no trade contracts,no termination of contracts,infinate long term deals,bad league rules that change from period to period,depending on score,teams,importance. I feel they are managing the league so every fan feels their team has a chance to win, and it has all become about making money and the game has lost integrity and passion

Sorry, I dont feel sorry for Millionaires who chase after a disc for fun. These players knew what they were getting into when they signed Fehr and got rid of the Last guy !


You don't seem to realize that the interests of the owners of those weak franchises are being levied against the NHLPA. You talk like it is a viable option for Bettman to pull the rug out from under them - the rug that he sold them - and the irony for me is that the NHLPA has proposed a far greater chunk of money go to revenue sharing than the ownership group has. This is as much an issue between owners, and between interests represented by exclusively by Bettman - there is as much conflict in the interests between big market owners and the actions of GMs opting to dangle contracts that damage small market competitors as there is between NHL and NHLPA. In addition, as you point out indirectly, there is also the conflict of interests over the decisions Bettman has made to water down the NHL by moving into untenable markets

Uh ok - I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make regarding nurses, but if you are asking where my outrage was when this happened to nurses, I'd have to wonder if your rant and your logic ran off the rails there - but you have a point - I didn't see anyone on CDC outraged about the treatment of the BCNU - then again, this is not really the forum for that (and with all due respect you have no idea what any of our personal/political perspectives in that context would be).

Regarding your question "Why shouldn't the players pay the Bulk of it?" Why should players pay to prop up business decisions that Bettman and the NHL made? What player decided to take the risk of moving an NHL franchise into Columbus? Right. No one asked them. And why should the players pay to rescue the franchise valuations of the owners of those teams, who turned over sizeable chunks of money to Bettman and Co? Because some of them play for those weak franchises? Your suggestion to "let them fold" seems oblivious to the fact that the worst 5 or 6 franchises in the NHL still have valuations totalling in the range of a billion dollars. Let them fold and it hurts the players, and not the owners?... Sounds like you really thought that one out - certainly enough to be berating my position on this lockout.


You ask what the strong teams like the Canucks have to gain? That's a good question. Who does Gary Bettman work for? The answer is not the NHLPA - and therein is the answer to why Bettman and Co. are attempting to divert this matter from the fact that these were their business decisions. They almost sound like they resent the fact that the players didn't lose enough in the last lockout, and don't stand to lose enough as a consequence of those odd decisions to try to sell the game where it had no roots, and move it from places it did, because the dollar wasn't strong enough, or the venues allegedly weren't large enough, to truly bizarre markets. Bettman works for the ownership collective, and when he makes decisions like he has, he does so as essentially their general manager. The fact is that various NHL teams have various different interests. If teams in Phoenix, Atlanta, Columbus can't cut it, who was it that took the risk of gambling on NHL franchises there? You seem to be suggesting that the players should subsidize them because some of them play there, or because nurses got the shaft, and they aren't nurses or something to that effect, so the spoiled puck chasers should simply suck it up because you "could care less who is right or wrong."

Bettman instead of admitting that his experiment failed in many places, thjinks it's much more productive to beat his chest, lockoutyet again, insult the fans and bluff that none of us will smell the contradictions, test the patience of the wealthy owners, and attempt to pretend that their 1.5 or 1.6 billion share is not sufficient because a handful of weak markets claim they aren't prospering, despite the fact even the worst of franchises are valued in the 150 milion range. All of that does not simply boil down to player greed imo.

The players are pampered, the league is mismanaged, the game lacks integrity, the players shouldn't have hired Fehr, and Bettman is going nowhere because "the owners" just re-upped him. Ok, I think, uh, no, I'm not sure what your point is.

Edited by oldnews, 27 October 2012 - 10:02 PM.

  • 2

#2003 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 28 October 2012 - 03:05 AM

I'd just like to say that I am incredibly proud of Ryan Suter speaking out against Leipold. It's become totally clear that Leipold is a complete scumbag. He signed Parised and Suter to those contracts without ever intending to pay the full amount. Now he is one of the owners leading the charge in the lockout.

What a complete douche. If I was Parise or Suter, I would probably demand a trade when the league comes back. Leipold is just a complete moron.
  • 2

#2004 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:33 AM

I'd just like to say that I am incredibly proud of Ryan Suter speaking out against Leipold. It's become totally clear that Leipold is a complete scumbag. He signed Parised and Suter to those contracts without ever intending to pay the full amount. Now he is one of the owners leading the charge in the lockout.

What a complete douche. If I was Parise or Suter, I would probably demand a trade when the league comes back. Leipold is just a complete moron.

For the last three months, NHL players have taken aim at Gary Bettman as the root of all lockout evil while dutifully avoiding the opportunity to munch on the hand that fed them their robust contracts.
Zach Parise of the Minnesota Wild was one of Bettman's most vocal critics from the start; he finally spread the blame to the owners last week in the Star Tribune:


"You have all these owners signing big deals minutes before the CBA expires and then going the next day, 'We don't want to pay these contracts," Parise said. "Maybe that's how they conduct business. That just doesn't seem right. What if us players signed a deal and said, 'You know what, I actually want 15 percent more?'"

Parise specifically said he wasn't "singling out" Wild owner Craig Leipold, who signed both the former New Jersey Devils captain and former Nashville Predators defenseman Ryan Suter to identical 13-year, $98-million contracts on July 4.
But in an interview with Craig Custance of ESPN.com on Friday, Suter finally had the chutzpah to call out Leipold for potentially negotiating their deals in bad faith — even though the evidence points to something different.

From ESPN.com, Suter said he's wondering if the long-term deals were negotiated in good faith:


"From what's going on right now? Yes. Definitely," Suter told ESPN The Magazine. "I haven't done any interviews. I haven't said anything, but yeah, it's disappointing that the owners, they sign all these guys and some guys were signed within the last week before the CBA was up. Now, they're trying to go back on their word. It's frustrating, disappointing. It doesn't seem like that's the way you operate a relationship or business."

And on Leipold:


"It's disappointing. If you can't afford to (sign contracts) then you shouldn't do it," Suter said. "(Leipold) signed us to contracts. At the time he said everything was fine. Yeah, it's disappointing. A couple months before, everything is fine, and now they want to take money out of our contracts that we already signed."

A few thoughts:
• Suter says, "they want to take money out of our contracts that we already signed." At this point, you can accurately call this statement "debatable."
Yes, the NHL unleashed a 24-percent rollback in its crap-tastic proposal back in the summer, which we'd wager a third of the players think is still on the table (and that's a conservative estimate). But in its latest since-yanked proposal, the NHL offered the "make whole" provision with this declaration:


The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it has worked under the expired CBA.

So yeah, the NHL does in fact want to take money out of the contracts the players signed through the same escrow system we've had since 2005. Doesn't make it right, but Suter's talking like we're still debating a rollback.
• According to Suter, "at the time" Leipold "said everything was fine" with the contracts that Parise and Suter signed.
This level of mutual trust, with the lockout looming, ran so deep that the players had $25 million — over one quarter of the total value of their deals — placed into bonuses that wouldn't be affected by a potential salary rollback.
In fact, the top 13 signing bonuses in the NHL are for contracts signed in the last year and a half. Why, it's almost like the players knew their owners were feeding them a line of B.S. about contracts being honored at full value!
• That said: Kudos to Suter. Kudos to a guy finally strapping on his stones and calling out his owner for his role in the loophole exploiting, salary inflating management that helped fuel the necessity (such as it is) for the lockout.
Anyone hear Terry Pegula getting slammed? Or Rocky Wirtz? Or Ed Snider? It hasn't happened. But maybe Suter's the tip of the spear that's about to start jabbing owners in their sides as the work stoppage continues, rather than taking lazy pokes at Bettman.






So Suter is basically saying IMO, that I only signed here for the money, not because I feel this team has a great chance to win the cup and I want to be apart of it. Anything less then the 98M is going to kill my lifestyle and the way I live. It's tough making ends meet if I have to give up 7% of 98M. You might see me at the food bank.

My question for Suter is would he have signed for 3M to play in MN rather then 98M or would he have signed in Columbus if they offered him 156M? I sure he would have been wearing a Blue Jackets uniform if that were the case.

Edited by canuckelhead70, 28 October 2012 - 07:11 AM.

  • 0

#2005 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,207 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 28 October 2012 - 08:08 AM

Thanks for sharing your reality with us - you're deluded if you think the owners have all the power.
First, the most powerful franchises will lose a great deal of money in a hurry as a result of this lockout. Apparently you are oblivious to the fact that some franchises rake in a great deal of revenue, while some of Bettman's peripheral odd-ball markets claim they won't be losing, will even save money, during a lockout (if you buy that line). So the rudimentary math regarding player losses that you shared in your post most certainly applies to the most profitable franchises in the NHL. In case you aren't aware, Columbus does not pull the strings in the NHL - and were it not for Bettman being strung between the interests of Philly, Toronto etc, and the bandaged Phoenix Coyotes as well as other head scratcher markets he advocated, the cracks in ownership - the contradictions - would be even more obvious. The gag order might just be your first clue. The basis of unity among owners is so strong that Bettman had to threaten fines for speaking...."Influential owners" don't have any interest in a prolonged lockout. Bettman's bluff is to try to use the players to prop up weak markets - what is interesting about that is that his ownerhip group is less willing to revenue share than the players are. Do you think that is a sign of unity and vote-of-confidence? I think Bettman stands to lose a great deal more than you realize - and imo, he's played the lockout card too many times.

Aren't you making assumptions as well? To date the NHL owners have grown revenue under Bettman. If a issue is weak franchises that require support then maybe ownership see a better control of cost (labour) as a solution rather than enhanced revenue sharing. A gag order on ownership is simple smart negociating strategy.

Hoping for division amongst ownership, rich vs poor, is wishful thinking. It suggests an abandonment of a business plan that sells the game to USA media. It is the only startegy that would support a cost structure that most on this site seem to think necessary. The NHL entity is much stronger than the players. A sad realityis that father time is not kind to atheletes. Not saying this is right, just reality. Ownership wants existing players on board because of the investment they have in them. The question has to be at what point do they see their value worth replacing? IMO that won't happen until a year has been written off. Bottom line is there is a tipping point. The NHL could go to replacement workers and take back NHL players that want to abandon the NHLPA. The NHLPA could be shocked by how many would do so.

Each side of this dispute run risks. For me the players had to develope a partnership with the owners that was collegial and not adversarial. Hiring the Fehr brothers with the MLB history was foolish.
  • 0

#2006 Mr.Habitat

Mr.Habitat

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,639 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 03

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:37 AM

Mobile
  • 0

#2007 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:57 AM

The players have a contract and the only way they could be 'fired' is if they refuse to play once a CBA is agreed upon. I say fired, but actually mean if they don't show up and their contract is broken as a result. The NHL can't just fire them, and like I already mentioned, it'd still take an agreed upon CBA.

An example would be if Ovechkin or Kovi do refuse to return from Russia. The NHL couldn't force the KHL to refuse them spots on teams, but the NHL (or their team actually) could then negate their contract if they wanted to do so. That wouldn't do anything to help the NHL though.

In the event the NHL decided to go with replacement players, they wouldn't be able to attract good talent. The better payers would side with the players that are currently locked out, so you could draft all the players you like but it doesn't matter if they won't sign with you or play in a league that won't work with the existing union.


Actually no. The players have a contract only if there is a current CBA. So all the contracts are in limbo. And since they dont work for the NHL anymore, the owners can lock them out and refuse them on the property.

So. All the owners have to do is simply IGNORE the NHLPA , refuse to sign a new CBA .

Then sign new players , get them to form a new union, and sign a new deal with them.

Oh yes they can.
  • 0
Posted Image

#2008 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,505 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:27 AM

Actually no. The players have a contract only if there is a current CBA. So all the contracts are in limbo. And since they dont work for the NHL anymore, the owners can lock them out and refuse them on the property.

So. All the owners have to do is simply IGNORE the NHLPA , refuse to sign a new CBA .

Then sign new players , get them to form a new union, and sign a new deal with them.

Oh yes they can.


I really don't think that's how easily it works.

If so the NHL is screwed because the players are what people want to watch. If the players got together and started a new league people would follow the players not the league.

So. All the players have to do is IGNORE the NHL; refuse to sign a new CBA.

Then start a new league, get the league a television deal, and the NHL is dead in the water.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 28 October 2012 - 11:14 AM.

  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#2009 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:19 AM

I really don't think that's how easily it works.

If so the NHL is screwed because the players are what people want to watch. If the players got together and started a new league people would follow the players not the league.

So. All the players have to do is IGNORE the NHL; refuse to sign a new CBA.

Then start a new league, get the league a television deal, and the NHL is dead in the water.


Welcome back. Where is Sharpshooter?

Your post makes little sense. The players are continually replaced. The NHL can and will draft new players . If you think fans are going to POUT and go get a subscription to the KHL then you are mistaken.

They will watch with distain at first , but will get used to it and the players will be replaced by the draft . The NHLPA has no leverage here.

Lets face it. The NHL owns the league and the stanley cup. The players own nothing.
  • 0
Posted Image

#2010 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,505 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:28 AM

Welcome back. Where is Sharpshooter?

Welcome back from where? I never went anywhere Tom. Stay ON topic please. I'd rather you didn't turn this into a silly internet fight.

Your post makes little sense. The players are continually replaced. The NHL can and will draft new players . If you think fans are going to POUT and go get a subscription to the KHL then you are mistaken.

It makes just as much sense as yours did which was the point. I also never said anything about the KHL I said if the players started their own league or if another league started up. Again for clarity the KHL was never a part of this.

They will watch with distain at first , but will get used to it and the players will be replaced by the draft . The NHLPA has no leverage here.

But that's the point DB, it's that people just want to watch hockey. However if given the chance people will watch better hockey. That's why the NHL pulls in more money than any other league.

Lets face it. The NHL owns the league and the stanley cup. The players own nothing.

The players own themselves. If the NHL simply fires them and another league in North America pops up and all the best players are playing for it which league do you think most people will watch? Do YOU think that people will watch a lesser league simply because it holds the Stanley Cup? Neither your or my scenario make much sense for either party...but again that was the point.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 28 October 2012 - 11:34 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.