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

#2071 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,343 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 30 October 2012 - 03:18 PM

I agree the greedy player need to get to the table and hook up my owner with more cash

:frantic: What the...

Do you mean the players who keep phoning the NHL asking to meet and discuss the issues? The same players the NHL keep rejecting since they want to talk about more than just one offer?
  • 0

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2072 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,460 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 30 October 2012 - 03:30 PM

I'm guessing fwybwed will be a troll for Halloween. :rolleyes:
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2073 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,343 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:03 PM

He's makes as much sense as his username, so I guess that's apt at least.
  • 0

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2074 Apricot

Apricot

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,624 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 07

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:32 PM

I agree the greedy player need to get to the table and hook up my owner with more cash


:picard:

That is all
  • 0

ahmet-maranki-kayisi-yagi.jpg

Previously known as CanucksRuleAll, CRA or Cantaloupe.



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


#2075 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,291 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:55 AM

Gary's probably going extra hard on them for rejecting his realignment plan.
  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#2076 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,545 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:42 AM

Let's face it. We miss a season whenever it's time to negotiate a new labor agreement. It takes sitting out a year to grind every penny .

Too bad.
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#2077 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,746 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:55 AM

Why Paul Kelly thinks expansion would help end NHL lockout

As we’ve all come to know over the past couple of weeks, solving the impasse that has led to NHL Lockout, Part III isn’t exactly as easy as people would like to believe. On the one side you have owners who have undermined their own objectives time and again, but still have the right to try to fix it this time. On the other side you have the players, who are simply asking that the full value of the contracts they signed in good faith be honored.

Not that anybody is asking, since he was kicked to the curb by his own dysfunctional constituents three years ago, but former NHL Players’ Association executive director Paul Kelly has some thoughts on what might ease the logjam. And it has to do with expansion, specifically to suburban Toronto (Markham) and Quebec City. As Kelly sees it, making expansion a part of the conversation when it comes to the new collective bargaining agreement could bring both sides closer to realizing their goals.

“If the NHLPA hasn’t raised it as a potential part of the solution, then it ought to,” Kelly said. “Maybe they’ve tried and had the door slammed in their face from what we’re seeing, but it really makes a great deal of sense.”

The only problem, as we all know, is that expansion revenues were not considered a part of hockey related revenue (HRR) in the last CBA, and the league’s last proposal suggested keeping the definition of HRR intact. But the way Kelly sees it – and it’s hard to argue – the NHL is in clawback mode, but will need to make a concession on some things for this to get worked out. So why not split the pie equally when it comes to expansion fees? Two expansion franchises in such fertile territory would bring in at the very least $600 million in expansion money. Working on the 50-50 revenue split, putting that amount in the pot would more than make up for the gap between the players’ and owners’ positions. Not only that, those two franchises would be revenue producers, which would enhance the health of the bottom line and give both sides access to more money.

Perhaps it’s too simplistic, but maybe a little simplicity and common sense is what is needed now. The two Eastern teams could easily be accommodated by moving the Winnipeg Jets to the Western Conference, giving the league two 16-team conferences. And as far as the detrimental effect a second team in Toronto would have on the Maple Leafs, well, the league pretty much declared that moot last week when it blessed the New York Islanders decision to move to the Barclays Center, which is six miles from Madison Square Garden.

Depending upon whose perspective you’re relying, the two sides are anywhere from close to an agreement or miles apart. But this much is true. The players have come to the realization that revenues are going to be split 50-50 at some point in this agreement and the owners, by virtue of their “make whole” proposition, are willing to move at least some on the players’ demand they receive full value for their contracts.

More importantly, according to Kelly, it makes sense to put franchises in such lucrative venues as soon as possible. The fact that it has the potential to bring the two sides together in the lockout makes it even more sensible.

“Especially with the Canadian television deal coming up in 2015,” Kelly said. “I really think it’s time the owners and the players start talking about, ‘OK, how do we build our business?’ The lockout is going to get resolved at some point, and in my view, a $3.3 billion business could easily approach being a $5 billion business within a year or two if they add two certain revenue-generating teams and get out of this cycle of work stoppages and lockouts and labor interruptions.”

What the league also needs, he said, is a long-term period of stability and growth, which it would get with a nine-year deal with an option for a 10th, rather than the six- or seven-year deal that is currently being discussed. Kelly sees no reason why, if the league and NHLPA are going to be partners, that a 50-50 split shouldn’t be part of the solution. But instead of demanding it be 50-50 right away, which forces the players to give back some of their salaries, why not have an average of 50 percent throughout the deal, with it going higher than 50 at the beginning and dipping below 50 as some of the long-term contracts reach their conclusions.

“If you had a 10-year deal and it took you 53 or 54 percent of revenues in the first three years to meet those existing obligations, then you make up for it somewhere in the middle of the deal,” Kelly said. “Maybe you go 53 percent for a couple of years, then you bring it to 50, then maybe you swing it to 48 percent for a couple of years and players and general managers know they have four or five years to plan for that and then you bring it back up to the 50 percent level by the end of the term. With expanding revenues, even at 48 or 50 percent in those years, players are going to do fine.”

Kelly is worried about the lockout doing irreparable harm to the business and it remains to be seen whether that will indeed be the case. Perhaps his sense of give and take would be different if he were still running the NHLPA, but we’ll never know now. It might have been nice to find out, though.


I'm not opposed to this idea. I feel that the Ontario expansion has been kept in reserve for years now as a parachute fund in case the league hits really tough times. Doing this keeps the door open for moving Phoenix to Seattle in a few years, and if one of Florida, Columbus or Nashville needs to move, there's Vegas, Houston or Kansas City.
  • 0

#2078 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68,401 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:33 AM

The NHL season is starting December 1st...according to Google.

Posted Image


Hurray!
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#2079 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,057 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:57 AM

So here's where I'm confused by our stance then: do you think the owners don't have a structure currently where revenues and expenses are clearly identified? There is in case you weren't sure, since it'd be pretty hard to figure out what revenues are at or if they made a profit each year.

If you can agree to that, then I'm sure you can also agree the players only get a portion of that defined revenue (just the HRR) and the owners are allowed to keep a number of revenue streams out of the players share as a result. Also, and the owners have revenue from the hockey business that doesn't count against the team's profit margin so their actual

Their business plan is a whole other issue. When it includes propping up teams like Phoenix then the NHL can't be too serious about profit margins - especially when the teams aren't the owners primary businesses. Having the NHL own Phoenix and refuse prospective buyers because they wanted to move them to a more profitable location is further evidence of them not thinking rationally when it comes to the business end of things.

I am questioning the NHL structure for identifying cost and revenue because whatever was in place post 2004 CBA has not brought peace to the org. No one heard the players during 2004-12 complaining about the growth in their revenue, however. Not all HRR is shared with the players but the reverse is true as well. The next CBA has to address the formula more than anything else.

If you are questioning the presence of NHL teams in PHX and other money losing locations then you are indirectly questioning the need for NHL exposure in a large part of the USA media market. Walk away from that and where does it leave the need for the NHL to expand their USA media revenue. IMO you cannot have it both ways. You cannot pay major league wages in a gate driven enterprise. The NHL continues in many of these weak markets to reinforce their business objectives. The NBC contract was a partial vindication of Bettman's direction. It is not a slam dunk and could fail. On the otherhand if for example the USA won an Olympic Gold medal in men's hockey look out. Things could really take off for the NHL in the USA.

Success in the USA is the ultimate savior for the NHL. Owners and players have to know that.
  • 0

#2080 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,057 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:37 AM

Absolutely it's pure conjecture. I never claimed that it was what was going on, only that I could see how people might have reason to suspect at least that lower end team owners might feel, or even have it pointed out to them, that if a new committee is created to decide who gets revenue sharing money they would do best to stay in line and be silent.

Of course, you're obviously not above mere conjecture yourself...



Good for you for the glass half full attitude, but that doesn't make your proposed scenario any more plausible than a league controlled by a few owners with their teams' best interest in mind but not necessarily the best interest of the league as a whole. Like you, I sincerely hope for the best because you're right, if it's not most or all of the owners working together for the best interest of the league they will likely destroy the NHL.

But given the facts I don't see a convincing argument for "the owner just know something we don't know." The reality is the league has had record profits and continued growth on par with other sports leagues. Almost every team has seen an increase in revenue and value. And whereas Atlanta had been losing money, Winnipeg is now earning more than was even expected to the point that they don't need revenue sharing and may be soon contributing to it. That means the overall bottom line is much better league wide, which is probably why teams were so willing to overspend by spending to the cap rather than the floor. And despite their constant reference to the number of teams losing money each year, the NHL is only now suggesting they expand their minimal revenue sharing program which will still only represent 6% of revenue, less than the average yearly revenue growth rate. They could have chosen to expand their revenue sharing program at any time (the players would have certainly agreed!), but they didn't. If the NHL is actually working for the best interest of the league and not just certain teams, why didn't they increase their revenue sharing before? Why did they impose silly restrictions on who was even eligible? I can't imagine the teams that lost out were on board for those restrictions. I can't imagine the teams that need the revenue sharing were opposed to increasing it. So, who made those decisions and what was their purpose, the health of their individual bottom line or the long term health of the league?

If owners know something we don't, why aren't they sharing it? They have last season's numbers but they aren't sharing them. Why? If they support their claims of need they'd be buying billboards for them. I'm guessing they're not releasing them during the CBA negotiations because they'll show that the league's revenues continued to grow and fewer teams were in the red. And it would likely only further highlight the fact that increased revenue sharing would have helped most teams at the very least stop bleeding money.

Yes, we are all guilty of conjecture trying to determine the real facts surrounding this lockout. What ya do with no hockey?

It might be as you suggest that things are not as bad financially for the owners and that they are understating revenue and overstating losses as a negociating tool. Perhaps they do see a light at the end of the tunnel and feel their USA media strategy is about to cash in. Cutting back the players take to 50% might be a valid business goal in their eyes. Ultimately NHL owners are competing not just with each other but with other major leagues. The discretionary sports dollar.

Another scenario is that things are as bad as they say and their business plan is actually collapsing. Not only are the 'southern' teams in trouble but core teams such as NJD, NYI and Detroit as well. How could anyone have a particularly optimistic viewpoint considering economic conditions in the USA. Seriously, Detroit city is bankrupt. Perhaps the business plan is under pressure from a cost perspective in a desire to be an alternative media market to major league sports. How much of the NHL's cost structure is predicated on acquiring a major USA media contract? Does the NBC $2 billion over 10 years do the job? EVen if all that money went to the bottom line it amounts to less than $7 mil per team per year. What will be the value of a $ in year 10? At 2.5% inflation it would be 0.75 cent dollars.

There are many more scenarios in this dispute than we can identify. I still believe that the NHL is bigger than the players even as important as they are. The NHL is bigger than Bettman and the Fehr brothers. They all have the capacity to do great damage and even destroy the NHL. I do thnk that the NHL owners have or should have the most information to make intelligent decisions. Whether they do or not is also not guranteed. That is the essence of business risk.

It is in everyone's interst to have a structure that identifies revenue and costs and rewards the main consituents, the players and owners with a fair share. In the same way that players want certain assurances I do not blame ownership for wanting the same.
  • 0

#2081 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,343 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:43 AM

I am questioning the NHL structure for identifying cost and revenue because whatever was in place post 2004 CBA has not brought peace to the org. No one heard the players during 2004-12 complaining about the growth in their revenue, however. Not all HRR is shared with the players but the reverse is true as well. The next CBA has to address the formula more than anything else.

If you are questioning the presence of NHL teams in PHX and other money losing locations then you are indirectly questioning the need for NHL exposure in a large part of the USA media market. Walk away from that and where does it leave the need for the NHL to expand their USA media revenue. IMO you cannot have it both ways. You cannot pay major league wages in a gate driven enterprise. The NHL continues in many of these weak markets to reinforce their business objectives. The NBC contract was a partial vindication of Bettman's direction. It is not a slam dunk and could fail. On the otherhand if for example the USA won an Olympic Gold medal in men's hockey look out. Things could really take off for the NHL in the USA.

Success in the USA is the ultimate savior for the NHL. Owners and players have to know that.

*sigh*

If success in the US was the NHL's saviour, then why is it the Canadian teams making most of the money? If moving teams from places like Phoenix is questioning the need for exposure in the US media market, then why is the NHL not capitalizing on teams in the largest markets in North America (LA and New York) and instead preferring a lockout?

A definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over but expecting a different result. Sure, the NHL got their TV deal with NBC, but do you think that's because of money losing franchises in Phoenix and Columbus, or because of events like the Winter Classic and NHL 24/7? Exposure they've gained in a number of markets is being lost the longer the NHL doesn't play a game, and while LA may rebound after winning the cup, New Jersey might not despite being in the final, and Phoenix might not after a good playoff run.

If Gary's business objectives are to expand into non-traditional hockey markets over the 90's (the last expansion took place for the 2000/01 season with the Thrashers, Wild and Blue Jackets) in the hopes it'll result in a major TV deal in the US by 2012, then it makes much more sense why most of the teams aren't profitable under their rules for defining revenue and expenses.
  • 0

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2082 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,460 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:33 AM

Yes, we are all guilty of conjecture trying to determine the real facts surrounding this lockout. What ya do with no hockey?


Well, that's certainly true. Definitely not as fun though. :(

Another scenario is that things are as bad as they say and their business plan is actually collapsing. Not only are the 'southern' teams in trouble but core teams such as NJD, NYI and Detroit as well. How could anyone have a particularly optimistic viewpoint considering economic conditions in the USA. Seriously, Detroit city is bankrupt. Perhaps the business plan is under pressure from a cost perspective in a desire to be an alternative media market to major league sports. How much of the NHL's cost structure is predicated on acquiring a major USA media contract? Does the NBC $2 billion over 10 years do the job? EVen if all that money went to the bottom line it amounts to less than $7 mil per team per year. What will be the value of a $ in year 10? At 2.5% inflation it would be 0.75 cent dollars.


I really do understand that you're trying to understand why it seems the owners are so willing to shoot themselves in the foot, but I just don't see any proof for it. If things are that bad, there would be proof. But, all of the available proof actually proves that wrong. The economy didn't turn bad AFTER the last revenue numbers were released. It's been bad for years and despite that the NHL has admitted to record revenue highs set anew in each of the last 5 seasons through 2011. (Source: the NHL themselves http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=559630) Again, if 2011/12 season's numbers show that trend stopping or reversing, why aren't they sharing the numbers? Probably because, as that story notes, "NHL Enterprises revenue is forecasted to increase by 14.8 percent over last year." (That would also explain whey they are trying to use the 2010/11 numbers for the basis of their proposal despite having the 2011/12 numbers.)

Read on in that story and you'll see that major revenue streams have enjoyed significant increases, including a 33% increase in sponsorship over the previous year and overall merchandising sales increase of 15%. Add to that that in 2010/11 "NHL teams averaged 17,132 fans and played to 93.2 percent of capacity. This average is the third largest all-time and an increase over last year," and that would seem to indicate ticket revenue is increasing significantly as well. So, it would seem that when they're not in the midst of CBA negotiations the NHL has no problem bragging about how well they are doing despite the economy, but suddenly now they're crying poverty, saying they're all losing money, and won't share the revenue numbers from the previous season to backup their claims (most likely because their own predictions put it at one of the biggest yearly gains ever).

On top of that, team valuations have climbed easily above the rate of inflation. (Source: http://www.davemanue...05-lockout-135/) And that's not just the average as almost all individual teams saw their valuation increase since the last lockout.

Bottom line is the owners are playing chicken, hoping the players will cave yet again and give them everything they want. It's a business tactic and not even a smart one, as what they would lose will still never be made up over the course of the CBA if they lose an entire season. Players, on the other hand, have much more to lose than just money.

Edited by poetica, 31 October 2012 - 11:04 AM.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2083 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68,401 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:42 AM

@DarrenDreger: S.Fehr and B.Daly talked extensively on the phone on Tues about a variety of issues. Hopefully it leads to meaningful negotiating.
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#2084 The-Impersonator

The-Impersonator

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:29 PM

@DarrenDreger: S.Fehr and B.Daly talked extensively on the phone on Tues about a variety of issues. Hopefully it leads to meaningful negotiating.


Won't amount to anything.
  • 0

#2085 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,068 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:35 PM

If success in the US was the NHL's saviour, then why is it the Canadian teams making most of the money?


Totally agree, but it also makes me worry. What happens if the American economy gets its act together and we return to having a 20 or 30 cent gap between the dollars? All those Canadian Dollars the league relies on would shrink. It wasn't that long ago that the Canadian teams were receiving payments from their American counterparts to help deal with the low Canadian dollar.
  • 0
Posted Image

#2086 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,651 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:45 PM

We'll find out everything by Friday IMO.

If the league pays the deposit for the winter classic, there will be a season.

If they don't, I would say the odds of having a season go way down.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2087 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,291 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:16 PM

The PA should have just negotiated the best deal they could off of the NHL's last proposal. Now they've royally screwed us all.
Some owners were pissed that the NHL even offered more than 47 to the players.
Now we're going to miss a whole season and the PA is going to end up signing a deal that is worse than the NHL's last offer.



The NHL could have been back in 2 days.
  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#2088 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,710 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:19 PM

FFS, I'm stuck at home sick all I want to do is watch hockey!!!
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2089 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:32 PM

Perhaps the NHLPA should have considered NOT bringing on a hired gun from the baseball wars to flex his muscle for them.

Wrong message to send to the people who actually own the league. The players are now paying the price for it.

I give the players a 50% deal take it or leave it , and if they dont take it then simply Ban the NHLPA players from the league and start a supplemental draft asap.
  • 2
Posted Image

#2090 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,460 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:39 PM

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2091 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:44 PM

Agreed DB I don't want anymore grumpy crybabies like Toews and Crosby frowning around while they make MILLIONS~!....
  • 0

#2092 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,808 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:46 PM

Perhaps the NHLPA should have considered NOT bringing on a hired gun from the baseball wars to flex his muscle for them.

Wrong message to send to the people who actually own the league. The players are now paying the price for it.

I give the players a 50% deal take it or leave it , and if they dont take it then simply Ban the NHLPA players from the league and start a supplemental draft asap.


Ya I would totally want to see a bunch of scabs play in this new NHL! I don't go to games to watch Kesler, Sedins, or Edler. I go to games because I want to support the owners inherent right to be greedy!

Dude I'm with poetica, the facepalm is the only real response to a post this short-sighted.

If the NHL were to consider icing scabs or having a redraft I for one would never support the NHL again, and I'm sure that's the case for a lot of Canucks fans. I would take my business and viewing pleasure elsewhere.
  • 1

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2093 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,057 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:57 PM

Well, that's certainly true. Definitely not as fun though. :(



I really do understand that you're trying to understand why it seems the owners are so willing to shoot themselves in the foot, but I just don't see any proof for it. If things are that bad, there would be proof. But, all of the available proof actually proves that wrong. The economy didn't turn bad AFTER the last revenue numbers were released. It's been bad for years and despite that the NHL has admitted to record revenue highs set anew in each of the last 5 seasons through 2011. (Source: the NHL themselves http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=559630) Again, if 2011/12 season's numbers show that trend stopping or reversing, why aren't they sharing the numbers? Probably because, as that story notes, "NHL Enterprises revenue is forecasted to increase by 14.8 percent over last year." (That would also explain whey they are trying to use the 2010/11 numbers for the basis of their proposal despite having the 2011/12 numbers.)

Read on in that story and you'll see that major revenue streams have enjoyed significant increases, including a 33% increase in sponsorship over the previous year and overall merchandising sales increase of 15%. Add to that that in 2010/11 "NHL teams averaged 17,132 fans and played to 93.2 percent of capacity. This average is the third largest all-time and an increase over last year," and that would seem to indicate ticket revenue is increasing significantly as well. So, it would seem that when they're not in the midst of CBA negotiations the NHL has no problem bragging about how well they are doing despite the economy, but suddenly now they're crying poverty, saying they're all losing money, and won't share the revenue numbers from the previous season to backup their claims (most likely because their own predictions put it at one of the biggest yearly gains ever).

On top of that, team valuations have climbed easily above the rate of inflation. (Source: http://www.davemanue...05-lockout-135/) And that's not just the average as almost all individual teams saw their valuation increase since the last lockout.

Bottom line is the owners are playing chicken, hoping the players will cave yet again and give them everything they want. It's a business tactic and not even a smart one, as what they would lose will still never be made up over the course of the CBA if they lose an entire season. Players, on the other hand, have much more to lose than just money.

Well thought out and a plausible position. I would like to think the owners have a solid rationale for their position but cannot gurantee that.
  • 0

#2094 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,057 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:12 PM

Ya I would totally want to see a bunch of scabs play in this new NHL! I don't go to games to watch Kesler, Sedins, or Edler. I go to games because I want to support the owners inherent right to be greedy!

Dude I'm with poetica, the facepalm is the only real response to a post this short-sighted.

If the NHL were to consider icing scabs or having a redraft I for one would never support the NHL again, and I'm sure that's the case for a lot of Canucks fans. I would take my business and viewing pleasure elsewhere.

If DeNiro is right and a Friday cancelation of the Winter Classic signals a season cancelation then anything could happen. It will come down to a value judgement by the owners to decide whether continuing negociating with the PA is feasible. If not then replacement players is an option. You might be shocked at how many existing NHLer's would be signed.

If you think the owners or the players really care whether you walk away from the game then good for you. Your faith encourages me. This is a fight over money by two powerfull groups and their minions. I am trying to believe that there are solid business reasons for ownership to beplaying hardball but poetica is throwing some doubt into that concept. I think he is asking me to believe that ownership would put a multi billion $ business at risk for a +/- $200 mil labour saving over the life of a CBA. That doesn't make sense to me.
  • 0

#2095 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,675 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:14 PM

To poetica's point, does no one remember that big report the NHL had a 3rd party do during the last lockout to show what their economic situation was like at the time? I can't remember the name and Google isn't cooperating but it was a huge deal at the time. This time? The NHL won't let anyone near the books, even the NHLPA only got a cursory look at a collection of documents assembled to back up the bargaining position of the NHL. I think that says more than any statement either side has issued.
  • 0

#2096 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,362 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:44 PM

Perhaps the NHLPA should have considered NOT bringing on a hired gun from the baseball wars to flex his muscle for them.

Wrong message to send to the people who actually own the league. The players are now paying the price for it.

I give the players a 50% deal take it or leave it , and if they dont take it then simply Ban the NHLPA players from the league and start a supplemental draft asap.

You just don't get it huh?
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#2097 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,460 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:00 PM

I am trying to believe that there are solid business reasons for ownership to beplaying hardball but poetica is throwing some doubt into that concept. I think he is asking me to believe that ownership would put a multi billion $ business at risk for a +/- $200 mil labour saving over the life of a CBA. That doesn't make sense to me.


I'm a she actually. :)

But you're right, it doesn't make sense. And yet they can't offer a single scrap of proof to back up their position. Just bringing out last season's numbers, if they actually prove their need and not HUGE gains over the previous season as they actually predicted, would go a long way to getting people on their side. But they don't. Why? Why waste money on an expensive PR firm and focus group aimed at altering public opinion but not just using the numbers you have to garner public support? Unless, of course, the numbers would do the exact opposite...

Again, for me it calls to question who is controlling the negotiating from the NHL's perspective and what their goals are because it doesn't seem like it's the league's long-term health, especially if they're going to cancel one of their biggest marketing events of the year at a cost of $100,000 (their deposit for the venue). If they really did think they could get a deal done, they could hold off on cancelling but would be taking a risk as they'd be on the hook for additional "out-of-pocket expenses reasonably occurred" by the university. (Source: http://www.cp24.com/...block-1.1015550)
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2098 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,746 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:04 PM

If the NHL were to consider icing scabs or having a redraft I for one would never support the NHL again, and I'm sure that's the case for a lot of Canucks fans. I would take my business and viewing pleasure elsewhere.


100% yes. If any move to bring in scabs/replacement players happens I am walking away from this league for the rest of my life, and will devote a lot of effort from having it shown on any television station funded by my tax dollars.

To poetica's point, does no one remember that big report the NHL had a 3rd party do during the last lockout to show what their economic situation was like at the time? I can't remember the name and Google isn't cooperating but it was a huge deal at the time. This time? The NHL won't let anyone near the books, even the NHLPA only got a cursory look at a collection of documents assembled to back up the bargaining position of the NHL. I think that says more than any statement either side has issued.


Arthur Levitt of the US Securities and Exchange Commission:

http://hfboards.hock...ad.php?t=132422

The entire .pdf is online as well.
  • 0

#2099 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,808 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:34 PM

If you think the owners or the players really care whether you walk away from the game then good for you. Your faith encourages me. This is a fight over money by two powerfull groups and their minions. I am trying to believe that there are solid business reasons for ownership to beplaying hardball but poetica is throwing some doubt into that concept. I think he is asking me to believe that ownership would put a multi billion $ business at risk for a +/- $200 mil labour saving over the life of a CBA. That doesn't make sense to me.


As I said in the post, I'm sure many Canucks fans agree with me, that they would not pay to see an inferior product. And yes, this matters as for some reason both sides are fighting for media perception, to gain the support of fans. I wonder why that would matter? Could it be that the 3.3 billion was fueled solely by the fans? I'm pretty confident that a majority of those 17,000 season ticket holders would not want to pay 6,000$ annually to watch Marco Rosa and Jason Jaffray, which to be honest would probably be the best of the crop of scabs.

Anyways I will go back to a post I made a month ago:

The bottom line if we scrape away all the various media inputs, the negotiating tactics, and the opinions that follow, we have a very simple dichotomy. One side is asking for status quo. The other is looking to rollback salaries while the business is growing, negate signed contracts and limit contractual freedoms fought for back in 2004. If this doesn't paint a very simple picture I'm not sure what does.


I still don't and probably never will understand why so many of you guys support the Owners. Yes they are somehow the victim of the players, who are presently preventing hockey from happening even though they want to play while negotiating.... ?? It's a lockout, not a strike.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2100 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,343 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:50 PM

Totally agree, but it also makes me worry. What happens if the American economy gets its act together and we return to having a 20 or 30 cent gap between the dollars? All those Canadian Dollars the league relies on would shrink. It wasn't that long ago that the Canadian teams were receiving payments from their American counterparts to help deal with the low Canadian dollar.

Even before the economic meltdown in the US a few years back the Canadian dollar was doing well, so I don't see that as serious a worry as it was previously. Certainly that was a factor years back for Canadian teams, but hopefully that would be something covered as a possibility in revenue sharing.

Imagine if that happened and teams like Phoenix, Columbus, etc were continuing to operate with large losses. That's even more reason why the NHL should get it's own house in order rather than expect others to bail them out.

Perhaps the NHLPA should have considered NOT bringing on a hired gun from the baseball wars to flex his muscle for them.

Wrong message to send to the people who actually own the league. The players are now paying the price for it.

I give the players a 50% deal take it or leave it , and if they dont take it then simply Ban the NHLPA players from the league and start a supplemental draft asap.

You just don't get it, do you?

You just don't get it huh?

Beat me to it! :ph34r:
  • 0

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 





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.