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

#2191 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:02 PM

I'm hoping the latest make whole is fully on the owners. The comment "will absorb share" makes me think they have offered to take care of part of it.

I can't see how the NHLPA would go along with the rest of the contract rule changes. Perhaps they might agree to some of them if the UFA length is reduced by a year.
  • 0

#2192 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,365 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:04 PM

Winter Classic cancelled?

Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#2193 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,827 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:04 PM

Yes, the NHL generates the least amount of revenue (at least as far as we know....they won't release their numbers from last season despite having them...wonder why that is). And? The players' share is determined as a percentage and "given that NFL players were receiving 54% of their league revenues at the time while basketball players received 57% of their league revenues, it seems a little insulting to ask an intelligent consumer to believe that the NHL’s arrival at this 54-57% range was not influenced at all by industry standards set in the NFL and NBA." (Source: http://www.forbes.co...f-nhl-revenues/)

So, they set the numbers according to what was standard in other sports leagues at the time. This time around, 50% is more the industry standard and players have already said they would drop to that. They have only asked that their contracts be honored as the owners signed them, not a rolled back version that allows owners to promise one thing and then merely months later say they'll actually be paying much less. That's bad faith negotiating. It's bad for player/owner relations in the future and frankly it should be bad for fan/league relations. Why should the richest people in the world be held to a lower standard than any quilt making grandma on Judge Judy?

I've said this a few times, but I'll point it out again to support your post: the NFL and NBA went to 50/50 splits, but the players contracts were legitimately protected. They did not roll back salaries or find some way to make whole the money the players would have made by borrowing it from their future revenue earnings.

Another good point that has been made which is related to that is the NFL and NBA found that easy to do because they haven't signed players to ridiculous 10+ year contracts. In the NBA, their contracts max out at 6 years so they have a shorter turnaround time for even the biggest contracts to come back to earth. We won't see that in the NHL because the GMs took advantage of a CBA loophole to offer the likes of Crosby, Luongo, Kovy, Weber, Parise, Zetterburg, Hossa, etc. extremely long term contracts in order to reduce cap hits.

Edited by elvis15, 02 November 2012 - 04:21 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2194 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:09 PM


Doh! This is what I was afraid of. They are still hesitating to absorb ALL of it.


Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger

The NHL's verbal offer to absorb some or all of Make Whole was made Tuesday. 3 days ago?? PA wants more detail before getting too excited.

  • 0

#2195 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,152 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:12 PM

I'll answer your question with another: would I have a picture of him from his summer media appearances in it if I did?

I'll stop you though, before you try and draw an incorrect conclusion based on the fact that I didn't have him there until after he became a Canuck.

My allegiances for hockey teams lies with the Canucks because of my geographical location. I became more than a casual fan of the team because I became invested in players like Thomas Gradin, Richard Brodeur, Stan Smyl, Trevor Linden, Pavel Bure, etc. since I was able to watch them closely. Without those players to cheer, I would have been more a fan of hockey that probably liked the Canucks, but well could have had a different favourite team.

I was also a fan of other teams growing up. When they weren't playing the Canucks, I liked to cheer for teams like the Bruins (due to Ray Bourque) and the Kings (due to Marcel Dionne). I don't cheer for them any more - but it's not because those teams recently beat us in the playoffs, rather because those players have moved on and I stopped liking those teams as much.

I also liked other players (Ron Hextall, Dale Hawerchuck, Andy Moog) and watched them play wherever they went. I followed Paul Karyia's career as we went to the same high school when he played for Penticton because I was invested in him as a player.

I still have other players I'm a fan of on other teams now, and it has little to do with who they play for.


Wow write this all up you might as well just state you are a fan of the Canucks....quit embarrassing yourself....lol
  • 0

#2196 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,397 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:13 PM

Having said that, I'll wait to hear the details of what they consider absorbing their share of the make whole provision.


True. What do they consider their "share"? I share Gizmo's concern that they're only going to take responsibility for part of their "make whole" provision but still make players pay for the rest.

I say set the value of the contracts at 54% (the lowest share agreed upon in the last CBA) of the 2011/12 revenue number and then hold that hard cap until that number becomes 50% of HRR and then it goes to the 50% linked growth. The players lose all revenue growth over the last CBA, a significant loss. The owners alone eat the overage until the 50/50 split can be achieved (if it's not already if you go off the actual last season's numbers.) Increase team revenue sharing to at least 6% HRR to help the lower end teams. Limit contract lengths (as your other post pointed out was a very smart move for other leagues) to 6 or 7 years. It really shouldn't be this hard!
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2197 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,000 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:14 PM

Doh! This is what I was afraid of. They are still hesitating to absorb ALL of it.

Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
The NHL's verbal offer to absorb some or all of Make Whole was made Tuesday. 3 days ago?? PA wants more detail before getting too excited.


I'm confused, what's Make Whole and what are they absorbing? I don't really follow the details and stuff.
  • 0

m97o1w.jpg

Credit to Parise11


#2198 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,827 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:24 PM

Doh! This is what I was afraid of. They are still hesitating to absorb ALL of it.

Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
The NHL's verbal offer to absorb some or all of Make Whole was made Tuesday. 3 days ago?? PA wants more detail before getting too excited.

Their first offer sounded good too until the details came out. Will this new one take it from the owners' share of HRR to pay the players? Perhaps they're saying they'll pay the amount but still deduct that from revenue, thus redefining HRR and making the players' share less?

Like I said, I'll wait until we know what it actually is.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2199 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,827 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:27 PM

Wow write this all up you might as well just state you are a fan of the Canucks....quit embarrassing yourself....lol

And stupid, trolling comments like that why I put you on my ignore list - too bad the ignore only works when you load/refresh the page rather than when you click on the pop up to show new posts.

I almost didn't want to ignore you just to see if you would reply to my post where I asked if you'd be happy cheering for the Evansville IceMen if they where used as replacement players for the Canucks - especially when the trustees who actually control the cup give it to another league to use instead of the much degraded NHL. In the end, I cared more about reading intelligent comments than I did about reading yours.

Edited by elvis15, 02 November 2012 - 10:15 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2200 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,397 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:35 PM

I'm confused, what's Make Whole and what are they absorbing? I don't really follow the details and stuff.


"Make whole" is a provision of the NHL's last proposal that they said would ensure players' contracts were honored in "whole" over the course of the new CBA. It would essentially allow owners to pay players less now because of the new lowered players' share on the promise that they would make up the portions of salary they had promised but were unable to pay under the lowered cap at some point in the future. At which time that the cap grew (as league revenue grew) to allow those extra amounts to be paid, they would then be paid to the players they were owed to and counted against the players' share for the year in which they were paid out.

There are 2 major problems with this provision. First and foremost, that the delayed payments count against future players' share. That means part of the salary they agreed to pay but are failing to do so for 2013/14 would be delayed, paid and counted against the players' share in let's say 2015/16. That will essentially ensure that players' share can not increase for years, possibly the entire course of the CBA, despite their agreement that it should because every time the revenue increased and in turn the players' share should increase, that increase would instead be used to pay off IOUs from previous seasons. It basically takes from players to pay other players.

The second problem is that, like I've said in this thread before, it's basically like a forced loan where the owners get to keep money owed to players for an indefinite amount of time during which owners are allowed to use and earn from that money but the players are not. And the players do not get interest on the money that was owed to them, even if the owners made millions using it.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2201 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:46 PM

True. What do they consider their "share"? I share Gizmo's concern that they're only going to take responsibility for part of their "make whole" provision but still make players pay for the rest.


I'll bet the owners have offered to meet them half way and pay 50% of the make whole. No matter how you slice it, it's still future players making part of that make whole payment. For instance, say they freeze the players share till it hits 50/50 and let it drop to 49/51 until the make whole is done. That's still taking away from future player share. If I'm a player, I might be okay with this as long as there is a concession for more revenue sharing from the owners somehow. I don't think the players are as concerned about the exact percentage as they are about having a consistent, long term dependable income.

Seriously, the players are agreeing to take a pay cut, without much in return! The owners really need to step up to the face off circle and offer a bag of pucks at least. How about they silent auction 20 snowballs to the players union that get to be tossed at Bettman during next years winter classic. I'll bet that revenue would bridge the gap.
  • 0

#2202 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,397 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:59 PM

You're preaching to the choir here, Gizmo!

How about they silent auction 20 snowballs to the players union that get to be tossed at Bettman during next years winter classic. I'll bet that revenue would bridge the gap.


:D Best suggestion I've heard yet!
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2203 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,152 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:51 PM

As Elvis's ignore list fills with people much smarter and brighter than he....we still await the fall of the NHLPA. Oh how the fans and owners alike will rejoice. The younger generation will once yearn to play like Kovi, Ovi and even Crysby for a chance to skate the arena's of North America with the NHL's very own Stanley Cup. The Lock out will be a only a smidge in the eye of the past. And we can throw the brewskies in the fridge and cook up the hot wings....and in front of my bro's I'll throw on my #1 Aquilini Jersey sit down and watch Shnide's get a shut out...all the while all the players in the NHL shake their heads in embarrassment at Fehr...and Ill LAFF~! @ Poetic as Crysby flicks him off the straps of his Jock Hahaa
  • 0

#2204 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 02 November 2012 - 07:04 PM

*
POPULAR

As Elvis's ignore list fills with people much smarter and brighter than he....


Come on, re-think this. Not only is this breaking the rules of this board, it's silly. I'm not the police, but seriously cut the junk and post something worth while. I stopped reading after this
  • 5

#2205 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,397 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 07:06 PM

*
POPULAR

Fwybwed you keep saying the same things over and over even though you've been proven wrong on many accounts. (The NHL does not own the Stanley Cup for puck's sake!) If you have anything real to say feel free to share that actual thought based on reality. Otherwise, you're just a little boy singing to himself and frankly you're bothering the grownups.
  • 6
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2206 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,827 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:07 PM

Come on, re-think this. Not only is this breaking the rules of this board, it's silly. I'm not the police, but seriously cut the junk and post something worth while. I stopped reading after this

Fwybwed you keep saying the same things over and over even though you've been proven wrong on many accounts. (The NHL does not own the Stanley Cup for puck's sake!) If you have anything real to say feel free to share that actual thought based on reality. Otherwise, you're just a little boy singing to himself and frankly you're bothering the grownups.

It's truly better with him on ignore. He's clearly trolling, spewing the same nonsense despite all the evidence to the contrary.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2207 Double Vs

Double Vs

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 04

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:48 PM

I think both sides are a bunch of (insert bad word here). But on the first day the owners lose some big money and exposure with the cancelling of the Winter Classic...Melnyk's comments....that there's this 'consession'. By the NHL. It takes two to tangle....lets hope Fehr will give a bit. And the numbers jive for both sides.

Again, not on either side, but wow...i'm a 1982 fan of the Canucks, and i'm so close to being done.

If anyone spel checks me, have ten beers, then come on here and type....
  • 0

#2208 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,307 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:57 PM

Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
As per @Real_ESPNLeBrun. S.Fehr and B.Daly will meet tomorrow.


Funny how Bettman and Donald Fehr seem to have removed themselves from these negotiations in the last little while. It's pretty obvious to me there's some bad blood brewing there.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2209 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,152 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:07 AM

As the list of haters for the Fwy'd one grows so does the lack of faith in Fehr. As some have informed Fehr of thier insecurties the Mighty NHL will continue to hold on. With Talks to resume privately on Saturday. It 's curious to me along with hopes that the players have caved...with one last breath the NHLPA will draw one more proposal out and the NHL will of course pass...But in turn the NHL will already have a proposal ready and waiting....and say "How bout this one!?!?" Hopefully Fehr will just say OK Done! Lets play hockey~! And all these wanna be owner proposal makers can go back to the Arm Chairing threads... ;)
  • 0

#2210 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:19 AM

As the list of haters for the Fwy'd one grows so does the lack of faith in Fehr. As some have informed Fehr of thier insecurties the Mighty NHL will continue to hold on. With Talks to resume privately on Saturday. It 's curious to me along with hopes that the players have caved...with one last breath the NHLPA will draw one more proposal out and the NHL will of course pass...But in turn the NHL will already have a proposal ready and waiting....and say "How bout this one!?!?" Hopefully Fehr will just say OK Done! Lets play hockey~! And all these wanna be owner proposal makers can go back to the Arm Chairing threads... ;)

:lol: ............:picard:
  • 0

#2211 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,564 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:40 AM

Funny how Bettman and Donald Fehr seem to have removed themselves from these negotiations in the last little while. It's pretty obvious to me there's some bad blood brewing there.


Same thing happened last time between him and Goodenow. By the time they cancelled the season, they'd both been removed from negotiations. Daly was meeting with Saskin and Linden at that point.
  • 0

#2212 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,180 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:14 AM

I wouldn't read too much into Don and Bettman not meeting. Quite a few meetings have been between Steve and Daly only. Bad blood is certainly part of the process of dealing with the little dwarf. But if Bettman keeps denying meetings altogether for short spells, it probably means that when they do resume meeting, he just makes Daly go and sits it out. It's not unreasonable to think that he treats meetings like he treats negotiating: by taking a cursory look at the discussion, stating his demands, then disappearing again. It's no surprise he wouldn't go to each meeting then.
  • 0

Keswho.jpg


#2213 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,318 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:52 AM

True. What do they consider their "share"? I share Gizmo's concern that they're only going to take responsibility for part of their "make whole" provision but still make players pay for the rest.

I say set the value of the contracts at 54% (the lowest share agreed upon in the last CBA) of the 2011/12 revenue number and then hold that hard cap until that number becomes 50% of HRR and then it goes to the 50% linked growth. The players lose all revenue growth over the last CBA, a significant loss. The owners alone eat the overage until the 50/50 split can be achieved (if it's not already if you go off the actual last season's numbers.) Increase team revenue sharing to at least 6% HRR to help the lower end teams. Limit contract lengths (as your other post pointed out was a very smart move for other leagues) to 6 or 7 years. It really shouldn't be this hard!

At one point you seem to indicate that anything less than 57% of revenue was a clawback by ownership and reprehensible. Now you suggest that an eventual 50/50 is OK. I can agree with most of your post above but what does that really mean. Are the NHLPA and the NHL dealing in hard numbers here or a simple gut reaction which I suggest we are doing.

If Don Fehr is worth his salary he will not settle without a clarified process for understanding HRR and NHL expenses. Failure to do so will eventually result in another stoppage. I can understand a process where the players are resolute on demanding 54% of HRR and the NHL saying no but offer 50%. This comes down to a $ debate where various inputs might result in agreement. I don't think this is the case now. I don't trust what either the NHLPA or NHL state publically. The concern over what fans think is BS as neither group really cares about that. If they did then more would do what Linden did and buy a box which he let use free.

Again the make whole business is more BS. Contract rolebacks should never have been part of the discussion. These contracts are only renegociable through previous agreement. The NHLPA should have dug in at that time and a lot of this crap would have been avoided. Honour the contracts and if unaffordable do a supplimental draft to other teams who have to honour the contract if they select a player.

Recognize a % return on investment for ownership and profits above that figure can be contributed to a stabilizing fund for weak teams on a pro-rated basis. Supported teams do not get an automatic cheque but must meet criteria to be eligible. It goes against my free enterprise philosophy to say this but the NHL is not free enterprise. I cannot imagine the most successfull team in the NHL, the TO Laffers, driving the Canucks out of business and taking the Twins and Schneids as compensation. :(
  • 0

#2214 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 03 November 2012 - 10:58 AM

nice to see everything is proceeding as planned.

50/50 split honor the contracts in exchange for concessions.

I think they need to keep the cap at 70mil not at 64 mil and let it sit until its 50%
  • 0
Posted Image

#2215 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,099 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 10:58 AM

They are talking right now hopefully something transpires. If there is no progress today I don't see any hockey for at least another 2 months.
  • 0
Posted Image


#2216 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,397 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:30 AM

At one point you seem to indicate that anything less than 57% of revenue was a clawback by ownership and reprehensible. Now you suggest that an eventual 50/50 is OK. I can agree with most of your post above but what does that really mean. Are the NHLPA and the NHL dealing in hard numbers here or a simple gut reaction which I suggest we are doing.


The last CBA guaranteed the players' share at 57% of revenue once it reached a certain point. Altering that to a lowered percentage despite revenue still being above that agreed upon threshold IS a clawback. But I never said players shouldn't give at all, only that owners shouldn't expect them to give everything and that owners shouldn't lie to fans about what's actually be asked from players. I've always said 50/50 would be acceptable as long as current contracts are honored by owners. If you can point to a specific post where you think I said otherwise I could speak to that directly.

Before continuing, I need to do a little mea culpa. I just noticed that the NHL is in fact using last season's numbers for their last known proposal, unlike what I previously said. Probably I somehow missed it, or possibly it was edited later once they had the numbers and I just didn't notice the change. Either way, it's wrong to say they aren't saying what they made last year. While I still don't think they've released detailed information like they have about previous seasons, the NHL's last known proposal did say that revenue from last season was 3.303 B (which is higher than the projected 3.2 B.) That means revenue was up 0.4 B from the previous year.

As for my CBA suggestion, I suggested they set the face value of current contracts at 54% simply in the interest of getting a deal done. It's the lowest percentage agreed upon in the last CBA and therefore not out completely out of bounds as their contracts were not hard numbers but instead tied to the players' share and therefore at any time the revenue dropped their contract's face value would also drop. Even still, it absolutely does require players to give up a significant portion of what they're actually due and it is a rollback that the NHL shouldn't lie about by trying to call it something else.

It was in recognition of the fact that that would require players to rollback salaries that I suggested a hard cap set at that number until which time that revenue grows sufficiently for that number to be 50% of HRR and only then going to a revenue growth rate tied cap system. That would require owners to give up some of their share until revenue grows to allow players to get their share at 50% without any of that "make whole" crap that really just costs the players more in the long run. It was my way of minimizing how much the players had to give up and require the owners to give a little too (although to be fair, it's really just wait a little while to get even more.)

I absolutely agree that the definitions of HRR matters significantly and there are some areas they need to address (like owners taking deductions for portions of luxury boxes, which were to be included completely, for parking, concessions and other events without any proof the boxes were used for any other events). Hopefully they will clarify HRR and expenses like you said, but clarification is probably all that's on the table. Any redefinition will likely only hurt players.

Recognize a % return on investment for ownership and profits above that figure can be contributed to a stabilizing fund for weak teams on a pro-rated basis. Supported teams do not get an automatic cheque but must meet criteria to be eligible. It goes against my free enterprise philosophy to say this but the NHL is not free enterprise. I cannot imagine the most successfull team in the NHL, the TO Laffers, driving the Canucks out of business and taking the Twins and Schneids as compensation. :(


That is an interesting proposal, but I can't imagine it would ever fly. It would basically punish teams for doing well by ensuring that even when they earn significantly more money, they won't even get most of it. I think the NHL's right about tying the team revenue sharing to HRR, I just think they need to make sure that it's a sufficient percentage to help the teams in need.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2217 gmen81

gmen81

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,348 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 07

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:31 PM

--
  • 0
Posted Image

#2218 Tangerines

Tangerines

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:04 PM

Hopefully they can get a deal done within the next two weeks :mellow: . Im really enjoying some of the posts in this thread. Very well thought out, and some very good points also. (Poetica, Elvis, Gizmo, Boudrias, nateb123). Fwybwed not so much.
  • 0

#2219 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:22 PM

Lots of rumblings on Twitter today. (People are getting increasingly antsy with no hockey) Lots of back and forth arguing between players, media, lawyers and sports writers. It sounds like the NHL didn't make an offer on that make whole provision, they just talked about it on the phone. Indeed they must be working on that right now in this secret meeting.


Jamal Mayers@jamalmayers

@DarrenDreger (3) I can assure you that this is absolutely without question the MOST unified the PA has been since my first year 1996!



Andy Strickland@andystrickland

Several players on #NHLPA conf. call encoraging PA to not push#NHL away and to engage the league

  • 0

#2220 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,318 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:23 PM

Poetica:
My suggestion that profits exceeding a ownership % return on investment would be based on a pro-rated contribution to a stabilization fund. Whether 25% or 75% it retains an incentive for profitable teams to continue making money.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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