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

#2551 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,094 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:35 AM

I'm amazed that after these 85 tedious, frustrating pages, some of us have somehow managed to stay emotionally engaged in this matter.

Congratulations!
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#2552 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,632 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:56 AM

You are fired an he is out of business. lol

That is nowhere near the same thing as starting a small business from scratch and understanding it from experience. Its not even close. Let alone being a successful multi millionaire businessman who has been running various companies for 10,20,30 and in some cases 50 years.

I dont presume to know what multi billion dollar owners of NHL teams know. Thats way above my paygrade.

And if they do not need my advice, they certainly dont need your advice that they 'need' to listen to others to be a success.Ever dawn on you they have already been doing this long before you were ever born?

Anyways, as many will have seen today, Fehr is getting NOWHERE and its because the union has no power and the owners are so pissed off they are prepared to wait as long as it takes.

And as many of you know, the union is backed into a 'fair deal' and thats all they can HOPE to get at this point. Its all downhill from here. Fehr is going to get the players SCREWED.

Pretty accurate forecast IMO. The NHLPA does not have a lot of power. It was a fundamental error on their part to hire an adversrial agent like Fehr. When dealing from a weak position they should have sold ownership on a value proposition which emphasized what they brought to the business. Business partners rather than labour vs management. Not naive enough to not realize the risks involved but those risks exist with the current approach in spades.

The season is probably lost. Based on that reality one has to question who's position becomes encased in stone the longer it drads on? I suggest ownership will toughen their stand the longer it goes. Someone suggested that Ownership incurs no costs while this dispute goes on. Their costs might be reduced but they have significant costs. One has to ask how they anticipate mitigating those costs? I suggest the players will be paying for some of it one way or another.
  • 1

#2553 gmen81

gmen81

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,145 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:24 AM

Here is an article that gives some hope.

http://www.nytimes.c...e-in-talks.html

After a week of negotiations, the N.H.L. and its players association have drawn close to agreement on several key issues, remaining far apart in only one main area: players’ contract rights.



Donald Fehr, the executive director of the N.H.L. players union, said on Sunday that he did not "see a path to an agreement on contract rights
That area remains thorny and could delay an end to the N.H.L. lockout, which reached its 57th day Sunday and concluded with gloomy news briefings from Bill Daly, the N.H.L. deputy commissioner, and Donald Fehr, the union’s executive director. The sides remain divided over when players can become eligible for free agency, among other contract issues.

But the two sides have made far more progress toward ending the lockout than is widely believed, according to a member of the union delegation who has attended the talks.

“We’re basically there” in several areas, according to the union delegate, who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly.

Fehr and Commissioner Gary Bettman met Sunday afternoon at the N.H.L. office in New York along with their deputies for less than two hours of discussions on contract rights. Afterward, the two delegations broke to leave for Toronto and Monday’s Hall of Fame induction ceremony.

Daly told reporters that “contract rights issues are very important to the clubs” and that because of the wide gulf between the two sides on those issues, “I don’t know where to go.”

Fehr said he did not “see a path to an agreement” on contract rights.

But lost amid the gloom is the progress the league and union have made in six straight days of talks. They are fairly close on the critical issue of honoring existing contracts, according to the union delegate.

The issue of finding a way to pay players with existing contracts in full under a lower salary cap — or settling on a “make whole” provision, in the language of the negotiations — had been a stumbling block in previous weeks. But by Sunday, the two sides were $2 million to $3 million apart per team, per year, an amount the delegate described as “within spitting distance.”

The league and union are even closer to agreement on revenue sharing among clubs, with a plan described as basically done except for administrative details. The system will be significantly expanded compared with the N.H.L.’s current system, with more teams qualifying for revenue sharing and more money distributed.

The system will include a small fund, similar to baseball’s industry growth fund, that Bettman can specially earmark for the neediest franchises — presumably teams like Phoenix, the Islanders, Columbus and Florida.

But big obstacles remain on the issue of contract rights.

Under the collective bargaining agreement that expired Sept. 15, players whose contracts had expired were eligible for free agency if they were 27 or had seven years of N.H.L. service. The league is seeking to raise those thresholds to 28 and eight years of experience.

The league is also seeking to restrict players’ rights to go to salary arbitration, and to limit the term of contracts to five years. Under the previous system, there were no limits.

The union delegate characterized the league’s stance on player contract issues as “very draconian” and said, “We’re very, very far apart” in that area.

According to published reports, confirmed by those present at Friday’s bargaining session, Bettman told Fehr that no deal was possible unless the union agreed to all of the league’s proposed changes to player contract rights.

“The owners made it clear that there is no give with respect to any of their proposals,” Fehr told reporters after Sunday’s meeting. “That unless players are prepared to take — and this is my phrase, not theirs — down to the comma, that there’s nothing to do.”

But the union delegate also stressed the “very professional” tenor of the negotiations on both sides.

Reports emerged Friday of a shouting match between players and owners at the end of that day’s meeting. But the delegate said the exchange was “extremely brief” and stood out only because of its rarity.

The exchange was between the free-agent defenseman Chris Campoli and Winnipeg defenseman Ron Hainsey on one side, and the owners Murray Edwards of Calgary and Craig Leipold of Minnesota on the other.

The delegate called descriptions of the incident a “major exaggeration.”

“No one would have noticed it but for the fact that these meetings are very, very professional — no one even raises their voice,” he said.


  • 0
Posted Image

#2554 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:44 AM

.
  • 0
Posted Image

#2555 Wh!stler R!der

Wh!stler R!der

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:52 AM

.


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

#2556 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:05 PM

...


:(
  • 0
Posted Image

#2557 Masamune

Masamune

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Joined: 05-June 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:16 PM

I for one am glad the players aren't caving. The NHL really does have an awful approach to contract rights. ELCs and UFA restrictions are extended now, they may be extended even further in the future. It may no longer be worth it for players to become free agents. The issue points in this negotiation leave a bad taste in my mouth with regards to the NHL side of things. I don't want to see them win on any of these points.
  • 0

#2558 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 64,527 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

@cotsonika
Most interesting comment from this panel in Toronto: Steve Fehr saying he and Bill Daly agree deal will be done quickly when time is right.

Wasn't the time right, back in August?
  • 2
Posted Image

#2559 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,660 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:47 PM

Why the league keeps fighting


With the NHLPA offering massive concessions, why does the league continue to push for more? Simple: there is a financial case for doing so.

It has been suggested – by fans, by media, and certainly by the players – that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is a fool for continuing to push for this lockout. With the season-ending 2004-05 lockout still alive and well in recent memory, and occurring on Bettman’s watch, he has earned the loathing of many.
The emotional response is understandable. But a fool Bettman isn’t. It is well worth remembering that the league got its money’s worth out of the last lockout in the form of massive reductions in the amount of money the players received. A lost season was ugly, but it had no lasting negative financial impact on the game as a whole and the additional money the owners made justified the decision financially.
In my estimation, Bettman is precisely the opposite of a fool: a cold, hard, businessman carefully weighing the dollars and cents of every decision he makes. Those decisions, which have led to the current lockout, may hurt fans, players and the game, but ultimately they will favour the financial interests of his constituents: NHL owners.
The league may have made $3.3 billion last season, but that’s not the money the owners have at stake. The owners are actually risking just their 43 percent share of that $3.3 billion: $1.42 billion, give or take. That still represents a significant chunk of change, but then they are not gambling all of it in one go either.
Until the middle of October, Bettman was playing with mostly house money. An 82-game season, starting early in November, was still possible. Sure, the preseason would be lost, but that represented a small enough share of owner revenue that it was not a primary concern. Bettman learned the lessons of the last lockout – that teams were affected more or less equally, and that fans would return quickly – so concerns about lasting damage to the popularity of the game are likely minimal.
With minimal long-term concerns, but now with each day costing the owners money, how does Bettman decide when he has a good deal? Because he is the rarest of things – a rational decision-maker – it seems likely that he makes a simple calculation that decides for him. The calculation?
Will I make the owners more money over the term of the next collective bargaining agreement by a) agreeing to a deal at the best terms I can get now or b- by pushing for more concessions and making a deal further along in the process?
What would that calculation look like?
The majority of NHL revenue is made in the regular season – the playoffs, which have less than 100 games each year (though ticket prices are increased for those games), are a significant but comparatively small portion of overall NHL revenue. Even assuming the NHL makes twice as much money per playoff game as it does per regular season game, the sum revenue of the playoffs only comes in at a little over $200 million. Including the preseason (with revenues of less than $100 million) and we’re talking about roughly $3 billion in total NHL revenue – 90 percent – coming from the regular season. That’s a rough estimate, but it’s good enough to illustrate the point of the calculation above.
Every 2.2 days, give or take, the NHL loses a regular season game from the schedule. For every month lost to lockout, starting at some point in early November, that’s 14 games lost. That means each month burned cuts roughly half a billion dollars from the revenue pot that the owners and players share (17.1% of the season multiplied by ~$3.0 billion). I’d be surprised if Bettman and the owners (as well as Fehr and the NHLPA, for that matter) didn’t have a more exact figure in their minds each day they negotiate.
Of course, the owners aren’t losing $500 million. The league as a whole is. Right now, with the players likely getting 54.3 percent of that (based on Bob McKenzie’s recent calculation) a month lost costs the owners in the neighborhood of $230 million in revenue.
There is an additional wrinkle. The owners, unlike the players, incur costs when the season is in session, as a big chunk of that money goes toward putting the games on. While some items are deducted from general revenue rather than from the owner’s side, there’s no question that each month costs them significantly less than our calculation. The players, on the other hand, lose the entirety of their share with no prospect of getting it back – $270 million per month, or thereabouts, this year.
Even using that full monthly figure of $230 million, it does not take many concessions on the players’ part to justify losing that money. For Bettman to justify losing that money, he needs to make back just $38 million per season over a CBA with a six-year term. That figure drops to $33 million per year over a seven-year CBA (I suspect that this is the reason the NHLPA pushed early for a short-term CBA – a short-term CBA reduces the NHL’s incentive to push for the best possible deal because they would have less time to make back the money they managed to extract from the players, making any loss of revenue harder to justify).
Taking morality out of the equation – while I’m not especially thrilled with the league imposing its will on the players, this is business between two very rich parties and should be viewed as such – and it’s easy to understand where the league is coming from. The players have much more money at stake than the owners do. There’s a sound financial case for the league to continue to push hard for its objectives.
The question is whether the players are operating using the same sort of model. As we’ve seen, a difference of even $40 million/season over a six- or seven-year CBA is likely enough to justify continued negotiations, even on the players’ side. But they are losing money faster than the owners, and because of that it will make financial sense for the union to cave far quicker than it will for the league.
For those hoping for a quick end to this lockout, the hope lies with Donald Fehr and the NHLPA, not with Gary Bettman and the NHL. Fehr’s constituents are more apt to rebel than the owners – there are more of them and despite Fehr’s superb work in unifying the NHLPA he is simply playing with an inferior hand. More than that, though, if Fehr is working in the best interests of his constituents it will make financial sense soon (if it doesn’t already – with the cone of silence that has descended on talks it is impossible to know for sure) to make the best available deal and bring this lockout to an end.
It is also in Fehr’s interests, however, not to act in a purely rational manner. The NHLPA’s only threat is mutually assured destruction: that they will take as much punishment as is necessary to get what they want, and even though that hurts them more than the owners, the owners’ financial interests will be hurt, too.
It is an ugly dynamic; it is also the reason why this lockout continues despite the fact that the collective interest of both parties would have been best served by a deal that saved the full NHL season. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, the collective interests of both parties are not what either side is fighting for.


  • 0

#2560 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,283 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:55 PM

How is contract rights the biggest issue left, and yet a deal isn't done?

The NHLPA should push it to 6 year max, and just accept the other rules and be done with it.

Young players who have one good season should never be awarded with a 6 million dollar contract. If anything these rules are to protect the owners from themselves, because clearly they can't resist offering some dumb deals.

Edited by DeNiro, 12 November 2012 - 02:57 PM.

  • 3

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2561 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:55 PM

That is an interesting article, and the one with the most specific financial information I've read. However, it still misses a huge component for players.

By all indications, they are very close on the money. Were that all that was holding things up, I'd be getting ready to start cheering on our boys come Dec 1. But, it's not. The NHL so far has shown no interest in moving on any of its contractual demands, all of which will cost players. For players yet to enter the NHL, the proposed rules would negatively impact every single year of their career and seriously limit their career earning potential even above the lowered players' share. It's entirely likely that the NHL would make the new rules apply to players in the NHL now, meaning guys who signed on under the old CBA will now have to wait longer to get free agency, salary arbitration, etc. And certainly, any future contracts of current NHL players would be under the new rules that would limit how much they can make above and beyond the lowered share. Were that not true, the owners wouldn't be digging in their heels to fight for them.

For a fair discussion of the economic impact of these negotiations it's only fair to look at not just the HRR division and direct revenue loss of this one season but also the long-term financial costs to players for signing the NHL's deal. Ignoring that reality makes it far too easy to accuse the players of being "shortsighted" while actually being guilty of it ourselves. And make no mistake, that's exactly what the NHL is banking on. Literally.

But players' losses aside, as this article (like so many others) indicates, unless they face serious long-term consequences the owners will continue to lock out players every time the CBA expires. Why wouldn't they? They get everything they want, make even more money than before thanks to increases in revenue and forcing players to take less money and fewer rights, and face no backlash from the very people who give them the still theoretical money they're all fighting over.

If we don't want to go through this every time, it absolutely up to the fans to punish them financially. Force both sides to actually have a financial pony in the negotiation race and watch how fast a deal can really get done!
  • 3
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2562 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,696 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:23 PM

So apparently, one of the 3 outstanding issues the players have is "who is going to pay for the damage since the lockout started"?

If they mean who should pay for the loss of revenue for the owners and NHL - too bad.
If they mean who should pay for the lost wages for the players - too bad.

If they mean who should pay for us fans - then both.

What a joke - if that's 1 of 3 reasons the players are holding out then I wouldn't take the union seriously neither.
  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#2563 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,660 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:13 PM

Not sure if Malcom Gladwell's 2011 "Psychic Benefits" piece has been posted here but it's worth a re-read even if it is about the NBA. I've been trying harder to see this whole mess from the Owners' side and this helps immensely. It's also just generally one of the better pieces of sports journalism I've ever read (I really, really wish Grantland wrote about hockey more often!)

'Psychic Benefits' and the NBA Lockout

The Boston Red Sox signed their first black player in 1959, a utility infielder named "Pumpsie" Green.1 This was 12 years after the Brooklyn Dodgers broke the color line with Jackie Robinson. No other team in baseball dragged its feet on integration like the Red Sox. It wasn't until 1965, in fact — 18 years after Robinson started at second base for the Dodgers — that Boston had its first full-time black player. Why?
The simple answer — that the Red Sox owner at the time, Tom Yawkey, was a racist — is not terribly satisfying. Lots of racists are happy to hire black people, particularly if they can exploit them as spectacularly as baseball owners exploited their players in the postwar years.2 There was a lot of money to be made by raiding the Negro Leagues in the 1940s. The talent pool was extraordinary: Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, and Willie Mays, among others. The Sox were well aware of this. They tried out Mays and Robinson — both of whom they could have used in the lean years of the 1950s, when the team was known as "Ted Williams and the Seven Dwarfs." In a recent academic paper, the economist Jonathan Lanning has also shown that almost without exception integration in the 1940s and 1950s had an immediate and significant positive impact on a team's attendance — even in cities where you might not think the fan base would be enthusiastic.3 Lanning calculates, in fact, that almost no team in baseball had as much to gain financially from bringing in black players as the Red Sox, particularly since they were losing money in the 1940s. Yawkey's bigotry left millions of dollars on the table.
Yawkey was not just a racist, in other words. He was a racist who put his hatred of black people ahead of his desire to make money. Economists have a special term they use to describe this kind of attitude. They would say that Yawkey owned the Red Sox not to maximize his financial benefits, but, rather, his psychic benefits. Psychic benefits describe the pleasure that someone gets from owning something — over and above economic returns — and clearly some part of the pleasure Yawkey got from the Red Sox came from not having to look at black people when he walked through the Fenway Park dugout. In discussions of pro sports, the role of psychic benefits doesn't get a lot of attention. But it should, because it is the key to understanding all kinds of behavior by sports owners — most recently the peculiar position taken by management in the NBA labor dispute.
The rationale for the NBA lockout, from the owner's perspective, goes something like this. Basketball is a business. Businesses are supposed to make money. And when profits are falling, as they are now for basketball teams, a business is obliged to cut costs — which in this case means the amount of money paid to players. In response, the players' association has said two things. First, basketball teams actually do make money. And second, if they don't, it's not the players' fault. When the two sides get together, this is what they fight about. But both arguments miss the point. The issue isn't how much money the business of basketball makes. The issue is that basketball isn't a business in the first place — and for things that aren't businesses how much money is, or isn't, made is largely irrelevant.
Basketball teams, of course, look like businesses. They have employees and customers and offices and a product, and they tend to be owned, in the manner of most American businesses, by rich white men. But scratch the surface and the similarities disappear. Pro sports teams don't operate in a free market, the way real businesses do. Their employees are 25 years old and make millions of dollars a year. Their customers are obsessively loyal and emotionally engaged in their fortunes to the point that — were the business in question, say, discount retailing or lawn products — it would be considered psychologically unhealthy. They get to control their labor through the draft in a way that would be the envy of other private sector owners, at least since the Civil War. And they are treated by governments with unmatched generosity. Congress gives professional baseball an antitrust exemption. Since 2000, there have been eight basketball stadiums either built or renovated for NBA teams at a cost of $2 billion — and $1.75 billion of that came from public funds.4 And did you know that under the federal tax code the NFL is classified as a nonprofit organization?5 Big genial Roger Goodell, he of the almost $4 billion in television contracts, makes like he's the United Way.
But most of all professional sports owners don't have to behave like businessmen. For every disciplined and rational operator like the Patriots' Robert Kraft or Mark Cuban, there is also someone like Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder. Snyder was a brilliant entrepreneur, who at the age of 36 sold Snyder Communications — the marketing company he built from scratch — for an estimated $2 billion. He has subsequently run the Redskins like a petulant 14-year-old fantasy owner. Snyder Communications was a business. The Redskins are a toy. The former he ran to solely maximize profit. The latter he runs for his psychic benefit — as a reward for all the years he spent being disciplined and rational. And it is one of the surreal qualities of professional sports that they are as welcoming and lucrative for those owners who chose to behave like 14-year-olds as they are of those owners who chose to behave like grown-ups.
The Financial Times recently interviewed Diego Della Valle, the chief executive of the Italian luxury goods manufacturer Tod's. Della Valle owns the celebrated Italian football club Fiorentina. "I ask if the decision to buy the club was made from the heart, or for business reasons," the Financial Times interviewer writes. Della Valle replies: "With football, business reasons don't exist." Exactly. Yawkey did not have "business reasons" with the Red Sox either. Why did he care that keeping the club lily white cost him millions of dollars? He inherited $40 million from his grandfather when he turned 30 in 1933 (which is roughly $700 million in today's money). He fell in love with baseball growing up in Detroit. Ty Cobb was one of his best friends. The Red Sox were his heart's desire, and in his case his heart's desire — so the story goes — included things like running out on the field during Jackie Robinson's tryout and yelling "Get those [expletive] off the field." In case you were wondering how this kind of thing goes over with the baseball establishment, Yawkey was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1980.6
The best illustration of psychic benefits is the art market. Art collectors buy paintings for two reasons. They are interested in the painting as an investment — the same way they would view buying stock in General Motors. And they are interested in the painting as a painting — as a beautiful object. In a recent paper in Economics Bulletin, the economists Erdal Atukeren and Aylin Seçkin used a variety of clever ways to figure out just how large the second psychic benefit is, and they put it at 28 percent.7 In other words, if you pay $100 million for a Van Gogh, $28 million of that is for the joy of looking at it every morning. If that seems like a lot, it shouldn't. There aren't many Van Goghs out there, and they are very beautiful. If you care passionately about art, paying that kind of premium makes perfect sense.
Pro sports teams are a lot like works of art. Forbes magazine annually estimates the value of every professional franchise, based on standard financial metrics like operating expenses, ticket sales, revenue, and physical assets like stadiums. When sports teams change hands, however, the actual sales price is invariably higher. Forbes valued the Detroit Pistons at $360 million. They just sold for $420 million. Forbes valued the Wizards at $322 million. They just sold for $551 million. Forbessaid that the Warriors were worth $363 million. They just sold for $450 million. There are a number of reasons why the Forbes number is consistently too low. The simplest is that Forbes is evaluating franchises strictly as businesses. But they are being bought by people who care passionately about sports — and the $90 million premium that the Warriors' new owners were willing to pay represents the psychic benefit of owning a sports team. If that seems like a lot, it shouldn't. There aren't many NBA franchises out there, and they are very beautiful.
The big difference between art and sports, of course, is that art collectors are honest about psychic benefits. They do not wake up one day, pretend that looking at a Van Gogh leaves them cold, and demand a $27 million refund from their art dealer. But that is exactly what the NBA owners are doing. They are indulging in the fantasy that what they run are ordinary businesses — when they never were. And they are asking us to believe that these "businesses" lose money. But of course an owner is only losing money if he values the psychic benefits of owning an NBA franchise at zero — and if you value psychic benefits at zero, then you shouldn't own an NBA franchise in the first place. You should sell your "business" — at what is sure to be a healthy premium — to someone who actually likes basketball.


  • 1

#2564 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,856 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:23 PM

@cotsonika
Most interesting comment from this panel in Toronto: Steve Fehr saying he and Bill Daly agree deal will be done quickly when time is right.

Wasn't the time right, back in August?

This is scripted, Fehr and Bettman are the stars.
  • 1
Posted Image

#2565 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,660 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:34 PM

I agree, that quote about the deal being done when the time is right has been rubbing me the wrong way every time I've read it today. Living proof that this whole thing has been a farce since before it even started.
  • 0

#2566 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

Not sure if Malcom Gladwell's 2011 "Psychic Benefits" piece has been posted here but it's worth a re-read even if it is about the NBA. I've been trying harder to see this whole mess from the Owners' side and this helps immensely. It's also just generally one of the better pieces of sports journalism I've ever read (I really, really wish Grantland wrote about hockey more often!)

'Psychic Benefits' and the NBA Lockout


Thank you for posting this article! You're right, it may have been written about the NBA but it applies equally to the NHL (or any other pro sports leagues.) Owners are trying to have their cake and eat it too, getting all the perks of owning a sports franchise that are absolutely beyond the realm of real businesses, including luxury tax breaks, public funds for buildings and the ability to control employees in a highly restricted market to such a degree that it would otherwise likely be illegal, but still trying to claim they operate under the same rules of regular businesses when it suits them.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2567 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,283 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:04 PM

I said before the lockout started that this whole thing was planned.

All of those meetings back in October were just for show. It hasn't been until last week that they really started seriously discussing things.

For all we know, the NHL wants to miss half a season in order to save struggling teams money. And this stalemate they have right now is just an act.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2568 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,562 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:11 PM

I'm amazed that after these 85 tedious, frustrating pages, some of us have somehow managed to stay emotionally engaged in this matter.

Congratulations!

I'm emotionally engaged in that chick picking the G-string in that pic you have.

Congratulations! On that there...
  • 0

#2569 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:24 PM

Not sure if Malcom Gladwell's 2011 "Psychic Benefits" piece has been posted here but it's worth a re-read even if it is about the NBA. I've been trying harder to see this whole mess from the Owners' side and this helps immensely. It's also just generally one of the better pieces of sports journalism I've ever read (I really, really wish Grantland wrote about hockey more often!)

'Psychic Benefits' and the NBA Lockout


This pretty much sums it up. From the beginning, this lockout has not had any legitimate "business" reason. It's strictly about ego and ideology. The owners are only interested in breaking the union. That's why they are completely ignoring the innovative new business model that the PA proposed. There are some owners (not all, but some) who would rather fold the league altogether than compromise with the union.
  • 0

#2570 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,660 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:42 PM

Just read that Pavelec and Enstrom might be on their way back to Winnipeg to start training if a deal comes through this week. Small but encouraging sign.
  • 0

#2571 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,573 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:19 PM

Lp
  • 0

#2572 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,611 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:30 PM

Players better pick up the workouts! (Yes I'm still optimistic, despite logic dictating otherwise). Have HOPE cdc, it's time for CHANGE, re-elect Don Fehr.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2573 BenDrinkin

BenDrinkin

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,187 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 07

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:16 AM

This lock-out's damage may already be irreversible. As if it weren't bad enough to have american fans not come back, even canadian fans won't be as tuned in when/if the NHL comes back this year. Most of my friends are completely immersed in the NFL by now.

Greed always ruins a good thing. Good job, ya bunch of millionaire jerk offs.
  • 0

#2574 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:29 AM

I said before the lockout started that this whole thing was planned.

All of those meetings back in October were just for show. It hasn't been until last week that they really started seriously discussing things.

For all we know, the NHL wants to miss half a season in order to save struggling teams money. And this stalemate they have right now is just an act.


That is one Doomsday Scenario DN...............I am too old and love hockey too much to think people would treat fans with such derision. If there was any truth in that and I'm not saying there isn't these people would be far better employed sorting the weaker/struggling teams out instead of kicking the fans in the goolies.

I haven't read all ........or nearly all of this thread and it's not easy keeping up over here in Scotland but are we likely to get a part season by Christmas? What's your gut feeling
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#2575 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,846 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:52 AM

I haven't read all ........or nearly all of this thread and it's not easy keeping up over here in Scotland but are we likely to get a part season by Christmas? What's your gut feeling


My question is identical to this one.

Minus living in Scotland! :P

Edited by Gumballthechewy, 13 November 2012 - 09:53 AM.

  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#2576 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:26 AM

Do the contractual limits really change what the players can make? No matter what, they still get the 50% revenue collectively, so all the contractual changes simply re-distribute the funds among the players in a different way.
The owners don't want to be forced to sign long deals to retain a player that may or may not pan out. A maximum length may make it less about the money and more about where a player wants to sign (see Justin Schutz). The players should be most concerned about the UFA change. A player drafted into a team may want to have the option to play on team of "choice" sooner, even if its for less money. For some players, its not always about the top dollar (see Jason Garrison).
I think the players should just take all the contracting changes except the UFA change. Lets modify that to 6 years as the tweak, and be done with it.
  • 0

#2577 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,871 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:00 PM

Dr. Recchi has spoken...

Almost two years removed from a storied playing career, Mark Recchi has some words of wisdom for both the NHL and NHL Players' Association as the lockout approaches Day 60.

"My advice," Recchi told Kevin Paul Dupont of The Boston Globe, "is that the longer it goes, the worse (the offer) is going to get (for the players)."

Recchi, 44, won three Stanley Cups and amassed 1,533 points over 22 NHL seasons - a career that was also marked by a 10-day player strike in 1992 and lockouts in 1994-95 and 2004-05.

"As far as the lockout goes and everything, I'm glad I'm not involved, not playing," he told The Globe.

As part owner of the WHL's Kamloops Blazers - his former junior team in his hometown - Recchi also understands the wants and needs at each side of the bargaining table. "Hey, I'm an owner, too, so I see both sides," he told The Globe. "We lose money on our team, and obviously that's not the same, the money's not nearly as significant as in the NHL, but the business dynamics are similar. We've lost money every year we've owned it."

And with no talks planned between the NHL and NHLPA as of Tuesday morning, Recchi believes the league's offers are going to get worse and that a deal has to be reached now.

"The longer they're out, the revenues are going to go down and down," he told The Boston Globe. "Corporate sponsors aren't going to be lining up...so there goes that money. The schedule isn't going to be 82 games, I don't think, at this point. That's more money lost. So, how are you going to get a better deal? Personally, I think the best time is now."

Recchi also told The Globe he believes the elements of a CBA agreement - stemming from the league's offer made in October - are on the table and that the players will come out with the benefits. "There's definitely a deal there," he told Kevin Paul Dupont. "Obviously, it has to be fitted. But okay, get it right, then sign the thing for 10 years, get back to playing and don't worry about it anymore. You don't want to go through this again in five or six years.

"But look what happened, the players always get their money. They're always going to get paid, no matter what. Look at that last deal. We ended up with the cap and everyone thought it was a bad deal. But it ended up great, right? No matter what the system is, or has been, the players get their money. No matter what the contract, the owners always find a way to pay them more. That's why I say, get a deal and get back in there...the money's always there."

Recchi also expressed his shock regarding the news three years ago that the players fired then-executive director Paul Kelly.

"A dark time," Recchi told The Globe. "And it has been frustrating to see how it's played out, obviously. If Paul had stayed on the job, I don't think you would have seen this happen. The two sides would have started talking long before, maybe a year sooner (in 2011), and not with two or three months to go before (the CBA) expired. There would have been something in place, absolutely. And now here they are, trying to get to 50 per cent and also trying to make everyone whole. Well, you know, with the escrow we paid, I know I wasn't made whole over the last few years I played. That's just the way it was and we accepted it."


  • 0
Posted Image

#2578 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,351 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:02 PM

Do the contractual limits really change what the players can make? No matter what, they still get the 50% revenue collectively, so all the contractual changes simply re-distribute the funds among the players in a different way.


That is true, but my question for anyone who supports the owners telling players how they must divide their share even beyond the rules already in place, including team caps and contractual cap percentage limits, is if owners have the right to protect their business interests, why shouldn't players? The players are not a co-op and should not have to be further individually limited in what they can make, not by their own skill, but by the owners' will based on their own selfish interests.

Owners have to be forced to behave like adults and stop relying on restrictions to keep themselves in line. Why buy a backbone and refuse to sign excessively long or back-diving contracts when you can just make the rules say "no" for you? Oh right, because that's what responsible business owners who "take all of the risks" do.

But, let's be honest, these rules are not about restricting themselves as much as it's about restricting each other. Owners are not only battling against players in these negotiations, they're also battling with one another and trying to institute rules that will restrict their competition. Players should not have their choices limited because owners want to hurt each other. Anyone who believes the owners truly care if there has been "a misallocation of Players' Share dollars," contact me. I've got some lunar oceanfront land to sell ya!

In addition to the new contractual restrictions, owners also want players to go backward, even by their own statement, regarding salary arbitration, effectively reversing one of the few concessions owners made last time in order to get the cap system into place. (And to be fair, the owners' "concession" really was just agreeing to lower the eligibility for arbitration from 5 years to 4 only after they made arbitration more restrictive for players and the rulings nonbinding for teams.) Now, the owners are saying they want to keep all of the players' concessions from the last CBA but are demanding to rescind the arbitration system concession they made AND are demanding further concessions from the players, including lowered share, contractual limits, increased UFA service requirements, decreased arbitration eligibility (returning to pre-1995 CBA level), and making arbitration rights mutual rather than specifically a player right. So, just like their still wet contracts, owners want to keep what they got but lower the price they agreed to pay for it, and then still demand even more. That will never foster a good business relationship with players and frankly should leave a seriously foul taste in the mouth of fans.

The owners are like spoiled rich kids getting everything they want and facing no consequences no matter how badly they behave. And just like the spoiled rich kids I (and I'm sure so many others) have seen, they will continue to behave that way until they are held to the same standards and start facing the same kind of consequences as the rest of us. Bluntly, anyone (and this is not directed at you, Gizmo, even though this little rant of mine started off in response to your post) who supports that kind of lopsided negotiation by telling players to "just give in" knowing full well that owners are giving nothing in return for everything they are getting is nothing more than an enabler all but guaranteeing a severe case of lockout reflux each and every time the CBA expires.

As one of my all time favorite quotes says, "Keep in mind always the present you are constructing. It should be the future you want." (from Alice Walker's The Temple of My Familiar)

Edited by poetica, 13 November 2012 - 01:04 PM.

  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2579 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:41 PM

You know, poetica, if you don't stop posting like that my crush on you is only going to get worse.

Edited by theminister, 13 November 2012 - 01:42 PM.

  • 0

#2580 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,622 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:48 PM

Hopefully Recchi's comments will knock a little sense into Fehr.
  • 0
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.