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

#2581 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,011 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:01 PM

Recchi:

No matter what the system is, or has been, the players get their money.

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."


Hopefully nobody listens to him.
  • 0

#2582 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:03 PM

I've read enough BS from Poetica and tons of other people here (owners are like spoiled rich kids, blah blah blah).

Problem is that half the owners want to spend more (aka they sign players to these outlandishly large contracts) and half the owners can't afford to do so. So they are trying to find a way for the league to be competitive. Which is in both the owners and players best interests. No owner wants to get outspent every year and lose fans cause they can't compete. No player wants to get stuck on a team that has no chance of ever winning. It's called structure.

Else you have an NBA style league, where only a few rich teams can have a chance at winning. Nobody wants that. So the way around it is to make sure that there is proper revenue sharing, between the owners and players, and between the teams. All sides want the same thing here.

btw: it works. Can you imagine Phoenix being competitive in the old days? They made it to the conference finals!

Only issue now is contractual, from what I've read. The $ has been sorted out.

Edited by canucksnihilist, 13 November 2012 - 02:03 PM.

  • 2

#2583 Sanj

Sanj

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:27 PM

I've read enough BS from Poetica and tons of other people here (owners are like spoiled rich kids, blah blah blah).

Problem is that half the owners want to spend more (aka they sign players to these outlandishly large contracts) and half the owners can't afford to do so. So they are trying to find a way for the league to be competitive. Which is in both the owners and players best interests. No owner wants to get outspent every year and lose fans cause they can't compete. No player wants to get stuck on a team that has no chance of ever winning. It's called structure.

Else you have an NBA style league, where only a few rich teams can have a chance at winning. Nobody wants that. So the way around it is to make sure that there is proper revenue sharing, between the owners and players, and between the teams. All sides want the same thing here.

btw: it works. Can you imagine Phoenix being competitive in the old days? They made it to the conference finals!

Only issue now is contractual, from what I've read. The $ has been sorted out.


Or you know find new locations for teams and owners who are willing to spend....

Edited by Sanj, 13 November 2012 - 02:29 PM.

  • 0

#2584 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,164 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:32 PM

I've read enough BS from Poetica and tons of other people here (owners are like spoiled rich kids, blah blah blah).

Problem is that half the owners want to spend more (aka they sign players to these outlandishly large contracts) and half the owners can't afford to do so. So they are trying to find a way for the league to be competitive. Which is in both the owners and players best interests. No owner wants to get outspent every year and lose fans cause they can't compete. No player wants to get stuck on a team that has no chance of ever winning. It's called structure.

Else you have an NBA style league, where only a few rich teams can have a chance at winning. Nobody wants that. So the way around it is to make sure that there is proper revenue sharing, between the owners and players, and between the teams. All sides want the same thing here.

btw: it works. Can you imagine Phoenix being competitive in the old days? They made it to the conference finals!

Only issue now is contractual, from what I've read. The $ has been sorted out.

I'll ignore the BS comment, but when the NHLPA is proposing higher revenue sharing than the NHL, that's a sign for who has the best interests of the league in mind. The owners that want to and can afford to spend more only want to do so for themselves so they can have better teams. The Philly offer sheet to Weber is proof of that since they'd be willing to pay to get a star or at least handcuff a lesser team significantly without thought to implications in the CBA, revenue sharing, or anything else related to those topics. The owners that can't afford to spend as much as other teams also can't force the other owners to contribute more to their bottom line just because it would help them.

As you say, much of the $ has been sorted out, but what you fail to mention is the concessions the NHLPA has made in their revenue share was asked to fully go towards revenue sharing for teams that aren't successful financially. The NHL refused to allocate all of it to that and offered only a partial increase from $140-150M to $200M, when the players had asked the successful owners to contribute $250M to revenue sharing.

Perhaps you aren't for one side or the other, but when you start of calling poetica's (and those similar to hers) BS and immediately follow it up saying those posts contain comments like "owners are like spoiled rich kids" it gives the impression you're on the owner's side. poetica, myself and others have pointed out a number of issues that favour the players stance but by no means let them off the hook. Frankly, I'll take the intelligent discussion our posts have generated over any of the childish or trolling posts going on over in the Luongo discussion thread from a select few posters.
  • 3

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2585 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,164 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:49 PM

... I've got some lunar oceanfront land to sell ya!
...

I hear the Sea of Tranquility is nice this time of year.

Patriotic arts and crafts!
Posted Image

Low gravity walks!
Posted Image

Cozy accomodations!
Posted Image

Fun transportation!
Posted Image

Edited by elvis15, 13 November 2012 - 03:10 PM.

  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2586 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,047 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:55 PM

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


My gut feeling is that there's too much at stake for both sides to cancel an entire season. One side will have to blink first, it's just a matter of when IMO.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2587 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:01 PM

I'm of the the thinking that the limit on contract length and % variance just limits the back loaded contracts in the spirit of parity and not cheating the cap. You could call it limiting the players rights, or limiting the competition, or restricting the owners, but its also keeping parity. The players will still get their money and 50/50 either way. Most of the owners probably don't even care about this, this is probably more of a Bettman thing and supported by a minority of owners. In fact, I think when the players sit down and think this over carefully, it probably works to their benefit (especially the veterans). No reason you couldn't get back to back 5 year contracts, with the second one worth more than the first. The poorest team in the league just resigned Doan for more, despite his age. In fact, they signed him for more because of his age and experience.

Extending the UFA to 8 years and limiting arbitration might be an erosion of player rights. A well managed team would be able to retain their players most of the time, as long as the player is treated right. I'll predict league movement on these items. I'm not sure what to think on the 2 year ELC. 2 year ELC with 5 year contract limit and 8 year UFA ensures the owner gets first dibs on that third contract. So enter the Shea Weber scenario for the offer sheet in year 8. This could still be viewed as a win for the players, unless you're the player who wants to go play for your home town.

Edit.
I'm mostly for the players not losing their rights. I'm just saying that the owners will shoot themselves in the foot again, so maybe the players shouldn't be so worried.

Edited by gizmo2337, 13 November 2012 - 03:04 PM.

  • 0

#2588 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:03 PM

Problem is that half the owners want to spend more (aka they sign players to these outlandishly large contracts) and half the owners can't afford to do so. So they are trying to find a way for the league to be competitive. Which is in both the owners and players best interests. No owner wants to get outspent every year and lose fans cause they can't compete. No player wants to get stuck on a team that has no chance of ever winning. It's called structure.


There's already a structure in place to address that problem. It's called the cap system.

btw: it works. Can you imagine Phoenix being competitive in the old days? They made it to the conference finals!


So, by your own argument, doesn't that mean no new contractual limits are needed because the existing ones are working? And how did Phoenix afford anything? Say it with me -- team revenue sharing!

If the NHL truly cared about making the league more competitive, they would focus on revenue sharing to directly address the needs of their teams rather than claiming to be addressing those needs indirectly with contractual limits on players. Teams can only spend what they have, and if the money is spread more evenly among the teams they can spend more evenly. You know, competitive structure.

Team revenue sharing is used successfully in other pro leagues because it recognizes the fact that you seem to be ignoring: Some teams are never going to make money on their own. Ever. It doesn't matter if they have a freaking Dream Team. People who do not care will continue to not care regardless of the quality of the thing they don't care about. That's reality.

Surely you see the connection. Teams that have money to buy better talent got money because they have fans. Teams that do not have money to buy better talent don't have money because they don't have fans. Just limiting players will NOT fix that. In fact, it doesn't even address the problem. Taking away their rights to force more big name players into markets without fans and onto teams struggling just to make the bills won't make unprofitable teams profitable and will certainly NEVER make the league more competitive. Rather, the opposite. It will further dilute the talent pool, encourage players to abandon the NHL in favor of European leagues, and probably lower the league's overall revenue generation as teams without fans will remain fan-less regardless of the quality of players they are able to force to play for them while formerly successful teams find their fans becoming less and less interested in a league where every team is a near carbon copy of the others.

There is nothing about "league competitiveness" in forcing players to wait longer to become a UFA than the length of any contract they can sign later will be allowed to be. That does not protect anything other than the selfish interest of owners. But if they could actually bother to care what a fan thinks, I'm sure the NHL would thank you for your gullibility.

Seriously, you should contact me about my land offer!
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2589 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:12 PM

Hypothetical scenario. Suppose the Weber offer sheet is 50M over 5 years. Do you still match the offer sheet, or do you take the 4 first rounders? If you are Philly, is it worth it to give up those four firsts for a five year contract? Either way, there would be another bidding war after the 5 years is up, and that bidding war would probably be larger than 50M the second time around.
  • 0

#2590 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:17 PM

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


:lol:



I hear the Sea of Tranquility is nice this time of year.


You're hired to make the brochure! :lol:
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2591 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,102 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:19 PM

I have wondered about this myself, and have seen this question asked many times here in the past.

Legal Look: Do Players Lose Contract Year On A Lost Season?

We know that NHL players don't get paid their salaries during a lockout. From the NHL's standpoint, being in a position to deprive players of income represents pretty meaningful leverage during CBA negotiations.

What represents even more leverage? Players never getting that money back - or that year.

If a full season is lost to a lockout, a player loses that entire year on his contract even though no hockey is ever played. That means that a lost year does not somehow carry over to the following year. The year is gone; the money is gone.

The reason goes back to how a player contract is structured (or as it's called, a Standard Player's Contract or its short form, SPC). When a player signs a contract, he agrees that each contract year is counted as a "League Year". Under the CBA, a "League Year" is defined as July 1 of one year to June 30 of the next year.

So NHL players don't sign for a defined number of NHL seasons; they sign for a defined number of years that may or may not include NHL hockey.

Put another way, a player is employed for a year and not a season.


Full Article
  • 0
Posted Image

#2592 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:39 PM

If they don't start playing by January the league is going to lose a lot of fans. ..
  • 0

m97o1w.jpg

Credit to Parise11


#2593 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:56 PM

Edit.
I'm mostly for the players not losing their rights. I'm just saying that the owners will shoot themselves in the foot again, so maybe the players shouldn't be so worried.


Sadly, that's the truth. The problem is next time we'll all be back here, with owners swearing they need even more restrictions on players because of the actions of owners and unbridled GMs, only to find out yet again that they don't work when the very people who made the rules find ways to circumvent them but aren't held accountable for that.

It's up to the people breaking the system to fix it instead of demanding others get less to fix it for them.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2594 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,164 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:58 PM

You're hired to make the brochure! :lol:

So long as I'm paid in Canadian dollars rather than Moon bucks, I'm good with that.

Hypothetical scenario. Suppose the Weber offer sheet is 50M over 5 years. Do you still match the offer sheet, or do you take the 4 first rounders? If you are Philly, is it worth it to give up those four firsts for a five year contract? Either way, there would be another bidding war after the 5 years is up, and that bidding war would probably be larger than 50M the second time around.

I still think Nashville has to match that. That particular situation was about what happens to Nashville and its fan base of they take the picks and try for a rebuild. Nashville would have lost a significant amount of revenue over the first few years (regardless of how long the offer sheet was for) and only had low first round picks to show for it. A fair number of their fans wouldn't have waited around to see what players those picks turned into.

For Philly, that $2+M in cap space difference may or may not have been an important point over the next few years, but I don't think they'd be worried about the draft picks since they'd have to feel reasonably confident they could re-sign Weber once the 5 years was up.

That becomes a different story if Weber's deal is closer to the structure of his current one, just with years dropped off the end, as he'd be closer to $60-65M for a 5 year deal (it's actually $68M the first 5 years, $80M in the first 6). Would Philly want a $12M cap hit past the next few seasons? I doubt it, but again the picks aren't really a factor for the chance to have Shea Weber assuming his cap hit is affordable.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2595 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:02 PM

I guess you guys might want to actually ADMIT the league has all the power and the NHLPA has none whatsoever.

The owners are royally pissed off at Fehr and the players have made a huge mistake by hiring him. The owners do not have to do anything and its now showing.

Perhaps next time the NHLPA will grow their own attorney. They will get a guy who is a hockey player, even if it was only at the AHL or even east coast league level. Get a guy who has been a hockey guy his whole life then became a professional attorney Then have that guy study and practice labor law and sports law for decades.

Then , after he is ready, then have that guy walk a mile in the owners shoes, earn their respect, and THEN represent the union in negotiations.

The NHLPA will have far smoother sailing having a home grown legal talent WITHIN the NHL ranks rather than bring some outsider as their hired gun.
  • 1
Posted Image

#2596 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:05 PM

Sadly, that's the truth. The problem is next time we'll all be back here, with owners swearing they need even more restrictions on players because of the actions of owners and unbridled GMs, only to find out yet again that they don't work when the very people who made the rules find ways to circumvent them but aren't held accountable for that.

It's up to the people breaking the system to fix it instead of demanding others get less to fix it for them.


Listen to Crosby complaining.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409415

The players have no power. You are seeing the complaining right now before your eyes. Fehr, Crosby and others WHINING that the owners are corn holing them.

They are complaining because they have no power to stop it. They should have thought about that before they hired an outsider to come in and try to BULLY the owners.

Idiots.
  • 1
Posted Image

#2597 RWMc1

RWMc1

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,164 posts
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:25 PM

I guess you guys might want to actually ADMIT the league has all the power and the NHLPA has none whatsoever.

The owners are royally pissed off at Fehr and the players have made a huge mistake by hiring him. The owners do not have to do anything and its now showing.

Perhaps next time the NHLPA will grow their own attorney. They will get a guy who is a hockey player, even if it was only at the AHL or even east coast league level. Get a guy who has been a hockey guy his whole life then became a professional attorney Then have that guy study and practice labor law and sports law for decades.

Then , after he is ready, then have that guy walk a mile in the owners shoes, earn their respect, and THEN represent the union in negotiations.

The NHLPA will have far smoother sailing having a home grown legal talent WITHIN the NHL ranks rather than bring some outsider as their hired gun.

If the players have no power, then why didn't the League stick to their initial offer of 57% for the owners and 43% for the players. You come across as a League stooge doing spin control with hyperbole.

In the end it is still a partnership and I think that the owners understand that. The owners are more interested in maximizing profits and less with petty anger as you suggest. I still believe that the League intentionally stalled negotiations to save certain markets from losing money. They didn't start negotiating in earnest until after the Winter Classic was canceled.
  • 2

Vancouver Canucks Stanley Cup Champions 2014/15 So let it be written, So let it be done!

 

My Cup Runneth. Go get it and bring it here!

 

Cupquester "Who are those horrible little men?"
 


#2598 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,047 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:33 PM

If the players have no power, then why didn't the League stick to their initial offer of 57% for the owners and 43% for the players. You come across as a League stooge doing spin control with hyperbole.

In the end it is still a partnership and I think that the owners understand that. The owners are more interested in maximizing profits and less with petty anger as you suggest. I still believe that the League intentionally stalled negotiations to save certain markets from losing money. They didn't start negotiating in earnest until after the Winter Classic was canceled.


That's also my thoughts on it.

Don't think that the league doesn't wanna protect markets like Nashville; who wouldn't have been able to afford Weber's massive signing bonus this year.

Or markets like Phoenix, who will not be able to afford a full season of Doan's contract, let alone making payroll.

And you can add a couple dozen other teams that will wanna avoid losing millions if they can.

This lockout is about protecting fragile teams going under more than anything.

Edited by DeNiro, 13 November 2012 - 05:34 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2599 Brambojoe

Brambojoe

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 07

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:34 PM

The whining (sign of weakness) always preceeds the caving. Back in early fall Daly was whining about how the NHLPA hadn't made any real counter offers. The next thing that happens is "make whole" is born. Admittedly it was pretty ugly at first but has since matured into something the players can stomach.

Now the players are whining. So I expect the next thing will be for the players to wave a white flag on the contracting and damage due to lockout issues.

Hooray for hockey in Dec.

Edited by Brambojoe, 13 November 2012 - 07:42 PM.

  • 0

#2600 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:45 PM

If the players have no power, then why didn't the League stick to their initial offer of 57% for the owners and 43% for the players. You come across as a League stooge doing spin control with hyperbole.

In the end it is still a partnership and I think that the owners understand that. The owners are more interested in maximizing profits and less with petty anger as you suggest. I still believe that the League intentionally stalled negotiations to save certain markets from losing money. They didn't start negotiating in earnest until after the Winter Classic was canceled.


League stooge? Hyperbole? You are reduced to personal insults now? In other words the NHLPA argument has failed.

It it is utterly irrelevant what you think . Just as it doesnt matter what I think or what my personal feelings are. Just so you know, I would prefer they get on with a contract so we can get on with the season.

It is irrelevant to you or what the terms are. Neither of us will ever have anything to do with how they split it up . Just as we will never hoist the Stanley Cup nor ever play in the NHL or have anything to do with the Canucks other than just be fans.

However, I have come to discuss the facts from a dispassionate point of view of the real world. And those facts are exactly as I have laid them out. I am not sugar coating this for anyone.

League has all power, NHLPA has none.

Again, it is irrelevant what you WANT TO BELIEVE. Its what the actual reality is. Anyone who believes the NHLPA has any power at this point must be deluded i. Its so obvious they dont.

I have been telling you all along . I am sorry you dont want to believe it. However, I'm not going to sink to throwing personal insults at you. If you are still holding a vigil for the NHLPA to somehow 'win' , I feel sorry for you.
  • 1
Posted Image

#2601 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:48 PM

The whining (sign of weakness) always preceeds the caving. Back in early fall Daly was whining about how the NHLPA hadn't made any real counter offers. The next thing that happens is "make whole" is born. Admittedly it was pretty ugly at first but has since matured into something the players can stomach.

Now the players are whining. So I expect the next thing will be for the players to wave a white flag on the contracting and damage due to lockout issues.

Hooray for hockey in Dec.


Its about time. In fact, they should FIRE Fehr and that would go a LONG way to getting the owners to ease up and give back some concessions.

There was NO WAY the Owners were going to let some outsider walk in and try to BULLY them at their own game.

The sooner the NHLPA fires Fehr the sooner the owners can back down.
  • 0
Posted Image

#2602 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:07 PM

Drybone, let's pretend you aren't just talking out of your posterior for a minute and give you a chance to prove your frequent assertions. You keep saying Fehr is the problem and without him players would get more and owners would be demanding less. Where is a single piece of proof? They didn't have him last time and lost in almost every regard. What proof do you have that he is in any way damaging anything? And what proof do you have that Fehr is more damaging than Bettman, who is often openly antagonistic? What proof do you have to support your silly assertion that owners wouldn't be demanding so much if only it weren't for their overriding dislike of Fehr?

And your hockey player turned lawyer turned owner lover ("to walk in their shoes") turned union rep idea is laughable. Remind me again, how many owners were players first and understand their perspective? How many owners were GMs first and truly understand how to run a team? How many owners actually run the team like a regular business (which is their only area of expertise but completely irrelevant if they aren't using those skills)? And what prior hockey experience did Bettman have? If you think players should have a homegrown union rep, shouldn't the NHL itself be led by someone with a lifelong relationship with the sport?

I look forward to seeing if you have any actual facts to back up the crap you keep saying instead of just relying on more of your own opinions as your only "proof."

Edited by poetica, 13 November 2012 - 08:24 PM.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2603 Brambojoe

Brambojoe

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 07

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:17 PM

Its about time. In fact, they should FIRE Fehr and that would go a LONG way to getting the owners to ease up and give back some concessions.

There was NO WAY the Owners were going to let some outsider walk in and try to BULLY them at their own game.

The sooner the NHLPA fires Fehr the sooner the owners can back down.


Um definately do not agree with you there but I suppose if you are pro-owner Fehr is as easy to hate as Bettman (for the pro-players). I don't think firing Fehr would in any way speed up the process any more than firing Bettman would.

For the record I'm pro-players in the sense that I think the owners have governance issues (rich and poor teams trying to compete under the concept of parity in the same league) that they are trying address by increasing their overall revenue share so that the poor teams can limp along for a few more years. Eventually the player share can go to 0 and you still have a problem so I understand the players reluctance to accept salary rollbacks or other changes without the root problem being addressed.
  • 0

#2604 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,477 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:21 PM

This thread delivers.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#2605 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,102 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:33 PM

Remind me again, how many owners were players first and understand their perspective?


One
  • 0
Posted Image

#2606 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,479 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:26 PM

One


Yep. And 1/30th is far less than all. (And that's counting only 1 owner per team, not all owners in all owner groups.)

Edited by poetica, 13 November 2012 - 09:27 PM.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2607 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

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

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:19 PM

Its about time. In fact, they should FIRE Fehr and that would go a LONG way to getting the owners to ease up and give back some concessions.

There was NO WAY the Owners were going to let some outsider walk in and try to BULLY them at their own game.

The sooner the NHLPA fires Fehr the sooner the owners can back down.


Hiring Fehr was BY FAR the best decision the PA ever made. He is pretty clearly the best sports labour lawyer in North America. Not only that, he is responsible for instituting the most peaceful and profitable labour regime in North American sports. If the owners would pull their heads out of their asses and listen to him, they might actually learn something.
  • 0

#2608 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:48 PM

I guess you guys might want to actually ADMIT the league has all the power and the NHLPA has none whatsoever.

The owners are royally pissed off at Fehr and the players have made a huge mistake by hiring him. The owners do not have to do anything and its now showing.

Perhaps next time the NHLPA will grow their own attorney. They will get a guy who is a hockey player, even if it was only at the AHL or even east coast league level. Get a guy who has been a hockey guy his whole life then became a professional attorney Then have that guy study and practice labor law and sports law for decades.

Then , after he is ready, then have that guy walk a mile in the owners shoes, earn their respect, and THEN represent the union in negotiations.

The NHLPA will have far smoother sailing having a home grown legal talent WITHIN the NHL ranks rather than bring some outsider as their hired gun.


I'm not sure why they should Fire Fehr, he is doing a great job.

The NHL's frustration has grow to level's I know I have never seen, the Players are frustrated too but not quite as much as the Bettman and the Owners.

Bettman tried to push Fehr and the PA around early on in the negotiations and look what happened? Fehr and the PA stood strong and the NHL was forced to make the move's that brought the process closer together.

The NHL doesn't have nearly as much of the power as you think, they know that this lockout cannot go the entire season, it will do so much damage to the state of the game that it would be terrible, Fehr is smart and realizes it too, so he is just holding his chips, not giving in he's holding strong and he is going to push the NHL as long and as hard as possible until the final moments to get the best deal possible for the Players.

They should actually re-hire him, he's doing a great job for the PA, just not for the game or the fans, but really that's not his responsabillity that's the NHL's, so as I said. He's doing a bang-up job.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 14 November 2012 - 05:33 PM.

  • 1

zackass.png


#2609 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,796 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:55 PM

Global news interviewed larionov who's in town and he let slip that he spoke with both union and Colin Campbell and felt the 2 sides would be wrapping up a CBA soon... Gretzky also chimed in again and felt by next month well have a CBA signed.... Are we close or not close???

Edit: Phil Esposito also thinks hockey returns in December... So does hockeyyinsiderr (ugh)

Edited by Here's Johnny, 14 November 2012 - 12:39 AM.

  • 0

#2610 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,610 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:28 AM

If they don't start playing by January the league is going to lose a lot of fans. ..


I hate when people say this, when it's not true. Fans will come back once the lockout ends.

Players are obviously frustrated and it's coming out now. All they have to do is tell Fehr to stop playing games, and he probably has a deadline. I say the deal gets done before Dec 1 and the season will start then, because right now it's just a waiting game. Players should have kept their mouth shut, everything they say is a weakness to themselves. Now that Crosby has opened his mouth and is continuing to talk, players will listen and he can force Fehr to make something happen. Despite the players not knowing much, they know that the only way they can move with their lives is to play hockey and veteran guys who talk will have an influence. I'm glad Reechi said what he did.
  • 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.