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

#2911 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:33 PM

So how much money would Schneider earn playing hockey in Switzerland?
  • 0

#2912 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:46 PM

Hows the NHLPA doing these days? Arent you glad they hired Fehr so that two years later they are locked out and RANTING childish insults at their employers ?

Aint life grand? The union must be so PLEASED at how well Fehr has handled Bettman and the owners. See how Fehr put them in their place !!!!!!
  • 0
Posted Image

#2913 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,566 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:13 PM

lol
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#2914 Dragonfruits

Dragonfruits

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,602 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 08

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:25 PM

on prime time with Bob McCown they were discussing how the nhl is using the lockout as a negotiating tactic which is starting to become a growing trend with Bettman and the Owners i for one love the fact the players seem like they aren't backing down and would love to see them stand up to this tactic and defeat it once and for all the league cannot run like this everytime the owners want more money or more restrictions on players they just shut the league down

Edited by captaincanuck88, 19 November 2012 - 08:25 PM.

  • 0

#2915 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:04 PM

You're right, he was wrong is the "it only takes 8 to approve" statement. But my point is that the spirit of what he said is actually true. If there are only 7 or 8 owners vetoing everything except the deal they want, it's their approval that's needed to get anything passed.

Besides, if we called everyone who made a mistake a "moron" we'd all have hurt feelings. Remember your post just yesterday about the union assuming a 5% yearly growth as if that were so outrageous when that's actually the NHL's number?


Here is my original post you are talking about.

Nonsense, Fehr is still insisting NHL cover the losses due to lockout and he's bargaining off a 5% increase in revenues and this higher revenue to be guaranteed. He's not bargaining off what the actual revenue will be but what the revenue will be with a 5% increase.
He's looking for 1.9+ Billion next year guaranteed.



Are you sure you aren't a NHL player? lol. This stuff isn't hard to understand. Why the heck would the owners want to guarantee 5% increase???

Every business has future forecasts. The NHL is not the only one who attempts to project future revenues.

The problem is not assuming a 5% growth. The problem is the union is attempting to negotiate a deal off that projected 5% increase not the actual revenue in the coming years.

The union wants 5% increase to be guaranteed, not the owners. The owners want a deal off the actual HRR, they don't want to guarantee anything.

Owners would be idiots if they were offering the players a deal with guaranteed 5% increase.

Here's my proof. This is from today.

Posted ImageLarry Brooks @NYP_Brooksie
Belief here is that if PA next offer is based on % rather than hard $ guarantee and hypothetical %, negotiating will start in earnest

Expand

Edited by WHL rocks, 19 November 2012 - 09:12 PM.

  • 1

#2916 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,214 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:26 PM

NHL asks NHLPA for formal proposal

The NHL and NHLPA resumed discussions Monday night, following which the league requested a formal proposal from the union.

The bargaining session -- the first formal face-to-face meeting between the two sides in over a week -- lasted less than two hours and covered key topics such as player contracting rights and core economics.

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said the league wants to see a proposal from the NHLPA on these topics, among others, and feels they haven't seen that yet in the negotiation process. He also indicated that the league would like to see the union back off from the $1.883 billion (plus 1.75 percent interest in Year 1) that the NHLPA proposed during the last round of negotiations.


We'd like to know where (the NHLPA is) on all the issues and we asked them to think about putting together a comprehensive proposal for us to consider.-- NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly


"It's our position (that) we've made a couple comprehensive proposals in a row. We'd like to know where they are on all the issues and we asked them to think about putting together a comprehensive proposal for us to consider," Daly said.

NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr declined to address the details of the core economics discussion. Fehr said he'd go back to the NHLPA offices, consult with his membership on the evening's meeting, and confer with the league Tuesday morning.

Multiple sources confirmed that the two sides might not meet again until Wednesday. It is believed the union wants to take time to work on putting together a new proposal.
Fehr said the union addressed player contracting rights -- a contentious point in negotiations as both sides have dug in on the issue -- but to no avail.

"We had hoped to engage them in a discussion about the players contracting issues that are so important to the players," Fehr said. "At least tonight, they were unwilling to do that."

The league, however, views both the core economics -- such as the division of revenue -- and player contracting issues as linked. Daly said the league pushed the union on their stance on the economics and did not receive any clarity.

"We've never heard a full proposal from them. We've heard their proposal on economics -- they're still suggesting that they're moving in our direction on economics," Daly said. "Until we know exactly where they stand on economics ... we think it's all tied together. We'd like to hear it all together."

Daly affirmed the league's interest in seeing the NHLPA make an offer that is linked to revenue growth, as opposed to a guaranteed player amount. The NHLPA's last offer proposed $1.883 billion (equivalent to the amount they took in last year) with 1.75 percent interest in Year 1, although it is believed that the league would like to see the division of revenue accounted for on a pure percentage basis.

"If their proposal continues to be a guaranteed player amount, sitting here on Nov. 19, that's not a proposal that would ... ever be acceptable to us," Daly said. "If that happens to be where we are, we will be a long way apart."

Although no formal proposal was submitted, Fehr said the union did "flesh out" a component of their previous offer -- a provision to deal with the back-diving contracts the league is staunchly committed to eliminate.

Daly said the league "understood the concept when he raised it two weeks ago, and I think we understood it again tonight."

Several new faces joined the negotiations following a stalemate that lasted over a week. Eighteen players in total attended the meeting from the union's side, including veterans such as Vincent Lecavalier, Martin St. Louis and Brad Richards. Meanwhile, Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke joined owners Jeremy Jacobs, Ted Leonsis and Murray Edwards on the ownership side.

The meeting comes following a tense week in which frustration seemed to spill over. Several players have been outspoken in wake of the recent impasse.

Florida's Kris Versteeg called both Daly and NHL commissioner Gary Bettman "cancers" while Detroit's Ian White called Bettman an "idiot."

Asked if such vitriol had a harmful effect on the process, Daly said neither he or Bettman "take those personally."


  • 0

#2917 Kamero89

Kamero89

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:26 PM

ugh, If Bettman was in charge of what is going on in the middle east right now, WW III would be well under way.
  • 0

#2918 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,608 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:33 PM

The problem is not assuming a 5% growth. The problem is the union is attempting to negotiate a deal off that projected 5% increase not the actual revenue in the coming years.

The union wants 5% increase to be guaranteed, not the owners. The owners want a deal off the actual HRR, they don't want to guarantee anything.


WHL, where are you getting your information? I couldn't find a single source that said the union is demanding a guaranteed 5% increase. Do you have a link?

The PA's last offer asked for a guaranteed $1.883 billion (what they got last year) plus 1.75% (not 5%!) yearly increase. (Source: http://www.cbc.ca/m/...-daly-fehr.html)

Furthermore, the NHL is STILL projecting growth for every year except a shortened 2012/13 season. In fact, it's only the shortened season the NHL has a problem with the projected 5% growth for. (The PA has said it wanted to get a standard deal in place and then work backwards to address the shortened season once it's known how long it will actually be. The NHL wants to negotiate using a shortened first year, even though the actual length is still unknown, to force the players to eat their lost revenue resulting from the owners' lockout.)

To show the PA how much revenue might be lost due to the lockout, the NHL created 4 separate models based on various projected revenue loses for shortened 2012/13 season.

The NHL used four different assumptions in terms of lost hockey related revenue (HRR) this year, the most conservative being 10% off of last year’s $3.303 billion -- but also 12.5% down, 15% down and 17.5% down. Given where the NHL is, and with more cancelations coming up early next week, the NHL actually feels a more realistic view at this point is 25% down.

In any event, the NHL assumed that in Year 2, it would recover to 2011-12 HRR levels plus 2.5%. In Years 3, 4 and 5, the NHL assumed 5% growth year-over-year.

(Source: http://communities.s...FullThread=true)

So, even after assuming significant drops in revenue for the shortened season the NHL is still projecting 5% yearly revenue growth. So, that's still their number.


Posted ImageLarry Brooks @NYP_Brooksie
Belief here is that if PA next offer is based on % rather than hard $ guarantee and hypothetical %, negotiating will start in earnest


So, your point is that the PA is showing its willingness to negotiate?

I just wonder when the owners will start showing theirs.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2919 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:57 PM

WHL, where are you getting your information? I couldn't find a single source that said the union is demanding a guaranteed 5% increase. Do you have a link?

The PA's last offer asked for a guaranteed $1.883 billion (what they got last year) plus 1.75% (not 5%!) yearly increase. (Source: http://www.cbc.ca/m/...-daly-fehr.html)

Furthermore, the NHL is STILL projecting growth for every year except a shortened 2012/13 season. In fact, it's only the shortened season the NHL has a problem with the projected 5% growth for. (The PA has said it wanted to get a standard deal in place and then work backwards to address the shortened season once it's known how long it will actually be. The NHL wants to negotiate using a shortened first year, even though the actual length is still unknown, to force the players to eat their lost revenue resulting from the owners' lockout.)

To show the PA how much revenue might be lost due to the lockout, the NHL created 4 separate models based on various projected revenue loses for shortened 2012/13 season.


(Source: http://communities.s...FullThread=true)

So, even after assuming significant drops in revenue for the shortened season the NHL is still projecting 5% yearly revenue growth. So, that's still their number.




So, your point is that the PA is showing its willingness to negotiate?

I just wonder when the owners will start showing theirs.


I believe you are repeatedly and purposefully misrepresenting what I have said. Only other thing I could think of is lack of intelligence and simple reading comprehension ability. Either is not good because I don't want to have a discussion with either of those ppl.

First you completely misrepresented what I had said a couple of days ago and made a clever attempt to indirectly call me a moron. I quoted my original post which you misrepresented and now you come back with this. LOL

The 5% is the projected revenue growth. I did not say the PA wants that 5% for it self. I said the PA wants to negotiate off that 5% revenue increase. They want the NHL to guarantee the revenues will be what they were last year + 5%, the players want 1.9 Billion of that guaranteed.

I don't know how much more simply I can say it.

So, your point is that the PA is showing its willingness to negotiate?


Again you have a problem reading and understanding a simple sentence.


Posted ImageWHL rocks, on 19 November 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Posted ImageLarry Brooks @NYP_Brooksie
Belief here is that if PA next offer is based on % rather than hard $ guarantee and hypothetical %, negotiating will start in earnes


How does it say the PA willing to negotiate?

Again this is my OP which you attempted to mock by misrepresenting what I had said.

Nonsense, Fehr is still insisting NHL cover the losses due to lockout and he's bargaining off a 5% increase in revenues and this higher revenue to be guaranteed. He's not bargaining off what the actual revenue will be but what the revenue will be with a 5% increase.
He's looking for 1.9+ Billion next year guaranteed.


read it. you may see "bargaining off a 5% increase in revenue and this high revenue to be guaranteed" Also you may see $1.9 billion .

Edited by WHL rocks, 19 November 2012 - 11:00 PM.

  • 0

#2920 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:30 PM

Excellent link you provided poetica. According to this the PA share would be between 64.4% and 70.3% next year and it never gets to 50-50.




Charts obtained by Star Tribune show how far apart NHL believes it is from NHLPA



  • Blog Post by: Michael Russo
  • November 16, 2012 - 6:59 PM
-
Over the past few days, I have talked to a handful of players who have indicated how unfair it is that the NHL Players’ Association has essentially agreed to a 50/50 split, yet now the NHL was moving the goalposts and won’t negotiate the contractual changes the league is seeking.

I made some calls to see if the former was true because I had been given a different impression – that the NHLPA doesn't get to 50/50 over the course of its proposal, especially when one considers the potential loss of revenue this year due to the lockout after last year’s record $3.303 billion.

I have obtained a series of charts that the NHL presented the NHLPA based off the union’s most recent economic proposal (see below). If you look at the NHL's numbers, you can see why the league says the NHL and NHLPA aren't as close on a core economic model as Executive Director Donald Fehr indicated last Friday night during a news conference.

Last Friday before talks between the NHL and NHLPA broke off, the NHL prepared and provided the union a series of charts to demonstrate what it felt the existing economic proposal from the NHLPA would mean based on the league’s current situation and the damage already done to the business due to the lockout.

The NHL used four different assumptions in terms of lost hockey related revenue (HRR) this year, the most conservative being 10% off of last year’s $3.303 billion -- but also 12.5% down, 15% down and 17.5% down. Given where the NHL is, and with more cancelations coming up early next week, the NHL actually feels a more realistic view at this point is 25% down.

In any event, the NHL assumed that in Year 2, it would recover to 2011-12 HRR levels plus 2.5%. In Years 3, 4 and 5, the NHL assumed 5% growth year-over-year.

Using those four assumptions, and what the NHL says is the union’s “guaranteed” players share dollars of $1.916 billion in Year 1 and growing by 1.75% in every year, the NHL demonstrated that the applicable players’ shares over the five years of the union’s proposal ranges anywhere from a low of 64.4% to a high of 70.3% in Year 1, and falls gradually to 52.4% by the last year of the deal the players are proposing.

So regardless of loss assumptions, the NHLPA never gets to 50/50 over the course of its proposal, according to the NHL charts.
-
“The issue of how you deal with damage from the lockout is a tough one, particularly since it is impossible to know the extent of the damage," NHLPA Special Counsel Steve Fehr said in an email. "What we have suggested to the owners several times is that we put aside that issue for the moment and concentrate upon the overall structure of the deal. If we do that, based upon the last proposals from each side, we think the parties are much closer than they have ever been on the economics. If we could bridge that gap, then we could come back quickly to the lockout damage issue. For whatever reason, the owners have declined to do that, and seem to be intent on portraying the parties as further apart than we think we are.”
-
The NHLPA has previously indicated the players shouldn’t be responsible for the damage of starting this lockout. That may be fair.

Regardless though, what all these numbers prove at the very least is that the longer this lockout goes, the harder the math equation will be to solve. Damage to league revenue becomes more and more severe with each passing day. That complicates absolutely everything, which is why an end to the lockout just doesn't seem in sight.

Under the NHL’s most recent proposal, the league wishes to go immediately from a 57/43 split in favor of the players to 50/50. Had there been a normal season and year-to-year growth of 5%, 50/50 would have been $149 million less last year’s $1.883 billion player share in 2012-13 and another $62 million less than $1.883 billion in 2013-14. The league says it would “make whole” that money by reimbursing the players in two deferred, lump-sum payments, plus 2% interest. Had there been a normal season and year-to-year growth of 5%, there would be no shortfall in 2014-15 and essentially the league says the two sides would be caught up.

The NHLPA has made clear that this math does not honor in full every contract mutually agreed to with owners and thus is unacceptable.

Here are the charts:

NHLPA PLAYERS' SHARE PROPOSAL OF NOV. 9 UNDER DIFFERENT REVENUE GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS ILLUSTRATIONS

TABLE 1
GROWTH FACTOR -10.0% 13.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 2011-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 HRR 3,303B 2,973 3,386 3,555 3,733 3,919 APPLICABLE PCT. 57.0% 64.4% 57.6% 55.8% 54.1% 52.4% PLAYERS' SHARE 1,883 1,916 1,949 1,983 2,018 2,053 NHL at 50% 1,486 1,693 1,777 1,866 1,960 Make-Whole 149M 62 ---- ---- ---- 1,635 1,755 1,777 1,866 1,960 Difference 280 194 206 152 94 Total
926M Players' Share VOY % Inc. 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%
TABLE 2
GROWTH FACTOR -12.5% 17.1% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 2011-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 HRR 3,303B 2,890 3,386 3,555 3,733 3,919 APPLICABLE PCT. 57.0% 66.3% 57.6% 55.8% 54.1% 52.4% PLAYERS' SHARE 1,883 1,916 1,949 1,983 2,018 2,053 NHL at 50% 1,445 1,693 1,777 1,866 1,960 Make-Whole 149M 62 ---- ---- ---- 1,594 1,755 1,777 1,866 1,960 Difference 322 194 206 152 94 Total
967M Players' Share VOY % Inc. 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%
TABLE 3
GROWTH FACTOR -15.0% 20.6% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 2011-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 HRR 3,303B 2,808 3,386 3,555 3,733 3,919 APPLICABLE PCT. 57.0% 68.2% 57.6% 55.8% 54.1% 52.4% PLAYERS' SHARE 1,883 1,916 1,949 1,983 2,018 2,053 NHL at 50% 1,404B 1,693 1,777 1,866 1,960 Make-Whole 149M 62 ---- ---- ---- 1,553 1,755 1,777 1,866 1,960 Difference 363M 194 206 152 94 Total
1,009B Players' Share VOY % Inc. 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%
TABLE 4
GROWTH FACTOR -17.5% 24.2% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 2011-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 HRR 3,303B 2,725 3,386 3,555 3,733 3,919 APPLICABLE PCT. 57.0% 70.3% 57.6% 55.8% 54.1% 52.4% PLAYERS' SHARE 1,883 1,916 1,949 1,983 2,018 2,053 NHL at 50% 1,362 1,693 1,777 1,866 1,960 Make-Whole 149M 62 ---- ---- ---- 1,511 1,755 1,777 1,866 1,960 Difference 404 194 206 152 94 Total
1,050B Players' Share VOY % Inc. 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%

-
Where do we stand now? Not firm ground.
-
After Donald Fehr reportedly told NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman he didn't know how to proceed from here, Bettman suggested taking a two-week break from negotiations.

In an email to the Star Tribune last night, Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said: "I find it incredible that the Union is suggesting that we are somehow "close" to a deal. They have utterly refused to negotiate for months. They have made essentially one proposal -- five times. They continue to request a "guaranteed" Players Share as part of the next agreement and we repeatedly tell them maybe they should get a reality check. And in the mean time, maybe they can make their position clear to us on 50-50, on the make-whole and on Player Contracting issues."

In a statement, NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr said, "Of course everyone on the players' side wants to reach an agreement. The players have offered the owners concessions worth about a billion dollars. What exactly have the owners offered the players? We believe that it is more likely that we will make progress if we meet than if we don't. So we are ready to meet. If indeed they do not want to meet, it will be at least the third time in the last three months that they have shut down the dialogue, saying they will not meet unless the players meet their preconditions. What does that tell you about their interest in resolving this?"

Daly and Steve Fehr did talk today. No meetings are planned.

Talks broke off Sunday after a 90-minute meeting in New York. It followed four days of meetings last week that ended poorly Friday during a short meeting and heated exchange between a few players and owners.
-
Games have been canceled until Nov. 30, but more games will be scrapped next week. Players missed their third paycheck Thursday.
  • 0

#2921 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:32 PM

Daly affirmed the league's interest in seeing the NHLPA make an offer that is linked to revenue growth, as opposed to a guaranteed player amount. The NHLPA's last offer proposed $1.883 billion (equivalent to the amount they took in last year) with 1.75 percent interest in Year 1, although it is believed that the league would like to see the division of revenue accounted for on a pure percentage basis.

"If their proposal continues to be a guaranteed player amount, sitting here on Nov. 19, that's not a proposal that would ... ever be acceptable to us," Daly said. "If that happens to be where we are, we will be a long way apart."


where do I start? The PA made several offers linked to growth to make up the pay cut difference. (willing pay-cut) The PA couldn't agree to it because of the draconian contracting changes from the NHL which are mostly unnecessary. The damage done is from Bettman and Jacobs, because the rest of the owners can't stand up and say anything. What a mess
  • 0

#2922 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,870 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:48 PM

Wanted: Investors to restart the WHA.

I'm looking to revive the Vancouver Blazers, give me 11 other rich folks and a nice multi-billion dollar line of credit I'll get a league started.

Blue Pucks are back baby!

:P
  • 1
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#2923 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:54 PM

In an email to the Star Tribune last night, Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said: "I find it incredible that the Union is suggesting that we are somehow "close" to a deal.

-um, it should be close, you just need to quit hugging Bettman

They have utterly refused to negotiate for months.

-I see repeated invitations to the bargaining table from the union side

They have made essentially one proposal -- five times.

-posturing, but mostly just find one way or another to honour your signed contracts

They continue to request a "guaranteed" Players Share as part of the next agreement and we repeatedly tell them maybe they should get a reality check.

-*both* parties signed the contract. I'm sure they will cringe at this one, but who locked out who?

And in the mean time, maybe they can make their position clear to us on 50-50

-well, they agreed to it, that's a pretty big number in dollars

, on the make-whole

-just pay out what you signed for

and on Player Contracting issues.

-the players are taking a pay cut, how long do you want this to go on for?


  • 0

#2924 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,214 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:18 AM

I still only see 5% mentioned in the league's projections, and even then only at year 3.

Regardless, I find this passage from the article gets to the heart of the matter directly:

“The issue of how you deal with damage from the lockout is a tough one, particularly since it is impossible to know the extent of the damage," NHLPA Special Counsel Steve Fehr said in an email. "What we have suggested to the owners several times is that we put aside that issue for the moment and concentrate upon the overall structure of the deal. If we do that, based upon the last proposals from each side, we think the parties are much closer than they have ever been on the economics. If we could bridge that gap, then we could come back quickly to the lockout damage issue. For whatever reason, the owners have declined to do that, and seem to be intent on portraying the parties as further apart than we think we are.”
-
The NHLPA has previously indicated the players shouldn’t be responsible for the damage of starting this lockout. That may be fair.

Regardless though, what all these numbers prove at the very least is that the longer this lockout goes, the harder the math equation will be to solve. Damage to league revenue becomes more and more severe with each passing day. That complicates absolutely everything, which is why an end to the lockout just doesn't seem in sight.


Seems like an ouroboros situation to me. I don't see any point in attempting to figure out how to assess lockout damages until you solve the lockout itself. Get everything else in place, then negotiate this season.
  • 1

#2925 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,903 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:29 AM

Looks like PA will put forward another proposal by Wednesday at the latest. Apparently the concern is once again on economic concepts.

Source: a combined paraphrase of a number of hockey journalist twitter feeds :).
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2926 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:47 AM

@TEAM1040: Kris Versteeg tells @tsn1050radio in Toronto that Bettman and Daly are "cancers' that have been "looting this game for far too long".


Versteeg should gain a little more intelligents during this lockout in order not to look like an complete uneducated fool. Maybe if someone in his family gets cancer he'll understand the proper use of the word. Instead of just throwing it around like it is nothing. Go and visit a local hospital where people are fighting literally for their lives then maybe he'll understand that a 7% reduction isn't all that bad after all. What a piece of sh-t this guy is.

For a guy making 3.6M and averging only 40 points a year for his career are things really that bad for Kris? No one said Versteeg had to play in the NHL, if he is unhappy with the way things are being run, he has plently of options to go and play else where around the world. Another option is to go get an education and start appling for jobs like 98% of us do.

Edited by canuckelhead70, 20 November 2012 - 06:04 AM.

  • 0

#2927 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:39 AM

Who is representing the fans in this lockout - obvious...

With the financial crisis it would go a long way with fans if they lowered their ticket prices. Good pr move upon resumption of play next oct...

Or... Are they too greedy? Yes!
  • 0

#2928 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 72,008 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:00 AM

@ChrisBottaNHL
Player text on NHL meeting: "More wasted time. Our choice is either give up everything to the league or watch them cancel the season."
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#2929 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,297 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:07 AM

Hows the NHLPA doing these days? Arent you glad they hired Fehr so that two years later they are locked out and RANTING childish insults at their employers ?

Aint life grand? The union must be so PLEASED at how well Fehr has handled Bettman and the owners. See how Fehr put them in their place !!!!!!


What's the deal yo?

Are you a union boss, hockey fan, troll, owner, player, or just someone with too much time on their hands?

You make it sound like the whole world besides you is out to lunch and it's so obvious that they should have hired Mary Poppins to negotiate this thing instead of Fehr. Do you know him personally or have any grounds for making such inane conclusions. Do you have any reason to believe this debate between spoiled children would be any different if Fehr wasn't leading the NHLPA?

I also think the owners are in a better barganing position but what's got you running around in circles ranting like a lunitic about, frankly, a pretty straight forward boring topic?

Edited by Dogbyte, 20 November 2012 - 09:26 AM.

  • 1

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#2930 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:14 AM

Who should be in control of the league?

The players, who play the game, know how it runs, and are lucky to be playing (for the most part) and are emotional about their team and the spirit of competition.

The owners, who love the game, know how it runs, and are glad to have teams (for the most part) and are emotional about their team and the spirit of competition.

The NHL bureaucracy, who manage the game, know how it runs, and are detached (for the most part) and indifferent to the spirit of competition.

The problem is the middle. the NHL bureaucracy, the real business of the league not the teams, is out of joint. The door is off the hinges. Inmates running the asylum.
  • 0

#2931 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,126 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:21 AM

Versteeg should gain a little more intelligents during this lockout in order not to look like an complete uneducated fool.

 

...

Maybe if someone in his family gets cancer he'll understand the proper use of the word.  Instead of just throwing it around like it is nothing.  Go and visit a local hospital where people are fighting literally for their lives then maybe he'll understand that a 7% reduction isn't all that bad after all.  What a piece of sh-t this guy is.


The word "cancer" does not have to refer to the literal disease.


For a guy making 3.6M and averging only 40 points a year for his career are things really that bad for Kris?  No one said Versteeg had to play in the NHL, if he is unhappy with the way things are being run, he has plently of options to go and play else where around the world.  Another option is to go get an education and start appling for jobs like 98% of us do.


Stay in school, kid.
  • 2
Posted Image

#2932 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:43 AM

Yes, those profits were generated by AOC. However, the point you keep missing is that THEY GIVE PROFITS TO THE PANTHERS. That's not speculation, that's the known terms of the original lease agreement.


I am not missing it at all. I am simply not addressing it because I have no issue with it's truthfullness and it isn't hockey revenues.


You seem to not understand my issue. Hopefully bolding will make it clear - I don't like to see inaccuracies from journalists.
When a journalist states the Panthers made $117M over a certain period when in fact it was the sibling company that runs the stadium that made that profit I think that inaccuracy needs to be corrected.
When a journalist combines fictitious Forbes losses with sibling company profits to suggest team finances I am going to raise a red flag. I am especially concerned about this one because this journalist took the time to do year by year computations but no where does he point out he needs to deduct non-hockey operations from these figures - that is spin.


For someone who writes a blog about facts I thought you would appreciate me clearing up what is factual and what is not.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#2933 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,232 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:46 AM

"Almost all of the owners (/owning entities) of NHL teams have large stakes in other businesses. By uniting a large group of NHL fans to start a boycott of at least some of these businesses, right now, we may be able to influence the owners in some way. At the very least, we can let them know that their actions are affecting us in a negative way, so we have the ability and power to do the same to them.

Here is a list of NHL owners (from http://icehockey.wik...t_of_NHL_Owners), and other businesses that they have a large stake in. You may be surprised at some of the names - if not the sheer quantity:

Henry Samueli - Anaheim Ducks
Broadcom Corporation - Computer & Telecommunications Networking

Jeremy Jacobs - Boston Bruins
Chairman of Delaware North Companies (hospitality and food service company)

Terrence Pegula - Buffalo Sabres
Owns the AHL Rocester Americans.

N. Murray Edwards - Calgary Flames
Owns Canadian Natural Resources (oilsands development). Also owns Resorts of the Canadian Rockies, which owns Fernie Alpine Resort, Kimberley Alpine Resort, Nakiska, Stoneham Mountain Resort, and Mont-Sainte-Anne, Kicking Horse Resort.

Peter Karmanos - Carolina Hurricanes
Owns Compuware, large business software developer

Rocky Wirtz - Chicago Blackhawks
Rocky oversees Wirtz Corporation's commercial and residential real estate companies, wine distributor Wirtz Beverage Group, an insurance company and banks in Illinois and Florida. Wirtz is also the co-chairman of the Executive Committee of the United Center.

Stan Kroenke - Colorado Avalanche
Owns Kroenke Sports Enterprises, which in addition to the AVS, controls the Denver Nuggets (NBA), Colorado Rapids (MLS), Colorado Mammoth (NLL) and St. Louis Rams (NFL).

JMAC Inc. - Columbus Blue Jackets
n/a

Tom Gaglardi - Dallas Stars
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Sandman Hotels, Inns & Suites and Moxie's Restaurants, LP. Also part owner of Kamloops Blazers.

Mike Ilitch - Detroit Red Wings
Also owns Little Cesars Pizza and the Detroit Tigers.

Rexall Sports (of Katz Group) - Edmonton Oilers
Owns over 1800 pharmacies in Canada, under the names: Rexall, Herbie's for Drug and Food, Meditrust Pharmacy, Pharma Plus, Super Drug Mart, and Dell Pharmacies.

Cliff Viner (& Stu Siegel?) - Florida Panthers
Cliff Viner is a general partner with AVM, LP a fixed income broker/dealer, and III Associates, a fixed income derivatives money management firm. Last I heard, Stu Siegel sold his shares in the team.

Philip Anschutz & Edward Roski Jr. - Los Angeles Kings
Philip Anschutz owns or has stakes in MLS teams LA Galaxy, Chicago Fire, Houston Dynamo, San Jose Earthquakes, and the NY/NJ Metro Stars; Los Angeles Lakers; Staples Center and O2 Arena; and the Home Depot Center. Ed Roski is also a part owner of the Lakers, and owns the Silverton Casino Lodge in Las Vegas.

Craig Leipold - Minnesota Wild
Leipold's companies own the Grand Ol' Opry in Nashville, and the Houston Aeros AHL team. They also manage the Xcel Energy Center and the Saint Paul RiverCentre.

Molson Family - Montreal Canadiens
Molson is a big invester in the NHL (for many teams), besides owning a cornerstone franchise. Their beers include Canadian, Coors, Ice, Golden, Export, Dry, XXX, Stock Ale, Rickard's, Pilsner, Carling, Keystone, Bohemian, and Calgary Export. Owns partial stakes in the Brazilian brands A Marca Bavaria and Kaiser. In Canada, has the marketing and selling rights for Corona, Heineken, and Miller brands.

Predators Holdings LLC - Nashville Predators
Owns and operates Bridgestone arena.

Jeffrey Vanderbeek - New Jersey Devils
Owns the Prudential Center (but maybe not for long!)

Charles Wang - New York Islanders
Owner of CA Technologies (systems software developer) and the Bridgport Sound Tigers AHL team.

James Dolan - New York Rangers
Also President and CEO of Cablevision Systems Corporation (only operates in NYC - unrelated to Cablevision Canada).

Eugene Melnyk - Ottawa Senators
He is the founder, and former chairman and CEO of Biovail Corporation (Parmaceuticals), which merged with merged with Valeant Pharmaceuticals International in 2010. Its major products include Cesamet (nabilone), Efudex, Mestinon, Diastat, and Ribavirin.

Comcast-Spectator - Philadelphia Flyers
Comcast is a major Internet/Cable/Phone provider in the US.

NHL - Phoenix Coyotes
Hah!

Mario Lemieux & Ron Burkle - Pittsburgh Penguins
Ron Burkle has his fingers in a lot of pies. Some of the major ones are: 20.7% stake in Americold Realty Trust; major invester in Sean John clothing line; small stakes of Barnes & Noble and American Apparel. Significant stake in Relativity Media, which produced such films as Let Me In, Limitless, Machine Gun Preacher, Mirror Mirror, The Raven, and upcoming releases such as The House at the End of the Street, Movie 43, and Safe Haven.

Sports Capital Partners - St. Louis Blues
Owns Real Madrid! Also Real Salt Lake (MLS), Peoria Rivermen (AHL), Scottrade Center, Peabody Opera House, KALL700 Sports Radio, and Tupelo-Honey productions.

Sharks Entertainment Enterprises - San Jose Sharks
Owns the HP Pavillion and Worcester Sharks. Also a minority shareholder in the San Jose Earthquakes (MLS).

Jeff Vinik - Tampa Bay Lightning
Also owns the Tampa Bay Storm. Minority owner of the Boston Red Sox. Also on board of directors for Liverpool Football Club.

M.L.S.E - Toronto Maple Leafs
Also owns the Raptors, Marlies (AHL), Toronto FC (MLS), Air Canada Centre, Ricoh Coliseum, BMO Field, Mastercard Centre, and Real Sports.

Canucks Sports and Entertainment - Vancouver Canucks
Also owns Rogers Arena. But it is 100% owned by Aquilini Investment Group, which owns/operates: multi-storey residential developments in Vancouver including the King Edward Village, Richards Living tower, and Maynards Block; proponent of the proposed $2.6B Garibaldi at Squamish resort; half ownership of Halifax-based Pacrim Hospitality Services, which owns and manages 30 hotels across Canada, and all Pizza Hut locations in BC; creator and producer of Bassano Hard Soda.

Ted Leonsis - Washington Capitals
Also majority owner of majority owner of the Washington Wizards (NBA), Washington Mystics (WNBA) and the Verizon Center. Founder and Chairman of SnagFilms, which offers ad-supported documentaries. Vice chairman of Groupon and on the board of American Express.

True North Sports and Entertainment - Winnipeg Jets
Owns and operates the MTS Centre, and the St. John's Ice Caps (AHL).


Now, obviously every person will not be a direct consumer of these companies. However, I am going to make my own "boycott list". I encourage any of you to do the same.
So, if a lockout is declared on September 15th, I will begin a boycott of the following:

- All beers produced/distributed by Molson (no Heinekin or Corona)
- Rexall drugs (normally gets around $50/month from me)
- Moxies
- Little Cesars
- Pizza Hut (BC)
- Sandman Hotels
- All films produced by Relativity Media
- Premiership games with Liverpool or Real Madrid, merchandise for either team
- Will try to influence brother-in-law to boycott St. Louis Rams (he's a huge fan)
- Fernie Alpine Resort, Kimberley Alpine Resort, Nakiska, Stoneham Mountain Resort, and Kicking Horse Resort (I go to Kicking Horse every year)
- No events at Rogers Arena when I'm in Vancouver (I catch concerts here)
- Bassano Hard Soda (will tell everyone it's terrible)


Feel free to spread this by any means possible. I am going to start tweeting information/etc. using hashtag #fanlockout." from the thread BETTER KNOW A BOYCOTT by D-Money

I encourage people to copy/paste this in a Word file and print it out then post it on as many bulletin boards as possible. I also encourage people to post this on social media sites. Band-wagoners and fair-weather fans can have their apathy. Show that you care.
Edited by RWMc1, A minute ago.

So how are things working for ya? I'm sure many from your high school will sign up.
  • 0

#2934 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:19 AM

Sooooo....TIRED from playing Black Ops 2...wishing I was watching hockey SIGH~! So whats the latest? Players cave yet....? The NHLPA to submit a new Proposal on Wednesday....it will only be declined...they League will then submit their own and it will be declined...If this is the case maybe 2 weeks doesn't sound so bad...
  • 0

#2935 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:36 AM

The problem is the middle. the NHL bureaucracy, the real business of the league not the teams, is out of joint. The door is off the hinges. Inmates running the asylum.


True enough. It's a rich gentleman's old school club. Since you need 70% vote for change, change never happens, and we still have that old man's secret society. I remember Don Cherry commenting as such when Balsille tried to buy and move the Coyotes.

"I feel he went about it the wrong way," he said on Hockey Night in Canada's Coach's Corner on Thursday. "I really do. I know the National Hockey League. You do not bully them, and you can't bully them.
"There's only one thing I would say: I wouldn't tick off [NHL commissioner Gary] Bettman."


"Nobody wants to see a franchise in Hamilton more than me," Cherry said. "They'd be an automatic gold mine."


http://www.cbc.ca/ne...er.html?ref=rss
  • 0

#2936 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:25 AM

Versteeg should gain a little more intelligents during this lockout in order not to look like an complete uneducated fool. Maybe if someone in his family gets cancer he'll understand the proper use of the word. Instead of just throwing it around like it is nothing. Go and visit a local hospital where people are fighting literally for their lives then maybe he'll understand that a 7% reduction isn't all that bad after all. What a piece of sh-t this guy is.

For a guy making 3.6M and averging only 40 points a year for his career are things really that bad for Kris? No one said Versteeg had to play in the NHL, if he is unhappy with the way things are being run, he has plently of options to go and play else where around the world. Another option is to go get an education and start appling for jobs like 98% of us do.


Seriously?!? Try spellcheck or stay in school,LOL!

Edited by chisoxin12, 20 November 2012 - 11:26 AM.

  • 2

#2937 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,608 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:37 AM

I believe you are repeatedly and purposefully misrepresenting what I have said. Only other thing I could think of is lack of intelligence and simple reading comprehension ability. Either is not good because I don't want to have a discussion with either of those ppl.


How am I misrepresenting what you are saying? Your exact words, which you have repeated and restated multiple times is "bargaining off a 5% increase in revenues and this higher revenue to be guaranteed." I can find not a single reference to the PA demanding a guarantee for anything beyond the dollar amount of their share from last season plus 1.75% yearly. I even specifically asked you to provide a link, which you seem unable to do. Is that why your only retort is to claim I'm "purposefully misrepresenting" what you're saying?

First you completely misrepresented what I had said a couple of days ago and made a clever attempt to indirectly call me a moron. I quoted my original post which you misrepresented and now you come back with this. LOL


Actually, I never called you a "moron." You were the one repeatedly calling people names. I simply said that if we called everyone who made a mistake a "moron" we'd ALL have hurt feelings, including you. So, at worst I said you made a mistake. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

The 5% is the projected revenue growth. I did not say the PA wants that 5% for it self. I said the PA wants to negotiate off that 5% revenue increase. They want the NHL to guarantee the revenues will be what they were last year + 5%, the players want 1.9 Billion of that guaranteed.


"Projection" and "guarantee" are not synonyms.

As I've tried to explain to you, and have provided several sources as proof, the 5% projected growth is the NHL's number. Their proposals use that number, even now, for all years except the truncated 2012/13 season and the 2013/14 season, which by the NHL's own numbers will be back to last year's revenue plus 2.5%. After that, even in their latest proposals, the NHL is also negotiating off the 5% revenue growth premise. So, the union is using the exact same number as the NHL for projections (despite the fact that if growth returns to the level it was under the last CBA it will actually average well over 6% a year). That does not mean the union is demanding the NHL guarantee that level of revenue increase any more than the NHL using the exact same number means they are guaranteeing it.

Perhaps you are confusing the issue of how to deal with the loses from the lockout year and the yearly projected growth for normal years. The NHL does indeed want to the players to eat their loses from the owner's lockout and not get their full share based on last year's revenue for a partial season. The union had said they wanted to get a deal in place and then work backwards to figure out how to deal with a shortened season once it was more certain how long it would be or if an entire season had been lost, so we don't know for sure what their stance on demanding their full season's share will be yet. As I understand it, part of what the NHL asked for in the PA's next proposal is to include a revised financial projection using the shortened season.

We'll have to wait and see how that issue shakes out and how it will effect projections, but either way, it is still only the first 2 years (assuming a shortened 2012/13 season) that there is any dispute over regarding the projected 5% growth.

Again you have a problem reading and understanding a simple sentence.


A difference of opinion does not mean I don't understand your simple sentences.

Posted ImageLarry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Belief here is that if PA next offer is based on % rather than hard $ guarantee and hypothetical %, negotiating will start in earnes

How does it say the PA willing to negotiate?


The PA has already made multiple offers to the NHL offering multiple options for addressing the economic issues the NHL wanted addressed. The NHL barely picked them up before throwing them back in the union's face.

The NHL said they wanted to take a 2 week break from negotiating, only to agree to go back to the table just so they could demand the PA present a new proposal that address both economic issues (I assume including a truncated lockout season) and the owners' many contractual demands, likely just so they can see which contractual demands the union is already willing to give them. As per the NHL's request, the PA is working on making a new proposal that they are expected to present tomorrow or soon after. I call that a demonstrated willingness to negotiate. What do you call it?
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2938 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:40 AM

Seriously?!? Try spellcheck or stay in school,LOL!


I like how you edited your post lol. Did you find something that needed correcting? lol!Really, DID YOU!?!?!Bet you did....so with that...take your own advice sir...{Points and laffs}
  • 0

#2939 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:43 AM

Ooh....Now the word opinion has meaning lol...
  • 0

#2940 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,608 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:01 PM

I am not missing it at all. I am simply not addressing it because I have no issue with it's truthfullness and it isn't hockey revenues.


Why would it matter if it's specifically hockey related or not? Not all financial resources of a team are considered HRR. If a team is getting millions of dollars a year that they aren't declaring when they cry poverty and doing so allows them a better chance to get team sharing money and/or improve the NHL's CBA negotiation stance, how is that not a question of truthfulness?

And to be accurate, some of it IS hockey related as part of the money the AOC gives the Panthers is generated from hockey ticket sales, $3 of which goes to AOC as "parking." (They may also generate money from concessions sold during games.)

When a journalist states the Panthers made $117M over a certain period when in fact it was the sibling company that runs the stadium that made that profit I think that inaccuracy needs to be corrected.


I understand your point and absolutely agree that insurances need to be corrected as soon as they are pointed out. And that appears to be the case here, as the author edited their original story to include a note at the bottom pointing out that their numbers are for the sibling company days ago. See for yourself: http://blogs.edmonto...hat-lose-money/

But, the author does still have a valid point that a significant amount of money ($98 M over 10 years) of AOC profit was given directly to the Panthers as revenue and that should be included in their overall financial picture.

fictitious Forbes losses


Now I have to take issue. It seems a bit disingenuous to call into question someone else's facts and then make unproven assertions yourself. You certainly have a solid basis for calling into question the validity of Forbes' numbers, but without proof that they are made up or otherwise not based on good information, you have no factual basis to call them fictitious. For all we know, they could be entirely accurate, or at least based on accurate if partial information.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(




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.