Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Henrik Sedin and Kevin Bieksa Speak Out Against Owners: "Mind-Boggling."


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
57 replies to this topic

#31 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,730 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:48 AM

Another whiney player refusing to accept the players role in this stoppage. Both sides are culpable here but the players keep spouting off on how it's all ownerships fault.


No matter what you want to say the simple fact is that this is a lock out and not a strike.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#32 tmak01

tmak01

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 06

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:20 PM

Henrik and Kevin are stupid they have no idea what they are talking about just like people who have had jobs all life long. The playerd are getting 50 % of the revenue, which means 100% of that 50% revenue and they have no risk( and if you tell me what about their health...well then dont play hockey...their is risk involved in every job for ex. truck drivers, cab drivers, construction workers). At the ame time owners get 50% of the revenue, out of that they have to pay every expense including player salaries.

#33 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,942 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:49 PM

...just like people who have had jobs all life long.


Yeah. Damn those clueless idiots.

(whut?)
Posted Image

#34 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:00 PM

Henrik and Kevin are stupid they have no idea what they are talking about just like people who have had jobs all life long. The playerd are getting 50 % of the revenue, which means 100% of that 50% revenue and they have no risk( and if you tell me what about their health...well then dont play hockey...their is risk involved in every job for ex. truck drivers, cab drivers, construction workers). At the ame time owners get 50% of the revenue, out of that they have to pay every expense including player salaries.



We have some escapees from the Flames forum running around I see.

tumblr_mkgkbqrm4w1ry9vkao1_500.gif

The NHL DoPeS should enter politics. They lie with a straight face better than any politician in the world.


#35 qwijibo

qwijibo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,312 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:26 PM

No matter what you want to say the simple fact is that this is a lock out and not a strike.


I'm aware it's a lock-out. But you don't think the players actions over the past year have contributed to the league imposing the lock-out?

The league approached the NHLPAlast year about preliminary negotiations but were declined.

The players hired Donald Fehr as their rep. A hardliner who has used strikes as a tool before (having MLB players strike right before the playoffs in 94, causeing the world series to be cancelled). He admited a hockey strike was a tool he would be willing to employ shortly after he was hired by the NHLPA. The players knew exactly what they were getting when they hired him and they knew it would likely end up as a strike or a lock-out

The league presented their first official proposal on July 13th. It was terrible, but it should have gotten the ball rolling. Instead the players union waited an entire month before responding. Instead of countering the leagues proposal they simply came back with their own "alternative view". Not only were the players unwilling to negotiate on the leagues proposal, but they decided to dictate to the owners on how they should run their business. Obviously the NHL was going to reject it.

Nothing really happened again until mid October when they league presented their 50/50 split proposal. The NHLPA responded with 3 ideas. None of which GUARANTEED a 50/50 split. and in fact had the players being paid more in each of the next 2 seasons.

After being presented with essentially the same "ideas" on multiple occasions the league requested the the NHLPA present them with an actual full proposal. The players FINALLY presented a proposal that spoke essentially the same language as the league in the middle of November but were miles apart in what they wanted compare to what the league wanted

After things went south federal mediators were called in but quickly determeined BOTH sides were to entrenched in their positions for them to be any help.

Now despite all this you're telling me that because this is a lock-out rather than a strike the players are the victims here and bare no resposibilty for where things sit? Come on man. Both parties are to blame here.

#36 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:33 PM

Hmm, more than half of those 13 losing teams were either part of expansion or relocation under Bettman's watch. Yet, he has the nerve to try and say that the players should take a big cut in the amount of money they make? BS.

Imagine how well they would be doing right now if they took out those 7 losing expansion teams. Bottom line is, this league expanded faster than it should have expecting that times would be great forever. And now the owners and the NHL are trying to blame anyone but themselves for their poor business decisions.

Are you for a second suggesting that the players are not 100% supporting expansion. Each new team means about 50 new jobs (NHL and AHL). If your soultion is contraction than you will have the owners AND the players against you. The players can't have it both ways: expansion and highest salaries

#37 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,473 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:04 PM

No matter what you want to say the simple fact is that this is a lock out and not a strike.


The only difference between a strike and a lockout is which side is making the demands the other side is unwilling to move on. No matter how you look at it it's simply a contract dispute.

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#38 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:51 AM

The major part of any unions power is its ability to stop production and hold the labor workforce hostage. Its called a 'strike' .

When the owners come along and PUT the players on 'strike' ........as in lock them out..........then the union has very llttle power .
The owners have locked the players out because they had no CBA.

This is no new surprise. They have been told for YEARS that they need to hammer out a new CBA . They had a full year and a half to negotiate a new CBA when they were still playing.

The owners were only doing what they told the union they were going to do if they couldnt reach a deal on the CBA. There is no point to ..........playing under the old CBA ...............when you have just been doing this for a year and a half with no progress.

There had to be consequences sooner or later. Obviously we know which side was getting the better deal. The players werent complaining in the slightest. They werent complaining back in 2004 either when there was no salary cap and the league was bleeding to death.

The owners want a 50/50 split and to get rid of ridiculous contracts. It is not unreasonable. The players do NOT deserve 57% . They do NOT deserve 13 year contracts , or 10 year contracts. Or even 8 year contracts. Not guaranteed contracts anyway.

At this point, if you took the owners offer of the 50/50 , 300mil make whole, 5/7 year contract and 10 year CBA to the union there is no doubt in my mind 75% of them approve it.

If I was the owners, I call Fehr out on this and demand they let their union membership vote on the latest owner offer.
Posted Image

#39 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,534 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:00 PM

Hard to argue that decisions like staying in Phoenix or NYI signing Dipietro and Yashin are not the real root of many owners problems. Viable markets are one key.

But the players share these risks. There are card carrying NHLPA members who are not going to vote themselves out of a job by supporting retraction (as much as Ovetchkin would grin like a mad pig). Nashville will never generate the revenue of Toronto, and still needs a viable way of attracting a competitive team.

I don't even see the 50% being so much the issue. I do believe, however, that revenue splits should include all revenues. Why should corporate sponsorships (or govt. subsidies :blink: ) not be discussed when they also tilt the competitive balance. A corporate sponsorship not only brings in dollars, it helps sell and promote the team brand in its community. Teams need to sell themselves better, of which a winning team helps. And the league should not be able to hide those dollars, as it is a ticket to free profits for the big markets without generating salaries in small markets.

The key is going to end up being in reduced contracting rights. It is the only way Nashville can compete with Toronto.

St Louis's problems simply mystify me?

#40 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 932 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:46 AM

Henrik and Kevin are stupid they have no idea what they are talking about just like people who have had jobs all life long. The playerd are getting 50 % of the revenue, which means 100% of that 50% revenue and they have no risk( and if you tell me what about their health...well then dont play hockey...their is risk involved in every job for ex. truck drivers, cab drivers, construction workers). At the ame time owners get 50% of the revenue, out of that they have to pay every expense including player salaries.


Yeah, call them stupid, but don't think about what you are saying. Are they paying the players twice? Why would they pay players salaries out of the other 50 percent?

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#41 Nino

Nino

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,013 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:26 AM

Yeah, call them stupid, but don't think about what you are saying. Are they paying the players twice? Why would they pay players salaries out of the other 50 percent?


Rethink what you just said. If they are paying out 50% of the profits to the players then they are paying them twice. Just like calling a cat a cat, it is what it is.

Think hard.......... Ok let me break it down, they pay there expenses including the players (first payment), then with what's left over they pay them again on a percentage (50%). The % that people speak of is not part of there ridiculous 10mil contract but an extra or second payment if you will.

Now you ask why they would, we all know the answer to that, they have to. If they don't they would have to dissolve the league (not a bad idea) and start over. The union is to strong and feels although the players risk no financial loss they should get 57% of all profits. I feel and I'm sure most of the players themselves (thats why they will not let them vote) feel 50% is fine. As most of the players never see the 5+ year contracts I'm sure they are fine with that as well.

What is going on is a small number of greedy players (Crosby) is holding the rest of the players hijack and basically saying we are a union and everyone's opinion counts... But not untill I get what I want.

#42 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 932 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:40 AM

Rethink what you just said. If they are paying out 50% of the profits to the players then they are paying them twice. Just like calling a cat a cat, it is what it is.

Think hard.......... Ok let me break it down, they pay there expenses including the players (first payment), then with what's left over they pay them again on a percentage (50%). The % that people speak of is not part of there ridiculous 10mil contract but an extra or second payment if you will.

Now you ask why they would, we all know the answer to that, they have to. If they don't they would have to dissolve the league (not a bad idea) and start over. The union is to strong and feels although the players risk no financial loss they should get 57% of all profits. I feel and I'm sure most of the players themselves (thats why they will not let them vote) feel 50% is fine. As most of the players never see the 5+ year contracts I'm sure they are fine with that as well.

What is going on is a small number of greedy players (Crosby) is holding the rest of the players hijack and basically saying we are a union and everyone's opinion counts... But not untill I get what I want.


Ok..either I'm seriously misunderstanding the previous CBA or you are. I though the players contracts are limited to 57 of CBA. That money isn't going to the players union, that is the MAX players can be paid. They aren't being paid another salary on top that 57 percent, but their salary is restricted by the 57 percent.

If you're referring to salary circumvention, then that's the owner's fault they structure contracts like that. They are attempting to cheat the system.

Finally, the players are already being paid 50 percent in the previous CBA...the owners are just not including some of the revenue into HRR.

Contracting rights should never be limited, and if they are (for the interest of competitiveness should be limited conservatively. I love to see this go to the courts, and see how they view the monopoly of the NHL (yes it's a monopoly) trying to use their monopolistic leverage to restrict contract rights of all potential employees in an industry.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#43 Nino

Nino

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,013 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 08 December 2012 - 12:46 PM

Ok..either I'm seriously misunderstanding the previous CBA or you are. I though the players contracts are limited to 57 of CBA. That money isn't going to the players union, that is the MAX players can be paid. They aren't being paid another salary on top that 57 percent, but their salary is restricted by the 57 percent.

If you're referring to salary circumvention, then that's the owner's fault they structure contracts like that. They are attempting to cheat the system.

Finally, the players are already being paid 50 percent in the previous CBA...the owners are just not including some of the revenue into HRR.

Contracting rights should never be limited, and if they are (for the interest of competitiveness should be limited conservatively. I love to see this go to the courts, and see how they view the monopoly of the NHL (yes it's a monopoly) trying to use their monopolistic leverage to restrict contract rights of all potential employees in an industry.


I'm going to have to read up on this, you have me wondering if my understanding is right. My understanding was that this was about profit sharing within the cba.

Some would also say the unions are monopolies as they control the league and restrict owners from paying what they want for the players services.

#44 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 932 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:50 PM

I'm going to have to read up on this, you have me wondering if my understanding is right. My understanding was that this was about profit sharing within the cba.

Some would also say the unions are monopolies as they control the league and restrict owners from paying what they want for the players services.


I don't think it's a form of profit sharing. The salary of players are capped at 57 percent...they don't get a part of the hockey earning as a right. Their salary just can't exceed 57 percent. Hockey owners don't have some sort of profit sharing plan in place with the NHLPA. It's just an upper limit on total and individual salaries.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#45 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:37 PM

Ok..either I'm seriously misunderstanding the previous CBA or you are. I though the players contracts are limited to 57 of CBA. That money isn't going to the players union, that is the MAX players can be paid. They aren't being paid another salary on top that 57 percent, but their salary is restricted by the 57 percent.

If you're referring to salary circumvention, then that's the owner's fault they structure contracts like that. They are attempting to cheat the system.

Finally, the players are already being paid 50 percent in the previous CBA...the owners are just not including some of the revenue into HRR.

Contracting rights should never be limited, and if they are (for the interest of competitiveness should be limited conservatively. I love to see this go to the courts, and see how they view the monopoly of the NHL (yes it's a monopoly) trying to use their monopolistic leverage to restrict contract rights of all potential employees in an industry.


You are half right about the first point. The owners via GMs , are fighting each other, and the players agent . Its something called supply and demand . Players agent trying to get as much as he can for his client, the GM trying to sign the player for as low as he can for his team. Capping this at 5 year deals eliminates that opportunity . Owners love it. Players do not. You tell me which side is exploiting it . The side that wants it gone, or the side that wants it to stay here.



You are dead wrong about the second part . First and foremost, the NHL is not a monopoly. They would have to control the AHL, ECHL , the KHL and all the other leagues across the globe. They do not. They do not control professional hockey. They are simply one pro league with 30 franchises. A single entity, like Apple or Microsoft or Wall Mart has the right to control the supply of labor for its branches. You will lose hands down.

As for the length of contracts, labor law will never outlaw bargaining rights. They will never outlaw the player demand a TRILLION dollars a year.

But the league and NHLPA can agree that a trillion bucks is impossible and agree through a CBA that the limit be 10% of the salary cap. Is that illegal? Not if both sides agree beforehand to control league costs.

So if controlling the length of the contract accomplishes that, then yes they can agree to it in a CBA.
Posted Image

#46 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:45 PM

I don't think it's a form of profit sharing. The salary of players are capped at 57 percent...they don't get a part of the hockey earning as a right. Their salary just can't exceed 57 percent. Hockey owners don't have some sort of profit sharing plan in place with the NHLPA. It's just an upper limit on total and individual salaries.


You are right . They dont. Thats because the union owns none of the NHL. Since they no longer have a CBA, they have no rights at all, and in fact, do not even work for the league at the moment.

What they are doing is going through a contract dispute. Called 'collective bargaining'. It is NOT a labor dispute. There is no CBA so there is no labor.
Posted Image

#47 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 932 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:07 PM

You are dead wrong about the second part . First and foremost, the NHL is not a monopoly. They would have to control the AHL, ECHL , the KHL and all the other leagues across the globe. They do not. They do not control professional hockey. They are simply one pro league with 30 franchises. A single entity, like Apple or Microsoft or Wall Mart has the right to control the supply of labor for its branches. You will lose hands down.

As for the length of contracts, labor law will never outlaw bargaining rights. They will never outlaw the player demand a TRILLION dollars a year.

But the league and NHLPA can agree that a trillion bucks is impossible and agree through a CBA that the limit be 10% of the salary cap. Is that illegal? Not if both sides agree beforehand to control league costs.

So if controlling the length of the contract accomplishes that, then yes they can agree to it in a CBA.


They are a monopoly in the sense that they control a significant part of their AHL affiliate. It is the only professional league in North America (other than the AHL) for an adult hockey player.

Given the circumstances and the amount of leverage the NHL has on all players in north america, it's is likely the courts will view it as a monopoly.

"“Canadian law is very different than U.S. law,” Ross said. “There is a specific, albeit never litigated, provision of the Canadian Competition Act—their equivalent of our Sherman Act—about unreasonably restricting opportunities for players. There is no case law, and a good argument—disclaimer, I made it in a law review article in 2004—that the American-style labor exemption does not apply. And there is a ‘nuclear’ threat that the Canadian Competition Bureau could file a credible complaint that the NHL is an illegal monopoly and break the league in two.”

http://aol.sportingn...ike-brown-v-nfl

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#48 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 08 December 2012 - 08:31 PM

They are a monopoly in the sense that they control a significant part of their AHL affiliate. It is the only professional league in North America (other than the AHL) for an adult hockey player.

Given the circumstances and the amount of leverage the NHL has on all players in north america, it's is likely the courts will view it as a monopoly.



You cant just come here, make up what you WANT TO BELIEVE ..............and call it fact.

The NHL does not control pro hockey. Its an international sport and players have all kinds of leagues to play in professionally. Not only in north america but in europe as well.

You cant just make up some SPIN .............well you know the NHL has influence over the AHL blah blah........and the ECHL as well as well as international hockey league I suppose. Its all a giant CONSPIRACY .

If a player does not like the NHL rules they are free to play in the AHL or ECHL or IHL or head on over to Europe. The idea that the NHL is a monopoly is absurd.

I have no idea what judge would accept this argument. Show me the CASE LAW . Show me the Sherman anti trust law where this would be considered a monopoly even though all these competing leagues exist across the globe.

Then show me where a company cannot control its labor costs or allocate its labor or govern itself .

The players can go play wherever they want. Most will choose the most money and thus , they will choose the NHL. When you are given a free choice of a dozen hockey leagues to go to, and you CHOOSE one, you have to live by their rules.

If you can show me the case law where a sports league has several options all over the globe for players to play in, but ONE in particular is called a monopoly somehow, I would like to read it. Show me the case law.
Posted Image

#49 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:37 PM

I'm not going to get into the many other points made here, only invite people to read the CBA thread. There are not only a lot of educated opinions and informative debate there, there are also many great articles from various news sources. Before calling out players for their opinions, fans should make sure theirs is informed enough to judge.

But, I just couldn't help but note a few things:

First and most importantly: The players' share IS their salaries AND also includes player benefits (as defined by the CBA, including for example, their pension). It is their share that is used to determine the cap and the escrow system ensures owners never pay players more than what turns out to be the players' share of actual HRR for that year. Last season, players got exactly 57% of HRR and not a penny more.

HRR is defined as some revenue minus some costs (both of which were defined in the last CBA). That means players do NOT get a cut of all revenue and owners do NOT pay for all costs out of their share since some are taken off the top before the rest is divided. In fact, we don't know how much owners actually get since they don't have to tell anyone. (It's a myth that teams are audited or have open books. They simply have to file HRR reporting forms akin to simple tax forms but with a lower threshold for proof.) Teams and the NHL as a whole only release HRR information. Even still, if you include the deductions for costs owners are allowed to take off the top, their share was as much as 5-6% higher under the last CBA.

....
Some would also say the unions are monopolies as they control the league and restrict owners from paying what they want for the players services.


Well, some would be entirely wrong. The CBA, tailored by owners for that very purpose, restricts what owners can pay. That was the entire purpose of the salary cap the owners demanded. It's also the purpose of the entry level contract, the 20% of upper cap limit for individual contracts, and many of the new concessions owners are demanding from players in the new CBA.
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#50 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:00 PM

I have read the CBA thread. Its a lesson in ignorance of rival views .

The ignorance is not in the ability nor willingness to veraciously bone up on issues 12 levels over our paygrade to comprehend let alone practice. Thats an issue most are unwilling to honesty face. They prefer to think they can converse in issues akin to seasoned trial lawyers vested in collective bargaining and labor law.

No, my beef is not with those who simply think they are smarter than guys 20 years their senior in terms of schooling, training, and actual experience at this high a level. We can all dream to think our opinions on this matter.

Its the far more real concept of the fact most can only see through the prism of what they want to believe in the first place. Therefore all the information they obtain will be seen only to further that end, and any information that disqualifies what they want to believe is thrown out like it doesnt exist.

Therefore you get two separate arguments built on foundations that only serve their own personal opinions regarding the matter. It makes it impossible to have a reasonable debate with those who have already reached a pre determined out come and utterly no interest in revisiting that decision.

Its simply a waste of time, unless spinning around in circles using non disprovable rhetoric is your idea of fun.
Posted Image

#51 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 932 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:07 PM

You cant just come here, make up what you WANT TO BELIEVE ..............and call it fact.

The NHL does not control pro hockey. Its an international sport and players have all kinds of leagues to play in professionally. Not only in north america but in europe as well.

You cant just make up some SPIN .............well you know the NHL has influence over the AHL blah blah........and the ECHL as well as well as international hockey league I suppose. Its all a giant CONSPIRACY .

If a player does not like the NHL rules they are free to play in the AHL or ECHL or IHL or head on over to Europe. The idea that the NHL is a monopoly is absurd.

I have no idea what judge would accept this argument. Show me the CASE LAW . Show me the Sherman anti trust law where this would be considered a monopoly even though all these competing leagues exist across the globe.

Then show me where a company cannot control its labor costs or allocate its labor or govern itself .

The players can go play wherever they want. Most will choose the most money and thus , they will choose the NHL. When you are given a free choice of a dozen hockey leagues to go to, and you CHOOSE one, you have to live by their rules.

If you can show me the case law where a sports league has several options all over the globe for players to play in, but ONE in particular is called a monopoly somehow, I would like to read it. Show me the case law.


Lol I didn't make it up. Didn't you read the quote in the text. That's not by me. Here it is again:

"Canadian law is very different than U.S. law,” Ross said. “There is a specific, albeit never litigated, provision of the Canadian Competition Act—their equivalent of our Sherman Act—about unreasonably restricting opportunities for players. There is no case law, and a good argument—disclaimer, I made it in a law review article in 2004—that the American-style labor exemption does not apply. And there is a ‘nuclear’ threat that the Canadian Competition Bureau could file a credible complaint that the NHL is an illegal monopoly and break the league in two"


Since it's never been litigated, there is no case law against or for it, but there is legislation. It's not Sherman Act, but the Canadian Competitions Act.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#52 ngunn91

ngunn91

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 10

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:42 AM

The reason the teams on the Forbes Valuation are probably worth that much is because alot of them own their arenas and/or get revenues from. Take away the arenas and a lot of the valuations would be lower! The fact that many of those owners own arenas that make a lot of money on concerts probably inflates the value of their team. There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of owners own their teams as hobby and a way to spend their cash. Many would be comfortable just breaking even probably or losing money some years. However, for many of the teams on this list they have lost money year after year. At the end of the day that puts these owners in a mindset of 1) I want to sell my team (Process made harder by the league strict terms on ownership) or 2) I want to relocate my team (Process made harder by the league's reluctance to relocate) or 3) Argue for better terms in the CBA for owners. At the end of the day you have the top 15 teams probably losing money from this lockout, while the bottom 15 teams are probably benefiting from the lockout in the short-term because they don't have to pay out salaries. Although the benefit to those teams over the medium to long term is debateable if the season gets cancelled harming the league's image moreso.

#53 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:39 PM

I have read the CBA thread. Its a lesson in ignorance of rival views .


Well, I'm not sure I'd call posting the same baseless rants over and over and refusing to answer any questions or provide any proof for your many assertions, while blithely ignoring all evidence provided to the contrary as "reading" but ok. But I'm glad to see you acknowledge your contribution in the "ignorance of rival views." B)

Anyway, I still encourage everyone to read up on the issues, in the CBA thread at this forum, through any of the various news sources covering the negotiations, by Googling "NHL CBA", whatever. The more informed fans are the better.
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#54 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,206 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:02 PM

During a totally unjustified lockout, it's going to be tough for anyone to see what the owners actually want.


seems to me that neither Hank or KB should be complaining about what owners have given them........players should learn a little about gratitude. Sure, many of the owners are greedy crooks, but they're the ones pumping hundreds of millions, billions of dollars into the players pockets.......if the players want equaloity, then they should buy and run a team.

#55 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:27 PM

seems to me that neither Hank or KB should be complaining about what owners have given them........players should learn a little about gratitude. Sure, many of the owners are greedy crooks, but they're the ones pumping hundreds of millions, billions of dollars into the players pockets.......if the players want equaloity, then they should buy and run a team.


Not exactly. Owners buy into a company, but the money the company uses to pay players comes from fans, some of which is generated directly by using the players' faces and names. And don't forget the taxpayer handouts owners get in luxury tax breaks and funds to build arenas for their private profit.

So, maybe players do need to show a little gratitude to owners, but owners should show a little gratitude to the players too. And BOTH should show some serious gratitude to the fans!
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#56 Peter Gunn

Peter Gunn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,243 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:44 AM

So to summarize I believe the following are compromises the owners and players have to make:

Owners:

1) Compromise on Revenue Sharing
2) Compromise on Contracting Issues
3) Compromise on Make Whole

Players:

1) Compromise on the Revenue Percentage Share they get
2) Compromise the length of the CBA (Usually the PA comes out with proposals that are shorter in length rather than longer)
3) Compromise on Salary Cap Floor (Not Sure if owners have asked about lowering it but I would think some of the poorer teams want this)


Can I add 1 more on the owner's side:

4) Do a better job promoting and selling the game in the US.

#57 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,484 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:59 AM

Tsn originally put it up as Daniel im pretty sure.

Anyways, all of this is so talked out its insane. Regardless of how this lock out turns out, there wont be another one for a very , very long time.

This one was just bone dead stupid. They should have made the 50% deal last year while they were still playing.


Actually if the players give in now like you think they should, then there definetly will be another one once this CBA is up.

If they continue to let Fehr do his job like he has been doing so well thus-far (Under the guidence of the players of course) Maybe he can bump the trend of work stoppages in this sport like he already has in Baseball.

Isn't that just it though? The owners OWN the teams. It's the OWNER'S money, and it's the OWNERS that essentially keep people employed.

Obviously they want their best interests looked after. You would have to be absolutely crazy to not want that if you've invested several hundred million dollars into your business.

I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. If YOU were an owner, you'd be doing the exact same thing.


Actually it is our money, and we pay to see the players.

What this means is: No players = none of our money for the owner's.

So again it all goes back to the players and the fans, not the owners.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 10 December 2012 - 01:00 AM.

zackass.png


#58 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 10 December 2012 - 01:10 PM

The players solution to this problem (for the most part) is to drastically increase revenue sharing among the teams. While I can see the need to share some of the revenue that the wealthy teams generate due to the existance of the money losing teams (i.e. ticket sales from those games) I don't think the owners should have to share more than that. The reason being is because sharing more money than that is utilizing resources inefficiently IMO.


The players proposed increased team revenue sharing because it works. While the NHL has repeatedly used other pro leagues as examples of what they want from players, they have resisted the idea that they needed to have a similar revenue sharing program despite its success in those other leagues they seem to want to emulate.

And there is a good argument for it. Poor teams are needed for rich teams to play. The more teams, the more games. The more games, the more revenue. Also, the reason the NHL has fought so hard to keep teams in bad hockey markets like Phoenix is that they can use the population in those cities to bolster their case for big TV deals. Specifically, the NHL will tell NBC, "We have teams in markets with X million viewers, so we're a good bet and should get paid a lot." In reality, it doesn't matter how many people are in the Phoenix TV market because almost none of them care about hockey, but on paper it makes the NHL look more popular than it is. And, since all teams share the revenue from TV deals as well as profiting individually by being able to charge more for arena advertising that will be seen on TV, the richer teams are directly profiting from the addition of the poorer teams. As such, it only makes sense for them to help keep those teams afloat.

3) Compromise on Salary Cap Floor (Not Sure if owners have asked about lowering it but I would think some of the poorer teams want this)


That's a good point. The question is, why aren't the owners asking for a lowered floor rather than just a lowered cap in general? Unless I missed an offer, a lowered cap (via the lowered players' share) is all the owners have asked for. In reality, it's the players who suggested a change to the cap system from the current $6M +/- mid to 20% +/- mid in order to allow for a significantly lowered floor to help struggling teams.
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(




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.