Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Nikita Tryamkin | D


Drouin

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SilentSam said:

The league has locked players out for an entire season..  no problem then.

 

Any body oweing any body anything in a situation should be covered by a “Force Majeur” clause Mil.

 

This is just Economic politics and greed pushing a situation into the redline.

 

The NHL does not have a coverage for a pandemic.  Insurance companies need the premiums to be able to cover the claims/ the amounts owed in case of a damage.  The premiums would be exorbitant to cover a pandemic.  If one league is affected it affects all the others.  Insurance companies need to receive the necessary premiums to build up the reserves to cover the claims otherwise they'll go bankrupt. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mll said:

The NHL does not have a coverage for a pandemic.  Insurance companies need the premiums to be able to cover the claims/ the amounts owed in case of a damage.  The premiums would be exorbitant to cover a pandemic.  If one league is affected it affects all the others.  Insurance companies need to receive the necessary premiums to build up the reserves to cover the claims otherwise they'll go bankrupt. 

 

Wimbledon had insurance-$1.9 mill fee for the policy.

https://www.si.com/mlb/athletics/news/pandemic-insurance-bailed-out-wimbledon-could-it-have-done-the-same-for-mlb

 

'

One thing that the current negotiations between owners and players over the near-term future of Major League Baseball is that there is no shortage of lawyers and business MBAs in the room.

Those movers and shakers for MLB are supposed to look out for the best interests of the sport. Or at least you would have to think that’s why they’re there.

We bring this up because the current wrangling over money – money the owners say they are losing and the money the players believe they are entitled to – in an era of COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic could be much different with a more forward approach to disaster planning.

There will be no tennis at Wimbledon this year, but loss of revenue isn’t hurting the grandest of tennis’ Grand Slam events. That’s because Wimbledon’s movers and shakers had the foresight to spend around $1.9 million per year in pandemic insurance following the SARS outbreak in 2003.

According to a recent bulletin put out by GlobalData, the London-based platform that provides data analytics and analysis about the world's largest industries, Wimbledon shelled out about $32 million over the last 17 years. The payoff came this year with a check to Wimbledon for about $142 million.

The Wimbledon fortnight had revenues of $336 million in 2018, so it’s not on the level of MLB, which had revenues last year of about $10.7 billion. Then again, Wimbledon only lasts two weeks. And the pandemic insurance didn’t cover all of Wimbledon’s revenue losses for this year’s tournament.

But that $142 million blunted the blow, and MLB could use some of that kind of blunting right now.

MLB is talking about a 50-game 2020 season unless players agree to further pay cuts. The players are talking about a 114-game season, which would mean substantially larger paychecks.

If MLB had followed the Wimbledon lead, there could be much more flexibility about money, which would leave more time to focus on the real issue – keeping players and staff, stadium personnel and, eventually, fans healthy.

That’s important if, for no other reason, than the optics of making this all about money doesn’t play well with 20 percent of Americans having lost employment and seemingly that many in the streets day and night after the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.

The negotiations over health and safety should be front and center. They are in social distancing households across the country. And baseball should be on that bandwagon. A little foresight might have helped.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gurn said:

That is mentioned in the link that I posted.

The insurance companies have to be willing to cover the risk.  Wimbledon is manageable for an insurance company.  Losses in billions not necessarily.  They'll probably have to use a re-insurance company and who knows if they would even accept the risk.  

 

Edited by mll
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mll said:

The insurance companies have to be willing to cover the risk.  Wimbledon is manageable for an insurance company.  Losses in billions not necessarily.  They'll probably have to use a re-insurance and who knows if they would even accept the risk.  

approx. 7 month regular season for the NHL, say 4 weeks per month, so about 28 weeks. 14, two week blocks at $1.9 mill per block  and they would be looking at a premium of at least $266 million.

To quote Chris Rock  "That's a lot of money".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mll said:

The NHL does not have a coverage for a pandemic.  Insurance companies need the premiums to be able to cover the claims/ the amounts owed in case of a damage.  The premiums would be exorbitant to cover a pandemic.  If one league is affected it affects all the others.  Insurance companies need to receive the necessary premiums to build up the reserves to cover the claims otherwise they'll go bankrupt. 

 

as you and I are well aware,

a “force majuers” Does not always mean coverage..  but it can  cancel out where contracts need to be fulfilled and thus have accumulated more debt because of it .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

as you and I are well aware,

a “force majuers” Does not always mean coverage..  but it can  cancel out where contracts need to be fulfilled and thus have accumulated more debt because of it .

 

Are you Force Majure's agent? :lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2020 at 7:43 AM, stawns said:

what difference does being "sick" make?  They can still transmit the virus

I wanted to know for my own edification. The illness of the individual matters, because some may have contracted the virus and have developed antibodies to protect them. They would of course be isolated from others for precaution sake. Sounds like Vancouver is still in the running as a hub for now.

 

Edited by canuckledraggin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mll said:

 

Wimbledon is a 2 week competition in just one location.  It's not the same magnitude.  

Lol,.   I just pictured the Stanley Cup Final , 

10 guys on one team , and 8 on the other team.

Last man standing wins.

 

it will be like trying to play street hockey as a kid thru dinner time,.   “Mil !  .. your mums calling you for dinner ! “

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media definitely isn't making it sound like Vancouver is still in the running.  But the US just had their highest number of new COVID cases diagnosed in a single day today and that number is only going to keep climbing into the forseeable future.  If the NHL should somehow come to their senses and realize that the only way to guarantee their games will go on uninterrupted is if the don't play any in the US, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to play in the safest  city in North America, then we would still be in the running.  Heck, if the NHL execs were using any common sense at all, they would have all 24 NHL teams playing in BC!

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

The topic of who benefits more to the season restarted makes me laugh............

 

It seems to me that players, generally make 10X's to 100 X's what a normal worker makes........and that is giving most workers a big raise

 

So, I think the players have been given enough to live comfortably for the next few years

 

The owners, have leveraged their teams raising value to buy more assets.............aka, that is business 

 

So, IMO, this restart is all about the owners..................as they are bleeding money from every orifice

 

In the last CBA or even the last lock, the owners had the upper hand, as all their values were high, and could afford to apply pressure

 

Today....I don't think that is the case

 

The players should not be risking their health and future wealth, over the owners woes

 

IMO, the players should be pushing to negotiate now, with the threat of no hockey next year, with no hockey this year.........

 

Tough for the fans, but the players would benefit from this stance

 

 

One should remember that if the players get more money, the fans that attend games will pay for it. All economics works on the margins.  If costs increase without corresponding increase in revenue, marginal teams will fail. Since players are paid in US dollars, many of the teams that could get in trouble are Canadian - granted the exchange rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I think JB and Diamond have had more than enough time to make a deal. I'm pretty sure they're just waiting for all the other dominoes to drop. Scheduling, start up date, cap space, and any trade action on current D men.

I don't see Tryamkin's return contract size being a deterrent to him coming back.

The terms will be interesting. Do you think there will be a pandemic clause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Googlie said:

That was pure wishful thinking. At that time the daily new case count and the active case count showed no signs of abating in California. The only data that appeared to indicate that maybe the worst was over was the new death count, which looked promising at the time of that article, briefly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ray_Cathode said:

The terms will be interesting. Do you think there will be a pandemic clause?

I think all contracts will have them in some way. Right to refuse work if there's contagion, health insurance.  Revenue shortages and reducing contract sizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, gurn said:

approx. 7 month regular season for the NHL, say 4 weeks per month, so about 28 weeks. 14, two week blocks at $1.9 mill per block  and they would be looking at a premium of at least $266 million.

To quote Chris Rock  "That's a lot of money".

I’m sure some competition would come into play regarding that figure .

 

31 teams..  7m per =. 280m

involve the tv network’s and perhaps there carriers can do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...