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

NHL season to start Jan. 13 with 56-game season

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Absolutely.  Long term affects for sure would be worse if they had to shut down on the brand as a whole.   That said the players have to buck up and help out - getting paid without producing anything (or partial production) is a big ask - and that’s exactly what’s been happening all along.    And it creates complications like the one you brought up with Friedman, the exact same thing I’ve posted on several times over the past several weeks with escrow being set at 20%.  We are talking about the same thing.  All I’m trying to communicate is the players need to be more flexible - and work harder with the owners for a more equitable solution they won’t put too much financial stress on the owners shoulders - and in that is more fair for their own union.   Like I said guys like LE, Ladd and Okpsoso - and many others, won’t be around to pay back their portions of the 50/50 split, and get away with more then their share.  
 

Escrow at 20% is a huge gift to the players.   They will have more money or cash in hand early, maximizing their own personal future earnings (finance), while the owners suck it up and suffer through it.   I’m not particularly upset about this, it’s billionaires vs millionaires sort of deal - but for sure the players ended up in the cat-bird seat and been treated more then fairly.    The only thing that would upset me is if they take the money and don’t deliver - as in actually play the game.   Covid could determine all of this.   But the CBA is clear - 50/50 split.   If I was still in business and did that with my staff - I’d expect they’d deliver.  
 

Edit:  Again - the NHL - from Bettmans own mouth, project at best that the players will owe the owners 2/3 of their pay next season.   Ideal scene.  That’s the 56ish game Canadian division model.    The burden of debt will for sure end up on our young core for the most part. 

The NHLPA and NHL were at a stalemate because the owners wanted to renegotiate the financials and escrow.  The players categorically refused.  They have now agreed to keep the CBA MOU as is - there's no renegotiation of escrow.   In 7 years, once the CBA MOU is up, they will have to negotiate how to settle the players' debt to the owners.

 

Edited by mll
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone notice this but the Canadian Division has a massive advantage. With only 7 teams 1 of the teams will always have a night off in the long run it means more recovery time and the team that gets out of this division will have had more rest time accumulated then their out of division rival come playoffs.

As I am writing this I also realize it will be difficult to get all 7 of these teams to 56 games played at the same time as the other divisions so expect to see back to back to back series in the Canadian division and back to back game series in the other 3 divisions 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mll said:

Friedman in his 31 thoughts podcast explained that owners are having cash flow issues.  The NHLPA was willing to defer money in exchange of either increasing the cap by 500K - owners turned that down.   Another proposal was to allow for compliance buyouts but outside of revenue sharing so that players aren't paying for it - owners turned that down too.  So the CBA is staying as is.

 

The salary cap could stay flat for the whole length of the CBA (6 years + automatic 1 year extension if the players still owe money back which will likely be the case). 

 

Friedman's sources say that by the end of the season players will owe the league over 1 billion.  They are taking back a far too large portion of the revenue pie by limiting escrow to 20%.  Players basically digging their heals that future generation of players pay the debt that they have incurred due to the pandemic by refusing to adjust escrow.  The 28 year old + will likely be retired or close to it in 7 years when the CBA is up and it's the players active then that will have to still continue paying that money back.  Owners are already worried that 7 years down the road, when they have to negotiate a new CBA, that the NHLPA looks to waive that debt.  

 

He mentioned that there is a key player on a good team that could decide to retire rather than play this season.  There will apparently be an option to opt out.

 

I think the sad part of all this is Gary Bettman is in the right on this one and the players are wrong. The revenue split is 50-50 that's what both sides agreed to and should adhere to period. 

I will point out I am not with the majority of NHL fans when it comes to the dislike of Bettman I think he has always done the best thing for the game. That sometimes went against doing the best thing for Canada building a strong southern market meant more money for the game which meant better viability for all teams. Just as I hold great respect for John Mccaw he insured this team stayed here he did what was best for team which meant he had to do things that was short term against what the fans wanted.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I think the sad part of all this is Gary Bettman is in the right on this one and the players are wrong. The revenue split is 50-50 that's what both sides agreed to and should adhere to period. 

I will point out I am not with the majority of NHL fans when it comes to the dislike of Bettman I think he has always done the best thing for the game. That sometimes went against doing the best thing for Canada building a strong southern market meant more money for the game which meant better viability for all teams. Just as I hold great respect for John Mccaw he insured this team stayed here he did what was best for team which meant he had to do things that was short term against what the fans wanted.

It's pretty clearly the player union being perfectly fine screwing over their own future brothers for their current benefit.

 

The PA votes on things just like any union. And clearly there's more guys in the middle-end of their careers, with pre-covid contracts in hand, than new guys on ELC's (or the guys who will come in to the league in the next 5'ish years who don't even get a vote).

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It's pretty clearly the player union being perfectly fine screwing over their own future brothers for their current benefit.

 

The PA votes on things just like any union. And clearly there's more guys in the middle-end of their careers, with pre-covid contracts in hand, than new guys on ELC's (or the guys who will come in to the league in the next 5'ish years who don't even get a vote).

Democracy is supposed to be more than just 3 wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.

 

I'll point out that many unions vote to take care of the old guard and hose over the newbies.

B.C.F.M.WU. has 4 different categories of employees, and if the newest proposal is passed tomorrow it will be 5.

Regulars

Grandfathered casuals

casuals

seasonal

 

time bank limited newbies- will be the next group created.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It's pretty clearly the player union being perfectly fine screwing over their own future brothers for their current benefit.

 

The PA votes on things just like any union. And clearly there's more guys in the middle-end of their careers, with pre-covid contracts in hand, than new guys on ELC's (or the guys who will come in to the league in the next 5'ish years who don't even get a vote).

huh, you mean they're not really brothers?

  • Haha 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gurn said:

I have tried to get my former co-workers (I recently retired) to refer to me as cousin It; no one would. :(

I was actually in a union for 4 years at the start of my work life. Saw people brushed aside if it didn't fit what the executive was pushing.

 

But even with that I'm not anti-union, just think the whole "brother" thing gets played up too much, thats not really how it is. But they are good for the economy, bank managers love people with union gigs for mortgages, etc. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I was actually in a union for 4 years at the start of my work life. Saw people brushed aside if it didn't fit what the executive was pushing.

 

But even with that I'm not anti-union, just think the whole "brother" thing gets played up too much, thats not really how it is. But they are good for the economy, bank managers love people with union gigs for mortgages, etc. 

The brother/sister stuff is way over the top, and in todays day and age incredibly sexist, thus my attempt to be referred to in a non specific gender way. :)

Apparently that was too cutting edge for them.  lol

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I was actually in a union for 4 years at the start of my work life. Saw people brushed aside if it didn't fit what the executive was pushing.

 

But even with that I'm not anti-union, just think the whole "brother" thing gets played up too much, thats not really how it is. But they are good for the economy, bank managers love people with union gigs for mortgages, etc. 

Funny I was just reading the CUPE oath the other day as I am a new full-time member and the first thing I noticed was how it only mentioned brother & sisters :lol:

 

I assume every union, including the NHLPA, has something similiar.

 

image.thumb.png.d0fd44822a34ea829c809dc33e06b49d.png

 

 

 

I can't freaking wait for the season to start :towel: before you know it there will be a CDC game watching event at the Rog Sportsbar :gocan:

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chicken. said:

Funny I was just reading the CUPE oath the other day as I am a new full-time member and the first thing I noticed was how it only mentioned brother & sisters :lol:

 

I assume every union, including the NHLPA, has something similiar.

 

image.thumb.png.d0fd44822a34ea829c809dc33e06b49d.png

 

 

 

I can't freaking wait for the season to start :towel: before you know it there will be a CDC game watching event at the Rog Sportsbar :gocan:

Yeah I recall something similar. They didn't like me, I never showed up for a single meeting :lol: I only joined because the job I wanted at the time was unionized. I never much liked that option to be forced into a union but it is what it is. They can take my dues but they can't have my attention or butt in a seat at a meeting. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Yeah I recall something similar. They didn't like me, I never showed up for a single meeting :lol: I only joined because the job I wanted at the time was unionized. I never much liked that option to be forced into a union but it is what it is. They can take my dues but they can't have my attention or butt in a seat at a meeting. 

 

 

 

I am okay with the union environment... not many places offer a pension plan anymore like the MPP

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Yeah I recall something similar. They didn't like me, I never showed up for a single meeting :lol: I only joined because the job I wanted at the time was unionized. I never much liked that option to be forced into a union but it is what it is. They can take my dues but they can't have my attention or butt in a seat at a meeting. 

 

 

 

you can direct your dues to the certified charity of your choice. The union will still have the legal responsibility to rep for you, against management and others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2020 at 3:22 PM, Arrow 1983 said:

I think the sad part of all this is Gary Bettman is in the right on this one and the players are wrong. The revenue split is 50-50 that's what both sides agreed to and should adhere to period. 

I will point out I am not with the majority of NHL fans when it comes to the dislike of Bettman I think he has always done the best thing for the game. That sometimes went against doing the best thing for Canada building a strong southern market meant more money for the game which meant better viability for all teams. Just as I hold great respect for John Mccaw he insured this team stayed here he did what was best for team which meant he had to do things that was short term against what the fans wanted.

Sure Bettman did some good. But always? 

 

Cap-recapture is not the best for the league. Cutting down contract length to 8 years was sufficient. He should have honored the deals signed under previous CBA. Instead he went back and punished teams for making him look stupid.

 

There are many other things that he did that makes you wonder why. For example, second team in Ontario pushed forward by Jim Basille. He said no for personal reasons. Ontario can support a second team and yet we still don't see one. Another example. Arizona Coyotes, the bottom less pit of money, is still there, eating up profit from the rest of the league. 

 

He may have done some good but I would not say he always did the best thing for the game. Far from it. 

 

Yes, I will give him credit for selling the team to a local owner, but at the end of the day, McCaw did what was best for his pocket. Plain and simple.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...