HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Jan 6/13: CBA reached to end the Lockout. Rejoice! (Post#783)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 03:59 PM
  #51
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
bettman and fehr being present in mediation has literally no bearing on anything.
That's your opinion. It doesn't happen to be mine.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:02 PM
  #52
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
bettman and fehr being present in mediation has literally no bearing on anything. mediation is a total waste of time, and many of the sports analysts share that sentiment.
Do you know why mediation is a "waste of time"? Because the owners don't care to find the middle ground, or have someone tell them that they aren't bargaining in good faith.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:05 PM
  #53
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
bettman and fehr being present in mediation has literally no bearing on anything. mediation is a total waste of time, and many of the sports analysts share that sentiment.
If the sides are close enough then mediation can work, last week they weren't close enough. There has been a lot of movement on both sides since then.

crazycanuck is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:06 PM
  #54
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Do you know why mediation is a "waste of time"? Because the owners don't care to find the middle ground, or have someone tell them that they aren't bargaining in good faith.
i find it funny you're accusing the owners of not bargaining in good faith when the PA essentially proposed the same offer 4 times in a row over the course of a couple months. beauty.

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:09 PM
  #55
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
i find it funny you're accusing the owners of not bargaining in good faith when the PA essentially proposed the same offer 4 times in a row over the course of a couple months. beauty.
If you can show me one area of negotiations where the PA has gained ground, but you can't because they haven't. What does CBA stand for? Do you know?

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:29 PM
  #56
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
If you can show me one area of negotiations where the PA has gained ground, but you can't because they haven't. What does CBA stand for? Do you know?
previous CBA is irrelevant in the context of comparison

-make whole upped, even with no obligation
- arb rights/ contract limit
- hrr split increased

hmm why was my previous post deleted in response to this..... it broke no rules

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:29 PM
  #57
Reverend Mayhem
Freeway's closed man
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,944
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanBulisPiggyBack View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanBulisPiggyBack View Post
Rush?

they have these lyrics how trees are talking to each other and how different sides of your brains work and outer space ********

Helix now theres a band

Give me an R
LOL. I understood you there, bud. I can't get over that

Reverend Mayhem is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:35 PM
  #58
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
previous CBA is irrelevant in the context of comparison

-make whole upped, even with no obligation
- arb rights/ contract limit
- hrr split increased

hmm why was my previous post deleted in response to this..... it broke no rules
If the previous CBA is irrelevant so is the salary cap and everything else in it. You can't have it both ways.

-"make whole" is giving back (a portion) what they've been trying to take...thats not getting ahead.
-arbitration rights are staying the same. same is not = to getting ahead.
-The players are going from 57% to 50%. 57% is higher than 50% = loss.

If you think the previous CBA has no bearing on this negotiations we are never going to agree and you will remain wrong IMO.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:40 PM
  #59
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
If the previous CBA is irrelevant so is the salary cap and everything else in it. You can't have it both ways.

-"make whole" is giving back (a portion) what they've been trying to take...thats not getting ahead.
-arbitration rights are staying the same. same is not = to getting ahead.
-The players are going from 57% to 50%. 57% is higher than 50% = loss.

If you think the previous CBA has no bearing on this negotiations we are never going to agree and you will remain wrong IMO.
the previous CBA doesn't exist any more, of course it is irrelevant. there is a reason why contracts have built in clauses stating that it is subject to only the current CBA, you wanna know why? because once it is expired it is - you guessed it- IRRELEVANT.

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:44 PM
  #60
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
the previous CBA doesn't exist any more, of course it is irrelevant. there is a reason why contracts have built in clauses stating that it is subject to only the current CBA, you wanna know why? because once it is expired it is - you guessed it- IRRELEVANT.
Show me where this is the case.

If the previous CBA were "irrelevant" they'd be negotiating from scratch, which they obviously aren't.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:45 PM
  #61
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
the previous CBA doesn't exist any more, of course it is irrelevant. there is a reason why contracts have built in clauses stating that it is subject to only the current CBA, you wanna know why? because once it is expired it is - you guessed it- IRRELEVANT.


Canucker is right. The previous CBA does not exist, but there are some over-arching terms that both sides have chosen to honour as a framework. Namely, both have yet to contest the pre-existing salary cap. Why do they do this? Because pulling it off the table, even if it is completely within their rights to do so, will essentially put everything back to square one. Which is a starting point that is too onerous to begin contemplating.


Facets of the prior CBA are being honoured, whether there is no existing CBA are not.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:49 PM
  #62
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Canucker is right. The previous CBA does not exist, but there are some over-arching terms that both sides have chosen to honour as a framework. Namely, both have yet to contest the pre-existing salary cap. Why do they do this? Because pulling it off the table, even if it is completely within their rights to do so, will essentially put everything back to square one. Which is a starting point that is too onerous to begin contemplating.


Facets of the prior CBA are being honoured, whether there is no existing CBA are not.
i am not disagreeing with the fact that there is framework. i am disagreeing with the fact that details within the previous CBA are irrelevant. mainly the HRR split, and contracting rights.

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:51 PM
  #63
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
i am not disagreeing with the fact that there is framework. i am disagreeing with the fact that details within the previous CBA are irrelevant. mainly the HRR split, and contracting rights.


So pretty much everything important to the players is irrelevant. Thats brilliant! lol

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:54 PM
  #64
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
i am not disagreeing with the fact that there is framework. i am disagreeing with the fact that details within the previous CBA are irrelevant. mainly the HRR split, and contracting rights.


The fact that there is an unspoken framework means that details in the prior CBA are being honoured.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:55 PM
  #65
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post


So pretty much everything important to the players is irrelevant. Thats brilliant! lol
why do contracts involve clauses that that state they are subject to only the current cba?
awaiting answer

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:57 PM
  #66
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
why do contracts involve clauses that that state they are subject to only the current cba?
awaiting answer
How does a contract being subject to a CBA make a recently expired CBA irrelevant?

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:59 PM
  #67
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
why do contracts involve clauses that that state they are subject to only the current cba?
awaiting answer
I'm still waiting for you to show me where the clause is.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I've only head rumors about it, if it exists, prove it.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:06 PM
  #68
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I'm still waiting for you to show me where the clause is.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I've only head rumors about it, if it exists, prove it.
translation: "i don't have an answer"
yeah i'll bring up an NHL out of thin air even though it is reported throughout that these clauses exist. but if you want to put your head in the sand than that's fine i guess.

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:06 PM
  #69
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I'm still waiting for you to show me where the clause is.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I've only head rumors about it, if it exists, prove it.

It exists. From a standard players contract:

Quote:
18. The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by the League Rules and by any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA, and by all of the terms and provisions thereof, copies of which shall be open and available for inspection by the Club, its directors and officers, and the Player, at the main office of the League, the main office of the Club and the main office of the NHLPA. This SPC is entered into subject to the CBA between the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this SPC inconsistent with such CBA are superseded by the provisions of the CBA.

I'm not sure how that makes previous CBAs irrelevant to negotiations though. I don't really follow the logic there.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:14 PM
  #70
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post

I'm not sure how that makes previous CBAs irrelevant to negotiations though. I don't really follow the logic there.
owners have no obligations to "make whole" if these contracts are subject to the previous CBA.

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:14 PM
  #71
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
It exists. From a standard players contract:




I'm not sure how that makes previous CBAs irrelevant to negotiations though. I don't really follow the logic there.
Thanks...I knew it was something discussed here before but I had never seen the actual language.

yeah, there is no logic there.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:17 PM
  #72
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
owners have no obligations to "make whole" if these contracts are subject to the previous CBA.
of course they don't have an "obligation" to make whole, but the players aren't "obligated" to accept a rollback of HRR/wages in the first place.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:20 PM
  #73
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
of course they don't have an "obligation" to make whole, but the players aren't "obligated" to accept a rollback of HRR/wages in the first place.
i never said they had to. but it would make sense if they did so they don't forego millions of dollars. than again the players haven't proven to be the smartest bunch in these negotiations.

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:29 PM
  #74
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
i never said they had to. but it would make sense if they did so they don't forego millions of dollars. than again the players haven't proven to be the smartest bunch in these negotiations.
Ok, I'm not sure I understand you here...

What millions of dollars would they "forego" by keeping 57% of HRR?

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:31 PM
  #75
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
i never said they had to. but it would make sense if they did so they don't forego millions of dollars. than again the players haven't proven to be the smartest bunch in these negotiations.


The NHLPA's biggest mistake, IMO, was not decertifying in the early summer. That's where I think they went wrong. They tried to "compromise" when some negotiations follow that route, and others don't... this one didn't.



They should have decertified because it was their only leverage vs. the owners waiting them out. It should be standard practice from now on. If they repeat this mistake in the next CBA negotiation, they will regret it. Decertify early, or be prepared to succumb to the owners every time out.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.