HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2012, 07:54 PM
  #426
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye View Post
Selfish, like those hockey fans (including children) in hospices across North America, who would love to forget about their problems for a few hours a day? Watch the Canucks for a final season?

There is more than enough selfishness to go around... Owners, players, dying fans... There is no excuse for hockey not to be played January, IMHO... Up until this point, I totally understand the labour dispute, and the need for pressure points to get everything you can, out of everything you have... But if the owners and the players can't figure it out by January (and a season is cancelled), the owners and players both put themselves above everything else, selfishlessly...
You can dress it up however you like but it doesn't change that the NHL is a business first and foremost. Nobody wants "Children in hospices" to miss their hockey, but business is business.

If both sides couldn't figure it out by October they put themselves above everything else...There is no good excuse why it couldn't have been hashed out before the season was supposed to start.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:56 PM
  #427
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
What I don't get is why the union heads won't be holding a general player's vote on the owners' last proposal, yet it seems they're willing to do so on decertification? Am I just missing something here, or does this seem fishy?
The negotiating committee didn't have anything concrete to vote on, plus it would have to be something that they could recommend to their membership be worthy of a vote. Nothing worthy of a vote has been put forward.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:56 PM
  #428
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,984
vCash: 500
@Mirtle tweets:

"Part of NHL's filing includes section requesting declaration that "all existing contracts between NHL players and teams would be void."


Going to be a close one in the D-BAG OF THE YEAR award.

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:19 PM
  #429
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
You can dress it up however you like but it doesn't change that the NHL is a business first and foremost. Nobody wants "Children in hospices" to miss their hockey, but business is business.

If both sides couldn't figure it out by October they put themselves above everything else...There is no good excuse why it couldn't have been hashed out before the season was supposed to start.
Right, business is business... So, IMO, it is reasonable to allow both sides a reasonable amount of time to figure out their business disagreements... There is a length of time reasonable for "Children in hospices" to miss their hockey...

For me, this length of time is "needs to be a season"... If a child dies in the meantime, what can you do? I agree, the NHL is a business first and foremost... To me, the length of time is January... So, I don't judge either too harshly whilever there is a chance for a season... They have until sometime January to reasonably make dying children cry, IMO...

However, if neither side blinks, when all is said and done, and a season is lost... shame on them both... The players should have blinked... The owners should have blinked... One of them should have blinked... Shake hands at the end, like at the end of a long, hard fought playoff series... With one winner, and one loser... When you are talking about NHL owners and players, even the loser wins (in the grand scheme of things)...

After all, some hockey stakeholders have a legitimate reason to want hockey back ASAP... And not just the dying children... Like you say, hockey is a business first and foremost... and there are people who make a living off of hockey - from minimum wage and up (to millions of dollars)... The two sides aren't that far apart that they can't make it work (from what I can tell)... The players don't blink, and lose a season for a 8 year CBA instead of 10? 5 year contract length instead of 7? Buyout count against the cap, instead of it doesn't? Lose all that money and benefit for that? Allow dying children to cry, for that? You'd support the NHLPA in that fight? At what point do the players and the owners consider the other hockey stakeholders, and pull a Sami Salo contract negotiation (i.e. "I'm comfortable here, it's enough")...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 12-14-2012 at 08:29 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:29 PM
  #430
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye View Post
Right, business is business... So, IMO, it is reasonable to allow both sides a reasonable amount of time to figure out their business disagreements... There is a length of time reasonable for "Children in hospices" to miss their hockey...

For me, this length of time is "needs to be a season"... If a child dies in the meantime, what can you do? I agree, the NHL is a business first and foremost... To me, the length of time is January... So, I don't judge either too harshly whilever there is a chance for a season... They have until sometime January to reasonably make dying children cry, IMO...

However, if neither side blinks, when all is said and done, and a season is lost... shame on them both... The players should have blinked... The owners should have blinked... One of them should have blinked... Shake hands at the end, like at the end of a long, hard fought playoff series... With one winner, and one loser... When you are talking about NHL owners and players, even the loser wins (in the grand scheme of things)...

After all, some hockey stakeholders have a legitimate reason to want hockey back ASAP... And not just the dying children... Like you say, hockey is a business first and foremost... and there are people who make a living off of hockey - from minimum wage and up (to millions of dollars)... The two sides aren't that far apart that they can't make it work (from what I can tell)... The players don't blink, and lose a season for a 8 year CBA instead of 10? 5 year contract length instead of 7? Buyout count against the cap, instead of it doesn't? Lose all that money and benefit for that? Allow dying children to cry, for that? You'd support the NHLPA in that fight? At what point do the players and the owners consider the other hockey stakeholders, and pull a Sami Salo contract negotiation (i.e. "I'm comfortable here, it's enough")...
The problem is, businesses don't operate on the premise that they need to get things done to save the children.

The people laid off who make a living from the NHL are the true victims of the lockout, I agree, and they have a legitimate beef, more so than any fans...be they afflicted children or not.

I personally would support the players...fair is fair and they've given far more than they've gotten, its not up to them to be selfless heroes just so some owners can line their pockets a little further. If I were a PA member I would have no problems sleeping at night knowing I did my best to make a fair deal (provided they gave the owners 10 years over the 8 the PA wants). What makes me kind of sick to my stomach is the fact that I think a lot of owners would sleep like babies knowing they are gouging people and making children in hospices cry.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 11:23 PM
  #431
Edonator
The Mightiest Club
 
Edonator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vancouver
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 3,964
vCash: 500
The players once again prove they have zero interest in getting a deal starting **** again. Great job Fehr.


Edonator is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 02:00 AM
  #432
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
@Mirtle tweets:

"Part of NHL's filing includes section requesting declaration that "all existing contracts between NHL players and teams would be void."


Going to be a close one in the D-BAG OF THE YEAR award.
Would be awesome. That's a real free agent frenzy. Like a fantasy draft!!!

LiquidSnake is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 05:45 AM
  #433
Nash
Registered User
 
Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Wow. Bettman files a lawsuit claiming the union is using legal channels as a negotiating ploy though decertification. How dare they use the law to their advantage! This idiot needs to go. He does the same thing every CBA by locking players out. Not so fun when the power shifts now is it Gary? I'm not actually a fan of decertification, but if it forces a deal, please file immediately.

How Gary can argue that the union is not negotiating in good faith is beyond me when you look at how the league has acted thus far.

Nash is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:40 AM
  #434
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
I'm rather amused by posts about how Bettman is an idiot, he needs to go. It shows a complete lack of understanding of his function and his responsibilities.

He's the agent of the owners. He operates serves at their pleasure. Whatever negotiating moves Bettman makes, it is made on behalf of the owners. So blame him as much as you want, wish for his disparition if it makes you feel better, but it wouldn't change a thing.

*Injektilo is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:54 AM
  #435
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
I'm rather amused by posts about how Bettman is an idiot, he needs to go. It shows a complete lack of understanding of his function and his responsibilities.

He's the agent of the owners. He operates serves at their pleasure. Whatever negotiating moves Bettman makes, it is made on behalf of the owners. So blame him as much as you want, wish for his disparition if it makes you feel better, but it wouldn't change a thing.
He isn't making 10m+ to be a puppet.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:02 PM
  #436
blendini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
I'm rather amused by posts about how Bettman is an idiot, he needs to go. It shows a complete lack of understanding of his function and his responsibilities.

He's the agent of the owners. He operates serves at their pleasure. Whatever negotiating moves Bettman makes, it is made on behalf of the owners. So blame him as much as you want, wish for his disparition if it makes you feel better, but it wouldn't change a thing.
Bettman is a consultant. His job is to advise the owners and to put forward a process to attain what the management wants. He has a huge influence in all of this. Of course, that is what he is paid to do, but we don't have to like it.

blendini is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:39 PM
  #437
Nash
Registered User
 
Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Bettman has no influence? I guess getting the rules changed so all he needs is 8 votes of 30 to reject an offer has nothing to do with his office. Or that since the league owns Phoenix, that would basically mean, they only need 7 to veto.

Nash is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 01:53 PM
  #438
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
He isn't making 10m+ to be a puppet.
I didn't say he's their puppet, I said he's their agent. If they didn't like his work, they would have fired him.

*Injektilo is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 01:55 PM
  #439
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blendini View Post
Bettman is a consultant. His job is to advise the owners and to put forward a process to attain what the management wants. He has a huge influence in all of this. Of course, that is what he is paid to do, but we don't have to like it.
The owners didn't get to become the billionnaires that they are by following the advice of a consultant. They are thinking businessmen, and they have an agenda. Bettman's job is to see their agenda through.

*Injektilo is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 01:56 PM
  #440
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash View Post
Bettman has no influence? I guess getting the rules changed so all he needs is 8 votes of 30 to reject an offer has nothing to do with his office. Or that since the league owns Phoenix, that would basically mean, they only need 7 to veto.
Who approved that rule change? Or do you suggest that Bettman somehow changed that rule unilaterally in the flight of night?

*Injektilo is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 02:29 PM
  #441
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
The owners didn't get to become the billionnaires that they are by following the advice of a consultant. They are thinking businessmen, and they have an agenda. Bettman's job is to see their agenda through.
No, a lot of them became billionaires because they inherited businesses. Jacobs, Aquilini, Molson, Gaglardi, Dolan, Thomson, and a few others were all handed fortunes by their parents.

That aside, not all owners are going to have the same goals and agenda and some seem to have vastly more influence than others. If Vancouver, Chicago, or Detroit were running negotiations do you really think that clause about back diving contracts would've made it in to the proposals? Instead you have owners like Jacobs heading negotiations who conveniently won't be affected by that rule.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 02:36 PM
  #442
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
I'm rather amused by posts about how Bettman is an idiot, he needs to go. It shows a complete lack of understanding of his function and his responsibilities.

He's the agent of the owners. He operates serves at their pleasure. Whatever negotiating moves Bettman makes, it is made on behalf of the owners. So blame him as much as you want, wish for his disparition if it makes you feel better, but it wouldn't change a thing.
You accidentally wrote "owners" repeatedly instead of "Jeremy Jacobs".

Once the old misers who don't really care about hockey die or sell off their teams, the league will be a lot better. RIP Bill Wirtz.

<insert Wetcoaster anecdote about Harold Ballard here>

And Bettman is an idiot. First, because most of the problems they're trying to fix were created by his brain-dead expansion policy. And second, because most of them were created by holes in the last CBA so big even an idiotic NHL team owner could drive a truck through them

Proto is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 02:39 PM
  #443
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
No, a lot of them became billionaires because they inherited businesses. Jacobs, Aquilini, Molson, Gaglardi, Dolan, Thomson, and a few others were all handed fortunes by their parents.

That aside, not all owners are going to have the same goals and agenda and some seem to have vastly more influence than others. If Vancouver, Chicago, or Detroit were running negotiations do you really think that clause about back diving contracts would've made it in to the proposals? Instead you have owners like Jacobs heading negotiations who conveniently won't be affected by that rule.
If Aqua man, Ilitch, Tannebaum, and Dolan were the top 4 owners in these meetings (and they run 4 of the 7 most valuable/profitable franchises in the league), we'd have had a deal in April.

Proto is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 03:16 PM
  #444
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Suit yourselves if you want to believe that Bettman holds all the power here. I'll continue to live in the real world.

*Injektilo is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 04:01 PM
  #445
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
Suit yourselves if you want to believe that Bettman holds all the power here. I'll continue to live in the real world.
You're treating the owners as if they're a single group. It's quite possible some owners aren't impressed with how he's running things while others are fully behind him. As long as Bettman has the ear of the more powerful and influential ones, he's generally in a safe position to act how he sees fit.

The NHL Board of Governors is an exclusive group that has to approve any new owners before they're allowed to own a team. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that less tenured owners are expected to toe the line as a condition of their admittance to the group. Look at the reports of how Winnipeg's ownership was treated in a meeting by Jacobs. Not to mention, it sounds like some of the owners are as in the dark about day to day negotiations as most of the players are.

Obviously Bettman can't act in a manner that's completely counter to the owners' wishes, but he's also not simply an adviser. His position is more akin to a CEO of a company. He's still subject to Board of Director approval, but he has a fair bit of latitude to work with to drive policy.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 04:07 PM
  #446
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
You're treating the owners as if they're a single group.
I don't know - are there owners who have indicated that they would like a change in leadership? It's up to them, isn't it?

Quote:
It's quite possible some owners aren't impressed with how he's running things while others are fully behind him.
That means nothing. It's quite possible all owners are perfectly fine as well.

Quote:
Obviously Bettman can't act in a manner that's completely counter to the owners' wishes, but he's also not simply an adviser. His position is more akin to a CEO of a company. He's still subject to Board of Director approval, but he has a fair bit of latitude to work with to drive policy.
Exactly. He's their agent. And if they're happy with him, they'll keep him around. He's still present, and that there's no indication as of yet that he's about to lose his job, so there's only one conclusion I can draw from what the owners think of him.

*Injektilo is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 04:26 PM
  #447
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
I don't know - are there owners who have indicated that they would like a change in leadership? It's up to them, isn't it?
Dolan with MSG tried to have Bettman fired 4-5 years ago. There are definitely owners who don't like Bettman, but as long as Jacobs & Co run the BOG it doesn't matter.

Proto is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 05:28 PM
  #448
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,158
vCash: 500
The lawyers are winning this lockout...

Just when you think a deal is about to get done, they start finding new and creative ways to run up the count on their billable hours.

Chubros is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 05:40 PM
  #449
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
What I don't get is why the union heads won't be holding a general player's vote on the owners' last proposal, yet it seems they're willing to do so on decertification? Am I just missing something here, or does this seem fishy?
It demonstrates that the NHLPA tactics are not being initiated by the players at large, but by a few extremists and Fehr. This is what happens when Unions go bad.

To quote Shakespeare, "Something is rotten in the state of the NHLPA".

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 05:54 PM
  #450
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,857
vCash: 500
The league is serious about the hills they'll die on. This is them dying. They are suggesting dissolution of the league. I think the owners might use this to drive salaries down.

After the contracts are voided, GMs can sign whoever they want. I imagine a team can be assembled in time for January fifteenth. Each player will be signed as a free agent. If the offers are AHL salaries, somebody will still take that. With no CBA there will be no floor. A lot of teams will be built for ten million. Very few, if any, will remain at sixty million.

Now we'll see who is a hockey man and who is a suit.

JuniorNelson 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 11:48 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.