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
12-28-2012, 07:53 PM
  #626
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Yes, they are. The buyouts will be taken out of the player's share of the 50% of revenue, so if there were a lot of buyouts, the rest of the league would pay for it in escrow.
The report I saw said linked to HRR and NOT to the cap. That's the whole point, to allow teams under cap of $60m.

If these were allowed for all years players, agents and GMs would abuse the well out of it. There would be wink wink buyouts everywhere, give a $5m and and another $10m in cap free buyouts.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 08:35 PM
  #627
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
The report I saw said linked to HRR and NOT to the cap. That's the whole point, to allow teams under cap of $60m.

If these were allowed for all years players, agents and GMs would abuse the well out of it. There would be wink wink buyouts everywhere, give a $5m and and another $10m in cap free buyouts.
I think you're missing the point here. It doesn't matter what the cap is if it's linked to a 50% revenue share. If the cap is 100 million dollars a team and player salaries are 90% of league revenues because of it, the players will lose a huge chunk of their pay to escrow.

HRR, for all intents and purposes, is your salary cap. The actual number is just something to operate by that is a best guess for what cap will give the closest salary expenditure to the 50% player's share of HRR.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 08:43 PM
  #628
cooker24
Registered User
 
cooker24's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
I disagree. I think a certain amount of parity is fine, but I don't want all of the competitive "imbalance" removed. I like that well-run teams in good markets have an easier time re-signing players. I don't care to make it easier on other teams. Just as a rule I don't like the idea of providing mechanisms beyond "run your team well" that encourages players to stay with a franchise. Plus it leads to all sorts of stupid sign-and-trade deals like you see in the NBA.

I'd love to see the ceiling/floor move apart further and cap space be traded (within limits).
I don't think we're disagreeing...

Let's just say base it on the five year and seven year agreement.

At a five year limit, there will be more player movement. Cool for fans. Fans love player movement. Fans don't like it to so much when their best/favorite/long-time player sign elsewhere for more money... Well, that player can get more money/term on a seven-year deal, as opposed to a five-year deal, which increases the likelihood he stays with the current team.

Teams like the Flyers, Maple Leafs, Rangers, Red Wings are still going to have an advantage signing free agents and retaining free agents. The only "drawback" is, they can't sign them to huge 10-year deals.

There's still an advantage to those big market teams, which is what you want. However, you're also throwing a bone to the small market teams, which is also cool.

cooker24 is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 09:09 PM
  #629
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,178
vCash: 500
Hammer, while I'm not a fan I don't think sign and trade isn't a bad thing. it allows teams to retain their own talent (good for poorer markets) or I'd the poorer markets are set to lose a player anyway they might be able to sneak a draft pick or two out of it.

6/7 is a good compromise. 1 year isn't enough leverage to force a player to stay.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 09:24 PM
  #630
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
I think you're missing the point here. It doesn't matter what the cap is if it's linked to a 50% revenue share. If the cap is 100 million dollars a team and player salaries are 90% of league revenues because of it, the players will lose a huge chunk of their pay to escrow.

HRR, for all intents and purposes, is your salary cap. The actual number is just something to operate by that is a best guess for what cap will give the closest salary expenditure to the 50% player's share of HRR.

HRR split is not the salary cap, they are two different things with a common ancestor.

Abusing the cap free buyouts just pushes the players share higher above the HRR split. Great for rich teams abusing it, great the player/agent abusing it, and **** for every other player who ends up subsidising the buyouts with escrow.

Teams need to be held accountable but the rules are changing between cbas so a one off adjustment is acceptable.

I prefer the Nhlpa 67m cap, preferably with the nhl's floor. Just lock it at 67m until 50% catches up. NHL takes make whole of the table and replaces it with 54 52 50 split and negotiations go from there.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 09:31 PM
  #631
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
HRR split is not the salary cap, they are two different things with a common ancestor.

Abusing the cap free buyouts just pushes the players share higher above the HRR split. Great for rich teams abusing it, great the player/agent abusing it, and **** for every other player who ends up subsidising the buyouts with escrow.

Teams need to be held accountable but the rules are changing between cbas so a one off adjustment is acceptable.

I prefer the Nhlpa 67m cap, preferably with the nhl's floor. Just lock it at 67m until 50% catches up. NHL takes make whole of the table and replaces it with 54 52 50 split and negotiations go from there.
Everything I heard today said that the buyouts would count against the players share off HRR. The players want it so that the guys with expiring contracts are able to sign under similar conditions as players that have signed recently. Otherwise the guys with expiring contracts are going to be paying most of the reduction in HRR.

I'm sure I didn't explain that well. A higher cap doesn't give the players more HRR, they are tied to the 50% + 300m make whole. The increased cap number keeps the market conditions the same so that players that need contracts in the next couple years aren't paying more of a burden.


Last edited by Scurr: 12-28-2012 at 09:48 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 09:54 PM
  #632
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Hammer, while I'm not a fan I don't think sign and trade isn't a bad thing. it allows teams to retain their own talent (good for poorer markets) or I'd the poorer markets are set to lose a player anyway they might be able to sneak a draft pick or two out of it.

6/7 is a good compromise. 1 year isn't enough leverage to force a player to stay.
It's not good for 'buyer' teams like the Canucks, this is about throwing a bone to the struggling southern markets. In order to get the player the extra year he wants, they have to send something back in a sign-and-trade deal. The only way prime UFA's would sign the 6 year deal is if their previous team doesn't play ball on a sign-and-trade deal. The agents will pressure the new team to work out sign-and-trade deals to get that 7th year. UFA players have already paid their dues to their draft team by taking below market value under the RFA system for their prime years. IMO these players should truly be 'unrestricted' and allowed to find their full value on the open market. There shouldn't be a competitive advantage to any team to retain them, and no cost other than $ to acquire them.

Another thing that bothers me, why is 48 games the magic drop-dead number? From a balanced schedule standpoint, the math doesn't add up. 94-95 there was only 26 teams, not 30.

Assuming they slash cross-conference games, each team has 10 opponents in conference but not in division, and 4 divisional opponents. The only way 48 works out evenly is if a team plays 4 games in conference, and only 2 in division. They could play 2 in conference, 20 games, and 6 in division, 24 games. That's 44 games and a well balanced schedule. They could even go down to 4 in division for a 36 game schedule.

I don't see what integrity of competition the NHL is protecting by pushing for a 48 game slate. The playoffs are when the teams make their money anyway, the regular season is when the players make their money. Why is the NHL so adamant about a 48 game schedule? If anyone should be worried about maxing out regular season games, it's the NHLPA.

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 09:54 PM
  #633
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
HRR split is not the salary cap, they are two different things with a common ancestor.

Abusing the cap free buyouts just pushes the players share higher above the HRR split. Great for rich teams abusing it, great the player/agent abusing it, and **** for every other player who ends up subsidising the buyouts with escrow.

Teams need to be held accountable but the rules are changing between cbas so a one off adjustment is acceptable.

I prefer the Nhlpa 67m cap, preferably with the nhl's floor. Just lock it at 67m until 50% catches up. NHL takes make whole of the table and replaces it with 54 52 50 split and negotiations go from there.
No team is going to intentionally "abuse" buyouts in the way you're suggesting. What's the benefit to the Canucks if they sign terrible contracts and then have to buy those players out? Nothing. It just costs them money. There's no benefit there.

If it was unlimited, sure, some other players would get screwed over, but allowing a team to do it once a summer seems reasonable to me. Players might pay a bit of money in escrow, but some over-priced veterans who could still play hockey (see: Redden, Wade) wouldn't be forced to end their careers prematurely riding buses in the AHL.

Literally the only thing I can really see here is that it might encourage teams to take more "risks" with contract offers, thus driving up the price of free agents. With an HRR-linked salary cap, however, I don't see why this is a concern -- especially with variance and signing bonuses becoming less of an issue.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 11:47 PM
  #634
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
It's not good for 'buyer' teams like the Canucks, this is about throwing a bone to the struggling southern markets. In order to get the player the extra year he wants, they have to send something back in a sign-and-trade deal. The only way prime UFA's would sign the 6 year deal is if their previous team doesn't play ball on a sign-and-trade deal. The agents will pressure the new team to work out sign-and-trade deals to get that 7th year. UFA players have already paid their dues to their draft team by taking below market value under the RFA system for their prime years. IMO these players should truly be 'unrestricted' and allowed to find their full value on the open market. There shouldn't be a competitive advantage to any team to retain them, and no cost other than $ to acquire them.

Another thing that bothers me, why is 48 games the magic drop-dead number? From a balanced schedule standpoint, the math doesn't add up. 94-95 there was only 26 teams, not 30.

Assuming they slash cross-conference games, each team has 10 opponents in conference but not in division, and 4 divisional opponents. The only way 48 works out evenly is if a team plays 4 games in conference, and only 2 in division. They could play 2 in conference, 20 games, and 6 in division, 24 games. That's 44 games and a well balanced schedule. They could even go down to 4 in division for a 36 game schedule.

I don't see what integrity of competition the NHL is protecting by pushing for a 48 game slate. The playoffs are when the teams make their money anyway, the regular season is when the players make their money. Why is the NHL so adamant about a 48 game schedule? If anyone should be worried about maxing out regular season games, it's the NHLPA.
matter of personal opinion .... but I really dont give a damn how they play a shortened season ... whatever works ... i really would love shortened season no matter what # of games they play. Matter of preference. If they were planning 10 years of shortened seasons then i would care about the structure.

Oh great day of skiing at whistler today, but thats enough my sprained ankle is killing me ... yeah i know you dont care.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-29-2012, 12:08 AM
  #635
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Everything I heard today said that the buyouts would count against the players share off HRR. The players want it so that the guys with expiring contracts are able to sign under similar conditions as players that have signed recently. Otherwise the guys with expiring contracts are going to be paying most of the reduction in HRR.

I'm sure I didn't explain that well. A higher cap doesn't give the players more HRR, they are tied to the 50% + 300m make whole. The increased cap number keeps the market conditions the same so that players that need contracts in the next couple years aren't paying more of a burden.
That's why I'm not a fan of 60m cap. It should have be paused at a higher number and let every thing work itself out in time. It'd have been so much easier to arrange this before last season ended.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-29-2012, 01:55 AM
  #636
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
No team is going to intentionally "abuse" buyouts in the way you're suggesting. What's the benefit to the Canucks if they sign terrible contracts and then have to buy those players out? Nothing. It just costs them money. There's no benefit there.
Like no team would offer a 15 or 17 year contracts

No player would sign a deal he didn't intend to play out.

Like no team would front load contracts

Like no team would offer massive signing bonuses


Straight up I can see

Van using this on Luongo in the last years of the deal if legal under 5+ year cap hit rules

34 yo guys getting 5 year deals then burning them off

Guys with health issues front loaded deals, burn them off when they are cooked.

I could live with each team getting 1 Mulligan over the course of a CBA. One is precious, and teams would save that. However, if we know anything owners and gms will abuse systems and agents/players will do anything chasing cash. I don't want to see this lockout cap again in 8 years just to close down a loophole like this when it gets abused.


Last edited by me2: 12-29-2012 at 02:04 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
12-29-2012, 02:05 AM
  #637
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,910
vCash: 500


skeptical

LiquidSnake is offline  
Old
12-29-2012, 11:16 AM
  #638
Lz68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Like no team would offer a 15 or 17 year contracts

No player would sign a deal he didn't intend to play out.

Like no team would front load contracts

Like no team would offer massive signing bonuses


Straight up I can see

Van using this on Luongo in the last years of the deal if legal under 5+ year cap hit rules

34 yo guys getting 5 year deals then burning them off

Guys with health issues front loaded deals, burn them off when they are cooked.

I could live with each team getting 1 Mulligan over the course of a CBA. One is precious, and teams would save that. However, if we know anything owners and gms will abuse systems and agents/players will do anything chasing cash. I don't want to see this lockout cap again in 8 years just to close down a loophole like this when it gets abused.
If they were going to allow more then the one buyout I think making teams forfeit some of their own draft picks would be the best way to prevent over use.

Lz68 is offline  
Old
12-29-2012, 12:42 PM
  #639
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
It's not good for 'buyer' teams like the Canucks, this is about throwing a bone to the struggling southern markets. In order to get the player the extra year he wants, they have to send something back in a sign-and-trade deal. The only way prime UFA's would sign the 6 year deal is if their previous team doesn't play ball on a sign-and-trade deal. The agents will pressure the new team to work out sign-and-trade deals to get that 7th year. UFA players have already paid their dues to their draft team by taking below market value under the RFA system for their prime years. IMO these players should truly be 'unrestricted' and allowed to find their full value on the open market. There shouldn't be a competitive advantage to any team to retain them, and no cost other than $ to acquire them.

Another thing that bothers me, why is 48 games the magic drop-dead number? From a balanced schedule standpoint, the math doesn't add up. 94-95 there was only 26 teams, not 30.

Assuming they slash cross-conference games, each team has 10 opponents in conference but not in division, and 4 divisional opponents. The only way 48 works out evenly is if a team plays 4 games in conference, and only 2 in division. They could play 2 in conference, 20 games, and 6 in division, 24 games. That's 44 games and a well balanced schedule. They could even go down to 4 in division for a 36 game schedule.

I don't see what integrity of competition the NHL is protecting by pushing for a 48 game slate. The playoffs are when the teams make their money anyway, the regular season is when the players make their money. Why is the NHL so adamant about a 48 game schedule? If anyone should be worried about maxing out regular season games, it's the NHLPA.


With a cap and escrow it doesn't matter - the players get a percentage either way. The playoffs will bring in a ton of money and the players get their share - all part of HRR.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-29-2012, 07:18 PM
  #640
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Like no team would offer a 15 or 17 year contracts

No player would sign a deal he didn't intend to play out.

Like no team would front load contracts

Like no team would offer massive signing bonuses
Not a fan of the back diving deals. Main reason is that a portion of the salary that a player is paid is not counted towards the salary cap should the player retire.

Crosby has a 12 year $104 million deal with the final 3 years at $3 million per. If he retires after 9 years he would have pocketed $95 million, about $10.5 million per season, with a $8.7 million cap hit. $1.8 million cap savings per year over the 9 years, so close to $16 million in cap savings over those 9 years would never get applied against the salary. That's not right IMO.

That's why I'd rather see no variance on salary. If you want the security of a 12 year deal, you have to play out the contract to get paid. If you play 90% of the deal, you get 90% of the salary. Shouldn't be allowed to play 75% of the contract to earn 90% of the contract.

Otherwise, if the players want big salary variances, then the cap hit should reflect that. Make the cap hit equal to what a player earns over the 12 month period of July 1 to June 30. So, in the years Crosby earns $12 million, that's his cap hit, when he drops to $6 million that becomes his cap hit.

I'm cool either way. No variance, thus the same cap hit per season. Or make the cap hit whatever the player earns that season. 2nd option is a lot more work and planning on the team's part.

Term lengths, makes sense to have something reasonable. If you have no variance in salary, it's just a risk/insurance thing. NBA has 6 year term limits. Something in that range makes sense.

Rest of the stuff, don't really care about.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
12-29-2012, 08:29 PM
  #641
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Not a fan of the back diving deals. Main reason is that a portion of the salary that a player is paid is not counted towards the salary cap should the player retire.

Crosby has a 12 year $104 million deal with the final 3 years at $3 million per. If he retires after 9 years he would have pocketed $95 million, about $10.5 million per season, with a $8.7 million cap hit. $1.8 million cap savings per year over the 9 years, so close to $16 million in cap savings over those 9 years would never get applied against the salary. That's not right IMO.

That's why I'd rather see no variance on salary. If you want the security of a 12 year deal, you have to play out the contract to get paid. If you play 90% of the deal, you get 90% of the salary. Shouldn't be allowed to play 75% of the contract to earn 90% of the contract.

Otherwise, if the players want big salary variances, then the cap hit should reflect that. Make the cap hit equal to what a player earns over the 12 month period of July 1 to June 30. So, in the years Crosby earns $12 million, that's his cap hit, when he drops to $6 million that becomes his cap hit.

I'm cool either way. No variance, thus the same cap hit per season. Or make the cap hit whatever the player earns that season. 2nd option is a lot more work and planning on the team's part.

Term lengths, makes sense to have something reasonable. If you have no variance in salary, it's just a risk/insurance thing. NBA has 6 year term limits. Something in that range makes sense.

Rest of the stuff, don't really care about.
I've asked you a few times now why you care so much if money paid out doesn't count against the cap, you still haven't told us why?

The variance rule makes sense, max earning during career prime, and then the salary diminishes as the player ages.

I don't see an issue there. If a player retires, I don't see why his cap hit should stick with the team.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-29-2012, 11:37 PM
  #642
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I've asked you a few times now why you care so much if money paid out doesn't count against the cap, you still haven't told us why?

The variance rule makes sense, max earning during career prime, and then the salary diminishes as the player ages.

I don't see an issue there. If a player retires, I don't see why his cap hit should stick with the team.
I agree...for instance, if Luongo were to start breaking down in a few years due to some unfortunate injuries and decided to retire, why should the team be penalized for it? Doesn't make sense to me.

Canucker is online now  
Old
12-30-2012, 04:45 PM
  #643
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,192
vCash: 500
Frank Seravalli ‏@DNFlyersIlya Bryzgalov has left his KHL team, CSKA Moscow, because he says the lockout is ending:*http://ph.ly/4nCeK

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 04:54 PM
  #644
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Sidebar
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burger King bathroom
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,145
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Frank Seravalli ‏@DNFlyersIlya Bryzgalov has left his KHL team, CSKA Moscow, because he says the lockout is ending:*http://ph.ly/4nCeK
https://twitter.com/bryzgoalie30/sta...98970267074561

Quote:
This article is complete BS, i did not make any comments like that:-)

__________________

Richer's Ghost made my avatar
Nuckles is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 06:45 PM
  #645
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
FUuuuuuuuuuuuuu

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 07:58 PM
  #646
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I've asked you a few times now why you care so much if money paid out doesn't count against the cap, you still haven't told us why?
What is the point of cap if you accept cap evasion? You might as well get rid of it.

Quote:
The variance rule makes sense, max earning during career prime, and then the salary diminishes as the player ages.

I don't see an issue there. If a player retires, I don't see why his cap hit should stick with the team.
It's not his cap hit going forward but the cap evasion lookin back. I've said before I think it should be the difference between cap hit and money not taken that year.

me2 is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 07:56 AM
  #647
PG Canuck
Moderator
 
PG Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,779
vCash: 7611
Apparently today will make or break what will happen moving forward.

PG Canuck is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 08:16 AM
  #648
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG Canuck View Post
Apparently today will make or break what will happen moving forward.
Well the PA has until tonight to file their disclaimer of interest. They could vote again later and let the deadline pass if they feel progress is being made.

What I noticed this time around compared to early December is that Bettman has chilled out. No more rhetoric about hills to die on, no exasperation to the press. Fehr got under his skin back in early December which is probably what he wanted.

Both sides are engaged in a game of chicken with the cancellation of the season looming. I think the NHL has thought all along that the players would blink over losing the season, but I think Fehr may be calling the NHL's bluff and the league is starting to get concerned. I don't think the PA will sign a long term deal that isn't in their best interests simply to avoid the short term pain of losing paycheques this season.

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 11:26 AM
  #649
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG Canuck View Post
Apparently today will make or break what will happen moving forward.
And with it, the player's biggest playing chip. The endgame is nigh. There will be a shortened season. Book it. It's just a shame that it cost half a season and good deal of fan goodwill to get there.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 11:28 AM
  #650
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,950
vCash: 500
I wonder what time they will meet today? Yesterday's meeting kept getting delayed and delayed - wonder if the same occurs again.

Sounds like some fairly significant areas have been agreed upon - the only thing that has been mentioned as a bone of contention at this stage is pensions (doesn't mean that's not just the tip of the iceberg, but still)

Today is also the deadline to file the DOI. Perception is that if the PA opts not to file it, that a deal is close.

Mr. Canucklehead is online now  
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 05:31 PM.

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.