There will be a strike

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
ukcanuck
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4591
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by ukcanuck »

Topper
Idealologically bankrupt was the term I used and by it meant that the idea that capital concerns trumps human concerns is worthless. I didn't mean that anyone was morally bankrupt even if one believes it :)

Sorry I'm on a mobile so can't edit and quote to your whole post in one shot
User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16319
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over here.....

Re: There will be a strike

Post by rats19 »

Topper wrote:
rats19 wrote:
SKYO wrote:Oh snap topper laying down the law.


Quit using worms...... bait restriction enforced... :wink:
Some hooks may be barbed.
Trebles:........banned :)
Silence intelligence so stupid isn’t offended….
User avatar
SKYO
MVP
MVP
Posts: 14992
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by SKYO »

rats19 wrote:Quit using worms...... bait restriction enforced... :wink:
Oh snap rats laying down the law...

lol, but yeah use barbed hooks as tops said. ;)
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18171
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Topper »

ukcanuck wrote:
Topper
Idealologically bankrupt was the term I used and by it meant that the idea that capital concerns trumps human concerns is worthless. I didn't mean that anyone was morally bankrupt even if one believes it :)

Sorry I'm on a mobile so can't edit and quote to your whole post in one shot
I thought you'd blame your mobile for the gibberish you've been spewing.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
ukcanuck
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4591
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by ukcanuck »

Topper: By definition, revenue is before expenses. I noted that in the post you quoted.
My point is that revenue sharing for the purpose of cost sharing and spreading the liability for running the league as a whole is what the term revenue sharing should mean and is not now used by the NHL.
And yes guaranteed contracts are a concern but were they not part of the old CBA before 2004? If not I agree they should be on the table moving forward. Having said that the way Bettman has negotiated to this point, by threat of lockout. I can't blame the players for not giving back a thing so far.
User avatar
ukcanuck
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4591
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by ukcanuck »

Topper wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
Topper
Idealologically bankrupt was the term I used and by it meant that the idea that capital concerns trumps human concerns is worthless. I didn't mean that anyone was morally bankrupt even if one believes it :)

Sorry I'm on a mobile so can't edit and quote to your whole post in one shot
I thought you'd blame your mobile for the gibberish you've been spewing.
Lol ok I'll wait till I get home and respond with a little less "gibberish" funny guy :D
User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4670
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Aaronp18 »

Topper wrote: Easy, get rid of guaranteed contracts.
I definitely don't know enough about the CBA but buyouts are permitted. If a player is bought out they aren't paid the full amount of their contract are they?

Perhaps they could do something similar in the new CBA but the player gets less than he does now if bought out. He is then still free to sign with another team. Much like being fired in the real world and getting a severance.

Teams and GMs need to be accountable for the stupid contracts they hand out as well. So not only are teams responsible for paying some of a players salary but perhaps more of that salary should count against the cap if a player is bought out.

I agree that players should have some performance expectations when big contracts are signed but GMs need to be responsible for the contracts they are signing as well.

Out of pure curiosity should a 25% roll back be put in place does that mean Bettman, his cronies and all management staff hired by NHL teams are subject to the same roll back? :mrgreen:
User avatar
SKYO
MVP
MVP
Posts: 14992
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by SKYO »

In the end the players will take a bit of paycut, however the cap will still vary.

So the supertars can get paid, while they can keep the keep the team together, as dynasty is a dying cause, if the owners/board members care..................................... :drink:
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18171
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Topper »

Aaronp18 wrote:
Topper wrote: Easy, get rid of guaranteed contracts.
I definitely don't know enough about the CBA but buyouts are permitted. If a player is bought out they aren't paid the full amount of their contract are they?

Perhaps they could do something similar in the new CBA but the player gets less than he does now if bought out. He is then still free to sign with another team. Much like being fired in the real world and getting a severance
Yes they are, with cap restrictions. The Leaves taking a $1mil cap hit on Darcy Tucker for next two years.

When the current CBA was signed, there was a buyout grace period available to all teams. Infamously, I suggested the Canucks buyout the remaining contract of #16.
Aaronp18 wrote:Teams and GMs need to be accountable for the stupid contracts they hand out as well. So not only are teams responsible for paying some of a players salary but perhaps more of that salary should count against the cap if a player is bought out.
At what point does responsible contracts become collusion? If teams agree that at a certain level, they will stop bidding for a players services, that is collusion.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4670
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Aaronp18 »

Topper wrote: At what point does responsible contracts become collusion? If teams agree that at a certain level, they will stop bidding for a players services, that is collusion.
It's not limiting what a team can pay for a player, it just means that if they offer and in turn sign the contract they give to a player they are going to be responsible for at least a portion of that contract. It will make teams and GM's think twice about simply handing out ridiculous contracts.

If GM's were simply allowed to cut players and walk away from something previously agreed upon I don't think it's entirely fair. If players are going to be held accountable with non-guaranteed contracts teams and GM's have to be held accountable for handing them out as well.

Also I really don't understand how collusion would work in the NHL model. It's the same company with individual teams competing against each other.

All teams operate under the same CBA and if that type of operation is legal under the agreed set of rules how can it be collusion?

Wouldn't examples like the salary cap itself and the max 20% of the cap an individual is allowed to be paid be collusion? These both limit what teams can pay players.
wienerdog
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by wienerdog »

ukcanuck wrote:
wienerdog wrote:
Topper wrote: UK...
Why bother? There's no reasoning with a zealot, Tops.

All I know is the Tourette's-like "grab the pitchforks!!" response to you is certainly coming down the pipe - wait for it, wait...
Does Wiener feel better now that he has contributed nothing to the conversation? Have something intelligent to say? say it. Otherwise, condescension is not evidence of IQ...
Lol, I had no idea that resorting to calling your opponent "morally bankrupt" when you are getting destroyed in a debate constituted "something intelligent" "contributed...to the conversation".

I simply called you a zealot, which you are. At the very least, you undeniably argue like one and I defy you refute it.

For the record, sunshine, here's the level of civility you've shown in this discussion in response to everyday forum ribbing:
ukcanuck wrote:
wienerdog wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:balance all that with a guy who spends a life time of 5 am practices with families who sacrifice money, holidays and hours on the road driving to games all in the effort to make it in the big time, only to be told where to play, how to play, how much you are paid and if you dont like it, fuck you go home? There is no one on this site who would accept such working conditions, and its all OK because they get million dollar paycheques? bullshit
FFS™, I hope you're drunk :drink:

Give your Limey head a shake - EVERYONE on this site would accept those working conditions, amigo.
fuck you you would. your not thinking it through, whatever it is you do for a living if your boss told you that he was rolling back your pay, changing your hours of work and transferring you to bumfuck idaho because it suited him better and your only choice was to lump it or completely change careers you would fucking flip and reach for the phone to call your lawyer.
or maybe not, i guess even communist russia had its supporters...
So don't talk to me about condescention. You've been nothing but that in an effort to shriek your point into everyone's face this entire thread.

So, GFY my good sir, and unlike tant, I won't get drawn in by your unreasonable rantings again - even if you offer me a disgustingly sycophantic apology like you did to him.

Clear enough? :mex:
User avatar
ukcanuck
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4591
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by ukcanuck »

wienerdog wrote:
Clear enough? :mex:
Yeah its pretty clear and i'll just let your own words stand as there is nothing more I could add to prove my point better...wow
User avatar
SKYO
MVP
MVP
Posts: 14992
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by SKYO »

ukcanuck wrote:
wienerdog wrote:
Clear enough? :mex:
Yeah its pretty clear and i'll just let your own words stand as there is nothing more I could add to prove my point better...wow
weak comeback uk.
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
User avatar
ukcanuck
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4591
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Post by ukcanuck »

SKYO wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
wienerdog wrote:
Clear enough? :mex:
Yeah its pretty clear and i'll just let your own words stand as there is nothing more I could add to prove my point better...wow
weak comeback uk.
Sorry SKYO I didnt want to encourage the mental midget, it just wouldn't be fair, but if I wanted or felt the need to defend myself :
wienerdog wrote: Lol, I had no idea that resorting to calling your opponent "morally bankrupt" when you are getting destroyed in a debate constituted "something intelligent" "contributed...to the conversation".

I simply called you a zealot, which you are. At the very least, you undeniably argue like one and I defy you refute it.
Actually I said 'ideologically bankrupt” It’s slightly different but I'm sure even you can understand, morals are the things you don't have and ideology is the crap they feed you at your weekly neo-Nazi meetings there Vienerschnitzel. And honestly, How do you even keep up with the discussions around here with your constantly checking your dictionary for the meanings of all the multi syllabic words let alone have a clue whether I am having my ass handed to me or not...wait I guess since you are an expert in being an ass...
wienerdog wrote:For the record, sunshine, here's the level of civility you've shown in this discussion in response to everyday forum ribbing:
OK lets have a look shall we?
ukcanuck wrote:balance all that with a guy who spends a life time of 5 am practices with families who sacrifice money, holidays and hours on the road driving to games all in the effort to make it in the big time, only to be told where to play, how to play, how much you are paid and if you don’t like it, fuck you go home? There is no one on this site who would accept such working conditions, and its all OK because they get million dollar paycheques? Bullshit
I guess I do say fuck and bullshit in this paragraph that is rather rude, but condescending? I don’t think so...
wienerdog wrote:FFS™, I hope you're drunk :drink:
oh but this is condescending!
wienerdog wrote:Give your Limey head a shake - EVERYONE on this site would accept those working conditions, amigo.
and look at this, a racial slur! twice! As well as condescension! hmm maybe I am not far off about those meetings...
But wait YOU said these things not me and look both in direct response to my not condescending point too, Golly Gee look at that :)
wienerdog wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:fuck you you would. Youre not thinking it through, whatever it is you do for a living if your boss told you that he was rolling back your pay, changing your hours of work and transferring you to bumfuck idaho because it suited him better and your only choice was to lump it or completely change careers you would fucking flip and reach for the phone to call your lawyer.
or maybe not, I guess even communist Russia had its supporters...
Ok maybe after being called a limey, accused of being drunk and frustrated that you simply cant get a simple point like the one above, I did get a little testy.. Perhaps I was even guilty of, what was the term you used ? Oh yeah "everyday forum ribbing'
wienerdog wrote: So don't talk to me about condescension. You've been nothing but that in an effort to shriek your point into everyone's face this entire thread.
Perhaps now that I have rubbed your silly little nose in it, you might be able to grasp that it was you who has been condescending with your tone, you who has used an example of your inability to grasp simple concepts as a means to discredit my intelligence, and actually it was you who interjected into a conversation to neither add anything nor reflect on anything that was said but it seems only to enflame emotions. oh my, isn't that being a troll? :(
wienerdog wrote:So, GFY my good sir, and unlike tnt, I won't get drawn in by your unreasonable rantings again - even if you offer me a disgustingly sycophantic apology like you did to him.
Actually since you interjected yourself into an existing conversation in the first place you technically cant get drawn in again like Tant
Sycophantic thats a big word for you, very impressive, too bad its used in the wrong context. you see for my apology to be sycophantic, Tant would have to be an influential person around here rather than just a guy who I know went through some shit a couple of summers ago with a tornado and his family (you know a ternader?) and yeah I think the guy deserves some respect. but good try with the spelling anyway :) I'm surprised you managed tha...oh wait.. You must have spell check that’s right! lol communicating with the world is a lot easier since Microsoft brought out Word hey?
wienerdog wrote:Clear enough? :mex:
Right back at ya "sunshine :)
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 19129
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Post by Hockey Widow »

We all know this will settle somewhere near a 50-50 split. The players know it and the owners would take it. The real issues are the issues everyone wants us to think are not important. Ferh said it himself, whats in it for the players to accept a lower split? He said the NHL not only wants to lower the players percentage but they want to take away rights. And that my friends is the real crux of the matter.

How do the players get to a point of accepting 50% or less? Well, they do so by winning the small battles on age of UFA, entry level deals, contract lengths, front loading, NTC/NMC, arbitration, automatic increases for RFA's, waiver rules etc, etc , etc.

They get it by keeping the cap linked to revenues and the ability for it to increase every year, not by fixing the cap each year or by having set increases built in.

The players know there will always be a cap. They know they get too much in the split. They know they will have to give some of that up and live with the cap so they will want to maximize mobility earlier in their careers. The change in the last CBA to an earlier UFA age directly led to a major change in how players were paid. Remember the days when players got paid for what they did in the past and not their current potential? Players today get bigger pay days younger, notice the rash and extensions before the CBA ran out. If the players can get the eligibility of FA changed again in their favour they can live with giving up a piece of the pie. If they can keep the cap rising they can live with giving up another piece. If they can prevent restrictions being placed on term they can give up another piece.

They key for the players to "win" is to keep their mobility intact and provide themselves with more options earlier in their careers. They need to fix up waivers so more players have a better chance of not being buried in the minors.

The owners to "win" don't only need to get closer to 50% but they need to restrict FA more, get rid or arbitration and automatic increases for RFA, limit NTC/NMC, restrict contract lengths.

The devil is in the details and even though they want us all to believe it is about how much pie they all get to eat it is the little things that are key to fixing the CBA, and fix is subjective here.
The only HW the Canucks need
Post Reply