View Single Post
Old
10-28-2004, 02:21 PM
  #6
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ68NYR
So i guess Bettman really isnt the bad guy here its that a$$ Goodenow
Or take my point of view...they've both at fault. Both Bettman and Goodenow announced publicly what they would and would not accept...not coincidentally they happen to be opposing non-compatible views. It's an interesting approach, because generally in politics we see a similar strategy...state your position publicly, knowing the opposition pretty much has to take the other side and forcing them into stating that position and thereby creating a deadlock.

If there was genuinely an interest on Bettman's side to negotiate this out, rather than take the "You're either with us or against us" strategy then he would not have stated the cap demands publicly. If Goodenow wasn't looking to play "silly buggers" he could easily have said we are willing to consider all option and even have a few of our own.

Instead the NHLPA immediately dismissed the cap options that the league proposed after only a token review, and the league returned the favor on the luxury cap proposal from the players.

And so we have both sides, unwilling to compromise who have basically put their jobs and reputations on the line...not an insubstantial ante...and will hold out for the longest time hoping they ultimately get what they want.

The only thing that will shorten this lockout now is if there is an eroding of support on one or both sides. With so few owners involved, I'm betting it will be the players, who as others have pointed out, are largely made up of guys making less than the average salary today and perhaps wouldn't feel much difference from a cap compared to those making more than the average.

Fish is offline