View Single Post
Old
11-15-2004, 04:52 PM
  #38
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Of course. That's all there was to this. I don't have any problem with the NHL wanting to negotiate this. And nobody should have any difficulty with Bill Guerin objecting to it or Bob Goodenow making sure the players know exactly what the owners have given notice about wanting to negotiate.
Tom, you have three posts in this thread alone that doesn't just question Bettman's credibility but outright says he has none.

Now the point I was trying to make is that Bettman's memo (atleast the part quoted) does not say one way or another that the league is looking for unguaranteed contracts.

Which returns this to Goodenow, if the players believe that they are in danger of losing their guaranteed contracts (or the NHL version of their gauranteed contracts) because of this single memo, then it is Goodenow that is not being forthright....not Bettman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What drives both Goodenow and the players nuts over it is the insult Bettman delivers. He's implying 1) Goodenow is misleading the players, 2) the players are too naive to understand what is in the memo and 3) if Bob Goodenow was not misleading the players there would be a deal. That's not negotiating in good faith. That's disrespectful of Goodenow and the players.
1) Goodenow (or someone under his charge) IS misleading the players. Atleast in this instance he is. Unless there is something much more specific out there by the league that reinforces the accusation, then this can't really be disputed.

2) To discount the influence that the information providers have over the rank and file players would be very naive in my opinion.

3) He has done no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It also disrespects the intelligent fan.
Well it's up to the fan to assess what they feel is relevant. Clearly there are some that lean to one extreme and some that lean to the other. I think the majority see both sides as being equal (for the most part equally bad) but have figured out what they want (or feel the game needs) as a league moving forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Every time he opens his mouth, the players trust him less.
Well if that's the case then so be it....

However, they should also be asking Goodenow to be a little more forthright and at the end of the day they don't need to trust Bettman anyways. Goodenow will get them the best deal he can and when the time comes that he feels he can't get anymore he will advise the players to sign on and they will do exactly that.... like the good little sheep they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
No. This depends on the definition of guarantee. It does not mean the NHL does not want to change the buyout provisions. And it does not mean the NHL does not intend to raise it. All Bettman has said is that it has never been discussed with the union. He has not said it will never be discussed with the union.
Exactly. It also doesn't mean that they want ungauranteed contracts. Which is what Brook's is contending and the players have apparently been told.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Besides the players think Bettman is a liar. Even if he decalred that it was off the table as a concession, nobody believes him. I can't understand why anybody believes anything he says.
If the players choose to believe him fine, if they don't, fine. But if nothing else it offered an olive branch to the players or more specifically Goodenow that he can point to at a later date and hold out for all to consume should it turn out to be false.

Let's be realistic here, all this crap comes out in the end. I don't think either side is stupid enough to burn their bridges publically when credibility will once again be front and center at the end of this agreement. The NHL, moreso that the players as an association, need the best public credibility that they can garner. That isn't just through the labour disputes but for general operations as well.

I think that Bettman just offered Goodenow quite abit of bargaining leverage by killing the rumour the way he did as it pertains to this specific item. You may disagree, so be it....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The leak of the memo is nothing really because here is probably nothing in it that Daly hasn't said out loud anyway or hasn't already hit the media. So why do it? It is not technically bargaining in bad faith, but it clearly shows bad faith. Brown paper envelopes. How bogus is that? Why do it? The only reason is to poke the players with a sharp stick. It is the same insulting, misleading message.
Oh please, this is a case of finding something to hang on.

This secret, leaked memo is posted on the CBA website so where is the big problem here?

copperandblue is offline