HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Goodenough is full of it...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-23-2004, 12:33 PM
  #1
Papadice
Registered User
 
Papadice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Papadice
Goodenough is full of it... CBA Idea...

Goodenough always says that the players want to play but the owners are locking them out. He says that the players love playing and want to get playing for the fans again as soon as possible.

If that's the case, why doesn't the NHLPA approach Bettman and say that they are willing to play for free, or willing to play for minimum wage ($250,000 or whatever it is). That way the game goes on and they can work on the CBA while they are playing. I'm sure Bettman will be more than willing to do that because the league would bring in tons of revenue and have VERY little expense. But the players wouldn't do that. They say they want to get playing in front of the fans again and it's the owners that have locked them out, but if given that option to play for free or minimum wage while the CBA is being resolved I can guarantee you that the players would say no. Why? Because regardless of what propaganda they want to spout out there, in the end, it's all about the money. They are perfectly fine to keep playing under the current system while they work on the CBA, meanwhile raking in huge paycheques, but I'd bet that they aren't willing to keep playing if they aren't making so much money in the meantime.

The point is, the reason that the owners have locked the players out as opposed to allowing them to keep playing during negotiations, is that if the players keep playing and keep earning big paycheques, they will have absolutely no motivation to fairly negotiate a new deal. Instead they will just continue earning the big cheques until the owners eventually give in. Having a lockout allows the owners to have a bit of leverage to force the NHLPA to either negotiate and help them fix the problems or sit on the sidelines and wait.


Papadice is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 12:50 PM
  #2
ExplosiveLEAFman
Registered User
 
ExplosiveLEAFman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,661
vCash: 500
I agree. The players are just horrible people for expecting a paycheck.

ExplosiveLEAFman is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 12:57 PM
  #3
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
There's a big difference between really enjoying your job -- wanting to work and being willing to do it for free. There's nothing greedy about expecting fair compensation.

ceber is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 02:11 PM
  #4
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by explosivethinman
I agree. The players are just horrible people for expecting a paycheck.
:lol
Classic. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Legolas is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 02:25 PM
  #5
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Excellent comeback. I wish Peter Mansbridge would have thought of that one. "Bob, would you agree to having your players play for $250,000 each while you hammer out an agreement with the NHL". Of course we all know he would back track on his statment that the owners are locking them out and that they are willing to play. Most players would likely say yes to this proposal but "What about Bob" wouldn't let them.

eye is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 02:58 PM
  #6
Papadice
Registered User
 
Papadice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Papadice
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Excellent comeback. I wish Peter Mansbridge would have thought of that one. "Bob, would you agree to having your players play for $250,000 each while you hammer out an agreement with the NHL". Of course we all know he would back track on his statment that the owners are locking them out and that they are willing to play. Most players would likely say yes to this proposal but "What about Bob" wouldn't let them.
exactly my point... i would have loved to have seen him try to work his way out of that situation...

Papadice is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 03:01 PM
  #7
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
There's a big difference between really enjoying your job -- wanting to work and being willing to do it for free. There's nothing greedy about expecting fair compensation.
Would 50% of the $2 Billion dollars the league generates in revenue going to 700 players count as "fair compensation"?

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 05:11 PM
  #8
chriss_co
Registered User
 
chriss_co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CALGARY
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Would 50% of the $2 Billion dollars the league generates in revenue going to 700 players count as "fair compensation"?
I agree... 50% is fair... the 75% they enjoy and want to maintain is ridiculous

what are the players afraid of? whats wrong with an average salary of $1.3 million instead of $1.8 million???

its not like they are going to be homeless

chriss_co is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 07:04 PM
  #9
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Would 50% of the $2 Billion dollars the league generates in revenue going to 700 players count as "fair compensation"?
Depends on costs.

(I was just pointing out that I thought it unfair to expect the players to play for some very low salary, like 250k, because they "love to play.")

ceber is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 08:59 PM
  #10
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,784
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
Depends on costs.

(I was just pointing out that I thought it unfair to expect the players to play for some very low salary, like 250k, because they "love to play.")
Sounded like a good idea. Bring them all back on $250-500K base for the year while they work on a deal. Put 50-55% ($250-500K already paid) of league revenue into a escrow fund and let the NHLPA divide it up amoungst the players at the end of the year. Every one wins and hopefully Bettman and Goodenow can sit down and talk it out.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 08:31 AM
  #11
Papadice
Registered User
 
Papadice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Papadice
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Sounded like a good idea. Bring them all back on $250-500K base for the year while they work on a deal. Put 50-55% ($250-500K already paid) of league revenue into a escrow fund and let the NHLPA divide it up amoungst the players at the end of the year. Every one wins and hopefully Bettman and Goodenow can sit down and talk it out.
sounds great to me... and it's not like any players would be hurting during that time... because in Europe now there are several players playing for free, and several playing for peanuts... well, if they are willing to do that there, why not do it here and show the fans around here some appreciation... that way, hockey goes on, public perception is not so bad, hockey is not being hurt in the already weak markets such as Nashville, and Bettman and Goodenough can work it out...

Papadice is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:02 AM
  #12
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgallant
sounds great to me... and it's not like any players would be hurting during that time... because in Europe now there are several players playing for free, and several playing for peanuts... well, if they are willing to do that there, why not do it here and show the fans around here some appreciation... that way, hockey goes on, public perception is not so bad, hockey is not being hurt in the already weak markets such as Nashville, and Bettman and Goodenough can work it out...
tony, dont be so naive. why should they play for free or even 250,000 anyhow ? they have signed contracts and if the owners want their services, they need to fulfill those obligations.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:20 AM
  #13
Papadice
Registered User
 
Papadice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Papadice
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
tony, dont be so naive. why should they play for free or even 250,000 anyhow ? they have signed contracts and if the owners want their services, they need to fulfill those obligations.

dr
what's the difference? many of them are playing for free in Europe... why not play for free here and give something back to the fans for a change... it would be a GREAT move for them PR wise... plus, like I said, it would keep hockey on the map in the US (even if it's only a blip on the map in some places)... I doubt they'd play for free here, but $250,000 per year is more than many of them are making in Europe, so why not play for that here? as for the contracts, they are not active during a lockout... the contracts were signed under the CBA and in the absence of a CBA, the owners are not required to pay them... but if it kept hockey going by them playing for $250k each, then I'd bet the owners would agree...

My WHOLE point to all this when I created this thread was to point out that when Goodenough spouts his rhetoric about "it's the owners who are locking the players out, the players want to play" that he's completely full of it... The players want to play ONLY if they are still raking in HUGE paycheques... In the absence of that, they won't play... so, it's not that they want to play, it's that they want to get paid!!! There is a HUGE difference there...

By saying that the owners are locking them out and that the players want to play, what they are saying is that they want the owners to accept status quo until a new CBA is negotiated... The league at that point would have ABSOLUTELY NO LEVERAGE and a CBA that fixes the problems would never come to pass because the players are happy playing under status quo, so they have no reason to negotiate... So, my suggestion was that if they expect the owners to do that and give up their leverage, why is it so different to expect the players to come back and play for minimum wage while the owners rake in huge revenues? That way they are taking away the players leverage because they owners would have no reason to negotiate because the system at that point would work great for them...

I'm not saying that I'd ever expect the players to do this... What I'm saying is that this rhetoric that Goodenough spouts is a load of crap... Because he's suggesting that the owners do something, that if the tables were reversed, the players would NEVER do... The NHL is not about to give up it's leverage any more than the players would be willing to give up theirs!

Papadice is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:29 AM
  #14
Papadice
Registered User
 
Papadice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Papadice
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
tony, dont be so naive. why should they play for free or even 250,000 anyhow ? they have signed contracts and if the owners want their services, they need to fulfill those obligations.

dr
DR, obviously you know me since you called me by my first name (and i can't find anywhere on here that i've posted that)... I looked in your profile and there's nothing in there to help me out at all... are you in the EXHL? who are ya? ya got me curious...

Papadice is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:34 AM
  #15
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgallant
what's the difference? many of them are playing for free in Europe... why not play for free here and give something back to the fans for a change... it would be a GREAT move for them PR wise... plus, like I said, it would keep hockey on the map in the US (even if it's only a blip on the map in some places)... I doubt they'd play for free here, but $250,000 per year is more than many of them are making in Europe, so why not play for that here? as for the contracts, they are not active during a lockout... the contracts were signed under the CBA and in the absence of a CBA, the owners are not required to pay them... but if it kept hockey going by them playing for $250k each, then I'd bet the owners would agree...

My WHOLE point to all this when I created this thread was to point out that when Goodenough spouts his rhetoric about "it's the owners who are locking the players out, the players want to play" that he's completely full of it... The players want to play ONLY if they are still raking in HUGE paycheques... In the absence of that, they won't play... so, it's not that they want to play, it's that they want to get paid!!! There is a HUGE difference there...

By saying that the owners are locking them out and that the players want to play, what they are saying is that they want the owners to accept status quo until a new CBA is negotiated... The league at that point would have ABSOLUTELY NO LEVERAGE and a CBA that fixes the problems would never come to pass because the players are happy playing under status quo, so they have no reason to negotiate... So, my suggestion was that if they expect the owners to do that and give up their leverage, why is it so different to expect the players to come back and play for minimum wage while the owners rake in huge revenues? That way they are taking away the players leverage because they owners would have no reason to negotiate because the system at that point would work great for them...

I'm not saying that I'd ever expect the players to do this... What I'm saying is that this rhetoric that Goodenough spouts is a load of crap... Because he's suggesting that the owners do something, that if the tables were reversed, the players would NEVER do... The NHL is not about to give up it's leverage any more than the players would be willing to give up theirs!
because by not playing in the NHL it gives them a little bit of leverage in the negotiations. if the owners dont feel any financial pressure of no hockey, the players have an even more difficult negotiating position.

dr

ps .. sorry for using your first name, i didnt think about it. maybe i should keep you in suspense, but if you think about the biggest Canucks fan you know online, I think you will get it.

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:42 AM
  #16
Papadice
Registered User
 
Papadice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Papadice
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
because by not playing in the NHL it gives them a little bit of leverage in the negotiations. if the owners dont feel any financial pressure of no hockey, the players have an even more difficult negotiating position.

dr

ps .. sorry for using your first name, i didnt think about it. maybe i should keep you in suspense, but if you think about the biggest Canucks fan you know online, I think you will get it.
RD? I looked at your message history and a lot of Nucks posts in there so I was leaning towards it being you...

As for the post, thanks for proving my point for me... My point was simply that the players would never do it because it takes away there leverage... So, if it's ok for them to do it, why would they expect the owners to let them play under an expired CBA which in turn, would take away the owners leverage...

Goodenough says it like it's such a bad thing that the owners locked them out... But the reason for the owners locking them out is the exact same reason that the players would refuse to play for $250k a year while they work on it... Because both situations would completely toss away the leverage for one side...

If the situation were reversed right now and it was the players that were losing so much money and making crappy salaries in the NHL, and the owners were raking in tons of money in revenue, I guarantee you that when that CBA would expire the players would strike... They wouldn't agree to keep playing until a new CBA was worked out because they know that if they did that, it would never happen... So, Goodenough is basically pointing out the fact that the owners are doing something, that if the situation was reversed, the players would absolutely do themselves... He keeps using that as a selling point to try to get fan sympathy and it just doesn't fly with me...

Papadice is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:45 AM
  #17
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgallant
RD? I looked at your message history and a lot of Nucks posts in there so I was leaning towards it being you...

As for the post, thanks for proving my point for me... My point was simply that the players would never do it because it takes away there leverage... So, if it's ok for them to do it, why would they expect the owners to let them play under an expired CBA which in turn, would take away the owners leverage...

Goodenough says it like it's such a bad thing that the owners locked them out... But the reason for the owners locking them out is the exact same reason that the players would refuse to play for $250k a year while they work on it... Because both situations would completely toss away the leverage for one side...

If the situation were reversed right now and it was the players that were losing so much money and making crappy salaries in the NHL, and the owners were raking in tons of money in revenue, I guarantee you that when that CBA would expire the players would strike... They wouldn't agree to keep playing until a new CBA was worked out because they know that if they did that, it would never happen... So, Goodenough is basically pointing out the fact that the owners are doing something, that if the situation was reversed, the players would absolutely do themselves... He keeps using that as a selling point to try to get fan sympathy and it just doesn't fly with me...
ok, well im not going to say BG is right, just like Bettman is a jerk for saying the players only want "status quo".

its all just for the sheep.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
09-24-2004, 09:48 AM
  #18
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
I believe the problem is that without a new negotiated CBA the current CBA is in effect if games are played. I don't think it would be legal for the players to come back and play for a minimal amount of money, even if they wanted to. I'm pretty sure you've got to either not play, or play under the current system and current contracts. You could maybe negotiate an interim-CBA that allows this, but I think that opens up a whole other can of legal worms.

Is there a big-league labor lawyer in the house?

ceber is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 10:18 AM
  #19
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
In my opinion, without a CBA, you can't play...period. Each player contract is a sub-agreement under the CBA I think...so beyond the compensation problems, there would have to be negotiation on all the other terms of the CBA - benefits, trades, arbitration. You could have an interim CBA I suppose that would maintain the status quo except salaries, but why would the players agree to that. Despite the efforts of both the NHL and NHLPA to lure the fans and media to their side, bargaining leverage has very little to do with whether the fans like you or not, as far as I can tell. Leverage comes from which side can afford to maintain their position and compromise the least. Right now, the strike fund and whatever money the players have saved up are the reason there's no negotiation. They can both wait each other out...for now.

If ther was more trust between the parties. That is, if they actually agreed with each other that the league is in serious trouble and they need to change the system drastically, then maybe they could come to an agreement for the interim, but there's no way the players would play for a reduced salary, allow the league to collect revenue on the promise of some future negotiation. Similarly, the league would never keep operating while paying players salaries that were high enough to stop them from negotiating.

Both sides had YEARS to negotiate this deal while games were being played and nothing got done. That's just pathetic.

Legolas is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 10:20 AM
  #20
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,554
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
Is there a big-league labor lawyer in the house?
No but i did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night

Motown Beatdown 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 10:33 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.