HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Bettmen and Goodenow met in new york TODAY Dec 3rd!!!!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2004, 02:49 PM
  #26
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
OK xander...

I'll split the difference with you on that one...

And PepNCheese...why can't the players claim that?

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 03:04 PM
  #27
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
And PepNCheese...why can't the players claim that?
Exactly. Some fans just think that "done everything they can to be reasonable.", means bending over for Bettman.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 03:25 PM
  #28
Volcanologist
Used Register
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cosmodrome
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
And PepNCheese...why can't the players claim that?
They can't because a luxury tax is a non-starter and they know this perfectly well. It is old news by months.

Proposing a more severe form of a system that has been already been rejected on a fundamental level? How else can this be interpreted as anything but a symbolic offer?

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 03:31 PM
  #29
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
That's silly...

since for the NHLPA believes a cap is a non-starter.

So basically what you're saying is that unless the NHLPA goes along with whatever framework outlined by the league, all offers are token. So why bother having a union and why bother negotiating when it should be what the owners and league want? By the same token the League's offer in July was a token offer too, no? The NHLPA stated they would not work within a cap structure and all six proposals were different forms ofa cap structure. So that was a pretty symbolic offer - and thus by definition any offer that doesn't give in to the other's needs is symbolic and the only real offer is going to be from the one who caves in, I guess.

But it's not a symbolic offer. If the NHLPA will not work with a cap, and the NHL will not work without one, then there will never, ever be NHL hockey again. The players aren't trying to show the League how a luxury system can work, and would work to solve the NHL's problems. That's all part of the negotiating process.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 03:36 PM
  #30
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
They can't because a luxury tax is a non-starter and they know this perfectly well. It is old news by months.

Proposing a more severe form of a system that has been already been rejected on a fundamental level? How else can this be interpreted as anything but a symbolic offer?
IMO , neither side can have a 'non-starter' and claim to be negotiating. There has to be some middle ground reached between both side's proposals or there will not be any NHL in the near future.....

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 03:59 PM
  #31
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
They can't because a luxury tax is a non-starter and they know this perfectly well. It is old news by months.

Proposing a more severe form of a system that has been already been rejected on a fundamental level? How else can this be interpreted as anything but a symbolic offer?
What? So becuase luxury tax is a non-starter for Bettman, so it must be? Why can't Bettman's idea that there MUST be a $31m hard cap be considered a "non-starter" as well?
And, since we are looking at it from the other side, won't any proposal by the league that has a hard cap be considered nothing more than a symbolic offer here?

The NHLPA should not even be making this proposal to begin with. Bettman never replied to the other one. In a negotiation, one has to actually be willing to negotiate for it to be successful. Otherwise, you do not have a negotiation (as you do not in this case). If Bettman thinks that all he has to do is sit on his mountian and wait until he sees a proposal that he likes, then kiss the NHL good-bye. Permanently.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 04:20 PM
  #32
Volcanologist
Used Register
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cosmodrome
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Why can't Bettman's idea that there MUST be a $31m hard cap be considered a "non-starter" as well?
Can't?

It IS considered that way by the players, is it not?

How does this change anything about the players' newest offer, though?

Quote:
And, since we are looking at it from the other side, won't any proposal by the league that has a hard cap be considered nothing more than a symbolic offer here?

The NHLPA should not even be making this proposal to begin with. Bettman never replied to the other one. In a negotiation, one has to actually be willing to negotiate for it to be successful. Otherwise, you do not have a negotiation (as you do not in this case). If Bettman thinks that all he has to do is sit on his mountian and wait until he sees a proposal that he likes, then kiss the NHL good-bye. Permanently.
Heh.

Unfortunately for the NHLPA, they simply don't have that kind of power.

If they did, then they'd just do exactly what you describe Bettman is doing, sit there and wait for an offer that doesn't have a salary cap in it. But they know that if they do that, then the case for impasse and therefore imposition of an agreement would be all the stronger. Hence this offer.

I think the players will look back at this time one day and wished they negotiated a better cap deal than the one that will be imposed next year sometime. Too bad Goodenow can't read the writing on the wall here.

You think anybody wants revenue sharing, by the way? At least, anybody who be doing the paying rather than the receiving? Check out this comment by Booby Clarke, leader of one of the "rich teams":

Quote:
"To me, revenue sharing is just finding a way to spend the owners' money. That has nothing to do with putting in place a system that works for the players and the owners. That's just taking from one rink that sells out and giving it to another. They're pushing it as a solution, but all they're saying is, `Take Philadelphia's money and give it to Nashville; and Detroit's money and give it to Atlanta.' That doesn't take any genius. That's not a contribution to help the sport."
http://www.courierpostonline.com/pro.../fy113004a.htm

If the rich teams don't want tax/revenue sharing, it ain't gonna fly. Period, end of story.

I would be willing to bet the more prosperous teams (including the Rangers) aren't willing to give their money to artificially support weak, money-losing franchises. And really, why should they? Maybe the league has to face up to its own weakness and not try to patch the hole in the dam with illusory support of losing markets.

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 04:35 PM
  #33
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Why should the Rangers support those teams?

isn't this what's for the betterment of the league? If revenue sharing is what helps out teams, then why not? Isn't that what this is all about - the health of the league? Just as one may question why would the Rangers want to support other teams, couldn't a fan ask why can't the Rangers spend their money if they want to? But the cap does hide the problems of the league, and will help make up for many of Bettman's mistakes.

Again...on side has to give. The players do not know with 100% certainty that the way this eventually plays out is that there will be a cap. They do not know with 100% certainty that the league won't accept a luxury tax structure in the end. Just like the league doesn't know 100% that the players won't accept a cap. If there ever is to be NHL hockey again, obviously one side has to cave somewhat. The players aren't caving right now, but are moving in a more serious manner by presenting something that will represent a greater drag on salaries and comes closer, albeit not in the exact structure, to what the League wants. It's part of a negotiation.

Imposing a cap deal next year is not done yet. There is also the possibility for the players to strike next season. If Bettman goes the impasse route and sets forth his own rules, we then may very well be watching hockey on ESPN classics for some time - only to never watch another NHL game again.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 04:36 PM
  #34
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
Can't?

It IS considered that way by the players, is it not?
Just like the opposite IS considered by Bettman. Does not make the NHLPA right and Bettman wrong or vica versa. Just means that you cannot single out the NHLPA for having a "non-starter", without including Bettman as the same thing.

"How does this change anything about the players' newest offer, though?"

Huh?

"Unfortunately for the NHLPA, they simply don't have that kind of power. "

Neither does Bettman. Unfortunately for him, sitting back and awaiting offers without making as much as one counter-proposal will fall into the whole "lack of good faith" debate. And with lack of good-faith, there will be no impasse. With no impasse, he will be unable to ram his rules.

"If they did, then they'd just do exactly what you describe Bettman is doing, sit there and wait for an offer that doesn't have a salary cap in it. But they know that if they do that, then the case for impasse and therefore imposition of an agreement would be all the stronger. Hence this offer."

And, again, what Bettman is doing is cutting off his nose to spite his face. No good faith means no impasse. That is Bettman's primary problem. His thinking has not gone past what happens if his impasse is not allowed. How on Earth does sitting back, not making offers or counter offers, strengthen the case for an impasse? If anything, it just weakens it. To have an impasse, Bettman will have to show that he has bargained in good faith. There is more than enough proof already that anything but is the case.

"I think the players will look back at this time one day and wished they negotiated a better cap deal than the one that will be imposed next year sometime. Too bad Goodenow can't read the writing on the wall here."

2 quick points here. Players may not be the ones looking back and wishing. That very well could be Bettman. He cannot impose anything if there is no impasse. And even if he is allowed to do so (which personally I do not think that he will be allowed to declare an impasse), the next step is the players going on strike. Lots of luck having a league full of replacement players. NO ONE is going to pay NHL prices to see replacement hockey. There was an ESPN article talking about just that. San Jose tried to play an AHL game in the Sharks building. To say that the results were underwhelming would be a great understatement. Bettman's new league goes nowhere with replacement players.

"You think anybody wants revenue sharing, by the way? At least, anybody who be doing the paying rather than the receiving? "

Actually, that is EXACTLY what Bettman wants. He wants the top 10 teams to foot the bill for the rest of the league. What he DOES NOT want is NFL style of leaguewide revenue sharing, where EVERY team puts in money and EVERY team drinks from the well.

"Maybe the league has to face up to its own weakness and not try to patch the hole in the dam with illusory support of losing markets."

So you want the league to face up to it's weakness, but in a form of a salary cap? That makes sense. If you want the league to "face up" it's weakness, then Bettman better get off his high horse and start contracting teams that he expanded.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 04:37 PM
  #35
007
Olympic nut
 
007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mannahatta
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,478
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to 007 Send a message via MSN to 007
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
If the rich teams don't want tax/revenue sharing, it ain't gonna fly. Period, end of story.

I would be willing to bet the more prosperous teams (including the Rangers) aren't willing to give their money to artificially support weak, money-losing franchises. And really, why should they? Maybe the league has to face up to its own weakness and not try to patch the hole in the dam with illusory support of losing markets.
I think you're absolutely right, and therein is most of the problem. The league, especially Bettman, has two different agendas. The first is to reduce costs, which is necessary and important to acheive. The other, which I think has been a long-term goal of Bettman that he cannot afford to lose and keep his job, is to maintain his pet project of expansion of hockey to the sun-belt.

The vital mistake from the beginning (though by no means the only mistake) has been over-expansion of the NHL, and the ill-judged moving of teams. Bettman cannot admit to this and the weakness it has caused this bloated league, however, because doing so would be signing his own resignation. I wonder how long it will take for some of the richer, more powerful owners to rebel against Bettman and insist on contraction or a whole new league.

With all the stupid moves (moving teams like Hartford and Winnipeg to the only places on the continent they were guaranteed to make *less* money), it remains a mystery to me why the NHL has never seemed interested in allowing moneybags Paul Allen bring hockey to Portland...

007 is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 04:40 PM
  #36
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Good article, by the way...

although it's funny to hear him say that the salaries would be linked to revenue, but that doesn't preclude someone from giving Jagr $11 million - of course he failed to mention that with one payer making that much, it may be tough signing an entire team. It's all BS, but funny to read. Perhaps before giving out franchises to certain cities the league should've determined how these franchises would be supported. Really, North Carolina? Hockey?

007...the outcome of this CBA will determine Bettman's fate. If he gets his 'cost certainty', then those rich owners make out like bandits. The Flyers, Rangers, Wings, etc., spend a great deal less on players, and don't reduce ticket prices (revenue). That flows to the bottom line. Think they'd complain about Bettman's ill-advised over-expansion when they have a framework that even in bad times, and horrible years, they'll be able to make a very good profit. And heck, those franchises can be run poorly and they'd stil make money.

Fletch 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 01:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.