HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

brooks article

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2004, 06:45 PM
  #1
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,435
vCash: 500
brooks article

http://www.nypost.com/sports/30529.htm

i don't know if this was posted earlier

STEVE Belkin, who has been part- owner of the Thrashers for about five minutes, became Bob Goodenow's best friend last week. Because in quite casually telling the Boston Herald of the NHL's plans to begin the 2005-06 season with replacement players in the absence of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement, Belkin made the league's case for impasse and implementation that much weaker and the union's case against the league for unfair labor practice that much stronger.


i hate brooks but its a pretty interesting read.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 07:04 PM
  #2
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
I think our boy Larry is gonna find it even more difficult than he has the past 4 years to get reliable inside information. Right, wrong or indifferent he gets himself more and more blacklisted with every passing season.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 07:13 PM
  #3
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,412
vCash: 500
Brooks has been on the players side since day 1. I am just wondering if he really feels this way or simply thinks Rangers fans are against a salary cap and he is playing to us, which is his norm.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 07:40 PM
  #4
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
Who knows. I'm not really taking a side on what Brooks said. He is a nice guy but many people around the league are getting tired of him and his sources have become increasingly stretched over the years.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 08:21 PM
  #5
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,046
vCash: 500
Brooks has become the hockey world's equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. He's just destroyed his credibility on this issue (the lockout.)

xander is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 08:34 PM
  #6
AG9NK35DT8*
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bronx/Queens, NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,822
vCash: 500
first off i think the guy is alright and second everyone always knocks the guy, he has a job to do and its give information whether true or false. he provides readers with info which i find to be some what reliable and more to the true side than negative.


this board is good for conversation and there are plenty of people that know NYR hockey very well, but like i said have no sources, so until they do dont knock someone else.


Last edited by AG9NK35DT8: 10-17-2004 at 11:05 PM.
AG9NK35DT8* is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 10:41 PM
  #7
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,007
vCash: 500
did anyone see Bettman interview last night?

he basically said this guy is full of it, he has not attended one owners meeting since discussing plans or anything, and has been an owner for 6 months, he is just a minority owner of the thrashers, one of 14 or something like that

it sounds like one of two things the moron was told this second hand not realizing it was confidential

in the hall is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 10:43 PM
  #8
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by in the hall
did anyone see Bettman interview last night?

he basically said this guy is full of it, he has not attended one owners meeting since discussing plans or anything, and has been an owner for 6 months, he is just a minority owner of the thrashers, one of 14 or something like that

it sounds like one of two things the moron was told this second hand not realizing it was confidential
What did you expect Bettman to say?

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
10-18-2004, 12:17 AM
  #9
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AG9NK35DT8
first off i think the guy is alright and second everyone always knocks the guy, he has a job to do and its give information whether true or false. he provides readers with info which i find to be some what reliable and more to the true side than negative.


this board is good for conversation and there are plenty of people that know NYR hockey very well, but like i said have no sources, so until they do dont knock someone else.
first of all, I was bashing brooks for turning his column into an add page for the players union, not becouse his sources are suspect.

Secondly, if your going to write in a highly circulated, if somewhat disreputable, paper then you're gonna have to deal with critisism if you post incorrect information. I don't see why you should have to have sources of your own to critisize brooks if it becomes apparent that his information was wrong (as has happenen numerous times over the last couple of years.)

xander is offline  
Old
10-18-2004, 12:18 AM
  #10
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
What did you expect Bettman to say?
does that make it false?

xander is offline  
Old
10-18-2004, 12:32 AM
  #11
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
does that make it false?
Does it make what Bettman said true? I wasn't there. It will be interesting to see if Belkin replies. Of course, he might very well be fined--by Bettman-- and unwilling to say anything more because he doesn't want to lose more money.

Why should I trust any one side here more than the other? My interests aren't being represented at all.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
10-18-2004, 12:57 AM
  #12
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,046
vCash: 500
i'm not saying in anyway that you should trust one side over the other, I'm in the middle myself, but it's not like those statements are conjecture.

We know that Belkin is a minority owner and we know that he is a new owner, so atleast two parts of the statement are true. This doesn't validate the entire statement, but it does give some credability to it.


I'm not pro owners or pro players (my ideal solution would be a $45 million soft cap), but I do get anoyed when posters automatically discredit a statement becouse it came from one side. I'm not saying that you are, but it seems like the majority of posters on this board have taken to tha habit of denying everything coming from the owners side.

It sounded like you where disavowing the statement becouse it came from Bettman, which is why i jumped on it. Clearly I was mistaken and I appologize.

xander is offline  
Old
10-18-2004, 01:00 AM
  #13
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,718
vCash: 500
When Brooks spends his time covering news and not playing rotisserie hockey, he is a very good reporter. He had the $31MM cap in print almost two years ago. His sources are (and continue to be) excellent and anyone who pieces together what he reports and what happens would realize this. What he does that detracts from the overall product is imagine "what ifs" and that's when he looks arrogant and silly. Larry understands the unique fabric of hockey -- someone most NHL owners and the league office have absolutely no idea about. He's also done his reszearch into the law and realizes as do most familliar with the situation that impasse and implementation won't be happening.


Last edited by bobbop: 10-18-2004 at 01:02 AM. Reason: not finished
bobbop is online now  
Old
10-18-2004, 04:56 AM
  #14
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by in the hall
did anyone see Bettman interview last night?

he basically said this guy is full of it, he has not attended one owners meeting since discussing plans or anything, and has been an owner for 6 months, he is just a minority owner of the thrashers, one of 14 or something like that

it sounds like one of two things the moron was told this second hand not realizing it was confidential
I believe he owns 33% of the team.

brooklyn, he was fined $250K last week.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
10-18-2004, 08:11 AM
  #15
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,673
vCash: 500
Like him or not, Brooks makes very good points. We, ourselves, have pointed it out here. We have long (well some of us) have discussed that the probably plan behind Bettman's bravado is the belief that he promised the owners a $31m hard cap, at the expense of loosing a season. We have discussed that his lone tool for getting any of his promises accomplised lies in declaring an impasse and ramming his "system" down the players throat. Further, we have discussed the probablility that he also promised that most of the league's star players would not be able to hold out past one year and will be back, thus rescuing the league from fielding teams with replacement players (which would be a disaster, since no one would go see them).
Just last week, we've talked about how Bettman never seems to mention just how he will implement his system or how he will raise league revenues.
Brooks is NOT telling us anything new. However, he is telling us that we are not the only ones who notice these little things about Bettman's so-called master plan. I thought that the Vancouver comment was interesting. Apparently scabs are not allowed. So unless British Columbia changes it's laws (doubtfull), Vancouver would either have to move to a different city or not take part in Bettman's new would-be NHL.
Here's the long and short of it. But being the only person in sports history to orchestrate, not one but TWO lockouts of players within a 10 year span, Bettman has to GUARANTEE that he will win. Anything less than his $31m hard cap, will be seen as a loss. That, in turn , is what drives his thinking. He has not really thought of HOW to implement his plan or how to make the league better. All he sees is that with $31m cap, he will not be the looser. And, to him, that is what counts.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-18-2004, 08:25 AM
  #16
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
What did you expect Bettman to say?
I was passing it on not commenting on Bettman for those that did not see it since it was on a very low profiled show

I expect Bettman to tell the truth.


Last edited by in the hall: 10-18-2004 at 08:33 AM.
in the hall is offline  
Old
10-18-2004, 09:18 AM
  #17
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,346
vCash: 500
Awards:
Again, the biggest discouraging thing I see here is the complete and total lack of urgency on the part of either side.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
10-18-2004, 09:30 AM
  #18
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Again, the biggest discouraging thing I see here is the complete and total lack of urgency on the part of either side.
But there is no need for Bettman and the league to be urgent. If indeed the declaration of an impasse has been his goal all along (remember when we discussed that in July?), what need is there for urgency? IF anything, he has to show the "not worried, it will all go my way" front. After all, what need is there for urgency, when your plan isn to cancel an entire season and declare an impasse and have the league play under your rule for next year? Please recall that the ball is actually in his court, since the NHLPA made the last proposal. That was a month ago. Bettman has not even made a counter offer. Remember that after the NHLPA's last proposal, he stated that the NHLPA needs some time to "reflect". Are those the words of a man who intends to have a semblance of a hockey season this year?
Bettman is does not show urgency, because there is no urgency for him. In fact, if there was a season played this year, it will probably means that he failed because there is no hard $31m cap in place. And make no mistake, that is the only way that hockey is played this year. Unless the owners blink and they force Bettman to give in, there will be no hockey. So far, everything seems to be proceeding exactly the way that Bettman layed it out.

True Blue 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 03:29 PM.

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.