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
12-03-2004, 10:33 PM
  #1
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Bettmen and Goodenow met in new york TODAY Dec 3rd!!!!

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=106785

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 11:36 PM
  #2
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
wow, some of the players quoted are either increadibly naive or lying through the'yre teath. It' will be hard for the league to turn this proposal down? It's a forgone conclusion that the league will turn it down, the only question is whether or not they come back with an offer of they're own that makes some consesions.

xander is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 08:41 AM
  #3
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,499
vCash: 500
well i don't think the players think that the owners will accept the proposal without question...i think they mean it'll be hard for the owners to dismiss the proposal like they have the other ones...that they'll at least look at it and use it to start working on an agreement

Levitate is online now  
Old
12-04-2004, 08:45 AM
  #4
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,441
vCash: 500
Naive or lying?

as one of the top reps in the Union (Guerin) he's trying to sell his proposal to the public. He knows the league will reject it because they've summarily rejected all proposals (and have basically said they would) without 'cost certainty'. It's not being naive, and not lying. If it truly is a 75% tax, up from 25%, I'd call that a significant step. Not sure what that means in dollar terms of taxes, but obviously it's a good deal more, and would have a bigger negative effect on salaries.

Fletch is online now  
Old
12-04-2004, 03:28 PM
  #5
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
as one of the top reps in the Union (Guerin) he's trying to sell his proposal to the public. He knows the league will reject it because they've summarily rejected all proposals (and have basically said they would) without 'cost certainty'. It's not being naive, and not lying. If it truly is a 75% tax, up from 25%, I'd call that a significant step. Not sure what that means in dollar terms of taxes, but obviously it's a good deal more, and would have a bigger negative effect on salaries.
It's a better deal, keeping in mind that the first union proposal was a joke, but it's still not a good deal. If a luxery tax is going to work I think it's going to need to be dollar for dollar. Regardless, saying that you think it will be hard for the owners to turn down when you know they're going to turn it down is lying. If your trying to sell a proposal you say that it's a fair proposal and that you think it will work for both sides (which I do think Guerin said.) But to say that you think the NHL will have no choice but to accept your deal is misleading and rediculus. I know Guerin is trying to sell this proposal in the court of puplic opinion, but I for one take offense to having my inteligance insulted.

Now don't get me wrong, I think this deal is a start, but we all know that both sides are going to have to move signifigantly off they're positions (even the union's new revised position) before they even aproach a middleground.

xander is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 04:14 PM
  #6
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
If a luxery tax is going to work I think it's going to need to be dollar for dollar.
Goodenow has stated that he will accept no luxury tax that acts as a cap. I'm not sure dollar-for-dollar is a cap in his mind, but it's probably getting close.

dedalus is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 04:18 PM
  #7
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Goodenow has stated that he will accept no luxury tax that acts as a cap. I'm not sure dollar-for-dollar is a cap in his mind, but it's probably getting close.
that would be interesting, you'd have goodenow rejecting it becouse it acts as a cap and bettman rejecting it becouse it's not a cap.

xander is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 04:21 PM
  #8
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
that would be interesting, you'd have goodenow rejecting it becouse it acts as a cap and bettman rejecting it becouse it's not a cap.
Now THAT'S business in the NHL!

dedalus is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 05:20 PM
  #9
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,441
vCash: 500
Misleading and ridiculous?

kind of like saying that the League HAS to have a salary cap, and only a salary cap, to survive. Guerin's statement's an opinion. It's not lying. Lying would be saying that they presented a proposal that had a cap and it didn't.

75% is damn close to 100%, if 75% is the number. And it is a starting point for negotiating up to 100% and below $40 million, if it is $40 million.

Fletch is online now  
Old
12-04-2004, 06:50 PM
  #10
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
first of all, I'm not arguing owner vs. player, I don't support either side and favor a settlement somewhere in the middle. It's lying becouse he knows it's not true. I understand this sort of thing is part of the game, I just have a particular adversion to having smoke blown up my ass.

xander is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 07:05 PM
  #11
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,441
vCash: 500
That's what a game of poker's about...

don't take it so personally. And while Guerin believes league won't accept, I'm sure he believes they should accept it as in his opinion it helps the league and both sides. Still don't see where there's a lie. Again, he didn't say the league will accept it or has accepted it. He believes it's a good proposal that addresses the problems. Can we sit here and say that's a lie? A 75% Luxury tax, revenue sharing, and a 10% rollback is definitely a serious start, in my opinion. So again, I don't see any lying or any smoke being blown up anybody's ass.

Fletch is online now  
Old
12-04-2004, 07:58 PM
  #12
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
"Dallas Stars winger Bill Guerin, one of six union vice presidents who will be in attendance in Toronto next week, says he has seen drafts of the proposal and believes there's a good chance it could save the season."

"Colorado Avalanche defenseman Bob Boughner, a member of the NHLPA executive committee, believes it will be hard for the league to turn down this latest offer."

I guess I take more offense to the Boughner comment, since the league won't have the slightest problem turning this offer down.

Of course this is all a mute point, i just take offense to some of the language, thats all. The fact is that this offer, while a consesion, isn't even close to anything the league will accept and both sides have a long way to go before they reacha middle ground, so saying that "this offer might save the season" or that "the league will have a hard time turning it down" are disingenous. But, enough of this pessemism, I'll try and be more optimistic. This offer alone won't save the season, but here's to hoping that it sparks some serious negotiations that do.

xander is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 08:25 PM
  #13
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
the way i see it, the only way the season is saved is if both sides will accept a soft salery cap, since I don' think the League will ever accept a luxery tax system or the union a hard cap. It'll be interesting to see what the league's next offer is, if they come back with a 35 million dollar soft cap with a luxery tax above that then we might be in buisness, as that would be a sign that they are willing to negotiate. If, however, they're offer is a 35 million dollar hard cap then the union will, rightly, consider that a non-starter and the season will be done.

From what I've read the league has said that they will not accept a luxery tax system, but I havn't heard anything regarding whether or not they'd be willing to accept a soft cap. I do know that Goodenow has said the union will never accept anykind of cap, but if the league offers to move off a hard cap then that would probably enough to declare an impasse down the line, which might force the union to accept a soft cap as well.

...But this is all wishful thinking, my guess is neither side will accept a soft cap and we don't see hockey for another year.

xander is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 08:42 AM
  #14
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,441
vCash: 500
Take offense?

it's his opinion that it's a good offer. Personally, if it is a 10% rollback, 75% tax above $40 million and revenue sharing, I believe too that it's a good offer and should seriously be considered. Just because the league won't accept anything besides a cap doesn't mean there aren't other viable alternatives -alternatives that would benefit both sides and save the season. Bettman isn't a know-all here. Boughner believes that the NHLPA's alternative could save the season. Could it? Why not? That's the only point he's really making. If the NHL wants to remain steadfast in only one viable option, that does not make them correct in their thinking - it's their opinion on the situation. That shouldn't make Boughner a liar, or his words shouldn't offend anybody.

Of course the league will only accept its only offers; or at least that's what they've said. Why would the league want revenue sharing when then they'll have 30 owners arguing over what actually constitutes revenue, as the lower revenue teams battle for a bigger share.

Fletch is online now  
Old
12-05-2004, 08:48 AM
  #15
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,441
vCash: 500
I never really got the deal...

with a soft cap. Doesn't the luxury tax act as a soft cap? It does present a drag on salaries and redistributes income from the wealthier teams to the less-fortunate. I guess owners wouldn't want that either. Imagine the Rangers paying about $40 million ( assuming an $80 million payroll which would never happen) to teams including the Flames and Tampa Bay, and the two meet in the Finals while the Rangers don't make the playoffs - and both of those team just add that amount to the bottom line while the Rangers go from losing $40 million to $80 million. That's why I support the tax system - it will force the Rangers to run team with a bit more fiscal responsibility. Players will just cost them more.

Fletch is online now  
Old
12-05-2004, 07:47 PM
  #16
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
with a soft cap. Doesn't the luxury tax act as a soft cap? It does present a drag on salaries and redistributes income from the wealthier teams to the less-fortunate. I guess owners wouldn't want that either. Imagine the Rangers paying about $40 million ( assuming an $80 million payroll which would never happen) to teams including the Flames and Tampa Bay, and the two meet in the Finals while the Rangers don't make the playoffs - and both of those team just add that amount to the bottom line while the Rangers go from losing $40 million to $80 million. That's why I support the tax system - it will force the Rangers to run team with a bit more fiscal responsibility. Players will just cost them more.
A soft cap restricts teams to going over the threshhold only to sign they're own players. In a luxery tax system you can go out and sign someone else's free agent and put yourself over the threshold if your willing to take on the extra financial burden. In a soft cap system you couldn't do this. You could, on the other hand, go over the cap to resign one of your own free agents. It's essentually a more beefed up version of a tax system, since you can't pillage other people's player even if your willing to take on extra financial burden (there are of course ways of getting around this, but they are difficult.)

I would like to see a luxery tax in addition to a soft cap, albeit a less substancial one than the doller for doller one the NBA employs ( I see no reason to punish teams that harshley for keeping they're own players.)

xander is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 07:51 PM
  #17
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
it's his opinion that it's a good offer. Personally, if it is a 10% rollback, 75% tax above $40 million and revenue sharing, I believe too that it's a good offer and should seriously be considered. Just because the league won't accept anything besides a cap doesn't mean there aren't other viable alternatives -alternatives that would benefit both sides and save the season. Bettman isn't a know-all here. Boughner believes that the NHLPA's alternative could save the season. Could it? Why not? That's the only point he's really making. If the NHL wants to remain steadfast in only one viable option, that does not make them correct in their thinking - it's their opinion on the situation. That shouldn't make Boughner a liar, or his words shouldn't offend anybody.

Of course the league will only accept its only offers; or at least that's what they've said. Why would the league want revenue sharing when then they'll have 30 owners arguing over what actually constitutes revenue, as the lower revenue teams battle for a bigger share.
the issue isn't about who is correct, it's about what can be negotiated. You can truely beleive that any offer is a good and fair offer, but if the other side doesn't think so it won't save the season. Boughner may think that this i a great offer, but he most likley knows that the league will not accept it, and thus this offer will not save the season.

xander is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 08:11 PM
  #18
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,441
vCash: 500
So why is he a liar?

and why is he blowing smoke up anybody's arse?

Fletch is online now  
Old
12-05-2004, 08:33 PM
  #19
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
and why is he blowing smoke up anybody's arse?

saying that this deal can save the season when he knows, regardless of his opinions on the deal itself, that it can't is blowing smoke up our collective arses.

xander is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 10:21 PM
  #20
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
saying that this deal can save the season when he knows, regardless of his opinions on the deal itself, that it can't is blowing smoke up our collective arses.
Technically Fletch is right, but the spirit of the statement is clearly smoke blowing.

CAN the proposal save the season? Sure it CAN if the owners accept it, and so Guerin isn't lying. But you, I, Fletch, Bill Guerin, and Bob Goodenow all know perfectly well that the owners WON'T accept it. Bettman has already stated that a luxury tax is insufficient to clean up the league's problems and that he won't accept one for that reason.

So then Bill Guerin says what he does knowing perfectly well that Bettman will be turning down the Association offer. Why would Bill Guerin make this statement knowing that the offer will be turned down? Simple. To put the onus on the league when it IS turned down and the season is further jeopardized. Bill Guerin and Bob Goodenow then get to say, "Well, we could have saved the season, but the OWNERS killed it!!!!!!!!!!"

This kind of posturing is smoke blowing. It's not a lie but it's predicated on a belief (that the owners would accept a tax-based proposal) that is untrue and that the NHLPA knows is untrue.

dedalus is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 01:42 AM
  #21
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Technically Fletch is right, but the spirit of the statement is clearly smoke blowing.

CAN the proposal save the season? Sure it CAN if the owners accept it, and so Guerin isn't lying. But you, I, Fletch, Bill Guerin, and Bob Goodenow all know perfectly well that the owners WON'T accept it. Bettman has already stated that a luxury tax is insufficient to clean up the league's problems and that he won't accept one for that reason.

So then Bill Guerin says what he does knowing perfectly well that Bettman will be turning down the Association offer. Why would Bill Guerin make this statement knowing that the offer will be turned down? Simple. To put the onus on the league when it IS turned down and the season is further jeopardized. Bill Guerin and Bob Goodenow then get to say, "Well, we could have saved the season, but the OWNERS killed it!!!!!!!!!!"

This kind of posturing is smoke blowing. It's not a lie but it's predicated on a belief (that the owners would accept a tax-based proposal) that is untrue and that the NHLPA knows is untrue.
thank you for saying in one post what I have, aparently, failed to comunicate in the last 6.

xander is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 08:30 AM
  #22
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,441
vCash: 500
dedalus...

in the end, somebody will have to cave. Goodenow said absolutely no cap. Bettman says absolutely no luxury tax. At some point there will be a compromise and thus the offer that is said will never be rejected is rejected. I think blowing smoke up arse and saying people are liars are pretty harsh [good way to break it all down though, by the way], as at some point one side will have to agree to something at this point everybody believes they will not agree. Guerin and Boughner are basically saying that these are more than fair offerings and the league should re-consider its cap stance. That do not know for absolute fact that the league won't agree to some type of aggressive tax structure, even though Bettman has said he won't (going to back to what was pointed out above, somebody in the end will have to give more to get this done - otherwise there will never be NHL hockey again).

Fletch is online now  
Old
12-06-2004, 09:00 AM
  #23
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Clearly that answer is Luxury cap or Salary Tax..


Or maybe find a new term..


I'm thinking Collective Monetary Output Network..


C'MON...

Davisian is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 01:16 PM
  #24
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
alright, perhaps lying was too strong a language, but I stand by the smoke blowing comment.

xander is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 01:33 PM
  #25
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,522
vCash: 500
Now when the offer is of course refused, the players can act all outraged and claim they've done everything they can to be reasonable.

Volcanologist is online now  
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 09:24 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.