HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

The Dictator Bob Goodenow better leave the door open with Thursday's offer

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2004, 12:35 PM
  #1
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
The Dictator Bob Goodenow better leave the door open with Thursday's offer

Bob's offer better have cap type terms this Thursday or at least composed of language that leaves the door open for a counter offer. Anything less such as a drag on salary, luxury tax, etc. just won't cut. If the door closes look for the new NHL to start up next year with players getting less than half of what they got before the lockout began. The blind (players) being led by the blind (Goodenow) better open their eyes and salvage what they can while they can. This is their last chance for a say on how things will turn out. It is possible to have a cap without saying it's a cap. Find a way to get it done which is what players have been coached to do since they were very young. Time to step up and take the high road for the fans who will still be here long after current players are retired and mostly forgotten about.

eye is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 12:55 PM
  #2
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,578
vCash: 500
Or one could say, Bettman better stop trying to play dictator by locking out the players till his unrealistic demands are met...

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 01:08 PM
  #3
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Or one could say, Bettman better stop trying to play dictator by locking out the players till his unrealistic demands are met...
In other words you still support the tail wagging the dog? The players and the NHLPA have one chance and one chance only to salvage their 1.3 million average salary. If they close the door on Thursday they will no longer have a contract and will have to reapply so to speak at a much lower salary in the new NHL. Their offer better use cost certainty termanology without actually calling it a cap. If Goodenow can do that he is smarter than he is pig headed which is what many of fans think of him right now.

eye is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 01:27 PM
  #4
CorneliusBennet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
hmm, dictator, eh? I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that the players actually participated in the process of selecting their NHLPA chief, is my understanding incorrect? If not then 'dictator' doesn't apply. It's loaded term used to incite an emotional reaction which will not help anyone.
Less hyperbole and vitrol from both sides (yeah, I'm aware that we are 'just fans' and don't affect the process one way or another) would be a great thing.
I will not attempt to argue the relative merits of mandatory spending limits imposed on a company by an organizing/regulatory body because that is not why I come to hockey forums. I will suggest that unless both sides calm down (and this includes fans) then not only will they be unable to save the league, there won't be a point to doing so.
One final thought: anyone have any idea what happens to the public funds that went into financing what are essentially privately owned venues in most cases now that the people who got those funds to run their business (again, at taxpayer expense) have chosen to lock out their employees? That's a tremendous waste of my taxpayers money. I'd love to hear Mario tell me all about that new stadium he "must have" in order to survive (and how *I* "must" pay for it with MY freakin' tax dollars which should by all rights to go public education.) Really, Mario, tell me all about it... you want someone to limit your competitors ability to spend their own money on their own team (a salary cap) plus you want limits on the ability of young players to earn a certain amount of money (rookie salary caps) and you want to retain players rights until they're at least 30 (sorry, it amounts to indentured servitude regardless of the salary levels) and then, to top it all of, you want to take my money to buy your company (a team in this case) a new place to operate your business out of?
Here's an idea: No.

CorneliusBennet is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 02:15 PM
  #5
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Bob's offer better have cap type terms this Thursday or at least composed of language that leaves the door open for a counter offer. Anything less such as a drag on salary, luxury tax, etc. just won't cut. If the door closes look for the new NHL to start up next year with players getting less than half of what they got before the lockout began. The blind (players) being led by the blind (Goodenow) better open their eyes and salvage what they can while they can. This is their last chance for a say on how things will turn out. It is possible to have a cap without saying it's a cap. Find a way to get it done which is what players have been coached to do since they were very young. Time to step up and take the high road for the fans who will still be here long after current players are retired and mostly forgotten about.
what makes you think that the NLRB will side with the owners??? The law (National Labor Relation Act) requires that both sides "bargain in good faith." This means that they both must come to the table willing to give and take. The players are showing that they are bargaining in good faith I can't say the same for the owners. So there is not chance in hell that NLRB will side with the owners.

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 02:36 PM
  #6
shakes
Ancient Astronaut
 
shakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
what makes you think that the NLRB will side with the owners??? The law (National Labor Relation Act) requires that both sides "bargain in good faith." This means that they both must come to the table willing to give and take. The players are showing that they are bargaining in good faith I can't say the same for the owners. So there is not chance in hell that NLRB will side with the owners.
I think the pro owner lobbyists are going to be in for a big surprise when the NLRB rules against them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Bob's offer better have cap type terms this Thursday or at least composed of language that leaves the door open for a counter offer. Anything less such as a drag on salary, luxury tax, etc. just won't cut. If the door closes look for the new NHL to start up next year with players getting less than half of what they got before the lockout began. The blind (players) being led by the blind (Goodenow) better open their eyes and salvage what they can while they can. This is their last chance for a say on how things will turn out. It is possible to have a cap without saying it's a cap. Find a way to get it done which is what players have been coached to do since they were very young. Time to step up and take the high road for the fans who will still be here long after current players are retired and mostly forgotten about
This doesn't sound like Bob is the dictator in these "negotiations". And I use the term negotiations loosely.. "take it or leave it" is not really negotiating

shakes is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 02:40 PM
  #7
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Or one could say, Bettman better stop trying to play dictator by locking out the players till his unrealistic demands are met...
How is it unrealistic when the other major sports have precisely what Bettman is proposing?

Steve L* is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 02:50 PM
  #8
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
The players are showing that they are bargaining in good faith I can't say the same for the owners.
I don't know if there is much difference in bargaining tactics here between the PA and the league.

The players made an initial proposal, then they made a second proposal which was even less than the first.

The Owners made 6 proposals, each of them structured differently but ultimately the same result.

Seems like neither side was real pro-active up to this point.

So now the players are coming back and based on the rumours have made further concessions but basically the same frame work as the original two proposals.

What I am wondering is, if the league declines it - as many are anticipating - but the proposal is in fact enough to demonstrate "good faith bargaining" by the PA, then what's keeping the league doing the same thing? They could demonstrate "good faith" as well by resubmitting one (or all 6) of their proposals with higher numbers?

Assuming (just for arguments sake) that the leagues ultimate motive is to declare an impass, then isn't the PA playing right into their hands?

Each side can continue to demonstrate "good faith" conceding a little here and a little there but as long as the dividing line is a tie to revenues, then the league doesn't have much to worry about in terms of trying to declare an impass...right?

copperandblue is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 03:05 PM
  #9
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
I don't know if there is much difference in bargaining tactics here between the PA and the league.

The players made an initial proposal, then they made a second proposal which was even less than the first.

The Owners made 6 proposals, each of them structured differently but ultimately the same result.

Seems like neither side was real pro-active up to this point.

So now the players are coming back and based on the rumours have made further concessions but basically the same frame work as the original two proposals.

What I am wondering is, if the league declines it - as many are anticipating - but the proposal is in fact enough to demonstrate "good faith bargaining" by the PA, then what's keeping the league doing the same thing? They could demonstrate "good faith" as well by resubmitting one (or all 6) of their proposals with higher numbers?

Assuming (just for arguments sake) that the leagues ultimate motive is to declare an impass, then isn't the PA playing right into their hands?

Each side can continue to demonstrate "good faith" conceding a little here and a little there but as long as the dividing line is a tie to revenues, then the league doesn't have much to worry about in terms of trying to declare an impass...right?
man the owners are playing russian roulette if the only thing they want is to break the union. Let's say that they cancelled this season and they declare impasse. But the NLRB sides with the players what is next?

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 03:12 PM
  #10
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
How is it unrealistic when the other major sports have precisely what Bettman is proposing?

Are you kidding me? Mommy...Johnny has a red waggon, and Steve L has a Red Wagon......now i MUST have a red waggon. Give me a break.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 03:17 PM
  #11
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
man the owners are playing russian roulette if the only thing they want is to break the union. Let's say that they cancelled this season and they declare impasse. But the NLRB sides with the players what is next?
Who knows but that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

I keep reading that the PA is bargaining in good faith and the League isn't. Or the opposite - depending on which side the person supports.

If all it takes is - in the case of the PA - is to change the numbers on the same 'ol proposal in order to be considered bargaining in good faith then the league can do the same.

In the end it's all irrelevant because the issue - to date - has nothing to do with the numbers and every thing to do with the methods....something that hasn't changed on either side.

I just think it's silly for either side or supporters of either side to say "this side is trying but that side isn't"....

I just used your post a jumping in point more than anything....

copperandblue is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 03:22 PM
  #12
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Are you kidding me? Mommy...Johnny has a red waggon, and Steve L has a Red Wagon......now i MUST have a red waggon. Give me a break.
Sounds like an arbitration hearing...

Billy makes 8 mil a year and Mikey makes 8 mil a year ......now I MUST make 8 mil a year!!!!!

copperandblue is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 03:26 PM
  #13
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Are you kidding me? Mommy...Johnny has a red waggon, and Steve L has a Red Wagon......now i MUST have a red waggon. Give me a break.
Your posts get more stupid with each and every thread, youre comparing copying proven successful business models to kids wanting toys?
:lol

Pure comedy!

Steve L* is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 03:44 PM
  #14
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
To those of you that are on the pro player anti owner bandwagon - do you think it is unreasonble for owners to dictate what system is used for remuneration of their players? The owners are willing to negotiate within the framework of a partnership that includes a link between costs and revenue. They have that right and it finally shows what is long overdue in the NHL = owners being fiscally responsible backed up by a legally binding CBA. Pretty good business principles that few can dispute. The owners are not willing to negotiate the type of system they use and nor should they be obliged to. Players have to remember that fans and owners pay their way and its time to listen to what the owners and most fans believe is long overdue.

eye is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 03:53 PM
  #15
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Players have to remember that fans and owners pay their way and its time to listen to what the owners and most fans believe is long overdue.
Its time? It's been almost a century since the owners first started talking about a salary cap. When are they going to learn that they're never going to get it?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 04:04 PM
  #16
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
Your posts get more stupid with each and every thread, youre comparing copying proven successful business models to kids wanting toys?
:lol

Pure comedy!

Your comparing different sports with each other...different markets for each, different amounts of salary each takes in, ETC ETC.
But I guess you werent smart enought to figure my post out.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 04:05 PM
  #17
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Are you kidding me? Mommy...Johnny has a red waggon, and Steve L has a Red Wagon......now i MUST have a red waggon. Give me a break.
now that is a terrific answer. you say that the nhl's demand for a salary cap is unrealistic. you are asked why it unrealistic to ask for what other major sports have and your answer is the "mommy, he's touching me." defense??

txpd is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 04:06 PM
  #18
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
To those of you that are on the pro player anti owner bandwagon - do you think it is unreasonble for owners to dictate what system is used for remuneration of their players?
Yes. Unions are supposed to prevent this type of dictating.

Quote:
The owners are willing to negotiate within the framework of a partnership that includes a link between costs and revenue.
The players don't want to be partners with Gary Bettman and William Wirtz. They prefer to be employees. Small wonder. I wouldn't want to be caught in the same room with these guys. A partner? Wouldn't that mean Bettman speaks for the players? They despise him.

Quote:
They have that right
No, they don't have the right.

Quote:
and it finally shows what is long overdue in the NHL = owners being fiscally responsible backed up by a legally binding CBA.
A CBA is supposed to protect workers, not owners. That the owners are fiscally responsible is supposed to be a given. That's part of their job description.

Quote:
Pretty good business principles that few can dispute. The owners are not willing to negotiate the type of system they use and nor should they be obliged to. Players have to remember that fans and owners pay their way and its time to listen to what the owners and most fans believe is long overdue.
Maybe Gary Bettman should remember who pays his way. Without hockey players, who would hire him?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 04:07 PM
  #19
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Your comparing different sports with each other...different markets for each, different amounts of salary each takes in, ETC ETC.
But I guess you werent smart enought to figure my post out.
yea, thats true. the salary cap leagues, NFL and NBA, are the two most successful pro leagues to date. the nhl is by far the professional sport hurting the most. why a failing sport would want to consider the direction of the more successful sports makes perfect sense.

txpd is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 04:09 PM
  #20
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
yea, thats true. the salary cap leagues, NFL and NBA, are the two most successful pro leagues to date. the nhl is by far the professional sport hurting the most. why a failing sport would want to consider the direction of the more successful sports makes perfect sense.

Then why don't they follow the NFL's lead?

The NFL had implemented extensive revenue sharing decades before they had a salary cap. Why can't the NHL implement extensive revenue sharing, since that's something they don't need to bargain with the PA, and then later on, if revenue sharing doesn't work, try to implement their cap?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 04:40 PM
  #21
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,567
vCash: 500
Every post and thread has become a debate... man this has become tiring... I miss arguing about the games themselves, and the my team beat your team last night stuff... GB and Knob Goodenow better get this straitened out! :mad:

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 04:46 PM
  #22
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,595
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorneliusBennet
sorry, it amounts to indentured servitude regardless of the salary levels
Actually it doesn't, because they are completely free to sign anywhere they want besides the NHL and there is nothing the Penguins or anyone else can do about it. Heck, they are even free to sign with other NHL teams as RFAs if they can arrange a contract at salary terms that they want (forcing the Pengs to match or take compensation).

me2 is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 04:46 PM
  #23
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Bob's offer better have cap type terms this Thursday or at least composed of language that leaves the door open for a counter offer. Anything less such as a drag on salary, luxury tax, etc. just won't cut. If the door closes look for the new NHL to start up next year with players getting less than half of what they got before the lockout began. The blind (players) being led by the blind (Goodenow) better open their eyes and salvage what they can while they can. This is their last chance for a say on how things will turn out. It is possible to have a cap without saying it's a cap. Find a way to get it done which is what players have been coached to do since they were very young. Time to step up and take the high road for the fans who will still be here long after current players are retired and mostly forgotten about.
Hey eye.
Instead of blathering on and on and on (without offering any reasoning) about Goodenow and the players, why don't you show explain to us why the NHLPA's latest proposal won't work.

Alright?

Because your posts are just about useless.

Explain to me why a 10 percent salary cut, changes to arbitration, a 75 percent tax on salaries over 40 Million, and severe penalties for salaries over 55 Million ... explain to me why this won't help the owners make money.
Explain why they must have a cap.

Now, if you can do this is a logical, reasonable fashion, carry on with your tedious method of posting.

Consider this a "Put Up Or Shut Up" challenge.
Thank you.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 05:22 PM
  #24
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Your comparing different sports with each other...different markets for each, different amounts of salary each takes in, ETC ETC.
But I guess you werent smart enought to figure my post out.
Steven frigging Hawking isnt smart enough to figure out any of your posts!

Every time someone makes a great point or proves you wrong, you just resort to throwing your toys, changing the subject or stupid insults.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
12-07-2004, 05:29 PM
  #25
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Hey eye.
Instead of blathering on and on and on (without offering any reasoning) about Goodenow and the players, why don't you show explain to us why the NHLPA's latest proposal won't work.

Alright?

Because your posts are just about useless.

Explain to me why a 10 percent salary cut, changes to arbitration, a 75 percent tax on salaries over 40 Million, and severe penalties for salaries over 55 Million ... explain to me why this won't help the owners make money.
Explain why they must have a cap.

Now, if you can do this is a logical, reasonable fashion, carry on with your tedious method of posting.

Consider this a "Put Up Or Shut Up" challenge.
Thank you.
A 10% rollback is a short term fix, in 3 or 4 years time it will be as if it didnt happen.
Revenue sharing just spreads the losses between the teams, it doenst actually put the league into better shape.
I agree that rookie caps and different arbitration rulings will help but it isnt enough.

Steve L* 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 06:28 PM.

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.