Article on how Goodenow lost hold on PA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sinurgy

Approaching infinity
Sponsor
Feb 8, 2004
12,425
3,877
AZ
I think this quote about sums it up:

Said Neil Smith, former general manager of the New York Rangers. “They were convinced they could win on this thing and it wouldn’t go as far as it went. I think they got very bad advice.â€
 
Last edited:

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
Only Goodenow and Artus Irbe, a veteran player on the verge of retirement, voted to wait.

That pretty much sums it up...so does this (for all)

Many players’ wives — a surprisingly influential group
 

JV

Registered User
Feb 12, 2003
1,509
0
na
Visit site
Agree it was an excellent read.

The whole thing unfolded exactly as I didn't predict.

I predicted the owners would crack, not the players; that there would be no cap less than 50 million; and no direct link between revenue and payroll.

I despise Gary Bettman, but the guy assessed the situation clearly and stuck with the program.

This means most of the 30 teams will be viable. That's the bad news.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,966
2,059
Duncan
Well written. After two years the deal would have been much better for the players... riiiiight.
 

handtrick

Registered User
Sep 18, 2004
3,217
13
Chattanooga, TN
I think this is a first on HF Boards that I can recall. The author of an article becomes a new member and posts his own article on HF Boards to elicit comments and possibly advertise his magazine/site. That...to me....hints at a little sliminess....

That being said, I agree with the others that it is an excellent read, well written, and articulate.
 

gobuds

Registered User
Mar 2, 2004
97
0
torontosportsmedia.com
JV said:
The whole thing unfolded exactly as I didn't predict.

I predicted the owners would crack, not the players; that there would be no cap less than 50 million; and no direct link between revenue and payroll.

I despise Gary Bettman, but the guy assessed the situation clearly and stuck with the program.


Bob, is that you?????????
 
Last edited:

GSC2k2*

Guest
handtrick said:
I think this is a first on HF Boards that I can recall. The author of an article becomes a new member and posts his own article on HF Boards to elicit comments and possibly advertise his magazine/site. That...to me....hints at a little sliminess....

That being said, I agree with the others that it is an excellent read, well written, and articulate.
SBJ is a pretty well known publication in its field. This is not "his" magazine or site, to my knowledge. What this appears to be is an excellent freebie.
 

gobuds

Registered User
Mar 2, 2004
97
0
torontosportsmedia.com
gscarpenter2002 said:
This is not "his" magazine or site, to my knowledge. What this appears to be is an excellent freebie.


Except that to gain access to the site you must be a paid member, and it aint cheap to become one.

try going to the site and reading the same article- you can't.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
gobuds said:
Except that to gain access to the site you must be a paid member, and it aint cheap to become one.

try going to the site and reading the same article- you can't.
Well, that is what a freebie is. This article he has given us for free (because he wrote it).

you did read it via the second link provided, did you not?

Am i missing your point?
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
gscarpenter2002 said:
Originally Posted by gobuds
Except that to gain access to the site you must be a paid member, and it aint cheap to become one.

try going to the site and reading the same article- you can't.
Well, that is what a freebie is. This article he has given us for free (because he wrote it).

you did read it via the second link provided, did you not?

Am i missing your point?


First of all, kudos to SBJscribe.

He went out of his way to let us read this article for free. First he posted the whole article in another thread untill that ran afoul of the forum's copyright rules - even though he was the author. Then he went out of his way to post a direct link to allow us to bypass the site subscriber sign in and read it for free.

BTW, Great article, Andy.

“It’s all on Bob’s watch,†said an agent who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s the biggest, most dramatic strategic mistake in the history of sports, resulting in the most lopsided loss in the history of sports.â€
 

Chilly Willy*

Guest
Bob Goodenow is hilarious...i'm still waiting for the headline "Bob Goodenow Fired: NHLPA members suprised..."


:biglaugh:
 

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
Many players’ wives — a surprisingly influential group, according to some agents — had little sympathy for the union’s philosophical arguments against a salary cap or a linkage-based deal, and just wanted their husbands to get back to work.
:biglaugh:
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
Although i would be referred to by the unnuanced as pro-pa in the battle between good and evil waged on these boards, i would also agree with those thanking you for the post Andy. Much more balanced than the piece of poodle pandering puffery that our illustrious kevin dupont saddened me with. As you were stating what people said without judgement, and even put in a few final token paragraphs supporting the PA's position, I wonder if you even come to the same conclusions as those here gleefully cheering any chance they can against Goodenow. I dont care about Goodenow one way or another, but i know the sentiment they are trying to drive home is that the PA should never ever again question owners and just do whatever they say to start the season on time. Dream on.

A point I would love to see expanded on was where you said

In April, it had appeared a middle ground might be found as the union suggested a system that would put a floor and a ceiling on team payrolls linked to revenue, but the total amount paid out to players would not be based on any revenue formula. This sort of “hybrid†deal represented the philosophical compromise that would save face for both sides, and the league said the concept seemed workable.

But just when compromise appeared to be in reach, the union was slow to return to the table, prompting accusations from the league that Goodenow was intentionally stalling. Then when talks finally did resume, Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs ended a session with a remark that any deal ultimately would have to keep salaries at 54 percent of revenue. Goodenow tried to turn that into a rallying cry, posting it on the players-only Web site and pointing to it as evidence that the league was unwilling to bend.

This, say many hockey insiders, was typical Goodenow, always looking for ways to drive a wedge between the players and management and keeping players unified in the process. But as the days went on, he was starting to lose his grip on the union membership.

I remember this though it seldom seems to be mentioned. At the time, the owners were saying that Jacobs was a last remenant of the old guard and that the owners had agreed to go by the players framework. A delay returning to the table and the compromise was off? Something seems missing here.

It is a bit ironic that the players love for the game and trying to negotiate a fair deal cost them. The players were unwilling to go to the lengths it would take to win this fight, as Andy says which may have merit, against people who didnt care how long they shut down the game. But you go into a high stakes poker hand and you arent always miscalculating when you lose. The players had something worth fighting to protect. They knew what it would take, but did what all the fans wanted in the end. Despite making record concessions in an attempt to find what would also have been a fair deal.

One of the PA's early releases to the players talked about this very thing that the players wives would make it hard to be united. No doubt. We all knew it was coming
 

Sniper

It's learning...
Jun 11, 2003
681
0
Colorado
Visit site
According to a story related by several agents, there was a day in May when Goodenow wanted to break off a bargaining session, and NHLPA President Trevor Linden, a player whose role and influence increased throughout the lockout, demanded that Goodenow and the negotiating team stay

:yo: :handclap:
 

Sammy*

Guest
thinkwild said:
It is a bit ironic that the players love for the game and trying to negotiate a fair deal cost them. The players were unwilling to go to the lengths it would take to win this fight, as Andy says which may have merit, against people who didnt care how long they shut down the game. But you go into a high stakes poker hand and you arent always miscalculating when you lose. The players had something worth fighting to protect. They knew what it would take, but did what all the fans wanted in the end. Despite making record concessions in an attempt to find what would also have been a fair deal.

One of the PA's early releases to the players talked about this very thing that the players wives would make it hard to be united. No doubt. We all knew it was coming
Are you serious? Of course you are, you are a pro-pa shill. Yeah, it was the players wanting to make a "fair" deal. Like the last one, eh bud? Like the "fair "deal was why they wouldnt look at the owners books & why they wouldnt negotiate before the lockout. Make no mistake, if the players coud have continued to **** & pillage , they would have gleefully done it.
And in terms of the players "love for the game" that brought them to where they are at now, , no sir, it was simple greed as they didnt want to lose out on any more $$$.
What a shill.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
[
QUOTE=thinkwild]Although i would be referred to by the unnuanced as pro-pa in the battle between good and evil waged on these boards,

Unnuanced. I understand what you are saying, although you apparently had to develop an imaginary word for it. with all due respect, I think your posts clearly evidence that you are a raving pro-PA fanatic. I guess that makes me "unnuanced".

I dont care about Goodenow one way or another, but i know the sentiment they are trying to drive home is that the PA should never ever again question owners and just do whatever they say to start the season on time. Dream on.

That is a rather ridiculous assertion. To suggest that the PA should have shown better judgment and employed even a basic level of competency in negotiating tactics and strategies is hardly to suggest that the players take what they are offered and slink away. I swear, I have the same types of discussions with my young teenage son. If you ask him to throw out the garbage, he insists that I make him do EVERYTHING!!! It is just like that arguing with a pro-PA twit (not that you are one). Just because you believe Goodenow was a talentless hack who committed colossal blunder after colossal blunder, that automatically means that you think the players should have accepted just what the owners offered. If you have paid even a modicum of attention, you would know that intelligent pro-league posters have said Goodenow should have shown some judgment and negotiated a truce about a year ago when he was offered the chance.

As a side, I would note that, while goodenow is trained as a lawyer, he is really acting more in a business capacity as NHLPA Director. Were he acting in private practice, he might be facing a negligence claim at this point. That is how inept he was. He is lucky he is only going to get axed.

It is a bit ironic that the players love for the game and trying to negotiate a fair deal cost them.
This comment requires no response, really. You surely know how much of a fool you make of yourself when you say such things. If you do not, there is nothing anyone can say or do to help you.

The players were unwilling to go to the lengths it would take to win this fight, as Andy says which may have merit, against people who didnt care how long they shut down the game. But you go into a high stakes poker hand and you arent always miscalculating when you lose.
Not necessarily, but when the other side shows you that they have an ace-high royal flush before you start the hand, and billions in chips, you are miscalculating. Especially when that same player offers to split the pot with you.

The players had something worth fighting to protect. They knew what it would take, but did what all the fans wanted in the end. Despite making record concessions in an attempt to find what would also have been a fair deal.
There you go again. Unbelievable. On second thought, maybe you don't know how riduculous you sound. Sorry.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
gscarpenter2002 said:
[

Unnuanced. I understand what you are saying, although you apparently had to develop an imaginary word for it. with all due respect, I think your posts clearly evidence that you are a raving pro-PA fanatic. I guess that makes me "unnuanced".



That is a rather ridiculous assertion. To suggest that the PA should have shown better judgment and employed even a basic level of competency in negotiating tactics and strategies is hardly to suggest that the players take what they are offered and slink away. I swear, I have the same types of discussions with my young teenage son. If you ask him to throw out the garbage, he insists that I make him do EVERYTHING!!! It is just like that arguing with a pro-PA twit (not that you are one). Just because you believe Goodenow was a talentless hack who committed colossal blunder after colossal blunder, that automatically means that you think the players should have accepted just what the owners offered. If you have paid even a modicum of attention, you would know that intelligent pro-league posters have said Goodenow should have shown some judgment and negotiated a truce about a year ago when he was offered the chance.

As a side, I would note that, while goodenow is trained as a lawyer, he is really acting more in a business capacity as NHLPA Director. Were he acting in private practice, he might be facing a negligence claim at this point. That is how inept he was. He is lucky he is only going to get axed.


This comment requires no response, really. You surely know how much of a fool you make of yourself when you say such things. If you do not, there is nothing anyone can say or do to help you.


Not necessarily, but when the other side shows you that they have an ace-high royal flush before you start the hand, and billions in chips, you are miscalculating. Especially when that same player offers to split the pot with you.

There you go again. Unbelievable. On second thought, maybe you don't know how riduculous you sound. Sorry.

Well done, but don't expect it to sink in. When an individual is viewing the world through that skewed a perspective and is that assured of their superiority to all the "poodles", there is no chance that the logic analysis you provide will have any impact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->