Bettman and his owners are greedy pigs:They already WON

Status
Not open for further replies.

snakepliskin

Registered User
Jan 27, 2005
1,910
22
Wilmington NC
This is my endgame scenario-they meet again this week and again no deal is reached because of the same old crap--finally bettman cancels the season (its toast anyway) then in the very near future the players wake up and realize how much this has cost them personally and the potential damage to the sport and in a very public way fire goodenow or possibly goodenow resigns siting health reasons--the owners seeing this and also to placate hockey fans remove bettman--now with new blood leading both sides (lou lamereillo for the owners) and with the animosity the owners held against goodenow now gone a resonable deal is reached (that really favors the owners but it should after the beating they have taken under the old cba) and next season starts on time! and now for the best part- FANS realizing the significance of bettman and goodenow both being kicked out of the sport and recognizing the rule changes that have been implemented to open up the game come back to the game- and after the first year of reduced revenues the league is back to 04 levels--NBC does an excellent job of promoting the sport in the states-youth hockey leagues sprout up across the states (lets face it the NBA is on a path to destruction and a lot of middle class americans figure out they have more in common with hockey than the hip-hop-bling-criminal filled NBA) revenues start increasing-a sweet TV deal is negotiated and the profit sharing plan puts smiles on all the NHL players faces! all teams payrolls are over 35 mill and the teams whose payrolls exceed the cap pay the penalties with smiles on their face (except the rangers who are over and still can't make the playoffs) and in a perfect world my Canes win the Cup! (how bout them apples!) (synopsis is that if a deal is not reached and the season is canceled both bettman and goodenow will be looking for work!)
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,619
21,957
Nova Scotia
Visit site
DR said:
which is roughly how much the players have lost this season.

what concessions are the owners going to make to allow the players to get back on an even track ?

hmm ?

dr
The previous CBA was the concession last time... besides in the past 10 years the players made their money, shouldn't hurt them to loose a little to see what it's like to walk a mile in someone else's shoes...hmm?
 
Feb 28, 2002
10,922
0
Abbotsford, BC
Visit site
RangerBoy said:
The NHLPA takes tons of abuse on these boards and in cases it's deserved.The NHL is kidding when they expect the players to just accept the slop they proposed on Wednesday.The NHL was WON this lockout.The players are willing to concede.The players are willing to crack.The players are willing to bend.The players are willing to break.Unfortunately,Bettman won't let them.Not only does Bettman want to win but he wants to break the union.Bettman wants to take back everything the players won in collective bargainning.That is not right.Bettman could have made an excellent deal for the NHL by now which would have allowed the players to come out of this lockout with some dignity and some pride but he won't allow that to happen.Bettman has no idea of the damage this lockout is causing in the U.S.He wants to grab the players by the throat and choke the life out of them.

Bettman was the kid in the neighborhood who was picked last when teams were being selected.He must have said to himself that one day he would show all of these jocks that they made a mistake picking him last.Bettman can make a deal here but refuses.Soft cap with a hard luxury tax.A salary cap not linked to revenue.Bettman will never cancel the season.It would hurt his case with the NLRB and the owners/NHL would have to give back all of the money for 2004-05 season.

As Jeremy Roenick said "Throw the players a bone".Guarantee the cap would be between $45-50 million and none of the floating salary range % of the gross

I agree with John Davidson,Brian Burke,Dean Brown and EJ Hradek.The NHL is asking for far too much.It's not worth destroying the remaining remnants of the NHL.Bettman can make an excellent deal for the owners but he would rather practice his scorched earth policy of his way or no way and his way is the right way

It's February 5th and no hockey has been played.Bettman refuses to cancel the season.Bettman refuses to budge an inch.Roenick,Barrett Jackman and Michael Peca have made comments about the players willing to accept cost certainty if the numbers were better.Cost certainty can be achieved w/o Bettman's system

The NHL will be a better place when Bettman is no longer around to run the league into the ground.No more New York NBA wannabe corporate lawyers

I totally agree Ranger boy and I think that Bettman is just waiting for Goodenow to officially say, OK the cap is in, but....

When he agrees to a Cap all the other ridiculous stuff I believe will be negotiated to decent levels...

Goodenow has to agree to the Cap. He does that, and then the pressure and criticism is squarely on Bettman.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
they didnt have to loss anything

DR said:
which is roughly how much the players have lost this season.

what concessions are the owners going to make to allow the players to get back on an even track ?

hmm ?

dr

All they had to do was say yes to playing a game for an average 1.3 million dollars a year.

I dont call that hardship.

42 million is plenty, all you NHLPA boys always concentrate on the money, there is another aspect to this lockout.... competative parity. Yes, moneywise the millionaires and the billionaires could still fleece people and make each other happy(with what the players offer).

Unfortuneately, what they offer dosnt provide the team parity needed to grow the sport.

And that really is the important point, and why there are so many player haters.....

The players want a system where the rich teams can spend their money.

Rich teams will only spend their money if they can se a reason to do it.

SO, the players want a system with competative disparity.... so they can traet the real NHL as 6 rich teams, and have 24 really nice farmer teams to pay them good money till they win the big money.

Ergo====> lots of player haters..... and for good reason.
 
Last edited:

Donnie D

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
796
62
Visit site
RangerBoy said:
The NHLPA takes tons of abuse on these boards and in cases it's deserved.The NHL is kidding when they expect the players to just accept the slop they proposed on Wednesday.The NHL was WON this lockout.The players are willing to concede.The players are willing to crack.The players are willing to bend.The players are willing to break.Unfortunately,Bettman won't let them.Not only does Bettman want to win but he wants to break the union.Bettman wants to take back everything the players won in collective bargainning.That is not right.Bettman could have made an excellent deal for the NHL by now which would have allowed the players to come out of this lockout with some dignity and some pride but he won't allow that to happen.Bettman has no idea of the damage this lockout is causing in the U.S.He wants to grab the players by the throat and choke the life out of them.

Bettman was the kid in the neighborhood who was picked last when teams were being selected.He must have said to himself that one day he would show all of these jocks that they made a mistake picking him last.Bettman can make a deal here but refuses.Soft cap with a hard luxury tax.A salary cap not linked to revenue.Bettman will never cancel the season.It would hurt his case with the NLRB and the owners/NHL would have to give back all of the money for 2004-05 season.

As Jeremy Roenick said "Throw the players a bone".Guarantee the cap would be between $45-50 million and none of the floating salary range % of the gross

I agree with John Davidson,Brian Burke,Dean Brown and EJ Hradek.The NHL is asking for far too much.It's not worth destroying the remaining remnants of the NHL.Bettman can make an excellent deal for the owners but he would rather practice his scorched earth policy of his way or no way and his way is the right way

It's February 5th and no hockey has been played.Bettman refuses to cancel the season.Bettman refuses to budge an inch.Roenick,Barrett Jackman and Michael Peca have made comments about the players willing to accept cost certainty if the numbers were better.Cost certainty can be achieved w/o Bettman's system

The NHL will be a better place when Bettman is no longer around to run the league into the ground.No more New York NBA wannabe corporate lawyers

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

Until the players accept the concept of a cap, he has nothing to give away. If the players prevail and there is no cap he needs everything else on the table to make something close to a workable deal.

Once the players would (or I think have) accept the cap the rest falls off of Bettman's plate virtually immediately.
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
DR said:
in fact, i am hearing that the offer on the table is the only offer the NHL will accept. there is no negotiating of those points.

lump it or leave it.

bob left.

dr
Anyone who has been involved in the negotiating process or even watched with interest from the sidelines knows that is not the way it works. Bob's exit was a merely matter of theatrics.

The NHLs hard line stance is designed to convince the players that they will not fold like they did the last time. Were the players to accept the concept of a cop they would only do so it a number of the lesser issues woud be placed back on the table for negotiations.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
RangerBoy said:
The NHLPA takes tons of abuse on these boards and in cases it's deserved.The NHL is kidding when they expect the players to just accept the slop they proposed on Wednesday.The NHL was WON this lockout.The players are willing to concede.The players are willing to crack.The players are willing to bend.The players are willing to break.Unfortunately,Bettman won't let them.Not only does Bettman want to win but he wants to break the union.Bettman wants to take back everything the players won in collective bargainning.That is not right.Bettman could have made an excellent deal for the NHL by now which would have allowed the players to come out of this lockout with some dignity and some pride but he won't allow that to happen.Bettman has no idea of the damage this lockout is causing in the U.S.He wants to grab the players by the throat and choke the life out of them.

Bettman was the kid in the neighborhood who was picked last when teams were being selected.He must have said to himself that one day he would show all of these jocks that they made a mistake picking him last.Bettman can make a deal here but refuses.Soft cap with a hard luxury tax.A salary cap not linked to revenue.Bettman will never cancel the season.It would hurt his case with the NLRB and the owners/NHL would have to give back all of the money for 2004-05 season.

As Jeremy Roenick said "Throw the players a bone".Guarantee the cap would be between $45-50 million and none of the floating salary range % of the gross

I agree with John Davidson,Brian Burke,Dean Brown and EJ Hradek.The NHL is asking for far too much.It's not worth destroying the remaining remnants of the NHL.Bettman can make an excellent deal for the owners but he would rather practice his scorched earth policy of his way or no way and his way is the right way

It's February 5th and no hockey has been played.Bettman refuses to cancel the season.Bettman refuses to budge an inch.Roenick,Barrett Jackman and Michael Peca have made comments about the players willing to accept cost certainty if the numbers were better.Cost certainty can be achieved w/o Bettman's system

The NHL will be a better place when Bettman is no longer around to run the league into the ground.No more New York NBA wannabe corporate lawyers


Blah blah blah blah blah. Gary Bettman this. Gary Bettman that. Gary Bettman works for the owners and does what the owners say. If you want to be fair, hammer all those greedy owners... who's franchises are in hock up to their nuts and are losing money like there's no tomorrow because they have to pay their players ridiculous amounts of money to remain competitive. But when you do, remember that this is the only time the owners can put their heads together and collude like the players do while a CBA is in effect, so don't blame them for doing what they feel is necessary to protect their investment and industry. Hate away.

BTW... It ain't over until the ink on the contract is dry.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
This thread is hilarious.

Garry Bettman and the owners want 1 thing, and only 1 thing. The owners want linkage between revenue and salaries, in a system that won't produce 100% rolbacks to the players every year. If the Union agreed to a system with linkage, then I believe the owners would change everything else to whatever the PA wants, with the possible exceptions of a rookie system (so that teams can always pay their rookies), and a "reasonable" UFA age (no lower than 27). EVERYTHING else the league would change, IF the players agreed to the linkage.

These new proposals with $50 Mil hard caps are COMPLETE and utter garbage. The owners don't require a freaking CAP, they want LINKAGE. The owners havn't "won" if the players propose a $50 mil hard cap, and would reject such an offer.

Finally, Goodenow made such a production out of leaving that meeting on Friday that it can only be interpreted as a planned move, IMHO. So trying to figure out what exactly is going on is pure speculation.
 

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
So much hate, so little love. By the way, Ranger Boy, what in particular don't you like about "NY NBA Lawyers"??? Care to elaborate on what that term means, as I think that many might mistakenly find it offensive????
 

Munchausen

Guest
DR said:
there is alot more things wrong with the current NHL proposal than simply a linked hard cap.

the NHL's right to abolish arbitration
maximum 3 year contracts to name
14 day signing deadline
arbitration deferal
24% rollback (what a joke, this was an ALTERNATIVE to a cap, not an offer within)

to name a few.

dr

Those are all minor things you can negotiate when you get to the table, once you have agreed on a system / structure to form the basis of negotiations. But if you can't even agree on a bare-bone system, you're not ever going to talk about those things since they come after. They are the gravy, the filling, the icing... Time for lunch I'm hungry.

This negotiation is still at the starting line. Negotiation, what am I saying, there's no negotiation, just a bunch of kids stuck in a staring contest to test and see who's going to blink first. I've seen more mature negotiations in a kindergarden's playground.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Egil said:
This thread is hilarious.

Garry Bettman and the owners want 1 thing, and only 1 thing. The owners want linkage between revenue and salaries, in a system that won't produce 100% rolbacks to the players every year. If the Union agreed to a system with linkage, then I believe the owners would change everything else to whatever the PA wants, with the possible exceptions of a rookie system (so that teams can always pay their rookies), and a "reasonable" UFA age (no lower than 27). EVERYTHING else the league would change, IF the players agreed to the linkage.

If that is truly what there after, and willing to give back everything else, they should make that offer. An offer like that would actually put some pressure on the players.

Offering up a linked cap, and then adding 27 other restrictive items on top of it, will never force a vote.


Also if they get the linked cap the NHL should be willing to drop the UFA age much lower. In order for the NFL to get their cap, they dropped UFA age down to year 4 or 5 in the league. I prefer the more restrictive free agency that the NHL has, but IMO that is their one big chip that they can offer the players/
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
John Flyers Fan said:
If that is truly what there after, and willing to give back everything else, they should make that offer. An offer like that would actually put some pressure on the players.

Offering up a linked cap, and then adding 27 other restrictive items on top of it, will never force a vote.


Also if they get the linked cap the NHL should be willing to drop the UFA age much lower. In order for the NFL to get their cap, they dropped UFA age down to year 4 or 5 in the league. I prefer the more restrictive free agency that the NHL has, but IMO that is their one big chip that they can offer the players/

As Brian Burke put it, the NHL isn't going to continue bargaining with itself. The players I'm sure understand the current NHL position, so its their job to come back with a linkage + profit sharing system they want.
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
John, have you ever negotiated

you never place all your cards on the table

never

thats why this is called negotiations

Bettmans wants him to accept the framework of a deal involving a tie to a %

for that Goodenow will get to take things off the table or change things

if Bettman would place his final deal on the table like you suggest, Goodenow will go ok, I want this removed, this removed and this removed

Bettman will say this is the best I can do, Goodenow will get pissed and walk out

this is about give and take

so far a framework for the deal still has not been decided...so nothing can be negotiated....
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
mr gib said:
revenue sharing and a luxury tax

Yeah, that would create and average salary of over 2 million dollars.......with 1.5 billion of the 2 billion dollars the league makes going directly to player salaries. Sorry, that doesn't float, and with the league's revenues about to drop, the players will be lucky to get a 38 million dollar cap not tied to revenues. People forget that revenue sharing only works if the league is making money, otherwise all it does is spread the losses out over the whole league. A luxury tax in this situation would take more revenues out of the owners hands and putting it into other areas that are forced to compete with these high spending teams, and who wouldn't put free money back into play.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
kerrly said:
Yeah, that would create and average salary of over 2 million dollars.......with 1.5 billion of the 2 billion dollars the league makes going directly to player salaries. Sorry, that doesn't float, and with the league's revenues about to drop, the players will be lucky to get a 38 million dollar cap not tied to revenues. People forget that revenue sharing only works if the league is making money, otherwise all it does is spread the losses out over the whole league. A luxury tax in this situation would take more revenues out of the owners hands and putting it into other areas that are forced to compete with these high spending teams, and who wouldn't put free money back into play.
sorry i was just being a dick
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
It's so weird\funny that the most ardent supporters of the NHLPA, the most vocal opposition to a cap are largely fans of the biggest spending teams.

Coincidence?

I'm inclined not to think so.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
DR said:
which is roughly how much the players have lost this season.

what concessions are the owners going to make to allow the players to get back on an even track ?

hmm ?

dr

You make it sound like the money the players are losing is going back into the owners pockets...

What concessions are the owners going to make? Well, if the players agree to a salary cap, the owners will probably open the doors and everyone can get back to making money...


It's kind of funny how we have gone from hearing the Pro-PA side go from " how do the owners think they are going to beat the players? The players compete for a living..." (All the while ignoring the fact that owners negotiate deals all the time with people that want to grab as much of their money as they can...) and "the owners caved last time, so they will cave this time to..." to where we are now...

"The owners have won already, they don't have cost certainty, but they should just accept the crumbs the players have offered..."

The owners have been trying to negotiate a better deal for years, and the PA has basically spat in thier faces. Now you expect the owners to just settle without getting an iron clad guarantee of cost certainty? If they did accept what the PA offered, we would be right back here in 6 years listening to the pro-pa people again say the owners cave, or the owners were not smart enough to beat the pa...

I'd rather the owners get the deal they want now, no matter how long it takes.
 

Seph

Registered User
Sep 5, 2002
18,949
1,666
Oregon
Visit site
djhn579 said:
It's kind of funny how we have gone from hearing the Pro-PA side go from " how do the owners think they are going to beat the players? The players compete for a living..." (All the while ignoring the fact that owners negotiate deals all the time with people that want to grab as much of their money as they can...)

If the owners were as good at this as you suggest, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Seph said:
If the owners were as good at this as you suggest, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

24 of the current 30 owners were not involved with the NHL during the last lockout. So, if your talking the last CBA, the majority of the current owners had nothing to do with it.

If your talking contracts, as bad as things are now, many teams would be in worse situations if they did not have a competetive team on the ice. You can't just drop a player that won a huge raise in arbitration and not get anything back for that asset and expect to remain competetive.
 

Boomhower

Registered User
Aug 23, 2003
5,169
1
Ontario
Visit site
Great post Rangerboy.

I think the NHL tried to take way too much considering this was supposed to be the make or break deal for the season. It seemed like this was a preliminary offer from which to bargain from, not very serious at all.

The part that probably popped a vain in Goodenow's neck was the very last line of the NHL's proposal:

"-- Union's offer of 24% across-the-board Salary Rollback for all remaining years of all existing contracts is accepted."

I mean that's an underhanded statement and a dirty negotiation tactic. The NHLPA never offered a 24% rollback under the circustances outlined by the NHL's proposal, what a joke!
That's like someone saying 'I'll buy that box of encyclopedia's for $400'. Than the seller takes away the encyclopedia's and hands you the empty box and says 'I accept'.
 
Last edited:

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
djhn579 said:
24 of the current 30 owners were not involved with the NHL during the last lockout. So, if your talking the last CBA, the majority of the current owners had nothing to do with it.

If your talking contracts, as bad as things are now, many teams would be in worse situations if they did not have a competetive team on the ice. You can't just drop a player that won a huge raise in arbitration and not get anything back for that asset and expect to remain competetive.

It's easy to say "the owners got themselves into this mess," but that's not entirely true, either.

There were several cases in which face-of-the-franchise type players(See Anaheim\Paul Kariya) demanded ridiculous raises and the respective team was handcuffed. The owners may have given the money...but the players had to first demand it.
 

OilKiller

Registered User
Feb 1, 2005
546
0
canadatv.invisionzone.com
nomorekids said:
It's easy to say "the owners got themselves into this mess," but that's not entirely true, either.

There were several cases in which face-of-the-franchise type players(See Anaheim\Paul Kariya) demanded ridiculous raises and the respective team was handcuffed. The owners may have given the money...but the players had to first demand it.

Actually, I think it is quite simple. The players didn't get us into this mess. The owners didn't get us into this mess. The SYSTEM got us into this mess and now the NHL is trying to fix the SYSTEM. I don't think it gets any easier than that IMO.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
OilKiller said:
Actually, I think it is quite simple. The players didn't get us into this mess. The owners didn't get us into this mess. The SYSTEM got us into this mess and now the NHL is trying to fix the SYSTEM. I don't think it gets any easier than that IMO.


Agreed. There's a "chicken and the egg" mentality to all of this..and you could fingerpoint back and forth all day and never get anywhere. Both sides are to blame, and now it's up to both sides to fix it...before there's nothing left to fix.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->