Bettman and his owners are greedy pigs:They already WON

Status
Not open for further replies.

SPARTAKUS*

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
You're right. It's like I said before this lockout has nothing to do with economics it has everything to do with POWER. The owners want to control every aspect of the league. So when they say they want to be partners with players its a load of crap.

But there's no doubt that the NHL needs a new and improved economic system.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
im not really going to argue your other points, i respect your opinion, but dont feel like going in circles on those points again.

however, i am curious about this statement.

djhn579 said:
I'd rather the owners get the deal they want now, no matter how long it takes.
Would you have the same opinion if you knew it meant that the end result would your team folding or moving ?

Is cost certainy no matter how long it takes ok as long as it doesnt cost you your team ?

I know the standard answer is, "well we will lose our team anyway", but i want to know if you knew for certainty "as long as it takes" would result in you losing your team would you still say that ?

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
AM said:
All they had to do was say yes to playing a game for an average 1.3 million dollars a year.
thats lame. ... no better than the reverse "all they (owners) had to do was not offer such ridiculas contracts."

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
wazee said:
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.
i see the logic.

it could also be that the NHL said, take this or leave it and bob left it.

Bill Watters said it, this is all the owners will offer.

dr
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
Good

DR said:
thats lame. ... no better than the reverse "all they (owners) had to do was not offer such ridiculas contracts."

dr

Take stuff out of context, it makes your arguements so much better!
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
DR said:
Would you have the same opinion if you knew it meant that the end result would your team folding or moving ?

Is cost certainy no matter how long it takes ok as long as it doesnt cost you your team ?

I know the standard answer is, "well we will lose our team anyway", but i want to know if you knew for certainty "as long as it takes" would result in you losing your team would you still say that ?

dr

In my opinion, if the owners don't get the deal they want now, my team either moves, folds, or is basically a farm team for the large market teams. So, if this takes 5 years and my team folds before the CBA gets resolved, it doesn't really matter.

If they do sign a compromise deal, and it turns out that my team does end up constantly trading away players because they can't afford them, what is the point? They will almost never have a chance at the cup or be competetive year in, year out. Maybe they could go on a one year cinderella run, but that's all we have to look forward to.



As for how to resolve this, I think the league should declare an impasse, and do everything short of replacement players for the time being. At the very least, the players would be forced to vote on whether to accept the cap or not. If they vote not to and go on strike, the NHL can negotiate a while longer, but it will be in the back of the players minds that the NHL can use replacement players whenever they want. I think this could be done before teams are forced to fold.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
djhn579 said:
In my opinion, if the owners don't get the deal they want now, my team either moves, folds, or is basically a farm team for the large market teams. So, if this takes 5 years and my team folds before the CBA gets resolved, it doesn't really matter.

If they do sign a compromise deal, and it turns out that my team does end up constantly trading away players because they can't afford them, what is the point? They will almost never have a chance at the cup or be competetive year in, year out. Maybe they could go on a one year cinderella run, but that's all we have to look forward to.



As for how to resolve this, I think the league should declare an impasse, and do everything short of replacement players for the time being. At the very least, the players would be forced to vote on whether to accept the cap or not. If they vote not to and go on strike, the NHL can negotiate a while longer, but it will be in the back of the players minds that the NHL can use replacement players whenever they want. I think this could be done before teams are forced to fold.
maybe i missed your answer ... the question was, would you be willing to wait as long as it takes if you knew that even the most favourable possible owners deal would result in your team folding.

i fail to see how teams like BUF have been farm teams. besides Peca and Hasek, who else have they lost that they shouldnt have ? im sure they have lost some guys, but attrition is a natural part of sports. its not like they didnt pick up Chris Drury, Dan Briere and resign Satan in the last two seasons.

BUF doesnt seem hard done by.

In fact, other than the dismantling of EDM and PIT, there are no real examples of teams existing only as a farm teams for the big markets. thats simply a cliche.

dr

DR
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
DR said:
i see the logic.

it could also be that the NHL said, take this or leave it and bob left it.

Bill Watters said it, this is all the owners will offer.

dr
I seriously doubt it. The only way we will find out is to watch what they do from now on. What is said and done in public is meaningless...and that includes Goodenow's stomping mad act.

Did Goodenow walk out in anger because he was surprised or offended by something the owners proposed? Very doubtful, IMO. Good negotiators do no allow their tempers to get the best of them. More likely, he was trying to unify the players by convincing them that the owners had done something insulting. Or perhaps he was trying to convince Bettman that he couldn't be pushed any farther...although that makes less sense, because if it is transparent enough that I can see through it, it is unlikely Bettman and company would be fooled.

Was Bettman's positive, serene manner real? Or was he just trying to reassure the owners? Or to convince the players that he was acting reasonably?

Watch what happens. Do they resume talks Monday? Then, obviously, they still think they have something to talk about.

I am always a little amazed at how people take what is said during negotiations as gospel. In negotiations, as in poker, bluffing is part of the strategy.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
DR said:
maybe i missed your answer ... the question was, would you be willing to wait as long as it takes if you knew that even the most favourable possible owners deal would result in your team folding.

If my team was going to fold, regardless of the the deal signed, why would I care how long this went on? Why would you care if your team was going to fold regardless of what happened?

I don't see that being the case though, and I see where your probably going, back to the revenue sharing issue. I'm not worried about my team in that regards.

The rest, we have been over before. You have your opinion, and that's fine. My opinion is different.

P.S. your original question was a bit different than what you are asking here...


DR said:
Would you have the same opinion if you knew it meant that the end result would your team folding or moving ?

Is cost certainy no matter how long it takes ok as long as it doesnt cost you your team ?

I know the standard answer is, "well we will lose our team anyway", but i want to know if you knew for certainty "as long as it takes" would result in you losing your team would you still say that ?

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
djhn579 said:
If my team was going to fold, regardless of the the deal signed, why would I care how long this went on? Why would you care if your team was going to fold regardless of what happened?

I don't see that being the case though, and I see where your probably going, back to the revenue sharing issue. I'm not worried about my team in that regards.

The rest, we have been over before. You have your opinion, and that's fine. My opinion is different.

P.S. your original question was a bit different than what you are asking here...
maybe i should clarify.... the owners could give up on so many hard demands (in their latest proposal) and this lockout would be over. the last offer is a hammer on the players. if hte lockout ended with some cost certainty, BUF would be fine and the NHL would remain in 30 markets.

however, by the owners making such a power play with their last offer and then holding a take it or leave it position, the lockout will continue. and i predict at the expense of 5 - 8 teams. are you willing to gamble it wont be your team ?

dr

this could cost the NHL
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
DR said:
however, by the owners making such a power play with their last offer and then holding a take it or leave it position, the lockout will continue. and i predict at the expense of 5 - 8 teams. are you willing to gamble it wont be your team ?

dr

this could cost the NHL

How do you know this the league is taking a take it or leave it position? Common sense dictates that the league and the PA didn't meet for 13 hours in two days over a take it or leave it position. Clearly there was some give and take occurring. Otherwise, the meetings would not have continued as long as they did and they would not be making plans to meet again next week.

Now, whether there is enough give and take occurring to get a deal done soon is another question.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
DR said:
maybe i should clarify.... the owners could give up on so many hard demands (in their latest proposal) and this lockout would be over. the last offer is a hammer on the players. if hte lockout ended with some cost certainty, BUF would be fine and the NHL would remain in 30 markets.

however, by the owners making such a power play with their last offer and then holding a take it or leave it position, the lockout will continue. and i predict at the expense of 5 - 8 teams. are you willing to gamble it wont be your team ?

dr

this could cost the NHL

I'm with some other posters here that have said that if the NHLPA accepts a salary cap, they could get rid of many of the things you object to, so if the NHLPA accepted a hard cap today, this lockout would be over in less than a week.

What proof do you have that the NHL presented this as a take it or leave it proposition?



And really, this could have all been avoided if the NHLPA had been willing to bend a little over the past 5 years. They were not willing to bend, and many owners lost a lot of money. I could see some of them being bitter and wanting to stick it to the players, just as you or I would do if someone screwed us over for years and we finally were in a position to do something about it.

In a perfect world, this wouldn't happen, but you also have to look at the personalities involved. I read somewhere that Godenow's strategy is to just say no until the other side accepts your position, regardless of how long that takes. How do you respond when dealing with someone like that? Personally, I would just say no to their position until they accepted my position. It works both ways. In this case, the NHL has the power and can wait as long as it takes and it looks like they are prepared to do that.
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
RangerBoy said:
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

The league would not survive at this salary range, which makes the rest of your stupid point obsolete.

/Thread.
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
Epsilon said:
Who says every team has to spend that much?

Well, a whole reason for the equality in spending is to make an equality of teams, thats one of the major reasons for the cap.
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
DR said:
why wouldnt it survive ?

dr

Well, the NHL would survive, but you'd lose many good markets. Pittsburgh would definetly die, Calgary and Edmonton would die, Montreal probably.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
DR said:
maybe i should clarify.... the owners could give up on so many hard demands (in their latest proposal) and this lockout would be over. the last offer is a hammer on the players. if hte lockout ended with some cost certainty, BUF would be fine and the NHL would remain in 30 markets.

however, by the owners making such a power play with their last offer and then holding a take it or leave it position, the lockout will continue. and i predict at the expense of 5 - 8 teams. are you willing to gamble it wont be your team ?

dr

this could cost the NHL

Accordng to Shoalts' column mentioned in another thread, without cost certainty about 15 teams are in serious trouble of going under. Much worse than 5-8 but if there is some sort of cost certainty I don't see any teams going under. Maybe Pittsburgh because if they don't get their arena it doesn't matter either way.
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
I'll go through your Pejorative Slured post and point out the obvious flaws.

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.

The only way for the NHL to have long term success is through the cap, a low cap that will move when revenues move, you can have an impartial accountant that gets paid by both parties to determine what is revenue and what isn't.

RangerBoy said:
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.

Wow, thats for that great insight, right there you lose all possible credibility that an average human being comes in with. You of course come in with less, well, because clearly you're stupid.

RangerBoy said:
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

The faster people realize that the players shouldn't have any say in this, the better. They talk a lot about a free market, yet they're in a ****ing union, there is nothing free market about this. If this was real free market, the owners would have had their salary cap 10 years ago. Because in real business, if the employees ***** and complain, they find themselves out on the street very fast. And hope that soon the NHLPA realizes they are holding no cards, because they aren't the ones writing the cheques.

RangerBoy said:
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

The NHL can ask for whatever they **** they want, they are the league, and without those owners, all these NHL'ers would be working in garages making 1/100 of what they are currently making.

RangerBoy said:
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

The league will be better off when the players realize they are just employees, and hopefully, soon replaced employees.
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
I also like how the owners are greedy pigs, when they've just lost about a billion dollars over the last 10 years, and for some reason, want to cut costs.

What kind of greedy ******* would want to cut costs to make some money. :shakehead
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Mountain Dude said:
Well, the NHL would survive, but you'd lose many good markets. Pittsburgh would definetly die, Calgary and Edmonton would die, Montreal probably.
PIT ? i just had a passionate poster tell me how good a hockey market PIT is for TV and attendance and how well set up they are. PIT i am told is just fine.

MTL ? give me a break.

CGY ? CGY is probably the 3rd best place for a hockey team in all of the world.

EDM ? Maybe, too bad, but why kill the whole NHL just to save EDM.

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Mountain Dude said:
I also like how the owners are greedy pigs, when they've just lost about a billion dollars over the last 10 years, and for some reason, want to cut costs.

What kind of greedy ******* would want to cut costs to make some money. :shakehead
by that logic, the players just want to make up the billion or so dollars they have lost over that same time period by not linking their salaries to accountants.

dr
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
DR said:
PIT ? i just had a passionate poster tell me how good a hockey market PIT is for TV and attendance and how well set up they are. PIT i am told is just fine.

MTL ? give me a break.

CGY ? CGY is probably the 3rd best place for a hockey team in all of the world.

EDM ? Maybe, too bad, but why kill the whole NHL just to save EDM.

dr

Mario said right at the beginning of the lockout that even if they get the originally desired cap, they would still likely fold. Why do you think that Mario is part owner, did you ever think of that one?

Calgary: We've been losing money for over the last 8 years, wow, one profitable year, and then, oh, guess what, all the salaries go up 15-25%, or we just lose that player.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->