Bettman and his owners are greedy pigs:They already WON

Status
Not open for further replies.

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,237
New York
www.youtube.com
nomorekids said:
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.

Not exactly.I am a fan of a big market team but I have been more of a NHL than NHLPA supporter.I think both sides are being too stubborn

I just don't think shutting down the NHL and dragging it into the courts is the answer.If that happens,will anything be left of the NHL to salvage?Bettman wins the war and everything he wanted but will anyone be left
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,237
New York
www.youtube.com
go kim johnsson said:
an about-face, Ranger Boy? ;)


I agree with much of what you have to say, as Stephen A. Smith says, this mess is going on because Gary Bettman refuses to throw the players a bone. The NHL want to keep taking ant taking and taking but they don't want to give.

Your team and my team warned Bettman and his band of 8 heading into the lockout

The silent 7:Rangers,Flyers,Leafs,Avs,Stars,Wings and the Kings

the Silent Seven, they were against the lockout going this far. They warned Bettman about hanging everything the NHL stood for on a hard salary cap. They wanted a deal months ago. Yet they have remained silent, biting their lips as the season slips away.

They have resigned themselves to allowing the Eight Man Salary Cap Band to dictate what it believes is best for the league.


http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/sports/10830353.htm?1c

The Eight Man Salary Cap Band - Wirtz, Jacobs, Craig Leipold in Nashville, Peter Karmanos in Carolina, Cal Nichols in Edmonton, Harley Hotchkiss in Calgary, Ted Leonsis in Washington, and Alan Cohen in Florida
 

myrocketsgotcracked

Guest
Crazy Lunatic said:
If you take next month off work and dont get paid, did you lose a months worth of wages or didn't you?
no. you cant lose money you havent earn, thats the point. the players foregone (or were prevented, which ever you like)the opportunity of earning a billion dollar, but they didnt "lose" it.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,999
2,071
Duncan
RangerBoy said:
Why is NY NBA Lawyers offensive?I can say that because I am an American and a born and bred New Yorker who was born in NYC

Bettman has no history.He doesn't love the NHL

Someone like Gerry Meehan of the Cardinal Sports Group should be the NHL Commissioner

Mr. Meehan is a graduate of the State University of New York at Buffalo School of Law in 1982. With over 35 years of experience in hockey at all levels, Mr. Meehan brings invaluable knowledge to Cardinal Sports.

Prior to beginning a legal career Mr. Meehan played 12 seasons of professional hockey, including four as a member of the Buffalo Sabres. Thereafter, Mr. Meehan practiced sports, corporate and immigration law with a private U.S. law firm. In 1984 Mr. Meehan rejoined the Sabres as Assistant General Manager/Associate Counsel, rising to the position of Vice President/General Manger in 1986. He held this position until 1993 when he became Executive Vice President - Sports Operations.

Mr. Meehan provides legal consultations to Cardinal Sports' clients with respect to NCAA regulations and eligibility issues. He is also a trusted advisor and source of experience to all Cardinal Sports' athletes.


http://www.cardinalsportsgroup.com/webstart/b1/ncaa/bios.asp

Former NHL player.Former NHL GM.Lawyer


Well, be that as it may... but you've missed the point of Bettman completely. He is hired by the NHL to do what THEY want him to do. They'd still be asking the same thing regardless of who was manning the post. To assume otherwise, kind of shows you're not paying much attention to things. IMO. And I don't mean this as an insult... I just think people are blaming Bettman because it's easy to do so. It's like blaming the Lawyer for the acts of the criminal... heh.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
CarlRacki said:
Is comparing the losses of 700+ players with that of 30 owners really fair?

During the last CBA there were a lot more then 30 people who had owned at least a piece of an NHL team.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
Smail said:
It's just that if you ask me as a businessman who I think is doing what they must and who isn't, I'll tell you that the owners are finally trying to right a ship that's been sinking for a while. I will never throw mud at a management trying to get their business right, for in the end, it is always better for the owners and the employees. However, I just can't understand the players who are losing more and more as days go by regardless of the final deal they get. When you own a tumbling stock, you cut your loss as soon as possible, forget about it and look ahead. Holding the stock while it's dying won't do you know good. The players are like Nortel shareholders after the share went from $100 to the bottom of the charts. They're holding and holding in the hopes it goes back up. In the meantime, their money ain't working for them and it's kinda hopeless. So cut the loss, negociate the best deal you can now, and look forward to the next cba, hoping that the hockey business will be in a better shape then.

The NHL is the exact opposite of Nortel. At Nortel, management attempted to make things appear better then they were. In the NHL, management appears to make things look worse then they are.

To say that NHL players are like Nortel shareholders is an assinine analogy. To say the players are like Nortel employees would be more apt. Both have gotten screwed by inept management.
 

Sammy*

Guest
BlackRedGold said:
The NHL is the exact opposite of Nortel. At Nortel, management attempted to make things appear better then they were. In the NHL, management appears to make things look worse then they are.

To say that NHL players are like Nortel shareholders is an assinine analogy. To say the players are like Nortel employees would be more apt. Both have gotten screwed by inept management.
Talk about assiinine. "To say the players are like Nortel employees would be more apt. Both have gotten screwed by inept management." Now thats an assinine comment.
Yeah , the players have really gotten screwed. Thats why the owners have run a massive deficit over the last 10 years.
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,237
New York
www.youtube.com
quat said:
Well, be that as it may... but you've missed the point of Bettman completely. He is hired by the NHL to do what THEY want him to do. They'd still be asking the same thing regardless of who was manning the post. To assume otherwise, kind of shows you're not paying much attention to things. IMO. And I don't mean this as an insult... I just think people are blaming Bettman because it's easy to do so. It's like blaming the Lawyer for the acts of the criminal... heh.

Bettman's way is the only way to achieve cost certainty?That was my main
point.Bettman is holding the game,the fans,the players and the majority of his OWN owners hostage.He will not cancel the season and put everyone out of their misery.Yet he refuses to even consider another system.Except for a handful of owners,the majority of the owners are not in the loop.His Levitt report turned out to be a crock.Arthur Levitt was a lousy SEC commissioner.You NEVER hear the Levitt report mentioned anymore.Wonder why?Have you been paying attention? :shakehead Bettman is the commissioner.The supposed keeper of the game :D
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
RangerBoy said:
Your team and my team warned Bettman and his band of 8 heading into the lockout

The silent 7:Rangers,Flyers,Leafs,Avs,Stars,Wings and the Kings

the Silent Seven, they were against the lockout going this far. They warned Bettman about hanging everything the NHL stood for on a hard salary cap. They wanted a deal months ago. Yet they have remained silent, biting their lips as the season slips away.

They have resigned themselves to allowing the Eight Man Salary Cap Band to dictate what it believes is best for the league.


http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/sports/10830353.htm?1c

The Eight Man Salary Cap Band - Wirtz, Jacobs, Craig Leipold in Nashville, Peter Karmanos in Carolina, Cal Nichols in Edmonton, Harley Hotchkiss in Calgary, Ted Leonsis in Washington, and Alan Cohen in Florida
Stan Kroenke, the Avs owner, favors a salary cap. He has said so since he purchased the team five years ago. A couple years ago, he started to say 'cost certainty' instead of salary cap...whatever...

The Kings owner, Phillip Anschutz, lives in Colorado. He is quoted in the business pages frequently and I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe he is favor of settling for less than ‘cost certainty’. Anschutz tends to run the Kings more as a business than a toy.

So…unless you have recent information to the contrary, you need to drop the Avs and Kings from your Silent 7. Now you are down to 5, hardly a big enough number to start a revolution.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
BlackRedGold said:
The NHL is the exact opposite of Nortel. At Nortel, management attempted to make things appear better then they were. In the NHL, management appears to make things look worse then they are.

To say that NHL players are like Nortel shareholders is an assinine analogy. To say the players are like Nortel employees would be more apt. Both have gotten screwed by inept management.

I wasn't comparing Nortel with the NHL, I was comparing the players reaction to the lockout to many shareholders reaction when the stock takes a fall. As in, at some point, you take the loss and look ahead, otherwise, chances are you'll lose more and more that you will never recover.

As for Nortel employees, they didn't get a paycut, they got laid off. I haven't seen any layoff of players so far.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Crazy Lunatic said:
If you take next month off work and dont get paid, did you lose a months worth of wages or didn't you? The players lost well over 1 billion dollars of money they would have been guaranteed this year because of their stupidity.
the players did not take time off from work, they were legally barred from working by the owners.

dr
 

YellHockey*

Guest
Sammy said:
Talk about assiinine. "To say the players are like Nortel employees would be more apt. Both have gotten screwed by inept management." Now thats an assinine comment.
Yeah , the players have really gotten screwed. Thats why the owners have run a massive deficit over the last 10 years.

The players have lost over a billion dollars this year because the owners are too inept to find a solution other then a salary cap.
 

Sammy*

Guest
BlackRedGold said:
The players have lost over a billion dollars this year because the owners are too inept to find a solution other then a salary cap.
The players have lost over a billion dollars this year because the players are too stupid/greedy to accept a salary cap.
Again remind me why the players wont accept a salary cap & linkage?
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
go kim johnsson said:
an about-face, Ranger Boy? ;)


I agree with much of what you have to say, as Stephen A. Smith says, this mess is going on because Gary Bettman refuses to throw the players a bone. The NHL want to keep taking ant taking and taking but they don't want to give.

The NHL's last offer made me feel sick.
Okay, so I've come to realize that they are not going to budge from a hard cap.
Fine.
But then they add in a clause which would prevent RFA's from holding out for more than 16 days from the start of camp (after 16 days, they'd be suspended for the year)
So they want a hard cap. A rookie cap. Changes to arbitration. And the ability to basically to screw a player for the first 10 years of his career.

Honestly, if they have a salary cap, there is no justification -- NONE -- for these other demands.
This is the owners basically saying, "look, we're stupid and greedy. Even with a salary cap, we can't be trusted to manage our budgets."
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
The NHL's last offer made me feel sick.
Okay, so I've come to realize that they are not going to budge from a hard cap.
Fine.
But then they add in a clause which would prevent RFA's from holding out for more than 16 days from the start of camp (after 16 days, they'd be suspended for the year)
So they want a hard cap. A rookie cap. Changes to arbitration. And the ability to basically to screw a player for the first 10 years of his career.

Honestly, if they have a salary cap, there is no justification -- NONE -- for these other demands.
This is the owners basically saying, "look, we're stupid and greedy. Even with a salary cap, we can't be trusted to manage our budgets."

At the same time, that's what negociations are about. The NHL is including those demands because that's the price they'll add to raising the cap. I'm sure the PA could negociate all those other clauses off if they were ready to accept the proposed cap.
 

Sammy*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
The NHL's last offer made me feel sick.
Okay, so I've come to realize that they are not going to budge from a hard cap.
Fine.
But then they add in a clause which would prevent RFA's from holding out for more than 16 days from the start of camp (after 16 days, they'd be suspended for the year)
So they want a hard cap. A rookie cap. Changes to arbitration. And the ability to basically to screw a player for the first 10 years of his career.

Honestly, if they have a salary cap, there is no justification -- NONE -- for these other demands.
This is the owners basically saying, "look, we're stupid and greedy. Even with a salary cap, we can't be trusted to manage our budgets."
I kinda agree with you but what do you think the owners should put on the table. Their best offer & then let the players negotiate off of that. Thats ludicrous. If the players get off the no salary cap/linkage mantra then I suspect those other items are negotiable but until then, why take them off the table?
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Sammy said:
I kinda agree with you but what do you think the owners should put on the table. Their best offer & then let the players negotiate off of that. Thats ludicrous. If the players get off the no salary cap/linkage mantra then I suspect those other items are negotiable but until then, why take them off the table?
Bill Watters has made the claim that the offer on the table is the only offer the NHL is willing to sign off on.

Lump it or leave it.

Bob left.

DR
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Sammy said:
I kinda agree with you but what do you think the owners should put on the table. Their best offer & then let the players negotiate off of that. Thats ludicrous. If the players get off the no salary cap/linkage mantra then I suspect those other items are negotiable but until then, why take them off the table?

Well, at some point, for the sake of negotiation, the owners have to make a serious give back.
Something that the rank and file players might look at and say "hey, that ain't so bad, I could live with that."
At this point, the owners aren't even really attempting to negotiate.
They've got just about all the cards. We all know that. Still, they've been arrogant and excessive in their demands.
You here that talk out there from Roenik et al? They're starting to say that they could live with a cap,
At some point, for the future of the league, and for the future of their franchises, the league needs to make a serious proposal.
One that has the hard cap, but that gives players freedom of movement in return.

Because if the entire season is wiped out, the NHL might resume hockey in 2007 with a $24 million salary cap, and they'll still lose money because no one will be watching.
 

Sammy*

Guest
DR said:
Bill Watters has made the claim that the offer on the table is the only offer the NHL is willing to sign off on.

Lump it or leave it.

Bob left.

DR
I for a moment dont believe it. So in other words, if the players came back & said we will accept everything except we will take 51% of profits instead of 50%, the owners would say screw you ? The players have got to get off the no linkage/cap rant, but until then, its negotiating 101 that everything would remain on the table.
 
Feb 28, 2002
10,922
0
Abbotsford, BC
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
Well, at some point, for the sake of negotiation, the owners have to make a serious give back.
Something that the rank and file players might look at and say "hey, that ain't so bad, I could live with that."
At this point, the owners aren't even really attempting to negotiate.[\b]


Are you serious?!?! The owners are not willing to negotiate? What news have you been watching?

I have seen the owners include:

  • Salary Arbitration
  • An ever increasing salary cap that is moving closer to a luxury tax than a cap
  • adopting the NHLPA's draft idea in terms of rookie caps and signings.
  • and a start at lowering the UFA age to 30 (Hey it is a start)

Have the players since their proposal even once changed their proposal?

Once?

Not to my knowledge, so send me a link if I am wrong.
 

Sammy*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Well, at some point, for the sake of negotiation, the owners have to make a serious give back.
Something that the rank and file players might look at and say "hey, that ain't so bad, I could live with that."
At this point, the owners aren't even really attempting to negotiate.
They've got just about all the cards. We all know that. Still, they've been arrogant and excessive in their demands.
You here that talk out there from Roenik et al? They're starting to say that they could live with a cap,
At some point, for the future of the league, and for the future of their franchises, the league needs to make a serious proposal.
One that has the hard cap, but that gives players freedom of movement in return.

Because if the entire season is wiped out, the NHL might resume hockey in 2007 with a $24 million salary cap, and they'll still lose money because no one will be watching.
I disagree. At some point the players have got to be prepared to negotiate on a cap/linkage basis. Not once have they made a proposal that includes this.
The ball is in their park.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
Biggest Canuck Fan said:
Are you serious?!?! The owners are not willing to negotiate? What news have you been watching?

I have seen the owners include:

  • Salary Arbitration
  • An ever increasing salary cap that is moving closer to a luxury tax than a cap
  • adopting the NHLPA's draft idea in terms of rookie caps and signings.
  • and a start at lowering the UFA age to 30 (Hey it is a start)

Have the players since their proposal even once changed their proposal?

Once?

Not to my knowledge, so send me a link if I am wrong.

Not to mention profit sharing.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Newsguyone said:
Well, at some point, for the sake of negotiation, the owners have to make a serious give back.
Something that the rank and file players might look at and say "hey, that ain't so bad, I could live with that."
At this point, the owners aren't even really attempting to negotiate.
They've got just about all the cards. We all know that. Still, they've been arrogant and excessive in their demands.
You here that talk out there from Roenik et al? They're starting to say that they could live with a cap,
At some point, for the future of the league, and for the future of their franchises, the league needs to make a serious proposal.
One that has the hard cap, but that gives players freedom of movement in return.

Because if the entire season is wiped out, the NHL might resume hockey in 2007 with a $24 million salary cap, and they'll still lose money because no one will be watching.
i think the give is the salary floor.

dr
 

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
DR said:
i never said CGY has or hasnt been losing money. thats their own fault. the fact is, i saw first hand (as a Calgarian) the economic power of this city when they are turned onto their team.

consider they dont have a local TV contract, and only recently got a small regional package and an even smaller pay per view package, not too mention the upper part of the arena that they never opened during games, there is plenty of room for revenue growth here and an appetite amongst the fans to consume it.

dr

there is your reason for a cap... the economic impact a team has... a league has... is far greater (see $$$) than the current NHL... the stronger all teams are the more $$$ there are... and with linkage this means that the more $$$ there are for players... now if people could just figure this out it would be easy... look at the NFL and the impact it as a league has in our economy.
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
DR said:
Bill Watters has made the claim that the offer on the table is the only offer the NHL is willing to sign off on.

Lump it or leave it.

Bob left.

DR
If you are so naive as to believe that is what happened, I have a ocean-front condo in Colorado I would like to sell you.

Just curious...is there a reason you are reposting this same little blurb over and over?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->