Conway:Experts agree: Replace Bettman, Goodenow

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Gee Wally, Mar 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gee Wally

    Gee Wally Grumpy

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    50,674
    Likes Received:
    4,624
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Grumpville USA
    Awards:
  2. What a steaming load. The "second teams" have already been brought in, and much to chagrin of the players, have been unable to come to an agreement either. The fact of the matter is that two sides are so far apart in philosophical differences that it is likely impossible for them to get together. The players have been lead down the garden path and believe they are in a much stronger position than they really are. Until they understand that the owners are not going to cave like they did in '94, and begin to comprehend the challeneges that the teams and league faces, this is going no where fast. You could put 100 different guys in the room and they are going to run into the same roadblocks. The players just don't understand the business side of the game or the complexities of owning or running enterprises of this magnitude. THAT is the biggest roadblock that has to be overcome. Gretzky and Lemieux seem to understand that, but it took them years of owning teams to learn those lessons.
     
  3. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,118
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    Uh oh, here we go again, another article written by Russ Conway, therefore it must be a "steaming load", right? Good work in turning an article that simply called for different tactics by both sides into an anti-NHLPA tirade.

    It's not saying Bettman should be replaced, or the players are right, just that Bettman and Goodenow can't reach a deal. Who can debate that? It's the bloody middle of March and there has been only negative progress in the last month. So if you want to try something else, like bringing in 3rd parties or changing the negotiating teams, how the heck can that be any worse?
     
  4. It's been done. Different people involved, same result. Arbitrator involved, same result. It doesn't matter at this point because it is a philosphical battle at this point. Until a break in philosophy takes place on one side of the battle (the players because they are out of touch with reality) this is going no where. How difficult is this to comprehend?
     
  5. Icey

    Icey Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its not philosphical its control and egos that stand in the way. In the end Bettman and Goodenow are still the ones that need to negotiate the deal. You can bring in all the "second" teams you want but they have to approve it. Those two need to be removed and permanantly for this to move forward. Bettman and Goodenow are too busy measuring the size of each others penis that they have not noticed that their is no hockey being played. They hate each other and a deal will never be struck with those two in charge.
     
  6. Slats432

    Slats432 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2002
    Messages:
    12,809
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Home Page:
    I don't see it. The owners are just as out of touch as the players are....and I am pro owner. There has been no willingness by either side to find creative solution to anything.

    The owners want to have a guaranteed profit. The owners don't want to revenue share. The owners basically have said "My way or the highway." with a "It is our sport not yours." sprinkled on top.

    There is no leadership on either side that makes me say..."Hey, what a stellar job."

    As for the underlings....I am a manager, and if my GM say to me to go and negotiate something, and I bring back the result...he says yay or nay. The reason that mediators don't work is because of all the reasons mentioned. Hardlined stances on both sides.

    I am pro owner, but both guys need to get run off.
     
  7. LPHabsFan

    LPHabsFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Montreal
    Home Page:
    Umm, how has it been done before. Hotchkiss, Daly, Saskin and Linded? Sorry but those guys are still at the top of their respective sides and realistically do not bring a new dynamic to the meeting. And that's the point that Conway is trying to make is that they need completely new teams on both sides to actually get a fair deal. We here at HF could probably (or allready have) find a solution that is fair to both sides. What Conway suggests is logical business practice. Unfortunately he is trying to apply logic to a situation that has never been logical because if it has been then the NHL would be back. And while the players are out of touch with reality, so are the owners. Personally I think it is simply wrong to go from a completely free market to a completely non free market that the owners are proposing.

    And as it has been pointed out according to I believe Gary Bettman in his cancelling the season press conference, the inclusion of a mediator was a legal necessity, not a choice.

    What he is proposing is to get people outside of the teams that have been there up to date so that there could be a logical deal done that won't screw over each side. Because whether anyone wants to believe it or not, the only goal on either side has been to completely shatter the other side.
     
  8. rekrul

    rekrul Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    bittersville,ca
    Home Page:
    how much of that is Bettman? I sware he has been more passionate about bringing the union to its knees than any stanly cup game, team or NHL player.....
     
  9. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,762
    Likes Received:
    2,966
    Trophy Points:
    186

    I for one can debate that. The real crux of the problem is that the owners are united and determined to impliment a new CBA with a Cap at about 55% of revenues going to players. It is that simple, and they are willing to lose a season, even two to get what they want as they appear to be convinced that if they do this the game will come back in spades eventually and they can make a profit, or at least not lose their shirts (along with about a third of the teams if not more) that the alternative brings. The players think that the league will eventually settle for half measures. The players appear to be wrong, and now have backed themselves and Goodenow especially into a corner where egos are involved. I do not believe that this is a Bettman/Goodenow thing as much as it is a Goodenow/Ownership thing. I think that Bettman is far more a tool of ownership than Goodenow is a tool of the players . . . in fact it is the opposite when it comes to the players, they seem to be a tool of Goodenow.

    This will end when the players swallow their pride and accept a 55% hard cap, not sooner. Does anyone doubt that?
     
  10. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,118
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    That's all fine and dandy, but I could spout out how the players are united and determined not to allow the owners to implement a 55% hard cap. Doesn't mean much of anything. In fact the article didn't even mention a possible solution or outcome, just what needs to be done to get there. In the end it might be a 55% hard cap, it might be something that no one has even thought of at this point. But we will get to the end much sooner if Goodenow and Bettman were removed, and/or if other parties were brought in, such as arbitration.

    If it is the owners' strategy to sit around until the players say fine, we'll take the 55%, then that is a terrible strategy. Likewise, if the players plan to sit around and wait til the owners crack, again, a terrible strategy. That's why something new or different has to happen in order to get a solution.
     
  11. Slats432

    Slats432 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2002
    Messages:
    12,809
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Home Page:
    I figure that Bettman wants to ultimately take the pendulum back from the players over to their side as well. That is as much a part of this fight as the economic issues. The power struggle. I also figure that Bettman two years ago laid this thing out and said his expectations were such and such, and I believe that it has gone according to script for him.

    The problem with Bettman in this situation is that neither he, nor his counterpart showed any ability to get the job done.

    I am in business, and I am a negotiator. If I were in charge of the NHL while someone reasonable was on the other side, there would have been a season this year.
     
  12. oil slick

    oil slick Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    7,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Do you think so? I'm not saying those two have been doing a good job, but I think people underestimate how much the hard line stance the NHL has put forward has less to do with Bettman, and more to do with the owners. I assume the same is true with the NHLPA, although it is much harder to judge, with 700+ players. But on the owners side, I strongly believe that they would not accept much more than what was offered, no matter if it was Bettman or yourself running negotiations.

    Every single time someone on these boards has come out with a compromise, I think it would not be acceptable to the Owners group (and probably the players). People claimed that the owners and players should have come to a 45 million cap... But I am fairly certain the reason this was not done was because the owners and the players felt this was not acceptable, not because of the egos of Gary and Bob.
     
  13. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your right in many ways, but I think the problem is that Bettman is not the guy that the players are going to take a cap they don't want from. His demeanor and history in this league shed bad light on him, especially as far as the players are concerned. I think that if the owners were being led by someone else, someone with more of a hockey background and a better relation with the players, there could have been a deal a long time ago. But because of the way Bettman has handled this and the players feelings about him, they don't want to give in.

    You also have to remember that these 2 guys have already negotiated CBA's, and it's never good to leave the same people in charge of negotiating multiple CBA's. Animosity from Bettman, as well as the owners, towards Goodenow and the union is probably what has forced the owners to be so hard-line in their stance. If the negotiators were changed a deal would be much easier.
     
  14. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,762
    Likes Received:
    2,966
    Trophy Points:
    186

    You miss my point . . . the thread blamed the impass of Bettman and Goodenow and implied that if you got rid of them a solution would be at hand. My point is that getting rid of Bettman would do little as he is merely doing the owners' bidding and will, though I am sure that he agrees with them. Goodenow I think is much less a tool of the players than Bettman is though, without him on board I think that the majority of players would have accepted the $42 million, don't you? Therefore in my opinion, getting rid of Goodenow would perhaps make a deal come faster, but getting rid of Bettman would do little.
     
  15. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,762
    Likes Received:
    2,966
    Trophy Points:
    186
    That could be so, though at this point Goodenow has forced the players into a place where they will have to back down and swallow ego big time. The fact is that the owners have other resources than hockey, where almost all have lost many millions on hockey since the last CBA has been signed, so losing a bit more does not hurt them nearly as much as the players. Losing two years is a 'nuclear' option for players as most will lose half or more of their average 4 year careers. For owners it is a mere tax deduction on their bottom lines of other businesses or against future hockey profits. The players can not win. Maybe losing Bettman would save some face for the players who are going to have to back down huge and really destroy their egos, so maybe you are right there, but in the end the players will back down whether Bettman is there or not.
     
  16. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    96
    it has

    nothing to do with their hate.

    It has everything to do with Goodenows guarantees to the players, which he cant grant(because the the pot at the end of the rainbow isnt full of gold).
     
  17. NYIsles1*

    NYIsles1* Guest

    The owners have not done a good job when you see offers taking back basic gains made by the PA and even going as far as to try and eliminate their right to holdout without them being suspended for a season. Seems like Bettman and the owners do want it all when you read things like that. It's hard to ask teams losing money with high revenue (Dallas, Colorado, Detroit, Philadelphia, Rangers) to share revenue and pay luxury taxes especially when no one knows how much more these teams will lose after this is over. The Canadians lose money with 85 million in revenue, why should they share with Edmonton who make less and lose less in revenue?

    But contrast the PA is not being very realistic about what this business can afford to offer as a maximum cap at this time when they expect a cap at 49 that can expand to 53.9m. Goodenow acts like it's not his problem in these negotiations and also wants the league to take all the risks with no linkage but the cap raised based on how the business does.

    The bottom line in this negotiation is the NHL cannot met the NHLPA half-way on most things because things have gotten too far out of hand. What's needed is some creative ways for players to move around and get the best offers (drop UFA age) give teams that draft a player the right to spend more to keep them, but there has to be a hard cap around 40m. (or less now)

    The owners can replace Bettman tomorrow but the financial problems in this business are not going away. It's not as easy as electing a new comissioner and accepting Goodenow's numbers or allowing any system that allows esculation without a cap. Goodenow seems to be hoping for the courts to stop replacement players or he would be willing to trade jobs (contraction) for keeping higher payrolls.

    If that's his gameplan it's time for him to go.
     
  18. Something lost on people, Gary Bettman represents the league and the owners, and does what he is told to do. Bob Goodenow leads the players and tells them what to do. The players are not looking to Goodenow and telling him to make a deal. They are looking to him and saying, what do we do Bob? Bettman is directed, Goodenow is the director. Significant difference that has been lost on the majority of people.
     
  19. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC
    Just wondering why you pro-owner guys trust the owners and Bettman to improve the league in the next decade. I just can't find a reason why to trust these morons. They have grown the league out of control and they are single handedly at fault. You can not blame the players for this, they were given the big contracts. Can any of you honestly say 'well the players shouldn't have signed such big contracts they were given'. If you can say that, there's something wrong with you and you're not out to make money during your life.

    I would never trust a bunch of businessmen and lawyers, such as Ted Leonis, who told USA Today that he knew he was going to lose millions when he brought the team. Obviously these guys have more of a motive to make on their investments, then they do bringing this league back to respectability. Bettman has made so many mistakes and brainwashed so many of the current and old owners since he came in, why won't he do the same. Just because there going to get a salary cap doesn't mean the league is a guaranteed success. Personally, I think he just has to go.

    Again, just wondering why pro-owners trust your side?
     
  20. oil slick

    oil slick Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    7,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    I don't. That is why everyone should actually look at the offers presented, and ask the question 'what will this do to the NHL'? One thing is for sure though, the status quo will not work.

    When I look at the initial 24% rollback offer, IMO I think it was easy to see that the offer truly didn't change the system much. When analysing the offer, I thought there was a very real possibility that we would end up in exactly the same place eight years from now, and facing another work stoppage. Likewise, i think some of the owners offers would not work, because of the lack of revenue sharing. You have to think a bit about each proposal... but make no mistake that many of the NHLPA proposals would do no good for the health of the NHL.

    Let me ask you this, why on earth would you think Goodenows solutions would work for the league?
     
  21. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC
    I don't...we need some leadership changes
     
  22. Boilers*

    Boilers* Guest

    Make no mistake this is owners against owners. St. Louis is stupid enough to sign an injured Pronger for 9 mil per season. The poorer teams are saying to the players "Give us a break from those types of contracts they're killing us so agree to 55% of revenue and we won't have to worry about losing too much money due to the ******ed clubs". The rich clubs don't really care as it's more money in their pockets overall. The players however blindly following that pouty jackass Goodenow want status quo.

    I'm on the owner's side because the players refused to work under the cap and yet play under one in Europe and displace other players who desperatley needed the cash. I'm one the owners side because they actually realize there's a problem and are trying to fix it. The PA won't work with the NHL on agreeing to how to audit or who should audit. I think they (PA) were quite frightened to find what the numbers might be so instead they simply dispute any numbers the NHL used simply saying "cover-up!". By not letting themselves get pinned down by any numbers Goodenow assured his masses that the owners would cave. Goodenow sold out his players without telling them anything. He made them look foolish. He made Mario and Wayne apear foolish. Not that I care one way or another but Bobby boy is looking decidedly stupid these days.
     
  23. I don't. I trust the owners to do what is right for 30 teams to survive and for the league to remain viable financially. This has nothing to to do with improvements in the league or the game at this point. Its all about survival.

    The players, the agents and the NHLPA are just as much to blame as the NHL owners are in the state of the game. Its time for people to start looking at solutions and stopping pissing and moaning about who was right or who was wrong. Both sides drove the league to where it is right now and all should hang their heads in shame. The fact is that one side wants to see changes that can lead to a viable 30 team league and the other wants status quo, with a short term rebate for previous over-payment.

    You have some growing up to do my friend. Life is not about making money. Life is about doing what ever it is that makes you happy and allows you and your family to survive. That is what makes me so pro-owner, is the players have lost track of why they played the game in the first place. These guys played hockey because they loved it, not because they could make millions of dollars. The money has ruined them and their love for the game. They have no idea what their life is about anymore. Money has ruined them in more ways than one IMO.

    I don't trust anyone, but I do understand who owns the business and who will be around to keep the game viable long after the biggest star of the game retires. As I have said all along, until the players star bucking up and buying franchises they don't have a leg to stand on. Until they are ready to become partners in the league and assume some risks they are nothing but employees and should do what they are told. If you don't like it, go play somewhere else. There are all sorts of leagues elsewhere. The NHL doesn't owe any player anything. The players owe what ever league they are playing in everything. Without the leagues they are not "players".
     
  24. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank goodness we all realize that without players there would be leagues. Just throw the sweaters out on the ice. There many people who will pay $50 for a ticket in order to "root for the laundry."
     
  25. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,118
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    Not this again, the players want the status quo, the players are stupid and can't think for themselves and blindly follow what the moron Goodenow does, etc. etc.

    Enough already. First, they don't want the status quo. If they did, they wouldn't have offered to give back 24% on all their contracts, they wouldn't have agreed to play under a cap, they wouldn't have offered up changes in arbitration, the list goes on and on. All signs of realizing there's problems with the status quo.

    The players aren't asking for more. They're not even asking for as much. What they do want is to not be completely swindled by the owners and accept a deal that is horrendously in favour of the owners. And that's all the owners have offered up so far, so therefore we have no deal.

    Next, the idea that players are stupid and are told what they want by Goodenow and that most if not all of them would have accepted the last ($42M cap) proposal is a bunch of hooey too. If Goodenow and the PA executive weren't doing what the majority of players wanted him to, how long would it take for them to get rid of him? Ten minutes? Just like if Bettman wasn't doing what the majority of owners wanted him to do, they would either make sure he did, or get rid of him.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"