The Iconoclast said: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.
gc2005 said: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?
The Iconoclast said: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.
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 Iconoclast said: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?
The Iconoclast said: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?
slats432 said: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.
gc2005 said: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?
Jaded-Fan said: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?
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.rekrul said: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.....
slats432 said: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.
Jaded-Fan said: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?
gc2005 said: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.
nyr7andcounting said: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.
Icey said: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.
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?oil slick said: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.
nyrmessier011 said:Again, just wondering why pro-owners trust your side?
oil slick said:Let me ask you this, why on earth would you think Goodenows solutions would work for the league?
nyrmessier011 said:Just wondering why you pro-owner guys trust the owners and Bettman to improve the league in the next decade.
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.
Again, just wondering why pro-owners trust your side?
The Iconoclast said: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".
Bloodsport said: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 Pejorative Slured 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.