Conway:Experts agree: Replace Bettman, Goodenow

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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."

Put anyone in those sweaters and charge a fair price and you will get attendance. You don't need big name mega-stars to draw fans, you just need a winner. Put a winner on the ice and (in most markets) you will have a packed building. But put a mega-star on the ice, and lose games, and attendance will drop off. So in essence, winning laundry sells better than big egos.

Quick questions for you. How many NHL jerseys do you own? How many of them have player names? How many of those players still play for the team in question?

For me I own 15-20 jerseys from teams all over the world. All of them are numbered (24) and not a single one of them has a player name on them. I cheer for the jersey (the laundry) not the replaceable body skating around in it. The jersey remains the same forever, the player fades away into oblivion a decade after he plays his last game for the most part.

 

[Hoss]

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.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

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.

Did that joke of an offer actually take you in? 24% that applies to fewer and fewer (under a third of all players this year, under one sixth of all players next) in exchange for a system that will continue the $$$$ grab and the game be damned? The players knew that they would get that 24% and more back as long as they kept a system in place heavilly tilted their way in exchange. You wonder why most support the owners in this fight? Because we can see through such games. At least the owners have the cards on the table, 55% of revenues. Why can't the players stop playing games and tell the owners what percent of revenues is acceptable to them? And 150% as is their seeming negotiating position now is not going to get me to change from pro-owner to their side.

 

[Boilers*]

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, .

A temporary solution at best if you can't figure this simple one out I feel sorry for you.

The players aren't asking for more. They're not even asking for as much.

Really? Sounds to me like they like the 75% just fine in fact after the 24% roll back in three years time they'd be right back up to 75% again.

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?

Switching horses in mid stream is never a good idea. Want to make a bet when the "negotiating" is done that Goodenough is tossed aside like yesterdays news?

 

[PecaFan]

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.

Yup. Absolutely horrible article. Bob and Gary are not dictators, they're simply doing the bidding of their constituents. Further, everything talked about has already been done as you said, the second teams, arbitration, etc.

 

[Hoss]

A temporary solution at best if you can't figure this simple one out I feel sorry for you.

Why are you so quick to dismiss the rollback? By itself it offered an immediate savings to the league, add the cap, give the owners greater arbitration rights and means to limit over spending on unproven draft picks and you have a pretty substantial amount of good faith towards building a healthy league.

Wow those greedy players really are dumb.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Why are you so quick to dismiss the rollback? By itself it offered an immediate savings to the league, add the cap, give the owners greater arbitration rights and means to limit over spending on unproven draft picks and you have a pretty substantial amount of good faith towards building a healthy league.

Wow those greedy players really are dumb.

Let me make it simple . . . none of the players proposals, especially the 24% rollback, will come close to knocking the players salaries down to a percentage of overall revenues similar to football or basketball, or even baseball. Up to this point the players have offered anything that they could to keep that percentage much higher than every other major sport. When they make a serious offer that will lower salaries to levels the other makor sports enjoy they will find a partner. Until now they have not. And before I hear it, yes, the owners have indeed put their cards on the table, with variations on the theme that basically they want 55% of revenues to go to players, but were reluctantly willing to take on all of the risk with an unlinked $42 million Cap offer (now down to $36 million). You can not call that game playing. The players however want their cake, to eat it, and to take the bakery too. Most of their proposals have been games to get around any talking of linking their salaries to revenues. That tells me that they want it all, 55% is not nearly enough.

 

[Timmy]

Why are you so quick to dismiss the rollback? By itself it offered an immediate savings to the league, add the cap, give the owners greater arbitration rights and means to limit over spending on unproven draft picks and you have a pretty substantial amount of good faith towards building a healthy league.

Wow those greedy players really are dumb.

I think a good agent, in conjunction with a Pejorative Slured owner/GM (*paging Sather*), could find more loopholes than a volleyball net in that offer.

The owners signed off on a CBA in '95 that they thought would create enough drag on inflationary salaries to make it a "win" for them.

They were wrong.

They also know that a 24% rollback on the 1/3 of contracts currently in place may result in an overal reduction of 10% of payroll in the first year. Given the historic rates of salary increases over the last ten years, that concession would be wiped out in one or two seasons.

Unproven draft picks are not the biggest problem facing the NHL right now. There's a couple of first rounders every year that command the maximum, but the rest simply do not.

The cap amount, for the longterm health of the league, has to be low enough for it to make economic sense for owners to continue to own, and high enough for players to continue to play.

And arbitration has consistently been a good thing for the players rather than the owners, because of the benchmark contracts that are used to value worth. A true concession would be the elimination of arbitration altogether.

When bowling is more popular than you, don't expect the gravy train to keep chugging along as it has for the last ten years.

 

[Weary]

Let me make it simple . . . none of the players proposals, especially the 24% rollback, will come close to knocking the players salaries down to a percentage of overall revenues similar to football or basketball, or even baseball.

NFL: 64%
MLB: 63%
NBA: 58%
NHL: 75%

NHL with the 24% rollback: 57%

It does indeed seem that the rollback "will come close to knocking the players salaries down to a percentage of overall revenues similar to football or basketball, or even baseball." Heck, it would even reduce it below all those.

 

[Weary]

I think a good agent, in conjunction with a Pejorative Slured owner/GM (*paging Sather*), could find more loopholes than a volleyball net in that offer./QUOTE]
So what? Aren't we espousing anti-socialist ideals here? If Sather's team brings in a lot of revenue, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend it?

 

[ResidentAlien*]

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".

Gee thanks Dad.
How can you sit up there and tell us that you know a hockey player,or anyone else you don;t know personally, has "no idea what their life is about anymore"?
Fairly presumptious I'd say.
So let me get this straight ...you are pro owner because the players "have lost track of why they played the game"?Interesting.
What exactly is wrong in playing a game beacuse you love it..realizing you are one out of a few thousand that have enough skill to make it to the big league..work your tail off day after day..finally make it..continue to work your tail off to stay there( for the most part) and then reap the rewards?
I've said before the pinhole to become a pro athelete is so tiny, they should be able to make whatever they can.

And I disagree with your statement on the NHL not owing any player anything. the NHL owes many a player more then they were ever paid.
It wasnt always this way my friend, there was a time not that long ago that the players were playing for peanuts and it many times wasnt even there full time job.

I do agree that there is mmore then enough blame to go around this time however.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

NFL: 64%
MLB: 63%
NBA: 58%
NHL: 75%

NHL with the 24% rollback: 57%

It does indeed seem that the rollback "will come close to knocking the players salaries down to a percentage of overall revenues similar to football or basketball, or even baseball." Heck, it would even reduce it below all those.

no, it would knock about 130 players down 25% next year, out of close to 800 players. Fewer the year after. Meanwhile the inflation on salaries has grown significantly since the last CBA was signed. To the point that salaries have quadrupled. So you tell me how knocking one hundred and thirty some salaries (out of almost eight hundred salaries) down for one year out of the six year CBA will do anything to stop the quadrupling of salaries under this CBA absent other significant changes?

 

[Timmy]

I think a good agent, in conjunction with a Pejorative Slured owner/GM (*paging Sather*), could find more loopholes than a volleyball net in that offer./QUOTE]
So what? Aren't we espousing anti-socialist ideals here? If Sather's team brings in a lot of revenue, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend it?

Because he belongs to a 30 team league where the majority of owners would rather lose a couple of seasons than let him spend it.

I am not commenting on the morality of the owners wishes, I am commenting on the reality of them. They do not want another CBA where a handful of owners can engage in business practices which could bankrupt the rest of them in ten or twenty years.

Revenue sharing should be increased, but it doesn't solve what the owners percieve as the problem of expense not only exceeding revenues, but outpacing revenue's growth.

It is not enough to reduce expenses for the next year or two, they have to stop growing, period. And a hard cap with teeth is the only way they think they can do that.

No wiggle room.

The players do not have to accept working under these conditions, and ply their trade anywhere in the world, for whatever they can be paid, or start up their own league, or convince investors to start up a league for them.

That is as much their right as it is the owners's rights to look at their individual and collective businesses and say, "We cannot sustain this, and need a foolproof system to keep Sather in the corner."

Compromises are clearly not an option in their minds, because too many of them feel they will either still lose money or will in the foreseeable future, and that may mean no normal hockey for an extremely long time.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

The long and short of it is simple:

If there were 30 owners out there who either were in markets with seemingly endless revenue streams (there may be three of four of those) or willing to lose millions upon millions just to field a winner (there may be another five or six of those) then what would I as a fan care? All owners could spend limitless amounts by pulling it from the money tree in their back yards. But that is not the reality. The reality is that unless I am blessed to be in one of those markets above, I do care what happens with this CBA, I do care if some owners and markets get screwed, as I do not want the league to degenerate to the point where my team becomes a mere farm team for those 6 to 8 teams (at most). The fact is that there are not 30 owners who fall into that catagory, there are far fewer so the player's position is untenable. It simply can not work as 2/3 of owners will not ever vote in favor of a CBA that will give the players that blank check. The sooner the players face that fact the better for them and for us. Some here think that because a small number of owners will lose tens of millions all of them will and that is the solution. Face reality, that well is pretty dry.

 

[LPHabsFan]

no, it would knock about 130 players down 25% next year, out of close to 800 players. Fewer the year after. Meanwhile the inflation on salaries has grown significantly since the last CBA was signed. To the point that salaries have quadrupled. So you tell me how knocking one hundred and thirty some salaries (out of almost eight hundred salaries) down for one year out of the six year CBA will do anything to stop the quadrupling of salaries under this CBA absent other significant changes?

Just to add to that, the system that is in under the old cba which i believe was in the PA's proposal guarantees that salaries will increase by no less than 10% at each contract renegotiation. Added to that arbitration increases it as well.

 

[Kestrel]

I think a good agent, in conjunction with a Pejorative Slured owner/GM (*paging Sather*), could find more loopholes than a volleyball net in that offer./QUOTE]
So what? Aren't we espousing anti-socialist ideals here? If Sather's team brings in a lot of revenue, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend it?

I'm getting really sick of the "all we want is a free market" schtick. It's BS, nothing more, nothing less. If the players wanted a true free market, they would fold the union. For those that don't understand - a union is contra the principles of free market, because the union restricts the freedom of the market. You also have to take away the players' right to collude. In other words - teams can't discuss contracts with each other with the purpose of setting prices, players can't either - the owners live without the organization of their collective, players do the same. THAT is a free market, and the players will never ever go for it. Or, if you're of a slightly different following of the free market, players can collude to their hearts' content, but so can the owners, with no interference or control from any governing bodies. Free market? The players don't want that, not at all.

 

[Hoss]

I think a good agent, in conjunction with a Pejorative Slured owner/GM (*paging Sather*), could find more loopholes than a volleyball net in that offer.

The owners signed off on a CBA in '95 that they thought would create enough drag on inflationary salaries to make it a "win" for them.

They were wrong.

They also know that a 24% rollback on the 1/3 of contracts currently in place may result in an overal reduction of 10% of payroll in the first year. Given the historic rates of salary increases over the last ten years, that concession would be wiped out in one or two seasons.

Unproven draft picks are not the biggest problem facing the NHL right now. There's a couple of first rounders every year that command the maximum, but the rest simply do not.

The cap amount, for the longterm health of the league, has to be low enough for it to make economic sense for owners to continue to own, and high enough for players to continue to play.

And arbitration has consistently been a good thing for the players rather than the owners, because of the benchmark contracts that are used to value worth. A true concession would be the elimination of arbitration altogether.

When bowling is more popular than you, don't expect the gravy train to keep chugging along as it has for the last ten years.

My point was that the 24% was a start not the only solution, it's frustrating to read how few people seem to grasp that. 24% + Cap + better arbitration + lower entry, I don't know sounds pretty damn good.

What concessions did the owners make? A true concession, to counter your offer of no arbitatration, would be 100% UFA for all players not under contracts.

As for the bowling reference, nothing is going to change that. Some people (Most of the USA heck maybe half of Canada) don't give a rats behind about hockey, we just want the smart one's anyway.

 

[nyrmessier011]

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.

.

That's just insane to say. You are honestly telling me that if you were a player and your now a free agent and Team A is offering you $4M, Team B $5M and Team C $6M annually, you wouldn't sign with Team C in a heartbeat? That just makes absolutly no sense to blame the high contracts on the players. That is purely a worker jumping on the opportunity to make the most money he can. A player in his prime is going to take a smaller contract to help out the league??? Your living in an absolute fantasy world if you believe that high payrolls have more to do with the players. I also think its discraceful that love of the game doesn't come number 1 anymore, but you CAN NOT blame a player for making the most money he can while complying with the current system.

 

[Hoss]

I'm getting really sick of the "all we want is a free market" schtick. It's BS, nothing more, nothing less. If the players wanted a true free market, they would fold the union. For those that don't understand - a union is contra the principles of free market, because the union restricts the freedom of the market. You also have to take away the players' right to collude. In other words - teams can't discuss contracts with each other with the purpose of setting prices, players can't either - the owners live without the organization of their collective, players do the same. THAT is a free market, and the players will never ever go for it. Or, if you're of a slightly different following of the free market, players can collude to their hearts' content, but so can the owners, with no interference or control from any governing bodies. Free market? The players don't want that, not at all.

Your "free market" is still not free, as the players have not been given the option to ply thier trade to the highest bidder. When a team owns the bargaining rights for a player he is hardly free.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

That's just insane to say. You are honestly telling me that if you were a player and your now a free agent and Team A is offering you $4M, Team B $5M and Team C $6M annually, you wouldn't sign with Team C in a heartbeat? That just makes absolutly no sense to blame the high contracts on the players. That is purely a worker jumping on the opportunity to make the most money he can. A player in his prime is going to take a smaller contract to help out the league??? Your living in an absolute fantasy world if you believe that high payrolls have more to do with the players. I also think its discraceful that love of the game doesn't come number 1 anymore, but you CAN NOT blame a player for making the most money he can while complying with the current system.

Life is full of choices. If you think money is the most important thing, then go after it and take all the risks you like, but don't complain when the goose stops laying golden eggs. Part of the responsibility of working in any industry is insuring your help keep that industry viable by not asking for too much and not over charging. When you don't do that you risk hurting the industry and causing much damage to it. I personally saw that happen in the information technology sector and witnessed the crash where people lost everything including their lives. People took advantage of a situation and milked it for all it was worth. That goose died. The NHL is well on its way. What is the smart thing to do when you are making more money in a year than most people will make in their life time? Its a partnership and you do what is right. At least that's what I learned. The players are well on their way to learning the same hard lesson.

 

[Timmy]

My point was that the 24% was a start not the only solution, it's frustrating to read how few people seem to grasp that. 24% + Cap + better arbitration + lower entry, I don't know sounds pretty damn good.

What concessions did the owners make? A true concession, to counter your offer of no arbitatration, would be 100% UFA for all players not under contracts.

As for the bowling reference, nothing is going to change that. Some people (Most of the USA heck maybe half of Canada) don't give a rats behind about hockey, we just want the smart one's anyway.

Para.1 I thought so too. But I don't own a team or have access to their books. The owners may have looked at their individual situation, done what they should have done in 1995 and figured out the worst-case scenario under the proposal, and seen if they would still be in business in six years. If the answer is no or maybe, then I as the owner am going to vote no. I don't need somebody to guarantee my profits, but I do need my expenses to be guaranteed in the face of declining interest in the product that I am selling and the flat revenues that result.

Para.2 If my business will go bankrupt in ten years instead of five by my making conscessions, my wife will divorce me tommorrow and save herself the financial hardship.

Para.3. That's a good one. :lol Seriously, though, if we are all acknowledging the league's status as a tier-two sport (which we all love to death), then do we not want it to survive in the economic reality that accompanies this status? If we can not increase the fan base, then we need to decrease costs or at least keep them flat, or at the very least keep them at the same percentage of revenue growth. Failure to do so is economic suicide, and this group of owners didn't make their money by jumping off the nearest bridge.

 

[nyrmessier011]

Life is full of choices. If you think money is the most important thing, then go after it and take all the risks you like, but don't complain when the goose stops laying golden eggs. Part of the responsibility of working in any industry is insuring your help keep that industry viable by not asking for too much and not over charging. When you don't do that you risk hurting the industry and causing much damage to it. I personally saw that happen in the information technology sector and witnessed the crash where people lost everything including their lives. People took advantage of a situation and milked it for all it was worth. That goose died. The NHL is well on its way. What is the smart thing to do when you are making more money in a year than most people will make in their life time? Its a partnership and you do what is right. At least that's what I learned. The players are well on their way to learning the same hard lesson.

Hey, I couldn't agree with you more that people took advantage of the NHL's situation. But who pays the players. Who decides to offer Sakic $7M/year for 3 years? Who decides to pay Jagr $11+ mil? The owners did. NYR's Jim Dolan and Detroits owner and Colorado's owner etc etc etc used the market to their advantage. You should tell about 6 owners that this is a partnership, not 100 overpaid players because the owners call the shots.

 

[djhn579]

Your "free market" is still not free, as the players have not been given the option to ply thier trade to the highest bidder. When a team owns the bargaining rights for a player he is hardly free.

If the players were to fold the union, there would be no reserve system, all players would be UFA's each time their contracts expired, so, yes it would be a free market...

 

[me2]

Why are you so quick to dismiss the rollback? By itself it offered an immediate savings to the league, add the cap, give the owners greater arbitration rights and means to limit over spending on unproven draft picks and you have a pretty substantial amount of good faith towards building a healthy league.

Wow those greedy players really are dumb.

Did you read the players last offer? Its triggered so that if the League revenue falls to $1.5B then recovers to the current $2.1B there will be a floor of $35m and ceiling of $70+m. You don't think that is being greedy?

 

[me2]

Aren't we espousing anti-socialist ideals here? If Sather's team brings in a lot of revenue, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend it?

And if Sather can afford to keep twice as many players on roster, why shouldn't he be allowed to ice 10 skaters and 2 goalies?