E.J. Hradek comments on ESPN: Bettman wanted to go higher on the cap number

[GKJ]

I didn't see this anywhere, I thought I would bring it up, I'm suprised no one else mentioned this

Now this is something more beleiveable. He said that Gary Bettman was willing to raise the cap number to the $45-46M we knew the NHLPA would accept. He said a group of 8-10 owners (mentioned Chicago and Boston by name) put a stop to that.


Not something too shocking, I think most of us know who these owners are.

Click to read more...

 

[Fish]

I've been following this rumor since Hradek mentioned it on Tuesday...I still wonder though, whether saying he might have gone higher after the season cancellation is more of a hollow claim meant to further destabilize the NHLPA than a reflection of what he was actually prepared to do.

 

[SuperNintendoChalmrs]

That is good to hear!

 

[GKJ]

I've been following this rumor since Hradek mentioned it on Tuesday...I still wonder though, whether saying he might have gone higher after the season cancellation is more of a hollow claim meant to further destabilize the NHLPA than a reflection of what he was actually prepared to do.

He couldn't have been those close and make it a hollow claim. He can say all he wants it wasn't close, but they were closer than they have ever been. The idiots who this lockout is over is why we're sitting here without a season.

 

[Tekneek]

Two Original Six franchises trying to keep a lid on things. It is very plausible.

I had assumed that Bettman wanted to go further, but was not allowed. If they had been negotiating directly with the Owners, instead of through Bettman, the deal would've been far worse. Bettman gave as much as he could, and some owners were already upset with the $42.5 million cap.

 

[chiavsfan]

Hradek HAS YET TO BE RIGHT ON A RUMOR (sorry caps was on) so I wouldn't put too much stock in it. But if true, the powers that were given to Bettman were just excersized...he could do something, but the owners could veto it

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Hradek also defended the players for not looking at the owners books. Saying something we already know, there are two sets of books and claimed from the ones he saw they were dramatically different. (i saw him say this ESPNEWS around 7pm yesterday)

 

[GKJ]

some owners were already upset with the $42.5 million cap.

Then they should get out. Either that or don't spend $42.5M. It's that simple. The number isn't a magnet it's a cap number. Any claim that any of these numbers between $42.5M and $49M were too high were from the idiots who probably can't afford to spend $30M on salaries. And if they can't do that or won't do that then something needs to happen to those owners.


I know for one Bill Wirtz can't be a fan of Gary Bettman because Bettman has mentioned before and more than once that the Blackhawks don't spend enough to be eligible for revenue sharing.

 

[Tekneek]

If they had agreed to the proposal requiring the teams to submit financials to an independent auditor each year, the NHLPA could sue if they thought the books were being cooked...as that would constitute a violation of the CBA. Without that leverage, it is just rhetoric with no substance behind it.

 

[SuperNintendoChalmrs]

Then they should get out. Either that or don't spend $42.5M. It's that simple. The number isn't a magnet it's a cap number. Any claim that any of these numbers between $42.5M and $49M were too high were from the idiots who probably can't afford to spend $30M on salaries. And if they can't do that or won't do that then something needs to happen to those owners.


I know for one Bill Wirtz can't be a fan of Gary Bettman because Bettman has mentioned before and more than once that the Blackhawks don't spend enough to be eligible for revenue sharing.

You're right......they should "get out"......throw a hissy fit like the players.


That is the kind of answer I would expect from the PA side.....something real simple with plenty of invective.


Where was it lost that the NHL owners are the employers and the NHL players are the employees. Tough nails.....the gravy train has moved on.....next stop......30 million Cap City.

 

[Tekneek]

And if they can't do that or won't do that then something needs to happen to those owners.

Don't worry. Something will happen to some of them. The honest ones who were simply cash-strapped by their market situations will close shop and the teams will fold up because selling them would reveal how low the market value is for an NHL franchise these days. The bad owners who just refuse to spend money, like Chicago, will stay in business forever.

 

[barnburner]

I'm not buying it Wasn't the arrangement between the owners and Bettman, that his decision(s) only had to be backed by 8 owners in order to make it happen? I'm not totally sure, but that was what I recalled.

 

[GKJ]

People are acting like the owners rely on the NHL to put food on the table. If this was the case they wouldn't own their teams.


Why should these owners be in the league if they can't afford to make payroll? If you can't afford to spend $42.5M don't do it. It is that simple, anyone who can't see that needs to get a clue.


If the NHL was marketed properly and wasn't such a bad product to appeal to, we wouldn't be in this mess at all. Clutching and grabbing, poor officiating and the neutral zone trap don't get paid $9M per year.

 

[Pepper]

Why should these owners be in the league if they can't afford to make payroll? If you can't afford to spend $42.5M don't do it. It is that simple, anyone who can't see that needs to get a clue.

You again fail to realize that it works both ways.

If players are not happy with a 1.3M average salary, they are PERFECTLY free to go play in Russia or some other Euroleague if they want. If you can't afford to play in NHL for 1.3M, don't do it. It is that simple, anyone who can't see that needs to get a clue.

Oh and you whining about people making personal attacks at you?? Oh the irony... :lol :lol :lol

 

[GKJ]

You again fail to realize that it works both ways.

If players are not happy with a 1.3M average salary, they are PERFECTLY free to go play in Russia or some other Euroleague if they want. If you can't afford to play in NHL for 1.3M, don't do it. It is that simple, anyone who can't see that needs to get a clue.

Oh and you whining about people making personal attacks at you?? Oh the irony... :lol :lol :lol

Russia is the only european leage that can afford to pay players 7 figures. We're not talking about high into that catergory though.


And if you feel your personal attacks on me are not personal attacks, then perhaps you shouldn't be laughing at me.

If you can't afford to play in NHL for 1.3M, don't do it. It is that simple, anyone who can't see that needs to get a clue.

as evidence by that comment. Like I said to you before, please make rational comments, I'm trying to have a mature and well-thought discussion here.


Now back in reality...

I'm not buying it Wasn't the arrangement between the owners and Bettman, that his decision(s) only had to be backed by 8 owners in order to make it happen? I'm not totally sure, but that was what I recalled.

Let's put it this way, 8 owners can put the faux pas on any deal. It's actually the other way around then what you say.

 

[Greschner4]

I didn't see this anywhere, I thought I would bring it up, I'm suprised no one else mentioned this

Now this is something more beleiveable. He said that Gary Bettman was willing to raise the cap number to the $45-46M we knew the NHLPA would accept. He said a group of 8-10 owners (mentioned Chicago and Boston by name) put a stop to that.


Not something too shocking, I think most of us know who these owners are.

It's not believable because if Bettman signs on 8 owners can't stop it.

 

[GKJ]

It's not believable because if Bettman signs on 8 owners can't stop it.

Yes they can. That was part of the deal after the last CBA fiasco.

 

[amazingcrwns]

Let's put it this way, 8 owners can put the faux pas on any deal. It's actually the other way around then what you say.

While this is true, Bettman only needs 8 players to nix any deal, that's only the case for deals that the players proposed. If the players had offered a 46.5 million dollar salary cap and Bettman thought they could do better then he would need 8 owners to agree with him in order to decline this offer.

I don't believe that is the case with an offer that he makes, if Bettman wanted to offer a 46.5 million dollar cap I'm not sure he needs anybody's approval. If he did I think he would only need the approval of 8 owners. At this late stage in the game finding 8 owners who would ok a 46.5 million dollar cap wouldn't have been a problem, NY, To, Phi, Det, Col, Dal, StL... and one of the other 23 teams that at this point just wants to play hockey.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, Bettman only needs approval to reject a deal, I think he can accept any deal he feels is in the owners best interest. However politics will get in the way of him presenting a deal that the owners don't want. J.J. from the Bruins has a lot of say in what Bettman will or won't propose.

 

[dem]

People are acting like the owners rely on the NHL to put food on the table. If this was the case they wouldn't own their teams.

Which is exactly what wrong.
The NHL isnt even a viable business.

 

[Greschner4]

Yes they can. That was part of the deal after the last CBA fiasco.

Bettman only needs a block of 8 to reject, not to approve.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Yes they can. That was part of the deal after the last CBA fiasco.

That is true, people forget 8 teams voted against the 1995 CBA. They why they put it in this time.

 

[Pepper]

Russia is the only european leage that can afford to pay players 7 figures. We're not talking about high into that catergory though.

So what?? Why should NHL owners care about that?? If players don't feel like 1.3M is enough, they are free to look for employment which gives them more money.

VERY simple but understandably makes your point look ridiculous.

And if you feel your personal attacks on me are not personal attacks, then perhaps you shouldn't be laughing at me.

Again you miss the point. In one thread you whine about personal attacks yet you do exactly the same yourself in other. Hypocrisy at it's best. I haven't whined about making personal attacks, see the difference?

as evidence by that comment. Like I said to you before, please make rational comments, I'm trying to have a mature and well-thought discussion here.

When you start your 'mature and well-thought discussions" with posts full of bias, anger and blind ignorance you're only going to get immature discussions. Think about it.

 

[flyercide]

Then they should get out. Either that or don't spend $42.5M. It's that simple. The number isn't a magnet it's a cap number. Any claim that any of these numbers between $42.5M and $49M were too high were from the idiots who probably can't afford to spend $30M on salaries. And if they can't do that or won't do that then something needs to happen to those owners.

I actually agree with this point. If theres a cap at 42.5 or 49M than every team in the league should be obligated to be able to meet it or in my opinion not be in the league. I am strongly on the owners side but I think there should be some middle ground. I think the main problem revolves around the lower financially strapped teams. Time to put up the Cap, main objective accomplished, & get out the chopping block. I never liked the idea of dropping teams but if they can't financially maintain them than they dont belong.

 

[GKJ]

Bettman only needs a block of 8 to reject, not to approve.

Right. I know that. Bettman only needs 8 guys to support him in that regard and if I was to go team by team I would think it is somewhere in the middle. At least the guys who are the ones playing hardball.

 

[CarlRacki]

That is true, people forget 8 teams voted against the 1995 CBA. They why they put it in this time.

It's not quite true. If Bettman opposed a CBA proposal, he needed only eight owners to reject it. But if he approved of the deal, it would take a simple majority to get it passed. The devil is in the details.