Firing Goodenow

Status
Not open for further replies.

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
Malefic74 said:
My impression is that Bettman has accepted some blame for 94 already. He has spoken before on the subject and came across (to me anyway) as a man who recognized a past mistake. It was probably a very large motivating factor in this round of negociations.

Bettman doesn't always do the right thing, but at least he does something. He tries to make changes for the better on and off the ice. The expansion cities he brought into the fold have been successful. Ottawa has been a perrenial contender for several seasons now. The Sharks draw good crowds. The Jackets and Wild draw huge crowds, more than a fair number of established franchises. The Panthers had a run to the Finals and seem stocked for the future, as are the Thrashers. The Ducks had a Finals run and look to improve under Burke. The Lightning won the Cup.
Only Nashville has struggled in their market, and even then their series with Detroit was entertaining and seemed to draw in casual fans.

Compare that to someone like Selig who has been a walking punchline for years. The Devil Rays and Rockies are jokes, big market owners do their own thing regardless of consequence to the league as a whole, and one team has been owned by the league for 3 seasons now and STILL doesn't have a permanent home.

Unfortunately Bettman may not be Paul Taglibue, but thank the gods he's not Bud Selig.


bettman only brought in Nashville, Atlanta, Minnesota and Columbus... the other teams were all approved pre-Bettman... and IMO all much better choices than places like Florida, Anaheim & Tampa
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
gscarpenter2002 said:
Your post shows a lack of appreciation of the true facts and a lack of judgment of negotiation skills.

Bettman did not screw up in '94. He was submarined by the owners. He was instructed to extend the deal due to the need by the owners to get more expansion dollars, so the promise to the new teams was made to not have a lockout early in their life.

A screw-up who increased NHL revenues hugely. Who got them a big ticket TV deal (which the NHL frittered away with its turn to defensive hockey). Who increased sponsorship dollars through the roof. Who was able to keep owners form completely destroying themselves by at least surreptitiously controlling teams who wanted to sign RFA's like they all wanted to. Who devised a way for the owners to keep from turning on themselves in this lockout to their own detriment. Who played Goodenow for a complete stooge and the rank amateur that he is. Who secured the biggest givebacks in sports bargaining history. Who maintained control over 30 fractious owners and kept a lid on leaks. Who masterfully maneuvred things so that Goodenow not only was played for a complete amateur, but was SHOWN to be a complete amateur in front of his own constituency so as to ensure that the NHL next time will have a different bargaining partner than boob goodenow.

Yep. What a screwup. :shakehead

Although your latter posts in this thread give a better reading, you are giving here in this post only an account of what appears "on the surface" (unless if you were present in the negotiation room yourself, of course). Or at the very least you are oversimplifying things.

Negotiations end up hardly ever as an achievement of only one person, and Bettman surely couldn't have been the only person to learn things from the past. Surely the other negotiators and outside counsillors were there for more than just an appearance, don't you think?

As you claim to have negotiatated 100's of "big" contracts, IIRC, (which implies 1000's of average and lesser contracts, although your scale might be different from other people), surely you know that nobody can claim to know the exact strategy which will work every time in every situation. At this moment it seems that the PA and Goodenow gambled and lost, wasn't the first one ever and won't be the last one either, too bad for the losers but that happens.
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
Firing Goodenow. Sounds like a movie or a TV series. I really do not care if he keeps his job or becomes a baby sitter for the NHLPA's children. Hockey is coming back.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
SwisshockeyAcademy said:
Firing Goodenow. Sounds like a movie or a TV series. I really do not care if he keeps his job or becomes a baby sitter for the NHLPA's children. Hockey is coming back.

He'll get a job as a host of one of those home renovation shows my wife loves so much.

Except, he'll tear down the kitchen and then just leave and wait until the owners fix it themselves after the deadline for the contract work passes.

The humour in the show will be watching the hapless owners trying to live without a kitchen for six months while having their messages to Goodenow go unanswered.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
gary69 said:
Although your latter posts in this thread give a better reading, you are giving here in this post only an account of what appears "on the surface" (unless if you were present in the negotiation room yourself, of course). Or at the very least you are oversimplifying things.

Negotiations end up hardly ever as an achievement of only one person, and Bettman surely couldn't have been the only person to learn things from the past. Surely the other negotiators and outside counsillors were there for more than just an appearance, don't you think?

As you claim to have negotiatated 100's of "big" contracts, IIRC, (which implies 1000's of average and lesser contracts, although your scale might be different from other people), surely you know that nobody can claim to know the exact strategy which will work every time in every situation. At this moment it seems that the PA and Goodenow gambled and lost, wasn't the first one ever and won't be the last one either, too bad for the losers but that happens.

You are correct, of course, that I am simplifying things somewhat.

While many negotiations (particularly those commercial negotiations of this level of complexity) do involve teamwork, in most cases it is driven by the guy in charge - whether that be the CEO, CFO, general counsel, salesman, or whomever. That guy sets the strategy and makes the calls. I have been in both the position of being the guy in charge and the guy who executes the strategy. Certainly in some cases (including some that I have done), there are two guys who work closely enough together that they determine and execute strategy together. For all i know, Daly and Bettman may be like that. The outside counsel are almost surely mere support, given the fact that the two top execs are both lawyers themselves. THey would be there to provide the necessary legal support involved in actually constructing a CBA document out of the "deal".

In Bettman's case, i am sure the achievements i listed were all executed in whole or in part by others in the NHL office. In fact, one achievement I thought about adding but did not was that Bettman turned what was essentially a hole-in-the-wall operation at the NHL head offices into a fully staffed professional organization.

My main point was that people often think Bettman did nothing. Far from it.

Regarding the contracts i have negotiated (which are not thousands, since I generally deal with bigger deals that can take months - and once even two years!! - to negotiate), the trick is always to get what the other guy can give. That being said, in some deals you don't necessarily want to get everything you CAN get (i.e., partnerships, Joint Venture agreements, consortiums, negotiations with contractors with whom you frequently do business). The trick is judgment. Assessing your own position correctly and the other parties' position is paramount. If you can't do that correctly (or at least within a reasonable degree of corectness), you cannot be good. Goodenow was so spectacularly wrong. I have never seen such horrendous misjudgment.

Regarding what strategy will and will not work, you are correct. It varies form deal to deal. That is why experienced and competent dealmakers and negotiators have a full arsenal of styles and tricks. Competent dealmakers can play it sweet or sour, do it fast or slow, do it simply or with all the bells and whistles, or whatever style is needed. Eventually you instinctively or reflexively do what is needed. Goodenow clearly has only one thing in his toolbox. Bettman et al clearly understood that and set out to counteract it and, if Goodenow truly could not change, take advantage of it. That strategy would have left it open for Goodenow to snap out of his foolishness or else be burned irreparably. That is what happened. It was a standard methodology for addressing a wait-for-the-fold guy like Goodenow. i am sure the NHL was probably surprised Goodenow did not recognize what they were doing and take another tack.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Timmy said:
He'll get a job as a host of one of those home renovation shows my wife loves so much.

Except, he'll tear down the kitchen and then just leave and wait until the owners fix it themselves after the deadline for the contract work passes.

The humour in the show will be watching the hapless owners trying to live without a kitchen for six months while having their messages to Goodenow go unanswered.
I think this might be an EXCELLENT subject for this or another thread: what will be Bob Goodenow's next career move? What might he be suited for?
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
gscarpenter2002 said:
I think this might be an EXCELLENT subject for this or another thread: what will be Bob Goodenow's next career move? What might he be suited for?

I would like to see him replace Rev. Moon.

It's going to be hard enough deprogramming the players without having him hanging around too.

I also think he'd make a great spokesman for Kool-Aid, charging through walls of board rooms and interupting negotiations and meetings.

Or, he could repair bicycles...
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
I was going to suggest village idiot, but he may be overqualified.
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
Timmy said:
I would like to see him replace Rev. Moon.

It's going to be hard enough deprogramming the players without having him hanging around too.

I also think he'd make a great spokesman for Kool-Aid, charging through walls of board rooms and interupting negotiations and meetings.

Or, he could repair bicycles...
Bicycle repairman is exactly what he should be!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->