Goodenow the deadline hunter.

Status
Not open for further replies.

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
BLONG7 said:
Bob Goodenow reeks of arrogance, and although he got them a great deal last time, he failed miserably this time...IMO he got thinking he is the man, and we all know he is not the man this time...The players will be firing Bob very soon...I can't see how the PA let such an arrogant guy represent them :dunno: He has just lost them a billion dollars, and yet he still gets around like an arrogant puke :dunno: :banghead:

Did the war end? Who won?
 

free0717

Registered User
Apr 14, 2004
2,554
87
Old Bridge, NJ
nyr7andcounting said:
They have been positioning for an impasse? Than how can you say they have not failed? They cancelled a whole season in order to attempt to achieve something they are most likely not going to get? What a joke.

Bottom line is the owners locked players out in order to come up with a new CBA, and they have not done so. The owners are just as much at fault here as anyone else.

There is no right or wrong in business. Only good deals and bad deals. The owners will make the deal they want or they wont make a deal. And that CBA will contain a cap with revenue linkage. Until the the players accept this fact and I think some are(Michael Peca, Jeremy Roenick) there will not be a new CBA.

Maybe its time for Bob Goodenow to resign and let someone else get a deal for the Union. Bob is clearly the loser in this, so why prolong the agony. Bob Goodenow to Union leaders equals Brian Trottier to NHL Head coaches.
 

no13matssundin

Registered User
May 16, 2004
2,870
0
Dont worry about John Flyers Fan. He's been in the player's pocket since day one. I just read over him like the Reillys and others who have nothing to add to the discussion except for meaningless rhetoric.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
kerrly said:
Maybe I should have been more clear. I meant that Bob Goodenow's tactics have failed.

So, at the deadline, he didn't implement his 'deadline hunter' strategy very well (his tactic was flawed), and thus, was forced to accept a hard cap on Bettman's terms (he failed)?
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
I in the Eye said:
So, at the deadline, he didn't implement his 'deadline hunter' strategy very well (his tactic was flawed), and thus, was forced to accept a hard cap on Bettman's terms (he failed)?

No he failed because he was unable to get the deal he was looking for. His deadline hunting is for one thing, and thats to get the best possible deal he can, and to try and make the owners break so that deal is the best it could be. He underestimated the owners resolve and has been burned because of it. As Burke said, the players are now wanting a stationary hard cap in the 45 million range, and he said this could have been had in August, but not now, because the NHL's revenue will surely drop, and the cap number is too high. There is no question that Goodenow's tactics failed this time.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
no13matssundin said:
Dont worry about John Flyers Fan. He's been in the player's pocket since day one. I just read over him like the Reillys and others who have nothing to add to the discussion except for meaningless rhetoric.

John Flyers Fan provides more substance in a single post than some folks do in, oh say, 269.

Apparently, "meaningless rhetoric" = an opinion that differs from my own. :p:

Sadly, for some, a closed mind is considered a virtue. :dunce:
 

no13matssundin

Registered User
May 16, 2004
2,870
0
Trottier said:
John Flyers Fan provides more substance in a single post than some folks do in, oh say, 269.

Apparently, "meaningless rhetoric" = an opinion that differs from my own. :p:

Sadly, for some, a closed mind is considered a virtue. :dunce:

Its 270 now. :lol

Another virtue? Iggy.
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
kerrly said:
No he failed because he was unable to get the deal he was looking for. His deadline hunting is for one thing, and thats to get the best possible deal he can, and to try and make the owners break so that deal is the best it could be. He underestimated the owners resolve and has been burned because of it. As Burke said, the players are now wanting a stationary hard cap in the 45 million range, and he said this could have been had in August, but not now, because the NHL's revenue will surely drop, and the cap number is too high. There is no question that Goodenow's tactics failed this time.

Couldn' t you say the same thing about Bettman? He didn't get the deal. He didn't get the cost certainty that he PROMISED to the owners. Maybe he also underestimated the players resolve. Perhaps he thought the players would cave and when they didn't he got burned.

Until the season is cancelled you don't know that Goodenows tactics failed nor do we know that Bettman's failed, but where we sit right now, neither has won and neither has lost. Anything can happen and it just might.

As of now, no deadline has been set and if Bettman doesn't set one, then he has no desire to play a season and for a commissioner, that is truly sad.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Icey said:
Couldn' t you say the same thing about Bettman? He didn't get the deal. He didn't get the cost certainty that he PROMISED to the owners. Maybe he also underestimated the players resolve. Perhaps he thought the players would cave and when they didn't he got burned.

Until the season is cancelled you don't know that Goodenows tactics failed nor do we know that Bettman's failed, but where we sit right now, neither has won and neither has lost. Anything can happen and it just might.

As of now, no deadline has been set and if Bettman doesn't set one, then he has no desire to play a season and for a commissioner, that is truly sad.

I guess that is somewhat true.

I don't see what setting a deadline has to do with him not wanting to play a season. By him not setting a deadline, he is squeezing in a few extra weeks of negotiation. Do you honestly think if the season was cancelled right now, that they would even still be meeting? Absolutely not. If he cancels the season before anything is done, then the next possible time hockey will start is January next year. By him not cancelling the season, might even save more hockey down the road. I hate comments like this that have no substance or logic at all, but they are "fact".
 

jcab2000

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
334
0
Raleigh, NC
John Flyers Fan said:
Yes, they have. Any way you look at it, both sides have failed. The fact that there is no hockey in February is an absolute disgrace.

The owners will have failed if they did not achieve cost certainty. THe only way to have hockey now is to just forget about that. So I guess they failed either way.
 

mytor4*

Guest
the owners win one way or the other. either they get a cap or they declear a impass. if they don't win in court then they just wait making millions in there other ventures while the players keep losing millions that they can never recoop.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
kerrly said:
No he failed because he was unable to get the deal he was looking for. His deadline hunting is for one thing, and thats to get the best possible deal he can, and to try and make the owners break so that deal is the best it could be.

Well, if he was unable to get the deal he was looking for, what deal did Goodenow end up with? To this point, neither side has been able to get the deal they were looking for... In fact, neither side has been able to get any deal... The deal doesn't exist - so how can it be argued that Goodenow ended up with an inferior deal?

Has the deadline come and passed? If not, how has Goodenow's 'deadline hunting' tactic failed? The last I heard we are not past the deadline... Did the 'deadline hunting' tactic fail before it was able to get put into practice? What is this... The Oiler's 2007 1st round draft pick - a bust before even drafted (just kidding)...

As far as I know, there is still a war going on... I agree that Bettman won the last battle... My interpretation is that Goodenow thought that the deadline was today, but apparently it wasn't - as the lines of communication are still open and the season hasn't been cancelled...

kerrly said:
He underestimated the owners resolve and has been burned because of it.

In the last battle, I agree... IMO, Goodenow thought that yesturday and today would be the final negotiations... It turned out not to be... Must be frustrating for Goodenow... He got played (as did we all)... But until there is a deadline, it is premature to say that his 'deadline hunting' tactic has failed... It hasn't passed... It hasn't failed... It hasn't even been implemented yet...

And how do you know, without a doubt, that the owners resolve is as strong as you think?

Someone can appear to be blind because he cannot see (he is really blind)... Someone can appear to be blind because he is lying (he is not really blind, but says he is)... Someone can appear to be blind because he is not capable of understanding what he sees (he's not blind, but doesn't know he's not blind)...

You are tautologically defining "unbreakable owner resolve" to "not yet cracking"... That's a big leap, IMO... It is definitely possible that the owner's apparent resolve is simply a negotiating tactic to get as much as they can out of the NHLPA before coming to a compromise at the end... The NHL seems very comfortable, IMO... Almost too comfortable considering what's at stake... After all, the NHL has the luxury of knowing when the actual deadline is (they can afford to crack a few jokes and provide 'digs' in their offers and during negotiation sessions - i.e. "we accept the NHLPA's offer of 24%" at the end of their formal proposal :lol ).. They can play any game they want in between now and the true deadline... Yes, I agree that the owner's resolve is greater than in 94... but that doesn't mean that the owner's resolve is unbreakable in these negotiations... We'll see at the true deadline... Until then, it's premature to declare any side victorious, IMO...

kerrly said:
As Burke said, the players are now wanting a stationary hard cap in the 45 million range, and he said this could have been had in August, but not now, because the NHL's revenue will surely drop, and the cap number is too high. There is no question that Goodenow's tactics failed this time.

If this is what the players are wanting (if the NHL's strategy so far has brought the players to this conclusion), then IMO, the war will (should) be over very soon... Great news... I agree that, to date, IMO the NHL has been outplaying the NHLPA... But it's far too premature to call one side a winner and the other side a failure... You don't need to win every battle to win the war... and despite what the majority of people think here, personally, I think that Goodenow is a pretty bright guy who shouldn't be underestimated...
 

misterjaggers

Registered User
Sep 7, 2003
14,284
0
The Duke City
mytor4 said:
the owners win one way or the other. either they get a cap or they declear a impass. if they don't win in court then they just wait making millions in there other ventures while the players keep losing millions that they can never recoop.
Exactly. The owners can and will outlast the players in a war of attrition. They're committed to achieving a long-term fix and won't settle for less.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Two things to keep in mind in these negotiations.

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. Until there is a final deal we will not be able to make a judgment on winners and losers.

This is a marathon and not a sprint. The last go around in 1994-95 the popular sentiment amongst the pundits was that the NHLPA had lost quite badly to the NHL and look how that turned out.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Wetcoaster said:
It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. Until there is a final deal we will not be able to make a judgment on winners and losers.
If this is true How come I can't get Rita McNeil's singing out of my head ....:D
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
likea said:
impasse is an option

both the MLB and the NFL have tried that option

they are together 1 for 2 on impasse

if the NHL has been smart they have studied what it will take and proposed just that and acted that way

In the NFL situation the union chose not to challenge the impasse, so we do not know what the ruling would have been. The union then decertified, the players hired the former NHLPA executives and legal counsel to represent them idividually. They used antitrust law and the courts instead of negotiation to get what they were seeking - abrogation of the Rozelle Rule which limited free agency and the NFL had to pay $195 million in damages to settle the lawsuits. Whereupon the NFLPA reconstituted.

The other problem for the NHL that MLB and the NFL did not face is the immigration laws would severely restrict the pool of available players.

I simply do not see an impasse declaration as a viable option.
 

Larry Melnyk

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,378
0
Gloomsville, USA
Visit site
Anybody that says Goodenow failed and Bettman didn't or visa versa simply has blinders on....But as I have watched these boards for months, that has been a very common accessory....

The bottom line is that neither the owners or PA has caved, neither side has any intention of caving, neither side has what they ultimately wanted, and the game of hockey is going further and further down the crapper......Yes, I do think that the owners are halfway there, at least halfway where they wanted to be....They wanted the season cancelled unless the PA bent over and took it where the sun don't shine...They thought it would happen, but it didn't (same thing goes for the PA thinking the owners would cave)...SO now it will come to part II of their strategy.....Can't say I truly know what it is, but most are thinking they will try for an impasse ruling and replacement players....This strategy is so frought with risk and muddled by international and labor laws, as well as the myriad of law suits that will be levied against the NHL that it's possible the "lock out" will just go on and on with no change...The longer the layoff, the more out of mind hockey goes (in the US), and the lower the franchiose value will become...I don't think that's what Bettman wants...It needs to be settled by COMPROMISE now...
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
Wetcoaster said:
Two things to keep in mind in these negotiations.

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. Until there is a final deal we will not be able to make a judgment on winners and losers.

This is a marathon and not a sprint. The last go around in 1994-95 the popular sentiment amongst the pundits was that the NHLPA had lost quite badly to the NHL and look how that turned out.
right on - its not over till the count crows -
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
Wetcoaster said:
In the NFL situation the union chose not to challenge the impasse, so we do not know what the ruling would have been. The union then decertified, the players hired the former NHLPA executives and legal counsel to represent them idividually. They used antitrust law and the courts instead of negotiation to get what they were seeking - abrogation of the Rozelle Rule which limited free agency and the NFL had to pay $195 million in damages to settle the lawsuits. Whereupon the NFLPA reconstituted.

The other problem for the NHL that MLB and the NFL did not face is the immigration laws would severely restrict the pool of available players.

I simply do not see an impasse declaration as a viable option.


I am sure about 50% of the labor law experts disagree with your conclusion.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
Two things to keep in mind in these negotiations.

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. Until there is a final deal we will not be able to make a judgment on winners and losers.

This is a marathon and not a sprint. The last go around in 1994-95 the popular sentiment amongst the pundits was that the NHLPA had lost quite badly to the NHL and look how that turned out.

Not true.

We need to know the result now!, before the result is rendered. We deserve to know the results. After all, we are....the fans. :bow:

And, in fact, we do know the result, thanks to a few posters who shall remain nameless. Their incessant mantra, "Goodenow is a stooge...Goodenow has misled the stupid players...the owners have schooled the players...the players are caving in..." has convinced this poster that we here at HF know. With smug certainty, no less.

Which makes it all the more pathetic that the players and their leadership, as well as the NHL apparently, are unaware of the outcome, for they are still going through these charades of negotiating. But then again, it's all just a cynical act, or so these posters inform us.

It's over. The NHL is doomed. The lazy, greedy players and their dumb union leader have failed because they did not heed the advice given (the orders of the fans :joker: ) on this board hourly.

Am very thankful that we have several posters who have sat in on the meetings and know exactly what has transpired...as well as having the psychic powers to predict with certainty what lies ahead! ;)
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
kerrly said:
I guess that is somewhat true.

I don't see what setting a deadline has to do with him not wanting to play a season. By him not setting a deadline, he is squeezing in a few extra weeks of negotiation. Do you honestly think if the season was cancelled right now, that they would even still be meeting? Absolutely not. If he cancels the season before anything is done, then the next possible time hockey will start is January next year. By him not cancelling the season, might even save more hockey down the road. I hate comments like this that have no substance or logic at all, but they are "fact".

It means he never had the intentions of playing a season. Mostly anyone would at some point say "we need to have a deal by X-date or there can be no season." He has failed to do that. I do know his reasoning, but still he needs to say a deal by Tuesday (or whatever day) or no season. Close it. Make it final.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->