Goodenow's plan

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Atlas, May 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Atlas

    Atlas Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,355
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All speculation...what do you think his intentions are?


    As it stands, I expect Goodenow to takes the NHL to the next wire where they will agree on cap numbers and then he will lower the boom on the NHL by making ridiculous demands regarding free agency (age 24?), arbitration and rookie contracts. He will use this as a way to save face.

    At that point the owners will have a ton of pressure on them to just get the deal done. It's anybody's guess what they'd do. My hope is that the league will keep free agency where it is. They have all the leverage and it's best for the game.
     
  2. Crazy_Ike

    Crazy_Ike Cookin' with fire.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,081
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    18 holes a day until Fehr hires him.

    After that he can chuckle about the damage he did to a competing sport.
     
  3. danaluvsthekings

    danaluvsthekings Registered User

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,183
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Gender:
    Female
    I'm not sure what Goodenow's plans are but there's no way that they involve unrestricted agency at 24 or 25. Not only would that flood the market with the number of players that would qualify, thus reducing the market value for the players because of the increase in supply available. You would also release a lot of your young stars to be a free agent at the same time. That's also going to drive the value down for the players. With the last CBA if there was only 1 premiere defenseman available, teams were bidding on that defenseman and driving up the price because of the limited supply. But if you now have younger free agents and an increased supply of choices, teams won't have to overpay because if they lose out on their 1st choice, there will be options 2, 3, and 4 available. Especially with a cap system. Teams will know what they can and can't afford and if bidding got too high, they'd move on to the next target. I'm sure Goodenow has something up his sleeve, but there's absolutely no way it's UFA status at 24 or 25. Not to mention the owners would never agree to UFA status that low. Owners do not want to see a situation where they draft a player at 18, sign him where he's 20, he spends 2 years in the AHL, makes the NHL at 22 and they have 3 seasons before they lose him. Even if they occasionally have a player that can make the NHL at 18, the majority of prospects don't make it until their early 20s.
     
  4. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    I know Marvin Miller was reported to have said this in a moment of bravado, but the increase in supply is equivalenty matched by an increase in demand. And there will never be a flood of the top players because there arent enough to make one.

    Furthermore, that would only be true anyway in a true market. In a capped market, the unrestricted part of UFA is hardly applicable.

    Why wouldnt the owners want this? Wont their be a flood of players available? If there is a cap, why would it matter to restrict free agency? I'd of thought they need that flexibility to stay under a cap. Restricting free agency was done in lieu of a cap. To create a system where they dont need one. Rather than preventing them from spending, it makes their spending no more advantageous than developing. Seems a far better lever to attack to me.
     
  5. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,034
    Likes Received:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Goodenow END GAME .. DECERTIFICATION OF THE NHLPA !!!

    NO Hard Cap has ever been negotiated in history in a major sport and Goodenow does not want his legacy to be the first .. The NFL got there cap forced on them by the courts by a labour lawyer and that is what will need to happen again ..

    Goodenow is following the NFL plan of 1994 to a "T" and more then willing to take the battle to court.. The owners numbers will have to hold up as will the way they have so called negotiated to date..

    Here is the link Check out the what happened in the NFL battle.. History will repeat itself IMO .. http://stats.bls.gov/opub/cwc/archive/spring1998art1.pdf

    This means all players will become UFA and at least then they can all negotiate with the team of their choice for the best deal, every man for himself. The players talk of a free system and being unrestricted sounds pretty good to them ..

    That is my position on this ..

    The NHL has set up in this negotiation with UNION Busting in mind and that is exactly what they are going to get ..
     
  6. Belgican

    Belgican Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,218
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    I think free agency at 24 or 25 would be bad for us fans. Players will change from team much too often, it will be difficult for us to identify a franchise with players. It's already difficult with the many trades.
     
  7. FlyersFan10*

    FlyersFan10* Guest


    The only problem the NHL will face is that if there is an anti-trust lawsuit filed against the league, they could be dead in the water. If you consider that the NHLPA has given on almost every one of the owner's demands, but the owners have continued to gouge them for more and more, a court will see that and it wouldn't surprise me if the judge does side with the former NHLPA in this matter. And then the league will face millions in fines and probably hundreds of millions in wages lost that would need to be paid out. This has the potential to get even uglier than it already is.

    It's time that everyone just stop and realize how serious this has become. Why is it that the top two lieutennants in this war seem to get it, but no one else does? I wonder what Jacobs and all the other 'hawk owners would do if a court ruled in favour of the NHLPA? I say it's time that Daly and Saskin negotiate exclusively with one another and get a deal done. They seem to be the only two who get along with each other and seem to be the only ones who want to get a deal done. There's no incentive on Bettman's end to get a deal done and seeing as to how Goodenow has already given on several issues, there's no incentive for him either to give anymore.
     
  8. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    I think if you have a choice of restricting free agency until 31 with no cap, where restricted free agents are paid in a stable arbitration schedule, and Unrestricted free agency but a cap at the lowest common denominator, fans are better off with the former. Then you dont go become a Seinfeld joke like the NFL where you are down to rooting for the laundry.

    Until February of this year.
     
  9. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,034
    Likes Received:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    No stopping teams from offering long-term guaranteed contacts to keep its key players ..

    All it takes is to buy the players freedom rights with an offer that the player is willing to relinquish them at. If the owner is not willing to cough up the cash then they can't complain if the player leaves and some team does pay him more.

    That the price of Freedom ..
     
  10. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,034
    Likes Received:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    That Counter offer of Goodenow's at 52 and 49 mil with 3 times out of every 6 years the ability for a team to go over .. It also involved luxury tax and a Salary floor .. and changes to the systemic issues ..

    That was the softest Hard Cap in the History of sports had the NHL accepted the deal. and it was so far from the NHL offer it was never going to be accepted ..

    However had Goodenow not made it ,then we would already be at IMPASSE and the NHL working on replacements.

    Your answer is flawed because to be correct we needed a signed and ratified CBA .. Even if Goodenow offered it, we have no way or knowing how the NHLPA would have voted ..

    Just posturing and bluffing to avoid IMPASSE on behalf of the NHLPA.. IMO
     
  11. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    My comment was that it was negotiated, but youre right, it wasnt accepted. It was still hard because the limits were there, It wasnt hard in that guaranteed 54% would be spent, but they were hard limits. Soft relevant to where the owners want them perhaps.

    Cant understand your posturing descriptor though. Those were pretty significant, real, and genuine concessions. What other than capitulation wouldnt have been posturing then?
     
  12. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    If that is his end game, what i he waiting for? The NHL's demands have not significantly changed since this started. His chances of getting anything better than he was offered in Feb are very slim, almost nonexistent some might say.

    So, what is the point of waiting? He can have a decertification vote anytime he wants. He doesn't need to wait for the NHL to declare an impasse. He already knows the NHL is not going to settle for any deal does not have some kind of hardcap and/or linkage to revenue.

    Maybe he is not calling for decertification because that will mean he is no longer in control, and the PA executive commitee, which will have to authorize a vote for decertification will also be out of power.

    Maybe he is not calling for a decertification vote because the majority of players know that they will not be better off if there are no more guaranteed contracts, minimum wages, and no more restrictions on sending players to the minors (except what players are able to negotiate for themselves...)

    Maybe he is not calling for decertification because he knows that there is no guarantee that the NHL will open the doors if the union decertifies. If the NHL does not open the doors, there is no chance of an anti-trust law suit.

    Maybe he is not calling for decertification because there is a very good chance that the NHL will re-organize in some way that will be harmful to the players. After all, the NHL owners know that they will face anti-trust lawsuit from the players if they try to operate the same way they did without a CBA, they have no choice but to re-organize in some way that allows for fair competition without a CBA.

    I'm sure others can come up with some other god reasons why decertification is not going to happen. But, my point is why is he wasting time with these negotiations if he is going to push for decertification and the owners have shown that they will not move off of their position?
     
  13. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,034
    Likes Received:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    That is exactly the reason I think Goodenow will take the NHLPA down this route .. Anti-trust is based on the difference Old CBA to New CBA .. and the bigger the difference the less likely the NHLPA will accept any offer and the greater the damages awarded .. Bettman is playing right into Goodenow's hand by offering lower and lower proposals .. Its easy for Goodenow and the courts to see that the NHL has no intention of a deal ,and it looks very likely IMO that anti-trust suits in the millions will be awarded ..

    The owners better be real careful how they play this from here on in .. Push too hard and they are going to pay via the courts dearly..
     
  14. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    What would be the basis of an anti-trust law suit? They are negotiating a CBA. They can ask for whatever they want. They do not have to compromise on any of their positions. If the NHLPA does not like it, they can decertify, then the NHL can decide to open the doors or not.

    Anti-trust will only come into play if the NHL opens the doors without a CBA in place...
     
  15. FlyersFan10*

    FlyersFan10* Guest


    If Goodenow pushes for decertification and if the league continues locking out the players, then the players can file an anti-trust lawsuit to state that they are being withheld from plying their trade. I think Goodenow wants to see the owners give something in the negotiations. That's been the problem. There's been no give from the owner's side. To a certain extent, I'm thinking Goodenow wants to see if they can go with an impasse simply because the players association has given everything that the owners have wanted, but the owners have continued to gouge more. If the NLB can agree with getting an impasse declared, then it's full steam ahead for the anti-trust lawsuits.

    If I'm in the owner's chair right now, I'm throwing the NHLPA a bone to give Goodenow something to chew on. I think the biggest problems with negotiations though have been that no one is willing to compromise on anything. The whole negotiating committees need to be replaced on both sides.
     
  16. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    The NHL answers back with "The players are free to ply their trade anywhere else in the world. The NHL's business model was predicated on having a CBA with the NHLPA. Without a CBA, we can't operate without risking having more lawsuits for anti-trust violations. The NHL will remain closed until such a time as we can review our legal options and, if necessary, re-organize in a manner that will allow the NHL to operate in a fair and competetive manner. Our fans demand a fair level of competition between our member teams and deserve nothing less..."

    I know of no law that requires a company to operate if they don't want to...

    And, there is no need for the NHL to ever declare an impasse. They can continue to wait as long as it takes...
     
  17. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    He would likely be waiting for the appropiate time in the process to do it. As they are in a "Process" war. He would have to it right for all the leagla battles to have their ducks in a row.

    He already knows he has offered a hardcap that is linked to revenue back in Feb to save the season. So there shouldnt be any need for it if thats what the owners are after.

    But he doesnt want to do it if he can negotiate a deal.
    Control of what? Out of what power? Their position on the negotiating team executive? What power does this give them? Goodenow and the union are fighting for a fair marketplace as they see it. If the best market they can get is while decertified they will likely try it. But that's no "win". Its the least bad loss, It will be costly, constantly making court cases and suing for anti-trust violations. He may only win half of them anyway.

    Their currents arent guaranteed. They have a 2/3rds buyout. If they are one-way and for more than a year. If they sign a 4 year contract with a player like Conroy to prevent him from signing a 3 year contract with Calgary for roughly the same money, what is the point of calling this a guaranteed contract? Conroy should be able to leave after a year if he wants?


    If they are forced to operate within a marketplace like any normal business, they will look for someway to combine in order to restrain salaries below a level the marketplace would take them. Sounds wrong but could be the case


    He doesnt want it. Its the last stand at the Alamo. When left with no better options.
     
  18. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY

    Decertification is an option at any point where the players feel that they will be better off without a CBA. They can decertify with a CBA in place if they wanted to. While it is most often used as a negotiating tool as you mentioned. There is nothing preventing them from using it anytime they want. And as I pointed out, the NHLPA knows that they are not going to get a much better deal from the NHL, so what are they waiting for?


    Wow!!! I can play with fonts too! :sarcasm:
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2005
  19. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    The Messenger said that tha was his game plan... I'm pointing out that it is not his game plan or he would do it already. If he wanted to, he could have a decertification vote along the lines of "If the NHL insists on a hardcap or linkage between salaries and revenues and there is not a signed agreement in 30 days, the NHLPA will decertify..." There is no need to get legal ducks in a row. The unions are free to decertify at any time they want. In fact, sports unions have had decertification votes like I mentioned above before (I think it was the NBA?).

    By the way, pretty much everyone refers to them as guaranteed contracts, including the NHLPA and it's members...
     
  20. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    I dont believe they could file an antitrust suit for that. If the owners wantto shut down the league, then competition will start one up. Antitrust from my understanding is more when companies in a marketplace unfairly combine in such a way as to restrain salaries lower than a marketpalce would determine.

    They dont have to operate though. If there is a market void, someone else would pick it up.

    There is some question i think as to whether Goodenow can even use decertification as a tool to avoid impasse after embarking on a collective bargaining process. Im not sure its a given that he can.
     
  21. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    The National Labor Relations Act gives employees the right to decertify their union through a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election. A decertification petition-filed by one or more employees, a labor union or any individual, excluding supervisors or members of management-must be supported by 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit. This showing of interest must be demonstrated by petitions or cards signed and dated by employees, asserting that the union is no longer the representative in the appropriate unit.

    In order to limit changes in regimes, the NLRB will only accept petitions: one year from its board certification, if no contract is in effect; a reasonable time after the employer voluntarily recognizes it, if no contract is in effect; between the 90th and 60th day prior to the expiration of an agreement; and after a contract has expired and has not been extended or renewed. An employer may not interfere, but if some or all workers want to abandon collective bargaining, he may help them to do so. The NLRB maintains that the employer may provide only "ministerial" assistance; anything more taints the workers' efforts fatally.


    http://boxboard.com/ar/boxboard_decertificationwhat_employers/


    I guess I was wrong about unions being able to decertify anytime while an agreement was in place... but outside of that, there are few limits...
     
  22. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    The beauty of the Internet and message boards in particular is that people can and will say just about any amount of bull**** and if it is said often enough people start to get sucked in by it. I refuse to let this particular part of revisionist history continue to be propagated unchecked. I get too tired of it listening to Stephen Brunt on the FAN590.

    The cap system in the NFL was not imposed by courts. Regardless of what the leverage was in the NFL dispute, the cap system was negotiated in exchange for liberalized free agency. Plain and simple.

    The NBA cap was also negotiated, of course. Maybe you plan to get around that by saying "oh, the NBA has a soft cap. That does not count." I say to you that is a fatuous distinction.

    I am relatively new to this board. Are you an agent or player? Or just contrary?
     
  23. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC
    A relative of mine is close with an NHL owner as I have said in the past. Again I'll tell you all that I'm honestly not screwing around and he really does know him.

    I talked to my relative today and he said that he talked to the owner and the owner said it's merely number crunching time. They have agreed to a deal on the economic system and all they need is to determine what revenues are and number crunch.

    If I'm wrong I don't want to be ridiculed for "lying" that a relative of mine is close with the owner but he really is. The owner is relatively low on the totem poll I would say though. BUT his GM is involved in the meetings a lot. I'll take that as it is because who knows how long it will take to decide what revenues are and more importantly what the numbers will be and how long it will take to "crunch" them. Also I will point out that his words were "broke" the union.
     
  24. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    In the case of the NFL the cap was proposed by Ed Garvey of the NFLPA in an attempt to get a bigger share of the revenues in the hands of the players.
     
  25. vanlady

    vanlady Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is the same thing we were being told at the Canucks season ticket holder event that was just held. But we were also told that the crunching issue could be extremely ugly.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"