Legace attacks union leadership

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Where were these voices in December, January and February? Where were their voices when the Union leaders slapped Gretz and Mario in the face in February? Where were their voices when Roenick and others did an end around on the Union leadership to get a deal done? They have nobody to blame but themselves for the crappy deal they are about to get.

Baloney.
I've yet to see any concrete evidence that union leaders did anything to embarass Gretsky or Lemiuex.
I'm so sick of seeing this sort of nonsense reported as fact, five months later.
Are we supposed to be believe, that somehow, Gretzky and Lemieux were going to go above and beyond to strike a deal?
Aren't these guys FIRMLY in the salary cap camp???

In Detroit, after Bettman announced the cancellation of the season, Yzerman was on the radio telling people that the season isn't yet cancelled. That the players he was talking to believed there was still room for negotiation.
He was right. And according to local reports, Yzerman was a key player in bringing the players back to the table.

If you're going to get all melodramatic and blame the union for somehow insulting Wayne and Mario, I can do the same in Detroit, where Steve Yzerman surely suffered far more than Wayne or Mario because of the lockout.

As far as we know, Yzerman may never play again. Given the Wings salary structure, and given the cap, it sure seems unlikely as hell.
So we won't get our farewell to one of the game's greats. In Detroit, Yzerman is every bit as important to the NHL as Gretzky and Lemieux. More so, in fact.

So because of Bettman's reckless negotiating style, our last picture of Yzerman is seeing him carried of the ice with a bloody face..

These ridiculous arguments cut both ways, Psycho Joe.

So it's best not to get too righteous with them.

 

[me2]

So because of Bettman's reckless negotiating style, our last picture of Yzerman is seeing him carried of the ice with a bloody face..

You want to point the finger at Goodenow for reckless. If Steve never plays again, it'll be because of BG.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

You want to point the finger at Goodenow for reckless. If Steve never plays again, it'll be because of BG.

{ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM}

Did you hear that???

It went right over your head.

 

[me2]

{ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM}

Did you hear that???

It went right over your head.

and bit you in the ass.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Steve Yzerman has been invited to team Canada's camp in August. If he planned on retiring, I don't think he'd be receiving an invitation, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the 2006 Team Canada roster.

Funny how you claim Bettman's negotiation style to be "reckless." So what would you call Goodenow's idea of negotiating a deal in the 11th hour?

And don't shed any tears, your Wings will still manage to be competitive w/o a payroll near $50-60M.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

I keep waiting for the run-ins by Tom Benjamin, Wetcoaster and Vanlady to set everyone straight and clue us in on the NHLPA master plan.

Have to say, haven't heard 'boo' from them lately...

Not a peep. They and lots like them have gone into hiding.

 

[octopi]

Baloney.
I've yet to see any concrete evidence that union leaders did anything to embarass Gretsky or Lemiuex.
I'm so sick of seeing this sort of nonsense reported as fact, five months later.
Are we supposed to be believe, that somehow, Gretzky and Lemieux were going to go above and beyond to strike a deal?
Aren't these guys FIRMLY in the salary cap camp???

In Detroit, after Bettman announced the cancellation of the season, Yzerman was on the radio telling people that the season isn't yet cancelled. That the players he was talking to believed there was still room for negotiation.
He was right. And according to local reports, Yzerman was a key player in bringing the players back to the table.

If you're going to get all melodramatic and blame the union for somehow insulting Wayne and Mario, I can do the same in Detroit, where Steve Yzerman surely suffered far more than Wayne or Mario because of the lockout.

As far as we know, Yzerman may never play again. Given the Wings salary structure, and given the cap, it sure seems unlikely as hell.
So we won't get our farewell to one of the game's greats. In Detroit, Yzerman is every bit as important to the NHL as Gretzky and Lemieux. More so, in fact.

So because of Bettman's reckless negotiating style, our last picture of Yzerman is seeing him carried of the ice with a bloody face..

These ridiculous arguments cut both ways, Psycho Joe.

So it's best not to get too righteous with them.

I sure hope Yzerman comes back. If not theres always the option of having the dentist put a cyanide capsule in my tooth.

 

[octopi]

You are bang on, of course. The only problem was that you failed to fully capture the immensity of the player victories. To wit:

1. NOT A SINGLE PLAYER is required to wash the car of any owner;

2. All players will now be permitted to wear skates when playing;

3. All players other than those with vowels or consonants in their name will receive 100% raises;

And, most importantly ....

4. Contracts will continue to be guaranteed!!!!!!!!!

You forgot:

5. Allowed to claim $50/week pet food allowance

6. Not a single player will be required to wear a Tutu(Altho Ducks players seem to think this might be an improvement)

7. Players will only be chained up to post and tortured 7 hours a week, as opposed to previously offerered agreements plan of 8

8. Teams with Brett Hull on roster allowed Double dog food allowance, plus given free muzzles. Team with JR not offerered extra food allowance, but also give muzzle

9.Only players with less than ten years playing experience required to wave lamp in front of selves, shouting "Unclean, Unclean!" as they walk around in public

10. 20% off at Big Dan's discount dentures

 

[misterjaggers]

Baloney.
I've yet to see any concrete evidence that union leaders did anything to embarass Gretsky or Lemiuex.
I'm so sick of seeing this sort of nonsense reported as fact, five months later.
Are we supposed to be believe, that somehow, Gretzky and Lemieux were going to go above and beyond to strike a deal?
Aren't these guys FIRMLY in the salary cap camp???

In Detroit, after Bettman announced the cancellation of the season, Yzerman was on the radio telling people that the season isn't yet cancelled. That the players he was talking to believed there was still room for negotiation.
He was right. And according to local reports, Yzerman was a key player in bringing the players back to the table.

If you're going to get all melodramatic and blame the union for somehow insulting Wayne and Mario, I can do the same in Detroit, where Steve Yzerman surely suffered far more than Wayne or Mario because of the lockout.

As far as we know, Yzerman may never play again. Given the Wings salary structure, and given the cap, it sure seems unlikely as hell.
So we won't get our farewell to one of the game's greats. In Detroit, Yzerman is every bit as important to the NHL as Gretzky and Lemieux. More so, in fact.

So because of Bettman's reckless negotiating style, our last picture of Yzerman is seeing him carried of the ice with a bloody face..

These ridiculous arguments cut both ways, Psycho Joe.

So it's best not to get too righteous with them.

That doesn't excuse the shabby treatment of Gretsky and Lemieux by the NHLPA. It isn't Gary Bettman's job to protect what's left of Steve Yzerman's illustrious career. That's Eleventh Hour Bob's job.

 

[misterjaggers]

....The reason you aren't seeing the pro PA types as much is, quite simply, they don't want to gloat.

Somebody pick me up off the floor.

 

[Marshall]

 

[FlyersFan10*]

I'm an NHLPA supporter, but there are a few things that worry me about the new CBA. First has to do with the revenue sharing. While it's great that they have something in place to share revenue with teams who have low payrolls, what's to say that a large market team (I'll use Chicago for this example) won't keep a low payroll just to intentionally get some money from revenue sharing? How fair is that to teams that really need the revenue sharing. There's no recourse for the NHL to prevent stuff like that from happening.

What happens if you have everything in place in terms of revenue sharing, salary caps, drafts, etc.....and you still have teams losing money? Do you share even more revenue, do you move the team to another market, do you try to lower the salary caps, or do you contract the teams? Once again, there doesn't seem to be any plan in place in case something like this does happen (and the stark reality is that something like this is a definite possibility).

Seeing as to how the owners got everything that they wanted in this deal, what incentive is there on the owners part to reduce ticket prices, make the game more fan friendly, etc......I know we've been getting lip service about all the so called changes that are to take place, but every time the league tries to do things, they get bombarded with criticism and we're back to the same old crap. As well, with regards to ticket prices and such, if people were willing to pay high prices for tickets before, what's going to stop them this time around? The lockout? Please. Hockey fans are usually hardcore fans, and unlike baseball, most hockey fans will return.

Last thing. What is to stop an owner from misreporting hockey related revenue as some other form of revenue? People on here might talk about the IRS and Revenue Canada, but as long as team's bottom line matches everything they are reporting in the books, whose to say that a team won't try to hide possible hockey revenues with the intent of keeping payroll intentionally low?

That's the thing with the owners that has me worried. For all this talk of agreements and everything like that, fact of the matter is that everyone who owns a team is a business man and the bottom line is all about making money. What would stop someone from maximizing profits at the expense of the on ice product if they know they're going to be supplemented? Say what you want about the majority, but it's the minority that can do the most damage by undermining the system. And with the system that will be in place, it won't be that hard to undermine it and cause damage to a game that's already hurting to begin with.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Hockey fans are usually hardcore fans, and unlike baseball, most hockey fans will return.

I think you might be confusing people on this board with everyone. In my experience, there are just as many fanatic fans in other sports as there are in hockey. I am a baseball fan, and i assure you baseball fans are equally passionate. For every Leaf nutjob, there are two RedSox or Cubs nutjobs.

Last thing. What is to stop an owner from misreporting hockey related revenue as some other form of revenue? People on here might talk about the IRS and Revenue Canada, but as long as team's bottom line matches everything they are reporting in the books, whose to say that a team won't try to hide possible hockey revenues with the intent of keeping payroll intentionally low?

Four things:

1. THe NHL offered a long time ago to have the books jointly audited, with severe penalties for underreporting revenue. I am certain the PA has accepted that offer by now.

2. You should check with your fellow Pa posters. A couple of weeks ago, i was debating in spirited fashion with several Pa posters who felt that the teams would be clamoring to spend OVER the cap and would be desperately finding ways to circumvent the cap.

3. Each of the teams' books get audited. Audits catch this stuff. If teams try this, their own auditors will not sign off on their books (never even mind the players' auditors) and they will get caught.

4. Many teams are public entities. The things you propose are contrary to GAAP. There are new laws in place generally (such as Sarbanes-Oxley) that make CEO's and CFO's who sign off on such books personally liable and send them to jail. And execs get sent to real jail now, not country club jail.

That's the thing with the owners that has me worried. For all this talk of agreements and everything like that, fact of the matter is that everyone who owns a team is a business man and the bottom line is all about making money. What would stop someone from maximizing profits at the expense of the on ice product if they know they're going to be supplemented? Say what you want about the majority, but it's the minority that can do the most damage by undermining the system. And with the system that will be in place, it won't be that hard to undermine it and cause damage to a game that's already hurting to begin with.

The point is that it will be that hard. THe owners are not the only ones vetting the documents for loopholes. For all the incompetence of the PA's executives, I am sure they have competent counsel who are building in the necessary protections which are not very hard to develop. It is actually pretty routine.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I'm an NHLPA supporter, but there are a few things that worry me about the new CBA. First has to do with the revenue sharing. While it's great that they have something in place to share revenue with teams who have low payrolls, what's to say that a large market team (I'll use Chicago for this example) won't keep a low payroll just to intentionally get some money from revenue sharing? How fair is that to teams that really need the revenue sharing. There's no recourse for the NHL to prevent stuff like that from happening.

............

There is your problem. Revenue sharing is not based on 'payroll' but 'revenue.' That is where the term Revenue Sharing comes from. If you are a big market and intentionally keep a low payroll, in some cases your revenue will go down. But in cases like Toronto or Montreal, where going to hockey is a thing handed down for 7 or 8 generations, almost is a semi-religious, semi-nationalistic thing, you would most likely have high revenues coming in regardless.

 

[GSC2k2*]

There is your problem. Revenue sharing is not based on 'payroll' but 'revenue.' That is where the term Revenue Sharing comes from. If you are a big market and intentionally keep a low payroll, in some cases your revenue will go down. But in cases like Toronto or Montreal, where going to hockey is a thing handed down for 7 or 8 generations, almost is a semi-religious, semi-nationalistic thing, you would most likely have high revenues coming in regardless.

Excellent. In my haste to knock down his other points, i fogot to mention this one.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Excellent. In my haste to knock down his other points, i fogot to mention this one.

One other point. Unlike baseball, where there is no salary floor so my ****** @#@@$ Pittsburgh Pirates are among a handful of teams who have for years simply pocketed the revenue sharing money instead of spending a dime on the product on the field, there is a salary floor in the NHL which forces even the cheapest of team owners . . . Bill . . .*cough* . . . *Wirtz* . . . to spend no lower than just under two thirds of what the highest salaried teams spend.

Where is the problem?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

There is your problem. Revenue sharing is not based on 'payroll' but 'revenue.' That is where the term Revenue Sharing comes from. If you are a big market and intentionally keep a low payroll, in some cases your revenue will go down. But in cases like Toronto or Montreal, where going to hockey is a thing handed down for 7 or 8 generations, almost is a semi-religious, semi-nationalistic thing, you would most likely have high revenues coming in regardless.

Chicago should not get a drop of revenue sharing.
Why should Toronto and Detroit and the Rangers pay a damn penny to Chicago, and Original Six team with an owner who seems bent on suffocating the sport in apathy.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Steve Yzerman has been invited to team Canada's camp in August. If he planned on retiring, I don't think he'd be receiving an invitation, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the 2006 Team Canada roster.

Funny how you claim Bettman's negotiation style to be "reckless." So what would you call Goodenow's idea of negotiating a deal in the 11th hour?

And don't shed any tears, your Wings will still manage to be competitive w/o a payroll near $50-60M.

Dude, seriously, try to stick with my point.
My tirade was in response to Psycho Joe's tirade.

At the end, I said both arguments are ridiculous.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

That doesn't excuse the shabby treatment of Gretsky and Lemieux by the NHLPA. It isn't Gary Bettman's job to protect what's left of Steve Yzerman's illustrious career. That's Eleventh Hour Bob's job.

No dude.
There wasn't any "shabby" treatment of Gretzky or Lemieux.

I defy you to point out exactly how they were treated any worse than Steve Yzerman or Matt Stajan.

Gretzky and Lemieux are on the owners side.
They didn't put any more effort into this thing than anyone else.

Wow. They showed up for one meeting with nothing to offer.

So how did they get treated shabbily?

The only people who treated them shabbily are in the media. These are the people who put them in the impossible position by saying "Wayne and Mario to the rescue"

And when talks faltered, they immediately associated Wayne and Mario with the failure.

That's not the PA's fault in any way.

 

[Sammy*]

No dude.
There wasn't any "shabby" treatment of Gretzky or Lemieux.

I defy you to point out exactly how they were treated any worse than Steve Yzerman or Matt Stajan.

Gretzky and Lemieux are on the owners side.
They didn't put any more effort into this thing than anyone else.

Wow. They showed up for one meeting with nothing to offer.

So how did they get treated shabbily?

The only people who treated them shabbily are in the media. These are the people who put them in the impossible position by saying "Wayne and Mario to the rescue"

And when talks faltered, they immediately associated Wayne and Mario with the failure.

That's not the PA's fault in any way.

Hey dude, given that they are icons of the sport & the NHLPA saw fit to misrepresent the point of the meeting, yes they were treated shabbily.
Got it, dude?

 

[thinkwild]

1. THe NHL offered a long time ago to have the books jointly audited, with severe penalties for underreporting revenue.

Which books audited?

4. Many teams are public entities.

Which one? I remember when the Sens were being sold, one of the many buyers for the team was the Snapple King. But they couldnt buy in as partners to Brydens deal, because as an audited company, they couldnt get away with this kind of transaction. Their auditors wouldnt allow it. Too sports ownershipish to meet audited requirements.

If the teams were public companies, with shareholders, an audit might be more meaningful, although the profit-first philosophy that they would have to adopt would not probably be in fans best interest. But when the only shareholder is the owner himself in a complex web of shell companies, I'm sure every lawyer would see through the phrase - audited. N'est ce pas?

One other point. Unlike baseball, where there is no salary floor so my ****** @#@@$ Pittsburgh Pirates are among a handful of teams who have for years simply pocketed the revenue sharing money instead of spending a dime on the product on the field, there is a salary floor in the NHL which forces even the cheapest of team owners . . . Bill . . .*cough* . . . *Wirtz* . . . to spend no lower than just under two thirds of what the highest salaried teams spend.

Where is the problem?

Yes, if the team is forced to spend the token minimum, where is the problem eh? If an owner wants to pocket the money, he will pocket the money. You cant design a system around this. You have to design one for the teams that want to win.

No dude.
There wasn't any "shabby" treatment of Gretzky or Lemieux.

Oh come on. How can you say that. They have been embarrassed and their reputations ruined. I know I wont be able to watch them at the olympics because i feel too embarrassed for them. No one is going to want them associated with their team. They have been embarrassed and their reputations so tarnished by the event how can they possibly show their faces in public again. Dont you realize how traumatic and newsworthy an item that was?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

...........

Yes, if the team is forced to spend the token minimum, where is the problem eh? If an owner wants to pocket the money, he will pocket the money. You cant design a system around this. You have to design one for the teams that want to win.

...........

'Token' minimum? This is a joke right? No team can spend less than just under 2/3 of what the very highest spending teams spend? How is this 'token' in any way?

 

[Resolute]

I'm an NHLPA supporter, but there are a few things that worry me about the new CBA. First has to do with the revenue sharing. While it's great that they have something in place to share revenue with teams who have low payrolls, what's to say that a large market team (I'll use Chicago for this example) won't keep a low payroll just to intentionally get some money from revenue sharing? How fair is that to teams that really need the revenue sharing. There's no recourse for the NHL to prevent stuff like that from happening.

Can you show me the line in the CBA that states revenue sharing money will be handed out by payroll?

The easy answer to this question is to have revenue sharing money determined by revenue. Problem solved.

What happens if you have everything in place in terms of revenue sharing, salary caps, drafts, etc.....and you still have teams losing money? Do you share even more revenue, do you move the team to another market, do you try to lower the salary caps, or do you contract the teams? Once again, there doesn't seem to be any plan in place in case something like this does happen (and the stark reality is that something like this is a definite possibility).

I would suggest the plan is that the owner either works to increase his revenue, sells the team, or relocates it. While a good cap/revenue sharing plan should give nearly everyone a chance to compete, hopeless markets are hopeless markets and should not be saved.

Seeing as to how the owners got everything that they wanted in this deal, what incentive is there on the owners part to reduce ticket prices, make the game more fan friendly, etc......I know we've been getting lip service about all the so called changes that are to take place, but every time the league tries to do things, they get bombarded with criticism and we're back to the same old crap. As well, with regards to ticket prices and such, if people were willing to pay high prices for tickets before, what's going to stop them this time around? The lockout? Please. Hockey fans are usually hardcore fans, and unlike baseball, most hockey fans will return.

1. Several owners have already announced ticket price reductions.
2. Making the game more fan friendly brings more fans in, and raises revenues, which raises income.
3. Baseball fans returned. Hockey fans will leave. Hockey fans will return. You may like hockey a lot more than baseball, but that doesnt make hockey fans any better (or worse) than baseball fans.

Last thing. What is to stop an owner from misreporting hockey related revenue as some other form of revenue? People on here might talk about the IRS and Revenue Canada, but as long as team's bottom line matches everything they are reporting in the books, whose to say that a team won't try to hide possible hockey revenues with the intent of keeping payroll intentionally low?

If the union fails to negotiate such controls then that is their problem and fault. The owners failed to close loopholes in the last CBA and got killed for it. They have learned their lesson, and you may want to hope that the union also saw the results of that and works to close any such loopholes related to the reporting of income.

 

[thinkwild]

Im saying token as if the owner just tops up enough to meet the minimum requirement. Would that satisfy you as a fan knowing that? Think any team would be at the minimum? What does that say?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Im saying token as if the owner just tops up enough to meet the minimum requirement. Would that satisfy you as a fan knowing that? Think any team would be at the minimum? What does that say?

It could say a million things. Examples:

1. I am a cheap *******
2. We are a new market and don't yet have the funds to compete with the big boys
3. we are rebuilding, and putting young guys in the lineup to get them to grow. In a year or two we will spend when it will actually mean something more than satisfying whiney fans.
4. and on and on . . .

It all depends on the track record of the team and what their real situation is . . .

But in any event, no owner no matter how evil his intentions can ever spend more than a relatively small amount less than the 'big' spenders. If baseball had this the game would be in much better shape. Being able to spend what amounts to 50% more or so than other teams is a drop in the bucket . . .it is an edge but a small one. It will be easily able to be overcome by good management and every team will at least have the chance to compete.