Let's play the negotiation game - some of us can be Bob and some of us can be Gary

Status
Not open for further replies.

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Gary to Bob - let's start off this negotiation by you explaining to me, the owners, the fans, the corporate sponsors why you stand so strongly against a partnership, cost certainty, revenue sharing system that still allows for guaranteed contracts? The only reason I have been given to date is that it's against your principal so while your at it please explain to me what principals you are referring to in simple terms please. :dunno: :dunno:
 

SENSible1*

Guest
aj said:
Gary to Bob: "We need a cap."

Bob to Gary: "We won't accept a cap."

*Silence*

Silence, as league prepares itself to do whatever it takes to get the cap they feel they need.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
Silence, as a giant rock from space pummels to earth on Christmas Day, 2004... Humans go the way of the dodo bird... and a hush falls over the world...

Ah, life's ultimate conclusion... ending in a dramatic, unexpected, singular blow... The odd human still alive, albeit slowly dying - and in fear of neighbours who are trying to survive at their expense... CBA negotiations (and other day-to-day trivial 'problems') the farthest thing from a human mind come January 1st, 2005...

*end of daydream / reality check... humming 'it's the end of the world as we know it... and I feel fine*
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
I should have figured most of you would respond in a sarcastic manner that adds nothing to what could be a fun and educational exercise. The fact none of you have taken the question seriously and responded as Bob to Gary is an indicator of why Bob should never have used the word "never" when referring to a salary cap. Anyone care to contribute a serious response to Gary's initial question on this thread? Please try to be constuctive otherwise we will just have a repeat of other threads that solved nothing and contributed very little.
 

bling

Registered User
Jun 23, 2004
2,934
0
eye said:
I should have figured most of you would respond in a sarcastic manner that adds nothing to what could be a fun and educational exercise. The fact none of you have taken the question seriously and responded as Bob to Gary is an indicator of why Bob should never have used the word "never" when referring to a salary cap. Anyone care to contribute a serious response to Gary's initial question on this thread? Please try to be constuctive otherwise we will just have a repeat of other threads that solved nothing and contributed very little.

Your original statement is so biased and dripping with pro-ownership prejudice that it is barely understandable, I am pretty sure that is why you have gotten nothing but sarcastic responses from the NHLPA supporters.

It is like asking supporters of big game hunting to justify the blatant murder and slaughter of gods gentle creatures....
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
eye said:
Gary to Bob - let's start off this negotiation by you explaining to me, the owners, the fans, the corporate sponsors why you stand so strongly against:

a partnership

Gary Bettman for a partner? Surely you jest.

cost certainty

This is Bettmanspeak for artificially set limits on player wages.

revenue sharing

The NHLPA does not oppose revenue sharing. They have encouraged it. They would argue that the success of the NFL is that more than 70% of revenues are shared. In the NHL less than 9% of revenues are shared. Owners pay lip service to revenue sharing but push comes to shove and the owners always vote for nickels and dimes. The owners oppose a luxury tax because it means sharing revenues.

The only reason I have been given to date is that it's against your principal so while your at it please explain to me what principals you are referring to in simple terms please. :dunno: :dunno:

Well, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, doesn't he? Principles? How about the fundamental principles underlying the economies of free and open societies?

The idea of artificial controls on wages is the antithesis of the free enterprise system. In a capitalist society, the owner takes the risks, manages the operation and strives to profit. The worker is free to negotiate the highest possible wage for his labour. What's so wrong with free enterprise and capitalism that is should be thrown out in hockey?

Tom
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Tom_Benjamin said:
What's so wrong with free enterprise and capitalism that is should be thrown out in hockey?

Tom

Nothing at all.

Just have the union decertify and the owners can get down to so good old fashioned "free enterprise and capitalism".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
Well, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, doesn't he? Principles? How about the fundamental principles underlying the economies of free and open societies?

The idea of artificial controls on wages is the antithesis of the free enterprise system. In a capitalist society, the owner takes the risks, manages the operation and strives to profit. The worker is free to negotiate the highest possible wage for his labour. What's so wrong with free enterprise and capitalism that is should be thrown out in hockey?

Tom

I'm not a Political Science or Economics major so I just have to rely on good old common sense.

Gary to Bob - let's not paint ourselves into a corner where there will be zero room for further talk or a resolution to our noted differences. We have made some mistakes in the past Bob and the owners feel the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of the players. I have made a promise to the owners of 30 teams and the fans of the NHL that we will get it right this time. We need some form of a partnership where player salaries are more closely aligned to that of other major professional sports. We don't have the TV revenue that other sports have but we are still prepared to commit up to 53% of gross revenues towards player salaries. If you like we can sit down and come to an agreement on exactly how we determine what gross revenue is. Bob, I think you realize that about 2/3's of our owners are either barely breaking even or are losing money and we need a system that allows owners an equal opportunity to earn on their investments and also provide a level playing field for organizational development. Do you have any proposals on behalf of your players that fall within our needs and the guidelines I have just discussed with you?
 
Last edited:

FlyersFan10*

Guest
eye said:
I'm not a Political Science or Economics major so I just have to rely on good old common sense.

Gary to Bob - let's not paint ourselves into a corner where there will be zero room for further talk or a resolution to our noted differences. We have made some mistakes in the past Bob and the owners feel the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of the players. I have made a promise to the owners of 30 teams and the fans of the NHL that we will get it right this time. We need some form of a partnership where player salaries are more closely aligned to that of other major professional sports. We don't have the TV revenue that other sports have but we are still prepared to commit up to 53% of gross revenues towards player salaries. If you like we can sit down and come to an agreement on exactly how we determine what gross revenue is. Bob, I think you realize that about 2/3's of our owners are either barely breaking even or are losing money and we need a system that allows owners an equal opportunity to earn on their investments and also provide a level playing field for organizational development. Do you have any proposals on behalf of your players that fall within our needs and the guidelines I have just discussed with you?

Bob to Gary: Well Gary, we do understand what is going on. However, why is it our responsibility to bear the complete brunt of what your owners have caused? If you are sincere about forming a partnership, then the players shouldn't be held 100% accountable for the mess that your owners are in. While we do recognize the need to drag on salaries, we don't feel that a cap would work. If a luxury tax is implemented properly, it will create the drag on salaries that you are looking for and will also ensure that there is revenue sharing amongst the owners and that players salaries will eventually come in line. We're willing to offer 70 to 75 cents on the dollar over a threshold of 40 to 45 million. We are also willing to offer a 5% roll back on wages and we are also willing to lock entry level salaries. However, you are stuck on this notion that a salary cap is the only thing that is going to work. I am not convinced of this, Forbes magazine is not convinced of this and even Arthur Levitt is not convinced that a hard cap will work.

Gary, I understand the connendrum that you're in with the owners. This deal will save face for you, save face for the owners, save face for the players and will be fair in that both parties share the costs of losses over the past few years. We'll only make this a three year deal and see how things go a year and half from now and if things are rough, we'll open negotiations early again. Fair?

****Addenum****

One last thing Gary. For all this talk about improving the game financially, why is there no discussion of improving the game for the sake of improving the game? The Olympics and the World Cup were fantastic displays of hockey. This should be the game that is being marketed. Why are we marketing this clutch and grab, hook and hold type game? We need focus to be put back on the product. When the product is improved, the revenue streams will also open up. So please, let's get talking about improving the game, not just improving the financial state of the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
eye said:
I'm not a Political Science or Economics major so I just have to rely on good old common sense.

Gary to Bob - let's not paint ourselves into a corner where there will be zero room for further talk or a resolution to our noted differences.

Fine by me. Just stick that stupid salary cap in your ditty bag and we can talk.

We have made some mistakes in the past Bob and the owners feel the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of the players.

We don't think the pendulum has swung anywhere. If we give you $100 millin plus will you quit whining?

I have made a promise to the owners of 30 teams and the fans of the NHL that we will get it right this time.

That was a pretty stupid thing to promise. It wasn't your promise to make. We didn't promise anything.

We need some form of a partnership where player salaries are more closely aligned to that of other major professional sports.

We don't want a partnership, thanks. We aren't talking about other sports. We are talking about hockey.

We don't have the TV revenue that other sports have but we are still prepared to commit up to 53% of gross revenues towards player salaries.

We're not giving you half a billion dollars. Period. End of story. And we're not interested in anything as gross as revenue sharing.

If you like we can sit down and come to an agreement on exactly how we determine what gross revenue is.

We don't like. The Club President and genweral manager can do that for their million dollar salaries. We don't care how they do it. Then they can decide what to pay the players. If teams aren't making enough money talk to them, not us.

Bob, I think you realize that about 2/3's of our owners are either barely breaking even or are losing money and we need a system that allows owners an equal opportunity to earn on their investments

Tell somebody who cares.

and also provide a level playing field for organizational development.

Save the competitive balance BS for the sheeple, okay?

Do you have any proposals on behalf of your players that fall within our needs and the guidelines I have just discussed with you?

No.

Tom
 

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
This is funny but not quite as much as hockeysockpuppettheatre in the hockey news.

Some classics in the last few mags.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
PecaFan said:
Congrats. You've captured the entire essence of the NHLPA.

:handclap:


Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What's so wrong with free enterprise and capitalism that is should be thrown out in hockey?

Tom

Nothing at all.

Just have the union decertify and the owners can get down to so good old fashioned "free enterprise and capitalism".

Until the players do decertify you can stowe the BS about wanting a free market. Operating under a CBA is a completely artificial construct. You're well aware of this fact, so stop pretending otherwise.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Tell somebody who cares, lol.

I might ask Gary, What did you mean by this memo then?
"Article 5 - Management Rights. The League believes the growth of revenues to be shared by the players will be enhanced by the NHLPA granting the League greater flexibility in the operation of the business in various operational, financial and marketing areas."

"Article 11 - Standard Player's Contract. We propose to revise and simplify the SPC by moving many of its provisions to the CBA [and] revising provisions inconsistent with the goals of the new economic system."

"Article 13 - Waivers and Loans. We propose to simplify and update this provision and to grant greater flexibility to the Clubs and the League."

"Article 16 - League Schedule. We propose to modify those provisions which will be covered by a broader, more inclusive management rights proposal, and to clarify language concerning injured reserve."

Article 18 - Commissioner Discipline. We propose to increase the Commissioner's fining authority and to improve current procedures."

Article 23 - Insurance Coverages. "We believe it will be in our joint interests to look for ways to . . . bring the League's and the Clubs' costs more in line with those incurred on behalf of other categories of League and Club employees . . ."

Article 25 - Endorsements, Licensing, Etc. "We propose to modify those provisions which will be covered by a broader, more inclusive management rights proposal."

Article 30 [NHL Constitution and Bylaws, League and Club Rules] "We propose to modify those provisions which will be covered by a broader, more inclusive management rights proposal."

Is the real issue here insurance? Seems you want a lot of management rights and flexibility. You want to raise the money you are losing by fining players more? More rights to hockey cards? What are you after Gary?
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
Tom_Benjamin said:
If we give you $100 millin plus will you quit whining?

If you make it as much $ as (or more $ than) the owners got in league expansion money the last CBA go around, the owners just might take you up on that... To quote the Million Dollar Man, "Everybody's got a price"... and the owners have put $ ahead of their CBA wants/needs before...

For the sake of entertainment...

Gary to Bob: If we gave you $101 million plus, will you quit whining?
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
eye said:
Gary to Bob - let's not paint ourselves into a corner where there will be zero room for further talk or a resolution to our noted differences.
Ha ha, good idea.

We have made some mistakes in the past
[...]
If you like we can sit down and come to an agreement on exactly how we determine what gross revenue is.

Im sorry, now you have gone out of character.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
Fine by me. Just stick that stupid salary cap in your ditty bag and we can talk.



We don't think the pendulum has swung anywhere. If we give you $100 millin plus will you quit whining?



That was a pretty stupid thing to promise. It wasn't your promise to make. We didn't promise anything.



We don't want a partnership, thanks. We aren't talking about other sports. We are talking about hockey.



We're not giving you half a billion dollars. Period. End of story. And we're not interested in anything as gross as revenue sharing.



We don't like. The Club President and genweral manager can do that for their million dollar salaries. We don't care how they do it. Then they can decide what to pay the players. If teams aren't making enough money talk to them, not us.



Tell somebody who cares.



Save the competitive balance BS for the sheeple, okay?



No.

Tom


Is this really Bob Goodenow. Seriously, you sound just as condescending as he does. With negotiation skills like yours no wonder the NHLPA will be coming to an end.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
FlyersFan10 said:
Bob to Gary: Well Gary, we do understand what is going on. However, why is it our responsibility to bear the complete brunt of what your owners have caused? If you are sincere about forming a partnership, then the players shouldn't be held 100% accountable for the mess that your owners are in. While we do recognize the need to drag on salaries, we don't feel that a cap would work. If a luxury tax is implemented properly, it will create the drag on salaries that you are looking for and will also ensure that there is revenue sharing amongst the owners and that players salaries will eventually come in line. We're willing to offer 70 to 75 cents on the dollar over a threshold of 40 to 45 million. We are also willing to offer a 5% roll back on wages and we are also willing to lock entry level salaries. However, you are stuck on this notion that a salary cap is the only thing that is going to work. I am not convinced of this, Forbes magazine is not convinced of this and even Arthur Levitt is not convinced that a hard cap will work.

Gary, I understand the connendrum that you're in with the owners. This deal will save face for you, save face for the owners, save face for the players and will be fair in that both parties share the costs of losses over the past few years. We'll only make this a three year deal and see how things go a year and half from now and if things are rough, we'll open negotiations early again. Fair?

****Addenum****

One last thing Gary. For all this talk about improving the game financially, why is there no discussion of improving the game for the sake of improving the game? The Olympics and the World Cup were fantastic displays of hockey. This should be the game that is being marketed. Why are we marketing this clutch and grab, hook and hold type game? We need focus to be put back on the product. When the product is improved, the revenue streams will also open up. So please, let's get talking about improving the game, not just improving the financial state of the game.


Sorry Bob but the owners want to regain control of the NHL that they each invested hundreds of millions of their dollars into. 40-45 million is basically status quo and keeps players % of revenue at over 70% which is no longer acceptable on the owners part. I'm not looking for a hard cap per say. Call it a flex cap, homegrown cap, cost certainty whatever you prefer but our owners want a system where they know going into each season how much money is needed to budget for player salaries just like most other professional sports and most other business ventures in North America. Your going to have to do better and I would suggest a lot better before I can take your proposals back to the owners for their consideration.

Regarding your addenum Bob, we held meetings and made several recommendations that we believe can improve the game. It's our goal to fix the game and fix the financial shortcomings of the league all at once, unfortunatley, you decided to put in a grievance against our recommendations, hence, they have been put on hold and again the owners want to regain overall control of the league so the right to make changes now must be part of the new CBA. We to enjoyed the hockey in Salt Lake City but the World Cup was a bit disappointing perhaps because of the looming CBA lockout.
 
Last edited:

FlyersFan10*

Guest
It's funny. If you go with the $40 million threshold, then multiply that by 30, you get 1.2 billion. 1.2 billion in salary divided by 2.1 billion in total revenue = 57.1% of the revenue. Now, if 20 of the teams are at a 40 million threshold and you have ten teams that are over by an average of 20 million, according to the luxury tax, at 70 cents per dollar, that works out to 14 million for tax. Multiply that by ten and you get 140 million to disperse as revenue sharing. Not a bad deal.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
FlyersFan10 said:
It's funny. If you go with the $40 million threshold, then multiply that by 30, you get 1.2 billion. 1.2 billion in salary divided by 2.1 billion in total revenue = 57.1% of the revenue. Now, if 20 of the teams are at a 40 million threshold and you have ten teams that are over by an average of 20 million, according to the luxury tax, at 70 cents per dollar, that works out to 14 million for tax. Multiply that by ten and you get 140 million to disperse as revenue sharing. Not a bad deal.

The problem is that the revenue will no longer be at over 2 billion. Less TV revenue than prvious CBA, lower ticket prices are anticipated, loss of corporate sponsorship, etc. Missing from your cap money is the hidden costs of player bonus and incentive money that has never been reported as part of the team payroll but will in the next CBA. Luxury tax does not work. Refer to NHL.com for a reasonable explanation by Daly on why it won't work and doesn't work elsewhere.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Thunderstruck said:
Just have the union decertify and the owners can get down to so good old fashioned "free enterprise and capitalism".

Until the players do decertify you can stowe the BS about wanting a free market. Operating under a CBA is a completely artificial construct. You're well aware of this fact, so stop pretending otherwise.

Where are you getting this idea that free markets and capitalism dont include collective bargaining of labour rights? Rush Limbaugh?
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
FlyersFan10 said:
It's funny. If you go with the $40 million threshold, then multiply that by 30, you get 1.2 billion. 1.2 billion in salary divided by 2.1 billion in total revenue = 57.1% of the revenue. Now, if 20 of the teams are at a 40 million threshold and you have ten teams that are over by an average of 20 million, according to the luxury tax, at 70 cents per dollar, that works out to 14 million for tax. Multiply that by ten and you get 140 million to disperse as revenue sharing. Not a bad deal.

Dont be daft. How does this break the union?
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
eye said:
The problem is that the revenue will no longer be at over 2 billion. Less TV revenue than prvious CBA, lower ticket prices are anticipated, loss of corporate sponsorship, etc.

But it would work if revenues were to increase? I wonder what could be done to not have those revenues decrease.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->