Meeting Day Thread: 6/3

[Hoss]

It never fails to amuse me how some guy like Massager posts something of this kind with such AUTHORITY when he has ZERO ability to attest to its truthfulness.

You of course recognize these imperfections in posting on both side of the fence? Do you demand the same veracity of others in your camp? My belief is you don't value the ability of your own arguements ability to bring people to your line of thinking without ridicule. It's not enough to challenge Messenger's claims without sticking out your tongue?

 

[Morbo]

You of course recognize these imperfections in posting on both side of the fence? Do you demand the same veracity of others in your camp?

You are kidding, of course!

 

[GSC2k2*]

Okay, but when have these two groups ever done anything "by the book?"

Their whole negotiating process has been bass-ackwards from the beginning. I pointed out about 6 months ago that they should have started by agreeing on the smaller points and building a framework before getting to the big issues of caps and linkage - a common paractice in all types of negotiations. I was hollared down by everyone saying "if they can't agree on the cap then they can't agree on anything."

A big part of the problem from the beginning was not only BG and GB's dislike of each other - it's that they are both just really bad negotiators.

Well, if you believe any of what you just posted, you may want to post some credentials, because it displays a pretty profound lack of understanding and knowledge of principles for the process.

You were "hollared down" for a reason. Your supposition about "common practices" in negotiation is unfortunately incorrect.

As far as it being "by the book", in truth it fairly well is. In contract negotiations, there is a chance that people will stand on "principle" in spite of what seems to be in their best interests. When it is based on ideological motivations as Goodenow's postions seems to be, it is evidence of a lack of the necessary detachment. That is both poor negotiation tactics and poor judgment. In the PA's case, colossally poor judgment. If you think you have the leverage of elapsed time, waiting the other side out is a sound strategy, but it is based on the negotiator having exercised good judgment in assessing that leverage in the first place. This was te mistake that the PA made.

Bettman & co. have handled their end of things in a pretty professionally sound manner. Flawless? Probably not, although one never knows for sure what the goals were (i.e., break the union, cost Goodenow his job). But pretty sound.

As I said above, you appear to have no basis of knowledge or first-hand experience to judge negotiation tactics or strategies. I am judging only on the content of your post, nothing else.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

.

Bob McKenzie:

I have a question for you, even though you now accept linkage as part of a new Collective Bargaining agreement, I fail to see the necessity for players to become part owners and police the financial reporting of the board of governors.

Shouldn't the players be paid according to what their worth, and not have to worry about how much money Los Angeles or Buffalo are making in suite sales? It seems nonlogical to expect the players to become accountants in the owners business. Especially when they have little to no say in the financial operations and decisions of the NHL.

The linkage system will turn out to be far worse for fans than the previous agreement, which was great and extremely fan friendly, but I still don't understand the view that the players should become partners with owners when they dont have a say in how the business is run.

I realize that both basketball and football have similar systems to what the NHL and NHLPA are overviewing right now, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Looking at the 500k rookie cap rumor..

People are saying it does not make sense...

well.. it makes perfect sense...

NHL owners love it... PA members love it.. why? Well... you know what... if that rookie is making 500k vs. 800k, thats 300k more cap space that can be spent on older, current NHLPA members...


it makes perfect sense..

 

[Peter10]

I really wanna see how QOs work out. If they indeed make it 100% at a set number ($1m ?) it would really help. IMO the flaw with last CBAs QOs wasnt the 110% if the previous salary was below league avg, the problem is that they used all contracts to calculate the average salary. It would have been better if they had excluded all contracts that were signed by a UFA player. That played a huge part in inflating the salaries as i m quite sure the avg salary excluding UFA contracts would have been at least 300k less. It would have resulted in way more players qualified at 100% instead of 110%.
Of course it helped to have some stupid GMs qualifying everyone just for the sake of it. How Calgary could qualify Niedermayer at something like $1.8m a year is still beyond me.

However even with the old QO-Rules i think it wont be much of a problem under a CBA that includes a hard cap. It will force GMs to think twice who they qualify and who not so i can see why the NHL agreed to the PA proposal on this one. Same with arbitration.

 

[Wolfpack]

What makes them bad negotiators?

Well, first of all, their unwillingness to meet face-to-face earlier on in the process. No successful negotiations were ever conducted by sending threatening faxes back and forth. That is a poor negotiating tactic.

Other bad negotiating tactics by BOTH sides include: their unwillingness to consider arbitration, launching legal action against each other during the course of negotiations, slagging each other in the media, the fiasco surrounding bringing in Gretzky and Lemiuex...

I am sure others could add to this list.

These negotiations would be comic if they weren't so sad...

 

[GSC2k2*]

You of course recognize these imperfections in posting on both side of the fence? Do you demand the same veracity of others in your camp? My belief is you don't value the ability of your own arguements ability to bring people to your line of thinking without ridicule. It's not enough to challenge Messenger's claims without sticking out your tongue?

Fair enough. The standard is equally applicable on both sides of the fence.

And as far as ridiculing anybody, Massager brings it upon himself. I genuinely believe he thrives on it. I do converse by post with some pro-player guys here whos efforts - while misguided - are worthy of reasoned responses.

And, ridicule or not, the point remains. He shoudl provide tangible evidence of his kowledge of Goodenow's contractual terms or withdraw his post.

 

[Peter10]

Looking at the 500k rookie cap rumor..

People are saying it does not make sense...

well.. it makes perfect sense...

NHL owners love it... PA members love it.. why? Well... you know what... if that rookie is making 500k vs. 800k, thats 300k more cap space that can be spent on older, current NHLPA members...


it makes perfect sense..

I would bet that the 500k is the cap for incentives, with about 800k-850k as salary. As mentioned earlier the NHL would loose quite a few euros to the leagues there (or in my case here ). I m not sure the owners would like that as a lot of young stars who put / will put butts in the seats are from europe nowadays.

The NHL will have trouble enough to get them over even with a $1.2m rookie cap. The agreement with the IIHF has expiered and they will have to work out a new one which will settle transfer payments that NHL teams will have to give the home clubs of their youngs euro. Remember Ovechkins team was asking for something like $3m.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Fair enough. The standard is equally applicable on both sides of the fence.

And as far as ridiculing anybody, Massager brings it upon himself. I genuinely believe he thrives on it. I do converse by post with some pro-player guys here whos efforts - while misguided - are worthy of reasoned responses.

And, ridicule or not, the point remains. He shoudl provide tangible evidence of his kowledge of Goodenow's contractual terms or withdraw his post.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Sports/2004/09/15/629617.html

 

[WC Handy*]

Well, first of all, their unwillingness to meet face-to-face earlier on in the process. No successful negotiations were ever conducted by sending threatening faxes back and forth. That is a poor negotiating tactic.

Other bad negotiating tactics by BOTH sides include: their unwillingness to consider arbitration, launching legal action against each other during the course of negotiations, slagging each other in the media, the fiasco surrounding bringing in Gretzky and Lemiuex...

I am sure others could add to this list.

These negotiations would be comic if they weren't so sad...

How can you evaluate them as negotiators without knowing the result of the negotiations? If Bettman comes out of this with everything he wants, then you couldn't possibly call him a bad negotiator. Same goes for Goodenow.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

How can you evaluate them as negotiators without knowing the result of the negotiations? If Bettman comes out of this with everything he wants, then you couldn't possibly call him a bad negotiator. Same goes for Goodenow.

The question is was getting everything he wanted worth the damage that has potentially been done to the game? I guess we'll just have to wait and see. You and me and the people on this board will come back. But what about the casual fan?

 

[GSC2k2*]

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Sports/2004/09/15/629617.html

First of all, see my post above, where I expressly rejected any "proof" in the form of a newspaper story, UNLESS it was a quote from a PA spokesman or Goodenow himself.

Secondyl, even with respect to your supposed "prrof", i note :

"Goodenow, who is rumoured to be making $3 million" ...

Next.

Still waiting for the retraction.

 

[Slats432]

What makes them bad negotiators?

I can't believe that you can ask this question with a straight face.

 

[WC Handy*]

I can't believe that you can ask this question with a straight face.

How can you evaluate them as negotiators without knowing the result of the negotiations? If Bettman comes out of this with everything he wants, then you couldn't possibly call him a bad negotiator. Same goes for Goodenow.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

First of all, see my post above, where I expressly rejected any "proof" in the form of a newspaper story, UNLESS it was a quote from a PA spokesman or Goodenow himself.

Secondyl, even with respect to your supposed "prrof", i note :

"Goodenow, who is rumoured to be making $3 million" ...

Next.

Still waiting for the retraction.

What else do you? For Goodenow to post on these board and tell you so. Jeez

 

[GSC2k2*]

How can you evaluate them as negotiators without knowing the result of the negotiations? If Bettman comes out of this with everything he wants, then you couldn't possibly call him a bad negotiator. Same goes for Goodenow.

Well, you CAN negotiate them on skills. Someone can be a good or bad negotiator regardless of the result. In some negotiations, you are doomed to be the loser, based on the facts in place.

What the real problem is, is that this poster has no basis on which to judge either man's skills, as evidenced by the lack of perception in his post. Even with the evidence at hand, he does not know what is "good".

 

[GSC2k2*]

What else do you? For Goodenow to post on these board and tell you so. Jeez

See my post above. Goodenow's contract is private. No one knows. Certainly not Massager. If someone wants to post on that topic, they should not be posting it as a fact.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

See my post above. Goodenow's contract is private. No one knows. Certainly not Massager. If someone wants to post on that topic, they should not be posting it as a fact.

who's Massager? Or is it a sorry attempt at humor on your part??

 

[GSC2k2*]

who's Massager? Or is it a sorry attempt at humor on your part??

Draw your own conclusions.

Your views on humour are noted, and dismissed accordingly.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Draw your own conclusions.

Your views on humour are noted, and dismissed accordingly.

Maybe i suggest you read the TOS on this board.

 

[Comrie_fan]

Bob McKenzie 2 HPB =0

you can have a chance to beat him today mister McKenzie

 

[Slats432]

How can you evaluate them as negotiators without knowing the result of the negotiations? If Bettman comes out of this with everything he wants, then you couldn't possibly call him a bad negotiator. Same goes for Goodenow.

Negotiators get deals, not years off of work.

If either of these "leaders" were good negotiators we wouldn't be talking about this right now, it would have been over before the 2004-05 season.

I have maintained that with some creativity, this could have been solved.

One thing I learned early in business is that you never let your emotions or personalities influence business. Deadline negotiators need out strategies. Goodenow had none. I knew from day one that Bettman was serious. I knew that he would cancel a season to get a workable deal. I knew that ultimately a system would have been in place that provided...cost certainty.

Rather than negotiate, Bettman chose to invest in PR to gain public support. Bettman chose to ram a hard cap down the throats of people who are not likely to back down from a fight. Bettman chose totalitarianism over partnership. Bettman chose to look at his opponent to BEAT him and his strategy which was two years in the making has made his constituency's sport a small blip on the radar.

By not making a deal before last season, they both hurt the sport.

Good negotiators get deals done, bad negotiators don't.

 

[EroCaps]

How can you evaluate them as negotiators without knowing the result of the negotiations? If Bettman comes out of this with everything he wants, then you couldn't possibly call him a bad negotiator. Same goes for Goodenow.

Then maybe he was suggesting there's something wrong w/what Bettman "wants"?

The requisites as NHL commish and negotiator must include maintaining the success and integrity of the league. In the widespread view of the mass media, at the very least Bettman and/or the NHLPA failed at the latter. The NHL set a modern precedent for economic and collective bargaining failure did it not?

 

[LordHelmet]

First of all, see my post above, where I expressly rejected any "proof" in the form of a newspaper story, UNLESS it was a quote from a PA spokesman or Goodenow himself.

So if this is your standard by which you judge information? Then perhaps you would be so kind as to post a quote from a PA spokesman or from Goodenow that addresses the alleged split in the union ranks and imminent firing of Goodenow?

You've been preaching that as fact for several weeks now, therefore you must have a quote to base it on, correct?