NHL to increase urgency

Status
Not open for further replies.

X0ssbar

Guest
"Sportsnet has learned the league has isolated 13 dates over the next 3 weeks in an effort to bring the two sides to an agreement.

NHLPA Executive Director, Bob Goodnow made a brief stop at NHL headquarters in Manhattan on Thursday, but sources say little of substance was discussed.

No meeting dates have been confirmed, but the union has promised to get back to the NHL soon with its preferred schedule."

Link
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
For some reason I can't seem to find the crap article that says Goodenow is stalling and won't schedule any meetings on the Sportsnet website any more. They must have taken it off. Interesting.
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
gc2005 said:
For some reason I can't seem to find the crap article that says Goodenow is stalling and won't schedule any meetings on the Sportsnet website any more. They must have taken it off. Interesting.

Like I said yesterday, it was a floozy quote with nothing backing it up, it was BS. Eklund probably started it.
 

ColoradoHockeyFan

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
9,368
0
Denver area

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
ColoradoHockeyFan said:
Apparently, the PA has reluctantly agreed to meet, but specifics aren't given.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050422.wxnhlcba0422/BNStory/Sports/


Lets put this quote in as well on WHY the PA was reluctant

The NHLPA negotiators remain angry at how the last session ended this week. Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs sparked an exchange at the end of the meeting when he told NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow that the union's proposals would never work, unless the union agrees to cap player salaries at 54 per cent of what the league declares is its revenue.
 

ColoradoHockeyFan

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
9,368
0
Denver area
FLYLine4LIFE said:
Lets put this quote in as well on WHY the PA was reluctant
Here's some additional detail as well on the exchange between Jacobs and Goodenow (registration is required):

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/hockey/11456882.htm


A snappy retort followed by a stare-down. That was behind an angry exchange between Jeremy Jacobs, the Boston Bruins' owner, and Bob Goodenow, the NHL Players' Association executive director, which cast a shadow over Tuesday's labor talks in New York.
As Tuesday's meeting broke up, Goodenow suggested future meeting dates.

Jacobs called out to him, "Do we have an agreement that whatever we're doing, we're not paying more than 54 percent player cost?"

Goodenow, who at that point was talking about schedule dates, was taken aback.

"No, that is not what we're doing," he retorted. "That is a leaguewide cap, and we're not interested in doing that."

Goodenow again told Jacobs that the union's hybrid plan would allow each team to determine, within a specified range, what it would spend on payroll, without guaranteeing a strict percentage.

Jacobs, who favors a small salary cap, got angry.

"He gave Bob a stare-down," one witness said. "Bob doesn't like that."

Jacobs then reportedly said, "Well, I don't know if it will be productive for us to meet, then."

That remark caught everyone at the bargaining table by surprise, since both sides had agreed moments earlier to speed up the negotiations with a set schedule.

Tuesday night or Wednesday morning, someone from the league office - perhaps Bettman or Bill Daly, the NHL's executive vice president and chief legal counsel - apparently pointed out to Jacobs that the goal was to extend the negotiations, not abruptly end them.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
barnburner said:
A team by team cap is ridiculous. There is no way the nhl is going to buy that.

You don't know what the details are. Besides, the concept is the only one in the last year that hasn't been shot down yet by either side. The owners certainly could buy that, seeing as it might limit the amounts they need to share with the have-not teams.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
A 'stare down' contest? What is this, the third grade? Perhaps Jacobs is a Buffoon, most in Chicago seem to think so, but he is a minor negotiator for the Owners' team. Goodenow 'does not like that' and saw fit to stare him down back? The lead negotiator for the NHLPA? Is anyone but me :biglaugh: at that image? And :cry: at the same time?
 

jaws

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
128
0
Stittsvegas
Jaded-Fan said:
...Perhaps Jacobs is a Buffoon, most in Chicago seem to think so, but he is a minor negotiator for the Owners' team...

How do you figure? He's owned the Bruins since the 70s and has been one of the more powerful owners ever since. He, along with Snider and Wirtz have been apart of the league the longest, so how is it that all of a sudden he is now playing a minor role in the negotiations? Furthermore, I highly doubt that the NHL would disgard his experience and be able to keep him in a minor role. These guys are the heart of the owners, they run the ol'boys club, always have, and always will as long as their in the NHL.

Given the fact that Bettman has that 8 owner clause, having 3 hard liners with an extremely intimidating presence that allows them to pull a tone of weight with the rest of the owners is huge factor, one that should not be understated or overlooked.
 

Vic Rattlehead*

Guest
Jaded-Fan said:
A 'stare down' contest? What is this, the third grade? Perhaps Jacobs is a Buffoon, most in Chicago seem to think so, but he is a minor negotiator for the Owners' team. Goodenow 'does not like that' and saw fit to stare him down back? The lead negotiator for the NHLPA? Is anyone but me :biglaugh: at that image? And :cry: at the same time?

Wow, I must have missed it when Jacobs owned the Blackhawks. :sarcasm:
 

Mr Sakich

Registered User
Mar 8, 2002
9,641
1,279
Motel 35
vimeo.com
if the large market teams can be convinced to increase revenue sharing, than a team by team cap is feasable. Remeber, in business, it isn't what you make, it is what you keep. If the Maple Leafs can increase their profit by 20% by increasing revenue sharing and decreasing player salaries, then they may agree to this concept.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
jaws said:
How do you figure? He's owned the Bruins since the 70s and has been one of the more powerful owners ever since. He, along with Snider and Wirtz have been apart of the league the longest, so how is it that all of a sudden he is now playing a minor role in the negotiations? Furthermore, I highly doubt that the NHL would disgard his experience and be able to keep him in a minor role. These guys are the heart of the owners, they run the ol'boys club, always have, and always will as long as their in the NHL.

Given the fact that Bettman has that 8 owner clause, having 3 hard liners with an extremely intimidating presence that allows them to pull a tone of weight with the rest of the owners is huge factor, one that should not be understated or overlooked.


We are speaking degrees here. He is not on par with Goodenow, that would be Bettman. However bad it is to have Jacobs act like a third grader to have Goodenow act as childish in response may even be worse. But again, that is mere degrees, that both sides are having staring contests, pouting and saying they will not attend your stinkin' meetings, etc. etc, when we have already lost a season and seem to be on the verge of losing at least parts of number two certainly makes me laugh and cry . . . .and there is enough blame to go both ways if this report is accurate.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,153
Mr Sakich said:
if the large market teams can be convinced to increase revenue sharing, than a team by team cap is feasable. Remeber, in business, it isn't what you make, it is what you keep. If the Maple Leafs can increase their profit by 20% by increasing revenue sharing and decreasing player salaries, then they may agree to this concept.
While I agree that the NHL needs increased revenue sharing, I can't see how a team by team cap would work in terms of player movement. If my understanding is correct the team by team cap could still conceivably price a player out of certain markets...no?
 

X0ssbar

Guest
guymez said:
While I agree that the NHL needs increased revenue sharing, I can't see how a team by team cap would work in terms of player movement. If my understanding is correct the team by team cap could still conceivably price a player out of certain markets...no?

I didn't take it as a team by team cap per se.. There will just be a range for which all teams have to stay within.

This won't gurantee the league that no more than 54% of salaries will be paid out but if the league can adjust the salary range, add in a luxury tax to further deter spending and link the salary cap range to revenues they could get pretty darn close to that 54% mark IMO- its not "air tight" but close.

..and I think at this point, with all the damage that has been done, this a framework that has to move these negotiations forward.
 

jaws

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
128
0
Stittsvegas
Jaded-Fan said:
We are speaking degrees here. He is not on par with Goodenow, that would be Bettman. However bad it is to have Jacobs act like a third grader to have Goodenow act as childish in response may even be worse. But again, that is mere degrees, that both sides are having staring contests, pouting and saying they will not attend your stinkin' meetings, etc. etc, when we have already lost a season and seem to be on the verge of losing at least parts of number two certainly makes me laugh and cry . . . .and there is enough blame to go both ways if this report is accurate.

I disagree. Bettman works for the owners, what he does is what the owners want him to do. Sure, being the Commish gives him more power than previous league Presidents, but he is still under the owners control and if he does something the owners don't like, especially if the owners he pisses off are like Wirtz, Jacobs, and Snider, he's gone. These guys play a much bigger role in the talks than many people think.

Case in point, Ziegler was ousted because he disobeyed Wirtz during CBA talks with Goodenow. Wirtz wanted Ziegler to report to him everything that he discussed with Goodenow before making any decisions. He didn't, thus he was tossed. Check out Gil Stein's book Power Plays to learn more.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
jaws said:
I disagree. Bettman works for the owners, what he does is what the owners want him to do. Sure, being the Commish gives him more power than previous league Presidents, but he is still under the owners control and if he does something the owners don't like, especially if the owners he pisses off are like Wirtz, Jacobs, and Snider, he's gone. These guys play a much bigger role in the talks than many people think.

Case in point, Ziegler was ousted because he disobeyed Wirtz during CBA talks with Goodenow. Wirtz wanted Ziegler to report to him everything that he discussed with Goodenow before making any decisions. He didn't, thus he was tossed. Check out Gil Stein's book Power Plays to learn more.
Looks like Wirtz had Goodenow figured out pretty well.

That's why it helps to have snakes on your side because they can best tell who the snakes are on the other side.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Top Shelf said:
I didn't take it as a team by team cap per se.. There will just be a range for which all teams have to stay within.

Those quotes are unmistakable. Goodenow wants Toronto to be "capped" at $100 million, and Atlanta around $30 million. :shakehead
 

X0ssbar

Guest
PecaFan said:
Those quotes are unmistakable. Goodenow wants Toronto to be "capped" at $100 million, and Atlanta around $30 million. :shakehead

On yeah - I agree.. That is why the league has to set up the upper limit at what it can afford and of course this is where the next stumbling blocks in these negotiations will come from..

But as Bettman said - its down to dollar and cents now which is at least a step forward from the cap/no cap, linkage/no-linkage standoff we have been at the last several years.

If you think about it, when is the last time we've heard "philosophical differences" or "we aren't even speaking the same language" from these jokers.. We are still a fair amount of time away from an agreement but I do think there has been progress and they are inching closer.
 

ColoradoHockeyFan

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
9,368
0
Denver area
If they do settle on 13 dates over the next three weeks, that's a pretty good meeting schedule. That's more than every other day, even including weekends (and more than 4 out of 5 days if weekends are excluded). A heck of a lot more meetings for us to read about than we've been used to.
 

Donnie D

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
796
62
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Those quotes are unmistakable. Goodenow wants Toronto to be "capped" at $100 million, and Atlanta around $30 million. :shakehead

Can I see those quotes? I have always thought that the team cap is the same as the NFL, each team has a cap that is based on overall revenues rather than the league.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->