PA's turn to make an offer the NHL cannot refuse..

Status
Not open for further replies.

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
WC Handy said:
When did Bettman say teams would spend the full amount of the cap?

He didn't. And the fact that you have to make lies up to attack the guy says plenty about you.


why don't you go and read some bettman comments or watch bettman interview.. because he clearly said a cap is like a magnet, and that the league can't live with a 49 mill cap because 49*30=1.5 billion and that too much if everyone spent 49 mill, and it can happen because thats what caps do there a magnet...

then he went on to say that the earth is a magnet just like himself and whatever he says people kiss his ass... JUST LIKE A MAGNET PULLS IN PEOPLE :dunno: :biglaugh:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WC Handy*

Guest
What he said and his translation of what he said are two completely different things. What Bettman said is completely true... teams will migrate towards the cap even if it means losing money. All you have to do is look at the last 10 years to figure that out.

e-smack? wow. must be the big thing in junior high these days.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
WC Handy said:
When did Bettman say teams would spend the full amount of the cap?

He didn't. And the fact that you have to make lies up to attack the guy says plenty about you.

Okay, I'll play:

#1. Gary Bettman, Feb 15, 2005 in a letter to Bob Goodenow:

If every team spent to the $49 million level you have proposed, total player compensation would exceed what we spent last season and, assuming for discussion purposes, there was no damage to the game, our player compensation costs would exceed 75% of revenues. We cannot afford your proposal.

There you have it, if every team spends to the $49 million level. To even suggest that is preposterous, but Gary uses his shaky math skills to shoot down a union salary cap proposal.

#2. Gary Bettman, Feb 15, 2005, same letter:

Our offer of earlier today was a $75 million increase over the offer we made yesterday. I hope you will accept it, and that we can move forward and negotiate the myriad of other issues that need to be addressed.

Their offer that day was to increase the cap from $40 million to $42.5 million. The only way that is a $75 million increase is if each and every team was spending to the $40 million cap, and that they'll now spend to the $42.5 million cap. $2.5 million x 30 = $75 million. He's either saying every team will spend to the cap or he's lying his face off about their offer being a $75 million increase. You pick.

#3. Gary Bettman, Feb 16, 2005 press conference:

Secondly, if you look at the NBA, 27 teams are at or over the cap. If you look at the NFL with an $80 million cap, virtually all the teams are within a million dollars. A cap will act as a magnet, which is why it was important that there be linkage.

"A cap will act as a magnet". Plain as day.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Thunderstruck said:
Yes both sides knew this was going to be a giveback deal..
Okay then why are you so surprized at the results and questioning the fact that concessions are being made by the NHLPA. If we knew it was going to happen and its a self fulfilling prophecy where is the problem ?? Why ask questions that everyone knows the answer to ??

Thunderstruck said:
Which side has moved further from their starting point?.
Right .. Moving the most could also be view as making concessions or better yet negotiating in hopes of getting a deal done .. What is the other sides excuse ??

Had the other side moved, in any attempt to get a fair deal done then we might be watching the Stanley Cup playoffs right now...

Thunderstruck said:
Why did Bob take a starting point that far out in left field knowing that "this was going to be a giveback deal?".
You must be new to the concept of negotiating !!..

What did you expect the NHLPA to do start low give into to everything right off the bat and then slowly start adding things in their favour as things moved along basically like making each offer worse from before ??

I can see where you get that from though. That is the NHL tactic .. Start with a piss poor offer that can't possibly be accepted and call it your "BEST OFFER" and when your opponent will not accept it .. Cross off the words BEST and call it FINAL. Then really show them you mean buisness and cancel the season and refuse to pay them their guaranteed contracts, saving money hand over fist. Then slowly move in the opposite direction in hopes of meeting in the middle blaming your opponent for ALL the damage to the industry, and each time making your next offer lower then the previous one. When even an idiot would not accept this, ask that he be removed and the next idiot inserted in hopes he will.. keep repeating this process until you finally hit that "Sucker that is born every minute" and you get your new CBA..


Thunderstruck said:
Let's pretend that the PA first real offer in Dec was their real starting point. .
Why need to pretend ? .. Join us here in the real world ..

The NHLPA made an official offer to the NHL that could have been accepted or negotiated off of .. The NHL chose to take out the parts it liked and add them to their counter proposal, which was the same as its last.. (not uncommon to your own strategy I might add of filtering out one side of double sided quotes), to best serve your own purpose.


Thunderstruck said:
Which side has moved further from THAT starting point? .
Right .. Answer is obvious NHLPA has moved the most .. NHL has moved very little if anything .. So what is Goodenow doing wrong and Bettman doing so right then if the GOAL is to get a deal done ??


Thunderstruck said:
Pot/Kettle You not only are guilty of doing exactly the same thing, but will go to fantastic lengths to create scenario's where the PA has leverage and the owners will cave. .
You are fine it spin them anyway you want, whatever gets you through the day .. If the NHLPA hires Anti-trust lawyers in reports that say they are looking at challenging the CBA, or makes applications to get union status to prevent replacement players.

The owners caved in the last couple CBA negotiations and TWICE extended the old CBA in the past .. Who is to say 3rd time is not the charm and possible again. ??


Thunderstruck said:
Why is it that the owners keep holding fast and the players keep moving closer to the owners position?.
Simple Answer !!! Union busting .. No attempt at all at a deal on the NHL part .. Simply take a position pre-lockout, hold said position, refuse to give in on any concessions and hope the union and your opponent implodes .. Yup Union busting at its finest ..

Wonder how the NLRB will see it, if even a poster like yourself on a message board can recognize the NHL tactic it ?? Wonder if that is considered "Good Faith" bargaining. Time will tell.

Thunderstruck said:
Do you really want to pretend that Bob wasn't putting these scenario's forward because that was the feedback he was getting from some of the players and because he wanted them to take a long hard look at their situation?.
Options 1 & 2 .. Holding out for the best deal and/or hoping your opponent gives in are NHLPA players demands that they are expecting their leader Goodenow to do .. That's his job that they hired him for in the first place to get them the best deal possible, by whatever bargaining tools available to him.

Option 3 .. Fall on his Shield .. meaning resign rather then sign off on a deal he does not believe is in the best interest of the player he represents .. That is his own option and based on his principles .. Nothing to do with the players either.. He can freely chose that option without a majority player vote to remove him ..

Thunderstruck said:
All guesses up to this point, but it's blatantly clear where the smart money is going.
That was exactly my point all guesses on BOTH SIDES.. You're factoring out smart money again .. Until a deal is signed Both sides can make as many false promises and idle threats and empty concessions they like .. You still have no deal if the sides are $1 or $ 100 Mil apart.. Smart money is on don't count your chickens at this point IMO ..

Thunderstruck said:
Hope your around to perform the post-mortem when "one side gives in".
What post-mortem ?? When EITHER side gives in I win.. As a fan, when hockey returns and I get to watch my team .. Smart people would say post-mortem is now while the industry is in massive decline with possibly irreversible damage being done to the sport, and smeared through the media from BOTH sides..

One side giving in starts recovery and re-birth and the sport returning to the ice .. I would hardly call that Post-mortem ?

I'll leave the Post-mortem speeches to the Pro-owner supporters who yell to see their players return and then realize that this new CBA is not so great, and their favourite players are squeezed out of the game. That Bad GM contracts continue and with a cap it only forces a team to employ more gloried AHLers to compensate and fill out teams. As a result of that, the game itself suffers more on the ice by the weakened watered down product and the gap between the Stars and depth players increases. When a Star player is hurt and his Salary counts against the cap, suddenly the season is over for your team as they summon an AHLer to take his spot. This leads to more clutch and grab and trap systems as now the NHL has created 30 equal Nashville's in the new NHL. Only in NHL would you find a strategy that thnks its a good idea that taking down the strong succesful teams that drive the NHL industry in large markets, is the best way to GROW THE GAME. They can watch the Crosby's and Ovechin's play in Europe as that is where the better money is for entry level contracts. Then realize once and for all that a Hard Cap will not save franchises in non hockey markets and a CBA designed for them, will not better the game but make it worse in the long run.

Once the new CBA is in place Pro-PA supporters will be able to say .. I TOLD YOU SO .. for years to come should the NHL prevail in this battle .. and the results of the predictions of above come true ..
 
Last edited:

R0CKET

Registered User
Jul 2, 2004
320
0
joepeps said:
Thank you.. someone who thinks clearly... lol... I would understand how people believed Bettmans BS either... a team can't go from 20 mill.. to 49 cap when they could ahve went from 20 to 19083021983012938102 infinate .. without a cap.. does make sense just like Bettmans business skills... what school did he go to????

I went to the school of there will always be NHL Hockey in the US Jack.

Simply due to the fact (if for no other reason) that without these controls NHL Hockey will become much more scarce of a commodity in Canada.

I understand the business mechanics of cash flow and meeting a product that the customer both wants and can afford. You on the other hand appear to have attended the Karl Marx school of a socialized economic system whereby you seem to believe that these franchises are perpetually willing to carry a business in the red for ever so the boys can have their HNIC beer nights? Aint gonna happen.

I mean the F'ing PA is too paranoid to even look at the books?!!! Its almost like "refer-madness" (you might have to be a yank to get that one - sorry).

Sober up comrade, the system you are longing for will end not only great franchises in Canada but also more than a few Canadian boys jobs.
 

Wolfpack

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
1,036
0
Extending the last CBA has got to be about the worst idea I've seen here - and I've seen some bad ones.

Anybody remember the contract that JFJ signed McCabe to last summer? When criticised for overpaying McCabe, JFJ's response was "We've got the money, we'll spend it however we want."

Does that sound like someone who has learned his lesson? The time to reign-in the big spenders and force them to share some of their revenues with smaller markets has arrived. This is not about the owners screwing-over the players or vice-versa. This is about the health and viability of the league as a whole.

The last CBA was not condusive to that.

The big owners have to accept revenue sharing and deal with it. The small market teams have to accept a salary floor and deal with it. The players have to accept the fact that the days of $50 million team payrolls and 3rd liners getting $3 million is over... and deal with it.

I don't care how stiff the luxury taxes are, if anyone thinks the PA is going to come out of this with anything near a $52 million hard cap, it's time to wake up and smell the hockey bag.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
joepeps said:
Thank you.. someone who thinks clearly... lol... I would understand how people believed Bettmans BS either... a team can't go from 20 mill.. to 49 cap when they could ahve went from 20 to 19083021983012938102 infinate .. without a cap.. does make sense just like Bettmans business skills... what school did he go to????

Cornell and NYU.

Those who believe that what Bettman or Goodenow say is fact and/or the end-debate of any particular issue are pretty damn naive. Here's a hint; think for yourself.

It's not that tough to tell the two sides aren't giving us the whole picture, and what they do give us is quite slanted to their own particular views. Get past that and try to be objective about what is actually best for the league as a whole, and maybe we can end these pointless and uninformed pissing contests.

Just a suggestion.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
How many teams in the NBA are more than 3M below the cap?

How many teams in the NFL are more than 3M below the cap?
 

WC Handy*

Guest
gc2005 said:
Okay, I'll play:

#1. Gary Bettman, Feb 15, 2005 in a letter to Bob Goodenow:



There you have it, if every team spends to the $49 million level. To even suggest that is preposterous, but Gary uses his shaky math skills to shoot down a union salary cap proposal.

#2. Gary Bettman, Feb 15, 2005, same letter:



Their offer that day was to increase the cap from $40 million to $42.5 million. The only way that is a $75 million increase is if each and every team was spending to the $40 million cap, and that they'll now spend to the $42.5 million cap. $2.5 million x 30 = $75 million. He's either saying every team will spend to the cap or he's lying his face off about their offer being a $75 million increase. You pick.

#3. Gary Bettman, Feb 16, 2005 press conference:



"A cap will act as a magnet". Plain as day.

That's quite the leap. :clap:
 

WC Handy*

Guest
cw7 said:
Cornell and NYU.

Those who believe that what Bettman or Goodenow say is fact and/or the end-debate of any particular issue are pretty damn naive. Here's a hint; think for yourself.

It's not that tough to tell the two sides aren't giving us the whole picture, and what they do give us is quite slanted to their own particular views. Get past that and try to be objective about what is actually best for the league as a whole, and maybe we can end these pointless and uninformed pissing contests.

Just a suggestion.

Anyone who thinks for themselves is going to come to the same conclusion that the league NEEDS linkage and it NEEDS to reduce the payroll disparity to a level where all teams are on an even playing field.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Thunderstruck said:
How many teams in the NBA are more than 3M below the cap?

How many teams in the NFL are more than 3M below the cap?

How many teams in the NFL get no revenue sharing whatsoever?

Are you actually saying that it would be the same in the NHL? All teams would be at or damn close to the cap? Pittsburgh would double their payroll just 'cuz?
 

R0CKET

Registered User
Jul 2, 2004
320
0
cw7 said:
Cornell and NYU.

Those who believe that what Bettman or Goodenow say is fact and/or the end-debate of any particular issue are pretty damn naive. Here's a hint; think for yourself.

It's not that tough to tell the two sides aren't giving us the whole picture, and what they do give us is quite slanted to their own particular views. Get past that and try to be objective about what is actually best for the league as a whole, and maybe we can end these pointless and uninformed pissing contests.

Just a suggestion.

It is a great suggestion and I for one beleive that an offer not written is one not made.

That way we can decide for ourselves what to think.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
WC Handy said:
That's quite the leap. :clap:

That's quite the leap? Good lord, you accuse me of lying about Bettman's stance on the whole "all teams spend to the cap, cap acts as magnets" line of BS, I provided you three direct quotes from Bettman. That's not a leap, that's exactly what the guy said! This is becoming unbearable.
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
How many teams in the NBA are more than 3M below the cap?

How many teams in the NFL are more than 3M below the cap?


your comparing the NHL to the NFL where all the owners have money to spend and the NBA where it is the same thing...+
 

WC Handy*

Guest
gc2005 said:
That's quite the leap? Good lord, you accuse me of lying about Bettman's stance on the whole "all teams spend to the cap, cap acts as magnets" line of BS, I provided you three direct quotes from Bettman. That's not a leap, that's exactly what the guy said! This is becoming unbearable.

He said caps act like magnets. He didn't say that all teams would spend up to the cap.
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
WC Handy said:
He said caps act like magnets. He didn't say that all teams would spend up to the cap.


are you not reading this????
do I have to bold it???

If every team spent to the $49 million level you have proposed, total player compensation would exceed what we spent last season and, assuming for discussion purposes, there was no damage to the game, our player compensation costs would exceed 75% of revenues. We cannot afford your proposal. :teach:
 

WC Handy*

Guest
are you not reading this????
do I have to make it HUGE for you to read it???

If every team spent to the $49 million level you have proposed, total player compensation would exceed what we spent last season and, assuming for discussion purposes, there was no damage to the game, our player compensation costs would exceed 75% of revenues. We cannot afford your proposal.

:teach:
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
WC Handy said:
He said caps act like magnets. He didn't say that all teams would spend up to the cap.

Explain this then:

Our offer of earlier today was a $75 million increase over the offer we made yesterday. I hope you will accept it, and that we can move forward and negotiate the myriad of other issues that need to be addressed.

How is a $42.5 million salary cap a $75 million increase compared to a $40 million salary cap? I'll make it multiple choice:

(a) If and only if every team spends up to the maximum allowable limit of $42.5 million
(b) Gary is lying
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
WC Handy said:
are you not reading this????
do I have to make it HUGE for you to read it???

If every team spent to the $49 million level you have proposed, total player compensation would exceed what we spent last season and, assuming for discussion purposes, there was no damage to the game, our player compensation costs would exceed 75% of revenues. We cannot afford your proposal.

:teach:


AND OUR POINTS IS THAT HE IS SAYING IF EVERY TEAM SPENDS 49 MILL...

WHAT IF EVERY TEAM SPENDS 20 MIL??????
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
WC Handy said:
Anyone who thinks for themselves is going to come to the same conclusion that the league NEEDS linkage and it NEEDS to reduce the payroll disparity to a level where all teams are on an even playing field.

I agree.

I may differ with some about things like the ultimate end numbers, additional mechanisms within the new system, etc, etc (and etc, as their are several dozen more concerns that the CBA deals with). Personally, I might approach some issues a bit differently but I do basically agree with what you're saying.

I'm just thinking it's all conjecture though. We don't have even close to the kind of information we would need to come up with a workable system, and even if we did it might be beyond our skills to craft it. I know it would be for me at least, I'm the first to admit when something is beyond my skills and/or knowledge (makes it easier for me to then learn it).

But I guess we really don't have anything better to do now. I say bring on the insane theories and the blame game, at least it's worth a laugh from time to time ;)
 

WC Handy*

Guest
gc2005 said:
Explain this then:

How is a $42.5 million salary cap a $75 million increase compared to a $40 million salary cap? I'll make it multiple choice:

(a) If and only if every team spends up to the maximum allowable limit of $42.5 million
(b) Gary is lying

Funny... I could have sworn Bettman said....

Our offer of earlier today was a $75 million increase over the offer we made yesterday.

and not...

Our offer of earlier today was a $75 million increase in SALARIES over the offer we made yesterday.

Oh wait. He did. He was talking about a $75M increase in the cap, not in salaries. Man that was real tough to figure out.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
WC Handy said:
If every team spent to the $49 million level you have proposed, total player compensation would exceed what we spent last season and, assuming for discussion purposes, there was no damage to the game, our player compensation costs would exceed 75% of revenues. We cannot afford your proposal.

:teach:

Bettman is actually using the IF as his sole reason for rejecting the offer. The IF is never going to happen, but he still says the NHL CANNOT afford the proposal, not the NHL WOULD not be able to afford the proposal IF.... See the difference?
 

WC Handy*

Guest
gc2005 said:
Bettman is actually using the IF as his sole reason for rejecting the offer.

Really? That's his sole reason for rejecting the offer? Did he tell you this?

I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing the nearly $30M difference between the highest and lowest payroll under that proposal might have been a reason?

Might be going out on a limb again, but maybe the fact that smaller market teams would still be at a disadvantage under their proposal might have been a reason?

Just a thought...
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
WC Handy said:
Funny... I could have sworn Bettman said....



and not...



Oh wait. He did. He was talking about a $75M increase in the cap, not in salaries. Man that was real tough to figure out.

Now you're just being an ass. Goodenow had a better explanation, maybe this will knock some sense in to you:

Dear Gary,

This is in reply to your most recent letter.

1. Your claim that the Clubs “cannot afford†our proposal is based on your hypothetical fear of what would happen “if every team spent to the $49 million level the Players have proposedâ€. The notion that “every Club†will spend at the $49 million level is contradicted by years of actual payroll experience under the old CBA system and by Exhibit 12 of your December 14 document (attached for your recollection), in which you projected 24 teams well below the $49 million level after the rollback. Further, this experience is based on an environment without revenue sharing, taxes on team payrolls and the numerous new system restrictions.

2. Based on your own calculations from Exhibit 12, over 21 Clubs are spending significantly less than your team payroll limit number of $42.5 million. I am at a loss to understand how you suggest your offer earlier today represents a $75 million dollar increase when it only impacts the spending of nine teams!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->