Report: Goodenow still firm against cap

[Brewleaguer]

Report: Goodenow still firm against cap
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=113573&hubName=


get the fork ready.

Stand pat Bob, don't blindly give them what they want until Buttman opens ALL the books!

 

[Jussi]

According to the link Goodenow will work on the players offer from December 9th. If he offers the owners a smaller roll back but with very high luxury tax percentages and the owners exept it, do you guys think that the fans have been screwed?

 

[Brodeur]

Yzerman is as stupid as the other to say that they did that for the future generation !!! my ASS !!!

In defense of Yzerman, guys like Modano have publically stated that they are eternally grateful towards the veterans who dealt with the 1994 lockout. Thanks to guys like Mike Gartner, Steve Larmer, Joe Mullen, etc who risked losing a season in the twilight of their careers, the younger guys like Modano, Sakic, Forsberg, Lindros, Jagr, etc were able to cash in huge.

I'm not rooting for the players at all, but I can understand the mentality of "The veterans did this for the young stars 10 years ago, now I'm the veteran."

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

I guess im just sick of people personally attacking players especially ones on their favourite teams who they would still like if the lockout never began and will like them after the lockout ends. As you may already know Im more on the players side than the owners but that doesnt mean I HATE the owners for their stance on the lockout. The only owner that I actually really dont like and spoken out on was Bill Wirtz cause I think he just sucks in general. When this is over I wont have any ill will towards the owners even though I do not agree with them at all. It just seems people who have ill will now will suddenly lose that once the lockouts over.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

Goodenow against the cap?! Good thing we have this report I would have never guessed it.

 

[krandor]

Unfortunatly, that happens in lockouts and strikes that people will dislike players they used to like. I remember after the baseball strike when Tom Glavine pitched his first game afterwards he got booed by the fans in Atlanta. Just goes with the territory.

 

[GKJ]

I have no doubts that when all is said and done, both sides will be looking for new leadership. Goodenow will be fired and Bettman will get a nice buyout and retire somewhere in the Hamptons.

 

[mooseOAK*]

C'mon, Bob. No need for the continued posturing. Put aside your ego and make the deal that will give your players a 1.5 million annual salary and get hockey going. We promise not to think that you are a sissy for doing so.

 

[snakepliskin]

it is a stretch to have any sympathy for players that took advantage of a great deal that has almost broke the league and that will not show any sympathy toward the owners and fans who filled in their check blanks the last 10 yrs. if the league had made a significant profit the last few years i would be mad as heck at both sides but whether you take the levitt report or the forbes report it is still losses that amount to enough that it should have shut down operations before now--millionaire players are holding canada's game hostage even though the game provided them with millions-there is no hockey because they have no gratitude towards the owners or the fans-bring on replacements

 

[Luongownage]

Stop the charade and just cancel the season. There are just too many differences for there to be something worth working out, and Goodenow dumping this crap out is just evidence of that fact. Why do both sides continue to torment and torture its loyal and hardcore fans with this sort of garbage.

I have really hit a new low with my optimism of this CBA and the NHL in general.

 

[Greschner4]

Report: Goodenow still firm against cap
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=113573&hubName=


get the fork ready.

Interesting that since the profit sharing makes the NHL offer not a salary cap, Goodenow doesn't have a salary cap to rail against. So now he's upset with the "cap world" of Bettman -- whatever that is.

Give it up, Bob, it's over.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Interesting that since the profit sharing makes the NHL offer not a salary cap, Goodenow doesn't have a salary cap to rail against. So now he's upset with the "cap world" of Bettman -- whatever that is.

Give it up, Bob, it's over.

Wanna explain that big profit sharing again, and how that's a big boon to the players.

Even if it's 50/50 over $100 million profit, and somehow the NHL reported making a $200 million profit, the NHL players would on average see an extra $71,000.

Somehow I don't see that extra $71,000 meaning all that much.

 

[jcab2000]

In defense of Yzerman, guys like Modano have publically stated that they are eternally grateful towards the veterans who dealt with the 1994 lockout. Thanks to guys like Mike Gartner, Steve Larmer, Joe Mullen, etc who risked losing a season in the twilight of their careers, the younger guys like Modano, Sakic, Forsberg, Lindros, Jagr, etc were able to cash in huge.

I'm not rooting for the players at all, but I can understand the mentality of "The veterans did this for the young stars 10 years ago, now I'm the veteran."

And yet significantly chopping rookie salaries was the first thing the NHLPA offered. What nice guys.

 

[Lou is God]

He has to beat the hard cap or he's toast and he knows this, no way will he ever come out for it.

 

[Greschner4]

Wanna explain that big profit sharing again, and how that's a big boon to the players.

Even if it's 50/50 over $100 million profit, and somehow the NHL reported making a $200 million profit, the NHL players would on average see an extra $71,000.

Somehow I don't see that extra $71,000 meaning all that much.

I'm not sure why you limit it to $200 million or less than $7 million per team when it could be much higher. Nor is $71K a tiny number; it's a 10% bonus for someone making $710K, which a ton of players make less than.

That aside, the philosophical point is that when you start throwing in a profit sharing component of an undefined size, your salaries are no longer "capped", nor are they a defined percentage of revenue. You're saying it's not enough money, fine, I don't necessarily disagree. But once you accept my idea, we're just negotiating dollars and we can make a deal.

But to simply reiterate the ridiculous, worn out claim that "we're against a salary cap" -- and that's all we're hearing from Goodenow and Saskin -- when salaries won't be capped is ridiculous and doesn't even address what's been offered.

 

[Greschner4]

And yet significantly chopping rookie salaries was the first thing the NHLPA offered. What nice guys.

They've acted like complete frauds and hypocrites almost the whole time, which is why large majorities of fans are completely against them.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

They've acted like complete frauds and hypocrites almost the whole time, which is why large majorities of fans are completely against them.

That's now why.

The large majority of fans are against the players for the following reasons

#1. They root for a team that doesn't spend a sginificant amount of money, and think this will give their team a better chance to win

and/or

#2. Most people here have actually played hockey at one time or another, and would much rather be playing hockey for a living that whatever it is they currently do. Therefore players should be greatful and willing to play this game for $50,000 a year.

 

[snakepliskin]

And yet significantly chopping rookie salaries was the first thing the NHLPA offered. What nice guys.

more evidence as to who the nhlpa leadership is really looking out for-the HAVES not the HAVENOTS

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I'm not sure why you limit it to $200 million or less than $7 million per team when it could be much higher. Nor is $71K a tiny number; it's a 10% bonus for someone making $710K, which a ton of players make less than. .

Well when owners claim to hae lost $200+ million dollars, a half a billion turn around wouldn't be something I'd be counting on to make me a few extra $$$.

I'm also guessing that if the players were to get the $50 million extra in profit sharing that it would be divied up according to a percentage based on players current salary (i.e. Roenick would get a bigger cut than Knuble).

If that was the case, a player making $710K might see an extra 25,000.

 

[CarlRacki]

That's now why.

The large majority of fans are against the players for the following reasons

#1. They root for a team that doesn't spend a sginificant amount of money, and think this will give their team a better chance to win

and/or

#2. Most people here have actually played hockey at one time or another, and would much rather be playing hockey for a living that whatever it is they currently do. Therefore players should be greatful and willing to play this game for $50,000 a year.

and/or
#3 Believe any business, including a professional sports league, cannot be healthy whe it is losing at a minimum $95+ million annually and seeing several of its franchises' values declining.

and/or
#4 Fear that without a new system in place, the NHL will soon start looking even more like MLB where fans of 2/3 of the franchises know by February whether their team can contend for a title.

 

[jcab2000]

That's now why.

The large majority of fans are against the players for the following reasons

#1. They root for a team that doesn't spend a sginificant amount of money, and think this will give their team a better chance to win

and/or

#2. Most people here have actually played hockey at one time or another, and would much rather be playing hockey for a living that whatever it is they currently do. Therefore players should be greatful and willing to play this game for $50,000 a year.

Or #3. Most people cannot and should not be able to relate to people who aren't satisfied with making more in a year than they'll make in their lifetime, solely thanks to the willingness of the fans to pay ridiculous ticket prices to finance their salaries.

 

[Greschner4]

Well when owners claim to hae lost $200+ million dollars, a half a billion turn around wouldn't be something I'd be counting on to make me a few extra $$$.

I'm also guessing that if the players were to get the $50 million extra in profit sharing that it would be divied up according to a percentage based on players current salary (i.e. Roenick would get a bigger cut than Knuble).

If that was the case, a player making $710K might see an extra 25,000.

Probably, but you overstate the first point, because every dollar of expense savings from the cap is going to be a dollar of new profit that could be shared. Moreover, if the union wants to divvy it up that way, it's their decision, but they'd just be divvying it up in the same proportion that the market did. Fact is, we don't know how they'd divide it.

So can I assume I have your agreement that the profit sharing means salaries aren't "capped"? Or did you just have to go do something else before you could get around to gettting to that part?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Or #3. Most people cannot and should not be able to relate to people who aren't satisfied with making more in a year than they'll make in their lifetime, solely thanks to the willingness of the fans to pay ridiculous ticket prices to finance their salaries.

So you're saying that people can relate much more to people like Jeremey Jacobs, Bill Wirtz, Cablevision, Comcast, and Mike Illitch ??? ... doubtful.

 

[ScottyBowman]

Or #3. Most people cannot and should not be able to relate to people who aren't satisfied with making more in a year than they'll make in their lifetime, solely thanks to the willingness of the fans to pay ridiculous ticket prices to finance their salaries.

LOL. You are one of the pro-owner suckers who thinks that ticket prices will fall. Take an econ class and learn about supply and demand.

 

[jcab2000]

So you're saying that people can relate much more to people like Jeremey Jacobs, Bill Wirtz, Cablevision, Comcast, and Mike Illitch ??? ... doubtful.

No. Then again, we don't really complain that business owners make too much money in the real world and we don't expect the owners of the companies we work for to lose money so they can pay us more.