Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Spungo*, Jun 26, 2005.
How is it worse?
it doesn't matter. there will be no agreement until august or september, with the season starting in january.
BANK ON IT
When're the olympic's? February or so?? Might as well use that as a training camp time since the players are so adamant about playing in Italy. Then have a quick 24 game season starting in March & A stanley cup playoffs from April till July!!
24 game season after a cancelled one ... 24% rollback on what's left ... who needs buyouts??? Well other then maybe the Islanders!!!
If what's rumoured is all based on a projection of revenue for 05-06, than it's not worse.
If what's rumoured is based on $2.1B in revenues, meaning the cap might never even get to $36-$38M during this CBA and will be low 30's for the first couple of years, than it is worse. If this were the case, the cap would be so low over the next 6 years that all the other things the players gained over the February offer wouldn't even have a chance to have much of an affect.
What part of Roenick's comments didn't you understand? How about Jagr's? The players got boned. It's time to fold your tent and move along. You got pantsed, accept it. Its painful to watch someone standing there with their little winkie hanging out while they try and explain how cold out it is instead of just pulling their pants back up.
Ted Saskin made and intriguing remark on Friday in response to Mario Lemieux's "the players should have taken the deal earlier" ..
" Perhaps he should wait to see the new CBA before making a comment like that, or jumping to any conclusions " Saskin said
Maybe the players got free beer in the new CBA? I'd trade a quarter of a billion dollars towards my union for a free keg of beer.
By the way, I'm Homer Simpson. Nice to meet you.
You mean Ted Saskin is defending his failed strategy and refusing to concede that his employers might be worse off having rejected the February deal?
Stunning news. You'd think for sure he'd say "Yeah, we got hosed."
I don't think a lot of knowledgeable people around here put too much weight into what a poster on a message board has to say. They are free to post as they like ..
I find that the people in the know as in Saskin here would have far more insight and credibility in regards to knowledge on the subject matter being in the room after all.
but prepare yourself for ..anti don't shoot the Messenger type reply's that takes the focus off the real issues in 3 .. 2... 1 ..
You are most certainly correct, but not in the way you probably imagine ...
Sure, Saskin is in the know much more than I or anyone else here is . . . including Eklund . . .
But credibility? His self interest would make any take on this or any similar issue somewhat suspect wouldn't it? And before I hear it, sure enough Mario and everyone here, including you has self interest. Though I have opinions on who makes more sense in their opinions, I was not addressing that or comparing one persons credibilty to anothers though, merely the above.
We are only 5 days away from July 1. I'll be sure to come back to laugh in your face that day. Then I'll be back July 4 to laugh in your face again, then July 15 to do it one more time. On August 1, when there is *still* no deal, I want my formal apology.
And at least quote me correctly. I never said that if a deal is reached in August or September, they would start the season in January.
Or maybe Teddy was just trying to dodge a bullet? You have multiple players coming out and saying what a stupid move it was not to take the February deal now that they are starting to get some idea of what they are about to accept, but they are wrong and Sakin's is right? Lemieux, who is on both sides of the fence, would likely have a pretty good idea what was coming down the pipe, so I think Saskins is in nothing but damage control at this point. In Saskins, there's a guy that's in the unemployment line when this thing is over, come hell or high water. He betrayed Goodenow and he failed the players miserably. He could be done with the PA no matter which way this goes. He's playing for his job right now and has top say all the right things. He'll be spinning quicker than The Messenger (if that is at all possible) when it comes to explaining the new CBA.
I don't think credibility is the word you are looking for imo .. I used it in the form of message board poster verses actual CBA negotiator ..
In the context of Lemieux verses Saskin though both professionals in this context it would come down to knowledge on the subject verses lack of knowledge to form an opinion ..
That's just the nature of the beast here ..
How can someone claim the old offer is better when NO ONE knows what the new offer is in comparison? .. However Saskin in this case has far more actual facts then anyone outside of the bargaining process would have to be able to make a better educated guess perhaps while I understand your point that both have an implied conflict on interest issue or bias if you prefer.
Let me ask you this ..
Had the players accepted the Final offer as Mario claims they should have .. Would your Pens have been at the Hard Cap max and spent the $42.5 mil ? Keeping in mind according to Forbes that the Pens spent $32 mil on players with NO CAP and still lost money in the process .. ??
Even if the Pens spent the exact same again (generous assumption considering the lockout will have an effect on league revenue) as last year $32 mil that is still with in the range of the current CBA rumours of a $36-38 mil ceiling??
So what difference does that make to the NHLPA in that regard if spending is the same in the New Current offer and Old Final offer or even old CBA if you prefer.. At best its a wash as there is no difference in spending regardless of CBA for your team.. $32 million is still $32 million spent on player wages , and same number of players on a team 23 to split that amount ..
How many other teams do you think would be similar to Pittsburgh ??
what do you expect him to say?
"well, we gave it the ol' college try...but...let's face facts here, we really took it on the chin"
Regardless of what's signed, it's going to be worse than agreeing to a CBA back in February simply because the players lost over $1B since then (plus fans, etc). The only better deal would be one where players will receive over $1B more in what they're going to sign than the February deal. And if you think this is going to happen...
Exactly... who are you going to believe, the cough medicine manufacturer who says it tastes good, or the kids who say it tastes bad.
For those who are metaphorically challenged:
medicine = CBA
Manufacturer = NHLPA negotiation team (aka Saskin, BG, etc)
Kids = players (JR, JJ)
taste = good or bad for the "kids"
Saskin in fact was not obligated to say anything on the subject.
However he chose to express his opinion and address Lemieux's comment, when we all fully know it would likely be viewed as you have that he is biased on the subject.
Saying nothing would have been the same result as you concluded.
Also in regards to Lemieux's comment in the first place.
What does the perceived rubbing salt in the wound to the players comment, and possibly getting them angry serve in the process of a negotiation that seems to be moving along towards completion??
Lemieux himself should have remained under the gag order and perhaps said nothing as that would have been better perhaps.
After reading all of Roenick's comments in that article I actually didn't understand any of it. He's mad the players lost and he's mad that the players didn't follow him and the couple other guys who tried to go behind Goodenow's back and make a deal. Most of what he said was pretty stupid.
Like I said, if it's on projected revenues for 05-06 than they did not get boned between February and now. If it's on projected revenues for 05-06 than this deal is better than the $42.5M offer.
If you'll notice the title of the thread, maybe you'll realize that it has nothing to do with who won and lost, it's simply Feb vs. today. If you would compare the two, at least what's been reported, you'll realize the players didn't get boned.
Players are saying they got boned, owners are saying the players got boned, but nyr7andcounting says they didn't get boned, so THAT SETTLES IT!
Nonsense. Saskin's position is political; he doesn't dare let a slap in the face like Lemieux's go unchallenged. That isn't even worth discussing.
How can you say who boned who based on revenues we don't know about yet. I'm not convinced the NHL of 2005 will be all that less successful than the NHL of 2003. I'm still waiting for some answers as to why this new deal is worse for the players than the Feb deal, aside from losing half a years salary.
Isn't arbitration, free agency, etc. better for the players in this new deal as opposed to the feb deal?
You often refer to that, but I don't quite understand. If the players get a set % of revenues, what's the link with the projected revenues or what not?
Unless the players receive a higher percentage than will compensate for the $1B+ lost by refusing a february offer (and unless that percentage couldn't have been negociated back then), I don't see how they could "win"???