Smokescreen exposed

[SENSible1*]

If you accept everything the union says will result from their proposal, the players will receive 56.6 per cent of our revenues on Day 1 of a new agreement. To repeat, the players' proposal translates to 56.6 pe cent. We countered at 54 per cent . . . So if we cannot make an agreement with such a modest gap to bridge, it must be because the union does not believe that the system will reduce costs to the 56.6 per cent level and keep them there. And the result - perhaps the union's hope - will be the resumption of the inflationary spiral...


If the union does not come forward now, it proves that the union leadership knows full well that under the union's proposal, the fundamental failures of our current system will not change and we will be right back where we were in, at best, a couple of years...

This is the exact point where Bettman nails the PA's ass to the wall. He takes their obvious PR proposal and throws it right back in their faces.

Marvelous stuff.

TSN-Bettman's speech

I know that Gary has the far better hand, but frankly I'm amazed how badly he's kicking Bob's ass.

Click to read more...

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

This is the exact point where Bettman nails the PA's ass to the wall. He takes their obvious PR proposal and throws it right back in their faces.

Marvelous stuff.

TSN-Bettman's speech

I know that Gary has the far better hand, but frankly I'm amazed how badly he's kicking Bob's ass.

i understand your spin, but if the market inflates again isnt it because it is supposed to ?

i also agree GB is kicking BG's ass, but thats because GB has nothing to lose and is backed by a group of the richest people in the world. they can afford to take hardline stance.

dr

 

[kerrly]

I have said this exact same thing for a while here. I was seriously comsidering writing Bettman and telling him to include this in one of his speeches. I was literally giving him a fist pump when I heard him include it in his opening comments, because it exposes Goodenow's master plan.

Goodenow doesn't want a cap, a stiff luxury tax, or cost-certainty, because he knows that it will completely limit the chance for the players to get back the money they have offered to roll-back. I agree that this shows that Goodenow is well aware that the players will gain this money back. If he fully expects that the owners and gms will spend responsibly, and then salaries will cease to escalate at such a rapid pace, why won't he put one of these systems in place to prevent it. Goodenow knows exactly what he's doing, and I'm beginning to not believe a word he says.

 

[SENSible1*]

i understand your spin, but if the market inflates again isnt it because it is supposed to ?

Supposed to? Hmmm....In a free market all salaries would drop. Under the old inflationary CBA and the artificial market it creates, then it certainly would inflate again. Goodenow was counting on it.

i also agree GB is kicking BG's ass, but thats because GB has nothing to lose and is backed by a group of the richest people in the world. they can afford to take hardline stance.

dr

Even given the hands each is dealt, Bob is fumbling big time. His ego and past successes are getting in the way of doing what is best for his membership. Hopefully, he'll take a large slice of humble pie and tell the players to pinch their noses and take the medicine before he costs the players too much more of their money.

 

[struckmatch]

Bob Goodenow got schooled by Gary Bettman. This was such a great point, and will finally prove that if the NHLPA's offer was legitimate, then there is a deal to be made with cost certainty.

Wow, Bob got owned.

 

[Atlas]

Goodenow knows exactly what he's doing, and I'm beginning to not believe a word he says.

I'm with ya here. The fact is that the players bludgeoned the owners on the last CBA agreement. Manna from heaven was raining down on Goodenow and the players as they signed the last one. That CBA will not work anymore. The NHL is broken like an old Chevy and Mr. Goodwrench better fix this sucker soon or the players are gonna lose a lot more salary than what they already have. Olie Kolzig has lost something like 3 MILLION dollars so far. Unbelievable!

Goodenow's job description is to suck every last penny out of system without regard for the health of the game itself. He's very good at it. And there are owners who are just as slimy as he. We can only hope the better minds prevail this time.

 

[quat]

This is the exact point where Bettman nails the PA's ass to the wall. He takes their obvious PR proposal and throws it right back in their faces.

Marvelous stuff.

TSN-Bettman's speech

I know that Gary has the far better hand, but frankly I'm amazed how badly he's kicking Bob's ass.

I was hoping we would hear a response that actually addressed this point, but not suprisingly... no.

No, it's all got to be about fake numbers and they aren't negotiating our proposal. Well Bob... your proposal didn't include much of anything the NHL has said was most important.

The one comment that Goodenow made that really suprised me was the one about how they came up with the 24% figure.

Bettman had pointed out that because they had come up with 24%, the PA must agree with Levitt and the leagues figures for losses.

But no.

Wasn't it something like " we didn't use any math or financial figures to come up with that number "

WTF ?! It would seem like basing things like that some kind of rational concideration of losses would be extremely important... but not for Bob. I would have to imagine there are some players out there starting to really sweat after a comment like that. It just didn't make a single bit of sense what so ever.

 

[Ola]

Can´t you see the diffrence for the players if they play in a league with a hard cap where all teams basically have the same salary budget?

Can you explain to me what offer will work if the people who are in charge and run the buiz don´t want it to work?

There are no proof that a league where all teams have the same salary won´t be a disaster for the players. Will 3-4 players on each team be extremly highliy paid while the rest gets around 900k to 1200k? Where have Bettman showed that this won´t be the case?

Bettman has a teribble terribble record in the league.

 

[Whakahere]

It has become clear what the NHL has done hasn't it. with their current offer they are cutting the top salaries. Now that is where most of the money is lost to the owners. The top salaries drive up the middle salaries .. which in turn drive up the bottom salaries. Buy doing this it limits what top guys makes.

oh, I should meantion that it is a huge PR hit to the union as well. If they say that everyone should be taxed the same then they are not looking after the main body of their members but only the rich. The union has made a mistake with the 24% rollback and are being taken for a ride now.

The union now knows it is going down, so they will fight to hold on as long as they can. basicly hockey is lost for this season.

I am disapointed with the NHL though. A salary cap is not the way to go to make the league stroinger. they could have had a very heavy tax and built the league with the players but they have just made things worse by stucking to the cap (that is only to drive up the value of each team). They should have offered a real hard tax with other things that they wanted also. but instead we are just going to watch hockey die.

I am so unhappy with the owners and the union (not the players ... they are doing what they are told to do). This league could have worked if some people thought about the sport and the money ... not just how much money can they get in their on pockets.

 

[Pepper]

Bettman really nailed it well there and the fact that PA was dead silent in response, speaks volumes.

Yesterday's session only confirmed my view that owners are really on top and players are going to crumble sooner or later.

 

[dunwoody_joe]

I will add that simple economics put the league in the driver's seat.

The league and franchises have enduring value and can financially tolerate a shutdown for an extended period.

Players are wasting assets and their careers are time limited. A loss of a whole year's salary (and maybe more) can be financially devestating to a player and should not be tolerated for long. The NHLPA must know that today's players are taking a disproportionate hit.

Father time has not taken the year off!

 

[quat]

Can´t you see the diffrence for the players if they play in a league with a hard cap where all teams basically have the same salary budget?

Can you explain to me what offer will work if the people who are in charge and run the buiz don´t want it to work?

There are no proof that a league where all teams have the same salary won´t be a disaster for the players. Will 3-4 players on each team be extremly highliy paid while the rest gets around 900k to 1200k? Where have Bettman showed that this won´t be the case?

Bettman has a teribble terribble record in the league.

For who? The players sallaries have risen faster and higher since he was brought in. They've done extremely well under Bettman's tenure... unless you think they would have done even better under someone else? Like the money they've made to date was lower than it should have been?

Players were treated badly or unfairly under Bettman?

Some of you guys make it sound like the players would be virtual slaves or something.

Fact is, they are willing to take a pay cut to a level the league is asking, but they aren't willing to maintain that percentage of revenue... and I don't understand why they're not. This is a reasonable and equitable point from which to bargain from. Other than several of the top earners in the league, pretty much everyone stays the same... and the top earners will still bring in a salary comensurate to the value of the revenues of the league. NOT accepting this reality, well, it's hard not too see it as self destructive.

Bob Goodenow does not seem to be standing on very firm ground.

 

[Ola]

For who? The players sallaries have risen faster and higher since he was brought in. They've done extremely well under Bettman's tenure... unless you think they would have done even better under someone else? Like the money they've made to date was lower than it should have been?

Players were treated badly or unfairly under Bettman?

Some of you guys make it sound like the players would be virtual slaves or something.

Fact is, they are willing to take a pay cut to a level the league is asking, but they aren't willing to maintain that percentage of revenue... and I don't understand why they're not. This is a reasonable and equitable point from which to bargain from. Other than several of the top earners in the league, pretty much everyone stays the same... and the top earners will still bring in a salary comensurate to the value of the revenues of the league. NOT accepting this reality, well, it's hard not too see it as self destructive.

Bob Goodenow does not seem to be standing on very firm ground.

(Bettman has a terrible record) For who? The entire league. The league has a revenue growth of 3% for chirst sake. The NHL is in this mess because previous labor agreements Bettman has made. The NHL is in this mess because Bettman has put teams in citys that can´t support them. The NHL is in this mess because the product has gotten worse, and Bettman haven´t been able to fix it.

Sure the players have made allot of money. The GM´s and virutally all people in the buiz´ have made tons of money. Why? Because the NHL has been and is in a very strong US market. They have lost gound there and the last 3-4 years things have gotten out of hand however. But now Bettman is risking the entire US market to support some of the small market teams he has created. If you think that things are bad now comeback to me in 14 month when they are back on the ice. All Bettman have to do save teams from gooing under is to forbid them from spending over their revenues. Although I think everyone agrees with that its good for the league to have some sort of competetive balance what Bettman is offering the PA right now is insane...

All this to give the league competetive balance and give the small market Canadian teams the exact same conditions to compete as anyone else. A league like that with completly even competetive balance between big and small citys are unheard of in all sports. Its unbelivable the support this guy gets in Canada. Give him a standing ovation!!!

 

[GKJ]

This is the exact point where Bettman nails the PA's ass to the wall. He takes their obvious PR proposal and throws it right back in their faces.

Marvelous stuff.

TSN-Bettman's speech

I know that Gary has the far better hand, but frankly I'm amazed how badly he's kicking Bob's ass.

If the gap is so modest why can't the owners just conform the extra 2% They're the ones with more money than the players to start with. Try again.

 

[SENSible1*]

If the gap is so modest why can't the owners just conform the extra 2% They're the ones with more money than the players to start with. Try again.

Actually, I'm sure the owners would gladly give up the extra %2 to get a cap.

Try again, but this time give it a little more thought.

 

[GKJ]

Actually, I'm sure the owners would gladly give up the extra %2 to get a cap.

Try again, but this time give it a little more thought.

Why would they need a cap when they can just not overpay players. Everyone thinks this league needs a salary cap, what they really need are people who know what the hell they're doing. The market value is set by the people who dole out the money, not by a salary cap. All that says is that there are 30 people who don't know how to run a business properly.

And it is totally lame to use my own catch phrases against the person who uses them so just don't do it, it's not cool.

 

[Pepper]

Why would they need a cap when they can just not overpay players. Everyone thinks this league needs a salary cap, what they really need are people who know what the hell they're doing. The market value is set by the people who dole out the money, not by a salary cap. All that says is that there are 30 people who don't know how to run a business properly.

And it is totally lame to use my own catch phrases against the person who uses them so just don't do it, it's not cool.

That is so naive from you...There are owners who don't have to worry about budgets so with PA's proposal they can still keep spending and win Cups, Ilitch is a great example of that.

The way he spends money affects all other GMs and THAT's where the problem is.

Frankly I'm absolutely stunnded that posters that I thought are rational & sensible STILL fail to get this point.

All this crap about owners having to control themselves is naive crap, they will continue to waste maximum amount of money available unless there's a system which prevents it.

No offense to anyone but you really need to wake up.

 

[eye]

Why would they need a cap when they can just not overpay players. Everyone thinks this league needs a salary cap, what they really need are people who know what the hell they're doing. The market value is set by the people who dole out the money, not by a salary cap. All that says is that there are 30 people who don't know how to run a business properly.

And it is totally lame to use my own catch phrases against the person who uses them so just don't do it, it's not cool.

Did you ever hear the expression about learning from history - "history has a way of repeating itself". Goodenow was banking on it with his 24% pull a number out of a hat offer. Didn't you find it funny that Bob couldn't answer how he came up with the 24% figure?

Bettman and the owners have learned a great deal of lessons in the past 10 years dealing with Goodenow and now they are kicking his ass all over the place. Goodenow and his assistant Ted Sissy Saskin are overmtached this time around and need to come to grips with the fact there will be a cap when the NHL resumes play.

 

[ceber]

Why would they need a cap when they can just not overpay players. Everyone thinks this league needs a salary cap, what they really need are people who know what the hell they're doing. The market value is set by the people who dole out the money, not by a salary cap. All that says is that there are 30 people who don't know how to run a business properly.

According to the league, due to the financial disparity between the franchise markets it's too difficult for some teams to maintain a budget and have continued success on the ice without some agreement between the owners on what they're willing to pay.

What's overpaying for some is not overpaying for others. Some teams are run quite well. It's illegal (collusion) for owners to decide amongst themselves what they're willing to pay for players without a CBA that supports it.

 

[SENSible1*]

Why would they need a cap when they can just not overpay players. Everyone thinks this league needs a salary cap, what they really need are people who know what the hell they're doing. The market value is set by the people who dole out the money, not by a salary cap. All that says is that there are 30 people who don't know how to run a business properly.

And it is totally lame to use my own catch phrases against the person who uses them so just don't do it, it's not cool.

Nice issue avoidance.

The premise is simple, see if you can follow along.

The PA put forward a smokescreen PR proposal that they claimed would solve the systemic issues.

Bettman pointed out that they are less than 2% apart and that if the PA really believed that their proposal would reset the market to a fair point, why not just get a link at that point.

Goodenow refuses because he is counting on the system clawing back the rollback. The PA's offer is therefore exposed as a PR ploy, not designed to fix the problem, but simply to let the market pressures of a lopsided CBA create salary inflation.

If the NHL gave the extra 2%, would Goodenow sign the deal?

We both know the answer and exactly what it means.

You really are going to have to try harder.

 

[shakes]

Nice issue avoidance.

Well you would certainly know avoidance when you see it, considering it's rare that you ever answer a question.

 

[Ola]

Nice issue avoidance.

The premise is simple, see if you can follow along.

The PA put forward a smokescreen PR proposal that they claimed would solve the systemic issues.

Bettman pointed out that they are less than 2% apart and that if the PA really believed that their proposal would reset the market to a fair point, why not just get a link at that point.

Goodenow refuses because he is counting on the system clawing back the rollback. The PA's offer is therefore exposed as a PR ploy, not designed to fix the problem, but simply to let the market pressures of a lopsided CBA create salary inflation.

If the NHL gave the extra 2%, would Goodenow sign the deal?

We both know the answer and exactly what it means.

You really are going to have to try harder.

The PA´s offer wouldn´t solve all problems but Bettmans counter offer is insane...

 

[Peter]

Why would they need a cap when they can just not overpay players. Everyone thinks this league needs a salary cap, what they really need are people who know what the hell they're doing. The market value is set by the people who dole out the money, not by a salary cap. All that says is that there are 30 people who don't know how to run a business properly.

And it is totally lame to use my own catch phrases against the person who uses them so just don't do it, it's not cool.

Goodenow wants rich owners who spend liberally...in fact, the NHLPA needs these type of owners to escalate salaries that is why they do not want a cap. It is so easy to say that if GM's stick to their budgets then the owners can control costs. That is horse pucky!!!!

Toronto, let's speculate, has a budget of $80 million. Calgary, let's say, has a budget of $38 million. Vancouver has a budget of $50 million. And each of these owners/GM's stick to their budges. What is going to happen???

1) The big budgeted teams will "always" outbid the lower budget teams and thus drive up salaries. Calgary wants Iggy at $5 million but Toronto comes in and offers a huge $11 million dollar contract. Calgary loses franchise player and now Iggy's new salary is the new bar for his type of players throughout the league.

2) The lower budgeted teams will, in effect, be feeder teams for the big bugeted teams because they will not be able to afford their star players. Forget league parity.

Even with a 24% rollback, even with reverse arbitration, even with a luxury tax...bigger budgetted teams will always trounce the lower budgetted teams and drive up salaries. Goodenow counts on this happening.

Now, one could say that the league could get together to control the escalation of salaries...an internal memo (that hopefully would not get leaked) stating that the league supports an internal budget cap for every team...they could do that...except for the fact it's illegal...it's called collusion.

The only way the NHL is going to be able to survive is with a salary cap type system. It has nothing to do with owners/GM's policing themselves.

 

[Slewfoot]

Nice issue avoidance.

The premise is simple, see if you can follow along.

The PA put forward a smokescreen PR proposal that they claimed would solve the systemic issues.

Bettman pointed out that they are less than 2% apart and that if the PA really believed that their proposal would reset the market to a fair point, why not just get a link at that point.

Goodenow refuses because he is counting on the system clawing back the rollback. The PA's offer is therefore exposed as a PR ploy, not designed to fix the problem, but simply to let the market pressures of a lopsided CBA create salary inflation.

If the NHL gave the extra 2%, would Goodenow sign the deal?

We both know the answer and exactly what it means.

You really are going to have to try harder.

Maybe Bettman should admit to everyone that the main reason the league needs a salary cap is to protect the owners from each other ? All this other nonsense is just PR BS. Bettman and the owners don't take any of the blame for the current situation under the CBA that THEY agreed to in 1994 and claimed victory over the NHLPA in doing so.

 

[SENSible1*]

Goodenow wants rich owners who spend liberally...in fact, the NHLPA needs these type of owners to escalate salaries that is why they do not want a cap. It is so easy to say that if GM's stick to their budgets then the owners can control costs. That is horse pucky!!!!

Toronto, let's speculate, has a budget of $80 million. Calgary, let's say, has a budget of $38 million. Vancouver has a budget of $50 million. And each of these owners/GM's stick to their budges. What is going to happen???

1) The big budgeted teams will "always" outbid the lower budget teams and thus drive up salaries. Calgary wants Iggy at $5 million but Toronto comes in and offers a huge $11 million dollar contract. Calgary loses franchise player and now Iggy's new salary is the new bar for his type of players throughout the league.

2) The lower budgeted teams will, in effect, be feeder teams for the big bugeted teams because they will not be able to afford their star players. Forget league parity.

Even with a 24% rollback, even with reverse arbitration, even with a luxury tax...bigger budgetted teams will always trounce the lower budgetted teams and drive up salaries. Goodenow counts on this happening.

Now, one could say that the league could get together to control the escalation of salaries...an internal memo (that hopefully would not get leaked) stating that the league supports an internal budget cap for every team...they could do that...except for the fact it's illegal...it's called collusion.

The only way the NHL is going to be able to survive is with a salary cap type system. It has nothing to do with owners/GM's policing themselves.

This fact is self-evident and has been explaine ad nauseum. The pro-PAers would simply prefer to ignore it to suit their agendas.