Strachan Nails It

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by A Good Flying Bird*, Feb 19, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. xtra

    xtra Registered User

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    4,079
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    I am starting to belive that he does want to crush the union and i have gone from being a Pro Owner fan to one that belives that both sides are idiots and that the game is the one suffering. I dont' care anymore what type of agreement is made as long as it saves the game in CANADA and traditional hockey markets because if these rumors about Florida and Nashville stopping the last proposal is true well then Pro Contraction just got (at least) one more fan on their side.
     
  2. Anthony*

    Anthony* Guest

    yea lets have a deal that favors the canadian teams and the "traditional hockey markets(whatever that is)" but screws everyone else

    that would be great
     
  3. Mats

    Mats Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Boy, it sounds really good, but then some three year old is going to get ahold of it and prove it ridiculous.

    If Bettman's purpose is a salary cap to triple values of the league's franchises, and the NHLPA offers a salary cap, accepting a salary cap with the league at 45 million dollars would succeed in increasing the value of the franchises just the same as having a court impose it.
     
  4. You're missing a big part. Bettman wanted a $30 Million cap, not a $45 Million cap.
    He would never, ever win $30 from the players.
    Bettman believed the PA would stay away from a cap altogehter, allowing him to build a case for an impasse.
    On NLRB lawyer advice, he dropped cost-linkage to help bolster his NLRB case.
    Then the union, probably realizing what was up, screwed up the league's plans and killed the impasse by agreeing to a salary cap.
    The philisophical impasse - THE MEAT OF BETTMAN'S CASE - was cooked.
    Now it was just a matter of numbers. Numbers with little difference.
    Not the kind of stuff a labor board gets involved with ... especially a labor board that rarely gets involved with sports.

    So then what happens, Bettman shuts down the shop, inexplicably.
    Then he hints that the league might accept $45 Million.

    This is when Strach's article was written.

    Who knows what this all means.
     
  5. How does Bettman want an impasse? How much money can these players make? 42.5 is reasonable. The players should have accepted it.
     
  6. not quite yoda

    not quite yoda Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,554
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    So... Strachan says this has all been about Bettman wanting to triple the worth of NHL franchises? How can that be when half the fans and sponsors will have quit on them once they get back to the ice.

    This is another one of Strachan's vivid machinations.

    If you've watched him on hot stove, you would know that he makes up stuff all the time.

    And I am not even sure what he is eluding to at the end of the article. Is he saying that Bettman is bound to make a move now?

    Seems vague to me. Strachan's imagining things.
     
  7. Mats

    Mats Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    So if the players had taken 42.5 today he would have said no?

    Again, the argument must pass a logic test.
     
  8. MrMackey

    MrMackey Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    cgy
    Home Page:
    Strachan rarely nails it... so I wasn't surprised when he didn't nail it here either.

    My best guess from hearing the Saskin, Linden and Damphousse quotes, was that there weren't enough escalators on the cap.

    Bettman may want an impasse, but I doubt the owners do. I also doubt Gretzky or Lemieux would be a party to that strategy.

    Strachan's argument falls down big time when he says that the reason he wanted an impasse was to get a cap. Well he got a cap, so why would he want to declare impasse anymore? If Bettman does indeed want an impasse, and only wants an impasse (not a deal), then Strachan should at least organize his argument more clearly.

     
  9. Look, try turning the question around and answering it yourself.

    If $42,5 M is reasonable, can $45 be THAT unreasonable?
    How much impact does the difference have on the NHL? Seriously. Think about it.

    Now ask yourself this:
    Why did the NHL imply that they'd move up from $42.5M?
    Why did they allow this charade to continue?

    My guess is that he wanted to say to the NLRB, look, we tried up unitl the deadline. Then we tried again. ANd now its too late. And now, because of the cancelled season, we desperately need to link revenues to salaries ... because this lockout is going to hurt revenues and we can no longer afford even a $42 Million cap.

    My guess is that he's going to get laughed out of the NLRB.
     
  10. darth5

    darth5 No!

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Smashville, TN
    How many redundant threads like this are you going to post? I thought moderators were supposed to set the example here...
     
  11. No. You should read with more care.

    He's after a cap near $30 million.
    Not $40.
    $30 Million almost gaurantees profittability.
    Gauranteed profittablity will make franchise look like better investments and will increase the values. Owners in Nashville and FLorida could get out of the business and make a tidy profit.


    He wasn't going to get a $30M cap through negotiations.
    He needed an impasse to do so.
     
  12. Dude, that is a very good question.
    If the players had agreed to $42.5 today, would the owners have agreed?

    I'm not sure the answer is yes.
     
  13. 1. I'm not a moderator.
    2. I guess you'd like more of the "Knob Goodenow" threads, or the "Bettman killed hockey threads."

    I'm interested in this discussion.
    I'm interested in hearing people's ideas.

    If you are not, don't partake.
     
  14. OntCanuck

    OntCanuck Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Simcoe, Ontario
    Strachan is almost always wrong but trying to make someone look stupid other than himself. We all know what he thinks of Gary!! The impasse is more PA rhetoric like union crushing. You would have to be an idiot to want to head there. Nothing in that situation is anywhere near guarenteed and if you get turned down you've lost a ton of leverage and given the union a ton more of it. :dunno:
     
  15. Mats

    Mats Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Bettman only needs 8 of the 30 teams to support him in an agreement. It would take 22 teams to overrule the board of govenors and Bettman.

    The answer is, most definitely, yes. Strachan's argument has zero merit.
     
  16. gerbilanium

    gerbilanium Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even if bettman wants to triple the value of a franchise. What the hell are the workers going to do to stop it. Capitalism is the ***** but it's the best we've got. Owners are named that way for a reason. They will have a cap and it's not going to be pretty. Whether it's ethical or not is pointless.

    The calgary herald went on strike a couple years ago, dowbiggen and others crossed the line and all the fools manning the picket line eventually got a life or crossed the line.
     
  17. MrMackey

    MrMackey Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    cgy
    Home Page:
    Uh...

    1. I guess I do need to learn how to read. I can't find anything in Strachan's article about a $30M cap.

    2. I haven't seen anything where a cap of $30M was ever proposed. I thought the owners' first offer was around the $32M mark (going by memory).

    3. From what I've read about impasse (which has been very contradictory depending on what you read)... the owners would have to implement the last CBA offered. That would be a $42.5M cap. That does not even take in to account that only Americans can play for the US teams (why would Detroit and all the other big market teams want to do that?) and only Canadians can play for the Canadian teams (pretty sure the CDN teams don't want to do that... even the small market ones).

    4. A $30M cap is not guaranteed profitability. I don't know where you get that from... its only guaranteed $30M or less payroll.

    5. I'm sure the NHL's negotiating team would be smart enough not to jeaporadize the process by offering $42.5M if all they were looking for was impasse at $30M.

    6. None of the quotes from the players' side indicated the cap number had anything to do with the talks breaking off...

     
  18. Dude, the entire hockey world announced yesterday that a deal was almost done. At $45 million.

    Obviously, that was not the case.
    What makes you so sure $42.5 could get the deal done.
     
  19. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    You claim you want to be partners with the players - How about becoming partners with your fellow owners first?

    Here is a novel concept for NHL owners.

    REVENUE SHARING

    The NFL learned that one 40 years ago - before the big TV deals and well before a salary cap.
     
  20. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    There is absolutely no scenario in the world that Bettman could ever dream up that will cause NHL franchises to triple in value like NFL franchises.
     
  21. Greschner4

    Greschner4 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With you every step of the way. Just get rid of Nashville, Florida, Carolina, and Anaheim and put us out of our misery.
     
  22. NomadManderson

    NomadManderson Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with the gist of the thread. I think Bettman knew the 42.5 million dollar cap offer wouldn't be accepted by the PA because he knew that they felt they already made major concessions. He made his final offer bit and waited for the PA's counter proposal. Goodenow, the fool that he is, played right into Bettman's hands by not making a serious counter proposal, figuring he could dilly dally around a little longer. That gave Bettman his chance, that he had to set up after the surprise "salary cap cave in" by the PA, to cancel the season. It's telling that the reports out of this last meeting suggest the NHLs offer was actually WORSE than the "final offer" Bettman made earlier. They know the PA wants them to give in a little more, bend a little so it will look like so much like the PA got worked over in the negotiations. They know if they keep on refusing to bend, the PA will be swallowing their pride to agree. There are probably hundreds of players who would gladly swallow that pride to play again, now. But there's a bureaucracy at work among the rank and file of the PA that Bettman understands all too well, being a professional bureaucrat himself. He's just playing it like a violin to maneuver his way to an impasse so they can impose a $30 million dollar cap.
     
  23. greatlakeshab

    greatlakeshab Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "I agree with the gist of the thread. I think Bettman knew the 42.5 million dollar cap offer wouldn't be accepted by the PA because he knew that they felt they already made major concessions. He made his final offer bit and waited for the PA's counter proposal. Goodenow, the fool that he is, played right into Bettman's hands by not making a serious counter proposal, figuring he could dilly dally around a little longer. That gave Bettman his chance, that he had to set up after the surprise "salary cap cave in" by the PA, to cancel the season. It's telling that the reports out of this last meeting suggest the NHLs offer was actually WORSE than the "final offer" Bettman made earlier. They know the PA wants them to give in a little more, bend a little so it will look like so much like the PA got worked over in the negotiations. They know if they keep on refusing to bend, the PA will be swallowing their pride to agree. There are probably hundreds of players who would gladly swallow that pride to play again, now. But there's a bureaucracy at work among the rank and file of the PA that Bettman understands all too well, being a professional bureaucrat himself. He's just playing it like a violin to maneuver his way to an impasse so they can impose a $30 million dollar cap."

    The problem is if the PA decides not to cave in now and wait for the NLRB verdict could hurt the owners. The NLRB will look at how all this came down and may just side with the players and say the NHL's last offer at $42.5 must be honored. Now this may not seem bad but this will be after the damage of canceling the season and losing fans. Bettman has bluffed well to this point but he better not get to greedy.
     
  24. sundstrom

    sundstrom Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Home Page:

    you've got this a bit backwards. bettman needs only 8 if he DOESN'T approve of the deal. 22 owners need to overrule him in this case. but if bettman signs the deal, he only needs 16 (a simple majority) to pass.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"