TSN: NHLpa Rock Solid

Status
Not open for further replies.

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Brewleaguer said:
:lol Sure does piss you Gary followers off that the PA is still held together with strong ties, doesn't it?
:lol

It's a shame some, including the PA members themselves, don't know the union has already broken. The one unifying issue for the union - the absolute insistence that there would never be a cap - has been waylaid. Right now, all they've got going for them is a common hatred for Gary Bettman and their bosses (yes, the owners are their bosses). We'll see how far that gets them come September and a few more missed paychecks.
 

Dynamic

Registered User
Dec 21, 2004
976
605
Edmonton
ScottyBowman said:
Glad the players have a spine unlike the posters in here who lick the boots of the owners and would sell their own mother.

There is a big difference between having a spine and just being stupid. Not a little stupid either, I'm talking embarrassinly stupid, the kinda stupid that doesn't grow on trees.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
chiavsfan said:
Ok Mr. Goodenow...150 members...what about the other 550 members?

Well, about 350 of them are off in Europe showing solidarity for their hockey playing bretheren by taking their jobs. ;)
 

David

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,007
0
Visit site
"Trevor Linden and Bob are going to get us a deal - a fair deal," he said. "Whatever that fair deal is, that's their decision.

"We believe in them."


Yeah, by the time a deal is done, if a deal is ever done, the players still don't realize that what'll be fair by then will likely be $5/hour...it's good to see that Trev believes in them...tsk, tsk, just how easily manipulated are these stupid players anyways? Don't they realize that these are the same bozos that took their golden eggs and killed their golden goose... :shakehead

I've resigned to the fact that these players will never get it and am just waiting for the replacement players and/or new league to start up...
 

Lil' Jimmy Norton*

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
1,056
0
Pittsburgh, PA
"Calgary Flames captain Jarome Iginla also voiced support of association leaders.

"Trevor Linden and Bob are going to get us a deal - a fair deal," he said. "Whatever that fair deal is, that's their decision.

"We believe in them."

1.5 billion in the hole...man it will have to be one hell of a fair deal !!!! Jarome, You have a better chance of being the next space shuttle captain.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Flukeshot said:
However the NHLPA needs to remember this is a business first. These ARE business guys yes and they understand that their business is in financial trouble and they are looking to solidify their investments. The owners have every right to demand changes that prevent loses. Businesses are run to make profits and if one doesn't the owner has the right to pull the plug or do whatever it takes to get as close as possible to a guaranteed profit. The players being the supplier and the product most lower their cost to be buyable to the owners.
Every player's contract is negotiable. If an owner overpays -- that's his fault. He failed to run his business properly. That's how businesses work in the real world.

There's no such thing as guaranteed profits -- oir close to guaranteed profits. More businesses fail than succeed. And one of the ways they fail is by overspending.

If the owners were running their organizations like true businesses, we wouldn't be in this current fix.
 

snakepliskin

Registered User
Jan 27, 2005
1,910
22
Wilmington NC
from what i've read today it is obvious to me that goodenow does not still have a plan B after plan A blew up in his face-nor do the players have any idea where he is going to lead them-i think the nhlpa as a whole is shell-shocked and chasing their collective bargaining tail now-hence the lack of the normal venom toward the owners after these events--hopefully they have realized bob goodenow does not write their checks but that the owners and the fans do.
 

snakepliskin

Registered User
Jan 27, 2005
1,910
22
Wilmington NC
Jaded-Fan said:
If Bob Goodenow jumped off a bridge, would you?


Ummm . . . . :blush:
he did jump off the bridge and the players did too---there comes a time when you have to cut your losses--obviously the owners thought that time was last september and now it the players turn to discover the same business principal--the last 5 years the owners hole got pretty deep and in the last 6 months the players have fell into a similar sized hole. man, fiscal suicide by both partys is a hard thing to watch.
 

Hemsky4PM

Registered User
Jun 25, 2003
7,316
0
Billeting Ales
Visit site
Weary said:
Every player's contract is negotiable. If an owner overpays -- that's his fault. He failed to run his business properly. That's how businesses work in the real world.

There's no such thing as guaranteed profits -- oir close to guaranteed profits. More businesses fail than succeed. And one of the ways they fail is by overspending.

If the owners were running their organizations like true businesses, we wouldn't be in this current fix.

Pro-sport is not the real world. Real world economics do not involve canibalizing your own company. The problem with that mentality is that you could have a 16 team league capable of sustaining an average salary of 1.8M US...but why would either side want that??? Half the players are out of work, half the markets for mechandise and TV disappear.

I don't buy into the partnership crap from the league, they want everything their way. But "let them spend what they want" is way too simplistic.
 

Matty

Registered User
May 20, 2002
2,396
0
Strawberry Fields
Visit site
Weary said:
Every player's contract is negotiable. If an owner overpays -- that's his fault. He failed to run his business properly. That's how businesses work in the real world.

There's no such thing as guaranteed profits -- oir close to guaranteed profits. More businesses fail than succeed. And one of the ways they fail is by overspending.

If the owners were running their organizations like true businesses, we wouldn't be in this current fix.

Here is the main difference though...

When one hockey owner is irresponsible (ie runs his team like a hobby rather than a business) ALL owners are effected for the worse. Especially with arbitration. In the real world though, one owner's irresponsibility is often another owners gain.

Now what a cap does is insure that all owners run their teams responsibly. It is a budget they have to keep to. Because of the unique nature of the business, I think it is a fair solution.
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
Is anyone really all that surprised from the quotes today? "We're firmly behind Bob" "I've never seen these 30 owners on the same page" and others. I didnt exactly expect to see the union saying "were crumbling" or "we dont believe in Bob." Or owners saying "Some owners arent on the same page."
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Matty said:
Here is the main difference though...

When one hockey owner is irresponsible (ie runs his team like a hobby rather than a business) ALL owners are effected for the worse. Especially with arbitration. In the real world though, one owner's irresponsibility is often another owners gain.

Now what a cap does is insure that all owners run their teams responsibly. It is a budget they have to keep to. Because of the unique nature of the business, I think it is a fair solution.
Would taking all hockey revenues and dividing them thirty ways also be a fair solution? That way you wouldn't need a salary cap at all. The players would be happy. I'm sure they'd be willing to modify arbitration and qualifying offers if there were no salary cap.
 

Jaysfanatic*

Guest
Brewleaguer said:
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

oh wow......you are so clever! Do you write your own material? hmm? Do you? Because that is soooo rich. Really, that was funny, wow, you are so funny!

:banghead:
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Hemsky4PM said:
I don't buy into the partnership crap from the league, they want everything their way. But "let them spend what they want" is way too simplistic.
But that's exactly the way they've operated from the time the league was founded up until now. How did it work before?
 

Flukeshot

Briere Activate!
Sponsor
Feb 19, 2004
5,153
1,710
Brampton, Ont
Weary said:
Every player's contract is negotiable. If an owner overpays -- that's his fault. He failed to run his business properly. That's how businesses work in the real world.

There's no such thing as guaranteed profits -- oir close to guaranteed profits. More businesses fail than succeed. And one of the ways they fail is by overspending.

If the owners were running their organizations like true businesses, we wouldn't be in this current fix.


As other posters have stated this is a different situation. Yes the owners are mostly responsible for their overall loses. They ran their businesses poorly, but what should they do continue to run it poorly? Or take measures that would make it less likely they will take loses and more likely they reach profit? These businessmen are attempting to re-shape their landscape and make it easier to make those profits. Why not? Players have a guaranteed contract and therefore a guaranteed amount of personal profit, should not the owners be allowed to come close the same guarantee? The option for any business owner to prevent loses is to reform or leave altogether. If they leave then they are less likely to have loses, which is where we are today.
 

Flukeshot

Briere Activate!
Sponsor
Feb 19, 2004
5,153
1,710
Brampton, Ont
Weary said:
But that's exactly the way they've operated from the time the league was founded up until now. How did it work before?

I wish I knew the business history of the NHL a little better but unfortunately I don't. We all know it worked for a long time because the NHL was shafting the players hard prior to Lindsay and Co coming up with a union concept for the players. After that owners still had the upper hand. The NHL's financial world changed with the creation of the last CBA or even the one prior to that. The NHL agreed (mistakenly and poorly) to a system that no longer let, "spend what they want" to work. If was a higly inflationary system (eww I sound Bettman-like). I don't think a Cap is necessarily needed to correct it but many other things are.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Flukeshot said:
The NHL's financial world changed with the creation of the last CBA or even the one prior to that. The NHL agreed (mistakenly and poorly) to a system that no longer let, "spend what they want" to work. If was a higly inflationary system (eww I sound Bettman-like). I don't think a Cap is necessarily needed to correct it but many other things are.
I agree with you. In my mind there were three things that caused the upswing in players salaries:
  1. Arbitration
  2. Qualifying offers
  3. Revenue disparity

The players have shown a willingness to address the first two issues. They even wanted to discuss those at the Saturday meeting when the league balked. The third one is up to the league to take seriously. Instead, they'd rather make the cap low enough so they don't have to worry about it.

From a business perspective they're trying to get the players to take the hit for a league issue.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
Weary said:
But that's exactly the way they've operated from the time the league was founded up until now. How did it work before?

But before 1994, the owners had never faced a players union so organized, so focused from the players to their agents on squeezing out as much money as they possibly could from ownership.

Imagine if they had full disclosure of salaries, nhlpasource.com and player comparison software tools for the agents back in the 70's and 80's? How different would today be?

It's totally fair to say the owners made their own bed for the last 10 years...but IMO it's equally fair to say the players didn't just sit back and let money be thrown at them. They took steps to secure their own future. Good on them, but unfortunately for them the well's about tapped dry.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
snakepliskin said:
from what i've read today it is obvious to me that goodenow does not still have a plan B after plan A blew up in his face

Plan B could be to try plan A again next year...

Plan C could be the same as Plan B...
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
Devilsfanatic said:
oh wow......you are so clever! Do you write your own material? hmm? Do you? Because that is soooo rich. Really, that was funny, wow, you are so funny!

:banghead:

Any, any Titanic jokes you want to throw at me too as long as we're hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity? :joker:
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
Plan b?

I in the Eye said:
Plan B could be to try plan A again next year...

Plan C could be the same as Plan B...

Get unschooled hockey people to come in so they'll give up the farm to get hockey going again....

Plan A' ... bring in Gretzky and et alllll to see if you could force your agenda down the leagues throat at the deadline........"for the good of hockey(and our bankaccounts)"....
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Weary said:
Every player's contract is negotiable. If an owner overpays -- that's his fault. He failed to run his business properly. That's how businesses work in the real world.

There's no such thing as guaranteed profits -- oir close to guaranteed profits. More businesses fail than succeed. And one of the ways they fail is by overspending.

If the owners were running their organizations like true businesses, we wouldn't be in this current fix.


Agreed. But the argument that you and others seem to want to extrapolate out of that is analogous to the following:

I make a mistake regarding the snow plowing 'market' and sign a contract to pay you $50 to shovel my walk each time it snows for the month rather than the $5 the job is really worth. The month expires, and I have paid $250 for the five times it snowed. I have gone into debt paying that $250, but paid it anyways. A contract is a contract and it was my fault for misreading the market. You come back and tell me that I should pay you $40 per job for the next year, instead of the $5 the job is worth, and be grateful that you came down and grateful that you recognized the problem even though it was all my fault. Then you walk off in a huff and threaten a lawsuit because I refuse to offer more than the $5 that I can afford, and that the job calls for.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Jaded-Fan said:
Agreed. But the argument that you and others seem to want to extrapolate out of that is analogous to the following:

I make a mistake regarding the snow plowing 'market' and sign a contract to pay you $50 to shovel my walk each time it snows for the month rather than the $5 the job is really worth. The month expires, and I have paid $250 for the five times it snowed. I have gone into debt paying that $250, but paid it anyways. A contract is a contract and it was my fault for misreading the market. You come back and tell me that I should pay you $40 per job for the next year, instead of the $5 the job is worth, and be grateful that you came down and grateful that you recognized the problem even though it was all my fault. Then you walk off in a huff and threaten a lawsuit because I refuse to offer more than the $5 that I can afford, and that the job calls for.


Chris Chelios is going to threaten to kill you and/or your wife and kids with his snow shovel now....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->