Two sides: Close as they have ever been

[RangerBoy]

That would be THN and then sportsnet and then TSN reported it using THN as the source.

You mean this

The NHL season is expected to be "un-canceled" Saturday in New York.

A player close to the talks who asked to remain anonymous told The Hockey News the two sides have agreed to a deal in principle that features a $45-million salary cap. Asked if there was any way a deal won't get done, the player said,
"not that I can see. I couldn't possibly imagine the idea that somebody is going to try to make a name for themselves in the last minute here."

http://www.thn.com/en/headlines/detail.asp?id=27358&cat=954945254360

 

[Mess]

Agreed. The carnage amongst the 'PAs current membership after a new CBA is going to be gruesome. How many veterans have played their last game and just don't know it yet? For many of them, this past season may have been their last chance to earn a big pay cheque, and the 'PA took it away from them in what has proven to be an ultimately futile battle.

They may have played their last game I'll give you that ..but it will be the new CBA that is forcing them out and there is no longer a market place for their services.

Capped out, Locked Out, or Forced Out .. Its all really the same money wise afterall to the player.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Why is it that Bettman escapes blame? Isn't it equally his responsibility to get hockey on the ice to not lose momentum, sponsors, fans, etc.? He cancels the season and is applauded while Goodenow is getting lynched for losing his clients one year of salary?

Truth be told, he would have had to convince 700 players to fold like a cheap tent on absolutely every issue to give into the fixed $42.5 million never-to-rise-again cap back in February, along with 75% qualifiers and abolished arbitration. He was, in good conscience, supposed to do this to save 76% of a 28/82 fraction of their 2004-05 salary?

First off, Goodenow's strategy did more than lose a year's worth of salary. It also got them a worse dydtem going forward than they would have had.

Secondly, Goodenow's mistakes were made LONG before February. What happened at the end was simply a virtually unavoidable byproduct of the choices made at the outset by the union, starting with the decision to not open discussions while the previous deal was still in place.

Thirdly, the players would have made more than the percentages you quoted. The owners had also offered to share 54% of playoff revenue for that year.

 

[LordHelmet]

And on it goes ....

Get your own material.

[EDIT: if you read my post carefully, I said nothing of the sort. I explained fairly clearly how Goodenow should have been astute enough to choose different tactics. Whether he was not astute enough to recognize it, or whether he did recognize it but was too ideologically driven to change, or whether he was astute enough to recognize but did not have enough game to make the change (some lawyers know only one way to play), history will decide.

Did you not consider the possibility that Goodenow's tactics were decided on by the entire PA (through their leadership committe) and not by him alone?

Why would the players blame Goodenow for not getting last year's salary? He's been offering all of the concessions. If the owners would have budged just a bit we'd be watching the playoffs right now..

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Why is it that Bettman escapes blame? Isn't it equally his responsibility to get hockey on the ice to not lose momentum, sponsors, fans, etc.? He cancels the season and is applauded while Goodenow is getting lynched for losing his clients one year of salary?

Truth be told, he would have had to convince 700 players to fold like a cheap tent on absolutely every issue to give into the fixed $42.5 million never-to-rise-again cap back in February, along with 75% qualifiers and abolished arbitration. He was, in good conscience, supposed to do this to save 76% of a 28/82 fraction of their 2004-05 salary?

Obviously, the vast majority, both here and among fans in generally, see the pendulum as having swung too far. Not just in hockey but in sports in general. It is amazing to me to see in Pittsburgh, one of the founding places of union activism (it was close to my house where Frick ordered the pinkertons in, who fired on and killed the striking steel workers), that sports unions have almost no support whatsoever.

In the NHL, I can see that most fans see a chance to fix this sport for good, avoid the strikes every few years as baseball has, and to create a financially level playing field, which unless your team happens to be in a place like Toronto, Detroit, and a couple of others, you have to love. All in all, why in the world would you, as a fan, see your interests as aligned with the players in this? If they win you get to revisit this again in 5 years, perhaps lose another season, and you at least have the perception of unfair playing fields which I am convinced stagnates and eventually will kill a sport.

 

[mooseOAK*]

They may have played their last game I'll give you that ..but it will be the new CBA that is forcing them out and there is no longer a market place for their services.

Capped out, Locked Out, or Forced Out .. Its all really the same money wise afterall to the player.

Unless they can find a coaching, announcing, or other job that pays a million dollars per year then whoever can still play and compete will be back.

 

[Mess]

Why is it that Bettman escapes blame? Isn't it equally his responsibility to get hockey on the ice to not lose momentum, sponsors, fans, etc.? He cancels the season and is applauded while Goodenow is getting lynched for losing his clients one year of salary?

Truth be told, he would have had to convince 700 players to fold like a cheap tent on absolutely every issue to give into the fixed $42.5 million never-to-rise-again cap back in February, along with 75% qualifiers and abolished arbitration. He was, in good conscience, supposed to do this to save 76% of a 28/82 fraction of their 2004-05 salary?

That Final Offer also had 2 huge things missing from a NHLPA point of view .. IMO

NO HARD CAP FLOOR ... meaning buisness as usually for the majority of owners

NO MEANINGFUL REVENUE SHARING .. to help bridge market size disparity..

 

[GSC2k2*]

Did you not consider the possibility that Goodenow's tactics were decided on by the entire PA (through their leadership committe) and not by him alone?

Why would the players blame Goodenow for not getting last year's salary? He's been offering all of the concessions. If the owners would have budged just a bit we'd be watching the playoffs right now..

I considered that possibility and, based on the information available to me and the bovious conclusions one draws form such information, dismissed it. All available data indicates that Goodenow has historically run the show with an iron fist.

While I would dispute yourcharacterization of PA offers as "concessions" in the true sense of the word, see above my comments on concessions. To answer your question, however, he will lose his job over strategy, part of which involved the timing of his "offers". As many a player has said, there are a lot of questions over why they offered to accept a cap only at the end. That is but one issue; as i said, see a few posts back.

 

[Lorenzo1000]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/3640668

What I find hilarious about the article is that he makes fun of certain bloggers and other newspaper journalists but he just like everyone else on the outside has no idea what's actually going on.

 

[SENSible1*]

Goodenow wouldn't allow the PA to go through the process of examining the books and negotiating a definition of revenue because he foolishly thought he could get an unlinked deal. The blame for the lost season lies in this failed strategy. He gambled and lost. Now it's time to pay up. Too bad for the players he was using their chips.

 

[Mess]

Unless they can find a coaching, announcing, or other job that pays a million dollars per year then whoever can still play and compete will be back.

I guess its reasonable for you to expect human beings to take 85% pay cuts to get to take home table scraps or change their occupation ..

I love to see the look on your face when your boss tells you that he is cutting your salary by even 24% .. Then if McDonalds will not employ you I guess you could always go to Burger King ...

 

[CalgaryThrasher]

You mean this

The NHL season is expected to be "un-canceled" Saturday in New York.

A player close to the talks who asked to remain anonymous told The Hockey News the two sides have agreed to a deal in principle that features a $45-million salary cap. Asked if there was any way a deal won't get done, the player said,
"not that I can see. I couldn't possibly imagine the idea that somebody is going to try to make a name for themselves in the last minute here."

http://www.thn.com/en/headlines/detail.asp?id=27358&cat=954945254360

Damit! You had me thinking that was anew article.

 

[mackdogs*]

Obviously, the vast majority, both here and among fans in generally, see the pendulum as having swung too far. Not just in hockey but in sports in general. It is amazing to me to see in Pittsburgh, one of the founding places of union activism (it was close to my house where Frick ordered the pinkertons in, who fired on and killed the striking steel workers), that sports unions have almost no support whatsoever.

In the NHL, I can see that most fans see a chance to fix this sport for good, avoid the strikes every few years as baseball has, and to create a financially level playing field, which unless your team happens to be in a place like Toronto, Detroit, and a couple of others, you have to love. All in all, why in the world would you, as a fan, see your interests as aligned with the players in this? If they win you get to revisit this again in 5 years, perhaps lose another season, and you at least have the perception of unfair playing fields which I am convinced stagnates and eventually will kill a sport.

Well said, my thoughts eaxctly.
We'll wait to see who replies to this, although I'm positive no one will.

 

[umma gumma]

I love to see the look on your face when your boss tells you that he is cutting your salary by even 24% ...

Sorry, but this argument simply holds no water. Me having my salary cut by 24% leaves me a lot closer to making nothing than a hockey player would. How much closer to poverty line would a hockey player be? How much the average worker? Yeah, apples and oranges. Pfffffffffft.

 

[Jester]

Why is it that Bettman escapes blame? Isn't it equally his responsibility to get hockey on the ice to not lose momentum, sponsors, fans, etc.? He cancels the season and is applauded while Goodenow is getting lynched for losing his clients one year of salary?

Truth be told, he would have had to convince 700 players to fold like a cheap tent on absolutely every issue to give into the fixed $42.5 million never-to-rise-again cap back in February, along with 75% qualifiers and abolished arbitration. He was, in good conscience, supposed to do this to save 76% of a 28/82 fraction of their 2004-05 salary?

Bettman doesn't escape blame for what happened, but his job isn't to get the players paid. His job is to create a situation where the owners (read that as corporations) can do the best they possibly can with their invested cash. The owners lose NOTHING from not playing this past year if they get a deal that makes their property value sky-rocket 5/10 years from now... in fact they gain a ton from not playing this year.

THAT was the dynamic that Goodenow should have realized. The NHL is no longer a group of teams owned by one guy with deep pockets. These teams are owned by corporations and guys with REALLY deep pockets. Most, if not all, of these guys were still making money during the lockout from their other investments. So there was no incentive for them to come down from their stance as far as Goodenow wanted them to.

Are you really telling me Goodenow did his job in fighting tooth-to-nail to avoid linkage/cap when that is EXACTLY what they are talking about accepting now? No. Goodenow would have been doing his job if he had REALIZED the situation last summer, given the owners the linkage, exacted concessions on every other issue the players were interested in and made sure that John Leclair (and whoever else) didn't lose their 10 million in earnings last year, and that isn't even mentioning the third/fourth liners that truly got screwed out of earning potential after this lost season.

THAT would have been doing his job... not having his membership sit on the sidelines only to give in on the key issue at a later date. What is that? That's pretty stupid. The fact that EVERYONE observing this situation for the last 3 years was saying this was the way it was going, and he still stubbornly fought on is simply amazing. Good Job Bob!

 

[Levitate]

Obviously, the vast majority, both here and among fans in generally, see the pendulum as having swung too far. Not just in hockey but in sports in general. It is amazing to me to see in Pittsburgh, one of the founding places of union activism (it was close to my house where Frick ordered the pinkertons in, who fired on and killed the striking steel workers), that sports unions have almost no support whatsoever.

In the NHL, I can see that most fans see a chance to fix this sport for good, avoid the strikes every few years as baseball has, and to create a financially level playing field, which unless your team happens to be in a place like Toronto, Detroit, and a couple of others, you have to love. All in all, why in the world would you, as a fan, see your interests as aligned with the players in this? If they win you get to revisit this again in 5 years, perhaps lose another season, and you at least have the perception of unfair playing fields which I am convinced stagnates and eventually will kill a sport.

I agree in general...in the NHL it definatly had gone too far to the side of player salaries and I don't think even the most ardent NHLPA supporters believed the system should stay the way it was. In theory I don't think there's anything wrong with creating a system with checks on salaries and all that...but that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the way Bettman and Co. have gone about it not to mention these problems were caused in large by the owners themselves and it bothers some people to see them getting self rightious about it now. and then there's good old fashioned hatred for Bettman and the way the NHL has gone downhill under his tenure.

but anyways, I think the problem with wanting a huge win for the owners is that it does not mean we won't be revisiting these problems again in 5 years and does not necessarily fix this for good. just like it can go too far the players way, it can go too far the NHL's way as well, and if that happens you'll see another work stoppage at the end of that CBA. There has to be a decent middle ground in all this or it won't be "fixed".

and even on top of all that, the NHL is going to HAVE to find a way to "fix" the gameplay itself. I don't mind a level playing field if all the teams are skilled and it's good hockey...if a level playing field means every team is mediocre and we have boring crap hockey, is it really worth it?

 

[CGG]

Obviously, the vast majority, both here and among fans in generally, see the pendulum as having swung too far. Not just in hockey but in sports in general. It is amazing to me to see in Pittsburgh, one of the founding places of union activism (it was close to my house where Frick ordered the pinkertons in, who fired on and killed the striking steel workers), that sports unions have almost no support whatsoever.

In the NHL, I can see that most fans see a chance to fix this sport for good, avoid the strikes every few years as baseball has, and to create a financially level playing field, which unless your team happens to be in a place like Toronto, Detroit, and a couple of others, you have to love. All in all, why in the world would you, as a fan, see your interests as aligned with the players in this? If they win you get to revisit this again in 5 years, perhaps lose another season, and you at least have the perception of unfair playing fields which I am convinced stagnates and eventually will kill a sport.

If the players were still insisting on using the last CBA, I see your point. But they've given in on everything. Even if the owners accept any player proposal now, it's a huge victory for the owners. The players simply cannot win, the owners already have. The owners now just want to win more.

That's why I'm "aligning" myself with the players. Enough is enough already, this whole thing could be solved tomorrow or 4 months ago if the owners were a little more reasonable and giving, instead of vindictive. They believe they are entitled to make the players bleed and suffer some more because the last CBA was player-friendly. Greed got in the way, they didn't realize they could have saved a season and still got a very friendly CBA that would have worked perfectly so long as they weren't a bunch of idiots.

If the owners were remotely interested in something that was "fair" to the players as well, we actually would have a chance at a deal that would make both sides happy (or at least not unhappy) for years to come. As is, if the owners score too much of a victory, which it looks like they will do, nothing has been solved. In another 5 or 6 years we'll have another work stoppage, this time coming from the players, who will want this magic pendulum to swing back towards their side a little.

I don't buy for a second that this is about levelling the playing field, or making the small market teams more competitive, or about helping the fans by lower ticket prices. It's about money, pure and simple. The owners want to make more money by making the players make less, and need an artificial system to do so because they can't control themselves. Pure and simple. They can't work together with themselves (ie revenue sharing) to make the league a better place, so instead they team up and try to claw everything out of the players. All the other issues that Bettman has dragged in is just to cloud the issue, and divert attention.

 

[waffledave]

I guess its reasonable for you to expect human beings to take 85% pay cuts to get to take home table scraps or change their occupation ..

I love to see the look on your face when your boss tells you that he is cutting your salary by even 24% .. Then if McDonalds will not employ you I guess you could always go to Burger King ...

I'd take 85% over 100% (especially when were dealing with millions of dollars anyways), which is what the players chose this year.

 

[NYRangers]

Take it for what it is but the guys at Hockeybird.com have two sources that said a deal is expected very soon and its close. They NEVER report rumours so you know thats not their thing.

They said the confirmation of the 1st source comes from "the horses mouth".

 

[Icey]

If the players were still insisting on using the last CBA, I see your point. But they've given in on everything. Even if the owners accept any player proposal now, it's a huge victory for the owners. The players simply cannot win, the owners already have. The owners now just want to win more.

That's why I'm "aligning" myself with the players. Enough is enough already, this whole thing could be solved tomorrow or 4 months ago if the owners were a little more reasonable and giving, instead of vindictive. They believe they are entitled to make the players bleed and suffer some more because the last CBA was player-friendly. Greed got in the way, they didn't realize they could have saved a season and still got a very friendly CBA that would have worked perfectly so long as they weren't a bunch of idiots.

If the owners were remotely interested in something that was "fair" to the players as well, we actually would have a chance at a deal that would make both sides happy (or at least not unhappy) for years to come. As is, if the owners score too much of a victory, which it looks like they will do, nothing has been solved. In another 5 or 6 years we'll have another work stoppage, this time coming from the players, who will want this magic pendulum to swing back towards their side a little.

I don't buy for a second that this is about levelling the playing field, or making the small market teams more competitive, or about helping the fans by lower ticket prices. It's about money, pure and simple. The owners want to make more money by making the players make less, and need an artificial system to do so because they can't control themselves. Pure and simple. They can't work together with themselves (ie revenue sharing) to make the league a better place, so instead they team up and try to claw everything out of the players. All the other issues that Bettman has dragged in is just to cloud the issue, and divert attention.

And I can hardly wait until a new CBA is signed and we will then see just how "united" the owners are. They might be united for the purpose of getting a new CBA because they have to, but just watch. Watch the owners start stabbing each other in the back the second its signed. All those FA out there that will be available and Detroit, Philadelphia, Toronto will once start the back stabbing, underminning and name calling in order to get who they want. They will be able to offer players things that have a non-monetary value. The big market teams will still get the top FA's. A cap is not going to solve the problems of this league and those who think it will are in for a huge disappointment.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I love to see the look on your face when your boss tells you that he is cutting your salary by even 24% ...

How about the look on people's faces when someone comes in and closes the shop right down and you get a 100% cut in pay, because the salary structure was out of whack? You should have seen the look on faces when I passed along to my people that was instructed to cut my work force by a couple of bodies and increase the work load to those that were left. People we'ren't very happy about that at all. So I proposed a ifferent solution, one where we would take a cut to share the burden rather than see the business go down the drain. We worked together to come up with a solution to the problem and everyone but one guy decided to cut their salaries to save the business. We lost one guy, who I replaced with another body, and took less money up front for concessions on increased profit sharing. Management liked the idea and everyone was happy to keep their jobs. Things worked well in the long term as the customer services remained constant, satisfaction rose and more services were sold. Profits did rise and peope made more money in the long run thanks to some very forward thinking. But no, just worry about the cut in pay your taking and don't worry about the future and what you could potentially do with that future if the cards fall correctly. Think short term. That's all that counts.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

If the players were still insisting on using the last CBA, I see your point. But they've given in on everything. Even if the owners accept any player proposal now, it's a huge victory for the owners. The players simply cannot win, the owners already have. The owners now just want to win more.

That's why I'm "aligning" myself with the players. Enough is enough already, this whole thing could be solved tomorrow or 4 months ago if the owners were a little more reasonable and giving, instead of vindictive. They believe they are entitled to make the players bleed and suffer some more because the last CBA was player-friendly. Greed got in the way, they didn't realize they could have saved a season and still got a very friendly CBA that would have worked perfectly so long as they weren't a bunch of idiots.

If the owners were remotely interested in something that was "fair" to the players as well, we actually would have a chance at a deal that would make both sides happy (or at least not unhappy) for years to come. As is, if the owners score too much of a victory, which it looks like they will do, nothing has been solved. In another 5 or 6 years we'll have another work stoppage, this time coming from the players, who will want this magic pendulum to swing back towards their side a little.

I don't buy for a second that this is about levelling the playing field, or making the small market teams more competitive, or about helping the fans by lower ticket prices. It's about money, pure and simple. The owners want to make more money by making the players make less, and need an artificial system to do so because they can't control themselves. Pure and simple. They can't work together with themselves (ie revenue sharing) to make the league a better place, so instead they team up and try to claw everything out of the players. All the other issues that Bettman has dragged in is just to cloud the issue, and divert attention.

Oh, no doubt that is true, I never would say otherwise. Most fans who support that owners in this have no delusions that this is about helping competitive balance other than tangentially. Before WWI england and france hated one another. They pretty much did during the war and after too. They merely had mutual goals collide . . .stopping Germany . . .that outweighed all of that. Same here, Owners and Fans merely seem to have a collision of mutual interests, but that does not mean that the fans believe that the owners care more about them than the players do, or see us in any other way than cash cows.

As for the other points, let us say for arguments sake that the owners get 54% of revenues going to salary, linked to revenues and an initial cap of even $35 million, floor $25 million. Why would that lead to friction next CBA necessarily? If revenues don't grow, players will be in no position to ask for anything. If they do grow, 54% of $2.1 billion, or hopefully much more, will still mean great salaries, and again they may not want to upset the apple cart if it was proving to be working, the sport growing.

 

[octopi]

I know I already posted to this effect, but I just realized
If you say "As close as they have ever been"
Isn't that exactly the same as saying " No closer than they have ever
been?"

 

[hockeyfan33]

Sorry, but this argument simply holds no water. Me having my salary cut by 24% leaves me a lot closer to making nothing than a hockey player would. How much closer to poverty line would a hockey player be? How much the average worker? Yeah, apples and oranges. Pfffffffffft.

so then work hard, grow your skills and become a hockey players, these guys did and have every right to get the salaries

 

[RangerBoy]

Damit! You had me thinking that was anew article.

The Hockey News should lose that link to the story.They give Newsweek a run for its money