50/50 split - bait for players

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I do not take what either side says as gospel.

I look at the facts for myself and form my own judgments and opinions.

Thus far Goodenow has ended up on the winning side in each and every face-off with the owners. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

And Ron Francis was a helluva player back in 1994 as well. Times change.

 

[Dazed and Concussed]

Not true - see the post above on Project Blue Fin.

I stand corrected on the Blue Fin meetings. Having said that I still do not believe the meetings in 2003 were a serious attempt to come to an agreement or further meetings would have been scheduled. I suspect that the meetings a year ago were nothing more than the union feeling out the owners and were used to plot strategy for these negotiations. I have belonged to a union for the last 10 years and have seen these tactics before. The statement of what the owners would have done being irrelevant is accurate as it is pure speculation on DR's behalf

 

[Wetcoaster]

I stand corrected on the Blue Fin meetings. Having said that I still do not believe the meetings in 2003 were a serious attempt to come to an agreement or further meetings would have been scheduled. I suspect that the meetings a year ago were nothing more than the union feeling out the owners and were used to plot strategy for these negotiations. I have belonged to a union for the last 10 years and have seen these tactics before. The statement of what the owners would have done being irrelevant is accurate as it is pure speculation on DR's behalf

Nine days of meetings seems a pretty serious attempt to me.

Also there were several months of in depth review of team finances for four teams(Boston, Montreal, Buffalo and LA) by the NHLPA previous to that in preparation for negotiations.

Besides what you said previously was that "It was the players who choose not to negotiate until just a few months ago." I saw nothing about your current gloss on the statement that negotiations had to be aserious attempt to come to an agreement - leaving aside the fact you have no way to judge that.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Also there were several months of in depth review of team finances for four teams(Boston, Montreal, Buffalo and LA) by the NHLPA previous to that in preparation for negotiations.

I thought old Bob was preaching that the teams were refusing to open the books for the NHLPA. But now you say that four teams were subjected to an in depth review by the NHLPA. Interesting. Seems Bob hasn't been telling us the whole truth either then?

 

[Wetcoaster]

And Ron Francis was a helluva player back in 1994 as well. Times change.

When did I mention 1994?

Goodenow has won pretty much everything since taking over the NHLPA (and the first players' strike) through the 1994 CBA and right up to now including getting the Owen Nolan lockout clause validated last year by the arbitrator as well as winning the arbitration on the players' right (e.g. Sakic and Blake)to be continued to be paid their deferred salries and bonuses during the lockout.

So far Bettman is O-fer and Goodenow seems to be batting a thousand. Will that change - maybe as Bettman may finally be due to win one. But on the track records thus far the form chart would not favour betting against Goodenow.

As I said, I am going to wait and see what happens ultimately in the lockout.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I thought old Bob was preaching that the teams were refusing to open the books for the NHLPA. But now you say that four teams were subjected to an in depth review by the NHLPA. Interesting. Seems Bob hasn't been telling us the whole truth either then?

No.

It was a review not an audit and the NHLPA was only given partial access to the books for those teams and no access to the books of their related or subsidiary companies.

What they were able to confirm showed the URO's supplioed to the NHLPA for those for teams did not match up - similar to what Forbes Magazine discovered.

When the NHLPA took the discrepancy to the NHL, Bettman shut down the review.

 

[SENSible1*]

No.

It was a review not an audit and the NHLPA was only given partial access to the books for those teams and no access to the books of their related or subsidiary companies.

What they were able to confirm showed the URO's supplioed to the NHLPA for those for teams did not match up - similar to what Forbes Magazine discovered.

When the NHLPA took the discrepancy to the NHL, Bettman shut down the review.

Offered without a shred of evidence.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Offered without a shred of evidence.

It has been reported on numerous occasions and discussed in detail in the past on this forum ands several others. It came up in many stories in the wake of the publication of the Levitt Report. I assumed it was general knowledge amongst knowledgeable hockey fans that this four team reveiw took place in 1999 and 2000.

"We went and requested further information that spoke to a lot of the related entities and disclosed a lot of revenue sources that clearly were not being counted in the URO process," NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin told The Sporting News. "Just on those four teams alone, we saw a swing of $50 million toward profitability. That's only on four out of 30 teams."

Since you do not appear to be one of the knowledgeable here you are:
http://www.canoe.ca/Slam040208/nhl_war-sun.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1733664

 

[Dazed and Concussed]

Nine days of meetings seems a pretty serious attempt to me.

Also there were several months of in depth review of team finances for four teams(Boston, Montreal, Buffalo and LA) by the NHLPA previous to that in preparation for negotiations.

Besides what you said previously was that "It was the players who choose not to negotiate until just a few months ago." I saw nothing about your current gloss on the statement that negotiations had to be aserious attempt to come to an agreement - leaving aside the fact you have no way to judge that.

As i indicated in my previous post I stand corrected on the Blue Fin meetings. Neither you or I can say for certain if the negotiations were serious or not. Going from my union experience, the first round of meetings is nothing more than information gathering. If there are any negotiaters out there I'm sure they would tell you the exact same thing.

I believe we have strong reasons to believe that the union was not seriously negotiating until after they were locked out. We can only assume that the review of those four teams finances is what prompted them to offer the 24% salary cut. That review of those 4 teams finances was done before the players were locked out. My question then becomes if the PA was attempting to negotiate seriously prior to being locked out than why have they only just recently offered to take a 24% pay cut?

 

[Wetcoaster]

As i indicated in my previous post I stand corrected on the Blue Fin meetings. Neither you or I can say for certain if the negotiations were serious or not. Going from my union experience, the first round of meetings is nothing more than information gathering. If there are any negotiaters out there I'm sure they would tell you the exact same thing.

I believe we have strong reasons to believe that the union was not seriously negotiating until after they were locked out. We can only assume that the review of those four teams finances is what prompted them to offer the 24% salary cut. That review of those 4 teams finances was done before the players were locked out. My question then becomes if the PA was attempting to negotiate seriously prior to being locked out than why have they only just recently offered to take a 24% pay cut?

My information is to the contrary from several sources - that the negotiations were serious. Like any labour negotiation you do not put forth your final position at the front end - that is why they are called negotations.

The 24% proposal was designed to shock and awe the NHL - it seemed to work as they were scrambling to answer if you recall the leaked internal NHL memo. It seems also designed to smoke out the NHL and it worked from that persective as well.

Prior to the lockout the union was the only side that made any detailed proposals and after the lockout th union has continued to make the most detailed proposals. that indicates to me that the union was interested in serious negotiations.

 

[Dazed and Concussed]

My information is to the contrary from several sources - that the negotiations were serious. Like any labour negotiation you do not put forth your final position at the front end - that is why they are called negotations.

The 24% proposal was designed to shock and awe the NHL - it seemed to work as they were scrambling to answer if you recall the leaked internal NHL memo. It seems also designed to smoke out the NHL and it worked from that persective as well.

Prior to the lockout the union was the only side that made any detailed proposals and after the lockout th union has continued to make the most detailed proposals. that indicates to me that the union was interested in serious negotiations.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I don't think the union was ever serious in any way shape or form prior to being locked out. I think the union has wanted to test the resolve of the owners for having a salary cap all the way along. It 's a gamble that they are taking and they are probably taking it because the owners folded during the last CBA negotiations.

 

[SENSible1*]

What they were able to confirm showed the URO's supplioed to the NHLPA for those for teams did not match up - similar to what Forbes Magazine discovered.

When the NHLPA took the discrepancy to the NHL, Bettman shut down the review.

I was refering to this part of your post, but thanks for the unecessary display of arrogance. It looks good on you.

I could just as easily claim that the PA started making ridiculous claims to items having no relation to hockey revenue and that at that point both parties agreed to discontinue the talks.

 

[SuperUnknown]

What they were able to confirm showed the URO's supplioed to the NHLPA for those for teams did not match up - similar to what Forbes Magazine discovered.

Forbes discovered nothing, they made up their numbers from the ground up.

 

[PecaFan]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=110435&hubName=
"Let's be clear on where the responsibility lies for where we find ourselves today: it lies exclusively at the feet of union ... "

I see lots of people making the same mistake on this quote. Including TSN. He's referring to the fact that were 100+ days into a lockout. Not the financial position. The rest of his quotes are all talking about time, not money.

I was refering to this part of your post, but thanks for the unecessary display of arrogance. It looks good on you.

Yup. This "The NHL shut down the PA from finishing it's looking at the four teams" stuff is pure garbage from what I've seen. Saskin never says they were looking at them, but then didn't have the chance to finish. He always says they looked, and thinks they found some things. I think he counts any money an owner's daughter gets from selling Girl Guide cookies as hockey revenue, but that's a different thread.

And I love the continuing representation of the Blue Fin meetings *four years* after requests by the NHL to talk as immediate and responsive.