Another Lockout Article...

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by djhn579, Oct 21, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    We keep hearing over and over how the owners caved during the last lockout, now we have some idea why...


    In 1995, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman tried again to get a salary cap. There was another lockout, but it was called off without control of veterans' salaries when six clubs, primarily those constructing new arenas, wouldn't support continuation of the work stoppage.

    http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20041017/1017304.asp
     
  2. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    There's an article with a lot of credibility. How many factual errors did you find? Hint: Gary Bettman did not become commissioner until February 1993.

    Tom
     
  3. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    Yes, he did get a date or two wrong. So what? He was actually involved in those negotiations, so that gives him a lot more credibility than you...

    Edit: Spelling error... :banghead:
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2004
  4. Sotnos

    Sotnos Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    10,885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Not here
    Home Page:
    Yes, I'd say someone who was actually involved in the Board of Governors knows a bit more than any of us.

    Outside of one section with weird wording, he doesn't imply that Bettman was commissioner before '93 and doesn't mention him having any part in the 1992 incidents he's talking about. :dunno:
     
  5. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    "The principal battlers still are the same: the urbane Bettman, relying on "jawboning" and logic, and Bob Goodenow, head of the players association, still throwing up a stone wall to change."

    Goodenow was driving change in 1992, not stonewalling it. It was a strike, not a lockout. The issue was marketing rights, not a salary cap. The owners did not vote to restore the playoffs, they voted to cave to the player's demands. The players did not have free agency in 1992 and it was not part of the dispute.

    I know we can expect propaganda from the owners, but this isn't as bit much?

    Tom
     
  6. Bicycle Repairman

    Bicycle Repairman Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    This is nothing more than pro-owner propoganda which sadly, we'll only be seeing more of. I really have to question the objectivity of the Buffalo News in publishing this when, I believe, they are a major sponsor of the Sabres. Will they be allowing rebuttal?
     
  7. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    Arbitration, free agency, waivers, pension funding was also on the agenda.

    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/features/flashback.html
     
  8. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    On the agenda? What does that mean? There was no change in any of these provisions. There was no discussion of any of these things in the media. The single issue that mattered was marketing rights. The players wanted free agency (baseball players had had it for more than 15 years) and they wanted better pensions (the Eagleson plan was a joke) they wanted it more difficult for owners to get players through waivers, and they wanted a decent arbitration system.

    They settled for winning on the key issue and setting the other issues back two years. That's the point. Swados makes it sound like the owners were fighting for rollbacks in these areas. The players wanted them all liberalised. The players were really, really mad. Prior to 1992, the CBA was arranged between Alan Eagleson and owners like Bill Wirtz and Jeremy Jacobs. That's what Goodenow and the NHLPA was trying to destroy in 1992 - Alan Eagleson's legacy.

    They were ready to tank the playoffs and most fans I knew didn't blame them.

    Re-read the article and tell me that it isn't 100% BS. If the owners have such a good case, why do they get their buddies to produce crap like this? Why do they have to play the fans for such chumps?

    Tom
     
  9. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    You don't agree with it, so we should believe you (someone that was not there) over someone that was, and a respected news source? :dunno:
     
  10. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,953
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    First, Simpson was an Oiler in 91-92, so not a Sabres PA rep. So I dont see how the owner went down into the locker room to talk to his player Simpson and have this big heart to heart.

    And 11 yrs later they have a franchise valued at $1Billion while their salaries are the lowest of the major sports. Yes, whats a cap going to cost them, eh?


    What a blatant propaganda piece that is. Bringing up the bankruptcies in Ottawa, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. He even mentioned LA's recent near bankruptcy which I wasnt aware of. During the height of their owners legal troubles ,the Kings were near bankruptcy? And then opened their books to the union and a fan to show a representative example? Nice. He then goes on to to mention Levitts unimpeachable credentials for saying no one in their right mind would buy a franchise as Vancouver is in the process of being sold for a quarter billion dollars.

    He talks of how ominous the franchises were back in 91, and then revenues exploded and they managed to get worse off? Come on. The players cant continue to TAKE this money? I love how the owners play the victim card in this.

    He did make a statement that probably shows the thinking behind all these nutbar pieces from the owners lately.
    This would seem the heart of their leverage this time. And they are going to mazimize its PR value with a bunch of obvious bs spin like this article.


    I was starting to get worried a few days ago. THinking maybe its time to give in and negotiate the best possible deal you can with the mafia bosses. But seeing stuff like this, first gets me real angry, and second makes me realize, the owners are weak, and now getting desperate. They are going to crack.
     
  11. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Nice catch. I missed that one.

    Bruce McNall, remember? Before he went to jail? Philip Anschutz picked up the team when McNall's pyramid fell apart and he went bankrupt. It was another case of owner malfeasance. It had nothing to do with the hockey team. (Anschutz, of course, ran Qwest, which was recently fined $250 million by the SEC.)

    I think this is wishful thinking. We are watching a pageant unfold. Ex-members of the old boys club are telling their tales this week. It's pretty weak stuff, but it will work. Even after the errors are pointed out, djhn579 buys it. I think the whole schtick is so insulting to us fans, it is a joke. That's what makes me mad.

    They are playing us like fish.

    Tom
     
  12. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    Wow, Mr. Swados is taking it hard. I guess him messing up on the Craig Simpson part ruins his credibility. I guess I should just believe everything Tom says from now on. He's always got his facts straight... Wait, actually he doesn't...



    For the most part, I was more interested in why the owners "caved" last time. That was my point in posting this article. Does anyone else have any other information?

    The way I see it, There is probably a group of owners that don't agree with the lockout (maybe about 6 - 8 or so), both in '94 and now. Of the other owners, the 6 Swados refered to were probably losing a bit, but were being sold on the idea that a new arena would bring in added revenue. Once they got some concessions from the players on the rookie salary cap, they probably thought they would be able to turn a profit.

    Now, those same owners that were borderline are still losing money. That's one reason I don't think the owners will "cave" this time. There are no more silver bullets out there to solve all of the owners money issues. New arenas did not bring in enough money to keep up with the salary inflation, there are very limited possibilities for further expansion, and there is little hope of bringing in significantly more advertising revenue unless they sell advertising on the players uniforms like they do in Europe (I hope they don't do that...). Now you have a lot of owners still losing money and having to make payments on those arenas. If you were in their position, would you make the same mistake twice?
     
  13. dawgbone

    dawgbone Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2002
    Messages:
    21,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The players certainly did have free agency in 1992... In 1991 Adam Graves was signed as a free agent by the NYR, and the Rangers and Oilers went to arbitration to figure out what the compensation would be.

    In 1998, another principle reason Wayne Gretzky was traded was because of the fact he was 27, and was eligible for free agency.
     
  14. copperandblue

    copperandblue Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    10,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    You can't honestly believe that the owners are the driving force behind these guys offering up their opinions can you?

    It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the media looking for angles and opinions and soliciting their views could it?

    If they were, you would think that the missed facts or dates would have been a little more accurate.

    Further to that, is it BS owner propaganda when a guy like Guy Lafleur or Eddie Shack come out and say that the pendelum has swung to far in the players favour and that it appears that many of the players today don't realize just how spoiled they are?

    No I don't have a link to the quotes by those two players, they were radio interviews I heard just after the lockout began when they were promoting their charity hockey games.
     
  15. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Compensation? For something that is free? What part of the word "free" don't you understand?

    He was not. Sheesh.

    Tom
     
  16. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY

    September 3, 1991 – Signed forward Adam Graves as a free agent. Troy Mallette was sent to the Edmonton Oilers as compensation.

    http://www.newyorkrangers.com/pressbox/pressreleases.asp?id=1242
     
  17. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    "You can not replace Wayne Gretzky," said Pocklington. "But, I guess when we were faced with the fact the inevitable might happen (losing No. 99 to free agency), it becomes a business transaction and we had to do what is best for the Edmonton Oilers, short-term and long-term."

    August 10, 1988

    http://www.canoe.com/Gretzky/gretzky_press_conference.html
     
  18. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    21,195
    Likes Received:
    2,906
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    #99 was traded in August 1988... not 1998
     
  19. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    You don't honestly believe anything this stupid do you? I guess. Wayne Gretzky did not have the right to become a free agent. There was no free agency in the collective bargaining agreement. Pocklington dealt Gretzky because he needed the $15 million. The NHL wanted Pocklington to sell Gretzky because they wanted Wayne to sell hockey in California.

    Is there anything at all you won't swallow? How can something inevitable "might" happen?

    Tom
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2004
  20. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    I don't know Tom, you've already made several factual errors, so your credibility is a bit low...

    So, if free agency wasn't available to Gretzky, why would Pocklington bring it up? Of course Pocklington wanted money. His team was getting pretty expensive by then. That doesn't mean that free agency wasn't somewhere in the equation. Is it possible that Gretzky signed a contract that he would be a free agent after X years? Is it possible that there were discussions on the next cba and that free agency was to be part of it? I don't know...

    And your asking if there is any thing that I won't swallow, meanwhile your swallowing conspiricy theories. "The NHL wanted to sell hockey in LA..." That sounds almost as far fetched as "The NHL gave the Cup to Dallas because they wanted to sell hockey in the south..." Is the gov't hiding a spaceship in area 51? :shakehead
     
  21. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Point them out.

    How popular a move do you think it was in Edmonton? Pocklington was making $20 million cash on the deal. You don't think he wasn't grasping at a straw or two? Spinning, spinning, spinning? Pocklington wanted the money because his other business was verging on bankruptcy.

    Alan Eagleson was head of the NHLPA at the time. The year before Eagleson conspired with the owners to rip the players off on the Canada Cup. The Eagle skimmed the board revenues, and the owners pocketed the pension money the players were supposed to get. Yep, Eagleson was about to get real free agency for hockey players.

    Gretzky had to sign a standard player's contract just like everyone else. At the time that meant Gretzky could have been Oiler property for as long as he played in the NHL. He had four years remaining on a contract when he was dealt. At that point he would become a free agent but prior to the 1995 agreement, teams had the right of first refusal on free agents and compensation if they went elsewhere.

    It was inevitable that hockey players were eventually going to be able to become unrestricted free agents - athletes in every other sport were winning those rights - but it sure wasn't going to happen when Eagleson, Bill Wirtz and John Ziegler were running the league.

    The NHL is by definition a conspiracy and at the time they were conspiring like crazy. The NHL was expanding to the southern United States. San Jose was coming into the NHL, and Anaheim was going to follow.

    Everybody realized what was going on. Bruce McNall, the LA Kings owner (he later served time for fraud) made no bones about it. He made the deal to put hockey on the map in California. The best part from his perspective is that he got his money back and more when Anaheim had to pay him to share the market. Gretzky knew that was his job.

    Pocklington insisted that Gretzky initiated the trade. Gretzky denied that through his friend and teammate Eddie Mio. Pocklington even claimed Gretzky's tearful farewell was an act. "Wayne believes he can revive hockey in the United States or make it a sport to be watched by millions more. Wayne has an ego the size of Manhattan."

    At the press conference Gretzky said, "We need the Los Angeles Kings in the NHL and hopefully I can go down there and get some enthusiam and a winning attitude that they haven't had down there in 20 years."

    Tom
     
  22. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    They are in this same thread.

    You did say there was no free agency before 1992, yet Graves was signed as a free agent (and there was compensation awarded, or am I not to believe that either...).

    You said that the only thing the strike involved was marketing rights, but that was not true either, there were other things involved (Arbitration, free agency, waivers, pension funding was also on the agenda).
     
  23. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY

    Hey, I didn't think of that. If your going to make a move that would get your fan base really upset, tell them that you are doing it for a reason that (according to you) is completely impossible.

    The only way Pocklington can use free agency as an excuse for making an unpopular move like that, is if there is a real possiblity of losing Gretzky to free agency. Yet you say there was no free agency...

    So, why would Pocklington mention free agency if there was no chance of Gretzky being lost to free agency?
     
  24. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    What else was he supposed to do? He was offering a ridiculous excuse to try to excuse the unexcusable. Was he supposed to say? "I did it for the money because I really needed the money."

    He denied shopping Gretzky that summer when everybody - including Gretzky - knew he was being shopped. He denied initiating the trade, saying it was all Gretzky's idea. Then he says, "Wayne did initiate this trade, but I was going to have to deal him sooner or later. He was only under contract for another four years and then if the inevitable happened, Gretzky might be a free agent."

    How bogus was that? That would be a ridiculous excuse today when there is real free agency at age 31. An NHL superstar being traded at 27 because they are going to be lost to free agency in four years anyway? That's ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous when the players had not won true free agency yet. Oiler fans weren't stupid enough to buy it at the time. They were shocked and very angry about it. But what were they supposed to do? Quit watching? The Oilers were still an outstanding team.

    I don't believe I ever met anyone who gave that story any credence at all. If Pocklington was really worried about free agency why didn't he win two or three more Cups before dealing Gretzky? You can't possibly have been following the sport then if you believe it. As soon as the money part of the deal came out everybody knew what was going on. That was a huge amount in 1988. McNall paid $20 million to buy 51% of the Los Angeles Kings and then spent another $20 million buying Gretzky.

    And you believe the deal went down because Gretzky was four years from becoming a restricted free agent? How naive are you, anyway?

    Tom
     
  25. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    Of course Tom, I must be really naive. You always know all the answers and it is completely foolish to doubt you...

    :joker:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"