Could the PA Have Obtained this Deal Sooner?

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by GSC2k2*, Jul 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    I have heard probably twenty players dribble this through their lips in the last 24 hours. Same as the "No cap ever" mantra, this is the new spiel.

    Well, someone may want to direct them to this:

    Where is this from, you might ask? Well, it is one of the infamous six "concept" proposals that the league put forth before the lockout.

    I dunno, it has no numbers or anything, but the ideas seem somehwat familiar...
     
  2. The Joker*

    The Joker* Guest

    They could have got this deal whenever they wanted it, they just chose to follow Bobby down the wrong path
     
  3. handtrick

    handtrick Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Occupation:
    hand surgeon
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    In a true hockey sense mentality, they had to drop their gloves and give it a go.
    Everything in a hockey player's character screams against acuiescing with out that fight.
    Goodenow just miscalculated the owner's resolve, and they got the teeth handed to them...simple as that.......No way for them to walk away from that fight when their leader is preaching to fight on.
    .

    So...yea....we had to lose this year, IMO.
     
  4. matthew94

    matthew94 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    pastor
    Location:
    WNY
    Home Page:
    Didn't you guys listen to Bob? He said it's doubtful the deal could have come sooner :)

    The discussion had to be had.
     
  5. Street Hawk

    Street Hawk Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Knowledge is power....

    The player's error wasn't miscalulating the Owner's Resolve. It was not taking the opportunity to gather more knowledge of the Financial Status of the NHL. Had they worked with the owners on the Levitt Report, begun real discussions about Hockey Revenues and Expenses in 2003, been willing to trade in money for a bigger role in the NHL game, they probably wouldn't have needed to waste of year.

    Because Goodenow didn't know how badly teams were losing money, he didn't realize that they would rather lose a season and suffer the difficulties of re-gaining fans under a Linkage System than the continue with the same Economic System they had, even with a 24% rollback.

    How, anyone on the PA could actually believe that owners would cave in after 2 years of a work stoppage, when all reports indicated the teams were losing big money the past few years is beyond me? Lose 1 year and fan support in several markets will dip more than 10%, some maybe around 20%. So, why would the owners expose themselves to the biggest risk of 20% less revenue while giving the players the same economic system? Never made any sense to me. Once, the season was lost, the NHL HAD to have Linkage. Owners simply weren't going to be the ones to bear the brunt of the fan backlash with their wallets.
     
  6. handtrick

    handtrick Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Occupation:
    hand surgeon
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    Goodenow knew the league's economic situation [everyone on HF boards that cared to discuss it knew it]....he chose to not sit down and go over it to hide behind the mantra of "they are hiding money" to keep his union united with the no cap/ no linkage mantra. There are few Economics and Finance majors in the NHL rank and file.

    This line of reasoning requires common sense....something the PA rank and file didn't seem to find until missing a year of paychecks.....Fighting on principles and emotions is one thing....but reality eventually has to set in and it appears that Trevor Linden and Mike Gartner were able to see the handwriting on the wall, much sooner than their illustrious leader.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2005
  7. Icey

    Icey Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not that anyone really cares, but what I think is that it is time to stop blaming. The players ratified the deal, the owners will do the same in the morning. There is so much to look forward to....draft lottery, buy outs, RFA being qualified, FA being signed, watching how creative GM's can get in trying to build a team within the means of a salary cap, what the league and owners do to make this a better hockey league, can the players and owners work together as partners. But instead people are just so hell bent on rehashing if the deal was better last winter or how stupid the players were for following Goodenow. The past is just that, the past. Move on and look forward to what's to come because its something we've never seen before.

    Personally at this point I don't care who won and who lost, who gave what up and why each side did what they did. It's history, its in the past. Dwell on the past and you miss tomorrow.

    Carry on with your analyzing.
     
  8. Resolute

    Resolute Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    AB
    Hell, they could have had a better deal - the one with profit sharing.

    If the players needed to lose an entire season to believe the owners were serious, then so be it. A season needed to be lost.

    Personally, I think the union should have realized the seriousness of the owners position when the 24% rollback bounced off the owners without a dent.
     
  9. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    I would disagree.

    Firstly those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

    Secondly, since the players have ratified it a whole six or seven hours ago, it is hardly in the past.

    Thirdly, a key "business of hockey" issue is the fate of Goodenow. That cannot bbe discussed without an analysis of his performance.
     
  10. Icey

    Icey Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do realize that sometimes you need to look backwards to go forward, but my point was that everyone has been talking about these same issues for the past month. Could the players gotten a better deal. How many threads do we need on this subject?

    It's not the actual ratification part that is in the past but how dumb the players are/were for following Goodenow. How could they not known better. How could they have not seen how strong the owners were. We have been talking about this for the past 301 days. blah blah blah

    I don't see Goodenow as a key business of hockey. Bettman is, Daly is, the players are, but not Goodenow. Goodenow's job is basically done. We won't hear much from him for a long time. His job is to lead the union, nothing more.

    I guess the difference is that I am looking FORWARD to the game of hockey. I am looking forward to free agency and the buyouts. I don't care at this point who's fault it was. Who misread who. It's gotten old, I say move on and you say lets rehash it just one more time. I don't see the point of it.
     
  11. NYR469

    NYR469 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    we'll never know if a deal could have been done...everyone focus on goodenow and the executie committee and why they didn't come off the 'no cap' stance earlier. but right after the PC today bryan mccabe (leafs player rep) was interviewed on fan590 and he was asked "if this deal was on the table in september, do you think the players would have voted for it?" there was a pause and then mccabe just said something only the lines of 'we'll never know'

    mccabe basically implied that if the deal they agreed to today was on the table in september the players would have laughed at it but after missing a year lots of guys are saying "who cares, we just want to play"

    and i'm sure there are things the owners gave up that they wouldn't have agreed to last summer.
     
  12. Larionov

    Larionov Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,575
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    The League was offering a $33 million hard cap last summer, IIRC, with no floor. Does anyone really think it would have been that hard for Goodenow to get them to bring that cap up a few million, and insert a floor? That probably would have taken all of about two weeks.

    Even if the players had only gotten a $35 million cap last year, it would have represented a total loss to the players of about $120 million over what they got after sitting out a year. So, at the end of the day, these guys booted away over a billion dollars in lost wages in order to gain a little over $100 million. Brilliant -- has anyone considered sending the 'PA a Nigerian banking letter?
     
  13. coppernblue

    coppernblue Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the PA threw away the year for the younger UFA plus almost exactly what that framework was
     
  14. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    17,062
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    The league was offering linkage numbers of 54 % since december....it was an opening number. They were dangling free agency as well as they had in that proposal that they were willing to negotiate it. As much as some of the players are telling other to shut up about it there is absolutely no doubt this deal could have been struck at anytime in the past year. The first Feb offer which had this linkage level and profit sharing is by far the best offer. This deal is better than the unlinked one....but then a linkage deal was always the best thing for the players from the outset. It was never an evil concept but simply a fair one. They were too stupid to realise it until Bettman basically called the Goodenow's bluff on linkage. As soon as it was dropped Goodenow fired a counter-proposal back containing a modified upwards linkage. I think that is what opened the eyes of the rest of the executive...here was a guy spouting off about no cap no linkage who in a matter of days turned tail and capitulated to a cap and then when linkage was dropped like he supposedly wanted tried to put it back on the table in a modified form. Goodenow had no plan B. He only had hope the owners would turn on each other. Anyone with half a brain knew the owners were not going to turn on each other. Goodenow didn't and he had no Plan B. His supporters can try to sit there and say but he said they would need to last 2 years. It wouldn't have mattered...the owners cancelled one season, they are not attached to hockey and it doesn't bring them enough money to start panicing at that point. It also seems a silly strategy to tell your membership that you will need to miss 2 years out of your career to get anything resembling a win. It's even sillier that the membership didn't immediately say "if that's the case Bob you better go out there and get the best deal for us NOW." The players took to long to control the ship. They put blind trust in Goodenow. Goodenow repaid that trust with an ill conceived strategy.

    I find very little blame for Bettman. I know the players liked to spout off the entire time about not having a negotiating partner BUT I think it was the NHL who didn't. Bettman had to convince the players the owners weren't lying and that was perhaps his only failing....however, when they did the Levitt report they offered the PA the chance to appoint there own auditor and do it together. The PA declined. The PA declined to talk to Levitt. The PA declined to do their own study. The only way Bettman could convince the players the owners weren't lying required some basic cooperation from Goodenow and he got none. The PA wanted to continue the us vs them mentality. It's evident to me from the six concepts, the other proposals, and the desire to get the players involved in looking at the finances of the league the NHL all along wanted that partnership. I think the biggest mistake the NHL made was not detailing a revenue sharing plan and instead choosing to try to leave it outside the CBA (as it is in the NFL). They gave assurances on the levels of sharing though and that should have been enough for the PA. It shouldn't matter how it's done as long as it is at the level it needed to be.
     
  15. joechip

    joechip Registered User

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    3,229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Libertarian
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Home Page:
    Outstanding post, Tantalum. In the PA's defence, if they had made any movement towards auditing the NHL's books they would have undermined their own position. The only play they had was to stonewall for as long as possible. Personally, this looked like Aces vs. 10-7os and an Ace hit on the flop. Uh, what do you do now if you're holding the 10-7?

    Bluff or fold.

    The PA Bluffed, the league called. The PA got cleaned out. A better player would have folded to the pre-flop raise (releasing the Levitt report).

    Ta,

    p.s. I use the poker analogy specifically to gall those who constantly bemoan the fact that poker out-draws hockey on american TV screens. There's a reason for that. People are playing poker. Besides that, it's great TV. Hockey hasn't been. That's the fault of both the NHL and the NHLPA.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"