Get out of the way - No.4

[FrozenPond]

One side has found its final line, the furthest it believes it can afford to accept.

There are a number of teams who can afford to pay their players a lot more than the NHL has proposed they pay. I think what you meant to say is that one side has found a level that the weakest markets in the league can afford to pay (with a minimal amount of revenue sharing of course).

I suppose the smart move is to expand into Halifax. If Halifax can only afford a $12 million payroll, then naturally the players would simply have to agree to play under a $12 million dollar cap. If the owners want to maintain viable franchises in weak markets, they’ll simply have to get serious about revenue sharing.

Whether you like it or not, the owners will have to compromise if they want long-term labor stability with their players. If not, we’ll be smack in the middle of another labor dispute in six years. If that’s what you want, good for you.

 

[nyrmessier011]

Not unbelievable at all. 700 players get a billion dollars a year to play hockey, and that's not good enough for them. In reality, they don't need a "no cap" league. They don't need to be free of linkage. They don't need any of the things they are fighting about. They're just greedy. They don't want to give up their share of the pie even when its clear to so many that the pie just isn't big enough to split that way anymore.

Can someone, anyone, tell us why the players have to have the things they are fighting about? Tell us why they can't live without them, take their billion dollars, and just try to grow the league alongside its owners? Just a simple answer to a simple question, please. Why do the players need to have those things?

they should get one billion because they bring in 2.1 billion in revenue. They are the 700 figures that bring in that 2.1 so they deserve a huge chunk because if not for them, 2.1Billion becomes 100 million.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

they should get one billion because they bring in 2.1 billion in revenue. They are the 700 figures that bring in that 2.1 so they deserve a huge chunk because if not for them, 2.1Billion becomes 100 million.

Exactly.

But now 1 billion isn't good enough for them. They want more, and more, and more. Except the market has established that they don't deserve more.

And so we sit and wait and sit and wait and hope that someday the players will eventually grow up.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

There are a number of teams who can afford to pay their players a lot more than the NHL has proposed they pay. I think what you meant to say is that one side has found a level that the weakest markets in the league can afford to pay (with a minimal amount of revenue sharing of course).

The league is smart enough (smarter than the pro-player faction, obviously) to know that many of the weaker markets are not weaker because of bad location or bad management and are very necessary to the long term wellbeing of the NHL in this day and age.

To destroy them because the players think every market should pay out like Toronto or New York is suicide. Good thing Bettman and some of his people are doing their best to look out for the interests of as many of the franchises as possible; he is pretty much the only one who is, the only one who has any sort of broad vision or clue. Everyone else, including the entire PA and many of the owners opposed to revenue sharing, are only motivated by selfish reasons and would rather see the league rot than look past their noses.

 

[jratelle19]

The article by Bobby Orr was well-written and, in my opinion, from the heart. I think that both Bettman and Goodenow should take his words very seriously and get this deal done or get the hell out of the way.

There's only one problem....

Bettman hasn't a clue in the world as to who Bobby Orr is.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

That is PURELY speculation, the info i gave were facts.

OK....so facts without motives make Saddham look like a peaceful man hoping to lend goodwill to the Kurds and Kuwaiti's, since we take the words of everyone as gospel since we dare not question intent.

Goodenow, as I speculated, played a card and it got the NHL to yield heavily in the argument. The offer by Bob was VERY late and not likely to be the least bit effective given the amount of other ground to cover AND the lack of effort by Goodenow (he was asleep for a week almost before the deadline?).

So facts are king and motives are irrelevant. Is this what you're telling me?

Any offer by either side which is fantastic should be held up as valiant, even though it be a pipe dream of ever coming to fruition or a smoke screen (like the 24% rollback *cough-for only existing contracts-cough*) used o win the PR debacle.

Face facts: the NHL offered a hard line stance based on figures that were fair, but guaranteed to work and they could not yield anything and ensure that it would be healthy for the league. The NHLPA is fighting to ensure the growth of salaries for its constituents (the PA's job, BTW.). Those are facts.

Those are also the motives involved with every PR spurting by both sides.

So the motives (though you find them irrelevant) point to an effort to rope the NHL into a spot where they can't afford to not budge on other issues and guarantee the PA's fight to escalate salaries in the future. But the thought processes of others cannot be treated as facts. So live in fairyland where Saddham said he'd deal peacefully with UN resolutions, where Bill Clinton said he did not have relations and where Bob Goodenow stated that he would never give in to a cap to his players union membership.


I hope the Associated Press can forgive me for posting opinion driven material on a hockey internet message board without being able to quote sources for my opinions and have my opinions backed up by credible sources who know my inner psyche. If not, no one can say they like a team or player ever again, Fly, unles it's substantiated by someone with press credentials, if I follow your logic.

Either way, blah.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

The league is smart enough (smarter than the pro-player faction, obviously) to know that many of the weaker markets are not weaker because of bad location or bad management and are very necessary to the long term wellbeing of the NHL in this day and age.

To destroy them because the players think every market should pay out like Toronto or New York is suicide. Good thing Bettman and some of his people are doing their best to look out for the interests of as many of the franchises as possible; he is pretty much the only one who is, the only one who has any sort of broad vision or clue. Everyone else, including the entire PA and many of the owners opposed to revenue sharing, are only motivated by selfish reasons and would rather see the league rot than look past their noses.

Excellent synopsis. But it doesn't make anyone any richer, so it won't go heard around these parts. (and it's not fact but opinion )


And I hate saying anything nice about ratboy Bettman, but in this instance, I have to, unfortunately.

Hockey will just be better if more games are played involving two good teams and fewer games with one loaded team and one perennial rebuilder are being thrust upon the casual fan.

Pittsburg was a dog until they built a winner, now they're a dog again. The Kings were a joke attendance wise until Gretzky and a thing caled dignity were brought into town. Atlanta is a great sports town i the infancy of hockey, as Dallas and Colorado and Buffalo and Calgary all were once. The sport grew and the above towns alowe hockey to become the rage. But it will never happen if salary and player movement continues to revolve around the few haves and the growing number of have-not-enoughs.

So unless you like to watch Detroit beat the pulp out of Florida or Anaheim 65% of the time and watch a good match only when necessary, IF you like watching the best game possible, you'll stand steadfast against the proposals of fat cat owners and fat cat players/agents who want nothing more than their biggest chunk of the eroding revenue pie and who consider th quality of the game only as an afterthought.

Good post, either way.

 

[alecfromtherock]

Ironically, it was Orr who set the salary spiral in place with his then unheard of $100,000 a year contract.

Now he is watching guys spit at having a salary 13 times that much on average.

The players were offered 13 times of what Orr made buy the NHL($1.3M) when in reality last season players averages 18 times of Orr’s 100K at $1.8M.

The Great One leaving the Oilers for $$$ had a much larger effect then Orr on current salaries increases.

Unlike Goodenow or Bettman, Orr is a hockey person who actually cares about the state that the game is in(just as Guy and many of the former Greats).

2 committees should be formed if BG and GB are ousted as the head of the respected(not literal) organizations with the power of binding arbitration.

One committee would work on finding a fiscally feasible and realistic system to work under whereas the other committee would exist to improve the on ice product.

Committee A would consist of accountants(CA’s CFO’s...) and a Levitt like person to actually head the committee.

Committee B would consist of former players, referees, fans, announcers and television people...(whom know what their viewers want to see in a sport) headed by an Orr like person.

Once both sides have their new leadership in place then the committee selection would begin.(both would have to agree to a person being appointed to either committee)

Too simple?

 

[FrozenPond]

The league is smart enough (smarter than the pro-player faction, obviously) to know that many of the weaker markets are not weaker because of bad location or bad management and are very necessary to the long term wellbeing of the NHL in this day and age.

To destroy them because the players think every market should pay out like Toronto or New York is suicide. Good thing Bettman and some of his people are doing their best to look out for the interests of as many of the franchises as possible; he is pretty much the only one who is, the only one who has any sort of broad vision or clue. Everyone else, including the entire PA and many of the owners opposed to revenue sharing, are only motivated by selfish reasons and would rather see the league rot than look past their noses.

You may believe that smart guys like Gary Bettman are the only ones who know what’s best for the game, the only ones who care about the game, and that compromise on the owner’s part is simply not an option.

I’d prefer to align myself with a dumbass like Bobby Orr who believes that compromise on both sides is the only option.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

You may believe that smart guys like Gary Bettman are the only ones who know what’s best for the game, the only ones who care about the game, and that compromise on the owner’s part is simply not an option.

I’d prefer to align myself with a dumbass like Bobby Orr who believes that compromise on both sides is the only option.

The rat boy serves his purpose, just so long as it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the product on ice (laser pucks? Egg Nets?). He has the figures and knows the bottom line as to the viability of any agreement a far as the health of the rganizations he represents (apparently, that includes teams outside Toronto, NY and Detroit?).

Orr, Mario and Gretzky are important voices to push the lawyers into doing business, but they have no real voice for the fiscal reality that both sides are pushing. In that realm, they are only two owners and an agent.

I only align myself with the logical middleground and not with any of the above parties and the honorable Bob Goodenow. They have their constituencies into worry about, not the state of he game. Orr wants the game on, genuinely, as a hockey lover, but his clients are also a big part of that, as are Gretzky and Lemieux's team's revenues.

Again, I urge people to root for the numbers, not the pushers of those numbers and the motives the people involved have for the numbers. Players make too much, owners charge too much and that's the only thing I see. If players make less, the onus for ticket prices falls 1000% on the owners so you can boycott games until they lower the prices. If the players make more, the owners will charge more to protect their profits or they will relocate/fold-onus 1000% on the players/agents.

You have a responsibility to make sure all parties control costs and maintain decent prices, but no one exercises that responsibility, instead opting to pay a college tuition on seasons to watch trapping and clutching and grabbing like lemmings.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

I’d prefer to align myself with a dumbass like Bobby Orr who believes that compromise on both sides is the only option.

The old CBA was a "compromise" too.

Look where that got us.

 

[FrozenPond]

The old CBA was a "compromise" too.

Look where that got us.

Compromise is the spice of life Ike. Whether it’s with the wife, the kids, the boss, the parents, the girlfriend, the union, …

 

[nyrmessier011]

More guys need to step up and say things like this. I respect Orr for doing this but what is taking the others so long to comment.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Compromise is the spice of life Ike. Whether it’s with the wife, the kids, the boss, the parents, the girlfriend, the union, …

Someone dealing with every one of those people needs to know when to compromise and when to say 'enough is enough, you've got more than plenty already and I have nothing more to give'. People who 1. want a deal at all costs no matter what the future ramifications are ASAP (like Orr and probably all the hockey agents by now), and 2. who don't really understand the situation anyways (or do and refuse to believe or admit it), those people are the ones who just say "meet in the middle somewhere and compromise".

I want this done as much as anyone. But not at the cost of killing teams the league needs, not at the cost of maintaining the status quo of some teams being virtual farms of the others. I'm willing to wait for a real fix.

 

[eye]

Better late than never Bobby!! Like many, I pleaded for agents to help put pressure on both sides to resolve this thing months ago but the BG cool-aid put an end to that request.

Bobby may have an agenda and may be scared of history repeating itself where his annual income is concerned but I do give him credit for finally taking a stand and showing some courage.

Goodenow has an agenda and it's all solo motivated. Greed, Ego, Pride, Stubborness, Foolishness, Blindness, Shortsightedness etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. IMO, Goodenow is the ultimate example of the blind leading the blind.

Bettman and Daly are the only people in all of this that appear to be making decisions for the right reasons. For the LONGTERM health and benefit of the ENTIRE NHL. I vote to take as long as it takes to get it right this time. Don't cave until the league is fixed.

A bandaid cure would prove devastating for the NHL. Stick to your guns Gary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gee Wally]

I don't know if it's in this thread...but here is the ACTUAL article Orr wrote for yesterday's paper :

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050424/SP_001.htm

 

[ResidentAlien*]

Compromise is the spice of life Ike. Whether it’s with the wife, the kids, the boss, the parents, the girlfriend, the union, …

Actually Spice is the variety of life
But you could say it is Better to bend then to break

 

[Hunter74]

IMO, Goodenow is the ultimate example of the blind leading the blind.

Dont you mean the Blind leading the BLANK.

HAHAHA

 

[FLYLine27*]

Dont you mean the Blind leading the BLANK.

HAHAHA

 

[BLONG7]

Dont you mean the Blind leading the BLANK.

HAHAHA

When will someone of the PA grow some ball$...just fire the guy and get on with it, accept the fact that he has done a brutal job this time around...cut your losses boys...

 

[Hoss]

Exactly.

But now 1 billion isn't good enough for them. They want more, and more, and more. Except the market has established that they don't deserve more.

And so we sit and wait and sit and wait and hope that someday the players will eventually grow up.

Give your head a shake! They aren't asking for more, they are negotiating how much they have to give back.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Give your head a shake! They aren't asking for more, they are negotiating how much they have to give back.

They aren't "giving" anything back. They aren't "owed" anything other than what people can pay them to play their little game on ice. They just can't accept that, and still demand that everyone cough out at the level of the team with the most money to blow.

 

[thinkwild]

Its amazing that players can offer to take a pay cut, and new controls to keep salaries down, as well as a cap so that no team can spend $70mil again, and yet still the players are greedy and want more money. The disconnect makes it hard to take these people seriously.

THe players have completely accepted that they they are owed no mor ethan the market will pay them.

Its all well and fine for Orr to call for compromise, but the "process" Bettman has put in place wont allow for it. The players have shown all sorts of ways to compromise, but the Jacobs hardline position is still accepted by owners and fans as the moderate middle ground.

Bettmans very own deal said underperforming markets would be left to their own devices. To remain farm teams for the rest of the league. Bettmans plan doesnt save this from happening. It doesnt prevent Nashville from spending 70% of their revenues on salary costs. It doesnt prevent teams from having no hope. It doesnt allow for lower ticket prices, more parity, moer fairness than the the current offer by the players. It just gives the owners a better rate on their line of credit, and bigger bonus payments to their lawyers.

But when fans really believe the Jacobs hardline position as espoused by Bettman is "needed" to save the game, and is the only thing that will fix the game, it is easy to understand all the misguided nonsense they spew on these boards.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Its amazing that players can offer to take a pay cut, and new controls to keep salaries down, as well as a cap so that no team can spend $70mil again, and yet still the players are greedy and want more money.

Or you could take a step back and realize the players are refusing to play in a system that can still pay them more than a billion dollars a year to bat around a piece of frozen rubber in front of dwindling numbers of people who care.

Some of you have quite obviously lost all perspective and only really know the rhetoric. You actually believe that those things are "sacrifices" for the players. Amazing.

 

[Schlep Rock]

Or you could take a step back and realize the players are refusing to play in a system that can still pay them more than a billion dollars a year to bat around a piece of frozen rubber in front of dwindling numbers of people who care.

Some of you have quite obviously lost all perspective and only really know the rhetoric. You actually believe that those things are "sacrifices" for the players. Amazing.

Not to nit pick but it's going to be a long time before the NHL is at $2.2 billion in revenue thus giving the players less than your "billion" theory.

Some have speculated a 50% drop in revenues bring it down to $1.188 billion and 58% of that (my estimate what the players will approximately end up with) is $689 million ($22.9/team average).

If it drops 25% it'd still be down to $1.65 billion and 58% of that is $957 million ($31.9/team average)

FWIW, a sacrifice is defined as:
1.
1. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.
2. Something so forfeited.

The value of a player changes but in something lose value, there is a sacrifice. The players are forfeiting money they previously had. That's a sacrifice. Every NHL official says everybody has to "sacrifice" but you here are saying the players aren't sacrificing anything.