Get rid of Jeremy Jacobs

Status
Not open for further replies.

mackdogs*

Guest
gc2005 said:
Look around man. Most people here support the owners. That's just plain obvious, not some kind of half-witted generalization. I certainly don't understand why most choose to align themselves with the billionaires instead of the millionaires and still complain that the PA hasn't given up enough, but that's why there's discussion borads. If everyone had the same opinion there wouldn't be much point.
Pro-owner does not necessarily mean pro-Jacobs. I'm as pro-owner as it gets around here but I am not impressed with Jacobs' tactics lately and know he is not helping. He's the exception and not the rule. As an Oilers fan I am quite happy with how my owner is handling this, Cal Nichols.

So please, don't paint us with your pro-owner brush. You are using one color instead of 30.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
youre right

The Messenger said:
How can people honestly expect the NHLPA and the players to go into a partnership with the owners when you have them like Jacobs .. ???

You just see a small glimpse here at the CBA negotiations .. but what happens when he gets back to running his own team with an iron fist when hockey returns ..

All actions that owners like Jacobs and Wirtz will do in the day to day life of the NHL will effect league Revenue directly and a Hard Cap figure ..

I would bet you would even find numerous OWNERS themselves that would never go into a partnership with owners like Jacobs .

I suggest they stop playing hockey and get a job at McDonalds.

The next group of "players" will be happy to work with the owners.
 

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
The Iconoclast said:
I agree that he should no longer be at the table. He seems to be focused on preventing a deal from getting done. The NHL should replace him with Cal Nichols instead.

In regards to gettin g rid of Jacobs period, well this seems like the perfect opportunity for the players to put their money where their mouths are. The NHLPA should buy the Boston Bruins and show the rest of the lague how a successful operation should be run. They seem to have all the answers and this is the perfect situation to be in (original six, great hockey market, huge broadcast market, etc.) so maybe they should buck up and prove they know the business better than the guys who have put up the hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the teams and build the buildings. As tired as I am of Jacobs and his ilk, I'm more tired of the mindless persecution of the guys who have fronted millions of dollars so a bunch of unskilled labor can make millions of dollars a year. Its put up or shut up time IMO.
You can sure spew ridiculous nonsense like the best of them. Unskilled labor? :shakehead
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
gc2005 said:
Look around man. Most people here support the owners. That's just plain obvious, not some kind of half-witted generalization. I certainly don't understand why most choose to align themselves with the billionaires instead of the millionaires and still complain that the PA hasn't given up enough, but that's why there's discussion borads. If everyone had the same opinion there wouldn't be much point.

I get that.

What I had a beef with was your "undying love and support" crack...you make it sound like having the audacity to support the NHL in this sissy slap fight is equivalent to having the I.Q. of a slow turnip.

NEITHER side has exactly covered themselves in glory for the past couple of years, in case that escaped your notice. :)

My support for the NHL's position is purely pragmatic, insomuch as their vision of what the future should be gives a much greater chance of teams in Canada not named Toronto surviving within the next 10 to 20 years...in my own opinion anyway.

My problems with the NHLPA has a lot more do to with their seemingly shortsighted leadership and confrontationalist "All owners are evil but that still doesn't stop me from cashing their cheques" attitude. And Goodenow champions this image easily.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
AM said:
Jacobs... etc etc acted like morons?
I only said Jacobs, and it's pretty clear he acted like a moron.

AM said:
How? By demanding how much something is going to cost you?

I suggest you go buy a washer and Dryer and dont ask the price.
That just doesn't make any sense. It's pretty clear how much teams are going to be spending, are you trying to tell be Jacobs hasn't been paying attention this whole time? Not to mention, Jacobs can determine how much the washer and dryer costs on his own. Under the last CBA, it costs him $30M. If he doesn't want to spend more than 54% of his revenues on player costs, he doesn't have to.

AM said:
There are morons around that table, I dont think Jacobs is one of them.

He's an owner, he cares about the botto line.

Duh!
Right, he cares about the bottom line...so shouldn't he care about negotiating a deal so his team can start playing again? But instead he sent negotiations backwards.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
AM said:
Negotiating for 1.5 years and someone just told you they want loopholes in the deal, what would you say?

I'd say that's expected... Definitely not worthy of getting emotional over, or feeling like a 'power trip' (trying to intimidate by starring the other guy down) is the appropriate response...

You've got to be prepared for the other side to try and get everything they can out of everything they've got... You've got to be prepared for the more emotional (less rational) to be condensending, engage in power trips, and call you names... Ignore the emotional stuff, listen to what is actually being said (laser focus on the facts, completely ignore the emotional fluff)... That's how good decisions on the spot are made involving important issues... That's how you get an upper hand when up against difficult people...

I don't know very much about Jeremy Jacobs (he's the guy with the concessions company, I think)... Is he a self-made man, or did he inherit his great wealth from his daddy?
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
AM said:
Negotiating for 1.5 years and someone just told you they want loopholes in the deal, what would you say?

Where in there did it say Goodenow asked for loopholes? It's called negotiating, you try to get as much as you can. If Jacobs doesn't want to negotiate, he should be left out of negotiations. Pretty simple.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Drury_Sakic said:
WHAT Concessions....

NHLPA Sept 2004
We will never, ever, accept any form of cap.
We will never, ever, accept any form of linkage.
We have no desire, now or ever, to negotiate a definition of hockey revenues.

HMMM...seems Jacobs hardline tactics are eliciting some MINOR concessions from the PA so far. :biglaugh:
 

Judge Smails

How 'bout a Fresca?
Jan 20, 2004
1,312
65
Bushwood CC
It seems to be a popular sentiment on the board that Jacobs actions are going to cause the Bruins to "be in the cellar for years to come," I think it was. It sounds to me like some people on the board have taken a few too many pucks to the head.

Does anyone honestly think that a player will take less money from, say, Nashville, because the owner of the Bruins, who is offering them more money, was a big meanie to their good buddy Bob? Their buddy who absolutely refused to accept a salary cap until his bluff was called, helping to cost that player an entire season's salary that he'll never recoup? Give me a break!
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
Thunderstruck said:
NHLPA Sept 2004
We will never, ever, accept any form of cap.
We will never, ever, accept any form of linkage.
We have no desire, now or ever, to negotiate a definition of hockey revenues.

HMMM...seems Jacobs hardline tactics are eliciting some MINOR concessions from the PA so far. :biglaugh:

How did this get tied to Jacobs all of a sudden?
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
AM said:
Jacobs... etc etc acted like morons?

How? By demanding how much something is going to cost you?

I suggest you go buy a washer and Dryer and dont ask the price.

There are morons around that table, I dont think Jacobs is one of them.

He's an owner, he cares about the botto line.

Duh!

:biglaugh: How can you SUPPORT him?! Are you that pro-owner? When someone doesn't like something lets stare them down for 5 minutes, blurt out something stupid at the end of the meeting like "Maybe We shouldn't negotiate anymore because Im a big baby and i dont like the negotiations, wahhhh" These a GROWN UPS, if the old man doesn't want to act like one then he should get the hell out.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
you just dont get it

nyr7andcounting said:
I only said Jacobs, and it's pretty clear he acted like a moron.


That just doesn't make any sense. It's pretty clear how much teams are going to be spending, are you trying to tell be Jacobs hasn't been paying attention this whole time? Not to mention, Jacobs can determine how much the washer and dryer costs on his own. Under the last CBA, it costs him $30M. If he doesn't want to spend more than 54% of his revenues on player costs, he doesn't have to.


Right, he cares about the bottom line...so shouldn't he care about negotiating a deal so his team can start playing again? But instead he sent negotiations backwards.

this whole lockout is because of the player cost escalation leading from teams trying to compete. It dosnt matter if you keep your costs down, some other owner will be paying more and in the end you'll be paying more for less.

This strategy has but the NHL in a position of bankruptcy and if it continues alot of franchises will fail.

Playing without the right deal would be stupid and thats what you want Jacobs to be.

Judging from Goodenows responce to Jacobs, we arnt going to be seeing NHL hockey in a long time.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
I dont support him

FLYLine4LIFE said:
:biglaugh: How can you SUPPORT him?! Are you that pro-owner? When someone doesn't like something lets stare them down for 5 minutes, blurt out something stupid at the end of the meeting like "Maybe We shouldn't negotiate anymore because Im a big baby and i dont like the negotiations, wahhhh" These a GROWN UPS, if the old man doesn't want to act like one then he should get the hell out.

I support the owners in looking for a deal that will be beneficial to the NHL.

Jacobs is looking for that also.

We have a coincidence of needs.

I see you didnt respond to what I said, so I'll let you do that.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
PA has old deal back....

Drury_Sakic said:
WHAT Concessions....

All I saw come out of Jacobs tirade is the NHL saying it won't use replacement players after it happened...

:biglaugh:

His harsh words also may give more motivation for those moderate owners to start working a deal with the PA and motivate them to ignore Jacobs words..

LOL.... If Jacobs keeps opening his fat mouth.... the PA might just get the old CBA back..
;)
hah ha ha.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
I agree...

I in the Eye said:
I'd say that's expected... Definitely not worthy of getting emotional over, or feeling like a 'power trip' (trying to intimidate by starring the other guy down) is the appropriate response...

You've got to be prepared for the other side to try and get everything they can out of everything they've got... You've got to be prepared for the more emotional (less rational) to be condensending, engage in power trips, and call you names... Ignore the emotional stuff, listen to what is actually being said (laser focus on the facts, completely ignore the emotional fluff)... That's how good decisions on the spot are made involving important issues... That's how you get an upper hand when up against difficult people...

I don't know very much about Jeremy Jacobs (he's the guy with the concessions company, I think)... Is he a self-made man, or did he inherit his great wealth from his daddy?

But I asked what they would say, I think we can all assume it would be something like what Jacobs did say:)
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
read it again

nyr7andcounting said:
Where in there did it say Goodenow asked for loopholes? It's called negotiating, you try to get as much as you can. If Jacobs doesn't want to negotiate, he should be left out of negotiations. Pretty simple.

the bootom line is that there would be loopholes.
 

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
Thunderstruck said:
NHLPA Sept 2004
We will never, ever, accept any form of cap.
We will never, ever, accept any form of linkage.
We have no desire, now or ever, to negotiate a definition of hockey revenues.

HMMM...seems Jacobs hardline tactics are eliciting some MINOR concessions from the PA so far. :biglaugh:
Wait a minute! Aren't most of the pro-owners constantly slamming the PA for not making concessions?

NHL Hockey will be back in October with a new CBA because the league will make diplomatic moves to partner with the PA, Bettman has already started. The PA has agreed (in principle) to a cap and linkage, the big two platforms of the league's campaign. No good can come from the League further dragging "thier players" through muddier puddles.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
Hoss said:
Wait a minute! Aren't most of the pro-owners constantly slamming the PA for not making concessions?

NHL Hockey will be back in October with a new CBA because the league will make diplomatic moves to partner with the PA, Bettman has already started. The PA has agreed (in principle) to a cap and linkage, the big two platforms of the league's campaign. No good can come from the League further dragging "thier players" through muddier puddles.

That's fair to say...

Neither side benefits longterm from dragging the other through the cattle fields, in the end they only hurt themselves.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
AM said:
But I asked what they would say, I think we can all assume it would be something like what Jacobs did say:)

Here's my response (if I could have somehow entered Jacobs mind at that moment)...

(with a smile) 'Well, we're still very far apart then Bob... maybe we should be meeting every day and night... Perhaps in the Vatican... All the reporters will be outside... They'll know if we came to the right deal, which is our deal, if they see white smoke... They'll know that we didn't get the right deal, which is your deal, if they see black smoke...

Wait for some arrogant, smug remark from Bob...

*laugh with him*, mutter to self '**** off, ass****'...
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
This whole thing is hand-wringing over nothing. Jacobs spoke what he felt. It's a negotiation, I'm sure a *ton* of things have been said over the last year by various parties that would melt your skin. You don't take it personally.

On the basic level, he's right. The league is moving away from a league cap, into an "exception" type system. The league is starting to cave, and he's pointing it out, because he wants them to stick to their guns.

Waiting all this time just to give in to the PA at the end is a massive failure.
 

petrobruin

Registered User
Mar 19, 2002
683
28
London Ont.
Visit site
Now This Post Makes Sense

NYIsles1 said:
Folks can say whatever they like about Jacobs and how he treats people or runs his business or what he may or may not have done that some folks say is illegal. I don't know and really do not care.

Jacobs is not the reason the business is shutdown. But he is not going to let corporate owners or Goodenow who could care less how much their hockey operations lose drive this business anymore, I don't blame him. All they did was drive the sport to obscurity.

Jacobs did sign some contracts that were bad for this business and folks can call him greedy but he did not drive this sport to a work stoppage with payrolls above the revenue the Bruins generate and report multi-million dollar losses operating his team. He may not be popular for not spending an extra twenty million on the Bruins so they could also lose money too, but he did manage his business as a business.

The Bruins are also not a team making ten million dollars or more operating that just put all the revenue in the bank.

The corporate owners who could care less what their hockey operations lost just to have advantages in free agency and are incapable of managing their teams without a checkbook are the owners who should go.


:handclap: :handclap: :handclap:
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
AM said:
this whole lockout is because of the player cost escalation leading from teams trying to compete. It dosnt matter if you keep your costs down, some other owner will be paying more and in the end you'll be paying more for less.

This strategy has but the NHL in a position of bankruptcy and if it continues alot of franchises will fail.

Playing without the right deal would be stupid and thats what you want Jacobs to be.

Judging from Goodenows responce to Jacobs, we arnt going to be seeing NHL hockey in a long time.

What other owners are going to be paying more when there is a cap? They can't pay more, that's the definition of a cap.

Isn't it clear to you that the PA isn't going to accept a deal where leaguewide revenues are added up and divided by 30 to get the cap? Don't you get that? Isn't it clear that replacement players are not a solid option? Don't you get that? Don't you get that the owners already have the right deal, all they have to do is agree to numbers? I want Jacobs to be smart, and realize the league has now has the PA negotiating a system it can work under...allowing this to go any further isn't good for either side. Looks like the two sides are going to have to negotiate a deal, so what exactly is the purpose of doing what Jacobs did? You call that smart? You are so pro-owner you can't even admit that Jacob's was stupid for doing it and should be left out of negotiations.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
AM said:
the bootom line is that there would be loopholes.

And how do you know that? Certainly doesn't say in what was reported, it doesn't even say what they talked about that day. Last time I checked the PA talked about a $30M-$50M payroll range, based on $2.1B revenues, which would move up or down depending on revenues. Are you telling me that the owners own philosophy has loopholes in it? Are you telling me that the $50M is a soft ceiling, which it certainly wasn't reported to be?
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
PecaFan said:
This whole thing is hand-wringing over nothing. Jacobs spoke what he felt. It's a negotiation, I'm sure a *ton* of things have been said over the last year by various parties that would melt your skin. You don't take it personally.

On the basic level, he's right. The league is moving away from a league cap, into an "exception" type system. The league is starting to cave, and he's pointing it out, because he wants them to stick to their guns.

I agree... In a negotiation, you can't take emotional things seriously... Also, IMO, a person in the negotiating room has to be careful with his/her words and actions to be productive... A person has to keep his/her emotions in check... It's one thing to speak your mind in an emotional tone at home, with your wife (tell her how big a turkey Goodenow is... and how you want to wring his neck)... It's another thing to speak your mind in an emotional tone directly to the other party in the middle (or end) of a negotiating session... What good can possibly come from that? They ended up in a starring contest!

It is my personal experience that you can say anything to anyone, as long as it's coming from a place of concern or respect... The combination of negative tone and inappropriate delivery is what can get you in trouble... How Bob responds to the following statements are likely very different:
- 'We are not going to accept your ideas' :p:
- 'We are not going to accept your ideas' :loony:
- 'We are not going to accept your ideas' :teach:

PecaFan said:
Waiting all this time just to give in to the PA at the end is a massive failure.
We continue to agree to disagree :)

This isn't the end... IMO, this isn't even close to being the end if the NHL doesn't start 'giving in to' or 'negotiating from' some of the ideas set forth by the NHLPA...
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
PecaFan said:
This whole thing is hand-wringing over nothing. Jacobs spoke what he felt. It's a negotiation, I'm sure a *ton* of things have been said over the last year by various parties that would melt your skin. You don't take it personally.

On the basic level, he's right. The league is moving away from a league cap, into an "exception" type system. The league is starting to cave, and he's pointing it out, because he wants them to stick to their guns.

Waiting all this time just to give in to the PA at the end is a massive failure.


Since when is starring a member down of the other side part of negotiations??? :dunno: Then saying something stupid like "maybe we shouldnt negotiate anymore" because of his personal opinion??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->