Get rid of Jeremy Jacobs

Status
Not open for further replies.

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
nyr7andcounting said:
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?

Jacobs called out to him, "Do we have an agreement that whatever we're doing, we're not paying more than 54 percent player cost?"

Bobs answer:

Goodenow again told Jacobs that the union's hybrid plan would allow each team to determine, within a specified range, what it would spend on payroll, without guaranteeing a strict percentage.

Eg.

How much is the freezer...

Answer, just give me your wallet I'll be nice!

DO you understand now?
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
no matter

nyr7andcounting said:
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.

what I get, I know that whatever money is there is the only thing players are gonna be paid with.

Jacobs addressed the bottom line, Goodenow waved his hands.

I think he was waving goodbye to another billion dollars, maybe thats why he didnt look happy?
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
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:

Oh please. Don't give Jacobs credit for those concessions. He wasn't even involved in the last minute negotiations that took place before the season was cancelled.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
Np

Hockeyfan02 said:
Oh please. Don't give Jacobs credit for those concessions. He wasn't even involved in the last minute negotiations that took place before the season was cancelled.

I guess you're giving all the credit to Bettman...

Bettman lover!
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
AM said:
I guess you're giving all the credit to Bettman...

Bettman lover!

I give credit to both sides on those concessions. NHL came off linkage so the PA came off their no cap stance. It had nothing to do with Jacobs hardline tactics.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
I gotta disagree there

Hockeyfan02 said:
I give credit to both sides on those concessions. NHL came off linkage so the PA came off their no cap stance. It had nothing to do with Jacobs hardline tactics.

Unfortuneately, the only way to move the players so far, was with hardline tactics.
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
AM said:
Unfortuneately, the only way to move the players so far, was with hardline tactics.

Coming off linkage was a hardline tactic? I don't think so. Even if it was, it was not because of Jeremy Jacobs, who Thunderstruck is crediting for all these concessions. Are you also giving credit to Jeremy Jacobs for the PA's concession of coming off a cap when he was not even there for those negotiations?
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
no

Hockeyfan02 said:
Coming off linkage was a hardline tactic? I don't think so. Even if it was, it was not because of Jeremy Jacobs, who Thunderstruck is crediting for all these concessions. Are you also giving credit to Jeremy Jacobs for the PA's concession of coming off a cap when he was not even there for those negotiations?

I was making fun of the peeps who were concerned with that detail.

It's just that, I dont think Jacobs did anything wrong.

Perhaps he wasnt Ghandi enough, but checking whos got their fingers in your wallet.... well if he didnt do that, I'm sure his bankers would be phoning him soon.
 

WHARF1940

Registered User
Jan 2, 2005
832
0
down in a hole
futurcorerock said:
I think Bruins fans have been preaching this clown's antics for years.

You know the NHL is in sad shape when 1/3 of the Original 6 are under bad ownership
i would say 1/2, forget the rangers?
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
FLYLine4LIFE said:
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??
Well, i dont know about a stare down, but its a common business discussion tactic to make your strong statement and then shut down and wait for the other side to talk first. This often includes looking the person in the eye while waiting for them to respond. This is done to create pressure in the discussion.

Its important when using this tactic to not speak next. Sometimes this results in a long silence, but he who speaks first, loses !

DR
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
AM said:
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.

No, Jacobs is looking for a deal that will benefit Jacobs not the NHL. He's a cheap SOB, always has been and always will be. He could care less about the players or the game as long as he is ahead of the game, yet it was his signings that put salaries out of control.

Players don't want to play for him and I believe that most players would rather play for an owner that treats them decent and respects them than an owner who treats them like trash.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
they need to make

Icey said:
No, Jacobs is looking for a deal that will benefit Jacobs not the NHL. He's a cheap SOB, always has been and always will be. He could care less about the players or the game as long as he is ahead of the game, yet it was his signings that put salaries out of control.

Players don't want to play for him and I believe that most players would rather play for an owner that treats them decent and respects them than an owner who treats them like trash.

A carebear NHLPA player.

It would sell well.
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
DR said:
Well, i dont know about a stare down, but its a common business discussion tactic to make your strong statement and then shut down and wait for the other side to talk first. This often includes looking the person in the eye while waiting for them to respond. This is done to create pressure in the discussion.

Its important when using this tactic to not speak next. Sometimes this results in a long silence, but he who speaks first, loses !

DR

It's a tactic you have the option of employing if, and only if, you own the entire business. Jacob's wasn't hired to represent the league...he should keep his mouth closed.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
jericholic19 said:
It's a tactic you have the option of employing if, and only if, you own the entire business. Jacob's wasn't hired to represent the league...he should keep his mouth closed.

Unless of course, it was all staged, so GB could play good-cop / bad-cop. Not that I give Bettman (and especially Jacobs) credit for being that smart.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
I in the Eye said:
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...

Huh? These recent talks are exactly what you just said - giving in, dropping replacement players & impasse, and negotiating off of the ideas of the NHLPA. This hybrid system bears little resemblance to the league wide hard cap the owners wanted.

In fact, it pretty much resembles the status quo - "different caps for different teams" = "each team makes their own budget".

I hate it, but Goodenow is going to win this one.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
jericholic19 said:
It's a tactic you have the option of employing if, and only if, you own the entire business. Jacob's wasn't hired to represent the league...he should keep his mouth closed.
not really, its a tactic to be used at anytime you are in a discussion and you need your point to sink in.

dr
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
AM said:
Jacobs called out to him, "Do we have an agreement that whatever we're doing, we're not paying more than 54 percent player cost?"

Bobs answer:

Goodenow again told Jacobs that the union's hybrid plan would allow each team to determine, within a specified range, what it would spend on payroll, without guaranteeing a strict percentage.

Eg.

How much is the freezer...

Answer, just give me your wallet I'll be nice!

DO you understand now?

Nope. More like give me your wallet, it will cost at least x% but no more than y% of how much you have in there. Nothing wrong with that.

Bottom line is the PA is on linkage, the league could even work under the 30-50 deal the PA last talked about. So what exactly is the reason for threatening to end negotiations?
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
AM said:
what I get, I know that whatever money is there is the only thing players are gonna be paid with.

Jacobs addressed the bottom line, Goodenow waved his hands.

I think he was waving goodbye to another billion dollars, maybe thats why he didnt look happy?

Jacobs can worry about his bottom line after a deal gets done. Right now the main focus of everyone should be to get that fair deal done, and that's clearly not what Jacobs is interested in doing.
 

R0CKET

Registered User
Jul 2, 2004
320
0
gc2005 said:
They are saints, not at all content with what they've already won, trying to squeeze as much cash as possible out of the NHL while the players who have given in on every single issue are greedy bastards. Go figure.

You are so out to lunch that you still probably believe in the tooth fairy.

The ****ing players who make over 70% off ALL revenues (now that's being greedy!!) pissed on the face of every fan becuase why? They wouldn't allow themselves to share the pot of over 2 Billoin at the paltry sum of only 54%!!?

The players decided not to play when they back-stabbed Mario and Gretz at the last minute. ****ing Vinny Dumbassphousse should be the A-hole who is never allowed back in the negotiaing room. Him and pricks like Guerin. They screwed us all and will do it as long as they can so that they can keep their lock on that "FAIR" distribution of 70% of all the money this game makes.

Just think of it these terms...what would happen if the government took 70% in taxes from YOU and the rest of us? It would be nothing short of a revolution.

But then again please tell me how its OK to allow the players to do this with the owners of this game?
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
R0CKET said:
You are so out to lunch that you still probably believe in the tooth fairy.

The ****ing players who make over 70% off ALL revenues (now that's being greedy!!) pissed on the face of every fan becuase why? They wouldn't allow themselves to share the pot of over 2 Billoin at the paltry sum of only 54%!!?
See this is where your plan falls a part..

The Players made over 70% in the old CBA, and it may have been as high as 75% in fact. The players acknowledged that and in their very first offer at the beginning of the dispute offered to give back 24% of their Salaries to bring those costs in line..

When they did that the Greedy statement was no longer a valid response ever..

If you take 75 % (original costs) and subtract (24% rollback) then player costs are reset to 51% after the rebate, a little below the owners 54% they are hoping for now ..

Making any future statement about player greed unfounded and extremely biased.

If you went into your Bosses office and offered to have your current Salary cut by 24% to help out the Owner with his costs .. I guarantee you that your Boss will NOT ACCUSE you of being GREEDY by your actions ..
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
See this is where your plan falls a part..

The Players made over 70% in the old CBA, and it may have been as high as 75% in fact. The players acknowledged that and in their very first offer at the beginning of the dispute offered to give back 24% of their Salaries to bring those costs in line..

When they did that the Greedy statement was no longer a valid response ever..

If you take 75 % (original costs) and subtract (24% rollback) then player costs are reset to 51% after the rebate, a little below the owners 54% they are hoping for now ..

Making any future statement about player greed unfounded and extremely biased.

If you went into your Bosses office and offered to have your current Salary cut by 24% to help out the Owner with his costs .. I guarantee you that your Boss will NOT ACCUSE you of being GREEDY by your actions ..

The players never attached any sort of control afterwards that would have kept that 24% rollback in place so it is quite obvious that they were never all that serious about it. It was more for show than an answer to the long term financial problems of the league, but it did fool some people.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
mooseOAK said:
The players never attached any sort of control afterwards that would have kept that 24% rollback in place so it is quite obvious that they were never all that serious about it. It was more for show than an answer to the long term financial problems of the league, but it did fool some people.
You are wrong again and I see you have not been reading those CBA news links I provided ... The NHLPA offered lower Entry Level Contracts with lower bonuses, 2-way Salary Arbitration, eliminated the automatic increase on Qualifying offers, imposing a Payroll Tax system with penalties all to put a future drag on Player Salaries.

Basically made the first attempt to correct the Systemic issues that the owners claimed were the biggest factors that increase Salaries outside of their own control.

Here is the NHLPA Dec 9th Proposal so you don't have to take my word for it but can read it for yourself directly ..

Link to Proposal : http://www.nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3398

So only the young and naive that continue to object, without getting any facts on the subject keep this alive on the notion of player greed despite the offer to give back 1/4 of their salaries.

However the whole CBA is another problem that is not covered by the Greedy Statement ..

No one said it addressed all the problems, but certainly a good starting point to begin negotiating on.. The NHLPA never expected the NHL to take that offer at face value and accept it, but a counter proposal that tightened the numbers and addressed the issues certainly was not have been out of the question to expect.

The reason the Dispute goes on is because it has shifted from player greed to OWNER/GM stupidity constraints...

The focus now is to come up with an IDIOT PROOF CBA that would allow even a TRAINED CHIMP to do the GM job .. They need a CBA that now Polices their future Contract mistakes, and spending and in fact controls OWNERS GREED. They need a CBA limiting them from competing against each other on the free market by using free spending (often blowing up their own budgets) in an attempt to win the STANLEY CUP at any cost, in turn sending many Franchises into financial ruin and a mounting loss situation by their own feeding frenzy.
 
Last edited:

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
You are wrong again and I see you have not been reading those CBA news links I provided ... The NHLPA offered lower Entry Level Contracts with lower bonuses, 2 way Salary Arbitration, eliminated the automatic increase on Qualifying offers, imposing a luxury tax system with penalties all to put a future drag on Salaries.

Basically made the first attempt to correct the Systemic issues that the owners claimed were the biggest factors that increase Salaries outside of their own control.

Only the young and naive that continue to object, without getting any facts on the subject keep this alive ..

However that is another problem that is not covered by the Greedy Statement..

No one said it addressed all the problems, but certainly a good starting point to begin negotiating on.. The NHLPA never expected the NHL to take that offer at face value and accept it, but a counter proposal that tightened the numbers and addressed the issues certainly was not have been out of the question to expect.

The reason the Dispute goes on is because it has shifted from player greed to OWNER/GM stupidity constraints... The focus now is to come up with an IDIOT PROOF CBA that would allow even a TRAINED CHIMP to do the GM job .. Its needs a CBA that now Polices their future Contract mistakes, and spending and in fact controls OWNERS GREED. They need a CBA limiting them from competing against each other on the free market by using free spending in an attempt to win the STANLEY CUP at any cost, in turn sending many Franchises into a financial loss situation by their own feeding frenzy.

The NHL's counter offer came with a cap which the NHLPA immediately rejected which proves that they had absolutely no intention of the 24% rollback being a permanent fixture. Despite their changes to arbitration and entry level contracts, the NHLPA controls the price of the product.

There is no free market in the NHL, one would have to be terrifically dense not to have that figured out by now.

The players want the protection of the CBA, they want their minimum salary, their arbitration rights, and their guaranteed salaries. Or as you would word it , players want an IDIOT PROOF CBA that gives them a GUARANTEED contract to protect INCOMPETENT players who then don't have to worry about DOING THEIR JOB RIGHT.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
mooseOAK said:
The players never attached any sort of control afterwards that would have kept that 24% rollback in place so it is quite obvious that they were never all that serious about it. It was more for show than an answer to the long term financial problems of the league, but it did fool some people.
Everytime a poster makes this NAIVE claim they should have to explain away all the other factors included with the 24% rollback offer.


NHLPA PROPOSAL DEC 9th said:
The six major elements of the NHLPA’s plan as presented to the owners include:




1) 24% Compensation Rollback

An overall market deflator that resets player compensation at a new, sharply reduced level by rolling back all player compensation by 24% through the life of existing contracts. The rollback in compensation over three years will be $528M. In addition to an immediate economic impact for owners and their teams, the deflator will have major ongoing effects on new contracts.


2) Future Salary Restraints (Entry Level System, Qualified Offers and Arbitration)

A new set of system deflators that will reduce spending on the individual contracts executed in the new, rolled-back marketplace. These system deflators include substantial restraints in the ELS; reduced qualifying offers; the use of rolled-back and new contracts as the only comparables available in salary arbitration and in negotiations for new contracts; and the use of arbitration at the election of the club for two new purposes identified by the NHL as important.

Conservatively these system benefits to owners will pull $400M out of the ELS system over the next six years, reduce the aggregate qualifying offers due to Group II Players by $285M over three years and provide other benefits.

3 ) Payroll Tax

A payroll tax with thresholds that begin at $45M, tax rates between 20% and 60% for first time taxpayers and higher rates for repeat taxpayers. If a club triggers the tax, its payments will be pooled for distribution by the NHL and NHLPA.

4) Revenue Redistribution Plan

A revenue redistribution plan that will transfer money from the high-revenue clubs to the low-revenue clubs, and encourage low-revenue clubs to increase their own revenues. The redistribution will inhibit spending on players by the clubs that have formerly spent the most.

This plan offers three alternatives to the NHL with amounts ranging from $65M, to $124M and $190M, respectively.

5) Joint Player-Club Committees

Joint Player-Club committees designed to ensure real improvements in the game, its marketing and its revenues, along with other areas of mutual concern. As an initial step, the players propose to commit to play in the 2006 and 2010 Olympics.

6) Ongoing Adjustments and Updates


Adjustments and updates to a variety of other CBA provisions..



.​
Link : http://www.nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3398
 
Last edited:

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
R0CKET said:
You are so out to lunch that you still probably believe in the tooth fairy.

The ****ing players who make over 70% off ALL revenues (now that's being greedy!!) pissed on the face of every fan becuase why? They wouldn't allow themselves to share the pot of over 2 Billoin at the paltry sum of only 54%!!?

The players decided not to play when they back-stabbed Mario and Gretz at the last minute. ****ing Vinny Dumbassphousse should be the A-hole who is never allowed back in the negotiaing room. Him and pricks like Guerin. They screwed us all and will do it as long as they can so that they can keep their lock on that "FAIR" distribution of 70% of all the money this game makes.

Just think of it these terms...what would happen if the government took 70% in taxes from YOU and the rest of us? It would be nothing short of a revolution.

But then again please tell me how its OK to allow the players to do this with the owners of this game?

This is a lockout, it's not logically possible to put all of the blame on the players. The only blame to the players is that they tried, and succeeded, in making as much money as possible under a CBA that was tilted in their favor. But the owners are just as much to blame for that as the players.

A new system is needed and the players have acknowledged that. With that said they aren't the only ones screwing the fans over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->