Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by SENSible1*, Jun 3, 2005.
PT Barnum was right. There's an NHLPA member born every minute and Bob Goodenow is there to take them in.
Bye bye Bob.
The owners will get their deal and get rid of Bob as an extra bonus to boot.
When Bob's gone, the league will have a chance to flourish. After this mess is settled, the players would be wise to select a new head whose capable of building a relationship with the owners. Someone who'll line both the players and owners pockets and bring the game back some respectability.
Bob Goodenow has been a blight on the game for the past 10 years, especially the the last 5 when he refused to put the interests of the game ahead of making multi-millionaires out of 4th line grinders, depth d-men and backup netminders.
uh.. correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that his job? If my representitive made me far more money that I deserved, I certainly wouldn't be calling for his head.
And I think the word you are looking for is "lackey".. too bad Alan Eagleson is unavailable for that position.. i hear he did a wonderful job the last time an NHLPA head worked with the owners to "line both the players and owners pockets"
I think Simmons is being somewhat premature in certain ways. We haven't seen the deal yet.
But there is little doubt in my mind the Bob had a pretty misguided strategy. He has contributed significantly to costing his constituents a lot of money - not only for last season but for the drop in revenues that will carry forward out of this mess. That has hurt the future of the game for young players coming along no matter what deal they come up with now - contrary to the mission he claimed. His strategy has failed that mission.
However, Gary Bettman has to bear some of the responsibility for where we find ourselves too. He couldn't find a way to solve the mistrust after years of opportunity to do so though his counterpart seemed reluctant to allow that.
Thats the key part though...trying to get meetings for years to discuss a new CBA, and the other side was unwilling
You're right, the game doesn't need another Eagleson...but it also doesn't need an adversarial bully like Goodenow anymore either.
Discounting the NHL's leadership for a moment (Bettman likely has to leave the stage too), the NHLPA can no longer play the "us vs. the NHL" hand, it's played out and ultimately limiting if this game wants to grow anywhere past the regional novelty it's turning into down south. A partnership is critical, especially when your sport is seeing tough times.
So IMO, they need someone more conciliatory than Goodenow, but not on the take like Eagleson. Any ideas that don't include the name 'Saskin'?
I'm not sure why it has to be a lawyer/slash agent. Why not Gartner, with Saskin as his assistant and a healthy dose of outside counsel?
Nor does it need the "take or leave it" Bettman moments or the Wirtzs and Jacobs of the world.
Nice revisionists history-writing from pro-PA yahoos once again.
Bettman wasn't 'take or leave it' until the final deadline on feb 14th, the reason was that Goodenow is a deadline-player and doesn't move until he's given a deadline.
Had PA started going through the books a year ago, there wouldn't have been a lock-out. Had PA taken the deal (clearly superior in every respect compared to the current deal they are most likely getting) in february, we would have seen a short NHL season.
So blaming guys like Bettman for being forced to take certain actions because of PA's own shortcomings is quite ridiculous.
Is that an angry Rosie O'Donnell?
If by lost.. you mean... A worse deal then the last CBA... WELL NO ****!!!!!!!!
Everyone including BOB G knew they were going to lose this CBA... they didn't go in to this to WIN. they know they couldn't
They went it to make it more fair.........
24% roll back.... and other things...
This deal is better than the deadline deal... so I think they "WON" but lost obviouslly from the last CBA...
well have to wait and see the final CBA to determine the overal progress...
Great. Thanks. But we're kinda bashing Goodenow here. There is obviously trouble makers on both sides of the table but I don't think anyone (even the pro-PA crowd) can argue that Goodenow himself is by far and away the biggest roadblock in this negotiation.
Just like Bettman has been unable to market a sport with enormous potential or even deliver a good product on the ice. Heck, he had a great product when he came and actually found a way to destroy it.
Once Bettman wins this, I hope he gets fired ASAP.
Is there any other kind?
Exactly how do you figure hockey is a sport with enormous potential? Where do you get such a notion? Just because you say so?
No...but roughly the same amount of hockey knowledge.
If it is a 24% rollback + linked salary cap as is being hinted at then the players have lost. They could have had this deal and more at any point during negotiations.
The only unlinked cap deal apparently was far worse than what they are getting now.. (no revenue sharing etc) No one knows what the guts of that deal contained, so no one knows for sure, but people just latch on the 42 and say its better than 38.. bam.. better deal, when it could be farther from the truth.. I say could because none of us have any idea
I suppose you are right. My gut feeling though is that if the players had said on day 1 of the lockout that they were willing to negotiate on a linked cap and a 24% rollback, a deal would have been reached.
What can be said difinitively (if rumours are true) is that the players have capitulated with respect to the framework of the deal. It was clear at the outset that owners wanted linkage, players did not, and it appears that some form of linkage is in the cards. I just think if they had negotiated off this earlier they could have gotten major concessions from the NHL anyways.
Why would they have gone through the books if they had no intention of accepting linkage? I still don't get why people talk about that. They've spent weeks going over team revenues and all, and people say why didn't they do this in September. Well because the PA had no reason to verify the Levitt report if they weren't taking a linkage deal.
And as far as we know, the February deals are not clearly superior to the current deal, not even close.
Nice dose of BS from the pro-owner yahoos once again.
Seriously, every meeting's outcome was "we can't go any further than this" from the owners' side. And when they made even a little progress towards a compromise, Bettman was the one who chewed out Daly for it.
And here's an interesting point that's basically been alluded to:
If one deal has a $42m cap, 75% q offers, mirror arbitration and UFAs at 30, is that a better deal than $38m cap, 100% q offers, two-way arbitration that favors the PA and UFAs at 28?
Linkage might be a win for the owners, along with the rollback... but if enough of the other stuff favors the players, then the players win as well.
It's called going to battle, or in this case negotiations, fully prepared. Bobby went in blind and got pummelled for it. He made too many assumptions about owners hiding revenue and didn't want concrete evidence to back his point up. He's gotten exactly what he deserves. Would you buy a stock knowing nothing about the business behind it? This is essentially what Bobby did. Due diligence is a very, very good thing.
That might be a valid question IF that was the choice on the table. As I have stated before on other threads, if you are talking about the "final" February offer, 75% arbitration was NOT on offer. Please refer to the PA's own deal points, which formed the basis of the "final" exchange of offers around the cap limit.
I wasn't talking specifically about that... it was just a point. I don't really believe that either of those deals are enormously better than the other, that was the point.
Separate names with a comma.