Goodenow refuses to admit he's lost--Simmons

[CGG]

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.

And it's been shown time and again that the league wasn't abiding by these "deal points". To what extent, we really don't know. But the league was definitely asking for exceptions to these deal points, more harsh exceptions than the PA was hoping for. Which leads me to believe they wanted lower QO's and more owner-friendly arbitration. Saskin even said so:

4) While we had anticipated using our Dec. 9/04 system changes, with a couple of exceptions to be discussed, the NHL today outlined more significant exceptions which they were seeking, particularly in the area of salary arbitration and qualifying offers.

That certainly doesn't sound like the league was on board with the NHLPA deal points to me. The Saturday "save the season" campaign never really got off the ground. They never even talked about salary caps because they didn't agree on the "minor" points, such as QO's and arbitration. That's another well-documented fact. So if both sides were on the same page (i.e. the NHLPA deal points) they wouldn't have had that problem.

 

[Jazz]

The Vancouver Sun reported that PA prez Trevor Linden has had to remind Goodenow that "you work for us," not the other way around...

 

[Crazy_Ike]

I can't wait to see how he fits in with the MLBPA...

 

[AXN]

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.

I don't think so. Bettman only offered 42.5 million hard cap before cancelling the season.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

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.

Because he didn't NEED concrete evidence to back his point up. I think Goodenow and the PA knew plenty about teams revenues and had a good idea of what they were. They had their doubts, but there was no need to spend weeks and weeks confirming that if they had no intention of accepting linkage. If there is no linkage, owners can hide all the revenues they want. But now that we have linkage, revenues need to be negotiated in extreme detail.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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.

Oh come one! The players have been KILLED all around. Try and spin it any way you want, but ANY improvement from the February offer is irrelevant, as Bobby G was not going to allow the document to be signed come hell or high water. The only document you can guage victory on is from the last CBA and the structures it was based on. So in short lets look at the mechanisms you toss out as measures and see how things unfolded, PERIOD.

Cap... Last CBA there wasn't one. This CBA there is one, at the $38 million level (or 54% of revenues) and it comes with a tax too boot, starting at $35 million (or 50 percent of revenues). Half of the teanms were over this level last time hockey was played, so it obvious how this will affect the league. Winner: NHL, BIG TIME

Floor... Last CBA there wasn't one. This CBA there is one, interestingly the floor is $24 million which is only 34% of revenues. Only three teams were below this level, and not by huge amounts of money. Compared to the money being dropped this is a scratch of the surface. Winner: NHLPA, but marginally

Linkage... Last CBA there wasn't any. This CBA there is direct linkage and it appears that the numbers are pretty obvious. The maximum is 54% of revenues. It will be interesting to see if this number floats or if it is the hard number as suggested. Winner: NHL, BIG TIME

Qualifying offers... Last CBA ALL players under league average required a 110% qualifier. Now that has been trimmed down to only players making less than $1 million. So the league average salary (which was $1.8 million) will have to drop by almost 50% before a similar environment will present itself for the players. The NHL just stopped having to guarantee a whole bunch of players raises they likely did not earn. Winner: NHL, but marginally

Arbitration... Last CBA the players were the ones that got to use arbitration to their advantage. Now its a double edged sword. The teams arbitration rights are limited, but only by the fact that they can only hit a player once with it while he remains with that team. Not a big deal if a player becomes a UFA at 28. But the bottom line here is that the NHL teams NOW have arbitration rights, something they did not have prior to this agreement. Winner: NHL, but marginally

UFA... Last CBA it was 30. Now it will drop to 28 after being phased in during the deal. Time will see if this is really an advantage or not. With the inclusion of the cap and the tax it may prevent the big salaries from even happening again. But as it sits, its a benefit to the players. Winner: NHLPA

Rollback... Final kicker. 24% across the board. Winner: NHL, BIG TIME

 

[AXN]

We will see the winner when the CBA is agreed on and actually used. Everybody said they won the last one also.

 

[Tawnos]

Qualifying offers... Last CBA ALL players under league average required a 110% qualifier. Now that has been trimmed down to only players making less than $1 million. So the league average salary (which was $1.8 million) will have to drop by almost 50% before a similar environment will present itself for the players. The NHL just stopped having to guarantee a whole bunch of players raises they likely did not earn. Winner: NHL, but marginally

Umm... 100% q offers still constitutes an inflator. Let's not forget that players usually sign for more than their q-offers... anything that remains an inflator is a win for the NHLPA.

Arbitration... Last CBA the players were the ones that got to use arbitration to their advantage. Now its a double edged sword. The teams arbitration rights are limited, but only by the fact that they can only hit a player once with it while he remains with that team. Not a big deal if a player becomes a UFA at 28. But the bottom line here is that the NHL teams NOW have arbitration rights, something they did not have prior to this agreement. Winner: NHL, but marginally

When the outcome of the deal is anything the Union's side of mirror arbitration, the Union wins. Why? Because the owners want to do away with arbitration completely and threrefore a straight middle ground compromise would be mirror.

Those are both wins for the NHLPA, and not even marginally.

 

[shakes]

Oh come one! The players have been KILLED all around. Try and spin it any way you want, but ANY improvement from the February offer is irrelevant, as Bobby G was not going to allow the document to be signed come hell or high water. The only document you can guage victory on is from the last CBA and the structures it was based on. So in short lets look at the mechanisms you toss out as measures and see how things unfolded, PERIOD.

Cap... Last CBA there wasn't one. This CBA there is one, at the $38 million level (or 54% of revenues) and it comes with a tax too boot, starting at $35 million (or 50 percent of revenues). Half of the teanms were over this level last time hockey was played, so it obvious how this will affect the league. Winner: NHL, BIG TIME

Floor... Last CBA there wasn't one. This CBA there is one, interestingly the floor is $24 million which is only 34% of revenues. Only three teams were below this level, and not by huge amounts of money. Compared to the money being dropped this is a scratch of the surface. Winner: NHLPA, but marginally

Linkage... Last CBA there wasn't any. This CBA there is direct linkage and it appears that the numbers are pretty obvious. The maximum is 54% of revenues. It will be interesting to see if this number floats or if it is the hard number as suggested. Winner: NHL, BIG TIME

Qualifying offers... Last CBA ALL players under league average required a 110% qualifier. Now that has been trimmed down to only players making less than $1 million. So the league average salary (which was $1.8 million) will have to drop by almost 50% before a similar environment will present itself for the players. The NHL just stopped having to guarantee a whole bunch of players raises they likely did not earn. Winner: NHL, but marginally

Arbitration... Last CBA the players were the ones that got to use arbitration to their advantage. Now its a double edged sword. The teams arbitration rights are limited, but only by the fact that they can only hit a player once with it while he remains with that team. Not a big deal if a player becomes a UFA at 28. But the bottom line here is that the NHL teams NOW have arbitration rights, something they did not have prior to this agreement. Winner: NHL, but marginally

UFA... Last CBA it was 30. Now it will drop to 28 after being phased in during the deal. Time will see if this is really an advantage or not. With the inclusion of the cap and the tax it may prevent the big salaries from even happening again. But as it sits, its a benefit to the players. Winner: NHLPA

Rollback... Final kicker. 24% across the board. Winner: NHL, BIG TIME

You seem to have forgotten revenue sharing.. it was probably just an oversight I imagine.

 

[mr gib]

Link

ya and pratt and taylor are saying linden's the one pushing through a deal - and you folk's we're ripping the guy - shame

 

[Crazy_Ike]

ya and pratt and taylor are saying linden's the one pushing through a deal - and you folk's we're ripping the guy - shame

Until he actually gets one done, the shame continues to go on Linden, who unwittingly let Goodenow drive the labor dispute into meltdown territory.

We are perfectly willing to forgive - to a point - once its over. It's not over yet.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

Iconoclast, why do you seperate cap and linkage in your comparison of CBAs? They are pretty much the same thing, a restraint on team spending.

 

[Hunter74]

Because he didn't NEED concrete evidence to back his point up. I think Goodenow and the PA knew plenty about teams revenues and had a good idea of what they were. They had their doubts, but there was no need to spend weeks and weeks confirming that if they had no intention of accepting linkage. If there is no linkage, owners can hide all the revenues they want. But now that we have linkage, revenues need to be negotiated in extreme detail.

What a load B.S. But whatever excuses you can come up with to justify Goodenows tactics.

Imho if the Union was so sure the Owners were crooks like they have been saying for years (all the while pulling a fast 1 on Revenue Canada and the IRS) they could of taken a look at the leagues revenues anytime and exposed the owners for the cheats they are and watch them crumble in the media spotlight. There is no way the NHL would of felt confident enough in there fan base to cancel a season with the public thinking they are a bunch of rich billionairs looking to rip off there players even more. Owners would of shut up and extended teh current CBA instead of losing 2billion in revenue on the hopes that Goodenow doesn't grow enough brains to call them out for the crooks tehy are. But I guess you could use the same b.s line the PA uses and thats you can hide revenue from Revenue Canada and the IRS or whatever tax system they have in teh states. If Al Capone a couldn't hide revenue to save his own ass from the slammer Im sure the IRS could of cought some hockey team owners.

But Goodnenow new that they werent cheating and hiding revenues (otherwise a RevCan or the IRS would of busted them for it and thrown them in the slammer) so he didn't do this until now when he's forced to by his own union. So the least Bob can do is actually go over the numbers and make sure that he gets the best deal he can get for his players. At least he's proffesionall, well at least alot more proffesional then the media and fans think he is.

 

[Hunter74]

Iconoclast, why do you seperate cap and linkage in your comparison of CBAs? They are pretty much the same thing, a restraint on team spending.

They can be employed to ultimatly do the same thing but they are actually different in how they restrain spending.

You can make almost any system look like a salary cap as the PA has shown us this past year.

 

[mr gib]

Until he actually gets one done, the shame continues to go on Linden, who unwittingly let Goodenow drive the labor dispute into meltdown territory.

We are perfectly willing to forgive - to a point - once its over. It's not over yet.

if it wasn't linden being proactive where would things be? although i understand what your saying - it still not done -

 

[GSC2k2*]

Umm... 100% q offers still constitutes an inflator.

A zero % raise constitutes an "inflator". Hmmmm. I think I would like you to work for me, at least during salary review time. The big problem the rest of the year would be your rather startling lack of grasp of mathematics.

Let's not forget that players usually sign for more than their q-offers... anything that remains an inflator is a win for the NHLPA.

And so now the pro-player line is "QO's DON'T matter. Okay, got it ...

When the outcome of the deal is anything the Union's side of mirror arbitration, the Union wins. Why? Because the owners want to do away with arbitration completely and threrefore a straight middle ground compromise would be mirror.

Follow the thread of the discussion, please. Compared to what was in the last CBA, this is still a NHL win. Comparing it to a negotiating position at the outset is silly.

Those are both wins for the NHLPA, and not even marginally.

If only the other lawyers and businesspeople I negotiate against every day thought the way you do, i could go on vacation 8 months a year.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

What a load B.S. But whatever excuses you can come up with to justify Goodenows tactics.

Imho if the Union was so sure the Owners were crooks like they have been saying for years (all the while pulling a fast 1 on Revenue Canada and the IRS) they could of taken a look at the leagues revenues anytime and exposed the owners for the cheats they are and watch them crumble in the media spotlight. There is no way the NHL would of felt confident enough in there fan base to cancel a season with the public thinking they are a bunch of rich billionairs looking to rip off there players even more. Owners would of shut up and extended teh current CBA instead of losing 2billion in revenue on the hopes that Goodenow doesn't grow enough brains to call them out for the crooks tehy are. But I guess you could use the same b.s line the PA uses and thats you can hide revenue from Revenue Canada and the IRS or whatever tax system they have in teh states. If Al Capone a couldn't hide revenue to save his own ass from the slammer Im sure the IRS could of cought some hockey team owners.

But Goodnenow new that they werent cheating and hiding revenues (otherwise a RevCan or the IRS would of busted them for it and thrown them in the slammer) so he didn't do this until now when he's forced to by his own union. So the least Bob can do is actually go over the numbers and make sure that he gets the best deal he can get for his players. At least he's proffesionall, well at least alot more proffesional then the media and fans think he is.

I guess you didn't get it. What do you think they are discussing now? It's not about legally reporting revenues, it's about which revenues are defined as hockey revenues or not. I didn't say anything about owners being crooks or hiding revenues from the IRS. There are plenty of legal ways to account revenues, especially in sports where some owners own seperate teams and the building. The PA isn't saying that the owners are doing something illegal, simply that the owners aren't reporting all the revenues which could be reported as hockey revenue.

Now, there is no need to settle that if there is no linkage. There's no need to argue over what's defined as revenue and what's not, because in the end it really has nothing to do with what ends up in the players pockets. But once there is linkage, the PA has to be concerned about what is actually reported. So I'll ask again, what is the point of spending all the time in September to argue over what is actually defined as revenues, if defined revenues don't have an affect on what the players get paid without linkage?

 

[not quite yoda]

yes a 100% qualifying offer (or a 0% raise as mentioned above) is inflationary.

Think about it.

It means a bad season will get you the same salary as last year. A good season will get you a raise. So Salary totals can technicaly stay the same... but some players will always get a raise. It has always hapenned. So Payrolls can only go up.

 

[Tawnos]

yes a 100% qualifying offer (or a 0% raise as mentioned above) is inflationary.

Think about it.

It means a bad season will get you the same salary as last year. A good season will get you a raise. So Salary totals can technicaly stay the same... but some players will always get a raise. It has always hapenned. So Payrolls can only go up.

Thank you for being logical.

And so now the pro-player line is "QO's DON'T matter. Okay, got it ...

Nobody even implied that... you're going to have to explain where you came up with that idea.

Follow the thread of the discussion, please. Compared to what was in the last CBA, this is still a NHL win. Comparing it to a negotiating position at the outset is silly.

Seriously, who cares what the details of the last CBA was at this point? (other than the fact that it was intolerable for the owners, which I won't argue) The whole thing was obviously completely thrown out the window at the outset of negotiations, therefore it's all reset to zero.

When something is closer to one sides PoV than the other, that's called a win. It's not a rout, it's just a win.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Thank you for being logical.



Nobody even implied that... you're going to have to explain where you came up with that idea.





Seriously, who cares what the details of the last CBA was at this point? (other than the fact that it was intolerable for the owners, which I won't argue) The whole thing was obviously completely thrown out the window at the outset of negotiations, therefore it's all reset to zero.

When something is closer to one sides PoV than the other, that's called a win. It's not a rout, it's just a win.

Honestly, if you don't get it at this point, I don't really have the time to give you a lesson in economics, contract negotiations, logic and the like. This has all been covered. Hit the books. Get some education. Gain some experience in the business world. If, after all that, you still don't understand, don't worry about it. You won't be in a position where you will need to know it.

EDIT: On the other hand, if you do have some experience, or knowledge, and you are still of these views, you are too ideologically driven with which to have a decent discussion. I grow tired with beating my head against the wall sometime. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[Hunter74]

I guess you didn't get it. What do you think they are discussing now? It's not about legally reporting revenues, it's about which revenues are defined as hockey revenues or not. I didn't say anything about owners being crooks or hiding revenues from the IRS. There are plenty of legal ways to account revenues, especially in sports where some owners own seperate teams and the building. The PA isn't saying that the owners are doing something illegal, simply that the owners aren't reporting all the revenues which could be reported as hockey revenue.

Now, there is no need to settle that if there is no linkage. There's no need to argue over what's defined as revenue and what's not, because in the end it really has nothing to do with what ends up in the players pockets. But once there is linkage, the PA has to be concerned about what is actually reported. So I'll ask again, what is the point of spending all the time in September to argue over what is actually defined as revenues, if defined revenues don't have an affect on what the players get paid without linkage?

Ok i understand what you are saying now.

But I still think that they should of taken the time to go over what defines hockey revenue with the NHL. The NHL said publically theywre willing. The league was claiming they couldn't afford to pay the players what they are paying them now b/c there revenues just didn't justify it. The players said they are liars and that they can afford it otherwise they woudln't of paid.

But if the players sat down and with the NHL and discussed what NHL revenues are and then find out exactly what the owners can/cannot afford then they would of had a better position to stand on and they woud of recieved tons more fan support.

But the fact they are argueing that the NHL could afford what they were doing but not goign out and proving it was really just shooting themselves int he foot. I wanted to suport the players but they just didn't say anything on there side except the Owners are liars and we want our fair share. Love to take them on there word but the NHL was at least trying to show some evidence that they couldn't and the PA did nothing to say other wise except call them liars.

I understand they were saying they didn't need to look over the numbers b/c they wanted there version of a free market which woudl be dictated by the industries revenues.

Either way i hope this gets done soon. I dont care who wins or who loses as long as every team has a fair shot at winning in this league. It woudl be nice if the players were paid fairly according to what the NHL as awhole can afford and not jsut what 3 billionair owners are willing to pay.

 

[Tawnos]

Honestly, if you don't get it at this point, I don't really have the time to give you a lesson in economics, contract negotiations, logic and the like. This has all been covered. Hit the books. Get some education. Gain some experience in the business world. If, after all that, you still don't understand, don't worry about it. You won't be in a position where you will need to know it.

EDIT: On the other hand, if you do have some experience, or knowledge, and you are still of these views, you are too ideologically driven with which to have a decent discussion. I grow tired with beating my head against the wall sometime. Maybe tomorrow.

Nice save, lol.

Actually, the "philosophies of winning" we're talking about don't really have to do with "economics" or "contract negotiations" (if you're referring to individual contracts) at all. All they have to do with is bargaining philosophy and nothing else. We disagree on this philosophy... I've been very successful with mine in the real world when I've had to use it... I know people who have been successful with yours.

If I have a bushel of potatos that I want to sell for $50, which is my standard price, but I am willing to negotiate. There's a buyer who wants to pay $30 for it but is willing to negotiate. We settle on $42. While not receiving maximum profit, I'm still the winner in that particular "bargaining session."

What I call that is level-headedness, as opposed to hard-headedness, but I am aware that said "hard-headedness" can be a recipe for success.

 

[Sammy*]

If I have a bushel of potatos that I want to sell for $50, which is my standard price, but I am willing to negotiate. There's a buyer who wants to pay $30 for it but is willing to negotiate. We settle on $42. While not receiving maximum profit, I'm still the winner in that particular "bargaining session."

What I call that is level-headedness, as opposed to hard-headedness.

What a horrible example. You dont "win" dick squat if you sell your bushel for less than what the market will pay for it.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Umm... 100% q offers still constitutes an inflator. Let's not forget that players usually sign for more than their q-offers... anything that remains an inflator is a win for the NHLPA.

100% qualification is an inflator? How so? It's a statement of status quo. It doesn't even give the player a COLA, so by rights the player falls behind on the inflation curve alone. If the teams use the 100% qualifier as it should be utilized, then it is not an inflationary mechanism. The only way it can become an inflationary mechanism if someone allows it by choosing to pay someone beyond the qualification level. The qualification level itself is not inflationary.

When the outcome of the deal is anything the Union's side of mirror arbitration, the Union wins. Why? Because the owners want to do away with arbitration completely and threrefore a straight middle ground compromise would be mirror.

Those are both wins for the NHLPA, and not even marginally.

Atually you are dead wrong. You have not thought it through and considered the concept or the way arbitration can now be utilized and in what context the mechanism can be used in concert with the other mechanisms to create the drag. The players have given on the rookie salaries and their big buy back is free agency at 28. So we will use those two parameters to outline how a GM worth his salt would use his single arbitration hearing that he can use with a player during that player's career to hold the salaries in check.

A player is drafted at 18/19 and need not be signed for a year to two years. So by rights a player does not get signed until he is 20. That contract is a four year deal and has a maximum level on it of less than a million per. When that contract is up the team need only qualify the player at 110% to retain the rights to said player. That still leaves the contract at under a million per. Unless the player has been lighting it up (at which point the team would pay anyways) the player would be forced to accept the offer and perform well enough to gain arbitration rights. If the player has played well the team gives him a good one year contract. If the player does not perform again the team uses arbitration and gets the player under contract one way or another at a price they like and guarantee they retain his rights to the year before he becomes a UFA. At that point they are in a position to make what ever long term offer they like or allow the player to go free and attempt to sign him at a cheaper price. And all of this is set up because the NHLPA guaranteed the NHL teams a single arbitration against a player during his career and also pushed the rookies under the bus, giving the teams the entry level contracts that set the whole premise up. Will all contracts follow this road map? No, but it is a damn good template to put every player on and guarantee you only pay for success. In short, the BIG wins the NHLPA extracted from the NHL (lesser of what they had previously) has actually played into the hands of a GM with the slightest clue.

 

[mr gib]

What a horrible example. You dont "win" dick squat if you sell your bushel for more than what the market will pay for it.

thats kinda ironic don't you think?