Goodenow's Second Letter To Bettman

[Kessick]

Bob's sn is definitely "TooGoodenow4u".

HAHA. Awesome :lol

I'm bookmarking this thread.

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

Christ, why did they have to stop

It's not as if they've got any dignity left ... this is too funny I can't get any work done ... and I've eaten all my nachos !

C'mon Gary, get that typewriter going, use bulletinboard quote blocks and don't forget the rolleyes !

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Continued AIM convo...


gbettman16: Oh ya Bobby?? Maybe its because you have all that sand in your v*****!
goodenowdaddy: You're just mad cause you still wet yourself at night! Sometimes more than just at night...that's sick
gbettman16: Does it itch Bobby? All that sand MUST itch...
goodenowdaddy: Bedwetter!
gbettman16: Shut up! Oh ya and I'm keeping you're Nsync CD too!!
goodenowdaddy: You B****! I'm never talking to you again!
gbettman16: Good I hate you!
goodenowdaddy: Fine!
gbettman16: Fine! Poopy head! (gbettman has just signed off)
goodenowdaddy: Oh no he didn't! (goodenowdaddy has just signed off)

Seriously they sound like one of two things: A couple of children, or a couple of middleschool girls. Either way they need to grow up.

Fantastic!!!

 

[drbill28]

From the sound of this. One person is sleeping soundly right now and it's not Goodenow. It was perfect timing from Bettman. Late night chit chat and now Goodenow has a lot to think about. I believe Bettman is prefectly comforatable pushing the "red button" tomorrow. But as long as someone is talking on either side, he won't.

 

[Lady Rhian]

gbettman16: u r a homo
goodenowdaddy: s t f u

i expect something similar to be posted in the near future.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed it. :lol

 

[King'sPawn]

GeeHomeyBettman: ok ur suk u n00b
IBGoodNow: l4merZ. n0 d33l
GeeHomeyBettman: w3ll we hav e2 loko good adn make deel.
IBGoodNow: s0 hoW d0 we decide?????/
GeeHomeyBettman: Dethmach y0!11!1!
IBGoodNow: k d00d il Pwn ur @$$
GeeHomeyBettman: noT if we plaY QuaKE!1!1!!
IBGoodNow: Lets setle it in HaffLife then N00b
GeeHomeyBettman: no we plaY QuaKE!11!!!
IBGoodNow: k u suk no deel

The real reason we were so close to having the season saved, yet it was just out of reach.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

I kind of think bob got him with this one..imo:

2. Based on your own calculations from Exhibit 12, over 21 Clubs are spending significantly less than your team payroll limit number of $42.5 million. I am at a loss to understand how you suggest your offer earlier today represents a $75 million dollar increase when it only impacts the spending of nine teams!

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

I kind of think bob got him with this one..imo:

2. Based on your own calculations from Exhibit 12, over 21 Clubs are spending significantly less than your team payroll limit number of $42.5 million. I am at a loss to understand how you suggest your offer earlier today represents a $75 million dollar increase when it only impacts the spending of nine teams!

I think Goodenow needed one or two more exclamation marks for me to truly understand the impact of the statement.

 

[RR1107]

2. Based on your own calculations from Exhibit 12, over 21 Clubs are spending significantly less than your team payroll limit number of $$$$$$42.5 million. I am at a loss to understand how you suggest your offer earlier today represents a $$$$$$75 million $$dollar$$ increase when it only impacts the spending of nine teams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TSN and Sportsnet edited out all of the extra money symbols and exclamiation points and took out the smilies too before they posted it on their websites.

 

[tantalum]

Letters back and forth. Players getting upset over a to the point letter from Bettman (wow do they ever have thin skins!). It's laughable.

But people have to stop and think about this a bit from the leagues point of view. Last CBA the league failed to ask all the "what if" questions and this is where we are at because of it.

So quite frankly Bettman's "what if the clubs spend at that level" is a very valid question and concerning to the league. No not all clubs have spent at that level in the past but many have and many will. Add to it the tax money now filtering down to lower payroll teams and you will see more than a handful at or near that maximum level when everyone is signed. Yes GMs and owners are stupid and notoriously slow learners but again that is why we are here right now. They don't learn from their past mistakes.

Now all the players have to do is come back and say is that they will escrow some money if the average team salary goes past say $40 million or so (i.e. 55% of last seasons revenues). Give the NHL some guarantees that what Goodenow says in his last letter is the truth and will remain that way. Yes it is about idiot proofing the system. The PA will not do that on a $49 mil cap (of course) but they may just do that for a $45 mil cap.

As an alternative the NHL can use the fact they have essentially guaranteed a lower cap number of $42.5 mil. It won't fall below that. They would probably be willing to link the cap when/if revenues climb past $2.1 B. And/or do the profit sharing.

The time to change systems is over but it only takes five minutes to do a little something creative in this system and get a deal done.

 

[Icey]

Now all the players have to do is come back and say is that they will escrow some money if the average team salary goes past say $40 million or so (i.e. 55% of last seasons revenues). Give the NHL some guarantees that what Goodenow says in his last letter is the truth and will remain that way. Yes it is about idiot proofing the system. The PA will not do that on a $49 mil cap (of course) but they may just do that for a $45 mil cap.

As an alternative the NHL can use the fact they have essentially guaranteed a lower cap number of $42.5 mil. It won't fall below that. They would probably be willing to link the cap when/if revenues climb past $2.1 B. And/or do the profit sharing.

The time to change systems is over but it only takes five minutes to do a little something creative in this system and get a deal done.

That's linkage and that was the major road block the finally got knocked down so why would you now re-introduce linkage? I wouldn't take that deal and neither should they.

And Bettman's what if's are unrealistic what if's. Do you really think Nashville is going to spend $49M on salaries after spending $21M this past season? Or how about Atlanta? Pittsburgh? Florida? There are a good number of teams that won't spend that amount and I think even Bettman knows that.

 

[tantalum]

That's linkage and that was the major road block the finally got knocked down so why would you now re-introduce linkage? I wouldn't take that deal and neither should they.

And Bettman's what if's are unrealistic what if's. Do you really think Nashville is going to spend $49M on salaries after spending $21M this past season? Or how about Atlanta? Pittsburgh? Florida? There are a good number of teams that won't spend that amount and I think even Bettman knows that.

1) it is only reintroduced IF revenues bounce back to pre CBA-war levels. i.e. the linkage is ONLY used to increase the cap. It can not be used to decrease the cap over the term of the CBA. A payroll floor can also be brought back as well.

2) You never know. Pittsburgh ran a $30+ mil payroll not to long ago. With a little tax money, improvement in the standing they can easily be in the mid to high 30's range. No one would have expected Tampa Bay to be over $40 mill at this time before the beginning of last season. IN the end when players are signed, tax money is divided up you will see an average payroll that is quite close to the cap. A average payroll of $35 mil is VERY realistic....it could EASILY be higher. Nearly half the teams could very well be near the $40 mil mark. $35 mil is already 50% of revenues. Watters and other pundants were thinking that with the tax money and what not that the lower teams would be brought up to the low 30's in payroll. Half the teams spent $40 mil or more last year...with all the signings is that going to change? I doubt it. Only 5 teams were below $30 mil...with that tax money three of those teams would be over $30. So 28 teams over $30 mil with probably atleast half at $40 mil or even the $42.5 M. An average of atleast $35 mil right out of the gate is realistic IMO. It could go higher and get into the territory the NHL does not really want to see and that's under a $42 mil cap not a $49 (well $53.9) cap.
It is a valid concern from the leagues point of view especially if revenues drop and don't recover.

 

[SENSible1*]

That's linkage and that was the major road block the finally got knocked down so why would you now re-introduce linkage? I wouldn't take that deal and neither should they.

And Bettman's what if's are unrealistic what if's. Do you really think Nashville is going to spend $49M on salaries after spending $21M this past season? Or how about Atlanta? Pittsburgh? Florida? There are a good number of teams that won't spend that amount and I think even Bettman knows that.

The PA put linkage in their counter proposal.

Of course they only want it to apply if the numbers go up AND they want the benchmark to be next year reduced revenue #'s.

Forunately, Gary won't let them have their cake and eat it too.

No risk = lower rewards.

 

[mudcrutch79]

The PA put linkage in their counter proposal.

Of course they only want it to apply if the numbers go up AND they want the benchmark to be next year reduced revenue #'s.

Forunately, Gary won't let them have their cake and eat it too.

No risk = lower rewards.

It's not linkage. Linkage is if they're guaranteed a percentage of revenues. That's not what they're looking for. The cap needs an escalator to allow it to grow as the league grows.

 

[Seachd]

If every team spent to the $49 million level you have proposed, total player compensation would exceed what we spent last season and, assuming for discussion purposes, there was no damage to the game, our player compensation costs would exceed 75% of revenues.

Can Goodenow not read?

 

[mudcrutch79]

Can Goodenow not read?

What's your point?

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Thanks for the laugh guys. I knew nothing would happen last night so i got a good night sleep. But this was a great thread to read forst thing in the morning.

My prediction still stands. Bettman will offer Goodenow an offer of 44 million at 10 am

 

[Seachd]

What's your point?

Goodenow's a grown man; he should be able to read.

 

[mudcrutch79]

Goodenow's a grown man; he should be able to read.

I'm somewhat confused as to how that sentence indicates that he can't read.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

And Bettman's what if's are unrealistic what if's. Do you really think Nashville is going to spend $49M on salaries after spending $21M this past season? Or how about Atlanta? Pittsburgh? Florida? There are a good number of teams that won't spend that amount and I think even Bettman knows that.

The point isn't that teams will spend that high it's that having a high salary cap allows for more salary inflation league-wide. The Rangers, Leafs, Wings, and a few other teams will be able to pay their players more, while players in smaller markets will use those signings by the big boys as their benchmarks in negotiations. It doesn't matter that Nashville, Pittsburgh, and others can't or won't spend to $49 million, the cap still affects them greatly.

 

[trahans99]

The point isn't that teams will spend that high it's that having a high salary cap allows for more salary inflation league-wide. The Rangers, Leafs, Wings, and a few other teams will be able to pay their players more, while players in smaller markets will use those signings by the big boys as their benchmarks in negotiations. It doesn't matter that Nashville, Pittsburgh, and others can't or won't spend to $49 million, the cap still affects them greatly.

Just a few more hours everyone, hang in there

 

[tantalum]

The PA put linkage in their counter proposal.

Of course they only want it to apply if the numbers go up AND they want the benchmark to be next year reduced revenue #'s.

Forunately, Gary won't let them have their cake and eat it too.

No risk = lower rewards.

I really don't mind if they do put linkage such that it only applies with rising revenues. I think that is doable if and only if this season gets saved because there would be a reasonable expectation that revenues will bounce back quite quickly. But with if they want that then they have to accept a harder hit at the beginning and come down to the NHL's proposed cap. Or they can hope Gary got a little more wiggles room during the night.

It's not linkage. Linkage is if they're guaranteed a percentage of revenues. That's not what they're looking for. The cap needs an escalator to allow it to grow as the league grows.

How do you quantify that escalator? It would have to be to revenue growth. So an escalator is linked to revenue. How do you do that link without using a percentage? You can't just pull an arbitrary number out of the hat. The percentage gives the reasoning behind an increase. The PA is finally seeing things properly and realise they are going to want linkage by the end of the agreement. But it all means the union has to have those discussion about revenue streams. Something they are unprepared to do.

Now I do think this is a compromise the NHL can make. They have agreed in principle to a hard cap that is not linked so they have agreed to a lower limit the cap will be at for the term of the CBA. If they are willing to throw that bone to the players they believe that revenues will rebound provided the season is saved. I think they can throw them this escalator bone as well BUT if the players want that they have to come down to the NHL starting point or very near it IMO. I don't think Bettman has much wiggle room on that left...perhaps his bosses gave him another $1-2 mil but I doubt it. Essentially they'd be agreeing to the Feb framework with a cap set at a $42.5 mil (+2.2) instead of $40, that the cap can not be lower than that, and pretty much all the other throw away stuff goes the players way as per the Dec 9th offer (which were essentially throwaways for the owners to get the system yet they still gain in all those areas compared to last CBA), and the revenue percentage will be a bit higher.

Really that is the best the union can expect. They can be pissed at the letter last night but it stated simple fact: If the season is cancelled it is all downhill for the players. The league has them by the balls and the league is going to squeeze and make them scream a bit and frankly I can't blame them.

 

[legardien91]

Can Goodenow not read?

I think the "can't read" comment applies to the fact that Bettman's proposal assumes no detrimental consequences to the league after this lockout, which there will be. It seems Goodenow doesn't realize that hockey will be a tough sell for many people for quite awhile.

 

[GKJ]

Can Goodenow not read?

Every team isn't going to spend $49M though, and if they did it would be a lot less than 75% of revenue the players get.

 

[mudcrutch79]

I think the "can't read" comment applies to the fact that Bettman's proposal assumes no detrimental consequences to the league after this lockout, which there will be. It seems Goodenow doesn't realize that hockey will be a tough sell for many people for quite awhile.

Yeah, but he meant it as a qualifier to the 75% of revenues comment. It's still absurd because there's no way that all the teams would up at $49MM. I have no idea why Bettman wrote that letter, but that sentence is just absurd.