Kessick
Registered User
MLH said:Bob's sn is definitely "TooGoodenow4u".
HAHA. Awesome :lol
I'm bookmarking this thread.
MLH said:Bob's sn is definitely "TooGoodenow4u".
pck21 said: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.
cassius said:gbettman16: u r a homo
goodenowdaddy: s t f u
i expect something similar to be posted in the near future.
ResidentAlien said: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!
tantalum said: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 said: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.
Icey said: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.
Thunderstruck said: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.
Gary Bettman said: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.
Goodenow's a grown man; he should be able to read.mudcrutch79 said:What's your point?
Seachd said:Goodenow's a grown man; he should be able to read.
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.Icey said: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 Maltais Falcon said: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.
Thunderstruck said: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 said: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.
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.Seachd said:Can Goodenow not read?
Seachd said:Can Goodenow not read?
typhoontim said: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.