Goodnow gonzo

Status
Not open for further replies.

FlyerFan

Registered User
Jun 4, 2005
221
0
Timmy said:
It was not the LEAGUE, it was certain club members, an extremely well-organized NHLPA and agent network, an inflationary arbitration system that limpet-mined to every stupid signing by a few owners, and loaded teams like NYR that created this mess.

Left to their own devices, five or six owners would have continued to escalate salaries, even if it meant operating at a loss in order to do so, placing many if not most of the good players out of reach of teams who wanted or needed to operate at a break-even point.

Goodenow isn't the scapegoat for the last ten years - they exploited a system that the owners crammed down Bettman's throat. It is simply unfortunate that Goodenow didn't realize that times were changing, and he was unwilling to come to the table until his bluff was called by Bettman's cancelling the season.

Look at the other threads, look at Pittsburgh, and the excitement of fans of small to mid markets who actually have a shot at building a contender with good management, rather than just having a parent corporation acting as an ATM machine, willing to lose money year after year in order to win the cup.



The bottom line is that there were MANY participants in this mess, and yet all you pro-owners can blame the loudest is Bob Goodenow :rolleyes:
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Goodenow Got Fired

or at least diplomatically asked to resign - ie they canned his ass.

http://www.nhl.com/news/2005/07/231178.html

Goodenow wanted to stay on but players' committee opted to go with Saskin

TORONTO (CP) - Bob Goodenow resigned as executive director of the NHL Players' Association nearly three years before he'd planned.

It wasn't his idea. He stepped aside Thursday, diplomatically and with a lot of class, at the suggestion of the executive committee headed by president Trevor Linden. Ted Saskin, the licensing whiz who was Goodenow's right-hand man, takes over. The committee felt that, with the new six-year collective bargaining agreement coming into play after the season-long lockout, it would be better to make the change now.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
FlyerFan said:
The bottom line is that there were MANY participants in this mess, and yet all you pro-owners can blame the loudest is Bob Goodenow :rolleyes:

And that would be because it was Bob Goodenow who stood in the way of fixing the mess.

The PA shills can scream until the cows come home about who started the mess. That may be what caused the financial situation of the league to be what it is. But that's not what the lockout was about. The lockout was about *fixing* it, and since the main beneficiaries of the imbalance were the players, the fix would also come from the players. Goodenow stood in the way of that.

And now he's gone. Justice is served.

:biglaugh:
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Crazy_Ike said:
And that would be because it was Bob Goodenow who stood in the way of fixing the mess.

The PA shills can scream until the cows come home about who started the mess. That may be what caused the financial situation of the league to be what it is. But that's not what the lockout was about. The lockout was about *fixing* it, and since the main beneficiaries of the imbalance were the players, the fix would also come from the players. Goodenow stood in the way of that.

And now he's gone. Justice is served.

:biglaugh:
He may have hindered the progress, Im sure he wasnt the only one to do that..but how is this Justice, I swear only from the warped mind of a pro-owner shill could come such blabber
 

FlyerFan

Registered User
Jun 4, 2005
221
0
Crazy_Ike said:
And that would be because it was Bob Goodenow who stood in the way of fixing the mess.

The PA shills can scream until the cows come home about who started the mess. That may be what caused the financial situation of the league to be what it is. But that's not what the lockout was about. The lockout was about *fixing* it, and since the main beneficiaries of the imbalance were the players, the fix would also come from the players. Goodenow stood in the way of that.

And now he's gone. Justice is served.

:biglaugh:


Bob Goodenow NEVER stood in the way of the League controlling their spending.

There was NOTHING in the previous CBA that required the League to pay the players 75% of the revenue :teach:
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
Timmy said:
Look at the other threads, look at Pittsburgh, and the excitement of fans of small to mid markets who actually have a shot at building a contender with good management, rather than just having a parent corporation acting as an ATM machine, willing to lose money year after year in order to win the cup.

Build a contender with good management? You mean like Tampa did under the old CBA which supposedly only gave 5 or 6 teams a chance to win the Cup?

I fully encourage you to check out those same threads in February and see how much enthusiasm is still there; especially with the favourite excuse gone.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
FlyerFan said:
Bob Goodenow NEVER stood in the way of the League controlling their spending.

The league is not legally allowed to centrally control its spending outside of a negotiated CBA and therefore teams were spending what they wanted regardless of what the other teams could afford. The PA, which is allowed to centrally control its asking prices, always set the standard at the highest possible level, meaning that if one team opted for a payroll of 80 million (whether or not it could afford it), all players would ask for salaries as if every team was on a 80 million dollar payroll. This situation is uncontrollable without a CBA that stops it; any attempt to do otherwise would have opened the door to collusion claims, which of course Strachan routinely made anyways.

Bob Goodenow, therefore, DID stand in the way of the league controlling its spending in the only way that it logically could - through CBA controls. He got burned for it and the evidence is that smear mark all the way to the curb. :biglaugh:

There was NOTHING in the previous CBA that required the League to pay the players 75% of the revenue :teach:

Unless the teams that didn't have the 80 million payroll wanted to keep their players, that is.

:teach:

They tried what you're claiming they should have done the last three years. It didn't help. There was no way for the league to do it. The players didn't seem to realize that. They also didn't realize that as by far the most major beneficiaries, the clawback had to come from them. 80% of the fans knew it, though.

:D

The PA apologist argument is based on the idea that all that had to happen to control salaries was for Detroits and Torontos to not spend 80 million. But those teams can afford to, quite easily. The old deal allowed them to, over Bettman's objections at the time. This may be great for Detroit and Toronto but it's bad for the league as a whole. The players compounded this through their greed, orchestrated by Goodenow, by centrally managing contracts so that all players judged their worth according to the highest payroll. This caused a death spiral which the league saw coming and the PA did not, still thinking they were on the same level of national attention as say, MLB players.

The correction is done now. The players have found out they're *not* on the same level as MLB players and Goodenow has faced the music for making them believe they were.

Good riddance to the worst thing in hockey.

:handclap:

Build a contender with good management? You mean like Tampa did under the old CBA which supposedly only gave 5 or 6 teams a chance to win the Cup?

Shills love to bring this up, but once they look at the *facts* of where in the league's payroll every Cup winner was, it quickly fades away. I forget who posted that originally, but hopefully they put it up again for the shills to see. Not sure if reckoning dares learn the truth or not; I think he prefers rhetoric to facts.
 

SJeasy

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
12,538
3
San Jose
Credit should go to Goodenow for his first CBA which stopped the players being bullied by the owners. However, the correction was too much and invoked the entertainment marketplace which can bankrupt any business when you deal with agents whose business it is to maximize client income without regard to business viability.

The players got used to the new levels of income they saw and there was no way they were prepared to accept outright what the league was telling them. Only the lockout would cause both sides to reevaluate. My hope is that they have done this.

Goodenow could not have gone to the players last summer and told them that they would have to accept a 24% wage reduction.

Unfortunately, he and Bettman didn't act as mediators for both groups, owners and players. The history of labor in hockey precluded that option.

I am not sorry to see BG go, but if we expect better than this past year in the future, we, as fans, need to encourage what Bettman asked for, a partnership. I am not sure that Bettman is the man for the partnership challenge, but if both sides don't look at history, they are going to repeat it in 4 to 6 years.
 

FlyerFan

Registered User
Jun 4, 2005
221
0
Crazy_Ike said:
The league is not legally allowed to centrally control its spending outside of a negotiated CBA and therefore teams were spending what they wanted regardless of what the other teams could afford. The PA, which is allowed to centrally control its asking prices, always set the standard at the highest possible level, meaning that if one team opted for a payroll of 80 million (whether or not it could afford it), all players would ask for salaries as if every team was on a 80 million dollar payroll. This situation is uncontrollable without a CBA that stops it; any attempt to do otherwise would have opened the door to collusion claims, which of course Strachan routinely made anyways.

Bob Goodenow, therefore, DID stand in the way of the league controlling its spending in the only way that it logically could - through CBA controls. He got burned for it and the evidence is that smear mark all the way to the curb. :biglaugh:



Unless the teams that didn't have the 80 million payroll wanted to keep their players, that is.

:teach:

They tried what you're claiming they should have done the last three years. It didn't help. There was no way for the league to do it. The players didn't seem to realize that. They also didn't realize that as by far the most major beneficiaries, the clawback had to come from them. 80% of the fans knew it, though.

:D

The PA apologist argument is based on the idea that all that had to happen to control salaries was for Detroits and Torontos to not spend 80 million. But those teams can afford to, quite easily. The old deal allowed them to, over Bettman's objections at the time. This may be great for Detroit and Toronto but it's bad for the league as a whole. The players compounded this through their greed, orchestrated by Goodenow, by centrally managing contracts so that all players judged their worth according to the highest payroll. This caused a death spiral which the league saw coming and the PA did not, still thinking they were on the same level of national attention as say, MLB players.

The correction is done now. The players have found out they're *not* on the same level as MLB players and Goodenow has faced the music for making them believe they were.

Good riddance to the worst thing in hockey.

:handclap:



Shills love to bring this up, but once they look at the *facts* of where in the league's payroll every Cup winner was, it quickly fades away. I forget who posted that originally, but hopefully they put it up again for the shills to see. Not sure if reckoning dares learn the truth or not; I think he prefers rhetoric to facts.



The League doesn't need Bob Goodenow's permission to control THEIR spending. To suggest otherwise is utterly ridiculous :teach:
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
FlyerFan said:
The League doesn't need Bob Goodenow's permission to control THEIR spending. To suggest otherwise is utterly ridiculous :teach:

The league is not legally allowed to control the spending of the teams inside it outside of a CBA, that is called "collusion".

You guys are going to have to learn that one of these days. It's why so many of your arguments are bogus.
 

FlyerFan

Registered User
Jun 4, 2005
221
0
Crazy_Ike said:
The league is not legally allowed to control the spending of the teams inside it outside of a CBA, that is called "collusion".

You guys are going to have to learn that one of these days. It's why so many of your arguments are bogus.


A fiscally responsible budget is not collusion
:teach:
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
FlyerFan said:
Query. Why do you you pro-owners (or fans with selective memories) use Bob Goodenow as a scapegoat
Easy. Because the NHLPA membership has. Wanna' cry about today's events? Cry to Roenick.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
FlyerFan said:
A fiscally responsible budget is not collusion
:teach:
If I had a nickel for every time I read this tripe ... I would have a lot of nickels.

THe whole position is based on the dumb premise that owners just throw out money and the players just gaily sit there and say "well, if you insist ...".

A budget is meaningless if the players demand more, since a team has to have players.

A budget is meaningless when you have salaries set by arbitrators who know nothing about hockey.

A budget is meaningless when you are hamstrung in your negotiations by the presence of your wealthiest league partner.

A budget is meaningless when you are hamstrung in negotiations by the fact that the player can take you to arbitration where what you have to pay is a crapshoot.

Pure foolishness apparently does not stop pro-PA grinning lackeys from trotting out this thoroughly discredited argument. It is a hackneyed cliche that only someone spouts who has not thought through the issues in any way whatsoever.
 

ArtG

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
2,815
12
Vancouver, BC
gscarpenter2002 said:
If I had a nickel for every time I read this tripe ... I would have a lot of nickels.

THe whole position is based on the dumb premise that owners just throw out money and the players just gaily sit there and say "well, if you insist ...".

A budget is meaningless if the players demand more, since a team has to have players.

A budget is meaningless when you have salaries set by arbitrators who know nothing about hockey.

A budget is meaningless when you are hamstrung in your negotiations by the presence of your wealthiest league partner.

A budget is meaningless when you are hamstrung in negotiations by the fact that the player can take you to arbitration where what you have to pay is a crapshoot.

Pure foolishness apparently does not stop pro-PA grinning lackeys from trotting out this thoroughly discredited argument. It is a hackneyed cliche that only someone spouts who has not thought through the issues in any way whatsoever.
:clap:
 

pens66

Guest
gscarpenter2002 said:
If I had a nickel for every time I read this tripe ... I would have a lot of nickels.

THe whole position is based on the dumb premise that owners just throw out money and the players just gaily sit there and say "well, if you insist ...".

A budget is meaningless if the players demand more, since a team has to have players.

A budget is meaningless when you have salaries set by arbitrators who know nothing about hockey.

A budget is meaningless when you are hamstrung in your negotiations by the presence of your wealthiest league partner.

A budget is meaningless when you are hamstrung in negotiations by the fact that the player can take you to arbitration where what you have to pay is a crapshoot.

Pure foolishness apparently does not stop pro-PA grinning lackeys from trotting out this thoroughly discredited argument. It is a hackneyed cliche that only someone spouts who has not thought through the issues in any way whatsoever.

Well said!! Couldn't have put it better myself. :handclap: :handclap: :handclap:
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,966
2,059
Duncan
gscarpenter2002 said:
If I had a nickel for every time I read this tripe ... I would have a lot of nickels.

THe whole position is based on the dumb premise that owners just throw out money and the players just gaily sit there and say "well, if you insist ...".

A budget is meaningless if the players demand more, since a team has to have players.

A budget is meaningless when you have salaries set by arbitrators who know nothing about hockey.

A budget is meaningless when you are hamstrung in your negotiations by the presence of your wealthiest league partner.

A budget is meaningless when you are hamstrung in negotiations by the fact that the player can take you to arbitration where what you have to pay is a crapshoot.

Pure foolishness apparently does not stop pro-PA grinning lackeys from trotting out this thoroughly discredited argument. It is a hackneyed cliche that only someone spouts who has not thought through the issues in any way whatsoever.


You always post what I want to say except with bigger words and better grammar. ;) Plus you've raised your indignant artifice to an entirely new and excellent level.

It's really been a pleasure reading a common sense rebutal to so much emotional malarky. Keep up the good work. :clap:
 

FlyerFan

Registered User
Jun 4, 2005
221
0
gscarpenter2002 said:
If I had a nickel for every time I read this tripe ... I would have a lot of nickels.

THe whole position is based on the dumb premise that owners just throw out money and the players just gaily sit there and say "well, if you insist ...".

A budget is meaningless if the players demand more, since a team has to have players.

A budget is meaningless when you have salaries set by arbitrators who know nothing about hockey.

A budget is meaningless when you are hamstrung in your negotiations by the presence of your wealthiest league partner.

A budget is meaningless when you are hamstrung in negotiations by the fact that the player can take you to arbitration where what you have to pay is a crapshoot.

Pure foolishness apparently does not stop pro-PA grinning lackeys from trotting out this thoroughly discredited argument. It is a hackneyed cliche that only someone spouts who has not thought through the issues in any way whatsoever.



While you were thinking about nickels you forgot to address my assertion that implementing a fiscally responsible budget does not constitute collusion :rolleyes:
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
FlyerFan said:
While you were thinking about nickels you forgot to address my assertion that implementing a fiscally responsible budget does not constitute collusion :rolleyes:

No, but he did address your assertion that Bob Goodenow and the NHLPA had nothing to do with the NHL's salary structure going off the rails.

Surely you don't think that the PA were innocent lambs that let the owners throw money at them, do you?

One other thing...

If the magic bullet solution to all the NHL's ills was for every team to be 'fiscally responsible', what happens when a fiscally responsible budget for one team is double or even triple what is fiscally responsible for another? And don't give me the revenue sharing argument, because in the NHL's case all that does is share the loss of money more evenly.

Heh...after 10 months of the same tired rhetoric, you'd think this business board would've collapsed upon itself by now. :)
 

FlyerFan

Registered User
Jun 4, 2005
221
0
Digger12 said:
No, but he did address your assertion that Bob Goodenow and the NHLPA had nothing to do with the NHL's salary structure going off the rails.

Surely you don't think that the PA were innocent lambs that let the owners throw money at them, do you?

One other thing...

If the magic bullet solution to all the NHL's ills was for every team to be 'fiscally responsible', what happens when a fiscally responsible budget for one team is double or even triple what is fiscally responsible for another? And don't give me the revenue sharing argument, because in the NHL's case all that does is share the loss of money more evenly.

Heh...after 10 months of the same tired rhetoric, you'd think this business board would've collapsed upon itself by now. :)



Ah, another poster that failed to address my post.

I guess we have none other than Bob Goodenow to blame I suppose :sarcasm:
 

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,717
274
North Bay
Hmm, I thought he would have stayed another year or two.

The Players finally officially mutinied on him I think.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
FlyerFan said:
Ah, another poster that failed to address my post.

I guess we have none other than Bob Goodenow to blame I suppose :sarcasm:

Oh please.

Surely you're not implying that I think this is 100% Bob Goodenow's fault, are you? Where did I give you that impression?

Just curious, but since when did this have anything to do with fault? This was about one side wanting a market correction, and they simply had more guns than the other side to make their reality win out. The NHLPA realized this too late, and here we are...with Goodenow having a resignation press conference that felt more like a firing. Interpret it as you will.

Does demonizing one side do ANYTHING constructive at this point?

As for addressing your post, why should I? Saying that fiscal responsibility doesn't equal collusion is like debating why water is wet. I was looking for bigger fish to fry, and trying to show why such a simplistic mantra is just that...simplistic.

Anyway, you can go on hating Bettman if that's what gets you through the day...I'm just glad hockey's back. Try to enjoy yourself.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,966
2,059
Duncan
FlyerFan said:
While you were thinking about nickels you forgot to address my assertion that implementing a fiscally responsible budget does not constitute collusion :rolleyes:

It doesn't. But so what? It's so obvious that you can be fiscally responsible and watch your business go down the toilet. As digger pointed out, it's a lame question, and the manner in which you keep floating it, you're not capable of understanding this point.

Being fiscally responsible in a competition between markets of different sizes is pretty bloody elementry.

Burke himself did this Vancouver, but repeatedly said that he couldn't continue to do so given the revenue streams in Vancouver. The Canucks had pretty much maxed them out... and they were pretty creative and were willing to copy any other teams that came up with good ideas as well.

Goodenow failed to do his job, and he cost his constituents and the fans and all the other people who worked in the industry. To say nothing of the bad blood he created by being, well, himself. He should have done everything possible to educate himself on the fiscal reality the league was in. If he did in fact, have this information yet still chose the path he took, I would have even less respect for him than I do now.

His players could have had this deal with a much larger cap, and not lost a dime by being locked out. The fact is, this is still an excellent deal for the players, and long term they will be extremely happy to have it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->