Goodnow gonzo

[NHLFanSince2020]

Saskin shouldn't be holding the reins long-term. The NHLPA needs to hire a bulldog, either one from the MLBPA or an experienced negotiator from one of the labor unions.

It would be cool if the NHL hired a bulldog (i.e. someone even more stubborn and unyielding as Goodenow) because then, the next lockout or strike could last even longer and throw the sport into even greater turmoil.
Don't hire someone with intellect and abilitues, hire a bulldog.
Genius.

 

[Brewleaguer]

Oh Vlad, we both know Bob Goodenow really has very little to do with the league's problems. But we'll argue about this on MSN later.

Finally, someone who has a clue.

 

[Brewleaguer]

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.

There wouldn't have been a mess if some of the owners had spent responsibly. Heck, they were like a woman in a dress shop who couldn't just say no, even though she doesn't have the money, and whips out the American Express card.
But pro-owners see it as greedy players.

 

[Brewleaguer]

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.



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



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.



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.





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.

With all that said.... still owners like Detroit DID'NT have to sign the player, nothing in the OLD CBA forced the owners in that manner.
Mike Illich spent the money cause he knew he could to build a winner, but also knew he would loose money, just to have a good shot and winning the cup.

 

[Brewleaguer]

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.

Question is how many time was arbitration a factor during the past 10 years of the old CBA... very little.

 

[Steve L*]

Question is how many time was arbitration a factor during the past 10 years of the old CBA... very little.

youve really outdone yourself on that one.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Ummm .... how about "with EVERY SINGLE arbitration eligible player"?

Honestly, are you just trolling here or do you just not have a single clue about the topic on which you are posting?

 

[Brewleaguer]

Ummm .... how about "with EVERY SINGLE arbitration eligible player"?

Honestly, are you just trolling here or do you just not have a single clue about the topic on which you are posting?

Excuss me the 'very little' should have had a '?' Like I was asking a question. (JHC) ....so

 

[Brewleaguer]

youve really outdone yourself on that one.

Whetever, see my reply to GS.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

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

You still don't seem to understand that what is fiscally responsible for a team like Detroit and Toronto is far beyond what most the rest of the league can afford. The league can't tell them not to spend it. Have you seen what happens to teams that don't spend what they obviously can? Chicago is the prime example. This isn't an option at all. Even if it were, there would be absolutely no way to prevent the NHLPA from claiming collusion if every big budget team did this, and the NHL would lose.

So, there goes your assertion.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

With all that said.... still owners like Detroit DID'NT have to sign the player, nothing in the OLD CBA forced the owners in that manner.
Mike Illich spent the money cause he knew he could to build a winner, but also knew he would loose money, just to have a good shot and winning the cup.

"Didn't have to" is such meaningless gibberish. If the wanted the player, they did.

Spending enough money to cause rampant inflation to have a chance to win the cup is not a formula for success. Every single team that has won the cup since the last CBA has been in the upper half of player salaries and that makes them all inflationary. Most of them were in the top five which were VERY inflationary. This inflation couldn't be maintained. Goodenow stood in the way of the correction. Now he's gone. Good riddance.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

There wouldn't have been a mess if some of the owners had spent responsibly. Heck, they were like a woman in a dress shop who couldn't just say no, even though she doesn't have the money, and whips out the American Express card.
But pro-owners see it as greedy players.

Mostly, they spent responsibly for themselves. That level of spending was not responsible for everyone else, however, and the PA controlled salary demands on the basis of the largest payroll. But spending responsibly for everyone else leads to claims of collusion, as proven by PA shills in the media such as Al Strachan.

 

[Brewleaguer]

Mostly, they spent responsibly for themselves. That level of spending was not responsible for everyone else, however, and the PA controlled salary demands on the basis of the largest payroll....

Point noted. IMO the match that sparked the PA controlled, escalating, salary demands comes back to two owners. Peter Karmanos & Mike Ilitch.
In 97 (I do believe it was then) Karmanos made an outrages offer to Fedorov, an offer he knew he could not afford, being in a weak, community supported market. Ilitch, if he wanted to keep Fedorov, had to match the offer.
It is well know around the Detroit area that Karmanos and Ilitch are very competitive towards each other, and really don't care for one another. Pretty much after Ilitch told Karmanos to get out and take his Jr Red Wings with him...(over some internal dispute).
So it's like two kids, in a candy store fighting over the last lollypop... henceforth, the salary escalation. It snowballed from there.

 

[Hoss]

In your opinion, what could/should Bettman have done differently to both save the season and the longterm viability of the league?

This is a loaded question, as it suggests that this lockout has somehow ensured the long term viability of the league and I am unconvinced it has. It may have give some hope for the smaller revenue markets, but I fail to see how dragging down the successful markets to the level of the lowest generators will do this.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

This is a loaded question, as it suggests that this lockout has somehow ensured the long term viability of the league and I am unconvinced it has. It may have give some hope for the smaller revenue markets, but I fail to see how dragging down the successful markets to the level of the lowest generators will do this.

I think thats the truest post on this topic so far. I think history will judge this new CBA as well as all the major players in it.

 

[Cawz]

There wouldn't have been a mess if some of the owners had spent responsibly. Heck, they were like a woman in a dress shop who couldn't just say no, even though she doesn't have the money, and whips out the American Express card.
But pro-owners see it as greedy players.

I dont understand why you keep coming back to this.

Did some owners play a part in the mess the NHL was in? Yes.

Did some players & agents also play a part in the mess? Yes.

Did the system (arbitration, QOs...) also play a part? Yes.

Saying that the owners made their mess shows that you are too biased to see that many factors contributed to the state of the old NHL.

But thats old news, becasue this thread is about how they tried to fix it, and how Goodenow stood in the way. Maybe he's simply a scapegoat, but most reports indicate otherwise.

As posted previously Posted by Matt MacInnis
"Oh Vlad, we both know Bob Goodenow really has very little to do with the league's problems." I didnt see anyone here saying he is the cause of the problems in the NHL. But he constantly stood in the way of the solutions.

I really dont see how anyone can argue this. You can argue about "dragging down the successful markets to the level of the lowest generators"... thats a differnet topic altogether. But I dont understand how anyone can defend Goodenow in his recent actions. Even his PA couldnt defend him.

Think of it this way. What if Goodenow never came into the NHLPA. From a fans point of view, where would be NHL be right now?

 

[Timmy]

"This is a loaded question, as it suggests that this lockout has somehow ensured the long term viability of the league and I am unconvinced it has. It may have give some hope for the smaller revenue markets, but I fail to see how dragging down the successful markets to the level of the lowest generators will do this."




Yeah, the NFL's really sucking wind right now...


*waits for the revenue sharing argument to pop up again, ignoring the fact that the NHL was collectively losing money*

 

[Hoss]

Timmy

Please, the NFL, American brand football is part of the culture of the american society as a whole, not unlike baseball, hockey is not. The NFL succeeds in small markets due to the level of revenue sharing possible.

I don't suggest there is enough revenue to adequately prop up a sport in markets where that sport plays a small role in the competition for the sporting dollar. The solution, as provided by this CBA, does not seem to help the small market become a big market but instead curtails the success of the big market.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

No, if anything, it makes the big market even more successful off the ice, while preventing it from using its off the ice assets to gain an unfair advantage on the ice. This makes things fair on the ice while off the ice the successful teams make the most money. Basically, the way it *should* be.

 

[AM]

Thats basically...

Finally the players offer the only apology I cared to hear. Not some insincere finger pointing by a bitter and vanquished foe, but an outright admission that they were fools to follow this clown down the path he choose.

Pushing this egomaniacal jackass off the cliff, albeit with a golden parachute I'm sure, is all I wanted from them.

Bye-Bye Bobby. History will judge your incompetence harshly.

what I said.

But I added the fact that 700 rats were following his tune.

Why did they follow? When it was obvious to most that what he was saying was ridiculous?

Greed.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Where is the guy who repairs bicycles? He seemed to love spending hours on the keyboard while dreaming of living in Bob's dark and moist places. He wasn't the only one. Where are they now?

 

[FlyerFan]

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?


Well let's see, we have a 12 page thread (and others) demonizing Bob Goodenow and critiquing any poster who DOESN'T think its 100% Bob Goodenow's fault.

The bottom line is the League has rejected parity up until now and by rejecting parity, they also rejected cost certainty

What was this lockout about again

 

[Pepper]

Man, it looks the usual pro-PA yahoos are taking these news harder than Bob himself.

 

[kdb209]

Man, it looks the usual pro-PA yahoos are taking these news harder than Bob himself.

That's because unlike "Saint Bob who didn't collect a cent during the lockout", they aren't walking away with a $6M golden parachute, and laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[FlyerFan]

You still don't seem to understand that what is fiscally responsible for a team like Detroit and Toronto is far beyond what most the rest of the league can afford. The league can't tell them not to spend it. Have you seen what happens to teams that don't spend what they obviously can? Chicago is the prime example. This isn't an option at all. Even if it were, there would be absolutely no way to prevent the NHLPA from claiming collusion if every big budget team did this, and the NHL would lose.

So, there goes your assertion.

I believe you are talking about parity now which I had stated in an earlier post that the League had rejected up until now.

Without parity, cost certainty isn't possible.

So again I ask. What was this lockout about again?