I don't think Bettman wanted to make a deal.

[Mothra]

It adds up fine for me. Goodenow is a rotten mother****er but his negociation tactics had worked marvelously well previously. He prides himself for ****ing thing up and hunting deals at the deadline.

In the past, his negociation partner was a dumb ***** with no appearance of a backbone whatsoever. So rotten Bob thought he would have his way once again and waited to the limit.

But that's it. At that point of the season, the deadline came and went. In fact, to tell you the truth, I think a season at that point looked like a parody anyway. Past January 15th, it just doesn't sound very serious.

In short, Goodenow's tactic (which was sound, because it has previously always worked for him) finally backfired in his little rat's face. By the time the NHLPA scums decided to accept a cap it was too late.

I am absolutely delighted by the result. It's going to be a long year but long term, this is going to be amazing for hockey.

I could not agree more with this.....especially the last part

 

[Phanuthier*]

It is clear now to me that Bettman never had any intentions of saving the season to begin with. I believe Bettman is trying to crush the union all together. I mean think about it.

I think that's rather silly. Why even make a final offer then? If he really had no intention, then he probably wouldn't have put down a proposal.

However... it wouldn't surprise me if there was something personal, and that Bettman does want to crush the union. However, I don't think Bettman's personal interests were above the owners he represents.

The players offer 24% rollback with luxury tax and what does Bettman do. Takes their offer and combines it with his triple cap , thats got to be the worst negotiateing tactic I have ever seen.

He wanted the cap in the first place.

He then waits till the last second to take linkage off the table.

It was a last ditch approach to rekindle the season, and not be the face of the first person to cancel a North American Pro league in history.

So what does the PA do? The PA says ok, lets make a deal and offers a cap only to be rejected with a final offer thats insulting to the players after every thing they have concieded.

Huh?

Bettman then waits to the press conmerence to say that he probably would have took 45 million cap, but yet he didn't offer it when the NHLPA made their counter of 49. I

All Bettman said is that it MIGHT have worked. There's other factors that would have had to come into play.

Bettman then waits to the press conmerence to say that he probably would have took 45 million cap, but yet he didn't offer it when the NHLPA made their counter of 49. I

Well considering tis almost March, you can't blame him for having a deadline.

The fact is 9 teams tops would be at the cap max.

In the 6 year CBA, you think 9 would be the tops for a 42.5 mill cap?

How many people think the teams with 20 something payrolls are going to all of a sudden say lets make our payroll 49 Million.

No, its 42.5 million. And yes, I think ~20 teams will gravitate to that mark.

He purposely went out of his way to piss off the players by slapping them in the face with his final offer, knowing full well the players would not accept his final offer.

Same could be said about the PA's rediculous offer. What didn't they understand about "final offer" and "not an invitation to open negotiations" ?

Bettman really wanted to cancel the season so he could use it for leverage.

No, if he were really that hell bent, he would have made the date sooner, like 1994 where it was Jan 16 instead of Feb 23.

If Gary had any intentions on saving the season he would have swallowed his pride and got on the phone and said Bob how about 45.

Just a guess, but I'll bet there could be 75% of the owners to veto that.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Its ego/pride first with Bettman, league/fans 2nd.

 

[Phanuthier*]

How do spend 150 days arguing for the neccessity of a cap, win the cap, and then cancel the season after only 24 hours of negotiating the numbers in the cap.
It seems to me that we would have had a deal with in 24-48 hours if the two sides were negotiating instead of firing off letters in the night.

Maybe it was because its almost freakin March, and the PA took THIS long to realize what needed to be done?

 

[Wolfpack]

This is exactly why I don't support the Owners. I mean they say they want a partnership but they won't be partners with each other. They seem to think that the only way to fix the league is to destroy the union not have a partnership with them. A partnership is about comprimise from both sides.

I can understand this point of view, but I do not agree with it. The players, despite everything, are still in denial. They admit that the league has lost more and more money over the past ten years, but they do NOT want to know exactly how much -which is why they trashed the Levitt report and they never took the NHL up on their offer of an independant accountant looking at the finances. Not to mention the fact that right up until yesterday there were still NHLPA members who honestly believed the league would cave. I'm not going to call them stupid, but they were misinformed at the very least.

Seeing as how the league as a whole has been losing money during a period of time that saw player salaries more then triple... doesn't it make sense that the players had significantly MORE ROOM to move than did the owners? When your business is losing money hand over fist, at some point you have to say "No, we can't afford to pay you any more than $X." If $42.5 million was that point according to 8 or more owners, then so be it. The next number the players get offered will be in the neighbourhood of $30 million, with linkage likely attached.

Great negotiating tactics there, Bob.

Obviously some of the owners have made mistakes over the past decade, but the course of these negotiations has shown me that it is the owners that care more about the health and future of this league, NOT the players.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Its ego/pride first with Bettman, league/fans 2nd.

Funny you say that. Every interview I've seen or heard Bettman in, he genuinely seems distraught and he comes accross like he's trying to do the best for the game. I truthfully think that Bettman went as absolutely far as he could go, and have the CBA accepted by the owners. IMO, Bettman's ego/pride had nothing to do with the cancellation of the season.

On the other hand, Goodenow consistently comes accross like a bully that was finally faced down on the playground. He continues spouting blames and the same cliches while never once mentioning the fans or how this impacts them.

 

[Brewleaguer]

UMMM...the 42 top end was WITH LINKAGE. The $40 M was WITHOUT LINKAGE.

(thought I'd try "all caps" to see if I could get you to stop ignoring the obvious facts just because they don't support your position.)

I'll give the 'all caps' a try. The $40Mil was WITHOUT LINKAGE + $2.5 INSURANCE. =$42.5 an increase of only 500K over both offers.

But you go right ahead and let him pull the wool over your eyes by manipulating the figures, he was good at that with the 24% with triggers offer too.
Goodenow saw right threw it.

Any way you spin it Bettman took baby steps.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Maybe it was because its almost freakin March, and the PA took THIS long to realize what needed to be done?

Doesn't change the dynamics.
They could have continued to negotiate without cancelling the season. And, if the when the deal was done, hockey was unfeasible, so be it.

 

[SuperUnknown]

I'll give the 'all caps' a try. The $40Mil was WITHOUT LINKAGE + $2.5 INSURANCE. =$42.5 an increase of only 500K over both offers.

But you go right ahead and let him pull the wool over your eyes by manipulating the figures, he was good at that with the 24% with triggers offer too.
Goodenow saw right threw it.

Any way you spin it Bettman took baby steps.

The last offer was $42.5M + player costs ($2.2M) for a total of $44.7M.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Bettman definately wanted to make a deal. However, he didn't want to make any deal. When you negociate, you need to know how high/low you can go and stick to that. If you sign a deal that's more than you can go, you'll be in trouble regardless, hence you're better off not signing anything.

In the present situation, I think that the NHL got to their highest offer (not the $42.5M, but close to it) while the NHLPA didn't go to their low offer.

 

[SENSible1*]

I'll give the 'all caps' a try. The $40Mil was WITHOUT LINKAGE + $2.5 INSURANCE. =$42.5 an increase of only 500K over both offers.

But you go right ahead and let him pull the wool over your eyes by manipulating the figures, he was good at that with the 24% with triggers offer too.
Goodenow saw right threw it.

Any way you spin it Bettman took baby steps.

Hmmm...Guess again champ.

The first non-linked offer was on Monday and came in at 40 M + costs.

The league then offered the final deal of 42.5 + costs.

The 42 million dollar cap from the Feb 9th deal was linked.

Unlinking the figure was a huge concession and was acknowledged as such by both parties. See if you can figure out why it makes no sense to compare the linked and non-linked figures.

Thanks for playing and do come again.

 

[Mothra]

Any way you spin it Bettman took baby steps.

How about spinning it this way.....

The NHL was in the drivers seat, like it or not....and the PA blew it, they should have realized this at some point and made the best deal possible. For a long time they have been fighting a losing battle....100% of 42.5mil is better than 0% of 49mil....and way better than X% of the shrinking revenue pie

 

[Phanuthier*]

Doesn't change the dynamics.
They could have continued to negotiate without cancelling the season. And, if the when the deal was done, hockey was unfeasible, so be it.

One thing you have to admit is it sure hurried up negotiations, didn't it?

Last time, they set the deadline at Jan 16. I don't think they were trying to break the union then, or had any inside tricks (as they got spanked then). I really don't think there was an inside agenda now, just putting unknowns to peace for hockey fans.

 

[kerrly]

I'll give the 'all caps' a try. The $40Mil was WITHOUT LINKAGE + $2.5 INSURANCE. =$42.5 an increase of only 500K over both offers.

But you go right ahead and let him pull the wool over your eyes by manipulating the figures, he was good at that with the 24% with triggers offer too.
Goodenow saw right threw it.

Any way you spin it Bettman took baby steps.

Actually his last offer was a cap at $42.5 million + $2.2 million in benefits.

 

[Brewleaguer]

Hmmm...Guess again champ.

The first non-linked offer was on Monday and came in at 40 M + costs.

The league then offered the final deal of 42.5 + costs.

The 42 million dollar cap from the Feb 9th deal was linked.

Unlinking the figure was a huge concession and was acknowledged as such by both parties. See if you can figure out why it makes no sense to compare the linked and non-linked figures.

Thanks for playing and do come again.

I see your point about the offer (42.5+), Didn't see the info from the one site where I was getting my info from (TSN) they never mentioned the 2.5 cost, so as far as I am concerned TSN writers don't get all their facts.
So I checked the NHL site and it was there.

But still the owners could have made this work and gotten to a 45 mil mark. Bettman could of pushed owners to cut their other costs by 6-10% but opted to put the burden on the PA plus a 24% roll back.
When will the owners fess up that they spent more then they could bring in?

 

[Brewleaguer]

How about spinning it this way.....

The NHL was in the drivers seat, like it or not....and the PA blew it, they should have realized this at some point and made the best deal possible. For a long time they have been fighting a losing battle....100% of 42.5mil is better than 0% of 49mil....and way better than X% of the shrinking revenue pie

On another note what is 100% of 0 revenues that the owners now don't have?

 

[HockeyCritter]

I see your point about the offer (42.5+), Didn't see the info from the one site where I was getting my info from (TSN) they never mentioned the 2.5 cost, so as far as I am concerned TSN writers don't get all their facts.
So I checked the NHL site and it was there.

But still the owners could have made this work and gotten to a 45 mil mark. Bettman could of pushed owners to cut their other costs by 6-10% but opted to put the burden on the PA plus a 24% roll back.
When will the owners fess up that they spent more then they could bring in?

AT $45-million teams could go up to $49.5-million twice during the life of the CBA . . . . and that doesn't even factor in the "indexing" that Goodenow put in the proposal.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Who isn't in it for greed and money?
The owners? The players? The vendors? The zamboni drivers? The t-shirt makers? The stick manufacturers?

And you're going to have to explain how the cap was pointless and it would have put it back into the "same financial toilet."

Because a 49 to 55 Million cap is still better than the $78 Million cap.

And a $42.5-million (plus $2.2-million in benefits) is better than the $35-million the League was first pushing for.

 

[AM]

I dont think so

i heard from somewhere yesterday that after bettman got the players letter saying they accepted a salary cap at 52 (or whatever it was) bettman went to the owners and send "I think I can get a deal at 47 mill cap". there were 6 hard line owners who said absolutly not 42 mill cap is to high already. I think busting the union is clearly on the adjenda of some of the owners.

I think staying profitable is on their agenda.

Get it straight, its not about paying the players, its about avoiding bankruptcy!

 

[SuperUnknown]

On another note what is 100% of 0 revenues that the owners now don't have?

The owners would get 100% of the margin between revenues and costs. Unless that margin is positive (I'm talking long term), the owners have zero interest in accepting the PA proposition.

Bettman said the owners would lose (in other words negative revenues-costs margin) for the first two years with the NHL's proposed deal. Imagine what it would have been with the PA's proposed deal.

On the other hand, the players would get 100% of the average payroll if they were playing, versus 0$ while not playing. Quite a difference...

 

[Mothra]

On another note what is 100% of 0 revenues that the owners now don't have?

well....lets look at that. Ted Leonsis said yesterday that, financially, this is the best year he's had as an owner.....and I am sure he is not alone. Its been said many times that many teams will lose less by not playing.....in those cases its hard to say they are missing "revenue" now isnt it.

the other thing is...the owners are extremely wealthy...this lockout wont change their day to day lifestyle one bit......can you say the same about the players?

In some cases this is like me sitting down at the poker table with $100 and the guy across from me has $10 million.....I cant win

 

[John Flyers Fan]

In some cases this is like me sitting down at the poker table with $100 and the guy across from me has $10 million.....I cant win

No I don't think the NHLPA is going to "win", but the little guy does winoccasionally.

They won in 1994, the MLBPA wins all the time.

 

[AM]

wake up!

6 of them can say no if they want to. If they're the only 6 then that's tough ****.

There are reasons they instatuted that provision.

Trust this, if Gary wasnt doing the will of the majority of the owners, hed be gone in an instant.

 

[AM]

I disagree again

This is exactly why I don't support the Owners. I mean they say they want a partnership but they won't be partners with each other. They seem to think that the only way to fix the league is to destroy the union not have a partnership with them. A partnership is about comprimise from both sides.

I think setting up your negotiating committe so that only 8 guys can nix any deal implies that they believe in a partnership.

 

[Phanuthier*]

well....lets look at that. Ted Leonsis said yesterday that, financially, this is the best year he's had as an owner.....and I am sure he is not alone. Its been said many times that many teams will lose less by not playing.....in those cases its hard to say they are missing "revenue" now isnt it.

Did this make sense to anyone?

the other thing is...the owners are extremely wealthy...this lockout wont change their day to day lifestyle one bit......can you say the same about the players?

Well maybe the players should realize that splitting 42.5 million 23 ways isn't such a bad thing then?

In some cases this is like me sitting down at the poker table with $100 and the guy across from me has $10 million.....I cant win

How is that even relevent? The players arn't playing poker wih each other; they're playing a game of chicken.