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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phanuthier*

Guest
I should probably add that there are players in the NHL that make more money and have a larger income then the owners.
 

Brewleaguer

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
260
0
HockeyCritter said:
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.

Well not even Bettman knows whether his last offer was the right thing to do.
" This is our last effort to make a deal that's fair to the players and one that the Clubs (hopefully) can afford"

Hopefully??? HUH?? Doesn't he know?
If he doesn't really know, then what is he doing in the drivers seat?
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
Brewleaguer said:
Well not even Bettman knows whether his last offer was the right thing to do.
" This is our last effort to make a deal that's fair to the players and one that the Clubs (hopefully) can afford"

Hopefully??? HUH?? Doesn't he know?
If he doesn't really know, then what is he doing in the drivers seat?

That's a stupid thing to say. Noone can know what effects the lockout will have on clubs. Maybe the North American economy will tank a bit in the next year. Anyone who claims to know what the future holds for these 30 teams under virtually any system is full of crap.
 

Brewleaguer

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
260
0
Mothra said:
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
Well like they say "You can't win if you don't play" :)

It won't change THEIR everyday life style, but their franchise will be hurting big time.
 

Brewleaguer

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
260
0
oil slick said:
That's a stupid thing to say. Noone can know what effects the lockout will have on clubs. Maybe the North American economy will tank a bit in the next year. Anyone who claims to know what the future holds for these 30 teams under virtually any system is full of crap.

Right and thats why this has gotten to this point. Goodenow was NOT about to excpet a cap linked to Rev, because of the exact same thing "None can know what effects the lockout will have on clubs"
So why cut your throat?

If Bettman had removed links back in Jan, we'd have hockey right now, I am sure of it.
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
Brewleaguer said:
Right and thats why this has gotten to this point. Goodenow was NOT about to excpet a cap linked to Rev, because of the exact same thing "None can know what effects the lockout will have on clubs"
So why cut your throat?

If Bettman had removed links back in Jan, we'd have hockey right now, I am sure of it.

Maybe you're right... but statements like:

Hopefully??? HUH?? Doesn't he know?
If he doesn't really know, then what is he doing in the drivers seat?


are asinine.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Brewleaguer said:
Well not even Bettman knows whether his last offer was the right thing to do.
" This is our last effort to make a deal that's fair to the players and one that the Clubs (hopefully) can afford"

Hopefully??? HUH?? Doesn't he know?
If he doesn't really know, then what is he doing in the drivers seat?

He said they aren't sure of the damage to the revenues the lockout has had. Hence the "not sure". As well, you can't predict the spending behavior of the teams once a deal is ironed out. Even with a $42.5M cap, if the teams spend too much the NHL will make losses after losses again.

It's called uncertainty.
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
Brewleaguer said:
Well like they say "You can't win if you don't play" :)

It won't change THEIR everyday life style, but their franchise will be hurting big time.

you also cant lose if you dont play.....and in this case they lose less by not playing.
and if they lose less by closing up shop how does that hurt them "big time"?

If anyone is going to be hurting big time its the players.....unless this gets worked out very very soon they will see much less than what was last offered...unless they think that too was a bluff. They will still make great money, in the big picture, but they will be begging for the 42.5 wondering what in the world could they have been thinking in Feb 2005
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Mothra said:
you also cant lose if you dont play.....and in this case they lose less by not playing.
and if they lose less by closing up shop how does that hurt them "big time"

They aren't all losing less money by not playing.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Brewleaguer said:
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.
I respect the fact that you came back and admitted your error. Sorry for the tone of my previous posts.

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?

The owners were in a no-lose situation and get to dictate the terms. Too bad Goodenow didn't figure it out and get his clients the best deal possible.

Sure the owners lose money this year, but they now will assuredly get a low cap and linkage.

PS I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your last line. The owners have been consistently claiming they spend tomre than they could bring in for years.
 

Brewleaguer

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
260
0
Thunderstruck said:
I respect the fact that you came back and admitted your error. Sorry for the tone of my previous posts..


The owners were in a no-lose situation and get to dictate the terms. Too bad Goodenow didn't figure it out and get his clients the best deal possible.

Sure the owners lose money this year, but they now will assuredly get a low cap and linkage.

PS I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your last line. The owners have been consistently claiming they spend tomre than they could bring in for years..

No biggy, I'm a big boy and can admit when I am wrong, I never took it as you being harsh, just expressing your views and facts at hand.
Oh I think he knew it all along, he just didn't feel they should be in a position to be in a no lose situation. I think he wanted a level playing field with both situations.

What I meant was the salaries took up 75% of operational cost, other cost (leases, maintenance, concessions labor, security, etc) was at 39% making it 114% of rev
39% of other cost are way to high for a business to operate with, so the owners need to cut those cost instead of heaping the entire burden of cost cutting measures on the players themselves.
 
Last edited:

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
richardn said:
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. 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. How in any way does that show you are willing to negotiate. He then waits till the last second to take linkage off the table. 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. 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. Instead he sent Goodnow a letter saying that their cap puts the league payroll at 75% of league revenues and that they had to 11 am to accept the offer . If anyone actually believes this they are not all there. Let me get this straight all 30 teams are going to all of a sudden go to the cap max. The fact is 9 teams tops would be at the cap max. How many people think the teams with 20 something payrolls are going to all of a sudden say lets make our payroll 49 Million.

My take is Gary Bettman knew that he had the players by the balls when they offered the cap. 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. Bettman really wanted to cancel the season so he could use it for leverage. I mean with no season now and all offers off the table. Bettman can crush the union now which is starting to give signs of being divided. He knows that by cancelling the season he has a great shot at getting his triple cap at 30 and change. Thus giving everyone an oscar speech on how sorry he is that he has no choice but to cancel the season. 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. Where do we go from here know. If we don't have hockey come september and I don't count scabs as NHL hockey, I don't know if the NHL would be able to survive a work stopage of two full seasons, which is where this appears to be going.
someone finally gets it - its over - they're blowing it up - now all you ****s will know what a scab really is -
 

Brewleaguer

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
260
0
oil slick said:
Maybe you're right... but statements like:

Hopefully??? HUH?? Doesn't he know?
If he doesn't really know, then what is he doing in the drivers seat?


are asinine.

It's not asinine, in business there are things called projections, if you can't project your revenues your in trouble.
To me his statement of 'hopefully' was a sign he doesn't have a projection of earnings formulated based on his last offer.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Brewleaguer said:
No biggy, I'm a big boy and can admit when I am wrong, I never took it as you being harsh, just expressing your views and facts at hand.
Oh I think he knew it all along, he just didn't feel they should be in a position to be in a no lose situation. I think he wanted a level playing field with both situations.
How exactly does failing to recognize and deal from a postition of weakness "level the playing field?" If anything, he has made the situation even worse for the PA.
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
go kim johnsson said:
Jeremy Jacobs, Bill Wirtz, Harley Hotchkiss, Cal Nicholls, Peter Karmanos and everyone else on the gravy train of imbicles (Nashville, Florida....)
For all the good that you have said on this board, comments like this just make no sense at all.

Imbeciles=people that need a proper economic world to survive?
Imbeciles=people that feel that the owners should run the league and not the players?
Imbeciles=people that put money into an investment and believe that not they should be guaranteed a profit, just a fighting chance?

Comments like this are reminiscent of the crying and whining that the PA have made this whole lockout. It sure is easy to galvanize pro owner supporters when PAcolytes spew ridiculousness and a lack of understanding for the issues involved.

It also reminds me of the Oilers Jason Smith who as a hockey player has my utmost respect. But as a business person doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He actually suggested the Oilers didn't have to trade away expensive players but just wanted the fans to believe it.

Imbeciles...you want imbeciles, listen to PA quotes.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Brewleaguer said:
No biggy, I'm a big boy and can admit when I am wrong, I never took it as you being harsh, just expressing your views and facts at hand.
Oh I think he knew it all along, he just didn't feel they should be in a position to be in a no lose situation. I think he wanted a level playing field with both situations.

What I meant was the salaries took up 75% of operational cost, other cost (leases, maintenance, concessions labor, security, etc) was at 39% making it 114% of rev
39% of other cost are way to high for a business to operate with, so the owners need to cut those cost instead of heaping the entire burden of cost cutting measures on the players themselves.

39% isn't that high for the kind of business they're operating. That 39% includes the lease, taxes, GMs, all other employees (often close to 1000), coach, scouts, contracts/bonus to players that aren't on the team (such as minor leaguers, draft picks), etc. Since those costs are more controllable than player costs, I'm sure they're not out of whack. On the other hand, 75% of revenues going to players is just crazy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->