I missed Goodenows press conference

[me2]

I watched the press conference...... loopholes???
the deal they gave them at 49 was for a negociation...
they were expecting them to come back....

Goodenow all but came out and said.. 45 mil would be done.. he's like it doesn't matter it wasn't offered... why talk abotu what if's they didn't offer it....

talk about being morons... the players have less to loose then the owners... players don't have billions of dollars on a team... these players can play elsewhere.... I hope the lock out for a few more year.. let the league get replacement players... no one shows up or supports them, and the league fold...

Theres your NBA specialist Mr. Bettman as your NHL commish... haha thats a joke..

2 lockout in 10 years with the same Commish.. thats unheard of..... :lol

2 lockouts in 10 years with the same Union boss.....

 

[SENSible1*]

I agree I think there is. Im saying when this lockout first STARTED and even a couple months ago. The point of having a union is to have them look out for your best interests and have them do whats fair. Maybe now some players feel like that is NOT the case. But even awhile ago fans were ripping into players acting as if they wouldn't be doing the samething if they were in the players shoes.

I see your point and it has some validity.

I'm a pretty vocal guy, so I doubt I would have taken their illogical position lying down right from the beginning, but I would have done so internally.

However, the players have an opportunity, RIGHT NOW, to take action and rectify the situation. The best case scenario for them is still alive if they fire Goodenow and hold a vote on the owners final offer. If they don't, they will be deserving of all the questioning they get concerning their intelligence.

 

[Digger12]

I wonder how the NHLers who haven't yet played the minimum games (around 400, isn't it?) required to qualify for a pension feel right about now?

 

[Nash]

2 lockouts in 10 years with the same Union boss.....

That would be 2 lockouts for Mr. Bettman and 0 strikes for Mr. Goodenow. Don't forget who chose to cancel this season.

Daly and Bettman said when the players offered the 24% rollback that it would bring the salary/revenue in line with their target percentage, but would only postpone the inevitable for 2 to 3 years and the salaries would escalate back to their current levels. Well, the NHLPA offered a cap, luxury taxes for revenue sharing, arbitration changes, and entry level system changes on top of that rollback. If a 24% rollback alone would have made the system managable for 3 years, you can't honestly believe that these added concessions wouldn't work for at least 5 years. Considering that the NHLPA proposal was for 6 years including this shortened one, the NHL are fools for not agreeing to it. At the end of the term of the proposed CBA agreement, the NHL would already be starting off with almost everything they were proposing at the beginning of this process, minus linkage and a ridiculously low hard cap. If the proposed CBA didn't rectify the situation like I believe it could, the NHL would be in great shape to get linkage and a lower hard cap at that time. Cancelling this season will cost the NHL more revenue in the next 5 years then the losses they would have "suffered" if they accepted the NHLPA's last deal.

 

[SENSible1*]

That would be 2 lockouts for Mr. Bettman and 0 strikes for Mr. Goodenow. Don't forget who chose to cancel this season.

Daly and Bettman said when the players offered the 24% rollback that it would bring the salary/revenue in line with their target percentage, but would only postpone the inevitable for 2 to 3 years and the salaries would escalate back to their current levels. Well, the NHLPA offered a cap, luxury taxes for revenue sharing, arbitration changes, and entry level system changes on top of that rollback. If a 24% rollback alone would have made the system managable for 3 years, you can't honestly believe that these added concessions wouldn't work for at least 5 years. Considering that the NHLPA proposal was for 6 years including this shortened one, the NHL are fools for not agreeing to it. At the end of the term of the proposed CBA agreement, the NHL would already be starting off with almost everything they were proposing at the beginning of this process, minus linkage and a ridiculously low hard cap. If the proposed CBA didn't rectify the situation like I believe it could, the NHL would be in great shape to get linkage and a lower hard cap at that time. Cancelling this season will cost the NHL more revenue in the next 5 years then the losses they would have "suffered" if they accepted the NHLPA's last deal.

You aren't seriously still maintaining that the DEC 9th offer was worthwhile, are you?

Too funny.

All the other changes, other than the rollback, were purely cosmetic.

 

[Chayos]

1. He appologized ...for the owners.

then he whined and blamed the owners the entire press conference and made no logical sense.

Acted like a child.

That's about it.

Actually he didn't aplolgize for the owners till a reporter pressed him on it!

 

[Sammy*]

That would be 2 lockouts for Mr. Bettman and 0 strikes for Mr. Goodenow. Don't forget who chose to cancel this season.

Daly and Bettman said when the players offered the 24% rollback that it would bring the salary/revenue in line with their target percentage, but would only postpone the inevitable for 2 to 3 years and the salaries would escalate back to their current levels. Well, the NHLPA offered a cap, luxury taxes for revenue sharing, arbitration changes, and entry level system changes on top of that rollback. If a 24% rollback alone would have made the system managable for 3 years, you can't honestly believe that these added concessions wouldn't work for at least 5 years. Considering that the NHLPA proposal was for 6 years including this shortened one, the NHL are fools for not agreeing to it. At the end of the term of the proposed CBA agreement, the NHL would already be starting off with almost everything they were proposing at the beginning of this process, minus linkage and a ridiculously low hard cap. If the proposed CBA didn't rectify the situation like I believe it could, the NHL would be in great shape to get linkage and a lower hard cap at that time. Cancelling this season will cost the NHL more revenue in the next 5 years then the losses they would have "suffered" if they accepted the NHLPA's last deal.

The NHLPA should have just underwrote the losses & reasonable profit for the owners if the offer was so good.
Fair, no.

 

[Egil]

Goodenow was at the head of the NHLPA during the 92 strike, was he not?

 

[Licentia]

Sorry to hear you missed the press conference. Here's a picture of Goodenow at the conference:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/04/pf/saving/pepsi_monkey_game/monkey.03.jpg

 

[Nash]

You aren't seriously still maintaining that the DEC 9th offer was worthwhile, are you?

Too funny.

All the other changes, other than the rollback, were purely cosmetic.

All the other changes were actual changes, unlike what the NHL has offered. Since that offer, the NHLPA has offered other concessions as well. You do realize that based on the previous CBA, the NHLPA have conceded in terms of salary rollback, salary arbitration process, luxury tax, revenue sharing, entry level system and qualifying offers. The NHL is looking to swing the CBA drastically in their favor because the players gained so much in the last agreement. The NHLPA is looking to meet in the middle and has conceded and negotiated. Just because the NHL relented from their hard line stance of a $31 million dollar hard cap and linkage, doesn't mean they have conceded anything. Those elements have never existed in previous CBA's for the league.

You can't seriously believe that the league has negotiated in this agreement at all, can you?!?

 

[ryz]

That would be 2 lockouts for Mr. Bettman and 0 strikes for Mr. Goodenow. Don't forget who chose to cancel this season.

And you don't forget who chose NOT to deal in reality and was the reason the lock-out turned into a canceled season.

 

[SENSible1*]

All the other changes were actual changes, unlike what the NHL has offered. Since that offer, the NHLPA has offered other concessions as well. You do realize that based on the previous CBA, the NHLPA have conceded in terms of salary rollback, salary arbitration process, luxury tax, revenue sharing, entry level system and qualifying offers. The NHL is looking to swing the CBA drastically in their favor because the players gained so much in the last agreement. The NHLPA is looking to meet in the middle and has conceded and negotiated. Just because the NHL relented from their hard line stance of a $31 million dollar hard cap and linkage, doesn't mean they have conceded anything. Those elements have never existed in previous CBA's for the league.

You can't seriously believe that the league has negotiated in this agreement at all, can you?!?

The luxury tax was a joke.

The QO were a joke.

The reverse arbitration rules were so lopsided as to be laughable.

Both sides agreed on entry level restrictions.

Other than the 24%, the rest of the offer was a joke.

The NHL has consistently made this about reasonable numbers and the PA has consistently made this about emotions.

Bob has stonewalled and bluffed the whole time and now that Gary has called him on it Bob will end up losing his job. It's a tough world out there.

Once the owners took the gloves off Gary, he has taken Bob to the cleaners.

 

[SedinFan*]

The nhlpa turned down a damn good offer (42.5 million). Best one they will get. Goodenhow will (in time) feel the wrath of the players.

 

[Nash]

The QO were a joke.
Nash Were they not better then the old CBA?

The reverse arbitration rules were so lopsided as to be laughable.
Nash Were they not better then the old CBA?

Both sides agreed on entry level restrictions.
Nash That's nice, but it is a concession from the PA, not the other way around.

Other than the 24%, the rest of the offer was a joke.
Nash I hope you are still talking about the Dec 9th proposal. However, I wrote that since that offer (meaning in subsequent offers) the PA has added concessions.

The NHL has consistently made this about reasonable numbers and the PA has consistently made this about emotions.
Nash I disagree. The NHL has made this about accepting what they feel is the best solution. Again, that is not negotiating. The PA's final offer, without the indexing clause was more then reasonable and would have made the NHL healthy for the duration of the proposed 6 year CBA.

Bob has stonewalled and bluffed the whole time and now that Gary has called him on it Bob will end up losing his job. It's a tough world out there.
Nash On the flip side of that arguement, didn't Gary bluff about linkage and needing to have a maximum hard cap of $31 million dollars. Clearly, he has lost credibility on those issues since he caved on them. How many times was an NHL proposal their "final offer"? How could Goodenow believe that this time Bettman was going to stick to that?

Once the owners took the gloves off Gary, he has taken Bob to the cleaners.
Nash Honestly, no one is winning this ... especially us fans. I guess Bettman's $31 million dollar cap will actually look reasonable next year since league wide revenues will probably drop significantly.

 

[GKJ]

Hey Joe Peeps...I wish you would have watched the press conferences today. You would change your tune. And your wrong, the PA gave everything...WITH LOOPHOLES. They did nothing to help fix the game

They didn't agree to a salary cap and make concessions? They didn't offer a 24% rollback?



You're in another world, and so is everyone else who sincerly beleive the owners know what they're doing.

 

[kerrly]

I dont know where you even got this reply from anything I SAID in that post. Im talking about players as a WHOLE. People come out and say "Mccabe is a moron" so and so and thats fine thats your opinion. Im talking about all the players as a whole and people acting like they stand for some awesome moral goodness compared to the NHL players. I have never once called the owners a bunch of morons, but I do believe Wirtz is stupid and so is Bettman, and SO is Goodenow. I personally don't think I act as if im on some kind of high horse though, maybe other people think different but I don't really think I do.

I'm talking about you and other posters using the idiotic term that the owners are stupid morons who shouldn't sign these players to contracts. I was sticking up for the owners side, and just trying to show you that your complaining is pointless and in fact sounds alot like whining.

 

[kerrly]

They didn't agree to a salary cap and make concessions? They didn't offer a 24% rollback?



You're in another world, and so is everyone else who sincerly beleive the owners know what they're doing.

You've seen the point #7 in the NHLPA proposal right? And the luxury taxes can be credited against the revenue sharing program?

 

[SENSible1*]

NASH,

So your whole argument is that the PA has made concessions from the old CBA.

Congrats. Great point.

Both sides have made significant concession from their bargaining position.

The fact that the PA had to move radically away from the flawed former CBA is news to no one but the PA and its apologists.

The Dec 9th offer was a massive bribe and PR stunt.

Even the last offer by Goodenow had poison pills.

The PA has not been any more willing a negotiation partner than the NHL. It just so happens that the NHL holds all the cards and that it was in the PA's interests to play nice, well before any deadline.

Bobby boy massively miscalculated and he is going to pay the price. Too bad for his constituents that it will cost them even more.

 

[Digger12]

I guess Bettman's $31 million dollar cap will actually look reasonable next year since league wide revenues will probably drop significantly.

And for this, and this reason alone...Goodenow should lose his job.

Not only has he cost his players a full year's NHL salary and finite career time...he's very likely cost them a goodly chunk of next year's as well.

Someone forgot to tell him 1994 was a long time ago, obviously.

 

[MykeAbner]

They didn't agree to a salary cap and make concessions? They didn't offer a 24% rollback?



You're in another world, and so is everyone else who sincerly beleive the owners know what they're doing.

Agreeing to a salary cap means absolutely nothing unless the cap is set at a reasonable amount (which it wasn't).

You're in another reality if you think that the players know what they're doing. There is no way that they will get an offer as good as the last one now.

 

[Nash]

NASH,

So your whole argument is that the PA has made concessions from the old CBA.

Congrats. Great point.

Both sides have made significant concession from their bargaining position.

The fact that the PA had to move radically away from the flawed former CBA is news to no one but the PA and its apologists.

The Dec 9th offer was a massive bribe and PR stunt.

Even the last offer by Goodenow had poison pills.

The PA has not been any more willing a negotiation partner than the NHL. It just so happens that the NHL holds all the cards and that it was in the PA's interests to play nice, well before any deadline.

Bobby boy massively miscalculated and he is going to pay the price. Too bad for his constituents that it will cost them even more.

Even if you believe the Dec 9th proposal was strictly PR, why didn't the NHL negotiate off that offer? Plese don't tell me their counter proposal was a negotiation.

I agree that the final Goodenow proposal had issues, but why not continue to negotiate after crossing some significant hurdles earlier this week?

Bettman saying he could have accepted $45 million after the fact is garbage. Why not counter the final proposal of Bob's if that was the case?

I really don't care how much this will cost the players ... I care how much it will cost the game.

 

[jcab2000]

talk about being morons... the players have less to loose then the owners... players don't have billions of dollars on a team...
:lol

The owners lost $1.5 billion over 10 years. The players lost $1.5 billion this year.

 

[SENSible1*]

Even if you believe the Dec 9th proposal was strictly PR, why didn't the NHL negotiate off that offer? Plese don't tell me their counter proposal was a negotiation.

The side with the better hand gets to decide the framework. There was nothing in the offer to negotiate. The 24% did allow the NHL to deliver a much needed slap across the face though, so thanks Bob.

I agree that the final Goodenow proposal had issues, but why not continue to negotiate after crossing some significant hurdles earlier this week?

Bettman saying he could have accepted $45 million after the fact is garbage. Why not counter the final proposal of Bob's if that was the case?

You really don't get it, do you?

It's called hardball. Bettman is getting rid of the thorn in the NHL's side name Bob G. The final manouveres were designed to embarass BG and push the players into revolt.

Gary has played his hand perfectly.

I really don't care how much this will cost the players ... I care how much it will cost the game.

The game will be fine. However, this group of players has paid a HUGE price for following poor advice.