McKenzie: 2 Groups forming within NHLPA

[GSC2k2*]

Fact correction time, yet again ...

You have also seen the NHL say we need cost certainty and then offer the players a $42.5 mil FINAL OFFER without linkage. The most important thing the OWNERS have told us they need going into the lockout and then backed off it.

The NHL did not back off their prime tenet. They demanded cost certainty. Exactly what is MORE certain than a fixed salary cap. That was in fact the first position, albeit at a lower number. So, the owners di not "back off" their position.

The NHL said we will open the next season on time and go with replacements to scare the NHLPA and then backed off that position and said the lockout will continue into next season, virtually completely backing off replacement players after the last BOG meeting ..

The league did not say at any point they would go with replacements. Not once. They left their options open. Nor did they back off replacemtn players at the last BOG meeting. Tey said the season would not start on time. That was and is miles away from your assertion.

Nothing is written in stone that you must pick a position from day 1 and never change from that.

Your own positions are proof positive of that, Massager!

 

[mr gib]

Why don't you tell us what you know about it?
Are you a fisherman? If not, why do you keep baiting people here. It's against the rules. Kinda like threadjacking, which you are also doing. How about you articulate your position and hope it leads to meaningful discussion. Or better yet, create a new thread to hold your arguments in. You have no relevance to this thread.

gee - i just wanted to know why mr carpenter 02 thought linden was elected president - simple enuff - he kinda answered i guess -

 

[Mess]

Certainly not, but you're the one who asked what was meant by "changing their stance." I just answered your question -- if you already knew, why did you ask?

I really don't understand this argument as a whole ..

BOTH sides used the Cancelling of the NHL season and the point in time of their Mexican Stand off in hopes the other side would cave .. and thus it would be considered a outright win for the side that didn't .. Neither side did and thus we are here today ..

How could you honestly believe that if the NHLPA had not taken that position and went into the lockout and cancelled season with the soft wishy washy approach well maybe we will and maybe we won't accept a Cap .. All depends on how we feel and think that is a strong bargaining position .. What IF the owners would have caved like they have before .. then people would say the NHLPA took a position and won based on that..

When you go into battle in a war do you ever hear the General say when we lose 25% of our men we will concede that we are beaten or is the battle cry "We will never surrender and fight to the last man standing". Then only to find out later what really was the case ..

Or even in our personal lives if you are going to buy a car .. Do you tell the seller that your offer is $ XXX amount but you are willing to give more if you have to, or do you take the firm position that is my BEST OFFER and then perhaps in the course of negotiations end up coming off that position to make a deal ..

Do you then hear the seller say "but I thought XXX was you best offer", where you bluffing ??

I really don't understand how so many people get swept up in this original NHLPA position, and end up not being able to see the forest for all the trees in the long run.

Its no different then what happens all the time in the course of our daily lives ..

 

[AH]

wow !!! Are you guys all unemployed or something? How do you find time to post so much?

And for those that are employed, how do you keep your jobs, especially considering some of the idiotic statements in this thread.

I will not point out who I am talking about ...

 

[Boltsfan2029]

I really don't understand this argument as a whole ..

BOTH sides used the Cancelling of the NHL season and the point in time of their Mexican Stand off in hopes the other side would cave .. and thus it would be considered a outright win for the side that didn't .. Neither side did and thus we are here today ..

How could you honestly believe that if the NHLPA had not taken that position and went into the lockout and cancelled season with the soft wishy washy approach well maybe we will and maybe we won't accept a Cap .. All depends on how we feel and think that is a strong bargaining position .. What IF the owners would have caved like they have before .. then people would say the NHLPA took a position and won based on that..

When you go into battle in a war do you ever hear the General say when we lose 25% of our men we will concede that we are beaten or is the battle cry "We will never surrender and fight to the last man standing". Then only to find out later what really was the case ..

Or even in our personal lives if you are going to buy a car .. Do you tell the seller that your offer is $ XXX amount but you are willing to give more if you have to, or do you take the firm position that is my BEST OFFER and then perhaps in the course of negotiations end up coming off that position to make a deal ..

Do you then hear the seller say "but I thought XXX was you best offer", where you bluffing ??

I really don't understand how so many people get swept up in this original NHLPA position, and end up not being able to see the forest for all the trees in the long run.

Its no different then what happens all the time in the course of our daily lives ..

What does any of this have to do with what you originally asked? Once more, you asked a simple question, "what do you mean by changing their stance" (paraphrased). It called for simple answer, which I gave.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

wow !!! Are you guys all unemployed or something? How do you find time to post so much?

And for those that are employed, how do you keep your jobs, especially considering some of the idiotic statements in this thread.

I will not point out who I am talking about ...

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm on vacation & killing time before my next little adventure...

 

[CGG]

Although you continually use the $42.5 number allegedly with no floor (which is unsubstantiated) from the last offer, you go back to much earlier offers to refer to the 75% QO's, etc. The facts are this: in the $42.5 offer, they were working from the deal points as published by the NHLPA. If you look at said deal points, they are essentially where we are now on those issues.

So I respectfully ask that you refrain from publishing your falsehoods in respect of the offers. I know your grade ten studies are undoubtedly distracting you as finals approach, but c'mon.

The facts are this: You got your facts wrong.

It's fairly well known that on the first post-cancellation Saturday meeting, the two sides never even talked about the salary cap number, because they couldn't come to an agreement over the systemic issues, such as QO's and arbitration. That certainly doesn't sound like both sides were using the NHLPA proposed deal points on QO's and arbitration.

Also, there certainly wasn't a floor. I even remember seeing a quote from Bettman himself saying that if they were going to raise the cap to scary levels (i.e. $42.5 million) then they couldn't have a floor. I'll look for a link.

What I do have is the NHLPA's press release, and as far as I know, no one from the NHL has refuted this. Pay particular attention to items 3 and 4:

1) While we expected the upper limit number on payroll would increase over the six-year term of the deal as hockey revenues increased, the NHL's position today was that the upper limit would remain a fixed number for six years, regardless of any growth in hockey revenues.

2) While we were told earlier in the week that the NHL's revenue sharing plan would not decrease over time, the plan they revealed today could decrease significantly over the term of the agreement.

3) While we anticipated a minimum team payroll number in our proposal, the NHL was today not interested in providing any minimum team payroll number, but only a maximum number.

4) While we had anticipated using our Dec. 9/04 system changes, with a couple of exceptions to be discussed, the NHL today outlined more significant exceptions which they were seeking, particularly in the area of salary arbitration and qualifying offers.

Link

The end result, the $42.5 million never-to-increase cap would have come with low QO's and vastly owner-friendly arbitration, which makes a $38 million cap with a floor which both increase with revenue a potentially far better option for players.

 

[LPHabsFan]

I really don't understand this argument as a whole ..

BOTH sides used the Cancelling of the NHL season and the point in time of their Mexican Stand off in hopes the other side would cave .. and thus it would be considered a outright win for the side that didn't .. Neither side did and thus we are here today ..

How could you honestly believe that if the NHLPA had not taken that position and went into the lockout and cancelled season with the soft wishy washy approach well maybe we will and maybe we won't accept a Cap .. All depends on how we feel and think that is a strong bargaining position .. What IF the owners would have caved like they have before .. then people would say the NHLPA took a position and won based on that..

When you go into battle in a war do you ever hear the General say when we lose 25% of our men we will concede that we are beaten or is the battle cry "We will never surrender and fight to the last man standing". Then only to find out later what really was the case ..

Or even in our personal lives if you are going to buy a car .. Do you tell the seller that your offer is $ XXX amount but you are willing to give more if you have to, or do you take the firm position that is my BEST OFFER and then perhaps in the course of negotiations end up coming off that position to make a deal ..

Do you then hear the seller say "but I thought XXX was you best offer", where you bluffing ??

I really don't understand how so many people get swept up in this original NHLPA position, and end up not being able to see the forest for all the trees in the long run.

Its no different then what happens all the time in the course of our daily lives ..

Ummm, Messenger, I guess you've never heard of the word "retreat"? Since you wanted to use the war analogy, if I'm not mistaken, the country who has thrown all their eggs in one basket and never giving up no matter what the odds has almost always lost.

As far as the who selling your car, yes your right in that the final offer is never the "final" offer but when you go to buy that car and you look into your bank account and see you only have $15, 000 to spend on a car. do you then go and spend 17, 000 on that car? If you are then your stupid. And that's exactly what the owners were under the old CBA in spending money they didn't really have yet. You talk about this offer being better than the "final offer" of 42.5 and 75% QO and the other crap. But let me ask you this, what about all of the other offers that have been given throughout the year. You like to talk about negotiation but the fact is, the players have yet to be willing to negotiate for the entire year. And while I understand that the same can be said about the owners in not really willing to negotiate, they have not had a choice. It was either get the new system with a cap or linkage, or in a couple of years the NHL would fold out of bankruptcy.

 

[blitzkriegs]

wow !!! Are you guys all unemployed or something? How do you find time to post so much?

And for those that are employed, how do you keep your jobs, especially considering some of the idiotic statements in this thread.

I will not point out who I am talking about ...

this is what happens when you live at home with mommy/daddy and go to high school...

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

The end result, the $42.5 million never-to-increase cap would have come with low QO's and vastly owner-friendly arbitration, which makes a $38 million cap with a floor which both increase with revenue a potentially far better option for players.

No shiznit.

That's why the PA should have considered "LINKAGE" from the beginning.

...but, it was Goodenow's (and probably Goodenow's ALONE) mandate to never ever ever ever consider linkage that F'ed things up to the point where we are now.

Why he thought and probably still thinks linkage is bad is simply this. It prevent's the players from making money beyond the means of the league. Sure it doesn't make sense to thoughtful people, but to a bloodsucking monster like Goodenow, the league be damned, he is going to try to suck it dry.

 

[Mess]

Although you continually use the $42.5 number allegedly with no floor (which is unsubstantiated) from the last offer, you go back to much earlier offers to refer to the 75% QO's, etc. The facts are this: in the $42.5 offer, they were working from the deal points as published by the NHLPA. If you look at said deal points, they are essentially where we are now on those issues.

I guess reading comprehension is your real problem :

Right straight from the Brooks article we are discussing her

In either case, it is extremely unlikely that the upper limit will be as high as the strings-attached $42.5M offered by the league just prior to cancellation of 2004-05, though that offer neither allowed for annual hikes based on revenue increases nor mandated a club payroll floor. Expect an initial upper limit of between $36-38M, with a floor of approximately $24-28M per team under either scenario.

Both sides have confirmed that qualifying offers and salary arbitration will be based on the union's Dec. 9 proposal rather than on any of the subsequent more restrictive league offers. QO's therefore will be 100 percent for players earning over $1M, and either 105 percent of 110 precent for those below that standard, as opposed to league offers that had featured qualifiers at either 75 percent or 85 percent for those earning more than $1M.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/24571.htm

I made them nice and big and highlighted them in RED so you don't need your glasses

 

[mooseOAK*]

I guess reading comprehension is your real problem :

Right straight from the Brooks article we are discussing her

A Brooks opinion column doesn't exactly work as substantiation of anything.

 

[Mess]

A Brooks opinion column doesn't exactly work as substantiation of anything.

The whole topic is about Brooks leaked article and facts that a deal is getting closer ..

Where have you been ??

Where do you think we are getting the information from to discuss the comparison between the 42.5 Mil final offer and the current one ??

 

[mooseOAK*]

The whole topic is about Brooks leaked article and facts that a deal is getting closer ..

Where have you been ??

That a deal is getting closer isn't a fact, yet. While Brooks is sniffing the breeze and writing columns from a different standpoint these days, he knows as little now as he ever has. McKenzie is more respected because he seems to be a nice guy and doesn't take cheap shots he is throwing all sorts of stuff at the wall to see if it sticks also.

They don't know anything.

 

[Mess]

That a deal is getting closer isn't a fact, yet. While Brooks is sniffing the breeze and writing columns from a different standpoint these days, he knows as little now as he ever has. McKenzie is more respected because he seems to be a nice guy and doesn't take cheap shots he is throwing all sorts of stuff at the wall to see if it sticks also.

They don't know anything.

McKenzie article doesn't discuss any facts of the current negotiations .. He is just building off the Brooks article that suggest that some of PA committee would like to work with this and get a deal done, while others are opposed

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

You can discredit Brooks all you like .. that doesn't change the fact the its his current artilcle ONLY that has given the public something to digest as discuss which we are doing here ..

Here is a section from TSN just released report which confirms the NO SALARY FLOOR ..

The focus continues to be the review of financial measurements and accounting practices of the league's 30 teams. Both sides have agreed that a salary cap model with an upper and lower limit will be the centrepiece of the collective bargaining agreement, but the tough part comes with tying revenues to the moving cap figure year in and year out.

In what has been a major bone of contention going back two years, the two sides have battled on what exactly constitutes revenue, whether teams are reporting all of their concessions, all of their suite sales, etc.

By all accounts, progress has been made in this area over the last few weeks and perhaps as early as this week, both sides will agree on a system that defines all areas of financial reporting. Once that major hurdle is cleared, it's time to knock off all the other issues such as free agency, salary arbitration, drug testing, Olympic participation, proposed rule changes, etc.

Another major hurdle is what the upper-limit figure will be for the salary cap starting next season. Given that commissioner Gary Bettman cancelled the season after offering a team-by-team cap of $42.5 million US, expect next year's upper limit to be lower than that given all the damage suffered by the industry and Bettman's public warning that the league's offer would get worse as time went on.

The NHLPA is probably willing to bite the bullet on a low cap figure to start off next season as long there's room to grow in future years with bigger revenues leading to a higher salary cap, something that the league wasn't willing to do before. Also, the union feels strongly about having a minimum payroll figure, which the league did not have in its February proposals.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=126559&hubName=nhl

Happy now that its not coming from Brooks ???

Geez I end up posting all day the things I already know just so that for some reason people that are having trouble reading and understanding can keep up..

 

[mackdogs*]

Geez I end up posting all day

Yep.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Geez I end up posting all day the things I already know just so that for some reason people that are having trouble reading and understanding can keep up..

Yes, but you do so with pretty colors and different font combinations and treatments that it just makes your stuff so much more... believable!

 

[LordHelmet]

The article was Goodenow's last kick at the can in terms of trying to sour the deal. Hope he enjoys his next job.

Goodenow doesn't have the class to admit defeat and go out with class, so we end up getting to see what should be an internal matter.

Another mainstream source (Ulmer) confirming the departure of Goodenow once the deal is signed. It sure looks like Bobby will get exactly what he had coming for his monumental misread and having Gary play him at every turn.

The union, having been denied $1 billion US in salaries, is badly fractured.

Already, there is talk of Goodenow's imminent departure. Good form will prevent him from leaving before a new deal is signed, but the schism inside the union between Goodenow and its rank-and-file millionaires only can result in Goodenow being gone within the year.

it is looking positive that more players oppose Goodenow then support him

Question: If all of these things are true, then why are there 750 players that are saying nothing to the media? If the union has cast him aside as a leader/negotiator, then why are they still honoring his gag order?

 

[Sideline]

If the rank and file approves the deal,then Goodenow can resign in protest.What is Goodenow's end game?Continue to wait and wait and wait.What can Goodenow do if the deal side actually makes a deal?Not allow them to accept it

He knows he lost. No matter what he does he failed as a Union Boss so his best option now is to take the stance that the deal being made is bad for the players. It's his fault that this is the deal to be made, but that can be ignored if he plays it right.

When everyone realizes how crappy a deal this will be for the players he can say he tried to reason with his members, but they wouldn't listen. He can then make a vague claim of some strategy that he had to break the owners or at least make a better deal. This is about saving Bob now.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Question: If all of these things are true, then why are there 750 players that are saying nothing to the media? If the union has cast him aside as a leader/negotiator, then why are they still honoring his gag order?

Um, because if they publicly acknowledge it, their leverage is affected?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The best offer the NHL presented to the NHLPA during the eight month long lockout came and went, and they cannot go back to it due to obvious reasons.

Had Goodenow decided to negotiate with a cap many months (or even a year) ago, the players' union would have been better off. They wouldn't have had to offer the 24% rollback. They could have possibly gotten a deal without linkage, had he simply agreed to work on a concenpt that included a salary cap. He vehemently declined any cap of any kind, and he said they will NEVER ACCEPT any offer that included any type of salary cap.

Those were in his own words people. This isn't about taking sides, but being misguided. Who can say with a straight face that they have not been misguided?

I think many people around Goodenow and within the union realized this and decided to step in. What is being negotiated now is the best deal the NHLPA will get from the NHL.

 

[mooseOAK*]

McKenzie article doesn't discuss any facts of the current negotiations .. He is just building off the Brooks article that suggest that some of PA committee would like to work with this and get a deal done, while others are opposed

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

You can discredit Brooks all you like .. that doesn't change the fact the its his current artilcle ONLY that has given the public something to digest as discuss which we are doing here ..

Here is a section from TSN just released report which confirms the NO SALARY FLOOR ..

Happy now that its not coming from Brooks ???

Geez I end up posting all day the things I already know just so that for some reason people that are having trouble reading and understanding can keep up..

That article confirms nothing, just more speculation. All of the various proposals have been posted to the NHL and NHLPA web sites so just link to them for what they say. Problem is none of those are the last word on what either side wants or is willing to give up either because they are all just starting points for further negotiations.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Some of you are aware that player agents sometimes misguide their clients right? It has happened in the past where a client ends up firing their agent. Gaborik, Dafoe, Allison among others have done so. Some players do grow to be dissatisfied by their agents' failure to negotiate. It is possible that the same is happening with Goodenow.

And what is so hard to believe about the McKenzie column? And McKenzie will not write such a thing unless he was sure of it. He was the first person to break the Rob Blake story of him stripping the 'C' off of his sweater as a negotiation ploy when he was due to be an UFA at the end of the 2000-2001 season. I doubt many things columnists such as Brooks, Fischler, Strachan, Garrioch have written in the past, but I never feel the same with McKenzie's columns.

 

[mooseOAK*]

And what is so hard to believe about the McKenzie column? And McKenzie will not write such a thing unless he was sure of it. He was the first person to break the Rob Blake story of him stripping the 'C' off of his sweater as a negotiation ploy when he was due to be an UFA at the end of the 2000-2001 season. I doubt many things columnists such as Brooks, Fischler, Strachan, Garrioch have written in the past, but I never feel the same with McKenzie's columns.

They have all been right at some time or another because of some inside information but I don't see McKenzie as being any more accurate with his speculations than anyone else.

 

[me2]

The NHLPA is probably willing to bite the bullet on a low cap figure to start off next season as long there's room to grow in future years with bigger revenues leading to a higher salary cap, something that the league wasn't willing to do before. Also, the union feels strongly about having a minimum payroll figure, which the league did not have in its February proposals.

Both of which were included in the NHL's December offer. And with a much higher floor.