Meeting Day Thread: 6/3

[WC Handy*]

If the ownership of the team gets a dime of that money then it should be counted.. none of this seperate company crap to hide revenue. If the hot dog vendor gives 10 cents per hotdog sold every game night to the hockey team/person/ownership group, then count it... every single penny.

So if the team owns a restaurant across the street from the arena do you count the revenue the restaurant brings in?

 

[B-MEL]

Cross your fingers, everyone.

I can't type with them crossed!!!

 

[Motown Beatdown]

So if the team owns a restaurant across the street from the arena do you count the revenue the restaurant brings in?

I would say no to that, but what about the restaurant/bar in the arena? Shouldn't that be Hockey Related Revenue. After all it's only open during games.

 

[GSC2k2*]

And people say "how can they be spending all this time on this stuff??? Why don't they just come to an agreement? It's simple!!!"

 

[Wolfpack]

Last night I was listening to an Edmonton radio station and I heard an interview with a reporter who was following the negotiations. Sorry, I can't remember his name. Anyway, he claimed that he had a source that confirmed that Bob Goodenow had a $10 million golden parachute built into his contract where if he were to be fired by the PA he would receive ten million dollars from them.

If this has been discussed in a previous thread, my apologies.

If this were true... would it not make sense that BG would push for as much as he could since on a personal level he wins either way? He obviously wins if he gets the players what they want (way too late to achieve that by now, IMO) and he wins if he fails to do so, since he'll be fired and walk away wealthier than ever.

Anyone else hear this?

 

[Digger12]

Last night I was listening to an Edmonton radio station and I heard an interview with a reporter who was following the negotiations. Sorry, I can't remember his name. Anyway, he claimed that he had a source that confirmed that Bob Goodenow had a $10 million golden parachute built into his contract where if he were to be fired by the PA he would receive ten million dollars from them.

If this has been discussed in a previous thread, my apologies.

If this were true... would it not make sense that BG would push for as much as he could since on a personal level he wins either way? He obviously wins if he gets the players what they want (way too late to achieve that by now, IMO) and he wins if he fails to do so, since he'll be fired and walk away wealthier than ever.

Anyone else hear this?

http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/Hockey/2005/06/03/1069442-sun.html

He has three more years remaining on his contract at a minimum of $3.5 million US a year. If the players want to punt him, all it will cost them is $10.5 million.

Something like this, perhaps?

 

[Mess]

Remember something else about collective bargaining. When we say it's not done until it's all done, take that literally. Hypothetical example, let's say the NHL and the PA agree today on precise numbers on linkage, floor, ceiling, range etc. They both agree today on what that is going to be. Word leaks out and everybody starts reporting it. Whatever. Then tomorrow they start in on all the other issues. After they finish arb, ELS, QO's, FA etc. etc., the PA looks at it and says, you know, we didn't get as much as we thought we would on those systemic issues, so let's go back to that linkage figure, let's change the percentage number, let's move around the range.

We have debated this here .. The Hard Cap ceiling and Floor can change with the system issues like ELS, QO's, FA etc or What is hockey evenue, revenue sharing model, what is included in a cap figure, profit sharing, etc etc.

So you can't settle on a final figure until all the facts are in ??

The best you can do is agree on the structure of a Floor & Ceiling that moves via a linkage persentage and then that is the very last thing to you agree on to finalize a CBA IMO ..

 

[Wolfpack]

http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/Hockey/2005/06/03/1069442-sun.html



Something like this, perhaps?

That must have been what they were talking about.

My question would be, does receiving $10.5 million regardless of whether you achieve your goals or not act as any sort of a motivating factor? I guess it depends on the person.

 

[Mess]

That must have been what they were talking about.

My question would be, does receiving $10.5 million regardless of whether you achieve your goals or not act as any sort of a motivating factor? I guess it depends on the person.

Something else for you to consider .. While his contract is guaranteed just like a player is ..

Goodenow is not getting paid during the work stoppage to remove that possible doubt that you are talking about that his motives in negotiating are not with his own personal gain in mind .. The longer the battle goes the less of that 10.5 mil he gets as his contract is ticking just like lockout players are ..

Goodenow gets paid a little over 3 mil a year .. When the season was cancelled he also lost that just like a player lost his wages ..

 

[Wolfpack]

Something else for you to consider .. While his contract is guaranteed just like a player is ..

Goodenow is not getting paid during the work stoppage to remove that possible doubt that you are talking about that his motives in negotiating are not with his own personal gain in mind .. The longer the battle goes the less of that 10.5 mil he gets as his contract is ticking just like lockout players are ..

Goodenow gets paid a little over 3 mil a year .. When the season was cancelled he also lost that just like a player lost his wages ..

Interesting. Thanks for that info.

 

[SENSible1*]

Something else for you to consider .. While his contract is guaranteed just like a player is ..

Goodenow is not getting paid during the work stoppage to remove that possible doubt that you are talking about that his motives in negotiating are not with his own personal gain in mind .. The longer the battle goes the less of that 10.5 mil he gets as his contract is ticking just like lockout players are ..

Goodenow gets paid a little over 3 mil a year .. When the season was cancelled he also lost that just like a player lost his wages ..

Source???

I'm under the impression that his contract is merely on hold and that he will get the 10.5 regardless.

 

[HSHS]

You are absurd.

I am or my post is??? And how so? What is so obviously different? Please enlighten.

 

[Mothra]

If the ownership of the team gets a dime of that money then it should be counted.. none of this seperate company crap to hide revenue. If the hot dog vendor gives 10 cents per hotdog sold every game night to the hockey team/person/ownership group, then count it... every single penny.

But...I am of the opinion that you can only count revenue streams that all teams have access to.......this is not about hiding money.....If an owner owns his rink/parking and gets all of that money, good for him....not all owners are in that position. He is making extra money off of business ventures because of his team and the NHL......just like players do....how many players get endorsement money from the local car dealer for being in their commercials or whatever. Players and owners should be able to explore these options and get what they can....and IMO it should not be considered league revenue (unless all teams have access to it)

 

[barnburner]

Source???

I'm under the impression that his contract is merely on hold and that he will get the 10.5 regardless.

That was my impression also, based on somthing I read (that I cannot specifically recall or link).
Hopefully someone has something definate that will answer this for everyone.

 

[ti-vite]

Source???

I'm under the impression that his contract is merely on hold and that he will get the 10.5 regardless.

No rollback for Bob?

 

[Slats432]

I am or my post is??? And how so? What is so obviously different? Please enlighten.

I would agree that your post is quite out there.

Parking in most cities is directly related to the venue. BUT if the parking revenue has to be split between hockey days and non hockey events, the calculations get tougher.

I don't know why you related that to a parking lot away from the arena.

 

[fifty_in39]

Remember something else about collective bargaining. When we say it's not done until it's all done, take that literally. Hypothetical example, let's say the NHL and the PA agree today on precise numbers on linkage, floor, ceiling, range etc. They both agree today on what that is going to be. Word leaks out and everybody starts reporting it. Whatever. Then tomorrow they start in on all the other issues. After they finish arb, ELS, QO's, FA etc. etc., the PA looks at it and says, you know, we didn't get as much as we thought we would on those systemic issues, so let's go back to that linkage figure, let's change the percentage number, let's move around the range.

Collective bargaining is not a checklist thing, where you tick off one item and move to another. They're all related.
So while the tidbits being floated around as to what's in the deal are interesting, forgive me if I just wait to see what's actually in there when it's really done.

Sorry Bob, but in any collective bargaining that I've been involved with, the issues are worked over on a checklist basis. Usually the big money ones are left to the end. Once each clause is agreed to and signed off, they are binding and not open to more negotiation. Thus any good labour negotiator will not sign off a clause without a full understanding of its implication on the bargaining of any remaining outstanding issues.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Something else for you to consider .. While his contract is guaranteed just like a player is ..

Goodenow is not getting paid during the work stoppage to remove that possible doubt that you are talking about that his motives in negotiating are not with his own personal gain in mind .. The longer the battle goes the less of that 10.5 mil he gets as his contract is ticking just like lockout players are ..

Goodenow gets paid a little over 3 mil a year .. When the season was cancelled he also lost that just like a player lost his wages ..

Source???

I'm under the impression that his contract is merely on hold and that he will get the 10.5 regardless.

It never fails to amuse me how some guy like Massager posts something of this kind with such AUTHORITY when he has ZERO ability to attest to its truthfulness.

Please confirm to the board that you have no ability whatsoever to confirm the veracity of your statement. And no, news stories won't do the trick. Unearth a quote from goodenow or a press release announcing the terms of his contract. Otherwise, please retract your post.

 

[Hoss]

I'm under the impression that his contract is merely on hold and that he will get the 10.5 regardless.

I think you're right here, either way BG is going to get paid.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Sorry Bob, but in any collective bargaining that I've been involved with, the issues are worked over on a checklist basis. Usually the big money ones are left to the end. Once each clause is agreed to and signed off, they are binding and not open to more negotiation. Thus any good labour negotiator will not sign off a clause without a full understanding of its implication on the bargaining of any remaining outstanding issues.

You beat me to it. While my practice is not in labour law, I can say without hesitaiton that your post is correct - not only for labour negotiations, but for all contractual discussions.

The only exception to the checklist approach is where the parties expressly state in signing off on an issue that it is subject to something else.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

It never fails to amuse me how some guy like Massager posts something of this kind with such AUTHORITY when he has ZERO ability to attest to its truthfulness.

Please confirm to the board that you have no ability whatsoever to confirm the veracity of your statement. And no, news stories won't do the trick. Unearth a quote from goodenow or a press release announcing the terms of his contract. Otherwise, please retract your post.

Goodenow isn't getting paid during the lockout. Wether or not his contract just gets moved back a year or if it is losing this season, who knows. But he definetly isn't getting payed, he himself said it.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Goodenow isn't getting paid during the lockout. Wether or not his contract just gets moved back a year or if it is losing this season, who knows. But he definetly isn't getting payed, he himself said it.

No, i will buy that part. That is a relatively common union approach.

It's the comments regarding the details of his contract that I have no time for and am demanding retraction on, due to a complete lack of foundation.

 

[BobMckenzie]

Sorry Bob, but in any collective bargaining that I've been involved with, the issues are worked over on a checklist basis. Usually the big money ones are left to the end. Once each clause is agreed to and signed off, they are binding and not open to more negotiation. Thus any good labour negotiator will not sign off a clause without a full understanding of its implication on the bargaining of any remaining outstanding issues.

I think you've answered your own question with the last line which I've highlighted. The PA isn't going to sign off on the key linkage, floor, cap, range issues until it sees where everything else is at. In "normal" CBA, there are a myriad of issues and many of them are not directly related to each other, so, sure, you can do the checklist thing. In the NHL situation, though, you can't separate system issues like QOs, ELS etc., from the cap/linkage etc. They're all inter-related and as you point out, the PA would be foolish to sign off on the major issue of linkage and cap range without knowing what they're going to get or not get on the other end with system issues.

And let's also remember that collective bargaining in pro sports is not anything like collective bargaining in the real world. They're not in there talking about hourly wages, job security or workplace safety. They're talking about devising a whole new economic system, a whole new partnership. So, with all due respect, applying collective bargaining principles from the real world against what's going on with the NHL and NHLPA, IMO, is an exercise in futility. Apples and oranges.

 

[Wolfpack]

You beat me to it. While my practice is not in labour law, I can say without hesitaiton that your post is correct - not only for labour negotiations, but for all contractual discussions.

The only exception to the checklist approach is where the parties expressly state in signing off on an issue that it is subject to something else.

Okay, but when have these two groups ever done anything "by the book?"

Their whole negotiating process has been bass-ackwards from the beginning. I pointed out about 6 months ago that they should have started by agreeing on the smaller points and building a framework before getting to the big issues of caps and linkage - a common paractice in all types of negotiations. I was hollared down by everyone saying "if they can't agree on the cap then they can't agree on anything."

A big part of the problem from the beginning was not only BG and GB's dislike of each other - it's that they are both just really bad negotiators.

 

[WC Handy*]

Okay, but when have these two groups ever done anything "by the book?"

Their whole negotiating process has been bass-ackwards from the beginning. I pointed out about 6 months ago that they should have started by agreeing on the smaller points and building a framework before getting to the big issues of caps and linkage - a common paractice in all types of negotiations. I was hollared down by everyone saying "if they can't agree on the cap then they can't agree on anything."

A big part of the problem from the beginning was not only BG and GB's dislike of each other - it's that they are both just really bad negotiators.

What makes them bad negotiators?