Players upset @ NHLPA about timing of cap offer

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
N.Y. Orangeman said:
B/c the prospect of getting a hard cap at $32m for the next 5-6 years, along with all the other bells and whistles they sought would be much more enticing than missing out on November and December revenues.

Fans are not a part of this equation. As we saw with baseball, they always come back..for good or bad.
They would have had a lot more time to discuss benefits for the NHLPA, they wouldnt have missed out on over $1b and they wouldnt have been seen as a bunch of whiny, overpaid babies by the public.

Hockey is not then national sport of the USA, its a minor sport that cant afford to lose any fans.
 

MmmBacon

Registered User
Dec 2, 2004
87
0
Scugs said:
His bosses are the players. If they don't want him representing them anymore, they can say "Bye bye".

It's not quite that simple. He has a contract through 2008, so he'll say "bye bye" with some very nice parting gifts.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
alexmorrison said:
Thing is the NBA style "loop-holes" aren't really loop-holes. It will not allow you to get great players, just a lot of really overpaid ones (just look at the Knicks).

And exactly how is having a lot of overpaid players bad for the union?
 

Isles72

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,520
465
Canada
AH said:
The NHLPA accepts a cap (probably in the 45-46 million range).
They toss in the 24% rollback.
Lose 2/3 of their members' pay for the year (almost $1 BILLION).
Start the season at a time when the owners gravy train (the playoffs) are just around the corner.

If this thing gets done (and I think it will), this is as close to a landslide victory for Bettman as it gets. The union has been broken, especially if Goodenow was undercut by Pronger, Igina, etc ...

The new CBA will feed the next one and the one after that. For 10 years of gain since 1994 and an unwillingness to re-negotiate since 1999, the NHLPA has screwed themselves for the next 20 years.

Nice going Bob, Ted, and Trevor.

its gonna have to be a 40 mil hard cap if this thing is gonna fly
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Steve L said:
Hockey is not then national sport of the USA, its a minor sport that cant afford to lose any fans.

So then, your logic goes, Bettman and Goodenow should be basing their negotiations - the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars, effecting their business and hundreds of employees - on what you want and on the timetable you demand?
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
Trottier said:
So then, your logic goes, Bettman and Goodenow should be basing their negotiations - the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars, effecting their business and hundreds of employees - on what you want and on the timetable you demand?
If you cant tell the difference between what I want and pissing off half the NHL fanbase resulting in teams folding then theres no point talking to you with your twisted logic.
 

Sinurgy

Approaching infinity
Sponsor
Feb 8, 2004
12,425
3,877
AZ
Steve L said:
They would have had a lot more time to discuss benefits for the NHLPA, they wouldnt have missed out on over $1b and they wouldnt have been seen as a bunch of whiny, overpaid babies by the public.

Hockey is not then national sport of the USA, its a minor sport that cant afford to lose any fans.
Actually baseball isn't the national sport of the USA either but I understand that is beside the point. :D
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
OilerNut said:
Sounds like Goodenow is going to be in hot water with the players.

quite the contrary. goodenow made a brilliant move. the players offered a cap and all that's needed to seal the deal (as well as agreeing on a specific cap number) is sufficient amount of revenue sharing. if bettman continues to deny money sharing and kills the deal as a result, the NHL will have a difficult time declaring impasse because a salary cap has been accepted by the union, thus providing no ideological barrier for true negotiations. its up to bettman now, does he accept the salary cap and piss off his rich owners, or kill the season (while looking very bad because the player's gave in to a cap) with little chance of instituting replacement players the following season. surely, if the NHL doesn't use the player's proposed model as a basis for negotiations either, all of them will back goodenow entirely...on top of the many that have blind faith in him already. rejecting the player's cap would further galvanize them.

ha ha ha. bettman and the owners are in a compromising position and there's no recourse. ha ha ha.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
jericholic19 said:
quite the contrary. goodenow made a brilliant move. the players offered a cap and all that's needed to seal the deal (as well as agreeing on a specific cap number) is sufficient amount of revenue sharing. if bettman continues to deny money sharing and kills the deal as a result, the NHL will have a difficult time declaring impasse because a salary cap has been accepted by the union, thus providing no ideological barrier for true negotiations. its up to bettman now, does he accept the salary cap and piss off his rich owners, or kill the season (while looking very bad because the player's gave in to a cap) with little chance of instituting replacement players the following season. surely, if the NHL doesn't use the player's proposed model as a basis for negotiations either, all of them will back goodenow entirely...on top of the many that have blind faith in him already.

ha ha ha. bettman and the owners are in a compromising position and there's no recourse. ha ha ha.

Take your medicine.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
jericholic19 said:
quite the contrary. goodenow made a brilliant move. the players offered a cap and all that's needed to seal the deal (as well as agreeing on a specific cap number) is sufficient amount of revenue sharing. if bettman continues to deny money sharing and kills the deal as a result, the NHL will have a difficult time declaring impasse because a salary cap has been accepted by the union, thus providing no ideological barrier for true negotiations. its up to bettman now, does he accept the salary cap and piss off his rich owners, or kill the season (while looking very bad because the player's gave in to a cap) with little chance of instituting replacement players the following season. surely, if the NHL doesn't use the player's proposed model as a basis for negotiations either, all of them will back goodenow entirely...on top of the many that have blind faith in him already. rejecting the player's cap would further galvanize them.

ha ha ha. bettman and the owners are in a compromising position and there's no recourse. ha ha ha.

Speaking of twisted logic. :lol :lol :lol

Face it, the players have caved!
 

davemess

Registered User
Apr 9, 2003
2,894
236
Scotland
jericholic19 said:
quite the contrary. goodenow made a brilliant move. the players offered a cap and all that's needed to seal the deal (as well as agreeing on a specific cap number) is sufficient amount of revenue sharing. if bettman continues to deny money sharing and kills the deal as a result, the NHL will have a difficult time declaring impasse because a salary cap has been accepted by the union, thus providing no ideological barrier for true negotiations. its up to bettman now, does he accept the salary cap and piss off his rich owners, or kill the season (while looking very bad because the player's gave in to a cap) with little chance of instituting replacement players the following season. surely, if the NHL doesn't use the player's proposed model as a basis for negotiations either, all of them will back goodenow entirely...on top of the many that have blind faith in him already. rejecting the player's cap would further galvanize them.

ha ha ha. bettman and the owners are in a compromising position and there's no recourse. ha ha ha.

That logic does work........ but only if you believe the ONLY outcome of this process that would have made the NHL happy is an Impasse. Now if the league is going to get close to what they wanted without having to take the risk of running an impasse through 20+ different court systems surely thats a plus for the League, no?
 

SENSible1*

Guest
jericholic19 said:
quite the contrary. goodenow made a brilliant move. the players offered a cap and all that's needed to seal the deal (as well as agreeing on a specific cap number) is sufficient amount of revenue sharing. if bettman continues to deny money sharing and kills the deal as a result, the NHL will have a difficult time declaring impasse because a salary cap has been accepted by the union, thus providing no ideological barrier for true negotiations. its up to bettman now, does he accept the salary cap and piss off his rich owners, or kill the season (while looking very bad because the player's gave in to a cap) with little chance of instituting replacement players the following season. surely, if the NHL doesn't use the player's proposed model as a basis for negotiations either, all of them will back goodenow entirely...on top of the many that have blind faith in him already. rejecting the player's cap would further galvanize them.

ha ha ha. bettman and the owners are in a compromising position and there's no recourse. ha ha ha.

Only problem being that Bettman will now counter with a low $40 cap and challenge Goodenow to take it to the membership. Gary will push back the deadline to give them an opportunity to do so. If Goodenow fails to take it to the players, he will have an open revolt on his hands.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
What is odd to me with these comments is that we have heard for months ad nauseum how the players were 100% behind the union but it turns out that a lot of them don't know what their leadership is even doing.
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
Steve L said:
All the pro NHLPA people here seemed to think that was an impossiblilty anyway.

With the acceptance of a salary cap by the PA, I think an impasse now is an absolute impossibility. If you had asked me two days ago, I would have said the exact opposite.
 

Quantas

Registered User
Feb 4, 2004
843
0
Ottawa
alexmorrison said:
I think the rollback was assumed from the start to be part of the process. If you look at the original NHL proposals from back in the summer, you'll see at least a couple of them involved basically ripping up every contract in the league.
I know what you're talking about; the League's 6 proposal/concepts they published way back in September (October?). I do believe there was one or two concepts that implied renegotiation of existing contracts, but I highly doubt that any of those proposals were serious. I think their main purpose was to set the table and see what the NHLPA might bite at. The NHLPA's 24% rollback (I still wonder how they came up with such an odd number) was completely unprecedented and was something that no-one (the players included) was expecting.

But back to the original topic of this thread, am I the only one taken aback at how quick a few players are in supporting the PA's about face? For months now they're been adament that a cap is not only an anathema to them, but would also negatively impact the league. It's just a little bizarre (maybe even frightening) at how quick a few of them say that the Executive Council know's best and if that's what they think would work (meaning a cap), then that's okay. I guess what I'm getting at is...does no one think for themselves?
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Steve L said:
If you cant tell the difference between what I want and pissing off half the NHL fanbase resulting in teams folding then theres no point talking to you with your twisted logic.

If you think that Goodenow and Bettman are, or should be, negotiating based on fan sentiment, you are totally clueless, and have ZERO concept of business negotiations. And again, an infantile overblown opinion of your own (i.e., fans') role/importance in determining the eventual terms of this agreement.

Take another silly poll and humor yourself. Bettman and Goodenow are eagerly awaiting the outcome. :joker:

The height of delusion.

Steve L said:
Face it, the players have caved!

"Caved" Nah-nah! The rantings of a child.

Did you get an advance copy of the signed agreement? :speechles
 
Last edited:

SENSible1*

Guest
Trottier said:
If you think that Goodenow and Bettman are, or should be, negotiating based on fan sentiment, you are totally clueless, and have ZERO concept of business negotiations. And again, an infantile overblown opinion of your own (i.e., fans') role/importance in determining the eventual terms of this agreement.

Take another silly poll and humor yourself. Bettman and Goodenow are eagerly awaiting the outcome. :joker:

The height of delusion.
If you think that either side can ignore the long-term implication of fan opinion, then you are the delusional one. Both sides have to do the deal, but must ensure that they don't destroy the fanbase in the process.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
If you think that either side can ignore the long-term implication of fan opinion, then you are the delusional one. Both sides have to do the deal, but must ensure that they don't destroy the fanbase in the process.

No kidding chief! (boldfaced portion). But, as you state, both sides have to do the deal, on their timeframe, on terms advantageous to their constituency.

These points are not mutually exclusive, but the poster you are rushing to defend implies continually that a deal should be based on what "the fans want." Big difference.

Get it?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Greschner4 said:
Let me get this straight. The players would have taken a cap at any time ... if only the owners didn't demand linkage. Hmmm.

Do the rivers flow with chocolate and are the streets paved with alabaster in your world?
No linkage - no worrying about policing the owners over revenue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->