Primeau upset Goodenow with his contract

[Steve L*]

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/hockey/10497829.htm

Primeau acknowledged that it never occurred to him last summer that by signing before the next collective-bargaining agreement was reached, he might create a cap for the Flyers.

"I still don't look at it in that regard," he said. "I am captain of a hockey club, but I am also 33 going on 34 and scored only seven goals last season.

"I might have had a tremendous playoff, but I don't want to be rewarded for having a good two-month stretch... . It's ludicrous for me to think that just because I had a great playoff, I should have held out for $6 million."

That essentially is what the union would have preferred. Primeau said the union's executive director, Bob Goodenow, spoke to his agent, Don Reynolds, and voiced concerns about the deal before Primeau signed.

"When the players' association found out what I would sign for, they didn't want me to sign the contract," Primeau said. "I told my agent there were a lot of factors going into it, more than a dollar figure."
___

IMO this says a lot about the characters of both Primeau and Goodenow. Primeau knows it was reasonable to accept a paycut, even after the best playoffs of his career but all Goodenow wanted his to do was get the most money possible to drive up the value of other players and not even caring about what is best for Primeau and his family.

Click to read more...

 

[BLONG7]

The character of Primeau shows through here, the league could use a few more guys like him...The PA shows it's true colours here, which is why pro sports, and especially the NHL is in serious trouble.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Funny how Primeau did hold out from the Red Wings in September 1996 after scoring 1 playoff goal the year before (an empty netter at that)

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Funny how Primeau did hold out from the Red Wings in September 1996 after scoring 1 playoff goal the year before (an empty netter at that)

Primeau certainly has grown up a lot and become a real NHL leader.
Good for him.
As for people using this another chance to railroad Goodenow, do you ever sleep?
The man's job isn't to ensure Philly can fit players under a cap.
Get real.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

...The PA shows it's true colours here, .

Goodenow's doing the job he's paid and was hired to do, which is to maximize the market value of his members. Nothing dishonorable in that and he has nothing to be ashamed of. Primeau did what he felt he should do, nothing wrong with that, but so did Goodenow.

 

[Bruwinz37]

Primeau certainly has grown up a lot and become a real NHL leader.
Good for him.
As for people using this another chance to railroad Goodenow, do you ever sleep?
The man's job isn't to ensure Philly can fit players under a cap.
Get real.

Step back and look at the big picture. This type of nonsense is not good for the overall health of the game. Who knows how many players do what he says? It causes crazy inflation of salaries and on the player's end it often times hurts their performance for that particular season. How many other players take his advice and hold out for more than a team can afford and end up having to move somewhere else? Goodenow is looking for one thing, to drive up salaries. Not for the overall health of the game, not for the overall happiness of the players, just making a buck. If he wants to do this at the expense of a sport we love than any criticism he gets from people who love hockey is deserved whether you like it or not.

 

[Bruwinz37]

Goodenow's doing the job he's paid and was hired to do, which is to maximize the market value of his members. Nothing dishonorable in that and he has nothing to be ashamed of. Primeau did what he felt he should do, nothing wrong with that, but so did Goodenow.

Really? Well what if, in 3 years, 3-4 teams suddenly say that they need to fold and can not keep up with the salaries he helps dicatate? 80-100 jobs are lost. Is that in the best interest of the union? Seems like it could certainly be a possibility if he continues to push the envelope.

I think he should at least consider doing what is best for the long term health of the game and stop being instant gratification guy.

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

Really? Well what if, in 3 years, 3-4 teams suddenly say that they need to fold and can not keep up with the salaries he helps dicatate? 80-100 jobs are lost. Is that in the best interest of the union? Seems like it could certainly be a possibility if he continues to push the envelope.

I think he should at least consider doing what is best for the long term health of the game and stop being instant gratification guy.

I agree.

No union leader's mandate should simply be to grow his union members salary to outrageous levels. It's self-destructive as has been the case with Bob Goodenow and the NHLPA. 76% of revenue going to salaries?! Name me any other labor union in the world where the union members get that kind of compensation.

With what I read here, this further justifies the perception that I have of Bob Goodenow and the NHLPA as being stupid, selfish, greedy gluttons.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Really? Well what if, in 3 years, 3-4 teams suddenly say that they need to fold and can not keep up with the salaries he helps dicatate? 80-100 jobs are lost. Is that in the best interest of the union? Seems like it could certainly be a possibility if he continues to push the envelope.

I think he should at least consider doing what is best for the long term health of the game and stop being instant gratification guy.

I'm in the minority, but IMO the players proposal was an excellent starting point on which to build a new CBA. If 3 or 4 teams are in trouble of folding, it's up to the teams and Bettman to prop them up, not the players, who have already agreed to give back 24% if their salaries. As long as NHL teams aren't willing to share 50% of their revenues with the other teams, why should the players be the ones to make the sacrifices? The players have already agreed to sacrifice 24% of their salaries. With a decent revenue sharing plan, a very tough tax plan (the player's proposal was a starting point), further restrictions on arbitration and entry level salaries, there is no reason that a decent GM and owner can't complete and remain financially viable. If the richer teams have less money to spend, and a strong tax plan, there should be an adequate drag on salaries. There is no reason to believe that every team and the players can't make alot of money.

If the teams agree to share half their revenues, I think the NHLPA would be more willing to discuss a reasonable salary cap proposal, not one that only caters to the lowest revenue team.

 

[hockeytown9321]

76% of revenue going to salaries?!

Closer to 62%, but who's counting?

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

Closer to 62%, but who's counting?

According to you.

Every other source I've read had the figure at 76%.
Here is one for you now (although it says 75%)--->http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_y...wN0bQ--?slug=daretocompare&prov=tsn&type=lgns

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

According to you.

Every other source I've read had the figure at 76%.

I don't buy either figure. Revenues have been understated by the owners. Alot of owners put other revenues such a merchandise, parking, concessions through other companies and don't include them in hockey related revenues. Forbes, as independent a source as you can possibly get, stated that the NHL has overstated their losses by at least double. No doubt they are losing money, just not nearly as much as Bettman is saying.

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

I don't buy either figure. Revenues have been understated by the owners. Alot of owners put other revenues such a merchandise, parking, concessions through other companies and don't include them in hockey related revenues.

Going off tangent, but when the players start parking cars and serving beer in addition to playing, then they can share in that revenue.

 

[Bruwinz37]

why should the players be the ones to make the sacrifices?

Umm, gee, maybe because the product that they provide isnt good enough to warrant their salaries?

As you also pointed out they said they will give back 24% of their salaries so they know something must be wrong. By doing that they know the revenue to costs are totally screwed up. What they have succesfully done is dupe people like yourself into thinking that this plan will somehow work out long term. It wont because it will be the same 5-7 teams throwing off the curve.

Could it work with a very harsh tax and revenue sharing? I guess, but I know it will work with a cap. The owners have simply had it with losing millions of dollars. Other owners are probably sick of barely profiting while having to operate on a budget which prevents them from signing FAs, keeping their own stars thus preventing a growth of a fan base that will support their franchise.

 

[GKJ]

If I remember correctly, John LeClair was under tremendious pressure from the union to get the deal he did the last time he signed a contract in 2001. He would have perferred to sign for much less.

 

[hockeytown9321]

According to you.

Every other source I've read had the figure at 76%.
Here is one for you now (although it says 75%)--->http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_y...wN0bQ--?slug=daretocompare&prov=tsn&type=lgns

This is laughable. Look at the article you posted. Do the math yourself. The guy who wrote it said 75% because that is what the league says, and he's too lazy to do any real research.

Actually, becuase I know some here won't do it themselves, here is the math from that article:

Revenue: $2 billion
Average payroll: 41.6 million
Total Payroll: (41.6 million*30) $1.25 billion
% of revenue used for player salary: (1250000000/2000000000) 62.5%

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Umm, gee, maybe because the product that they provide isnt good enough to warrant their salaries?

As you also pointed out they said they will give back 24% of their salaries so they know something must be wrong. By doing that they know the revenue to costs are totally screwed up. What they have succesfully done is dupe people like yourself into thinking that this plan will somehow work out long term. It wont because it will be the same 5-7 teams throwing off the curve.

Could it work with a very harsh tax and revenue sharing? I guess, but I know it will work with a cap. The owners have simply had it with losing millions of dollars. Other owners are probably sick of barely profiting while having to operate on a budget which prevents them from signing FAs, keeping their own stars thus preventing a growth of a fan base that will support their franchise.

If the product is so horrible, why do you care? Watch something that you find more entertaining and to hell with the NHL.

I'm one of the few on this site that actually looks at both sides. Most people buy Bettman's line hook, line and sinker without acknowledging it's the owners who offered these players all this money. Players would be idiots for not accepting. But oh well. With decent revenue sharing, 5-7 would no longer be able to throw off the curve. Until teams are willing to share all their revenues, I won't shed a tear for the owners if a few are put out of business. The players are willing to make a significant sacrifice. Now it's the owners turn and then maybe we can get a decent CBA in place that works for everybody, not just the 10 poorest teams.

Going off tangent, but when the players start parking cars and serving beer in addition to playing, then they can share in that revenue.

The players are the product. Without them those sources of revenue would be zero. There are only so many tractor pulls an arena can have.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Now it's the owners turn and then maybe we can get a decent CBA in place that works for everybody, not just the 10 poorest teams.

I find it entertaining that the teams with ter most power right now are the ones who contribute the least to the league. Its really a shame when Peter Karmanos' situation is of greater value to Bettman than Mike Ilitch's.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Umm, gee, maybe because the product that they provide isnt good enough to warrant their salaries?

As you also pointed out they said they will give back 24% of their salaries so they know something must be wrong. By doing that they know the revenue to costs are totally screwed up. What they have succesfully done is dupe people like yourself into thinking that this plan will somehow work out long term. It wont because it will be the same 5-7 teams throwing off the curve.

Could it work with a very harsh tax and revenue sharing? I guess, but I know it will work with a cap. The owners have simply had it with losing millions of dollars. Other owners are probably sick of barely profiting while having to operate on a budget which prevents them from signing FAs, keeping their own stars thus preventing a growth of a fan base that will support their franchise.

just to add to it, the only sacrifice an owner can make is to fold the franchise.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

This is laughable. Look at the article you posted. Do the math yourself. The guy who wrote it said 75% because that is what the league says, and he's too lazy to do any real research.

Actually, becuase I know some here won't do it themselves, here is the math from that article:

Revenue: $2 billion
Average payroll: 41.6 million
Total Payroll: (41.6 million*30) $1.25 billion
% of revenue used for player salary: (1250000000/2000000000) 62.5%

I'm wondering if that average payroll only includes base salary. Bonuses could be the reason for the two different percentages.

 

[Sanderson]

This is laughable. Look at the article you posted. Do the math yourself. The guy who wrote it said 75% because that is what the league says, and he's too lazy to do any real research.

Actually, becuase I know some here won't do it themselves, here is the math from that article:

Revenue: $2 billion
Average payroll: 41.6 million
Total Payroll: (41.6 million*30) $1.25 billion
% of revenue used for player salary: (1250000000/2000000000) 62.5%

Actually, 75% is the right number. Just not for salaries but for player costs, which is still way above the other leagues.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Actually, 75% is the right number. Just not for salaries but for player costs, which is still way above the other leagues.

I don't know that it is. I would think insurance is more expensive for football players. Regardless, whatever those additional costs are, they're not going to be reduced dramatically if there's a cap. And the fact remains only 62% of revenue goes directly to the players, less than in the NFL.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I'm wondering if that average payroll only includes base salary. Bonuses could be the reason for the two different percentages.

Bonuses probably inflate that % some, but each player would have to get roughly $300,000 in bonus to get it to the 75% figure.

If you read the Levitt report, it states pretty clearly what they included in "player costs", and its a lot it of really shouldn't be there.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

If I remember correctly, John LeClair was under tremendious pressure from the union to get the deal he did the last time he signed a contract in 2001. He would have perferred to sign for much less.

I don't thin kthat was the case at all. LeClair is/was very concerned with the moeny he is making.

 

[CarlRacki]

I don't thin kthat was the case at all. LeClair is/was very concerned with the moeny he is making.

As he should be. As most of us are. I think the owners ultimately are right in this brouhaha and ultimately will win it, but that said, there's nothing immoral, greedy or inappropriate about the players and the unions trying to get every penny they can. Only stupidity for refusing to see the writing on the wall.