Report: Goodenow still firm against cap

[The Maltais Falcon]

The biggest reason why most fans are siding with the owners this time is simply because of the realization of just how well the players had it...and that it's time to even the playing field a little, maybe even a lot. THAT is the biggest reason.

I don't think it's quite so much that people side with the owners because the players have had it so good, it's because the league is losing millions and millions of dollars and that's simply unsustainable, no matter how wealthy the owners are. If the owners are going to be charitable, I'd just as soon they give that money to real charities and not use it to subsidize our entertainment.

I wouldn't begrudge the players if third-liners were making $15 million a year - as long as those salaries were economically sustainable. If hockey were as popular in the U.S. as it is in Canada, those salary levels might be feasible.

Is it the owners' fault they're in this position? Yes, but now they're trying to fix it. I hear all this garbage about how the owners are having to "pay for the owners' mistakes." Unless someone can provide a link that states otherwise, I haven't heard any stories of owners asking players to break out their checkbooks and write checks out to pay back any owners. They're being asked to reduce their salaries going forward, but that's not repayment of money that's been given out already. That happens all the time in the real world when businesses are struggling.

 

[jcab2000]

Minimum salaries is the same as minimum wage. We live in a free market system, yet there is a minimum wage employers can pay. Same concept.

Wrong. Minimum wage is absolutely not a free market concept. If that's your understanding of it, then the conversation is over. There's no point.

 

[Icey]

By saying they don't want to play with a cap, they're saying that they won't make enough money under a cap. What else is it?

In a free market system, there is no union and the owners can do whatever they want.

Sorry but you are wrong. Saying you won't play under a cap is not saying you don't make enough money. saying you won't work under a cap says you do not want your income limited.

And in a free market system an owner CAN NOT do what he wants. There are still laws about how much he must pay his employees, how many hours they can work, how much time off they legally have to be given etc.

What you are describing is a communist system.

 

[Icey]

Wrong. Minimum wage is absolutely not a free market concept. If that's your understanding of it, then the conversation is over. There's no point.

It most certainly is. By your definition then there is no free market system anywhere in the world , and that is not true.

The US is a free market system because I can go and work anywhere I want for whatever I can negotiate as long as the employer pays me above the minimum wage, and thats what the players want.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

It most certainly is. By your definition then there is no free market system anywhere in the world , and that is not true.

The US is a free market system because I can go and work anywhere I want for whatever I can negotiate as long as the employer pays me above the minimum wage, and thats what the players want.

Ya but unlike the NHL, those businesses actually make money.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

The US is a free market system because I can go and work anywhere I want for whatever I can negotiate as long as the employer pays me above the minimum wage, and thats what the players want.

Even with a salary cap, the players will still be able to enjoy our free market system. If they don't like the salary they're getting in the NHL, they're free to get a job on the side or go into another line of business to make more money.

 

[jcab2000]

Sorry but you are wrong. Saying you won't play under a cap is not saying you don't make enough money. saying you won't work under a cap says you do not want your income limited.

And in a free market system an owner CAN NOT do what he wants. There are still laws about how much he must pay his employees, how many hours they can work, how much time off they legally have to be given etc.

What you are describing is a communist system.

In a communist system, teams would be owned by the government and players would be forced to play with the threat of imprisonment being held over them. They'd be paid slightly more than the average person. Care to revise?

Saying you don't want your salaries limited is saying that you don't think you're going to make enough money under the cap.


In a free market system, there are definitely no laws about how much you have to pay people!

 

[jcab2000]

It most certainly is. By your definition then there is no free market system anywhere in the world , and that is not true.

The US is a free market system because I can go and work anywhere I want for whatever I can negotiate as long as the employer pays me above the minimum wage, and thats what the players want.

There isn't a free market anywhere in the world. It is an ideal. The US is closest to a free market, but still far away from it. The US economy is highly regulated.

 

[CarlRacki]

Because they don't trust the scum owners. They sign a player one year for a 4 or 5 year deal, they pack their family up and move across the country or even to another country and then when that teams doesn't win it all they want to dump the salary and player. Even the NFL has guaranteed contracts for the first 2 years.

Minimum salaries is the same as minimum wage. We live in a free market system, yet there is a minimum wage employers can pay. Same concept.

Why do we require agents to be certified? Are you really serious? How about so they don't take the league and/or players to the cleaners like happened so many times in the past. So agents aren't out for themselves instead of the best interest of the player.
.

According to the NFLPA, only about 40 of 1,700 NFL players ( i.e. 0.2 percent) in any given season have a guarantee on their base salary. There's certainly no such thing as a two-year guarantee as you claim. The only real guarantee is the signing bonus.
http://www.nflpa.org/PDFs/Shared/Guaranteed_Contracts.pdf

Minimum wage is the furthest thing from an example of free-market economics.

In a truly free market, there would be no union and certainly no-union imposed regulations for agents. In a truly free market, any player would have the right to select any agent he wants.

But let's face it, the players don't want a truly free market, nor should they. A true free market would be chaos for everybody involved.

 

[jcab2000]

“Definition of Free Market Economyâ€

Definition: A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. This is mainly a theoretical concept as every country, even capitalist ones, places some restrictions on the ownership and exchange of commodities.




Key words: "determined ONLY by supply and demand", meaning that there are no labor agreements restricting supply and demand.

And by the way, minimum wage is an artificial salary floor which interferes with supply and demand if the demand for labor is determined to be worth less than than the set minimum wage.

 

[CarlRacki]

It most certainly is. By your definition then there is no free market system anywhere in the world , and that is not true.

In fact, there is no free-market system in the world. Does a country have a single labor law? Then it's not a truly free market. Are there consumer protection laws? Again, then it's not a free market. Get the drift?

 

[Jester]

“Definition of Free Market Economyâ€

Definition: A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. This is mainly a theoretical concept as every country, even capitalist ones, places some restrictions on the ownership and exchange of commodities.




Key words: "determined ONLY by supply and demand", meaning that there are no labor agreements restricting supply and demand.

And by the way, minimum wage is an artificial salary floor which interferes with supply and demand if the demand for labor is determined to be worth less than than the set minimum wage.

sorta like how rent-control is actualy bad... people that don't know economics just don't realize this.

 

[SENSfreak_03]

I feel very strongly that we've done our share. Frankly, we're still waiting for our partner to step up.

huh? i havent heard any new ideas/concepts/proposals from the nhlpa since december? you guys just sit back and whine about anything that isnt what you want it to be. if anyone should be stepping up its the nhlpa, how miniscule or not, the nhl has made some changes, and has been trying to make progress. while the nhlpa is still sitting on their dec 9th proposal.

 

[Enoch]

Sorry but you are wrong. Saying you won't play under a cap is not saying you don't make enough money. saying you won't work under a cap says you do not want your income limited.

And in a free market system an owner CAN NOT do what he wants. There are still laws about how much he must pay his employees, how many hours they can work, how much time off they legally have to be given etc.

What you are describing is a communist system.

You might want to take a look at your school books again because you certainly are arguing with incorrect information....

 

[DropThePuck]

Keep going I have an economics test tomorrow. I went to a hockey thread and an economics debate broke out.

 

[jcab2000]

Keep going I have an economics test tomorrow. I went to a hockey thread and an economics debate broke out.

I would guess that happens from time to time in the Business of Hockey subforum.

 

[ginner classic]

I'm not sure why you limit it to $200 million or less than $7 million per team when it could be much higher. Nor is $71K a tiny number; it's a 10% bonus for someone making $710K, which a ton of players make less than.

That aside, the philosophical point is that when you start throwing in a profit sharing component of an undefined size, your salaries are no longer "capped", nor are they a defined percentage of revenue. You're saying it's not enough money, fine, I don't necessarily disagree. But once you accept my idea, we're just negotiating dollars and we can make a deal.

But to simply reiterate the ridiculous, worn out claim that "we're against a salary cap" -- and that's all we're hearing from Goodenow and Saskin -- when salaries won't be capped is ridiculous and doesn't even address what's been offered.

Using the example....let's work off a 200 million dollar profit. 100 million to the players divided by 750 players equals about 130 k. I dunno where 71 k came from?

 

[Trottier]

I don't know who is more of an idiot, Goodenow for thinking it or the players for following him.

Can there be an third choice?

One vote here for:

C) Fans on a message board naively thinking that they know how best to divide up other people's hundreds of millions of dollars.

It's over.The NHL as it currently exists is over

Mel-o-dra-ma.

 

[Pepper]

So you're saying that people can relate much more to people like Jeremey Jacobs, Bill Wirtz, Cablevision, Comcast, and Mike Illitch ??? ... doubtful.

Jesus christ you continue to miss the point all the time!

Owners are the ones who take ALL the risks, owners are the ones who have been losing crapload of money and it's owners who are offering us NHL games.

Players are nothing but extremely highly paid employees who have completely lost the touch with reality and when they say they can't work with an average salary of 1.4M, the fans who work hard to get to see them play get angry.

It's ok for you to be pro-PA but wake up for crying out loud! You're living in some dream world.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Can there be an third choice?

One vote here for:

C) Fans on a message board naively thinking that they know how best to divide up other people's hundreds of millions of dollars.





Mel-o-dra-ma.

D) Employees naively thinking they can tell their boss how to run his business.

 

[Isles72]

If the players were to strictly tell Goodenow that a cap was acceptable he would negotiate one. He is a deadline guy, and I think he knows now that the last minutes are upon us. If there is a deal to be struck it will be within 48 hours. Otherwise, this may be the end of the NHL. Goodenow will get the best deal he possibly can. Maybe Bettman has finally realized that Bob always waits until the last minute and is trying to see if he will buckle under pressure. Whatever happens, when the Bettman and Goodenow meet tommorrow it's either going to have to be an agreement or the end of the season, so we'll know either way.

exactly , Bob's nikname is the deadline hunter .

bettman never gave him a deadline but it is now painfully obvious that if there is going to be a ''mini 05 season'' , a deal needs to be done by this week sometime

 

[Isles72]

Jesus christ you continue to miss the point all the time!

Owners are the ones who take ALL the risks, owners are the ones who have been losing crapload of money and it's owners who are offering us NHL games.

Players are nothing but extremely highly paid employees who have completely lost the touch with reality and when they say they can't work with an average salary of 1.4M, the fans who work hard to get to see them play get angry.

It's ok for you to be pro-PA but wake up for crying out loud! You're living in some dream world.

I think more importantly , the players are out of touch with the state of the game itself and the smaller revenues it creates as opposed to mlb,nfl,nba .

the need to realize that they are not in the same league as the big 3 sports and be happy they are paid better than arena football players / lacrosse players

 

[chara]

Goodenow

Whatever...A year and half from now, of the current NHLPA, only 15% will have contracts and another 25% will never get another one...

Is that your final answer now, Mr.Goodenow?

 

[Other Dave]

Owners are the ones who take ALL the risks

Name one owner whose career has been cut short by concussion.

owners are the ones who have been losing crapload of money

What are the owners' teams' estimated (HOCKEY RELATED!) earnings or losses over the life of the last CBA? If you can include both total operational profits (or losses) and increased asset valuation it would be really helpful to this discussion.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

#3 Have a higher education level than most NHL players and realize 55% of league revenues is more than fair.

Nice for you to decide what is "fair" for the players.