Should Bob Goodenow be fired if he refuses to discuss salary cap?
- Thread starter misterjaggers
- Start date
- Status
Steve L*
Registered User
He should be fired because hes going to do nothing apart from lose them a lot of money which they can never recover.
He banked on the owners giving in but it looks like he got it wrong. He lost his players money and pissed off a lot of fans, of course he should go.
Thats my opinion even he he accepts a cap, he could have done that in the summer and everyone would have been happier, not to mention richer.
He banked on the owners giving in but it looks like he got it wrong. He lost his players money and pissed off a lot of fans, of course he should go.
Thats my opinion even he he accepts a cap, he could have done that in the summer and everyone would have been happier, not to mention richer.
Steve L said:
I agree completely. He has completely misjusdged the owners resolve this time. If the season is cancelled, it should be Goodenow head that rolls. He has failed the players by losing them over $1B in salaries this year (if the season is cancelled), and who knows how much will be lost next year.
Also, being the head of the players union, you would think he would be doing more to reduce the player on player violence on the ice. How can he sit back and do nothing when the players he is supposed to be looking out for are getting hit from behind, high sticked in the head, and otherwise are having their careers put at risk? Isn't part of the unions responsibilities to create a safer work environment?
Knob has done an excellent job for the players, but he missed the boat this time, and drove the players down the wrong road this time...he must go, but I think the PA is too loyal to him! He and Saskin Robbins should both go...they have time after time come off looking like idiots, and making the players look greedy!
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
DementedReality said:
i thought it was pretty good.
truth is, goodenow has done an AMAZING job for the players. up till now.
things will change, and they already have. let the players go on "vacation" in eastern europe, and see just how badly they want to stay away from a 1.3 million dollar salary back home.
struckmatch
Registered User
Goodenow has backed himself into a corner here with no exit strategy that will save him any face. If he seriously thought the owners were going to give in and come off their cost certainty position then yes, for thinking that, he should be fired.
If Goodenow and the PA don't accept a cap to start this season, he will definetely be canned when the CBA is reached, because the players would continue down their blind path, hope the owners capitulate, and then find out that they wasted a season for nothing, because cost certainty is INEVITABLE.
If Goodenow and the PA don't accept a cap to start this season, he will definetely be canned when the CBA is reached, because the players would continue down their blind path, hope the owners capitulate, and then find out that they wasted a season for nothing, because cost certainty is INEVITABLE.
Don't blame Goodenow or Bettman for their positions. They're doing the job they were hired for. These two are nothing more than the messenger.
I'd be curious to know if he genuinely believes in everything he says, and same with Bettman.
I'll say this - the guy who will get fired will be the one who's percieved to have lost/caved. It's looking like the PA is "losing", so I would say the likelihood is that it will be Goodenow.
I'd be curious to know if he genuinely believes in everything he says, and same with Bettman.
I'll say this - the guy who will get fired will be the one who's percieved to have lost/caved. It's looking like the PA is "losing", so I would say the likelihood is that it will be Goodenow.
NHLFanSince2020
What'd He Say?
Dave is a killer
Dave's a Mess
NHLFanSince2020
What'd He Say?
Who in the world would NOT be happy to share in their company's success?Seven_Nation_Army said:
Bob Goodenow and the leaders of the NHLPA.
Why?
The reason is because they know they've been doin' the NHL in the A.
Time for the NHLPA to give BG the heave-ho and get some sanity back before it's too late.
Nope... I leave all the humorous (sp) posts for you to declare, afterall you are considered one of the more demented posters on these boards. The bottom line in taking shots at Knob and Saskins is that neither are interested in the game, just the money they and their PA can extract from it...then go on TV and poke shots at Gary Bettman(whom I am not a big fan) to try to make him and the owners look bad... so if I don't care for either of these guys, who cares?DementedReality said:
Your welcome, these boards tend to get a little too serious at times(ask dr)getnziggywidit said:
me2
Go ahead foot
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
me2 said:
How many people have made fun of his name? The names he gets called are usually based upon his actions, not his name.
Slats432
Registered User
As someone pro-owner, I recognize that Goodenow has done an awesome job for his constituents.
There is no way he should be fired.
There is no way he should be fired.
If the majority of the players turn on Goodenow, then yes. But for that to happen you would have heard a lot more complaining from people. Despite the offer that was meant to split the Union, just like the players offer was trying to split the owners, I think that most players were truly offended by the counter-offer by the NHL. It offered very little for the players expect from the scrub players.
Actually I found it interesting that the NHL would be willing to pay the garbage players who are being paid the minimum because they have the least amount of talent more, but want to drastically reduce the skilled players salaries, it just doesn't make much sense from a product on the ice perspective.
A salary cap will never benefit the players because the NHL does not have the means of the other sports leagues to make money to really increase the cap. The cap will remain stationary because there are too many teams that are going to constantly be feeding at the teet of the National Hockey League elite. Nashville is never going to be a super-profitable market because it has nothing to do with hockey. New Jersey is in the middle of nowhere and championships, mind you boring as heck championships, couldn't even draw sellouts until the conference finals.
There are far too many "mistakes" in the NHL based on lack of planning that will prevent real increases in a cap, and the players, through management that while making some really dumb comments, are fully aware of. You need to bring in revenue to increase the cap. The NHL blew its opportunity at boosting up its TV contract when it screwed up back in 94' with a fresh, pretty decent starting TV deal that they pissed on by locking the players out. The NHL was driven back a good 25 in any opportunity to try and build up the game to a level where they can try to get TV contracts again.
No big revenue = no increases in cap. But what a cap does do is as much as triple the value of each franchise. Meaning that even a franchise that loses money annually triples in value, meaning more money in the owners pocket through tax deductions, more revenue from sponsors that goes into their own pocket, and more money into their pocket when they sell franchises either as parts of deals, or just to get out of the NHL.
The cap fully benefits the owners, and the only benefit the players get is that bad teams don't disappear meaning more jobs for the players in the NHL.
If Goodenow should be fired because he won't accept a salary cap, then Bettman should be fired for not considering anything else. Both men are acting in the best interest of their employers and unfortunately the employers have never seen eye to eye on this situation.
Most of the hate for Goodenow has come from his statements, but a lot of it comes from the pre-lockout decision that the owners and their salary cap was going to be put in place anyway so why won't the players just accept it. Last time I checked that isn't what negotiations are. That type of forced action is on a similar level to the situation in my dear Ukraine who dealt with a fear tactic election. There has been no bargaining between the NHL and the NHLPA because the NHL wants its way, and only its way, and the NHLPA doesn't want that. To blame Goodenow for acting in the interest of his players is just as foolish as saying that the star players constantly float.
Actually I found it interesting that the NHL would be willing to pay the garbage players who are being paid the minimum because they have the least amount of talent more, but want to drastically reduce the skilled players salaries, it just doesn't make much sense from a product on the ice perspective.
A salary cap will never benefit the players because the NHL does not have the means of the other sports leagues to make money to really increase the cap. The cap will remain stationary because there are too many teams that are going to constantly be feeding at the teet of the National Hockey League elite. Nashville is never going to be a super-profitable market because it has nothing to do with hockey. New Jersey is in the middle of nowhere and championships, mind you boring as heck championships, couldn't even draw sellouts until the conference finals.
There are far too many "mistakes" in the NHL based on lack of planning that will prevent real increases in a cap, and the players, through management that while making some really dumb comments, are fully aware of. You need to bring in revenue to increase the cap. The NHL blew its opportunity at boosting up its TV contract when it screwed up back in 94' with a fresh, pretty decent starting TV deal that they pissed on by locking the players out. The NHL was driven back a good 25 in any opportunity to try and build up the game to a level where they can try to get TV contracts again.
No big revenue = no increases in cap. But what a cap does do is as much as triple the value of each franchise. Meaning that even a franchise that loses money annually triples in value, meaning more money in the owners pocket through tax deductions, more revenue from sponsors that goes into their own pocket, and more money into their pocket when they sell franchises either as parts of deals, or just to get out of the NHL.
The cap fully benefits the owners, and the only benefit the players get is that bad teams don't disappear meaning more jobs for the players in the NHL.
If Goodenow should be fired because he won't accept a salary cap, then Bettman should be fired for not considering anything else. Both men are acting in the best interest of their employers and unfortunately the employers have never seen eye to eye on this situation.
Most of the hate for Goodenow has come from his statements, but a lot of it comes from the pre-lockout decision that the owners and their salary cap was going to be put in place anyway so why won't the players just accept it. Last time I checked that isn't what negotiations are. That type of forced action is on a similar level to the situation in my dear Ukraine who dealt with a fear tactic election. There has been no bargaining between the NHL and the NHLPA because the NHL wants its way, and only its way, and the NHLPA doesn't want that. To blame Goodenow for acting in the interest of his players is just as foolish as saying that the star players constantly float.
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
Goodenow is doing what the players want him too. So no he shouldn't be fired. Just like Bettman should be fired because he is doing what the owners ask of him.
I dont like Goodenow.. thats why i voted yes...
but the fact is, the reason we all dislike him is because the guy has won virtually every battle possible for the PA for the last decade.. so he has actually done an excellent job as executive director..
so yea.. while i think he should be fired, he wont cuz the players love him
but the fact is, the reason we all dislike him is because the guy has won virtually every battle possible for the PA for the last decade.. so he has actually done an excellent job as executive director..
so yea.. while i think he should be fired, he wont cuz the players love him
Jets4Life
Registered User
djhn579 said:
The NHLPA is no "union". Real unions watch out for the "little guy". The NHLPA is doing the exact opposite, playing ball for the $10 million/year man, while letting the 3rd and 4th line players get the shaft. Additionally, the NHLPA doesn't care if the league contracts teams as long as they get what they want. No union in it's right mind would go for this, since it would mean maybe 100 job losses.
Unions stand for solidarity. They do everything in their power to make sure that job security is a priority. The NHLPA is a rich-boys club, that only cares about the Jaromir Jagr's, Mike Modano's, and Mats Sundin's of the league. "Joe 4th liner" is forgotten.
HF2002 said:
I've heard that stance quite a bit, that Goodenow and Bettman are just messengers and that neither really make these decisions on their own; but how much of the decisions they're told to make is based off their recommendations?
My gut feeling is that both have abused their positions a bit and have pushed harder for this confrontation than for a resolution. Maybe it's paranoid of me, but both of these people look like lying weasels and I'd fire both of them.
go kim johnsson said:
Haven't we had enough beat up Bettman threads? The funny thing is that the NHL got into dutch by looking after the wishes of the uber rich owners and ignoring the lesser lights. While doing that they created the uber rich player, which Goodenow now cowtows to. Bettman recognized his mistake and has taken steps to correct his mistake. Goodenow is not. Frankly I think its about time that Goodenow's leadership comes into question. The guy has to know that the league is hurting big time and he needs to do what is best for the the majority of the players, not just the uber rich. He's playing a dangerous game that could cost jobs, which hurts the union. I think Goodenow's leadership is questionable simply because he is ignoring the mjority of the union in favor of the fat cats.
- Status
