Simple Question, why is Bob Goodenow so dead set against a hard cap?

[eye]

Ask almost any player and they will tell you they just want to play hockey and could careless about cap issues. Ask Bob Goodenow and he says a hard cap is a non starter. WHY? Why is he being sooooooo stubborn on this issue when it's obvious that 2/3'rds of all rinks are only half full and owners want some form of cost certainty and fans are speaking out against being overcharged for tickets and associated game costs. A hard cap seems like a logical way to save the game and keep costs down. Don't give me the free market system excuse because the NHL and all other pro sports are already operating under a non free market system governed by countless restrictions that both sides agree to in previous years when it suited them. Simple answer to me is = THE GAME OF HOCKEY, IT'S PLAYERS AND FANS ARE PAYING THE PRICE FOR BOB'S EGO.

Click to read more...

 

[shadoz19]

Theres just more to it.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Anyone can make the same thread except insert Bettmans name in place of Goodenow. Both guys are egomaniacs who are to stubborn to realize they are killing the game.


But to answer your question. The NHLPA doesn't want their salaries tied to specific revenue numbers. Which goes back to the same problem hockey had as far back as we can remember. The players dont trust the owners when it comes to their financial numbers.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

Theres just more to it.

Like what? Greed and the unwillingness to share the pie?

 

[Johnnybegood13]

Anyone can make the same thread except insert Bettmans name in place of Goodenow. Both guys are egomaniacs who are to stubborn to realize they are killing the game.

Dissagree,the current system could have worked if it wasn't for a few select owners with full pockets and empty heads (one of which is in your city of detroit)

I don't have a problem with Bettman at all and the fan polls agree.

 

[X0ssbar]

The players dont trust the owners when it comes to their financial numbers.

The NHLPA doesn't want to acknowlege the numbers and face the reality of the econimical situation the league faces. The NHL has left open several doors for the NHLPA to challenge their numbers (Levitte, independent audits, etc) and at the end of the day the NHLPA has refused.

 

[Buffaloed]

The NHL's idea of a hard cap is different from than that of other sports. The NFL is often cited as an example to extoll the virtues of a hard cap. What never seems to be pointed out is that it's only a hard cap on an annual basis. Essentially it's not a hard cap as it's adjusted annually based on revenues. The more the NFL makes on it's tv contracts, the more the players make and vice-versa. The NHL at least has to get to the point where it's cap is somehow based on revenues. Perhaps Goodenow should be referring to the NHL proposal as a "fixed cap", rather than a "hard cap" so his position is more understandable.

 

[copperandblue]

The NHL's idea of a hard cap is different from than that of other sports. The NFL is often cited as an example to extoll the virtues of a hard cap. What never seems to be pointed out is that it's only a hard cap on an annual basis. Essentially it's not a hard cap as it's adjusted annually based on revenues. The more the NFL makes on it's tv contracts, the more the players make and vice-versa. The NHL at least has to get to the point where it's cap is somehow based on revenues. Perhaps Goodenow should be referring to the NHL proposal as a "fixed cap", rather than a "hard cap" so his position is more understandable.

Where are you getting your information?

The NHL has already said that their cap will rise and fall with the overall revenues.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

The NHL's idea of a hard cap is different from than that of other sports. The NFL is often cited as an example to extoll the virtues of a hard cap. What never seems to be pointed out is that it's only a hard cap on an annual basis. Essentially it's not a hard cap as it's adjusted annually based on revenues. The more the NFL makes on it's tv contracts, the more the players make and vice-versa. The NHL at least has to get to the point where it's cap is somehow based on revenues. Perhaps Goodenow should be referring to the NHL proposal as a "fixed cap", rather than a "hard cap" so his position is more understandable.

Good post Buffaloed, there is also one thing in the NFL and NBA caps they NHL Owners dont bring up. And thats a salary floor. In order to get TV revenues teams from those leagues have to spend a certain amount of money.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Dissagree,the current system could have worked if it wasn't for a few select owners with full pockets and empty heads (one of which is in your city of detroit)

I don't have a problem with Bettman at all and the fan polls agree.

Your right on that point, but what the current systems lacks a proper form of revenue sharing.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

The NHLPA doesn't want to acknowlege the numbers and face the reality of the econimical situation the league faces. The NHL has left open several doors for the NHLPA to challenge their numbers (Levitte, independent audits, etc) and at the end of the day the NHLPA has refused.

There's an old saying that goes, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" Like i said this distrust isn't something recent, it goes all the way back before most of us were born.

When your boss tells you he cant afford to give you a raise do you really believe him?

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Bob is a dumb, and out of touch with reality, and has no education, and is leeching off the players huge salaries, and now hes used to drinking 500 dollar glasses of orange juice he cant give it up.

Hes gonna be fired anways because, the Owners will win, we will survive, and the cap hard cap will be enforced. He better watch his mouth too, Harley Hotchkiss might clap him.

 

[degroat*]

The players dont trust the owners when it comes to their financial numbers.

I don't buy that for one second. The players are well aware that if there's a cap in place that revenues would be defined and owners would be forced to report them accurately (or face fraud charges and potential jailtime). The only reason why the players continue to focus on the legitimacy of the revenue numbers is for PR reasons.

 

[degroat*]

The NHL's idea of a hard cap is different from than that of other sports. The NFL is often cited as an example to extoll the virtues of a hard cap. What never seems to be pointed out is that it's only a hard cap on an annual basis. Essentially it's not a hard cap as it's adjusted annually based on revenues. The more the NFL makes on it's tv contracts, the more the players make and vice-versa. The NHL at least has to get to the point where it's cap is somehow based on revenues. Perhaps Goodenow should be referring to the NHL proposal as a "fixed cap", rather than a "hard cap" so his position is more understandable.

That's not true at all. I've heard Bill Daly say that player salaries need to be at 50% of revenues multiple times.

 

[degroat*]

Good post Buffaloed, there is also one thing in the NFL and NBA caps they NHL Owners dont bring up. And thats a salary floor. In order to get TV revenues teams from those leagues have to spend a certain amount of money.

Why would the owners bring it up? When the players are ready to start talking about a cap, then they can bring it up and I'd bet my house that the owners would accept a reasonable floor.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Why would the owners bring it up? When the players are ready to start talking about a cap, then they can bring it up and I'd bet my house that the owners would accept a reasonable floor.

I agree with your point, but thats exactly whats wrong with both Gary and Bob. Both sides are waiting for the other side to make a move. And when it's all said it done what they get done should have been done already. It's more frustration than anything. And both sides deserve blame.

 

[Buffaloed]

Where are you getting your information?

The NHL has already said that their cap will rise and fall with the overall revenues.

Better question is where are you getting your information? I try to keep up with it all, but there's a lot out there. I haven't seen anything from the NHL that offers to adjust their cap commensurate with revenues on an annual basis.

The closest I've seen is this statement by Bettman, but it seems he's talking about current revenues and not making allowances for future revenues:

"In July, we offered the union six different, creative, ground-breaking methods by which those partnership objectives could be attained.

"Included in those frameworks was a willingness for the players to receive more than 50% of every dollar of revenues our business generates. It may be less than the players are getting now, but we won't apologize for an offer that is more than fair.
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/bog_meeting091504.html

The following statement seems to reinforce that the NHL is talking about a fixed cap:

"We offered the Union systems that would provide an average player salary of $1.3 million, U.S., per season. An average salary of $1.3 million may be less than the players are getting now, but we will not apologize for an average player salary of $1.3 million per season.

If there were any flexibility built into it, they would refer to it as the average 2004-05 salary based on current revenues.

 

[Buffaloed]

Why would the owners bring it up? When the players are ready to start talking about a cap, then they can bring it up and I'd bet my house that the owners would accept a reasonable floor.

The players are talking about a cap. They proposed one. A luxury tax is a cap. They need to get by the semantics and realize they already have accepted a cap and get on with designing one everyone can live with.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I don't buy that for one second. The players are well aware that if there's a cap in place that revenues would be defined and owners would be forced to report them accurately (or face fraud charges and potential jailtime). The only reason why the players continue to focus on the legitimacy of the revenue numbers is for PR reasons.

The players do also question how the owners define revenues. Thats the main reason they dont put much into the Levitt report. I;m not saying they are right or wrong, thats just how it is.

It's like the situation with the Rangers and Cablevision. Cablevision could pay the Rangers a very little in local TV revenue and thats shows a lack of hockey revenues.

Or you could have a situation where the owner of the team also owns the Arena they play in. What if he is charing the hockey team very steep rent on the building killing the bottom line of the hockey team while the Arena makes huge profits. ( i don't know if this is happening, but i wanted to use it as an example)

 

[degroat*]

Better question is where are you getting your information? I try to keep up with it all, but there's a lot out there. I haven't seen anything from the NHL that offers to adjust their cap commensurate with revenues on an annual basis.

The closest I've seen is this statement by Bettman, but it seems he's talking about current revenues and not making allowances for future revenues:



The following statement seems to reinforce that the NHL is talking about a fixed cap:


If there were any flexibility built into it, they would refer to it as the average 2004-05 salary based on current revenues.

You're reading into something that's not there.

"The partnership model we are advocating would allocate to the players in excess of 50% of League revenues, and would maintain an average annual player salary in excess of $1.3 million." - Bill Daly

The NHL, meanwhile, wants to find a way to control costs. The league claims 76 percent of income goes to pay salaries, a far higher percentage than in the three other major professional sports - baseball, football and basketball. Bill Daly, the NHL's chief legal officer, has presented six proposals that would generally give the players slightly more than 50 percent of revenues and ensure an average salary of $1.3 million.
SOURCE

 

[degroat*]

The players are talking about a cap. They proposed one. A luxury tax is a cap. They need to get by the semantics and realize they already have accepted a cap and get on with designing one everyone can live with.

You're the one that's caught up in the semantics. A luxury tax might techically be a soft cap only because the tax itself is an exemption, but it is far from being a starting point for negotiations.

 

[degroat*]

The players do also question how the owners define revenues. Thats the main reason they dont put much into the Levitt report. I;m not saying they are right or wrong, thats just how it is.

It's like the situation with the Rangers and Cablevision. Cablevision could pay the Rangers a very little in local TV revenue and thats shows a lack of hockey revenues.

Or you could have a situation where the owner of the team also owns the Arena they play in. What if he is charing the hockey team very steep rent on the building killing the bottom line of the hockey team while the Arena makes huge profits. ( i don't know if this is happening, but i wanted to use it as an example)

The players all know that those situations will be taken care of once the revenues are defined. Both the NFL and the NBA have already figured it out and the NHLPA cannot ignore that.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

You're the one that's caught up in the semantics. A luxury tax might techically be a soft cap only because the tax itself is an exemption, but it is far from being a starting point for negotiations.

But a 31 million dollar hard cap is? The owners know they aren't gonna get a deal like they 1st proposed. And the players know they wont the deal they 1st proposed. Thats how negotiations have worked for ever.

One side with a hard cap, one side with a weak luxury tax. There is middle ground to be found but neither side is willing to talk about said middle ground. Thats the problem, and blaming one side will excusing the other side is just wrong.

 

[shadoz19]

Like what? Greed and the unwillingness to share the pie?

I guess my point is this is two-sided not one-sided. Are the Owners the good guys? No. Are the Players the good guys? No. The system does need serious fixing, but thats gonna take compromise from BOTH sides.

 

[degroat*]

I'm not sure where all this $31M stuff came from, but 50% of revenues is $35M.