The NHLPA Is A Joke

Status
Not open for further replies.

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
I love how all these bigmouths call Bob Goodenow an idiot when he's managed to negociate some of the most lopsided sports CBAs in recent memory. More generally, has the guy ever "lost" a labour dispute, either as a representative for labour or for management? Most of the posters here would probably piss their pants if they had to confront Goodenow in a negociation. It's funny how much this board creams themselves over Brian Burke, who cut his teeth with Goodenow, and pretty much co-opted Goodenow's entire management and negociation style.
 

Stoneburg

Registered User
Mar 21, 2004
2,453
321
Fishing
Calm down guys. Of course the PA says they reject it. They have 2 choices at this point: accept the offer or reject the offer. The PA will tweak this offer and accept the NHL's offer. That is why the big wigs are being called in, to do the I's and cross the T's and tweak a little here and there and it will be done. I am hopefull for the first time in a long time.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Epsilon said:
I love how all these bigmouths call Bob Goodenow an idiot when he's managed to negociate some of the most lopsided sports CBAs in recent memory. More generally, has the guy ever "lost" a labour dispute, either as a representative for labour or for management? Most of the posters here would probably piss their pants if they had to confront Goodenow in a negociation. It's funny how much this board creams themselves over Brian Burke, who cut his teeth with Goodenow, and pretty much co-opted Goodenow's entire management and negociation style.

Babe Ruth struck out. Michael Jordan missed shots. Tiger Woods double-bogied. Joe Montana threw interceptions.

And maybe, just maybe, Bob Goodenow misread a negotiation.
 

jcab2000

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
334
0
Raleigh, NC
CarlRacki said:
Babe Ruth struck out. Michael Jordan missed shots. Tiger Woods double-bogied. Joe Montana threw interceptions.

And maybe, just maybe, Bob Goodenow misread a negotiation.

Goodenow's problem is that he didn't consider losing to be an option. He was only looking to win, not to get the best possible deal from the beginning.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,966
2,060
Duncan
CarlRacki said:
Babe Ruth struck out. Michael Jordan missed shots. Tiger Woods double-bogied. Joe Montana threw interceptions.

And maybe, just maybe, Bob Goodenow misread a negotiation.


Exactly. I certainly don't think Goodenow is stupid, but I do believe he misread the lay of the land on this one. By being reasonable, the majority of his players would have lost little, really only slowing down the rate of salary escalation. As it is... they've lost more than half a season of wages, and done a fair amount of damage to their work places.... to say nothing of their skill sets.

Goodenow read the last conflict properly, but dropped the ball on this one. To bad for the fans.
 

Son of Steinbrenner

Registered User
Jul 9, 2003
10,055
0
CarlRacki said:
Babe Ruth struck out. Michael Jordan missed shots. Tiger Woods double-bogied. Joe Montana threw interceptions.

And maybe, just maybe, Bob Goodenow misread a negotiation.
or maybe gary bettman did.

you are acting like the union has caved when they clearly have not. I understand your frustration with process because i'm sure thats one thing we both agree on but it is possible that the union can out last the owners. The owners are losing franchise values and at some point the big market teams are going to piss and moan that the small market teams are running the league. Why should the flyers rangers red wings avalanche care if the hurricanes and panthers can't make money? the lockout warchest only gives the teams 10 million dollars and at some point teams are going to need to play.

players can spend another year in europe which is an option that NO other major sports league in north america has.

I love the argument that the players won't get as good a deal next year at this time. Thats wishful thinking from people that blindly support the owners.(you know the owners the guys that put the league in this postion by signing these players to high contracts and not marketing the game right)

If the owners are bleeding money next year at this time they can either end the nhl(unlikely) or accept a players proposal(likely)
 

jcab2000

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
334
0
Raleigh, NC
Son of Steinbrenner said:
or maybe gary bettman did.

you are acting like the union has caved when they clearly have not. I understand your frustration with process because i'm sure thats one thing we both agree on but it is possible that the union can out last the owners. The owners are losing franchise values and at some point the big market teams are going to piss and moan that the small market teams are running the league. Why should the flyers rangers red wings avalanche care if the hurricanes and panthers can't make money? the lockout warchest only gives the teams 10 million dollars and at some point teams are going to need to play.

players can spend another year in europe which is an option that NO other major sports league in north america has.

I love the argument that the players won't get as good a deal next year at this time. Thats wishful thinking from people that blindly support the owners.(you know the owners the guys that put the league in this postion by signing these players to high contracts and not marketing the game right)

If the owners are bleeding money next year at this time they can either end the nhl(unlikely) or accept a players proposal(likely)


Franchise values will go way up with cost certainty. All the more reason why the owners are going to stick with it until they get what they want.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Son of Steinbrenner said:
I love the argument that the players won't get as good a deal next year at this time. Thats wishful thinking from people that blindly support the owners.(you know the owners the guys that put the league in this postion by signing these players to high contracts and not marketing the game right)

If the owners are bleeding money next year at this time they can either end the nhl(unlikely) or accept a players proposal(likely)

the owners are NOT losing money. they are losing money through their NHL investment, for sure, however, most of them have money coming in through other fiscal areas by the bucket full. that is where the PA has grossly misunderstood their leverage compared to previous CBA negotiations. the ownership groups are no longer private individuals who happen to own a team and take a big hit when hockey isn't being played... these guys have MASSIVE corporations -- or are massive corporations -- that absolute swallow up the expenditure involved in running an NHL franchise.

now you can argue that that isn't true for everyone, which is true. however, the landscape is still vastly different than it was compared to 10-15 years ago. the Flyers are owned by Comcast for christ sake... you really think Comcast could give a **** if they have hockey revenue for this year? to further cause problems for these idiotic players, most of the teams that were "small markets" and struggling are owned by billionaires that limit their expenditures -- Tampa Bay is owned by a guy who has more money than God.

the 300 million "war chest" that the owners built up is absolutely irrelevant to their ability to hold out. that just tides them over from taking losses. these guys have ZERO incentive financially to not wait the players out. meanwhile you have guys who would have been making 8/9/10 million dollars this year, next year, etc... who are making 500K to play in Sweden or wherever.

so think about this. come next August PA will have forfeited more money from this season than the owners -- do not forget that the players eat up the larger % -- and those that have been playing elsewhere have been playing for much smaller amounts. meanwhile, i'm paying my cable bill every month.

fiscally the players are falling down a bottomless hole if they want to take on the owners in seige warfare. this is a game of chicken and the PA is driving a mini, they just don't want to realize it. THAT is why the deal will be much worse come next august, Mrs. John Leclair is going to be saying WTF are you ****ing morons doing!?
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Son of Steinbrenner said:
or maybe gary bettman did.

you are acting like the union has caved when they clearly have not.

It has nothing to do with them "caving". Labour negotiations are not a game with one winner and one loser. Goodenows job was to get the best deal possible for the players. If the season is cancelled, he failed miserably no matter what deal is made next January. By then, the players will have lost almost 2 billion dollars in salary forever. Goodenow could have accepted a cap with loopholes that would have allowed for players to make just as much as they do today, but chose not to. He's only good at one thing, deadline hunting. The big name teams are owned by billionaires or zillionaires who won't miss the measly 5-10 million in hockey profit, while the small market teams are accustomed to losing boatloads of money every year and are actually losing *less* by not playing. Its a 100% no win situation for the players. They could have been reasonable from the start but their best deal was a 20 cent tax on 50 million dollar payrolls. :lol
 

StanTheMan

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
68
3
Visit site
way back when the lockout started, bettman and goodnow were on the national answering questions from mansbridge and viewers. bettman was asked why the two sides couldn't simply sit down and hammer this thing out right away, why waste time over the summer and why waste part of the season. bettman answered that this was all a part of the process and that this kind of thing takes time. (at least this is how i remember it going.) i think he was right. someone on one of those shows mentioned pressure points. basically why should one side give in on volunteer anything to the other side? this is a negotiation and you have to find out how committed one side is to an issue. even now i think the sides are playing the game. we have no idea what they really think or what they are really willing to agree to - the comments in the media are part of the game. sometimes they probably don't want to say anything (probably why the latest meetings have been so hush hush), but swometimes if you contiune to stick unyieldingly to your side (cap/never a cap) you give nothing to the other side. the guys have to work this out over time in private, and unfortunately people who have come to love and even rely on their product suffer because they miss it (as fans we are lucky that our livelyhoods have not been affected). one day hockey will be back, fans will return, even in the states, and eventually we'll have more labor problems. for now, i think the two sides are being fairly predictable and we are learning how strongly they feel about their cap/no cap stances.

meanwhile, i think it would be fatal for bettman to give in this time. he made a bad deal last time, probably kicked himself for it, and made up his mind to come up with a plan the owners would strongly accept (he now only needs 8 owners to back his position - that is power) and then stick to it. if he fold, he will have to leave because the owners could never rely on him again.
 

MLH

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
5,328
0
Crazy Lunatic said:
The big name teams are owned by billionaires or zillionaires who won't miss the measly 5-10 million in hockey profit, while the small market teams are accustomed to losing boatloads of money every year and are actually losing *less* by not playing. Its a 100% no win situation for the players. They could have been reasonable from the start but their best deal was a 20 cent tax on 50 million dollar payrolls.

Or in the Sabres case a combinaiton of both, a billionaire who will save a few million without hockey. It amazes me that people think the owners will ever give in. They are billionaires making even more money every year. Hockey is mostly a hobby to them.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
Jester said:
the owners are NOT losing money. they are losing money through their NHL investment, for sure, however, most of them have money coming in through other fiscal areas by the bucket full. that is where the PA has grossly misunderstood their leverage compared to previous CBA negotiations. the ownership groups are no longer private individuals who happen to own a team and take a big hit when hockey isn't being played... these guys have MASSIVE corporations -- or are massive corporations -- that absolute swallow up the expenditure involved in running an NHL franchise.

now you can argue that that isn't true for everyone, which is true. however, the landscape is still vastly different than it was compared to 10-15 years ago. the Flyers are owned by Comcast for christ sake... you really think Comcast could give a **** if they have hockey revenue for this year? to further cause problems for these idiotic players, most of the teams that were "small markets" and struggling are owned by billionaires that limit their expenditures -- Tampa Bay is owned by a guy who has more money than God.

the 300 million "war chest" that the owners built up is absolutely irrelevant to their ability to hold out. that just tides them over from taking losses. these guys have ZERO incentive financially to not wait the players out. meanwhile you have guys who would have been making 8/9/10 million dollars this year, next year, etc... who are making 500K to play in Sweden or wherever.

so think about this. come next August PA will have forfeited more money from this season than the owners -- do not forget that the players eat up the larger % -- and those that have been playing elsewhere have been playing for much smaller amounts. meanwhile, i'm paying my cable bill every month.

fiscally the players are falling down a bottomless hole if they want to take on the owners in seige warfare. this is a game of chicken and the PA is driving a mini, they just don't want to realize it. THAT is why the deal will be much worse come next august, Mrs. John Leclair is going to be saying WTF are you ****ing morons doing!?

:handclap:


Mrs. John Leclair...classic!
 

MmmBacon

Registered User
Dec 2, 2004
87
0
Crazy Lunatic said:
I listened to the former leader of the NBA players association on the FAN590 in Toronto and this guy has more sense than the 700 players and all the NHLPA leadership combined. He couldn't understand why a union would paint itself into a corner right off the bat the way the NHLPA did, reminding the listeners how he worked within the owners demand for a cap and was able to get major consessions from the league like the Larry Bird rule which allowed owners to sign their own free agents with no regard to the cap.

Players salaries went up at such a great rate *under a cap* that the NBA locked out the palyers only 5 years later. In other words, a cap system worked just as well for the players as the non cap system did. He was smart enough to work within the system to get the players all he could. What Goodenow has done is flush over a billion dollars in players money down the toilet. Bob Goodenow is an employee, how would you react if one of your employees lost you over a billion dollars in one year? Players careers are very short and the longer this goes, the greater amount of players will be negatively impacted. Thanks Bob!

I don't know who this former NBA union guy is, but that is ridiculous revisionist history. The NBA rhetoric sounded virtually identical to the NHL rhetoric going on now, and there was little doubt at the time that they were disappionted to accept any type of cap. This guy is just trying to pump up his legacy at Goodenow's expense.
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
MmmBacon said:
I don't know who this former NBA union guy is, but that is ridiculous revisionist history. The NBA rhetoric sounded virtually identical to the NHL rhetoric going on now, and there was little doubt at the time that they were disappionted to accept any type of cap. This guy is just trying to pump up his legacy at Goodenow's expense.


They may have been disappointed at the time to accept a cap, but there is nothing revisionist about how well the players did under the cap that the NBA players association agreed to. By "caving", the players won. And they didn't have to flush an entire season down the drain to win. When your leader paints himself into a corner and his only strategy is to wait out the owners and hope they cave at the deadline, its hard to call that anything but stupid. This NBAplayers association executire director ws one of the most thoughtful and rational guys I've ever heard on sports radio. he was really impressive and pretty much outlined how this thing could have ended.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
ScottyBowman said:
Why do you people jump to conclusions? Goodenow knows more about contracts and negotiations than everyone on these boards combined. Its people like you who are DESPERATE for hockey that start saying a bunch of crazy things to make yourself feel better. The best things come to those who wait.

Self-applied therapy, I guess.

Been wondering the same thing here. Assuredly declaring a "winner" and loser" at this point...under who's terms? :dunno:

Some fans'? :lol

Some people "know" the news story (or are clairvoyant enough to declare the outcome)...even before the news happens, apparently!

The posters here who are viewing these developments with "maybe", "I don't know" and "perhaps" are the wise ones, IMO.
 

BAdvocate

Mediocrity is the enemy of any Dynasty
Feb 27, 2003
5,366
1,990
youtu.be
Crazy Lunatic said:
The average length of an NHL players career is about 3 or 4 years (somebody here knows the exact number, so correct me if I'm wrong). This is over a billion dollars that all of these guys wont be getting back if a season is cancelled. If you lose half a season, then you rpobably could make that money back (and then some) with a free market, but not 1 and a half or two years worth of paychecks.


Hockey_Nut99 said:
Saying the average career is 3-4 years is like saying that, without the big money guys, the nhl average salary is only like 1 million instead of 1.8 million.

Ummm, actually it's not. Your average salary comment is like saying that, without Chelios, Yzerman, Messier, and the other old warriors, the average length of an NHL career is only like 2-3 years instead of 3-4 years.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Buddhaful said:
Ummm, actually it's not. Your average salary comment is like saying that, without Chelios, Yzerman, Messier, and the other old warriors, the average length of an NHL career is only like 2-3 years instead of 3-4 years.

average length is a skewed statistic. you have to throw out a LOT of guys to get a meaninful thing out of avg. length... which maybe they have, but i doubt it. you look at the top 4 dmen, and the top 10 forwards on any team at a given time, and most of those guys are almost all -- barring injury -- seeing a nice career... it's the guys that flip up and down on the bottom end of the roster that bring the average way down.

that being said, someone who has relatively no education and spent their entire adult life playing hockey isn't really trained to be all that useful unless they've worked at it on the side... so it's a pretty important 5-10 year earning period for these guys.
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Trottier said:
Self-applied therapy, I guess.

Been wondering the same thing here. Assuredly declaring a "winner" and loser" at this point...under who's terms? :dunno:

Some fans'? :lol

Some people "know" the news story (or are clairvoyant enough to declare the outcome)...even before the news happens, apparently!

The posters here who are viewing these developments with "maybe", "I don't know" and "perhaps" are the wise ones, IMO.

All of this is assuming the season is cancelled (which looks certain). When its announced, it's just a fact that the players have lost. It doesn't matter what deal they reach next January. The players will have lost about 2 billion dollars in salary that they can never get back. That's about double what the owners lost in the last 10 years combined! And like I said, teams bleeding red ink are losing less money when the NHL is shut down than they did while those teams were playing. Add to that the big market teams are owned by trillionaires who couldn't give a rats ass about 5 or 10 million in hockey revenue they are losing. Its all over but the crying and the NHLPA could have saved themselves a lot of tears by getting a cap deal full of loopholes in place.
 

Dat1guy

Registered User
Jul 17, 2004
152
0
Around the corner
Crazy Lunatic said:
They may have been disappointed at the time to accept a cap, but there is nothing revisionist about how well the players did under the cap that the NBA players association agreed to. By "caving", the players won. And they didn't have to flush an entire season down the drain to win. When your leader paints himself into a corner and his only strategy is to wait out the owners and hope they cave at the deadline, its hard to call that anything but stupid. This NBAplayers association executire director ws one of the most thoughtful and rational guys I've ever heard on sports radio. he was really impressive and pretty much outlined how this thing could have ended.

Again, it seems knee-jerk reactionary. Wait until you have to hear this guy again....say, next August, September, January? It is really easy to give advice, comment, speculate, whatever. It's a different song when he is the solo act of the the big performance.
 

Dat1guy

Registered User
Jul 17, 2004
152
0
Around the corner
I also wanted to add, Crazy Lunatic, your "$2 billion salary-lost-over- two-seasons" crutch, seems grossly overstated. Where are the numbers to back this up?
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Dat1guy said:
I also wanted to add, Crazy Lunatic, your "$2 billion salary-lost-over- two-seasons" crutch, seems grossly overstated. Where are the numbers to back this up?

The player's salaries are well over a billion dollars a year, and approaching $1.5 billion after benefits. This is common knowledge, and is proven by adding up the public published salaries.

This is one of only a few rock solid figures in all discussions.
 

Sinurgy

Approaching infinity
Sponsor
Feb 8, 2004
12,425
3,877
AZ
Greschner4 said:
Excellent post. An intelligent union leader would have looked at the other sports, seen that caps work fine there, seen the relative leverage of the parties, and given the owners their cap, all the while getting a bunch of potentially valuable things in return.

Unfortunately Goodenow is a buffoon, so here we are, at this late hour, tilting at the wind against a salary cap when the owners have offered his players profit sharing. Complete jagoff.
As much as I can't stand Goodenow, I think we all know he's not actually a buffoon, idiot or any of the other words people throw out there mocking his intelligence. He is a self-serving jerk who is hell bent on winning a pissing contest regardless of who suffers but that doesn't make him stupid.

Actually I'll tell you EXACTLY what he is....a puppetmaster.
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Sinurgy said:
As much as I can't stand Goodenow, I think we all know he's not actually a buffoon, idiot or any of the other words people throw out there mocking his intelligence. He is a self-serving jerk who is hell bent on winning a pissing contest regardless of who suffers but that doesn't make him stupid.

Actually I'll tell you EXACTLY what he is....a puppetmaster.

Did you see him on TV today? A reporter was following him trying to ask just one question and Goodenow snapped at the guy and rushed off in a huff. He's clearly pissed off and was acting like an undefeated pro boxer who just lost his first fight.
 

Dat1guy

Registered User
Jul 17, 2004
152
0
Around the corner
PecaFan said:
The player's salaries are well over a billion dollars a year, and approaching $1.5 billion after benefits. This is common knowledge, and is proven by adding up the public published salaries.

This is one of only a few rock solid figures in all discussions.

$2 billion is based on last season's payroll, which includes plenty of unsigned players (currently). Unsigned players are making nothing if a lockout year wasn't in place. That's the reason for my question.
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Dat1guy said:
$2 billion is based on last season's payroll, which includes plenty of unsigned players (currently). Unsigned players are making nothing if a lockout year wasn't in place. That's the reason for my question.

Does it make a difference if they technically have an NHL contract or not? They are still losing what they would have made this year because of this lockout. And unless those unsigned players would all have had their salaries slashed in half, the total is still well over 1 billion dollars per year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->