Why does Goodenow want an idiot proof system?

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Hockey_Nut99, Dec 16, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Hockey_Nut99

    Hockey_Nut99 Guest

    I find it funny that when players have individual success and team success, their asking price always goes up. They sure like that mechanism. Success equals hefty profits...

    Bettman is asking them to agree to a system where if the NHL succeeds, so do the players wallets. If the NHL does not succeed then the players wallets might get a little smaller.But no this is a nonstarter for the PA. Just can't be done.

    Where is everyone who says "Why should the owners be guaranteed profits"? Why should the players be guarnteed profits? How can their salaries ever go down? They don't want to be qualified under 100% when their contracts run out. They still make money in arbitration. The only way players lose money is if they suck at 31 and nobody gives them a nice offer sheet. They can also sit out and take a team hostage like they tend to do.This, after making a lot of doe for a minumum of 10 years.

    Lets talk about that sitting out aspect. Does a player ever think about his team when he sits out the start of a season? Marian gaborik *cough cough*....These guys can ruin their whole teams season by doing this. Lose out on playoffs etc...

    Basically no matter what a player does he won't see his salary go down. How is that right? Am I missing something here? I might be wrong about their salaries not going down.

    Hypocrites!!!!
     
  2. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    20,576
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    The owners deserve to make money... the players deserve to make money...the owners have no gurantees, the players contracts are guranteed...
     
  3. Epsilon

    Epsilon #basta

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    74,352
    Likes Received:
    35,825
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    South Cackalacky
    If anything it's Bettman who wants the idiot proof system. Here were have a collection of successful, wealthy businessmen, who need the CBA to babysit them so they don't act like kids in a candy store when it comes to their hockey team. I find it hard to understand why they can run their normal businesses tightly and yet can't do the same with their hockey teams.

    As far as the issues you brought up, one thing the GMs didn't do nearly enough is walk away from arbitration awards. This was a mechanism available to them to help control salaries that they rarely used until the last couple of seasons.

    And as far as sitting out is concerned, no person, hockey player or otherwise, is obligated to sign a contract to work when they don't have one, unless they like the terms of it.
     
  4. Hockey_Nut99

    Hockey_Nut99 Guest

    Why is it so easy for you guys to say "walk away fromt he award" or "GM's act liek they are in a candy store"...Do you know the GM's compete against eachother to make the best team possible. It's the competitve bidding wars that drive up salaries. If one team offered Federov a conract do all the other Gm's go: "ok somone made a bid we all better stop".? That's such a naive comment to make.

    If every single team stayed within their budgets in the last cba then we would have had half the players sitting out. If Anaheim tells federov to go pick his nose whn he wants 10 Million dollars what is he going to do? It's called collusion. The owners/gm's can't get into a huddle and say "Yo Anaheim GM..Stay firm.We won't sign him. Just wait until he breaks"..No.SOme other GM is going to snatch him up...Competition..That is what is ruining the game and parity in this league
     
  5. Hockeyfan02

    Hockeyfan02 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    14,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pistivity
    Home Page:
    We dont like it, but they do have the right. These guys dont have to think about their teams when they holdout for more money. I doubt employees think of their company when they go on strike. I'm not praising the guys for doing it, but if they dont like the contract, they dont have to sign it.
     
  6. Hockey_Nut99

    Hockey_Nut99 Guest

    Like I said above. The only way Salaries would actually drop under this last CBA would be if the owners all got into a meeting and told eachother they won't sign eachothers talent and to stay firm. That is illegal.

    The GM's wouldn't do this b/c they are trying to make their teams better than the rest. The players really don't give a sh*t about what's going on as long as they get their payday. A different system needs to be put in place. It needs restraints.
     
  7. jcpenny

    jcpenny Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Montréal
    Home Page:
    Bang on about the bidding comment and people who disagree are just ignorant or not in touch with reality.
     
  8. AlienWorkShop

    AlienWorkShop No, Ben! No!

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,290
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    96
    I've heard players say that with a salary cap, they will not have guarenteed contracts. I'm assuming this means that many teams will be forced to release players just to stay under a cap.

    Is this just lies by the players, or is there truth to this? Or do the players mean something completly different when they say they won't have guarenteed contracts?
     
  9. Hockey_Nut99

    Hockey_Nut99 Guest

    Bettman said he intends to keep guaranteed contracts on tv yesterday. The players find any excuse they can to not get a cap. Fuarantee contracts, wrong numbers, etc..
     
  10. Blind Gardien

    Blind Gardien nexus of the crisis

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    20,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Space Goat
    Location:
    Four Winds Bar
    Presumably they must just be regurgitating some fear-mongering that the union leadership told them. Bettman said that all contracts would be guaranteed.

    The whole question of how teams at $60M transition to a $30-whateverM cap is also not a big issue, IMO. If the players agree to a cap (or "cost certainty"), then the league will have no problem conceding a reasonable set of transition rules. They'll allow teams to grandfather some portions of existing contracts, etc, or even at the absolute worst case, they'll maintain the current buyout standards, and teams will have to pay 2/3rds to buy players out of their contracts. Nobody will be thrown out on the street with empty pockets just because the cap suddenly appeared.
     
  11. shveik

    shveik Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Inspired dilettante
    Home Page:
    The whole point of this is that the player goes to the team that is willing to pay him the most. I am sure all 30 teams in the league would want to have Fedorov for example on their roster. It is just the matter of how much they can *afford* to offer him, and how much they think his services are *worth* to them.

    The problem is, many teams are offering what they cannot afford. What's even more ridiculous, the teams with empty pockets are bidding against *each other*. With this kind of behaviour, I'd have all of the GMs cut their credit cards ;) And if I was an NHL owner who is concerned about making a profit, I'd hire a GM who isn't a compulsive shopper.
     
  12. Epsilon

    Epsilon #basta

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    74,352
    Likes Received:
    35,825
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    South Cackalacky
    Here's a question: if the PA agrees to a cap or some other cost certainty package, and Bettman comes back with "ok now we need you guys to give up guaranteed contracts", will you guys finally turn against him or is it still going to be all aboard the Bettman Bandwagon?
     
  13. Kaiped Krusader

    Kaiped Krusader Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Rylan up the Opposition
    As someone pointed out in another thread, it's a fallacy to compare an owner's "real" business to his hockey business. If one of his "real" employees demands a huge raise, the owner can tell him to find employment elsewhere and replace him rather easily. If his first-line winger that scores 40 goals a year demands a huge raise, the owner doesn't have nearly as much leverage in trying to keep costs rational.
     
  14. Kaiped Krusader

    Kaiped Krusader Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Rylan up the Opposition
    He's already said guaranteed contracts aren't an issue. Even if he hadn't said that, I'd be against forcing players to give them up because cost certainty should solve the disconnect between salaries and revenues. The owners don't need any other tools than that from what I can see. Really, beyond that, they're the ones who should be making concessions to the players.
     
  15. MojoJojo

    MojoJojo Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Messages:
    9,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Home Page:
    What are season tickets, if not guaranteed income? The owners can guarantee their profits by living within a budget. If anyone wants an idiot (or at least Sather) proof system, its Bettman.
     
  16. That's so bloody greedy.

    Imagine a player wanting more money as reward for success.

    Why, it's unAmerican.
     
  17. MojoJojo

    MojoJojo Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Messages:
    9,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Home Page:
    What inherrent claim does the owner have over that players rights? Because he was drafted or traded to the team? Its the player who scored the 40 goals, and it should be the player who has the right to negotiate his own contract. A certain degree of indenture is necessary to keep competitive balance around the league. But then to restrict the players salary as well as his freedom?

    Besided the owner still does not have to pay the huge raise. The player can still be traded, or the owner can walk away and spend his money on a cheaper alternative.
     
  18. misterjaggers

    misterjaggers Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    14,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Grad student
    Location:
    The Duke City
    Except a professional sports league isn't a normal business, is it? It's a bilateral monopoly with the league on one side and the union on the other and that's why it cries out for internal regulation and structure -a salary cap.
     
  19. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,879
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    I dont follow the logic. Why does it cry out for a cap? Why doesnt it cry out for proper market regulations on the salary negotiation leverage points each side has?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"