Dante Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/05/31/1064644.html The best news is Goodenow and Bettman may be gone. The earlier this gets done the better. Then the NHL can concentrate on making the game more exciting like it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loadofmularkey Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 If all this comes to pass, I'll be walking around with one of these on my face for a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 The article seems long on theory and states little as fact beyond a deal is imininent 9any person halfway connected with reality has long seen the logic of a deal being made but will believe it when we see it). In addition to stating little in terms of facts, it thus has even less in terms of detail. The article seems to invest in the same mistake which may well have caused this stupidity in the first place which is seeing the NHL as Bettman and the NHLPA as Goodenow. Both are merely sideshows to the real game which will determine who wins and who loses which is how far have these two parties gotten in establishing a truer partnership between the two. Goodenow could leave before the lockout ends, but if the players get more control over running the game they win. Goodenow can stay forever, but if the owners win the ability to not trade control for a sensible salary structure the players lose big time. The owners have demonstrated no ability to exercise self control in ladeling out unsustainable contracts. If the players merely aggree to cap which exerts some rationality on the owners business practices but they do not gain from this concession real constraints on individual owners being whackp as businessmen and merely using these sports franchises as toys then the game and the players lose. The fate of Goodenow and Bettman are mere sideshows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agilen Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 They are meeting today and tomorrow in Toronto. I'm not sure that it will finish up this week, though people are saying they have most of the deal worked out, and are just working on details now. If that is the case, however, I don't see why they wouldn't announce that they have a deal in principle....the sooner they get this lockout over, the sooner they can start selling seasons tickets, getting new sponsors, etc. I think we'll know a lot more by Friday, and the deal may get done next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 The article seems long on theory and states little as fact beyond a deal is imininent 9any person halfway connected with reality has long seen the logic of a deal being made but will believe it when we see it). In addition to stating little in terms of facts, it thus has even less in terms of detail. The fate of Goodenow and Bettman are mere sideshows. 348762[/snapback] All I can say is that Slam's hockey writers are pretty connected. It's possible the lack of details reflect thier unwillingness to reveal thier sources? When I see hockey news on Slam(Toronto Sun) I give it more credibility than other sources. As far as Bettman and Goodenow being sideshows I guess that true. Maybe they wouldnt be mere sideshows if they were more of a asset to the game. I guess it can be argued that Goodenow has been a decent union leader for the players(if you are of the unionist ilk), however the same can not be said for Bettman. That im sure of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/05/31/1064644.html The best news is Goodenow and Bettman may be gone. The earlier this gets done the better. Then the NHL can concentrate on making the game more exciting like it used to be. 348744[/snapback] HORSE HOCKEY!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/05/31/1064644.html Then the NHL can concentrate on making the game more exciting like it used to be. 348744[/snapback] Ban helmets and get rid of the net magnets and put the pipes back in. Return the size of the crease to where it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloDynamite Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I hope so- i need something good to watch- i can't stand all those "reality" shows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingDad48 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 The NHL is gone? I heard that the TV contract was not signed and sounded like it might not even if they did have contracts. If thats true would they even be able to pay any salerys with just ticket holders??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 It was near an end before when that bozo from E$PN EJ Hradek proclaimed it was over trying to do a typical E$PN move:"Look at me, I was the first one to break the story!" and poof, it wasnt true and he looked like a fool and of course E$PN only takes responsbility for the stories they get right, granted E$PN got there info from another source, but still.... Bottom line is, until its official, this is all fluff...another story will come out that it is inching closer again, just get the damn thing done already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 The NHL is gone? I heard that the TV contract was not signed and sounded like it might not even if they did have contracts. If thats true would they even be able to pay any salerys with just ticket holders??? 348796[/snapback] Under the old TV contract, each team got only $2 million in revenue. Except for the big 6 markets, the gate and the odd cable deal is still how teams are meeting payroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleTheWagons Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 The article seems to invest in the same mistake which may well have caused this stupidity in the first place which is seeing the NHL as Bettman and the NHLPA as Goodenow. Both are merely sideshows to the real game which will determine who wins and who loses which is how far have these two parties gotten in establishing a truer partnership between the two. 348762[/snapback] I say this with utmost respect, but I think you're making a bigger mistake than anything in the article. I have no problem with labelling Bettman and Goodenow as sideshows, but trying to determine a winner or loser is irrelevant. Financially, the NHL is sick and has been sick for a while. A majority of teams have been losing money and the fan base is shrinking in many markets. A new financial system is needed that allows everyone to ice competitive teams and keep their stars (salary cap / team revenue sharing). In addition players need to promote the game better - tying the salary cap to overall revenues helps incent the players to grow the sport. Unfortunately, their has been a long history of mistrust in the NHL and I think Goodenow has used it to galvanize the players, telling the Union that ownership is trying to screw them and the teams are cooking the books to show a loss. Now that the union is finally examining the finances, Goodenow has lost his leadership and players will become part of the solution (yeah!) This does NOT mean the players lose. The players will win from being a partner in a healthier league moving forward. Ownership has always had a reasonable position, unfortunately their past relationship with the union ruined the opportunity for a fundamental shift in the relationship without a work stoppage. Hopefully the length of this response is worthy for a FFS post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 All I can say is that Slam's hockey writers are pretty connected. It's possible the lack of details reflect thier unwillingness to reveal thier sources? When I see hockey news on Slam(Toronto Sun) I give it more credibility than other sources. 348773[/snapback] You got that right. The Canadian media will know long before ESPN or any of the U.S. outlets break the news. They have sources in every locker room and front office in the league. Aside from Don Cherry and Al Strachen, most Canadian writers are top notch (I'd include Jim Kelley in this category, too.) Anyway, looks like a good deal for the Sabres and other small market teams: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Fidli...pf-1066115.html "A couple of months ago, the NHLPA was hoping for a salary cap of just under $50 million US per team. In reality, when the deal is done, it will be far less than that. Perhaps as low as $32-35 million." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I say this with utmost respect, but I think you're making a bigger mistake than anything in the article. I have no problem with labelling Bettman and Goodenow as sideshows, but trying to determine a winner or loser is irrelevant.Financially, the NHL is sick and has been sick for a while. A majority of teams have been losing money and the fan base is shrinking in many markets. A new financial system is needed that allows everyone to ice competitive teams and keep their stars (salary cap / team revenue sharing). In addition players need to promote the game better - tying the salary cap to overall revenues helps incent the players to grow the sport. Unfortunately, their has been a long history of mistrust in the NHL and I think Goodenow has used it to galvanize the players, telling the Union that ownership is trying to screw them and the teams are cooking the books to show a loss. Now that the union is finally examining the finances, Goodenow has lost his leadership and players will become part of the solution (yeah!) This does NOT mean the players lose. The players will win from being a partner in a healthier league moving forward. Ownership has always had a reasonable position, unfortunately their past relationship with the union ruined the opportunity for a fundamental shift in the relationship without a work stoppage. Hopefully the length of this response is worthy for a FFS post 348837[/snapback] Fair enough, but the question is why if the key to this was players understanding the true financial situation and realities of the league, why were the teams unable to open their books and share the financial situation with the NHLPA before now to get them to operate within this reality. I think the answer is that like the NFL there is a dynamic between small market teams and large market teams among the owners which has the individual teams operate in secrecy that makes it difficult and in fact virtually impossible to build trust between the NHL and NHLPA. Is the NHL as a whole trying to screw the NHLPA as a whole? No. Are some individual owners in it only for themselves and would be quite happy to screw their players, other owners, their fans or whomever if they judged it suited their individual purposes? You bet! If you don't agree with this assessment, that is your judgment, but just to choose and example you may be familiar with as a Buffalo fan, I submit John Rigas. Any assessment of the NHLPA needs to start with an understanding that for the individual player assessing the fiscal realities, the demand that he trust the ownership which they know to be bad businessmen because they have consistently given stupid contracts to the players and to trust the individual owners when they are not made partners in the economics of the game and of the teams when their owner might be the next John Rigas. Do you really expect the NHLPA to trust in the business saavy of owners that give them unsistainable contracts? Do you really expect the players to trust the word of owners when examples of folks such as the Rigas clan have been part of recent league history and decison making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 "A couple of months ago, the NHLPA was hoping for a salary cap of just under $50 million US per team. In reality, when the deal is done, it will be far less than that. Perhaps as low as $32-35 million." 348839[/snapback] Wasn't the last cap offer by the owners around $42 million? The players really took it on the chin then if it does become $32-35. Not to mention losing a year's salary. How can the union sell that to the players? OUCH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Wasn't the last cap offer by the owners around $42 million? The players really took it on the chin then if it does become $32-35. Not to mention losing a year's salary. How can the union sell that to the players? OUCH! 348882[/snapback] It's alot easier to sell it to them now that so many have been paycheckless. When guys like Roenick and Pronger cave, the writing is on the wall. I just hope that guys like Stevie Y can lace 'em up one more time and get the proper respect they deserve on their way to the HoF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agilen Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Wasn't the last cap offer by the owners around $42 million? The players really took it on the chin then if it does become $32-35. Not to mention losing a year's salary. How can the union sell that to the players? OUCH! 348882[/snapback] The union isn't selling it on the players anymore...I think they have lost, and they know it. They are spreading the word that its not a good deal they are getting, but they have to get it done now so they are taking what they can get. But, the rumor is that this deal is with linkage to league revenues, not a hard salary cap. So, if the players perform and the NHL gains popularity back, then they stand to make more money in the future, which I don't think is a terrible deal for them....its certainly worse than what they had before, but we all knew that had to change anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agilen Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 MOJO 640 in Toronto just reported that a deal has been agreed upon, but won't be signed for the next couple of days. Keep your fingers crossed, and this time next year, we'll be watching the Sabres playing in the cup finals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Anyone know the specs of this deal? Is it one where the Sabres will finally start making money and/or be able to be competitive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 The funny thing is as long as the Sabres were smart about things and got their paperwork in on time with the league, marketing the team to WNY shouldn't be as hard as some may think. All they have to do is roll out the old blue and gold and people with go ape sh-t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts