|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jul 11, 2005 0:27:25 GMT -5
LEGACE LETS LOOSE ON NHLPA STRATEGYRed Wings goaltender Manny Legace ripped the executive director of the player's association Saturday and bemoaned the loss of the NHL's 2004-05 season. ''We lost a season for no reason,'' Legace told The Associated Press in a wide-ranging interview. ''We should've crumbled last September when the owners wanted a salary cap.'' Legace said NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow did a great job negotiating for the players in 1994, but failed them during the current negotiations. ''It makes no sense what we ended up doing,'' Legace said. ''For years, Bob was telling us, `No cap. Owners aren't telling us the truth about their books.' Then out of nowhere, he gives the owners a 24-per cent rollback and it looked like we were panicking. ''Then after saying we wouldn't even consider a salary cap, he backed down on that at the last minute just before the lockout. It was too late, and now we're taking a worse deal.'' Legace said when he was a players' representative for the Red Wings during the 2003-04 season, he publicly said the union should accept a salary cap.
''Bob came to one of our games and screamed at me in our dressing room after I said that,'' Legace said. ''He freaked out on me. He thought I was showing a sign of weakness.''NHLPA spokesman Jonathan Weatherdon said the union declined to respond to Legace's comments. With the players already conceding a 24 per cent rollback, Legace said NHL teams should cut ticket prices by the same percentage. ''It would be a great boost for public relations,'' he said. ''Teams like the Red Wings will be spending about $40 million on payroll instead of $75, so they should give some of that money back to the fans.'' Red Wings spokesman John Hahn said each team sets its own ticket prices. ''We can't make any decisions until we see the new deal,'' Hahn said. After a year without NHL hockey, Legace said the fans have been the big losers. ''I would just like to apologize to them because this didn't have to happen,'' he said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jul 11, 2005 0:34:42 GMT -5
First Sean Avery and then Manny Legace... who will be the next one to speak up?
So much for union solidarity.
The NHL and its owners must be smiling like a butcher's dog right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 11, 2005 0:41:24 GMT -5
So much for union solidarity. The NHL and its owners must be smiling like a butcher's dog right now. Well, they want a signed and all-around approved CBA before the union self-destructs. But after that.... |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 11, 2005 9:25:10 GMT -5
In a 700 member union some are unhappy with the direction taken. This is surprising, why? If the majority cried out against the leadership—that would indeed be a story Sean Avery made $0.4M in 2002-03 and $0.44M in 2003-04. The NHL minumum salary under the new CBA will be $0.4M—well within Avery's range. He is in no danger of earning less than he's ever made—but perhaps his ill-founded dream of making millions in a season has vanished. He did, after all, state in the past that he would accept playing under a $50M salary cap. Would anyone pay Sean Avery $1M to play hockey? Manny Legace, in 4 NHL seasons, has amassed $3.075M (51 year's worth of income for a person earning $60,000 per year—USD of course) for playing in 146 games. He is perhaps even more sycophantic than Avery, as the record of his previous comments ( third post in this thread) indicate. Evil Bob yelled at him for being a chowderhead and not considering the bigger picture of PR and negotiating tactics before opening his mouth? Time for Manny to run to mommy, I guess. Both players should be thanking Evil Bob for allowing them to maximize their earnings at their skill levels, not be making a public display of tactlessness and ingratitude. Avery and Legace should buckle down, get on with life, and respectively be the best fourth liner and backup goaler they can be. What about Bob? He was offered and signed a 6 year extension worth $20M in 2002. There likely exists a buy-out clause. Let's frst see how the majority of the membership now view him, before jumping to conclusions based on the faint scent of blood from a couple of minor boo-boos. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 11, 2005 9:25:33 GMT -5
So much for union solidarity. The NHL and its owners must be smiling like a butcher's dog right now. Well, they want a signed and all-around approved CBA before the union self-destructs. But after that.... Mr. Cranky's Conspiracy Theory #487 Bob Goodenow will revenge his failure by presenting a CBA that is so abhorrent to the members that it will destroy the union before it can be ratified. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 11, 2005 11:57:08 GMT -5
In a 700 member union some are unhappy with the direction taken. This is surprising, why? If the majority cried out against the leadership—that would indeed be a story Sean Avery made $0.4M in 2002-03 and $0.44M in 2003-04. The NHL minumum salary under the new CBA will be $0.4M—well within Avery's range. He is in no danger of earning less than he's ever made—but perhaps his ill-founded dream of making millions in a season has vanished. He did, after all, state in the past that he would accept playing under a $50M salary cap. Would anyone pay Sean Avery $1M to play hockey? Manny Legace, in 4 NHL seasons, has amassed $3.075M (51 year's worth of income for a person earning $60,000 per year—USD of course) for playing in 146 games. He is perhaps even more sycophantic than Avery, as the record of his previous comments ( third post in this thread) indicate. Evil Bob yelled at him for being a chowderhead and not considering the bigger picture of PR and negotiating tactics before opening his mouth? Time for Manny to run to mommy, I guess. Both players should be thanking Evil Bob for allowing them to maximize their earnings at their skill levels, not be making a public display of tactlessness and ingratitude. Avery and Legace should buckle down, get on with life, and respectively be the best fourth liner and backup goaler they can be. What about Bob? He was offered and signed a 6 year extension worth $20M in 2002. There likely exists a buy-out clause. Let's frst see how the majority of the membership now view him, before jumping to conclusions based on the faint scent of blood from a couple of minor boo-boos. If you look at it from Avery's point of view, he made zero last year. Whatever the deals that Yashin and Crosby sign for, Avery will make around $400K. He lost a year, (he probably won't have an 18 year NHL career), and he got nothing for it. The NHL owners won't be profitable or losers based on what they pay the Avery's of the league. Avery is like the guys who take tickets, sweep the aisles and ride the zambonis. He lost a year for the millionaires and billionaires. I don't think Avery cares much whether he makes $400K, $440K, or $385K; as long as he doesn't make zero. Just a noodle....  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 11, 2005 12:19:43 GMT -5
In a 700 member union some are unhappy with the direction taken. This is surprising, why? If the majority cried out against the leadership—that would indeed be a story Sean Avery made $0.4M in 2002-03 and $0.44M in 2003-04. The NHL minumum salary under the new CBA will be $0.4M—well within Avery's range. He is in no danger of earning less than he's ever made—but perhaps his ill-founded dream of making millions in a season has vanished. He did, after all, state in the past that he would accept playing under a $50M salary cap. Would anyone pay Sean Avery $1M to play hockey? Manny Legace, in 4 NHL seasons, has amassed $3.075M (51 year's worth of income for a person earning $60,000 per year—USD of course) for playing in 146 games. He is perhaps even more sycophantic than Avery, as the record of his previous comments ( third post in this thread) indicate. Evil Bob yelled at him for being a chowderhead and not considering the bigger picture of PR and negotiating tactics before opening his mouth? Time for Manny to run to mommy, I guess. Both players should be thanking Evil Bob for allowing them to maximize their earnings at their skill levels, not be making a public display of tactlessness and ingratitude. Avery and Legace should buckle down, get on with life, and respectively be the best fourth liner and backup goaler they can be. What about Bob? He was offered and signed a 6 year extension worth $20M in 2002. There likely exists a buy-out clause. Let's frst see how the majority of the membership now view him, before jumping to conclusions based on the faint scent of blood from a couple of minor boo-boos. If you look at it from Avery's point of view, he made zero last year. Whatever the deals that Yashin and Crosby sign for, Avery will make around $400K. He lost a year, (he probably won't have an 18 year NHL career), and he got nothing for it. The NHL owners won't be profitable or losers based on what they pay the Avery's of the league. Avery is like the guys who take tickets, sweep the aisles and ride the zambonis. He lost a year for the millionaires and billionaires. I don't think Avery cares much whether he makes $400K, $440K, or $385K; as long as he doesn't make zero. Just a noodle.... True enough. But that sometimes is the cost of "war". Tough titty, but suck it up and be a man—don't go bawling your eyes out in front of anyone with a microphone or a notepad (virtually) after the fact. Sean Avery has already made $0.84M (14 years' salary for someone earning $60,000 a year—USD, once again). If he ends up in a soup-line it will likely be his fault, not Bob Goodenow's. In fact, Evil Bob is responsible for keeping him out of a soup-line, or away from a construction site. |
|
|
|
Post by Yeti on Jul 11, 2005 16:27:48 GMT -5
And this is what Chelios had to say today about Bettman:
"And if he's patting himself on the back for getting a cap, every sport's got a cap. I mean, big deal, he's the last one to get it and he's run our league into the ground."
If you are Sean Avery, what do you think of such statements...?
No big deal about the cap? The cap is a good idea and the NHL is finally catching up? Why the hell didn't Bob said a cap system may be workable... last September...
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 11, 2005 16:58:27 GMT -5
And this is what Chelios had to say today about Bettman: "And if he's patting himself on the back for getting a cap, every sport's got a cap. I mean, big deal, he's the last one to get it and he's run our league into the ground." If you are Sean Avery, what do you think of such statements...? No big deal about the cap? The cap is a good idea and the NHL is finally catching up? Why the hell didn't Bob said a cap system may be workable... last September... Well, FG, I think there's bound to be a lot of finger pointing. Bettman this, Goodenow that, billionaire owners, Mike Modano's dog, yadda, yadda, yadda ... While he's made enough mistakes to warrant a firing, Bettman wasn't responsible for the old CBA. John Ziegler and the owners were. And while Goodenow played hardball with the NHL the last time, he can take his share of the blame for this fiasco as well. The owners are to blame because they caved, along with the NHL, to the demands of Goodenow and the NHLPA. In some cities it became a, "... if-it-doesn't-work-throw-more-money-at-it," mindset. Some of the players (not so much the low-end players) are to blame because in the end, all they wanted was more. And to some, "the game and the fans be d*mned ... we deserve it." The NHLPA is to blame for not representing their membership equally. In the end there will be a lot of blame to go around. Let's just get on with hockey ... oh, and with reduced ticket prices of course. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 11, 2005 17:16:51 GMT -5
And this is what Chelios had to say today about Bettman: "And if he's patting himself on the back for getting a cap, every sport's got a cap. I mean, big deal, he's the last one to get it and he's run our league into the ground." Smartest thing he's said since the lockout began. If I were Sean Avery I'd remember that I claimed that I could work under a $50M cap. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 11, 2005 17:26:02 GMT -5
Let's just get on with hockey ... oh, and with reduced ticket prices of course. Cheers. Well, if you're a fan of one of these teams you may be able to save a few shekels: Anaheim, Carolina, Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Florida, NYR, Pittsburg, St-Louis, San José, Washington. - www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=129680 |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 11, 2005 18:41:16 GMT -5
If you look at it from Avery's point of view, he made zero last year. Whatever the deals that Yashin and Crosby sign for, Avery will make around $400K. He lost a year, (he probably won't have an 18 year NHL career), and he got nothing for it. The NHL owners won't be profitable or losers based on what they pay the Avery's of the league. Avery is like the guys who take tickets, sweep the aisles and ride the zambonis. He lost a year for the millionaires and billionaires. I don't think Avery cares much whether he makes $400K, $440K, or $385K; as long as he doesn't make zero. Just a noodle.... True enough. But that sometimes is the cost of "war". Tough titty, but suck it up and be a man—don't go bawling your eyes out in front of anyone with a microphone or a notepad (virtually) after the fact. Sean Avery has already made $0.84M (14 years' salary for someone earning $60,000 a year—USD, once again). If he ends up in a soup-line it will likely be his fault, not Bob Goodenow's. In fact, Evil Bob is responsible for keeping him out of a soup-line, or away from a construction site. I agree that all NHL players are very fortunate. I, for one, pay to play. If anyone offered me free ice time and skates, I'd jump at the chance. NHL players get a lot of other perks too, although Nike doesn't break their backs looking for the Avery's of the world. Players who make $400K a year do have a large tax burden, but I agree it's hard to feel sorry for them. Avery has to face the fact that he isn't in the top 50% of the league, but he only has a few years and he has to cash in before it's over. Teams barely want a 25 year old Avery. They don't have much use for 40 year old Avery's. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 11, 2005 19:13:10 GMT -5
True enough. But that sometimes is the cost of "war". Tough titty, but suck it up and be a man—don't go bawling your eyes out in front of anyone with a microphone or a notepad (virtually) after the fact. Sean Avery has already made $0.84M (14 years' salary for someone earning $60,000 a year—USD, once again). If he ends up in a soup-line it will likely be his fault, not Bob Goodenow's. In fact, Evil Bob is responsible for keeping him out of a soup-line, or away from a construction site. I agree that all NHL players are very fortunate. I, for one, pay to play. If anyone offered me free ice time and skates, I'd jump at the chance. NHL players get a lot of other perks too, although Nike doesn't break their backs looking for the Avery's of the world. Players who make $400K a year do have a large tax burden, but I agree it's hard to feel sorry for them. Avery has to face the fact that he isn't in the top 50% of the league, but he only has a few years and he has to cash in before it's over. Teams barely want a 25 year old Avery. They don't have much use for 40 year old Avery's. I hear Cranky has openings at his factory. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 11, 2005 20:46:53 GMT -5
I agree that all NHL players are very fortunate. I, for one, pay to play. If anyone offered me free ice time and skates, I'd jump at the chance. NHL players get a lot of other perks too, although Nike doesn't break their backs looking for the Avery's of the world. Players who make $400K a year do have a large tax burden, but I agree it's hard to feel sorry for them. Avery has to face the fact that he isn't in the top 50% of the league, but he only has a few years and he has to cash in before it's over. Teams barely want a 25 year old Avery. They don't have much use for 40 year old Avery's. I hear Cranky has openings at his factory. If the factory sponsors a hockey team, I'm in! |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 11, 2005 23:52:06 GMT -5
I hear Cranky has openings at his factory. If the factory sponsors a hockey team, I'm in! You may have to take a pay cut. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jul 12, 2005 12:40:28 GMT -5
I'm sure players like Avery and Legace are thankful for all the money that they've earned in the NHL, but I can see where they are coming from with their recent comments.
Their problem with Goodenow is that for years he preached "No cap! No cap!" and made the players preach the same. Bob made it sound as if he would never, ever take a cap. No matter what the circumstance. No way, no how. Then he made the players believe this and he made them go out and preach the No cap Gospel to the media. But all of a sudden, with the chances of 2005 season dwindling down, Bob agrees to a cap.
The players sacrificed a year's salary because they didn't want to play under a cap. Now, not only have they lost a year's salary, but they're going to play under a cap - with linkage, and they look like fools in front of the fans and media because they said repeatedly that they would never, ever play under the rules of a salary cap.
The beef that guys like Avery and Legace have is that if the PA was going to take a cap, why didn't they just negotiate off that last summer or before. They gambled and they lost big-time. And when you lose a gamble of this magnitude, the blame lies at the feet of the general who led his troops into battle.
Again, I don't think that their comments should be misunderstood with them being ungrateful. I'm sure that they're happy with the all the money that they've made as a pro hockey player, but it's obvious that they were not happy with how Bob Goodenow dealt with this lockout.
*
IMO, the finger shouldn't be pointed at anyone specifically. There's plenty of blame to go around. From the owners, to the GMs, to the players and their agents. When there is a mess of this magnitude, there's no one, specific person that can be blamed, but like I said, I understand where guys like Avery and Legace are coming from. They gave up a year of their career and salary for a deal that could've been struck last summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 12, 2005 13:53:18 GMT -5
I Their problem with Goodenow is that for years he preached "No cap! No cap!" and made the players preach the same. Bob made it sound as if he would never, ever take a cap. No matter what the circumstance. No way, no how. Then he made the players believe this and he made them go out and preach the No cap Gospel to the media. But all of a sudden, with the chances of 2005 season dwindling down, Bob agrees to a cap. They gave up a year of their career and salary for a deal that could've been struck last summer. I think that if Bob had his way they'd till be sitting ont he sidelines and the No Cap mantra would be intact. Don't blame Bob for capitulating . . . blame the PA . . . Linden et al who drove BOb back to the owners. Wen that happened it was fait accompli -- the owners knew they had the union by the kohonas and there was nothing Bob could do about it. Bob gambled that there would be solidarity among the players and that they could out-last the owners. He lost. He has been forced to fold though he'd rather stay in the game just a little bit longer. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jul 12, 2005 16:24:04 GMT -5
I think that if Bob had his way they'd till be sitting ont he sidelines and the No Cap mantra would be intact. Don't blame Bob for capitulating . . . blame the PA . . . Linden et al who drove BOb back to the owners. But this should never have been about Bob getting his way. From the start, this should've been about getting the players the best deal under the existing circumstances. It's common sense that the players weren't going to get a better deal if there was no season. Less revenues means less money for the players. It's simple math. Ted Saskin made a comment before the season was cancelled, responding to Bettman's threat of the deal for the players being worse if the season was cancelled. Saskin replied by sarcastically asking, "how could it possibly get worse?". Well I'm sure he knows the answer to that question now. And that's why he's getting so much heat right now. He lost the gamble and he gave up more than what he would've gave up had he took a deal last summer, in September, or even in February. He held out and held out and in the end, the owners got exactly what they wanted, plus a sweet 24% rollback on salaries as a cherry on top. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 12, 2005 16:40:07 GMT -5
2003-04 revenue claimed to be $2.1B.
2005-06 revenue projected to be $1.8B.
$2.36B revenue x 54% = $1..27B / 30 teams = $42.5M salary cap
Let's see, after 6 years, how bad a deal Evil Bob was "forced" to cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 12, 2005 17:06:52 GMT -5
I think that if Bob had his way they'd still be sitting on the sidelines and the No Cap mantra would be intact. Don't blame Bob for capitulating . . . blame the PA . . . Linden et al who drove Bob back to the owners. But this should never have been about Bob getting his way. From the start, this should've been about getting the players the best deal under the existing circumstances. No, it wasn’t supposed to be about Bob getting his own way (nor, I say somewhat sarcastically, about Gary getting his own way). It was about Bob doing his best for his constituents. They didn’t do too badly under his leadership last round of negotiations. But they panicked. They missed the pay cheques and (I suggest) they missed the adulation of the fans (which will come back by the third game – I remember when Ya$hin came back to the Senators after sitting out a season – all it took was one goal and he was out of the dog house). Hey, if you’re going to go down you may as well go down swinging! And as he says, Let's see, after 6 years, how bad a deal Evil Bob was "forced" to cut. Linkage may just work in the PA’s favour . . . as long as there is a bit of honesty when it comes to revenue. |
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Jul 12, 2005 18:24:59 GMT -5
Hey this is going to get very ugly!
How many over paid mediocre players will lose their jobs to younger up coming talent who haven't had a one year layoff?It'll be interesting to see who will see a premature end to their carrers.
HFTO
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 12, 2005 19:26:04 GMT -5
It'll be interesting to see who will see a premature end to their carrers. HFTO Sean Avery, for one—after all, he opposed the settlement. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jul 12, 2005 19:27:12 GMT -5
Let's see, after 6 years, how bad a deal Evil Bob was "forced" to cut. That's true. We should remember that the last CBA was supposed to have been clearly in favour of the owners and we all know how that ended up. But having said that, with a cap and linkage, this CBA seems airtight. Even in six years, I can't see this deal biting the owners in the ass. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jul 12, 2005 19:29:10 GMT -5
Sean Avery, for one—after all, he opposed the settlement. When did he say that he is opposed to the settlement? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 13, 2005 1:12:13 GMT -5
If the factory sponsors a hockey team, I'm in! You may have to take a pay cut. Up to 24% pay cut with 15% in an escrow witholding account. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 15, 2005 18:44:47 GMT -5
Iginla discounts role in new deal'I didn't go behind or undercut anybody'By ALLAN MAKI Friday, July 15, 2005 Page R9 Jarome Iginla wants everyone to know he did not participate in a coup against National Hockey League Players' Association executive director Bob Goodenow. He did not deal in shady politics. He did not undercut his union boss by rallying pro-salary cap forces. What he did was carry out his responsibilities as the player representative for the Calgary Flames. He talked to other NHL players. He gauged their emotions, then he urged them to call Goodenow. It was the players' willingness to accept a salary cap linked to club revenues that helped tentatively end the longest lockout in the history of professional sports."I didn't go behind or undercut anybody to do a deal," Iginla said yesterday from Vancouver, where he was participating in a Nike Hockey training program for children. "I went to meetings and they were emotional. After that, yeah, I was talking to other players. We were encouraged to talk to players as reps. The more I talked to them, they said they could live with a cap. I told that to Bob and he said, 'If that's how they feel, have them call me.' I absolutely encouraged them to call. If that's the way the group felt as a majority, that's what I did." There has been speculation that Iginla, St. Louis Blues defenceman Chris Pronger and Philadelphia Flyers goaltender Robert Esche played a significant role in getting the players to persuade Goodenow to drop his no-salary-cap insistence so that the lockout could end.Iginla said the players ran out of time and into the stubborn will of commissioner Gary Bettman and the NHL's 30 club owners. - tinyurl.com/cpdbv* Yep, Evil Bob railroaded the players into accepting a salary cap—what's worse, he listened to his membership (even after having screamed at one of them many months before) 
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 16, 2005 9:17:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 21, 2005 13:33:34 GMT -5
"There were some guys that were upset and disappointed about how this happened in terms of the (salary) cap, but that's going to happen with 700 players. A lot of other guys were happy with the deal and just happy that it's over and that we're playing hockey again. We were in a tough battle with owners who held all the cards." The NHLPA meeting started Wednesday with players getting their first look at the document. Talks went well into the night, with players still milling about with each other well past 1 a.m. Thursday. "It was healthy," said Kevyn Adams, Carolina's player representative. "I was excited to see guys ask questions. I didn't leave the room until 2 a.m. last night. There was great banter, a real good dialogue. People got their questions answered." Added Tampa's Martin St. Louis: "It was nice to see the details of the real deal instead of just what we've been reading in the papers." That included reducing salaries in existing contracts by 24 per cent. "I don't like the rollback, no question," said Columbus player rep Todd Marchant, whose salary will be $2.47 million US next season instead of $3.25 million. "No one's happy about that but it's something we had to do." Things got heated at times during the meeting Wednesday night. Veteran Toronto tough guy Tie Domi, for one, confronted Sean Avery of the Kings for being critical of the union leadership earlier this month. Domi was also angry with Detroit Red Wings goalie Manny Legace, who slammed the union negotiators last month. "This deal is going to benefit guys like Sean Avery and Manny Legace - who wasn't here," Domi said before leaving Thursday. "It's easy to knock things, especially when things are getting settled, and that's the only thing I had an issue with. "Speak your mind but don't do it when you haven't even played 100 games in the league. It just wasn't the time for any of those guys to speak up. If Manny Legace had some issues, where was he last night to speak about it? I give Sean Avery credit for being here. "Manny Legace? I didn't know him, the only thing I knew about him was that he played 10 games when Dominik Hasek played 72 and they won a Stanley Cup. All of a sudden (Legace) is in the headlines for something he said." There were also some tough questions for Goodenow but nothing got out of hand. "To say it wasn't heated at times would be a misnomer but it was professional," said Marchant. "People asked questions and got answers." - www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=131005&hubName=nhl |
|
