Fischler and Saskin on Fan590

[freq019 0]

Fischler tears into Saskin and asks some good questions. His responses don't make the union look too good, but I agree to some extent he did get ambushed a little.

http://www.fan590.com/saskinandstan.mp3

[DrMolotov 0]

Saskin has been on the Fan since the first day of the lockout, and everytime he has been condescending, sarcastic and it has come to the point where I cannot believe a thing he says. If I was a player, I'd be a little pissed off as he has been the voice of the players for quite some time and he is looking like a clown.

[Jim Bob 0]

Bettman had some interesting things to say on there as well.

The one that caught my attention was when he pointed out that the NHLPA's cap offer did include linkage. However, the NHLPA only wanted linkage in the event that league revenues grew and the cap would be moved upward.

And people wonder why the NHL turned the NHLPA's offer down.........

[Jim Bob 0]

But it's not just about the numbers.

The NHLPA will have to come off of the ridiculous idea of upwardly mobile linkage and their 10% bump if they had any hope of getting a deal done.

And here is another interesting tid bit on how the end game played out:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/18/935008.html

When the NHLPA turned down Gary Bettman's final offer -- as opposed to his other final offers -- it walked away from an arrangement it will never see again.That action alone has splintered the union membership, leading to various individual players calling the league yesterday to reopen discussions.

Apparently, after Goodenow reluctantly agreed to a salary cap, the executive council wanted to negotiate off a $46-million US figure. Goodenow went against their wishes and made the offer at $52 million.

In the end, the players were more akin to making a deal than their union leader was and now they are left asking: What's next?

If you believe that NHL owners easily again will abandon cost certainty after losing a season, think again.

If you believe that they again will offer up a $42.5-million salary cap, you are dreaming.

[DrMolotov 0]

He bluffed and lost badly and just this morning I heard Mike Modano was asked about how the players feel about Goodenow and his anwser leads me to believe the boys aren't happy.

[DrMolotov 0]

I hope it is true that there are talks still going, not for this year but hopefully to get something done so camps can open in October. Get rid of both the top clowns and take Saskin out as well and they'll get it done.

[MDE3 0]

I know from a contact in the financial world, that some of the owners thought 8 -10 weeks max before a settlement...and there is pain there too...a lot more pain than their stance would indicate. That's why any new agreement that goes into next season will not even be close to where both sides were this week....Seriously look for bottom of $18m..to top of $31m with two way linkage....close to the original "position" of the owners when this started. The owners like Gretz and Lemieux, although still minor partners in their ownership roles, have a lot more to risk in this dice roll, and their rumoured actions behind the scenes would make sense....their personal well being could certainly be in the balance depending on the final outcome.

That said, I still believe the owners called the union bluff with getting these lower levels as "the carrot" amongst themselves, and anticipated Gooenow's refusal to accept the $42.5 m.

With no serious TV revenues for the league....how could anyone expect different?...Did the owners orchestrate this?..Maybe...as a negotiating ploy. They have anticipated this battle for a long time.

Could the "new economic model" for the league become like arena football, lacrosse and MLS where the league buys out all the teams from the owners in a partnership deal, and becomes a single corporation?

[Chadd 916]

He bluffed and lost badly and just this morning I heard Mike Modano was asked about how the players feel about Goodenow and his anwser leads me to believe the boys aren't happy.

Some of the players had a panic attack and ended up causing this situation. When the owners heard some of the players and player reps were getting nervous, they knew they would win in the long term. I've heard a couple of interviews with Robert Esche and he's proud of what he did, despite the fact it's going to make things worse for everyone but the owners.

[Eazy_b97 1]

I hate that! I hear it all of ther time. People take the first Cap proposals from each side and assume the NHL went to $45. They went up from $31 to $45 mill. The players came from $49 mill, thats nothing. Well wait a minute! The highest payroll last year was $70 million and they wanted it to stay that way so wouldn't it be giving up $25 million? Or hell, they didn't want a cap call it 100 billion dollars. It's junk. Don't look at what the start and finish was. Look at where they ended up and their reasons for it. I think the league came off rev. sharing because alot of the owners needed a season and they were getting worried. Just like the NHLPA came off of the cap. I think theres a reason they went to $42.5 and not $45 mill, I think alot of it was a PR move and they never expected the NHLPA to take it. Where the NHLPA came off a Salary cap and I think they would've liked to have a deal done. The 24% rollback has basically made all of this talk even possible. Without it you're looking at teams cutting $25 out of their payroll instead of adding 3 players for $2 mill to meet the higher cap offer. I see both sides arguments on who put more effort, I have made my opinions known, but to pull random facts out of the air to try and prove a point is crazy.

"Facts can be used to prove anything 14% of all people know that"

- Homer J Simpson