Devs82-83 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 http://nypost.com/sports/40738.htm By Larry Brooks - NY Post February 17, 2005 -- THEY don't trust the commissioner, they don't trust the owners, they probably don't trust their general managers and coaches to any great extent, either. Now the players can't even trust each other. Their union is in shambles. They are a battered band of serfs in disorderly retreat. What a mess. Gary Bettman and his zealous allies on the Board have scored their victory. Now it's only a matter of when and where the final score will be totaled. They'll get their cap and they'll get it at their price, and they'll get it sooner rather than later and they'll get all of it simply because the union turned on itself over the last four or five days. I think you're going to see the NHL next year. I think you're going to see the unveiling of the new NHL with the June Draft that will feature (Sidney) Crosby and Hope. I think there's going to be a CBA completed within the next two months. I think that just as I always thought there'd be no 2004-05. Never in a million years could I have believed players would cross the union line to play in a scab league next year. That's why I always believed that the NHL could never hope to construct a successful lockout exit strategy that would involve playing with scabs, and that failure doing so would lead to a mid-season deal. But that was before this weekend, when a small group of players apparently pulled an end-around not only on Bob Goodenow and the executive council, but on one another. No one quite knows who said what to whom, and where or when, but that's just the point. The players believe there are traitors in their midst and intend to root them out. There are charges and threats being issued on the PA's secure players-only website chat-room message board. So here's the crux of it: if the union splintered (not caved) in these negotiations when it mattered most, why would anyone expect different behavior under the stress of unilateral implementation? Goodenow lost control of the players as the deadline approached, that's obvious. There was, by all accounts, a dreadful lack of communication between the union and the rank-and-file. So some players Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Brooks is actually right...........long pause...............The union is cracked and because of it a deal will get done and Goodnow will be caned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 spin n 1: a swift whirling motion (usually of a missile) 2: the act of rotating rapidly; "he gave the crank a spin"; "it broke off after much twisting" [syn: twirl, twist, twisting, whirl] 3: a short drive in a car; "he took the new car for a spin" 4: rapid descent of an aircraft in a steep spiral [syn: tailspin] 5: a distinctive interpretation (especially as used by politicians to sway public opinion); "the campaign put a favorable spin on the story" v 1: revolve quickly and repeatedly around one's own axis; "The dervishes whirl around and around without getting dizzy" [syn: spin around, whirl, reel, gyrate] 2: stream in jets, of liquids; "The creek spun its course through the woods" 3: cause to spin; "spin a coin" [syn: whirl, birl, twirl] 4: make up a story; "spin a yarn" 5: form a web by making a thread; "spiders spin a fine web" 6: work natural fibers into a thread; "spin silk" 7: twist and turn so as to give an intended interpretation; "The President's spokesmen had to spin the story to make it less embarrasing" 8: prolong or extend; "spin out a visit" [syn: spin out] Source: WordNet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoJohnnyGo Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I heard on the radio today that there is a group of players putting their own proposal together and will present it to the league on Monday, sure sounds like the Union is cracked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Maybe if Goodenow had kept the players informed instead of surprising them at every turn the players wouldn't have felt the need to rebel. Every player I heard interviewed was surprised by the 24% rollback and the offer of a cap later on. No wonder the players rebelled, they apparently had very little input on their own work lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisg19 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I heard on the radio today that there is a group of players putting their own proposal together and will present it to the league on Monday, sure sounds like the Union is cracked. ESPN hinted at something similar this morning... chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 First off, there is too much disparity in pay and tenure for the players association to be considered a real union. This is just a group of gifted individuals some that need to work and others just too complacent to remember who pays thier salary. The Players association is NOT a union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Union traders? Hmmm so Brooks only aligns himself with the upper echelon of the union. He only likes the rich guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldon Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Maybe if Goodenow actually negotiated in September a cap, & all the other issues, all the players could have made a lot of $ this year. This is no one's fault but Goodenow's. This is the freakin' NHL, not MLB, not NFL, not NBA. This league is not hiding billions of dollars. There never was a lot of TV money. If 1 owner in Chicago doesn't show his luxury suite revenue, the players think the whole league is lying. The coffers will now be considerably lower than if they bargained a deal in September or October. So they can blame themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Goodenow played chicken with the owners. Problem was he was driving a Toyota, the owners were driving a Hummer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Brooks = Holik's mouthpiece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 This guy can't hold back his bias. Traitors he now calls them. First of all, I think that there is some dispute as to whether there were any behind the scenes discussions. Second of all, even if there were, why brand them with the traitor label. Its quite clear that the union was not communicating well with the rank and file. Third, as a union member, I don't think you give up your right to free thought, regardless of Goodenow and his 6 goons tactics. Its comical even down to the picture in the article with the caption which says something like so and so looks at unwanted Devil jerseys in models. Hmmm, if they are so unwanted why is someone looking at them? Brooks is a complete moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 One of the other really funny things about this is Brooks has always screamed about the gag rule Bettman had on the owners, not only that they couldn't talk to the media but that they couldn't talk to the players. He thought that if they could just talk to the players they would somehow crack, you see. The big market teams would realize they wanted to be back in business and they would fire Bettman. But what actually happened when the gag order was lifted by Bettman was that the owners talked to the players and the result wasn't what Brooks wanted. So now the players involved are traitors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Brooks = Holik's mouthpiece Brooks = a$$Holik's a$$piece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 spinn 1: a swift whirling motion (usually of a missile) 2: the act of rotating rapidly; "he gave the crank a spin"; "it broke off after much twisting" [syn: twirl, twist, twisting, whirl] 3: a short drive in a car; "he took the new car for a spin" 4: rapid descent of an aircraft in a steep spiral [syn: tailspin] 5: a distinctive interpretation (especially as used by politicians to sway public opinion); "the campaign put a favorable spin on the story" v 1: revolve quickly and repeatedly around one's own axis; "The dervishes whirl around and around without getting dizzy" [syn: spin around, whirl, reel, gyrate] 2: stream in jets, of liquids; "The creek spun its course through the woods" 3: cause to spin; "spin a coin" [syn: whirl, birl, twirl] 4: make up a story; "spin a yarn" 5: form a web by making a thread; "spiders spin a fine web" 6: work natural fibers into a thread; "spin silk" 7: twist and turn so as to give an intended interpretation; "The President's spokesmen had to spin the story to make it less embarrasing" 8: prolong or extend; "spin out a visit" [syn: spin out] Source: WordNet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 if the owners met with some group of players that did this without Goodenows approval, that's not negotiating in good faith. Especially if the owners contacted the players first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezzer Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 if the owners met with some group of players that did this without Goodenows approval, that's not negotiating in good faith. Especially if the owners contacted the players first. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's true. The owners ought to be very careful about this sort of thing. Then again, if the players want to reorganize, they should do it legitimately too. They should start by hiring a new chief... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 if the owners met with some group of players that did this without Goodenows approval, that's not negotiating in good faith. Especially if the owners contacted the players first. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What if the players reached out first? Hmmm? I am not a labor lawyer but doesn't that violate the same premise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Okay. Owners that break with Bettman are "saviors". Players that break with Goodenow are "traitors". Do I have this down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smelly Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 if the owners met with some group of players that did this without Goodenows approval, that's not negotiating in good faith. Especially if the owners contacted the players first. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What if the players reached out first? Hmmm? I am not a labor lawyer but doesn't that violate the same premise? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is no legal prohibition on one party (or portion thereof) reaching out to the other. Also -- Brooks is a fool. The only reason the players did a run-around on Goodenow was because he would not consider the opinions of the rank and file. If goodenow had any balls, he would have put the owners' last offer up to a unionwide vote. But he didn't, because he knew he would lose. He will be out of job within months. And the owners will formalize their resounding victory in due time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Okay. Owners that break with Bettman are "saviors".Players that break with Goodenow are "traitors". Do I have this down? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, that's about it. And Brooks has been screaming for months that the gag rule prevents the owners from talking to the press AND to the players to understand the real situation (and somehow create a crack in the ownership side, btw, which would somehow make them saviors). I didn't see ANYONE on this board argue at the time that it might lead to the situation that certain people have described (ie - negotiations in bad faith) - but then again, people are entitled to believe what they want to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 There are charges and threats being issued on the PA's secure players-only website chat-room message board. I'm sure one of our more computer savvy posters can hack into this site and pass along that info/know-how to the rest of us. I'd really like to see who is posting what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils_info Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 give me the address and I'll do my best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwindog Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I wonder if anyone posts about Scott Stevens there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 (edited) Okay. Owners that break with Bettman are "saviors".Players that break with Goodenow are "traitors". Do I have this down? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, that's about it. And Brooks has been screaming for months that the gag rule prevents the owners from talking to the press AND to the players to understand the real situation (and somehow create a crack in the ownership side, btw, which would somehow make them saviors). I didn't see ANYONE on this board argue at the time that it might lead to the situation that certain people have described (ie - negotiations in bad faith) - but then again, people are entitled to believe what they want to believe. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well I was one of the few that said Goodenow was being just as if not more repressive than Bettman was being accused of. Bettman kept the owners from talking to the media in specific terms big deal...Goodenow OTOH while he let the players talk to the media the first anti-union comment and the goons come a'calling a few hours later and the swift retraction. Not only that but the owners were always apparently fully informed by Bettman while Goodenow did a shabby job at best and a collusive job at worst at not keeping his union infomred. And even Goodenow never mentioned any kind of vote that the players supposedly got, according to 7. If they DID get to vote on every proposal why were they so surprised about things? Edited February 17, 2005 by Hasan4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.