thefiestygoat Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 HAHA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risky Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Peace out. You still owe me a year of hockey, you dumb bastard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 and what was the ultimate error in judgement ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the error in judgement was that he believed the resolve of the owners was not strong and that they could not handle a long lockout. He was incorrect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he could've been right about the owners, I don't think the resolve of the owners was strong enough to take it a 2nd year. He had word from some supposedly loyal players that they were with him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruM Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 WOW did not expect it this fast... Pretty much tells me that he got on his knees for the owners.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 and what was the ultimate error in judgement ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the error in judgement was that he believed the resolve of the owners was not strong and that they could not handle a long lockout. He was incorrect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he could've been right about the owners, I don't think the resolve of the owners was strong enough to take it a 2nd year. He had word from some supposedly loyal players that they were with him <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Napoleon and Hitler had loyal players too. I highly doubt 1,2 or 10 years out would've gotten the players a better deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risky Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 and what was the ultimate error in judgement ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the error in judgement was that he believed the resolve of the owners was not strong and that they could not handle a long lockout. He was incorrect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he could've been right about the owners, I don't think the resolve of the owners was strong enough to take it a 2nd year. He had word from some supposedly loyal players that they were with him <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My god, 7, are you still this much in denial? Bob Goodenow and a bunch of millionaires declared financial war on a bunch of BILLionaires, the majority of whom, unlike the players, DO NOT rely on NHL income for their wealth. Bogged-down-good (new one I thought of) and his 10 supporters lost this fight on September 15, 2004. It was a giant charade that has now played out in a way that anyone with the slightest understanding of economics and business dynamics saw coming. The fans paid for it. The support staff paid for it. The players paid for it. And now, Goodenow's out of a job. Wow, huge surprise. If I was one of the dissenting players who was silenced, I'd be sending him a bill for my 2004-2005 salary, big money I know I'll never see again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 If anything, Goodenow was too nice with the NHLPA this time and had too little power. When traitors try to sabotage the NHLPA...Goodenow could do nothing. 18-24 months is what they committed to. When that is through, you move on to plan B. Goodenow's big mistake is instituting no safeguards against the cowardly players, as soon as Madden opened his mouth, Goodenow should've served him a bowl of cereal with water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 as soon as Madden opened his mouth, Goodenow should've served him a bowl of cereal with water. WTF does that even *mean*? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risky Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 7's off his meds again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrick Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 (edited) If anything, Goodenow was too nice with the NHLPA this time and had too little power. When traitors try to sabotage the NHLPA...Goodenow could do nothing. 18-24 months is what they committed to. When that is through, you move on to plan B. Goodenow's big mistake is instituting no safeguards against the cowardly players, as soon as Madden opened his mouth, Goodenow should've served him a bowl of cereal with water. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey '7'!!! I have a question for you.... Why are you about the only one (forgive me if I missed the other "10" or so on this forum) that is so pro Goodenow? It's so obvious that he was fighting a losing battle from the start. There was no way the players were going to win this labor war with a "NO WAY SALARY CAP" ideology/philosophy. The math or accounting does not lie. Even the players eventually woke up and scrutenized the Levitt report. Edited July 28, 2005 by hattrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 If anything, Goodenow was too nice with the NHLPA this time and had too little power. When traitors try to sabotage the NHLPA...Goodenow could do nothing. 18-24 months is what they committed to. When that is through, you move on to plan B. Goodenow's big mistake is instituting no safeguards against the cowardly players, as soon as Madden opened his mouth, Goodenow should've served him a bowl of cereal with water. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey '7'!!! I have a question for you.... Why are you about the only one (forgive me if I missed the other "10" or so on this forum) that is so pro Goodenow? It's so obvious that he was fighting a losing battle from the start. There was no way the players were going to win this labor war with a "NO WAY SALARY CAP" ideology/philosophy. The math or accounting does not lie. Even the players eventually woke up and scrutenized the Levitt report. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know if you were around earlier, but I stated that it made no difference to me which side was stronger, or which side is winning. I was on the side of what's right. Most people here are of the lemming mentality, just be on the side that's winning, at all costs. I believe the plan B for the players (and owners) was to take there chances in court math and accounting does lie, many times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 I was on the side of what's right. And how were the players right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrick Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 If anything, Goodenow was too nice with the NHLPA this time and had too little power. When traitors try to sabotage the NHLPA...Goodenow could do nothing. 18-24 months is what they committed to. When that is through, you move on to plan B. Goodenow's big mistake is instituting no safeguards against the cowardly players, as soon as Madden opened his mouth, Goodenow should've served him a bowl of cereal with water. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey '7'!!! I have a question for you.... Why are you about the only one (forgive me if I missed the other "10" or so on this forum) that is so pro Goodenow? It's so obvious that he was fighting a losing battle from the start. There was no way the players were going to win this labor war with a "NO WAY SALARY CAP" ideology/philosophy. The math or accounting does not lie. Even the players eventually woke up and scrutenized the Levitt report. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know if you were around earlier, but I stated that it made no difference to me which side was stronger, or which side is winning. I was on the side of what's right. Most people here are of the lemming mentality, just be on the side that's winning, at all costs. I believe the plan B for the players (and owners) was to take there chances in court math and accounting does lie, many times <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for that. So I interpret this as "the owners' philosophy was right and the players' philosophy was wrong" or maybe I misread. Please clarify... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 If anything, Goodenow was too nice with the NHLPA this time and had too little power. When traitors try to sabotage the NHLPA...Goodenow could do nothing. 18-24 months is what they committed to. When that is through, you move on to plan B. Goodenow's big mistake is instituting no safeguards against the cowardly players, as soon as Madden opened his mouth, Goodenow should've served him a bowl of cereal with water. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey '7'!!! I have a question for you.... Why are you about the only one (forgive me if I missed the other "10" or so on this forum) that is so pro Goodenow? It's so obvious that he was fighting a losing battle from the start. There was no way the players were going to win this labor war with a "NO WAY SALARY CAP" ideology/philosophy. The math or accounting does not lie. Even the players eventually woke up and scrutenized the Levitt report. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know if you were around earlier, but I stated that it made no difference to me which side was stronger, or which side is winning. I was on the side of what's right. Most people here are of the lemming mentality, just be on the side that's winning, at all costs. I believe the plan B for the players (and owners) was to take there chances in court math and accounting does lie, many times <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for that. So I interpret this as "the owners' philosophy was right and the players' philosophy was wrong" or maybe I misread. Please clarify... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ok, whatever I interpret your statements as a poor attempt at humor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 I would like to add one last comment to this thread, and I won't say another word (mostly because I have 7 on ignore and he's half the posts): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrick Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 (edited) %5 Edited July 28, 2005 by hattrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrick Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 If anything, Goodenow was too nice with the NHLPA this time and had too little power. When traitors try to sabotage the NHLPA...Goodenow could do nothing. 18-24 months is what they committed to. When that is through, you move on to plan B. Goodenow's big mistake is instituting no safeguards against the cowardly players, as soon as Madden opened his mouth, Goodenow should've served him a bowl of cereal with water. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey '7'!!! I have a question for you.... Why are you about the only one (forgive me if I missed the other "10" or so on this forum) that is so pro Goodenow? It's so obvious that he was fighting a losing battle from the start. There was no way the players were going to win this labor war with a "NO WAY SALARY CAP" ideology/philosophy. The math or accounting does not lie. Even the players eventually woke up and scrutenized the Levitt report. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know if you were around earlier, but I stated that it made no difference to me which side was stronger, or which side is winning. I was on the side of what's right. Most people here are of the lemming mentality, just be on the side that's winning, at all costs. I believe the plan B for the players (and owners) was to take there chances in court math and accounting does lie, many times <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for that. So I interpret this as "the owners' philosophy was right and the players' philosophy was wrong" or maybe I misread. Please clarify... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ok, whatever I interpret your statements as a poor attempt at humor. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. Not at all. I am just trying to understand your point of view. I apologize if you interpret it that way. Keep in mind we all bring misinterpretations on ourselves. The old saying goes --- "you make your bed, you lie in it" or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlovyVary Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 (edited) I find it a little surprising. All those interviews, and Goodenow maintained he had no intention of leaving. Sportsnet interviewed Linden who said he had great confidence in Bob, and was looking forward to moving on together. I thought he was going to get fired if anything, but they probably wanted to let him off easy. Edited July 28, 2005 by KarlovyVary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 I would like to add one last comment to this thread, and I won't say another word (mostly because I have 7 on ignore and he's half the posts): <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anyone care to form a conga line? Regardless of who's side you're on, or who you felt was right. It's not the players' fault. Goodenow failed at his job. Negotiator. The league needed fixing but Goodenow could've gotten a better deal, like the song goes... "you gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em." He got that part wrong. But with his resignation, he figured out the rest... "know when to walk away and when to run." So long, Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 like the song goes... "you gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> anyone think of Andy Dick as Matthew talking to Joe Rogan on News Radio when they hear this line? or is it just me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 I would like to add one last comment to this thread, and I won't say another word (mostly because I have 7 on ignore and he's half the posts): <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anyone care to form a conga line? Regardless of who's side you're on, or who you felt was right. It's not the players' fault. Goodenow failed at his job. Negotiator. The league needed fixing but Goodenow could've gotten a better deal, like the song goes... "you gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em." He got that part wrong. But with his resignation, he figured out the rest... "know when to walk away and when to run." So long, Bob. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> :boogie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwindog Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 I believe that had they gone to court the players would have lost. I believe that the owners were negotiating in good faith. I believe that Goodenow was directing the NHLPA NOT to negotiate in good faith. I believe Goodenow wanted complete capitulation before he'd even broach any new CBA. I believe some players will be hurt by the outcome some will be helped. I think the new CBA is for the good of everyone involved. I believe ^7^ is not right, nor virtuous, and neither morally or intellectually superior. That is my opinion - which is neither right nor wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Bob refused to ever negotiate. He led the players down the exact wrong path - here they needed someone who would negotiate, when in 95 his tactics worked perfectly. The players could've had this deal in January and gotten a half-season salary out of it. An 18-24 month lockout was a completely irrational plan. There's just not going to be a magic pile of money that the owners were going to find in Year 2, and they weren't coming back to an NHL with a worse CBA. Players don't have the kind of money to sit out two seasons and make that back over the course of a career - that is absolutely impossible. This simple fact made capitulation the only course of action - and Goodenow's termination the only course of action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 I believe that had they gone to court the players would have lost. I believe that the owners were negotiating in good faith. I believe that Goodenow was directing the NHLPA NOT to negotiate in good faith. I believe Goodenow wanted complete capitulation before he'd even broach any new CBA.I believe some players will be hurt by the outcome some will be helped. I think the new CBA is for the good of everyone involved. I believe ^7^ is not right, nor virtuous, and neither morally or intellectually superior. That is my opinion - which is neither right nor wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're one smart dog! Now that hockey is back can you let your owner use the computer again!? 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.