JR on ESPN

[SuperUnknown]

Michael Peca made similiar comments in Thursday Newsday.Stan Fischler feels Peca's agent Don Meehan is behind Peca's comments.Meehan wants to play

I guess Meehan's intelligent enough to understand that no season isn't good for his clients now or over the next 10 years whether the NHLPA wins or not. (as in, money lost from this season + possibly another or at least half another will never be made up even if the NHLPA wins all the way next year)

 

[Hockeyfan02]

Well, even if the cap was linked with revenues, wasn't the max cap at 42 ?

Yes, but if the revenues go down so does the cap. TSN had an interesting graphic how much the cap would go down if revenues went down 30% and the ceiling would be 26 million. I can understand how the players would not want linkage.

JR did not say he wanted the players to vote as the original poster said. He said if an offer is tangible, it should be given the players to vote. I caught the interview on ESPNews with Buccigros so it might not be the same as that on ESPN.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Isn't a cap that's fixed and not linked with revenues a bad deal for the players? If the league somehow increases its revenues, all the extra money would go to the owners?

There's still the 50/50 profit sharing

 

[DJ Spinoza]

I think something's up, for sure. Nobody else finds this interview with Roenick a little strange?

Roenick has to this point been completely against any kind of cap. I can recall him even being his usual arrogant self about the issue during last season.

And now, after the top guns come in for a meeting that lasts 9 hours, his opinion seems to have changed a good bit.

The sequence of everything is not a coincidence. I think they've come to an agreement in principals and will hammer out the details tommorow. I am going on nothing but my own speculation, but I just can't see how everything in the last two days, especially the long meeting with Bettman and Goodenow (who hardly seemed to be on speaking terms since August) and now these comments from Roenick and Theodore all don't add up to something.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Yep. Revenues should eventually increase. The players are thinking too short-term if they prefer a static cap to one linked to revenues.

It proves the point I was trying to drive home in another thread that the players have no faith in the NHL and in their abilitie to make the league they play in one of the most popular.

 

[jratelle19]

I think Roenick let his comments slip (the comments about accepting a higher cap and having the players vote on it). He did raise a glass of wine, so I'm sure he was feeling no pain tonight, by the way he sounded.

They will rebroadcast that interview on SportsCenter at 1 AM

 

[Crows*]

Hopefully the hattrick of meetings tommrow will end up being a natural hattrick and a deal.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I think something's up, for sure. Nobody else finds this interview with Roenick a little strange?

Roenick has to this point been completely against any kind of cap. I can recall him even being his usual arrogant self about the issue during last season.

And now, after the top guns come in for a meeting that lasts 9 hours, his opinion seems to have changed a good bit.

The sequence of everything is not a coincidence. I think they've come to an agreement in principals and will hammer out the details tommorow. I am going on nothing but my own speculation, but I just can't see how everything in the last two days, especially the long meeting with Bettman and Goodenow (who hardly seemed to be on speaking terms since August) and now these comments from Roenick and Theodore all don't add up to something.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

I think something's up, for sure. Nobody else finds this interview with Roenick a little strange?

Roenick has to this point been completely against any kind of cap. I can recall him even being his usual arrogant self about the issue during last season.

And now, after the top guns come in for a meeting that lasts 9 hours, his opinion seems to have changed a good bit.

The sequence of everything is not a coincidence. I think they've come to an agreement in principals and will hammer out the details tommorow. I am going on nothing but my own speculation, but I just can't see how everything in the last two days, especially the long meeting with Bettman and Goodenow (who hardly seemed to be on speaking terms since August) and now these comments from Roenick and Theodore all don't add up to something.

Theodore ? I'm not aware of any comments from him, what did he say ?

But I also get that feeling. I think I've never been this optimistic. Tomorrow, long day at university. I hope when I get back, I'll be drinking a beer to the 05 season and playoffs.

 

[The Big Rig]

I think he meant Thibault

 

[Cole Caulifield]

I think he meant Thibault

Good call !

 

[DJ Spinoza]

Yeah, sorry, I mean Thibault. I didn't hear it myself, obviously. I was going by what a poster said on the first page in this thread. I guess I saw "Th" and the poster had a Montreal Canadiens logo in their avatar with a toque on it, so I must have just assumed Theodore.

 

[CarlRacki]

It proves the point I was trying to drive home in another thread that the players have no faith in the NHL and in their abilitie to make the league they play in one of the most popular.

The players may very well believe that, but it doesn't make sense. I think one thing we can all agree on is that the league hasn't been run particularly well for the past decade. Despite that, league revenues rose over $900 million between 1998 and 2004, according to Forbes.
In a post-lockout, post-ABC NHL, I doubt revenues will rise as sharply. But, barring utter disaster, they will rise and the players would be wise to demand a share of that rather than a set figure that in six years will seem paltry.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Yeah, sorry, I mean Thibault. I didn't hear it myself, obviously. I was going by what a poster said on the first page in this thread. I guess I saw "Th" and the poster had a Montreal Canadiens logo in their avatar with a toque on it, so I must have just assumed Theodore.

But it's true what Zednik (the poster) said. I didn't hear Thibeault saying it myself but I heard the journalist who interviewed Thibeault repeat it.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

The players may very well believe that, but it doesn't make sense. I think one thing we can all agree on is that the league hasn't been run particularly well for the past decade. Despite that, league revenues rose over $900 million dollars between 1998 and 2004, according to Forbes.
In a post-lockout, post-ABC NHL, I doubt revenues will rise as sharply. But, barring utter disaster, they will rise and the players would be wise to demand a share of that rather than a set figure that in six years will seem paltry.

I think that the talent level is increasing steadily, and soon the negative effects of over expansion will be no more.

I've never seen a hockey game on HDTV but everyone says it's so amazing. If it's true then that's one little factor that might help sell the game better in the states.

And if they manage to change the on-ice rules enough to improve the product without alienating long time hardcore fans (no shootoot please...) then yes, the players are being a big shortsighted.

 

[grego]

I always thought from all the player interviews that they were willing to take a long lockout, not just for themselves but for every player that comes after them. Wouldn't it make sense then if they are thinking, supposedly of future players, to take the deal that will link revenues to the cap so they can get the most money in the future for players?

 

[Enoch]

Wasn't it Roenick who proposed capping the players salaries? For those saying Roenick has went 180 in the last few hours, I think you would be surprised. For a player known for speaking his mind, he hasn't been that beligerent torwards either side. Obviously he will have bias, but it has not been too aparent in most of his interviews.

 

[Reilly311]

TSN finally has a link to what JR said

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=113756

 

[Sinurgy]

I think a lot of you are missing the point of Roenicks comments. It wasn't so much that the players are ok with a cap as is it was if they NHL puts forth a decent proposal the players should be allowed to vote. I don't see the NHL offering anything without a cap and he knows this and thinks if it's decent the players would probably accept it but I think the main emphasis is that there should be a vote. He stated very clearly that the players are not being given the chance to vote!!!! That is what stood out to me in that interview anyway.

 

[jcab2000]

Maybe JR needs the money badly

I wonder if he likes the over or under in the Super Bowl?

He's probably sick of his wife nagging at him to get out of the house.

 

[rwilson99]

TSN finally has a link to what JR said

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=113756

Saw it on the 2am Sportscenter, around 2:15-2:25, essentially said a 45-50M Hard Cap should be put up for a vote.

 

[tantalum]

Is the possible "compromise" a grandfathering in of the linkage? Will the NHL perhaps eat a couple more years of losses by having a static cap which changes to a floating cap (linkage) after the fans begin to come back to the game?

So many possibilities for the PA if they negotiate off the NHL proposal...which I must remind some was simply a proposal to be negotiated not a take it or leave it offer (i.e. there was obvious things the NHL would move on).

 

[tantalum]

Saw it on the 2am Sportscenter, around 2:15-2:25, essentially said a 45-50M Hard Cap should be put up for a vote.

Well if that's the case why haven't they brought in a luxury tax/hard cap system? It was an obvious choice for the players to propose once it looked like the owners were not backing off the hard cap. Perhaps this is what Goodenow meant on his message on the NHLPA website that he was going to work off the 24% rollback Dec 9 offer.

 

[SENSible1*]

There's still the 50/50 profit sharing

Not if the owners don't get a linkage for when revenues drop. They'll pull that off the table in a hurry if they accept a fixed cap.

 

[tantalum]

Not if the owners don't get a linkage for when revenues drop. They'll pull that off the table in a hurry if they accept a fixed cap.

Agreed. And I think they'll also push for a 10 year deal at that point. Enough time for the revenues to recover fully. They may agree to drop linkage but if it means further short term pain (less pain but potential pain nonetheless) they are going to want something on the back end to make up for it.