The legacy of Bob Goodenow

[Big Phil]

If you don't know how unions work then just say so instead of wild speculations and doomsday prophecies.

Did you even read my post? I've been in a union. I know the good and bad sides of them. I've been a union rep. I see the corruption on both sides. 2021 in our world is a classic example in so many ways as to how the unions don't represent the people like we think. It doesn't always work how it is supposed to. The public gag order during the lockouts for example was a perfect example of how things are being done as ethically as you think they are.

 

[K1984]

Two full NHL seasons combined have been cancelled under his watch, and the owners still spend like they are drunken sailors. Imagine having an employee as bad as the Arizona Coyotes though, but he still gets to keep his job because he is the boss' son. That's pretty much what Bettman is doing with the Coyotes. They belong elsewhere.

The one full season was absolutely worth it.

They spent like drunken sailors before - some of them. My team couldn't spend like drunken sailors or even have the ability economically to compete in the NHL period. Now they can, a lot of which is due to Bettman.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

The one full season was absolutely worth it.

They spent like drunken sailors before - some of them. My team couldn't spend like drunken sailors or even have the ability economically to compete in the NHL period. Now they can, a lot of which is due to Bettman.

Or... maybe, just maybe they could have learned how to hold themselves to a budget?

The 2005 lockout is more or less necessary

The 2013 one was inexcusable

 

[JackSlater]

If you don't know how unions work then just say so instead of wild speculations and doomsday prophecies.

Seems that he does know how unions generally work. Goodenow wasn't some humble servant of the union who simply obeyed the wishes of the players. He also didn't have the power to dictate what the union would do, but he did have the ability to influence the direction that the union moved in. He doesn't deserve all of the blame for the 2004 lockout by any stretch but he did fail in his role.

 

[Hobnobs]

Seems that he does know how unions generally work. Goodenow wasn't some humble servant of the union who simply obeyed the wishes of the players. He also didn't have the power to dictate what the union would do, but he did have the ability to influence the direction that the union moved in. He doesn't deserve all of the blame for the 2004 lockout by any stretch but he did fail in his role.

There's a big difference in failing at leadership or making wrong decisions and, as Phil is implying, corruption.

and nowhere was it said that Goodenow was but a humble servant...

 

[ES]

Or... maybe, just maybe they could have learned how to hold themselves to a budget?

The 2005 lockout is more or less necessary

The 2013 one was inexcusable

I agree on this. But I also think that NHLPA wanted to delay the negotiations as long as possible which eventually led to the lockout. But at least didn't repeat that mistake and therefore the current CBA goes to 2026.

The resolution of the first lockout was IMO a win for players as salary cap didn't go through (with the exception of entry-level deals)

 

[Hobnobs]

I agree on this. But I also think that NHLPA wanted to delay the negotiations as long as possible which eventually led to the lockout. But at least didn't repeat that mistake and therefore the current CBA goes to 2026.

The resolution of the first lockout was IMO a win for players as salary cap didn't go through (with the exception of entry-level deals)

Both sides delayed and from 95-05 Bettman and the owners kept talking about they were going to put in the new CBA with everything from salary caps to aids tests being on the agenda.

The 05 lockout was just inevitable. Major changes and a lot to hash out. And it still wasnt good enough for either side.

 

[MS]

I’ve never had a problem with Bettman.

He is what he is and his role is what it is and if it wasn’t Bettman it would be someone just like Bettman. Or likely worse.

 

[Big Phil]

The one full season was absolutely worth it.

They spent like drunken sailors before - some of them. My team couldn't spend like drunken sailors or even have the ability economically to compete in the NHL period. Now they can, a lot of which is due to Bettman.

None of it comes to this if there were people at the top who loved the game of hockey. This includes Bettman. And of course it includes Goodenow and Fehr. Paul Kelly, the short lived rep was a guy who was an actual fan of the game. Imagine Paul Kelly, and, say, Ron Francis hashing out a deal with both sides wanting their fair share but also recognizing that they all benefit when the game and the NHL benefits. No lockouts would have happened, ever.

There's a big difference in failing at leadership or making wrong decisions and, as Phil is implying, corruption.

and nowhere was it said that Goodenow was but a humble servant...

I said corruption in my own experiences. At least what I have seen. Unions and management make very strange bedfellows. But in the NHLPA, you've got Eagleson and I don't know what you'd call it, but "corruption" is a pretty good word for the catastrophe of the 2005 lockout, on both sides of course. They robbed many players of a year they never got back, or ever will. Yeah, I'd be awfully mad if I followed Goodenow down that path and was left with that result.

 

[K1984]

None of it comes to this if there were people at the top who loved the game of hockey. This includes Bettman. And of course it includes Goodenow and Fehr. Paul Kelly, the short lived rep was a guy who was an actual fan of the game. Imagine Paul Kelly, and, say, Ron Francis hashing out a deal with both sides wanting their fair share but also recognizing that they all benefit when the game and the NHL benefits. No lockouts would have happened, ever.



I said corruption in my own experiences. At least what I have seen. Unions and management make very strange bedfellows. But in the NHLPA, you've got Eagleson and I don't know what you'd call it, but "corruption" is a pretty good word for the catastrophe of the 2005 lockout, on both sides of course. They robbed many players of a year they never got back, or ever will. Yeah, I'd be awfully mad if I followed Goodenow down that path and was left with that result.

This could be true in a fantasy land, but in reality with the dollars and cents involved along with the unique economics of the NHL you need high powered lawyers running the league more than hockey fans. It's a business at the end of the day.

I love the game as much as the next guy, but if I owned an NHL team, was losing millions, and couldn't spend up to the level of richer owners to compete then I would also be pretty invested in taking a stand on reforming to a model that made my team viable. Even if it meant writing off a season. Hell, I don't own a team and I was more than happy purely as a fan to burn that year in order to get a cap even though no hockey was awful.

 

[Big Phil]

This could be true in a fantasy land, but in reality with the dollars and cents involved along with the unique economics of the NHL you need high powered lawyers running the league more than hockey fans. It's a business at the end of the day.

I love the game as much as the next guy, but if I owned an NHL team, was losing millions, and couldn't spend up to the level of richer owners to compete then I would also be pretty invested in taking a stand on reforming to a model that made my team viable. Even if it meant writing off a season. Hell, I don't own a team and I was more than happy purely as a fan to burn that year in order to get a cap even though no hockey was awful.

You do need people who are book smart, yes, but I can remember Bobby Orr writing a letter to both sides during the lockout pleading that for the good of the game they get a deal done. When you snub Orr, then you probably don't love the game. All I am saying is with those smarts could have come some love for the game in a way that both parties can benefit in the end. They were playing with people's livelihoods here.

 

[K1984]

You do need people who are book smart, yes, but I can remember Bobby Orr writing a letter to both sides during the lockout pleading that for the good of the game they get a deal done. When you snub Orr, then you probably don't love the game. All I am saying is with those smarts could have come some love for the game in a way that both parties can benefit in the end. They were playing with people's livelihoods here.

I'd have no problem snubbing Orr if what I was doing was trying to change an economic model that doesn't cost me tens of millions of dollars per year while not being at all competitive.

For the record - I love the game.

 

[Big Phil]

I'd have no problem snubbing Orr if what I was doing was trying to change an economic model that doesn't cost me tens of millions of dollars per year while not being at all competitive.

For the record - I love the game.

What I mean is neither side was working together on it. And didn't even try a year or two prior to that.

 

[JianYang]

The Globe and Mail has a great article about the end of his career. I assume the link will work for non-Canadians

Goodenow plunges from power in 2005

Some excerpts:

"But Goodenow plunged from being rated 1-2 with Bettman on the 2004 list of powerbrokers affecting Canadian sport. A year ago, they were almost equals in holding the reins on Canada's national sport -- or withholding it from Canadians. Since then, Goodenow lost the battle to resist a salary cap, lost the confidence of the players -- most notably their elected president, Trevor Linden -- and lost his job."

"He'd warned the players from the outset to be prepared for a two-year lockout to get what they wanted, and for the first six months, the support was fairly solid. But then there were cracks; and the cracks grew into chasms."

"When Goodenow took over the NHLPA in 1992, the average player salary was $271,000. At the end of the most recently completed season, 2003-04, it was $1.81-million."

I do vaguely recall the comment about the 2 year stoppage, but I felt it more to be a posturing move.

I also remember the nhl saying they wanted a hard cap and that they would die on that hill if they had to, so both parties were talking in extremes.

Eventually, the billionaires outlasted the millionaires, and we got hockey one year later, but I don't think goodenow was some sort of anomoly. Fehr also lost a half season as player rep.

What I got out of this is that nhl owners are very hard nuts to crack with Bettman as their advocate regardless of who is leading the PA.

 

[FerrisRox]

I don't hate Bettman, but I've never understood why any hockey fan would "like" the guy. THREE work stoppages / Lockouts on his watch, and you think he's good?

Do you actually think that is somehow Bettman's fault? Do you think he goes to a panel of 32 millionaires and billionaires he works for and tells them what to do?

Or do you think it's more likely that the Board of Director's who employ him tell him what to do?

 

[FerrisRox]

I believe the most common misconception of Bettman is how people think he just does things on a whim. I’m in the mindset where it’s the majority of the owners to do the thinking in the talking behind the scenes, while he’s just a mouthpiece.

Of course. This point is repeatedly lost on people. They want to pretend he's the boss.

 

[Hobnobs]

What I mean is neither side was working together on it. And didn't even try a year or two prior to that.

They started negotiating in 2003. What are you talking about?

 

[Big Phil]

They started negotiating in 2003. What are you talking about?

In good faith?

Not that I can ever remember.

 

[The Panther]

Do you actually think that is somehow Bettman's fault? Do you think he goes to a panel of 32 millionaires and billionaires he works for and tells them what to do?

Or do you think it's more likely that the Board of Director's who employ him tell him what to do?

Here's what I think: The 1994 Work Stoppage was in no way Bettman's fault. He was hired for the specific reason to implement a salary cap, and the owners and players both knew they were going to come to a head, etc. In a sense, Bettman was hired specifically to oversee a work-stoppage that would lead to a salary cap. So, I don't fault him for the 1994-95 period -- anybody the Board hired was going to be hired to do exactly the same thing. He did what he was hired for.

But after that...? There has been an entire season wiped out (never happened in any other major-professional sport in N.A.), and half of another one. Of course, Bettman tried to avoid it and tried to work between the two camps, but the fact is -- he failed.

He's earned tens of millions of dollars for his job, and he's failed miserably, despite his (presumably) best efforts. There is literally nothing worse for a pro-sports League than having an entire season wiped out.

 

[FerrisRox]

Here's what I think: The 1994 Work Stoppage was in no way Bettman's fault. He was hired for the specific reason to implement a salary cap, and the owners and players both knew they were going to come to a head, etc. In a sense, Bettman was hired specifically to oversee a work-stoppage that would lead to a salary cap. So, I don't fault him for the 1994-95 period -- anybody the Board hired was going to be hired to do exactly the same thing. He did what he was hired for.

But after that...? There has been an entire season wiped out (never happened in any other major-professional sport in N.A.), and half of another one. Of course, Bettman tried to avoid it and tried to work between the two camps, but the fact is -- he failed.

He's earned tens of millions of dollars for his job, and he's failed miserably, despite his (presumably) best efforts. There is literally nothing worse for a pro-sports League than having an entire season wiped out.

And you think Gary Bettman wiped out the season? You think the owners all wanted to make it work but Gary Bettman - with zero authority over them and without even a vote on whether to accept or deny a deal - somehow shut down the season? You think he "failed" and yet the owners, all wildly successful businessmen decided to not fire him? Why would they do that?

You are incredibly naive if you believe that.

 

[The Panther]

And you think Gary Bettman wiped out the season? You think the owners all wanted to make it work but Gary Bettman - with zero authority over them and without even a vote on whether to accept or deny a deal - somehow shut down the season? You think he "failed" and yet the owners, all wildly successful businessmen decided to not fire him? Why would they do that?

You are incredibly naive if you believe that.

If you still want to know what I think, re-read my post.

The owners' job is to make their franchise work. Bettman's job is to make the NHL work. He failed. If you're the dude at the top, you get the big money and you take the blame if it fails.

It failed.

 

[Big Phil]

And you think Gary Bettman wiped out the season? You think the owners all wanted to make it work but Gary Bettman - with zero authority over them and without even a vote on whether to accept or deny a deal - somehow shut down the season? You think he "failed" and yet the owners, all wildly successful businessmen decided to not fire him? Why would they do that?

You are incredibly naive if you believe that.

What is the point of the job if you are not responsible for things when they go bad? Sure the owners were bad, but that all ties in with Bettman as well. There hasn't been a work stoppage in the NFL in 35 years. In the NHL it is whenever the CBA runs out. Again, like I have said, you can have all of the smarts in the world but if you don't love the game, it will show in your work. You need both.

 

[FerrisRox]

What is the point of the job if you are not responsible for things when they go bad? Sure the owners were bad, but that all ties in with Bettman as well. There hasn't been a work stoppage in the NFL in 35 years. In the NHL it is whenever the CBA runs out. Again, like I have said, you can have all of the smarts in the world but if you don't love the game, it will show in your work. You need both.

What is the point of the job? Make money for the owners.

Loving the game has absolutely nothing to do with the job of the commissioner. Their job, quite clearly, is to maximize revenue for the owners. That's it.

 

[Big Phil]

What is the point of the job? Make money for the owners.

Loving the game has absolutely nothing to do with the job of the commissioner. Their job, quite clearly, is to maximize revenue for the owners. That's it.

I get it, I mean, I wasn't born yesterday of course. But if you are wondering the problems that the NHL has and has had for decades, it is that there aren't enough people at the top that truly love the game and have its best interest at heart. Now, you can say Bettman doesn't need to love the game, and fine, but that's the point I am making. So many of hockey's problems have stemmed from this.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

If you still want to know what I think, re-read my post.

The owners' job is to make their franchise work. Bettman's job is to make the NHL work. He failed. If you're the dude at the top, you get the big money and you take the blame if it fails.

It failed.

I am last to the party here, but this is an incredibly wrong statement. The owners collectively make the NHL work.