NHLPA/Saskin Email Controversy (Saskin fired)

[Jarqui]

Maybe Steve Larmer was right......

“This organization has taken a giant step backwards, back to the days of Eagleson where a select few made decisions for the group.†— taken from a letter Larmer put out after his resignation from the NHLPA in November 2005.

In terms of following their constitution, maybe so. I’m not so sure or convinced of fraud like Eagleson did which to me was worse.

Goodenow led them off a cliff. Saskin, or should we say Brutus, stabbed Bob in the back and snatched the power, circumventing the constitution, when the door went ajar as Goodenow’s plan splattered on the rocks below.

In a couple of days, Saskin should be out. They can continue to recover and rebuild, now unfettered by Saskin, from Goodenow’s mess in an open environment with a clean slate. The committee to review and upgrade their constitution is underway. Sheila Block’s review is underway. Shortly, they’ll probably get a search underway for a new director so they can properly ratify him by a proper vote at their summer meeting. By that time, they should also have some constitutional revisions drafted and insight from Sheila Block into what went wrong with the CBA negotiations, Goodenow’s firing, Saskin’s hiring & elections, etc. They’ll be well on their way to corrective action and a stronger, rebuilt union.

Aside from getting bogged down by Saskin, the other things needed to be done and are very good things for them to do in light of the disaster of their CBA negotiations.

 

[Egil]

Goodenow gave interviews and there were published reports that he clearly told the players to be prepared for two years.

If you have asource that says otherwise please direct me to it because everything I have seen was two years.

What a genius idea. The average NHL career is at leat 5 but no more than 8 season. A negotiating strategy that eliminates 1/4 of your members career earnings to get 10% more in the future isn't an intelligent (or reasonable) position. A 2 year war chest also would have allowed the owners to wait the union out (thats a drop dead date for the PA). I think a rift and capitulation from the union was inevitable the second the season was canceled, and I would be SHOCKED if Bob wasn't prepared for that.

 

[Hoss]

It seems there just might be smoke where there is fire. I think it is clear someone was tampering with email, was it done on behalf of Goodenow or Saskin? Or, was it done for both?
IMHO, Goodenow had to go because his determination to continue the LOCKOUT was contrary to the desires of his employers(fickle as they may be). Although Saskin was a logical choice to assume the role as the NHLPA's Grand Poobah on an iterim basis, he should be removed from office now, if for nothing else to appease the vocal minority, who's devisive actions are keeping the NHLPA's house in dissaray.

 

[FlyerFan]

You can say that Goodenow wasn't incompetent, but voluntarily offering a 24% rollback on player salaries was a huge negotiating blunder, especially if (as the comments from more than a handful of players after the NHLPA's December 2004 proposal indicate) most of the NHLPA didn't realize it was going to get put on the table. Yeah, I know - some people swore then (and probably still do) that it was a PR ploy, nothing more ... but the owners happily accepted it, knowing that they had been given a major bargaining chip unprompted, and began asking for more knowing that Goodenow had backed the players into a corner with that move.

Even if you want to say it was a PR stunt, you never make a major concession when trying that tactic because it will always be accepted and considered a sign of weakness from your position ... and nothing good from your POV can come as a result. It wasn't necessarily incompetence, but it was certainly piss-poor negotiating on his behalf.

With the players receiving 75% of the revenue, the NHLPA was bargaining from a position of weakness.

They had to give up something. If not opposition to linkage and the cap, then what should they have given up?

 

[bling]

It seems there just might be smoke where there is fire. I think it is clear someone was tampering with email, was it done on behalf of Goodenow or Saskin? Or, was it done for both?
IMHO, Goodenow had to go because his determination to continue the walkout was contrary to the desires of his employers(fickle as they may be). Although Saskin was a logical choice to assume the role as the NHLPA's Grand Poobah on an iterim basis, he should be removed from office now, if for nothing else to appease the vocal minority, who's devisive actions are keeping the NHLPA's house in dissaray.

Do you realize this was not a walkout and Goodenow had nothing to do with continueing it. This was a LOCKOUT instituted by the NHL Teams Management.

 

[Hoss]

Do you realize this was not a walkout and Goodenow had nothing to do with continueing it. This was a LOCKOUT instituted by the NHL Teams Management.

Yes of course, brainfart on my part, I do understand the NHL locked out the players. I thought lockout, wrote walkout, how silly.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Hope so.
I get the feeling a lot of people SAY Lockout but still BELIEVE Walkout."

 

[Fugu]

You can say that Goodenow wasn't incompetent, but voluntarily offering a 24% rollback on player salaries was a huge negotiating blunder, especially if (as the comments from more than a handful of players after the NHLPA's December 2004 proposal indicate) most of the NHLPA didn't realize it was going to get put on the table. Yeah, I know - some people swore then (and probably still do) that it was a PR ploy, nothing more ... but the owners happily accepted it, knowing that they had been given a major bargaining chip unprompted, and began asking for more knowing that Goodenow had backed the players into a corner with that move.

Even if you want to say it was a PR stunt, you never make a major concession when trying that tactic because it will always be accepted and considered a sign of weakness from your position ... and nothing good from your POV can come as a result. It wasn't necessarily incompetence, but it was certainly piss-poor negotiating on his behalf.

Look at it this way though. If a cap of any kind was going to get accepted, there was no way teams were going to get their payrolls under a cap level without some incredibly austere measures that helped neither the team nor the players. I think people made too little of exactly how it is you implement a cap when there are guaranteed contracts. Expecting teams that were over the first cap level to buy out all those contracts and then to also be barred from re-signing those players would be ludicrous. Why would teams accept this kind of punishment to themselves? It w ould amount to the throwing away of tens of millions of dollars to players, while simultaneously completely gutting teams. A rollback offer tried to take advantage of the reality of the situation-- reminding some of the money teams that they could end up throwing away millions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

 

[Wetcoaster]

When the NHL Players Association's executive board convenes tonight to discuss the future of Ted Saskin, members are expected to talk about ways to sever ties to the embattled executive director. That may be more difficult than some players expect.

Saskin's 10-page employment contract, a copy of which was obtained by the Star, provides an assurance that he will be handsomely compensated if he's fired by the NHLPA.

A clause in Saskin's contact calls for the union to pay him the equivalent of 15 months salary if he's terminated with notice – which would amount to a payout of more than $2 million (all figures U.S.). The same clause, which is sure to come under scrutiny tonight, says Saskin may be terminated at any time by the union "without notice for reasons of just cause."
........
Saskin's contract has drawn criticism because, even though he has minimal experience as a union executive director, he makes more than twice the salary of Don Fehr, the longtime leader of baseball's union.

Also, instead of referring the negotiation to a labour lawyer, union president Trevor Linden, a forward with the Vancouver Canucks who has minimal experience negotiating contracts, dealt with Saskin's contract by himself.
.........
Linden signed the contract on behalf of the union but didn't date it. Saskin signed Feb. 13, 2006.

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/190558

I would love to be listening in on that conference call.

Is reading your employers' e-mail "just cause"????

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I'm sure this makes Trevor even more popular in the eyes of the players now.

I'd say I can't believe the players put that much trust in one guy, but I wonder how much they actually knew about and how much was passed off under another story.

 

[Hawker14]

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

However, I don't foresee much of a change even if Saskin is removed. Bettman will just appoint Daly as the new executive director.

 

[Jarqui]

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/190558

I would love to be listening in on that conference call.

Is reading your employers' e-mail "just cause"????

Add to that all the items in Chelios' statement of claim and fiducary duties for reporting Goodenow's peeping and something will stick.

 

[GSC2k2*]

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/190558

I would love to be listening in on that conference call.

Is reading your employers' e-mail "just cause"????

Doubtful. Just cause is nearly impossible to make stick, even for heinous offences.

 

[Buffaloed]

On a related note, Ken Kim has been asked to take an official leave of absence by union counsel, Stu Grimson.

NY Post link here, scroll to the bottom of the story on Simon.

Kim is probably the star witness against Saskin. I bet he sang like a canary to save his own hide.

 

[Dave is a killer]

Saskin sent home on paid leave of absence

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=199810&hubName=nhl

 

[mr gib]

makes sense

 

[Wetcoaster]

This is going to get interesting.

 

[Eddie Vedder]

He deserves it. What a bonehead move by Saskin.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Add to that all the items in Chelios' statement of claim and fiducary duties for reporting Goodenow's peeping and something will stick.

It may depend upon the outcome of the Toronto police investigation and if any charges are laid.

 

[oilers9799]

How's Chelios, Klatt, and Roloson looking now, when they were stating that Saskin's hiring was unjust? Everyone was initially getting on them for being dissenters but now there claims look to be substantiated.

 

[itshomerdoh]

How's Chelios, Klatt, and Roloson looking now, when they were stating that Saskin's hiring was unjust? Everyone was initially getting on them for being dissenters but now there claims look to be substantiated.

Did they have any specific claims initially?

 

[RangerBoy]

Saskin is finished.The players are just trying to find a way to dump Saskin without paying the rest of the money remaining on the Saskin contract.They are still paying Goodenow.The NHLPA will have a new executive director...again

 

[RangerBoy]

Did they have any specific claims initially?

They just wanted a search committee set up.Saskin would have been the guy if Linden didn't just give him Saskin the job.Interim executive director would have meant executive director

The dissenters didn't want a salary cap.It's interesting that most of them are no longer in the NHL-Irbe,Klatt,McKenzie,Damphousse.They wanted to fight the labor agreement all over again.Their claims were dismissed by every labor relations board and court in the United States.Saskin screwed himself with the email accounts.If it wasn't for the email account issue,Saskin would have survived

Haven't these players ever heard of having an email account outside of the NHLPA accounts?Yahoo.Gmail.etc

Shelia Bloch is a Chelios loyalist.She has no creditability because of her association with Chelios

 

[Fugu]

They just wanted a search committee set up.Saskin would have been the guy if Linden didn't just give him Saskin the job.Interim executive director would have meant executive director

The dissenters didn't want a salary cap.It's interesting that most of them are no longer in the NHL-Irbe,Klatt,McKenzie,Damphousse.They wanted to fight the labor agreement all over again.Their claims were dismissed by every labor relations board and court in the United States.Saskin screwed himself with the email accounts.If it wasn't for the email account issue,Saskin would have survived

Haven't these players ever heard of having an email account outside of the NHLPA accounts?Yahoo.Gmail.etc

Shelia Bloch is a Chelios loyalist.She has no creditability because of her association with Chelios

Do you consider yourself neutral on an issue that involves the players and their union head? Chelios may have hired Bloch, but then to say she has no credibility? How do you back up a statement like that? Who in their right mind would hire an attorney with zero credibility to handle an investigation of this scope and magnitude.... just saying. [Perhaps you would like to say she has no credibility with you due to the fact Chelios hired her.]


On the other aspects of your post, it is perhaps reasonable to say that if due process had been followed, Saskin would have been considered the best man for the job. In a way he has no excuse for not instructing Linden otherwise. He was an employee of the NHLPA previous to all of this - for many years - thus should have been intimately familiar with the NHLPA guidelines and constitution. What none of us can know is - absent the controversy over his hiring - would the Side Letters ever have become an issue.

 

[Fugu]

Kim is probably the star witness against Saskin. I bet he sang like a canary to save his own hide.

It's every rat for himself when it's time to jump ship!

Unlike the political scene where the top guy can issue a pardon for your crimes - if convicted - there is no equivalent for Kim. I guess he's okay if no charges are brought by the Crown... other than a nasty speck on his resume.