NHLPA/Saskin Email Controversy (Saskin fired)

[Fugu]

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

You are mostly right. I think his contract says that if he's released 'with notice' the NHLPA has to pay him a severance of $2 MM. However if he's released with 'just cause' it isn't as clear-- at least in the way the contract has been interpreted by the media. It may be easier to just pay him to leave.

Here's the link to the Toronto Star article by Rick Westhead and an excerpt:

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."

It's unclear how much compensation – if any – Saskin would be entitled to if fired with just cause.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

I just hope that Bob Goodenow doesn't resurface. Otherwise he and Bettman will be planning for a new lockout or strike in a few years time.

I'd like to see new leadership at the NHLPA and NHL.

GHOST

 

[GKJ]

So if Saskin gets fired and would get compensated and the same happened for Goodenow...no wonder Mike Modano needs money to feed his dog.

 

[X0ssbar]

This is bad news for the league IMO. If the man who worked so closely with the league to negotiate this CBA is out of the picture already then you can bet any new union head that is hired will have their own ideas of what the CBA should look like and won't be as motivated to make the current agreement succeed as "it was the other guy who negotiated it". Also from what I understand the NHLPA has the right to reopen the CBA 3 years in...that means if the NHLPA goes out and hires a Goodenow clone hardliner you can bet there is a strong possibility this league could be looking at another work stoppage after next season.

This league and its union can't get out of their own friggan way and somehow the vocal minority like Chelios/Klatt/Roloson who will be out of this league in a few years (Klatt is gone already) get their way.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

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.

That's fine - but Goodenow apparently just handed the 24% rollback idea to the owners without consulting with the rank and file. Offering to roll back salaries should have come after the owners conceded a few points, not at the start of negotiations because otherwise it appears (A) desperate from the players POV to get a deal done sooner rather than later, and (B) emboldens the owners to really dig in and hold out.

The owners had made it clear they wanted a cap - they hadn't offered anything in return before the NHLPA's offer on December 9, 2005. Goodenow handed over the 24% rollback unprompted and without any assurances of getting anything back for the players. That was the beginning of the end - making the first concession (and a huge one at that) all but assured the players of having to accept a cap when the dust settled.

 

[discostu]

This is bad news for the league IMO. If the man who worked so closely with the league to negotiate this CBA is out of the picture already then you can bet any new union head that is hired will have their own ideas of what the CBA should look like and won't be as motivated to make the current agreement succeed as "it was the other guy who negotiated it". Also from what I understand the NHLPA has the right to reopen the CBA 3 years in...that means if the NHLPA goes out and hires a Goodenow clone hardliner you can bet there is a strong possibility this league could be looking at another work stoppage after next season.

This league and its union can't get out of their own friggan way and somehow the vocal minority like Chelios/Klatt/Rolston who will be out of this league in a few years (Klatt is gone already) get their way.

There is the threat that the new person is going to have big ambitions, but, I think the players themselves want a lot of the PA drama to end. I think from the players perspective, that they likely have less problems with the cap than what they probably were worried about at implementation. The cap has risen, and, the bulk of the players have mainained or increased their earning potential under this system.

I think most of the players want to go back to dealing with hockey. They all sacrificed quite a bit for the lockout, which they gave in to the owners demand anyways. The prospect of going through that again probably wouldn't entice them too much. Any new leader would have a helluva battle trying to get support for a hard line stance.

 

[Fugu]

So if Saskin gets fired and would get compensated and the same happened for Goodenow...no wonder Mike Modano needs money to feed his dog.

Yes, that'll be about $11 MM please. Ouch. No wonder Chelios is grumpy-- I mean people do eat a lot of chili but that's a lot of beans!


Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway... there are more shoes that will drop. The Brooks at NY Post mentions the communication between player agents and the NHL as a back door during the CBA negotiations. Not pretty.

Saskin's departure will not be the end of it, not by a long shot. The group of players led by Chris Chelios, Matt Schneider, Dwayne Roloson, Eric Lindros and now-retired Trent Klatt, will continue to press for information that will prove suspected direct communication between agents and NHL officials during the lockout. If such proof is uncovered, these agents will be decertified, and thus unable to continue to represent NHL players. This is the next bombshell.

 

[octopi]

I'm agreeing with the tone of the thread. This cannot be a good sign.

 

[Fugu]

That's fine - but Goodenow apparently just handed the 24% rollback idea to the owners without consulting with the rank and file. Offering to roll back salaries should have come after the owners conceded a few points, not at the start of negotiations because otherwise it appears (A) desperate from the players POV to get a deal done sooner rather than later, and (B) emboldens the owners to really dig in and hold out.

The owners had made it clear they wanted a cap - they hadn't offered anything in return before the NHLPA's offer on December 9, 2005. Goodenow handed over the 24% rollback unprompted and without any assurances of getting anything back for the players. That was the beginning of the end - making the first concession (and a huge one at that) all but assured the players of having to accept a cap when the dust settled.

You're correct that in retrospect that was a bad negotiating move. However consider if the allegations that player agents were in direct communication with the NHL during this period, and that players were starting to waiver in their positions... if you are the NHL why wouldn't you go for the jugular? If Saskin was as cozy with the league as some have implied (or to be harsher, stabbing Goodenow in the back).... no way the NHL bites on anything offered by Goodenow. They know they can get more and they know how to go about doing it.

What I find interesting is that one of the final offers by a Goodenow-led union was the cap you mention owners wanting, at $45- 50 MM (don't recall the specific number now). Of course, Bettman wanted linkage but he also had to be pretty certain he could get linkage to turn that deal down. Goodenow's offer of a rollback probably was a PR move, but I think it only backfired because the union fell apart. If the NHL had an "in" into the NHLPA workings and player support, they could very easily design a strategy to fully exploit that-- which is what they did quite perfectly I might add. Goodenow's biggest problem was in who he trusted and had as a right hand man, not that a rollback was offered. I somehow think this turned out to be something that could be exploited after the fact vs. a legitimate negotiating blunder in and of itself.

 

[GSC2k2*]

You're correct that in retrospect that was a bad negotiating move. However consider if the allegations that player agents were in direct communication with the NHL during this period, and that players were starting to waiver in their positions... if you are the NHL why wouldn't you go for the jugular? If Saskin was as cozy with the league as some have implied (or to be harsher, stabbing Goodenow in the back).... no way the NHL bites on anything offered by Goodenow. They know they can get more and they know how to go about doing it.

What I find interesting is that one of the final offers by a Goodenow-led union was the cap you mention owners wanting, at $45- 50 MM (don't recall the specific number now). Of course, Bettman wanted linkage but he also had to be pretty certain he could get linkage to turn that deal down. Goodenow's offer of a rollback probably was a PR move, but I think it only backfired because the union fell apart. If the NHL had an "in" into the NHLPA workings and player support, they could very easily design a strategy to fully exploit that-- which is what they did quite perfectly I might add. Goodenow's biggest problem was in who he trusted and had as a right hand man, not that a rollback was offered. I somehow think this turned out to be something that could be exploited after the fact vs. a legitimate negotiating blunder in and of itself.

This is a new one. Fugu, are you suggesting that the NHL only annihilated the NHLPA because they had a mole?

Please tell me you are not saying that.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Also from what I understand the NHLPA has the right to reopen the CBA 3 years in

I believe the option to re-open is after four years.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

This is a new one. Fugu, are you suggesting that the NHL only annihilated the NHLPA because they had a mole?

Please tell me you are not saying that.

I think he's saying that some people (not him, others) allege that Saskin was the NHL's mole and helped keep the league informed on what the union's position and sentiment were.

However, the "Saskin putting the knife in Goodenow's back" statement (whether it was here or in another thread) is interesting. I'm not sure I completely buy into it, but it's certainly interesting.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I believe the option to re-open is after four years.

It was four years from the date it was signed ... meaning the first chance the players can reopen it is September 15, 2009 with 120 days notice (or in about 2 1/2 years). If that doesn't happen, it goes on to September 15, 2011 with the players having the right to extend the contract one year, to September 15, 2012. The owners cannot reopen the CBA.

 

[Mitchnesses]

I'd like to see new leadership at the NHLPA and NHL.

Agreed. We need new leadership that can get the NHL back as a premiere sport in people's minds. Bettman needed to go a long time ago.

 

[blitzkriegs]

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

Didn't he just graduate from law school within the past 2 years?

Oh, but he knows the issues.

 

[discostu]

Yes, that'll be about $11 MM please. Ouch. No wonder Chelios is grumpy-- I mean people do eat a lot of chili but that's a lot of beans!


Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway... there are more shoes that will drop. The Brooks at NY Post mentions the communication between player agents and the NHL as a back door during the CBA negotiations. Not pretty.

What's going to make this whole thing interesting, is that at the time, the presence of back-door communications was seen as a good thing. People were looking to guys like Gretzky and Lemieux to have a large influence on the negotiations, because of their dual perspective. If the disgruntled players are going after agents who may have been involved in some communications, I think it will only be a matter of time before people start questioning the roles of players like Gretzky, who did work at getting both sides ot the table at one point.

I'm not even saying that Gretzky did anything wrong in that exchange, but, if people are being called out for not following the proper channels, it's not far fetched that they'd reference something like this as a comparison.

With the stakes as high as they are (i.e. agents who's entire business could be threatened), people are going to go into very aggressive stances.

Whoever the NHLPA does bring in as their next leader is going to have a huge mess on their hands to clean up.

 

[Egil]

Yes, that'll be about $11 MM please. Ouch. No wonder Chelios is grumpy-- I mean people do eat a lot of chili but that's a lot of beans!


Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway... there are more shoes that will drop. The Brooks at NY Post mentions the communication between player agents and the NHL as a back door during the CBA negotiations. Not pretty.

I don't see this going anywhere. The Saskin Hiring issue was basically dead until this e-mail scandal broke (and that is what has done Ted in). The NHLPA clearly fractured after the season was cancelled, rehashing that 3 years later isn't helping anyone. If the Chelios gang wants to go down that path, I believe they will be shunned by 90% of the NHLPA. The NHLPA's goal should be reconciliation, not vengence, which is what going after agent's (and essentially the players those agents represent) would be.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I don't see this going anywhere. The Saskin Hiring issue was basically dead until this e-mail scandal broke (and that is what has done Ted in). The NHLPA clearly fractured after the season was cancelled, rehashing that 3 years later isn't helping anyone. If the Chelios gang wants to go down that path, I believe they will be shunned by 90% of the NHLPA. The NHLPA's goal should be reconciliation, not vengence, which is what going after agent's (and essentially the players those agents represent) would be.

Sheila Block was already investigating the business and financial affairs of the NHLPA as approved by the Executive Committee prior to the e-mail allegations surfacing. Chelios and his group were able to convince a majority that the probe was needed.
http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?articleid=287990&page=NewsPage&service=page

Linden was not in favour of the probe which would encompass looking at his actions during this time as well:

"I don't think (the review) is needed," said Linden. "I think most of the questions that were asked, they were all answered to satisfaction at Whistler. Why spend a bunch of money to figure out the same things that we figured out at Whistler?"

 

[Wetcoaster]

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

Apparently not in the opinion of the majority of the player reps.

But during the conference call, Chelios is said to have convinced enough player reps that she was neutral.

"Everyone's going to have an opinion," said Johnson. "There's 700 guys and not everyone's going to agree.

"But at the end of the day, the majority speaks. Obviously, the majority feel comfortable with her and trust her to do a good job and that's why we're getting her to do it."

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2007/01/26/3453907-cp.html

 

[LuLuBelle]

It seems like they could re-open the whole issue of Saskin's hiring, too. Afterall, why should the NHLPA pay Saskin during his paid leave of absence if he wasn't even hired according to association rules to begin with? If I were an NHLPA member, I wouldn't be too happy at the thought....

 

[thenextone]

the current cba is pretty favourable to the players. i can't see why they would re open negotiations and risk losing all the momentum the nhl has supposedly gained

 

[X0ssbar]

There is the threat that the new person is going to have big ambitions, but, I think the players themselves want a lot of the PA drama to end. I think from the players perspective, that they likely have less problems with the cap than what they probably were worried about at implementation. The cap has risen, and, the bulk of the players have mainained or increased their earning potential under this system.

I think most of the players want to go back to dealing with hockey. They all sacrificed quite a bit for the lockout, which they gave in to the owners demand anyways. The prospect of going through that again probably wouldn't entice them too much. Any new leader would have a helluva battle trying to get support for a hard line stance.

I hope your right. I'm about as die hard as they come but I'm not even sure I could take another work stoppage.

IMO I think this system is working pretty well for both parties. Of course there are always some issues that could used addressed (waiver wire, trading salary, resiging rentals after you traded them, player punishments, revenue sharing, etc, etc) but as a whole I like how its played out the first two years. Owners franchise values are rising and they have a fixed percentage of revenue and certainly every player should being able to feed their dogs at the very least

 

[bling]

Regardless of how the CBA has worked out favourably for the players, the fact that Saskin and Linden used possibly illegal tactics and at the very least underhanded behaviour to get Saskin installed as the leader of the NHLPA is what is being questioned here.

 

[Fugu]

This is a new one. Fugu, are you suggesting that the NHL only annihilated the NHLPA because they had a mole?

Please tell me you are not saying that.

I forget I have to carefully weigh and re-weigh every letter of every word I write here with all you legal types here. I'll even be nice and refrain from the lawyer jokes.

Okay, there are media reports now suggesting that the direct communication happening between the NHL and player agents might have been... what... questionable? If I say unethical it's likely to become an ethics debate so I won't say it. In discussing negotiation blunders with IB, one does have to consider all the information coming out. What really happened however may not be known for some time.

Of course I won't be able to find a link, but I do recall Bettman attempting to avoid making a joke about the apparent feedback he was getting about the state of the player's union, perhaps around January and February. Something wasn't right, we probably never will know what it was and/or who it was but it does seem that the NHL had a bit of insight into union affairs. I'm not blaming the NHL either. How do you look a gift horse in the mouth, eh?

 

[Larionov]

No one ever comes back from a "paid leave of absence" in any business or profession. At that point, it is clear that your employer has lost all confidence in you. All that is left to do now is determine the cleanest, easiest way to part company with Saskin, which will almost certainly be to just suck it up and pay him his severance.

Saskin will feel, not without reason, that he was a victim of a witch hunt here by the Chelios gang. The Goodenow loyalists clearly wanted someone's head on a stick as payback for the way the lockout ended, and weren't going to quit until they got it. Well, now they have their pound of flesh, courtesy of Saskin's own stupidity (note to file for the next NHLPA Executive Director -- privacy is a serious issue). Everyone loves a good conspiracy, but no one likes the conspirator, and to the extent that Saskin was viewed as the guy who threw Goodenow under the bus (again, with good reason) you could argue that this garbage was going to continue until they hounded Saskin from office.

This is an opportunity for the 'PA to find an Executive Director on whom they can all agree, and move forward. I highly doubt that the next guy is going to be a hardliner who will agitate for another big fight with management, not while so many players are still bearing the scars from that lost season. The genie is now out of the bottle in terms of linkage and a cap, and it's hard to imagine any appetite amongst players for losing yet another season to discover that the owners still mean business.

Saskin now has to walk the plank in the name of unity and a fresh start, but let's be clear -- Ted Saskin and Trevor Linden did the right thing for their union, and for the game of hockey, in suing for peace during the Spring of '05. The majority of players would no doubt still agree with that if asked privately.