DEFIANT MEEHAN DENIES CHARGES,calls critics "slime-balls"

[Crazy_Ike]

Some of the rumours/innuendo I'd like to see addressed by Sheila Block:

**Iginla and Pronger using back channels to announce NHLPA's intentions to accept a cap with the NHL, undermining Goodenow in the process. If these conversations did take place, were they done with Meehan's and/or Linden's knowledge.
**Linden doing a complete 360, and switching negotiation strategy to include a salary cap and appointing Saskin as lead negotiator, without the full knowledge of the negotiating and/or executive committees and/or player reps.
**Linden signing Saskin to a new contract, without following the provisions of the NHLPA constitution.
**Meehan pulling the strings behind the scenes by using his clients, Linden, Iginla, and Pronger to undermine Goodenow and the NHLPA's negotiating process. Also what influence or conversations Meehan may have had with Linden regarding Saskin's promotion to executive director and contract.
**Whether Goodenow and/or Saskin authorized, participated in, or were aware of the viewing of players' email correspondence, and when.


Meehan certainly is an influential agent, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Only time will tell but it sure is an interesting soap opera.

I hope it's all true, and then Meehan is put in place as the head of the NHLPA, for if it were true, it would make it abundantly clear he was looking out for a great deal more of the NHLPA than Goodenow and his cronies ever were.

 

[Weary]

Decertification of the union does not lead to the use of replacement players. It leads to a completely free market with no minimum salaries, no standard players contract, no guaranteed contracts, no arbitration rights, no grievance rights, no guaranteed perks like moving expenses, training camp expenses, health/life/dental plans, no specified set of working conditions, no pension, no guaranteed right to free agency at a certain point (players could be signed to an endless series of one-year contracts with the team holding the option), no nothing for the players.

More accurate woud be "no union-negotiated guaranteed contracts, no union-negotiated arbitration rights, no union-negotiated grievance rights, no union-negotiated guaranteed perks, no union-negotiated working conditions, no union-negotiated pension." None of the preceding are sentenced to extinction if the players give up collective bargaining.

A team offerering "an endless series of one-year contracts" would surely be forsaken in favor of teams with more reasonable demands.

 

[GSC2k2*]

More accurate woud be "no union-negotiated guaranteed contracts, no union-negotiated arbitration rights, no union-negotiated grievance rights, no union-negotiated guaranteed perks, no union-negotiated working conditions, no union-negotiated pension." None of the preceding are sentenced to extinction if the players give up collective bargaining.

A team offerering "an endless series of one-year contracts" would surely be forsaken in favor of teams with more reasonable demands.

Even more accurate would be "no player-wide ..." and, on your part, "none of the preceding are sentenced to absolute extinction". As I stated above, upper tier players can write their own ticket.

On the other hand, the hundreds of interchangeable parts that comprise the bottom 60% of the league can command little. If you are not a star-caliber player coming up, you will sign whatever contract is put in front of you to play in the NHL, including a contract with endless options. You do not have the leverage to go around looking for "teams with more reasonable demands".

 

[Weary]

On the other hand, the hundreds of interchangeable parts that comprise the bottom 60% of the league can command little. If you are not a star-caliber player coming up, you will sign whatever contract is put in front of you to play in the NHL, including a contract with endless options. You do not have the leverage to go around looking for "teams with more reasonable demands".

I see no ethical or moral problems with that. It sounds like a fair system to me.

 

[hillbillypriest]

edit: The only other attempt at decertification was in the NBA in 1996. After the NBPA and the NBA came to a new CBA agreement, a dissident group of stars (led by Michael Jordan and Patrick Ewing) pushed for decertification, got a vote and lost 226-134. A few days later, the NBPA voted overwhelmingly to accept a deal

Apparently there were more rank and file players than stars in the NBPA decertification vote. Given the roster size of NHL teams in comparison to NBA teams, the margin of victory for the "no" side in any NHLPA decertification vote would be even more lopside I reckon.

Anyway, nice post...

 

[hillbillypriest]

I see no ethical or moral problems with that. It sounds like a fair system to me.

Agreed, but in a franchise operation with only 30 teams, the number of prospective non-elite players chasing a limited number of roster spots would, I suggest, give a whole lot more leverage to teams than to MOST players.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I see no ethical or moral problems with that. It sounds like a fair system to me.

Nor do I, per se. However, it would not make for much of a sporting league.

More to the point initially made, it would not seem very palatable to the vast majority of players; hence it has no chance of happening.

 

[PecaFan]

I've always seen Brooks as more of a codpiece, myself.

Too few will get it, though.


This whole PA thing continues to astound and boggle. "Oh my god! Agents were actually trying to reach a CBA agreement!"

Well yeah, that's kinda the whole point about negotiating. You're *supposed* to want an agreement. It was clear all along that the NHLPA brass *weren't* trying.

 

[Wetcoaster]

More accurate woud be "no union-negotiated guaranteed contracts, no union-negotiated arbitration rights, no union-negotiated grievance rights, no union-negotiated guaranteed perks, no union-negotiated working conditions, no union-negotiated pension." None of the preceding are sentenced to extinction if the players give up collective bargaining.

A team offerering "an endless series of one-year contracts" would surely be forsaken in favor of teams with more reasonable demands.

The downside for the owners is that it engages the full weight of anti-trust law.

 

[Mike Works*]

as if things couldn't get worse for Saskin and the NHLPA

 

[Weary]

as if things couldn't get worse for Saskin and the NHLPA

I think that a blogger's attempt at satire is the least of Saskin's worries.

 

[Fugu]

as if things couldn't get worse for Saskin and the NHLPA

This is a worthless link-- and post. Some anonymous blogger decides to satirize this affair, and you think it's relevant to the Business forum discussion? Maybe HF should add a Comedy Central forum for useless drivel like this. It also has little to do with Meehan. Thank you for wasting my time on this. I thought it was a legit entry.

 

[Mike Works*]

This is a worthless link-- and post. Some anonymous blogger decides to satirize this affair, and you think it's relevant to the Business forum discussion? Maybe HF should add a Comedy Central forum for useless drivel like this. It also has little to do with Meehan. Thank you for wasting my time on this. I thought it was a legit entry.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

This is a worthless link-- and post. Some anonymous blogger decides to satirize this affair, and you think it's relevant to the Business forum discussion? Maybe HF should add a Comedy Central forum for useless drivel like this. It also has little to do with Meehan. Thank you for wasting my time on this. I thought it was a legit entry.

Listen to this man, we wouldn't want anything to detract from the seriousness and portentiousnessosity of the debate.