Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Art Vandelay, Nov 19, 2005.
How big a problem is this?
Its a huge problem...
The problem being, the prior NHLPA executive giving the NHLPA members unreasonable expectations.
Thus forcing the current group to be more insular about the agreements they should accept for the good of the game.
Hopefully these effects will come out in the wash and a represenative open NHLPA will evolve.
Not being corrupt is an unreasonable expectation?
where there's smoke, there's fire.
i eagerly watch this unfold as i believe linden and saskin put goodenow out to dry. afterall, goodenow had the full support of the exec. when he said it would take 18-24 months to get a favourable cba.
Their expectation was that they were the NHL.
If there's a strike.. I will shoot myself in the head. Seriously...
Here's a TSN link:
I'd like to hear Larmer explain/elaborate how a step has been taken backwards to the days of Eagleson. That's some pretty strong words.
The thing that really ticks me off about this is that Larmer makes a statement about the new CBA (and the events surrounding it) 90% of which people will never know about. I mean come on, with all of the closed door sessions that the public will probably never know about how is Larmer supposed to get support from the public, if he deserves support, if we don't know what really went on behind the scenes?!?!?! Pretty friggin lame if you ask me.
The PA fought many years to wrestle control back of their union for the players. The Eagleson reference would apply to the process whre Linden and co. figured they should just do the obvious and get Saskin in for the good of the game. But this bypasses a process in a bad precedent way for the future best interests of the players at large. And its an important principle. But it has nothing to do with corruption.
I wonder if Larmer will clarify that, I would think so.
I would think that the media would follow up with Larmer on this. There's a HUGE difference between the Eagleson era and what happened with the CBA this time around.
That's way to harsh of a statement to leave out there without further clarification.
This is an interesting development. For the most part, the critics have been mouthpieces or players who were reported Goodenow/hardline loyalists. (Klatt, Roloson, Chelios, Domi, Avery, Lindros, etc.). Larmer is highly regarded in hockey circles, and generally regarded as a class act. He's a former Hockey Digest Man of the Year. He was one of those who rarely said anything, but when he did, everybody listened. Most of those who have publicly supported the hiring process (Sakic, Iginla, Alfredsson, Damphousse, Shanahan) are very highly regarded.
I still find it interesting that none of the executive committee members said anything during the hiring process, yet they chose to articulate their concerns after it was complete.
That may be but the fact still remains, how is the general public supposed to side with Larmer given the fact that they didn't know what went on behind the scenes during this whole process?
Linden's attitude throughout this whole thing was confusing.
Anyone see Adrian Aucoin and Eric Lindros last night?
I believe the "where there's smoke there's fire" theory
The Klatt Kontigent just grew a little more - here is the purpose statement of his website - the rest is password protected. Has anyone got the documents they filed with the NLRB?
"The purpose of this website is to distribute information to all NHLPA members so that all members are informed of the illegal activity within their union and the steps which are being taken by over sixty (60) NHLPA members to secure legal counsel and put a stop to it. It is the mission of these players to educate all NHLPA members of this illegal activity, correct it and ensure that it can never happen again. An independent comprehensive review of all that has happened must occur so that all NHLPA members can have faith in their union once again and know that it is acting in all the NHLPA members' best interests through democracy as opposed to a few unilaterally making decisions for all.
This page was created because the NHLPA has refused the free flow of information to the NHLPA players. NHLPA members have requested the names, email addresses and telephone numbers of all of the NHLPA Executive Board members and the NHLPA membership and those players have been denied access to this information. Ted Saskin asked these players why they wanted this information. He then told the players that he did not want NHLPA members to receive "misinformation" and he refused to provide this information to which union members have a legal right. Therefore, union members do not posess all of the information and don't have the ability to communicate with one another in an open forum. Little information is being given to the NHLPA membership and the players are being asked to vote on Mr. Saskin's contract which averages in excess of $2.1 million per year.
This initiative is not about the CBA! It goes to trustworthiness. Do you remember the way the CBA was sold to the players and the way the escrow was explained? Do you remember being told that the escrow would likely be less than 2% when the CBA was being sold to the players to ratify in Toronto? Do the Executive Board members remember the forced August 31st conference call that ended at close to 2 AM EDT when Executive Committee members assured everyone that the escrow payment would not be more than 1.9% after a player challenged the group and said the escrow would be 25%? My, my how things have changed since August 31st, 2005. Do the players understand that the escrow of 12% that was deducted from their first paychecks could likely increase as the season progresses? Why did members of the Executive Committee insist on giving false information to its Executive Board and membership? Why are the players either receiving misinformation or no information at all? Because the NHLPA is trying to hide illegal activity.
Over 60 NHL players know that the NHLPA membership continues to receive false information and that is the main purpose of this website. These players are tired of the misinformation and believe that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The players deserve to know the truth about the CBA, Bob Goodenow's departure from the NHLPA, and Mr. Saskin's rise to power. NHLPA members should log in to this website and educate themselves about their union and the many players who are standing up to restore democracy."
Everyone does, until he isn't gagged by red tape and blue pencil
that won't happen though. It was enough for him to resign and not agree to any interviews outside of his statement about Saskin's shady takeover. With the Eagleson agreement still PA constitution it isn't that much of a stretch to see why Larmer takes that position especially when the board is shrouded in secrecy after the new CBA.
I thought the PA soap opera ended with the new CBA, and Bobby getting the boot...but apparently "these are the days of our lives."
No, would you care to elaborate?
So what about this...
"After Bob Goodenow stepped down, Saskin was elected Aug. 31 on a conference call vote by the player reps and executive committee. The vote was 31-6.
NHLPA bylaws stipulates a secret ballot, prompting unhappiness in some player quarters.
Saskin tried to appease the dissident group when he decided to hold another vote on his hiring as executive director.
Players reps around the league were sent ballots in the mail in mid-September and most of them have been returned but not all. It's believed Toronto, Minnesota, Detroit and the New York Islanders are among the dissenting dressing rooms who have withheld their votes."Sounds like they tried to appease the whiners, but are still getting the gears. Why?
Like Kevyn Adams of the Hurricanes said...
"If you had a concern or had an opinion, you had many opportunities to do so. And now that we've had the vote again, I just don't understand where there's an issue now.
If you wanted to vote a certain way, you had that right."I like the quote at the bottom of the TSN website...
"The size of the dissident group seems about the same as the number of players who voted against the new CBA when players ratified the deal in July. Out of 532 votes, 464 (88 per cent) voted in favour while 68 (15 per cent) votes against it."If the "where theres smoke, theres fire" rings true, I think its a big pile of sour grapes that has kerosene all over it.
People...please go back and post links to your posts where you quote a source. Any quotes without posted links will be deleted within the next hour or so....
Are you saying the PA was corrupt?
When Alan Eagleson ran it, yes. I don't know how you could think anything different.
Nice post Cawz - I agree with everything you've stated, and backed up well by reference.
I beleive this is just another typical 'union' contingent that is not happy they didn't get their way, they want it all or nothing - what the NHL and its players have now is partnership, so they can share in the wealth as the game grows and becomes more profitable - but no, the diehards love the way it was, take-take-take, but if a team is dying financially, forget about them.
I don't mean to turn this into a union bashing post, but why can't they (the unions) ever have concern for the health and well-being of the company? Why else do you think GM is in so much trouble now, and possibly on the verge of bankruptcy? I know I'm not alone in this thinking.
Oh, I thought you meant now. Eagleson's actions and sentence speak for thmselves.
There are two contingents in play here: the guys who were/are in Goodenow's pocket and those who were/are not. I am sure Goodenow thought Saskin/Linden were in his pocket, only to discover otherwise at the end.
Steve Larmer falls into the former category, clearly. Anybody who gets a job as director of player communications but cannot write a one page letter that is not full of spelling and syntax errors definitely got the job through pity and owes his boss (Goodenow) a debt of gratitude. Incidentally, Larmer himself has confirmed that his abortion of a letter was written over a two week period. Two weeks!! I would think that, over the course of two weeks, he might have been able to find the time to pick up a dictionary and figure out how to spell. Then, when his letter is released and his wordsmanship is out there for all to see, he asserts that he wrote it over two weeks, ostensibly to prove that he thought carefully about what he wrote.
One more thing. I must say that I am sick and tired of people always saying "oh, Larmer/player X is a standup guy/great guy/whatever". Apparently hockey is full of nothing but standup guys. This, from a sport whose players pride themselves on gaining whatever edge they can muster, and who thrive on thier ability to cheat.
My definition of a "great guy" is not someone who publishes a letter comparing people to known and convicted felons and then runs away and refuses to give interviews or provide particulars of his allegations through the same public forum into which he released his original accusations.
Some stand up guy ...
I didnt actually read his letter posted above. Wow, thats some pretty bad grammar for a resignation letter. Was it not supposed to be released to the public or something?
One thing of note, speaking of stand-up guys. The 2 groups noted are
-Joe Sakic, Jarome Iginla, Brendan Shanahan and Shane Doan (plus the overwhelming majority of the NHLPA)
-Trent Klatt, Chris Chelios, Eric Lindros, Ed Belfour, Dominik Hasek, Glen Murray, Brian Leetch and Shawn McEachern (plus the rest of the 27 dissidents)
Now if you had to pick which group is more comprised of stand-up guys, which would it be?
Separate names with a comma.