NHLPA hires Rodier

[Ciao]

That that slimeball is going to push relocation to Fehr as a way to increase revenues instead of just letting the NHL mind it's own business. The Players are going to stike unless the Predators, Hurricanes, Panthers, Thrashers, and Coyotes are moved to Canada ASAP.

Excellent!

I hope this isn't "imminent." I can't wait that long!

 

[Ciao]

There are other ways to increase revenue (which have been increasing) without the forced relocation of 8 to 10 teams BTW. It's not the union's decision where an owner should do his business if he so choses. If the Predators' owners want to stay here they shouldn't have to be moved because the union says the grass (or money) is greener elsewhere.

When their deal is to share revenues, the players do have a stake in maximizing revenues. The owners are the ones who wanted to tie players' salaries to league revenues, thereby making them financial partners.

BTW, the management of the NHL is so bumbling and incompetent that I've often wondered why the players didn't defect en masse and start their own league during the lockout. As a group, the players are indispensable, but the owners are not.

 

[Killion]

@Fugu;
re; 4th Amendment

Please refer to Exigent & Voluntary sections of the act. As its OT, Ive included a link below to the ergodic texts I referenced for clarification.

linkfailure

 

[Killion]

I notice you seem to be in love with the Atlanta market for some reason. I think you are wrong to exclude the Thrashers.
GHOST

It's not love, GHOST, if I can speak for Killion. Atlanta is a top ten metro market in the US. I think it looks much worse for the NHL's footprint to lose Atlanta than several other teams you seem to disapprove of in these discussions.

Oh?. I dont think I am. And yes you may......Thanks, well said.

 

[Fugu]

An employer does have that right to test their employees. The employer wanted drug testing the union stonewalled it. Most of the steroids used by MLB players were illegal in the US without a prescription BTW. Your right about it not being the federal government's business, except that MLB could have been consider accomplices in drug trafficking or obstructing justice. All MLB was doing was preventing another strike.

It's not that simple -- employer rights vs employee rights -- especially when things are collectively bargained. What if an employer demanded that you observer religion X and give to certain parties, but you like religion Y and the other party? It seems that you have the option of looking for a job elsewhere. (Then we get into nondiscriminatory laws, etc.).

So employers can only have reasonable demands/requirements as a condition of employment. They can mandate that employees cannot use illegal substances while at work, or even drink alcohol or smoke while at work. They cannot stop you from drinking your beer at home. Now, since athletes and teams collectively agree to terms, I don't think that Fehr was objecting to an employer's right to say players cannot use illegal substances. The issue was the surveillance and enforcement. What IF a player decided on his own to do something illegal? Let's say only 1 out of 100 did that. The other 99 are forced to give evidence at someone else's time of choosing and conditions and what must be given. Consider how ridiculous the international doping rules have become, where athletes have to tell WADA where they will be AT ALL TIMES so if someone decided to test them, they knew where they were!

I don't think the answer is that Fehr believes players should use illegal substances, or even wishes to promote it. I think he understood that once you accept the idea of random testing, the perfectly innocent and compliant players will have privacy and rights slowly eroded, along with the guys who may wish to cheat the system. Furthermore given that this is a pro sports/entertainment issue, doesn't our Congress have anything better to do than to worry about baseball players relationships with their billionaire owners? We're talking about a few hundred guys here.

There are other ways to increase revenue (which have been increasing) without the forced relocation of 8 to 10 teams BTW. It's not the union's decision where an owner should do his business if he so choses. If the Predators' owners want to stay here they shouldn't have to be moved because the union says the grass (or money) is greener elsewhere.

I agree with this. Just reminding you though that the NHL wanted linkage between league-wide revenues and player salaries. The players were happy to leave that part out of the CBA.

Now the league has given them an extremely strong incentive to be interested in how they run things--- 57% of revenues are theirs to share.

Edit: Mork beat me to it.

 

[Fugu]

Why speak for Killion when he speaks for himself? He isn't talking about what looks good or bad, he is stating what he thinks is more or less likely and that is what I responded to. See here:

I'm sure he'll forgive me!

What he ignores is the fact that arena lease situations are a key component in any discussion of whether a team is likely to be available for relocation. For example, the Thrashers are not tied to the arena lease in Atlanta, whereas I believe the Panthers are tied to the lease in their building. Also, the Panther lease allows the owner of the Panthers to take in all or most of the non-hockey profits from the arena and I understand the Panthers' arena is very successful for non-hockey events. The Thrashers ownership group, by way of contrast, is not required to keep the Thrashers at Philips Arena to continue to benefit from the lease there.

The bottom line here is that of all the franchises in the NHL, the Thrashers would be one of the easiest to relocate due to their lease situation. For many other franchises -- see the Coyotes, for example -- you practically require a bankruptcy to void the lease. In addition, even if a franchise is losing money in hockey operations, it is sometimes making that up on the non-hockey side, which is tied to the lease with the hockey team (but not in the Thrashers case).

GHOST

If I may, I think you're focusing on tactical versus strategic level matters. For the league as a whole, it's probably better to have a team in Atlanta before places like Phoenix, Miami, Nashville, Columbus, Colorado, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Anaheim, KC, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, etc...... (poked a stick into a hornet's nest I just did)

In the grand scheme of things.

Your argument is analogous to why the Jets or Nords were moved-- due to arena and/or ownership issues. I know it's very important to have both, and I do blame the NHL for not having managed its expansion and ownership selection a bit more judiciously--- to insure that a franchise placed in a HUGE and KEY market would have a chance of succeeding.

 

[Killion]

He isn't talking about what looks good or bad, he is stating what he thinks is more or less likely....What he ignores is the fact that arena lease situations are a key component.....The bottom line here is that of all the franchises in the NHL, the Thrashers would be one of the easiest to relocate due to their lease situation. For many other franchises -- see the Coyotes, for example -- you practically require a bankruptcy to void the lease. In addition, even if a franchise is losing money in hockey operations, it is sometimes making that up on the non-hockey side, which is tied to the lease with the hockey team (but not in the Thrashers case).GHOST

Great points GHOST. And yes, I was stating what I thought would be the likeliest scenario, purely from strategic as opposed to a logistical perspective, ignoring or minimizing the difficulties on the ground with some of the leases. Additionally, I ignored non-HRR factors from the equation, however in defence of that, in virtually all cases its negligible....

The difference between an armchair general & a real one is the armchair general thinks in terms of strategy, the real one in terms of logistics. I try to blend them together, and in doing so, of Gnashvilles' OP listing Raleigh, Atltanta, Nashville, Columbus, Sunrise & Phoenix as likely targets of Rodiers' avaricious appetitie, only the latter 2 are likely, IMO, to be moved, and I did consider non-hrr in Sunrise, the Lease in Atlanta. Staying pat with my assessment. Strategically & logistically Atlanta is that important. IMHO...

For the league as a whole, better to have a team in Atlanta before places like Phoenix, Miami, Nashville, Columbus, Colorado, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Anaheim, KC, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, etc.. (poked a stick into a hornet's nest I just did)

Yepp. And here, let me punctuate that with a few swipes at it myself; Ottawa, QC, Hamilton, Long Island, New Jersey.....


Whats that buzzing?. Uh oh. Better call up Billy the Exterminator...

 

[AllByDesign]

An employer does have that right to test their employees. The employer wanted drug testing the union stonewalled it. Most of the steroids used by MLB players were illegal in the US without a prescription BTW. Your right about it not being the federal government's business, except that MLB could have been consider accomplices in drug trafficking or obstructing justice.

Feeling a tad bit dramatic today? I have to admit, I am not aware of the American constitutional ammendment that permits employers to draw the blood/urine of their employees. Now if someone waives their consitutional rights that's another story, but fighting for ones rights seems justified.

So employers can only have reasonable demands/requirements as a condition of employment. They can mandate that employees cannot use illegal substances while at work, or even drink alcohol or smoke while at work. They cannot stop you from drinking your beer at home. Now, since athletes and teams collectively agree to terms, I don't think that Fehr was objecting to an employer's right to say players cannot use illegal substances. The issue was the surveillance and enforcement. What IF a player decided on his own to do something illegal? Let's say only 1 out of 100 did that. The other 99 are forced to give evidence at someone else's time of choosing and conditions and what must be given. Consider how ridiculous the international doping rules have become, where athletes have to tell WADA where they will be AT ALL TIMES so if someone decided to test them, they knew where they were!

Absolutely. Imagine having to fight so vehemently for something that is already provided to you through your basic rights as an individual. Now one bad apple can spoil the bunch, but baseball now has two black eyes as a result of steroid use. Its amazing how a political agenda can have the sordid effect that we have witnessed.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Fugu & Killion,

You can call it tactical or strategic or whatever you want. I was responding only to Killion's assertion that the Thrashers are not in his view as likely to be relocated as the Panthers and Coyotes. Perhaps he is correct re. the Coyotes. Time will tell. However, there is no alternative for the Thrashers but relocation unless someone wants to own the team in Atlanta, regardless of the NHL's strategic intentions. There is only one NHL arena in Atlanta and if the leaseholders no longer want to own and operate an NHL franchise in that arena, and they can't find someone else to do so under some type of sub-lease agreement, there is no alternative but to relocate the franchise. It just so happens in addition that the Thrashers are not tied to any lease.

GHOST

 

[Metzen]

There is only one NHL arena in Atlanta and if the leaseholders no longer want to own and operate an NHL franchise in that arena, and they can't find someone else to do so under some type of sub-lease agreement, there is no alternative but to relocate the franchise.

Two options... Contraction could be the second one right?

If there were two additional teams in Winnipeg and Quebec what the next best, non-contraction option be? Hamilton?

Would that be the easiest(!) way Balsillie gets his team?

 

[pepty]

Maybe I'm the only one taking the Rodier move this way, but my take is this:

Its a message to the NHL: "We don't want to deal with Bettman".

That's my take. Load the deck with anti-Bettman personel. Force the NHL to reconsider Bettman before CBA talks.

But what do I know?

That that slimeball is going to push relocation to Fehr as a way to increase revenues instead of just letting the NHL mind it's own business. .

I agree with both these posts. I think this is a signal that the circus is coming to town.

Maybe they think having Rodier onboard will win more support from the fans who got caught up in the Balsillie song and dance and that will give the PA more fan support then the last time around.

It looks like the Goodenow loyalists who seem to be behind the Kelly coup and bringing in Fehr look like they will be gunning for Bettman.

It will be interesting to see Bettman and his next interview with Ron Maclean who for some reason claims to be speaking for the players and who said he has received his info on union matters form Eric Lindros.

 

[Gnashville]

It's not that simple -- employer rights vs employee rights -- especially when things are collectively bargained. What if an employer demanded that you observer religion X and give to certain parties, but you like religion Y and the other party? It seems that you have the option of looking for a job elsewhere. (Then we get into nondiscriminatory laws, etc.).

So employers can only have reasonable demands/requirements as a condition of employment. They can mandate that employees cannot use illegal substances while at work, or even drink alcohol or smoke while at work. They cannot stop you from drinking your beer at home. Now, since athletes and teams collectively agree to terms, I don't think that Fehr was objecting to an employer's right to say players cannot use illegal substances. The issue was the surveillance and enforcement. What IF a player decided on his own to do something illegal? Let's say only 1 out of 100 did that. The other 99 are forced to give evidence at someone else's time of choosing and conditions and what must be given. Consider how ridiculous the international doping rules have become, where athletes have to tell WADA where they will be AT ALL TIMES so if someone decided to test them, they knew where they were!

I don't think the answer is that Fehr believes players should use illegal substances, or even wishes to promote it. I think he understood that once you accept the idea of random testing, the perfectly innocent and compliant players will have privacy and rights slowly eroded, along with the guys who may wish to cheat the system. Furthermore given that this is a pro sports/entertainment issue, doesn't our Congress have anything better to do than to worry about baseball players relationships with their billionaire owners? We're talking about a few hundred guys here.




I agree with this. Just reminding you though that the NHL wanted linkage between league-wide revenues and player salaries. The players were happy to leave that part out of the CBA.

Now the league has given them an extremely strong incentive to be interested in how they run things--- 57% of revenues are theirs to share.

Edit: Mork beat me to it.

Tell me where the Players Union has the right to FORCE teams to relocate???? Just because they want to increase revenues moving 6 to 8 teams to Canada does not guarantee it.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

That that slimeball is going to push relocation to Fehr as a way to increase revenues instead of just letting the NHL mind it's own business. The Players are going to stike unless the Predators, Hurricanes, Panthers, Thrashers, and Coyotes are moved to Canada ASAP.

That's a bit over the top. I don't believe for a minute that the PA is going to push for the relocation of 5-8 teams. It wouldn't work.

It's not that simple -- employer rights vs employee rights -- especially when things are collectively bargained. What if an employer demanded that you observer religion X and give to certain parties, but you like religion Y and the other party? It seems that you have the option of looking for a job elsewhere. (Then we get into nondiscriminatory laws, etc.).

So employers can only have reasonable demands/requirements as a condition of employment. They can mandate that employees cannot use illegal substances while at work, or even drink alcohol or smoke while at work. They cannot stop you from drinking your beer at home. Now, since athletes and teams collectively agree to terms, I don't think that Fehr was objecting to an employer's right to say players cannot use illegal substances. The issue was the surveillance and enforcement. What IF a player decided on his own to do something illegal? Let's say only 1 out of 100 did that. The other 99 are forced to give evidence at someone else's time of choosing and conditions and what must be given. Consider how ridiculous the international doping rules have become, where athletes have to tell WADA where they will be AT ALL TIMES so if someone decided to test them, they knew where they were!

That is inaccurate, there is legal precedence to support these requirements. There are several decisions that held that employers have the right to terminate employees for the consumption of employer banned substances, off the job. As an example, Scotts, has a policy to terminate any employee with nicotine in their system. It has been tested in the courts and Scotts has been upheld. More to the point, when Scotts implemented the policy, it immediately included existing employees, not just new hires.

I don't think the answer is that Fehr believes players should use illegal substances, or even wishes to promote it. I think he understood that once you accept the idea of random testing, the perfectly innocent and compliant players will have privacy and rights slowly eroded, along with the guys who may wish to cheat the system. Furthermore given that this is a pro sports/entertainment issue, doesn't our Congress have anything better to do than to worry about baseball players relationships with their billionaire owners? We're talking about a few hundred guys here.

While testing may be a collective bargaining issue, it may not be anymore based on the test cases discussed above.

I agree with this. Just reminding you though that the NHL wanted linkage between league-wide revenues and player salaries. The players were happy to leave that part out of the CBA.

Now the league has given them an extremely strong incentive to be interested in how they run things--- 57% of revenues are theirs to share.

Edit: Mork beat me to it.

As long as the players have a defined portion of HRR, they will be interested, but good luck forcing the owners to locate wherever the players want.

Tell me where the Players Union has the right to FORCE teams to relocate???? Just because they want to increase revenues moving 6 to 8 teams to Canada does not guarantee it.

It's very farfetched. If one wants to take the strategic view of things, then what geographical markets are important? The list is small. In Canada: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver. In the US: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas.

I know some would argue Detroit, but that's only because of the O-6 status. In a vacuum, Detroit is no longer a strategic market in the US.

There you have it, 11 team league. Then add Detroit ONLY to even the number to twelve. No other markets are necessary.

 

[Faltorvo]

There are other ways to increase revenue (which have been increasing) without the forced relocation of 8 to 10 teams BTW. It's not the union's decision where an owner should do his business if he so choses. If the Predators' owners want to stay here they shouldn't have to be moved because the union says the grass (or money) is greener elsewhere.

But is that also not part of the problem?

The individual owners don't have full control to move their teams where they choose?

 

[Killion]

But is that also not part of the problem? The individual owners don't have full control to move their teams where they choose?

Your premise, that its' a problem the owners cant relocate their franchises' at will & wherever they choose would be anarchy personified if not controlled by the league. Their are very specific rules governing the movement of a franchise as you know. Any team can apply for relocation, however, doesnt mean it'll be granted. If the league is that firm with its owners, I cant imagine for a minute they'd allow for or stomach having their employee's, the NHLPA, dictating something so fundamentally enshrined in the leagues policies, business practices, footprint & constitution. That'd be like the UAW telling GM where to put its dealerships.

 

[Fugu]

@leek.

I find that position ludicrous. Nicotine and alcohol aren't illegal substances. I understand the drug side of things, but are you saying that courts have upheld this level of control without qualifier? (I could see some positions, like say nuclear plant controllers..... having very strict requirements.) Has this made it to the Supreme Court (when Bush wasn't in office.....)?


Also, if you aren't working in a monopolistic environment, you do have the option of not working for company's whose policies impinge on your personal rights. Then again, I think non-competes should be illegal too.

It's very farfetched. If one wants to take the strategic view of things, then what geographical markets are important? The list is small. In Canada: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver. In the US: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas.

I know some would argue Detroit, but that's only because of the O-6 status. In a vacuum, Detroit is no longer a strategic market in the US.

There you have it, 11 team league. Then add Detroit ONLY to even the number to twelve. No other markets are necessary.

I never sent you my list of the contracted NHL, did I?

Detroit Metro, iirc, is about 4-5m inhabitants? So up to 2000, it definitely belonged on the strategic list. If one considers the negative growth rate as the exodus from the state continues, the argument could be made that in 10-20 yrs the landscape could look far different.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

@leek.

I find that position ludicrous. Nicotine and alcohol aren't illegal substances. I understand the drug side of things, but are you saying that courts have upheld this level of control without qualifier? (I could see some positions, like say nuclear plant controllers..... having very strict requirements.) Has this made it to the Supreme Court (when Bush wasn't in office.....)?

Upheld on appeal, hasn't gone before the Supremes. All employees are subject to the no nicotine policy. There have been terminations for positive tests and upheld in Court. I personally think it's a bad precedence, but the Court doesn't take my opinion into account. Isn't that odd? I think of myself as a friend.

Also, if you aren't working in a monopolistic environment, you do have the option of not working for company's whose policies impinge on your personal rights. Then again, I think non-competes should be illegal too.




I never sent you my list of the contracted NHL, did I?

Detroit Metro, iirc, is about 4-5m inhabitants? So up to 2000, it definitely belonged on the strategic list. If one considers the negative growth rate as the exodus from the state continues, the argument could be made that in 10-20 yrs the landscape could look far different.

Nope Fugu, I just don't rate. On the other hand, I wasn't saying that 12 team league is as it should be.I'm saying those eleven cities are the strategically important cities.


U

 

[Faltorvo]

Your premise, that its' a problem the owners cant relocate their franchises' at will & wherever they choose would be anarchy personified if not controlled by the league. Their are very specific rules governing the movement of a franchise as you know. Any team can apply for relocation, however, doesnt mean it'll be granted. If the league is that firm with its owners, I cant imagine for a minute they'd allow for or stomach having their employee's, the NHLPA, dictating something so fundamentally enshrined in the leagues policies, business practices, footprint & constitution. That'd be like the UAW telling GM where to put its dealerships.

No Killion, i'm not suggesting that much freedom.

But Bettman and the BOG have so much control and power over this , that some owners are stuck where they are and are getting bled to death.

 

[Confucius]

When their deal is to share revenues, the players do have a stake in maximizing revenues. The owners are the ones who wanted to tie players' salaries to league revenues, thereby making them financial partners.

BTW, the management of the NHL is so bumbling and incompetent that I've often wondered why the players didn't defect en masse and start their own league during the lockout. As a group, the players are indispensable, but the owners are not.

Unfortunately they had no arena. The team name and the arena are the only thing the owners really have.

 

[Killion]

No Killion, i'm not suggesting that much freedom. But Bettman and the BOG have so much control and power over this , that some owners are stuck where they are and are getting bled to death.

Totally. Direct correlation to why the Canes, Blues & Thrashers', Stars & Coyotes, Panthers & Lord knows wherever else cant find willing buyers for minority positions let alone majority roles. The NHL has an odor problem, and a pretty bad one at that, absolutely no problem whatsoever when it comes to eating one of its own; that "greater interests" than your own as an owner, the guy writing the cheques, must be adhered to, and if you go broke towing their barge, your problem. As fans, we can only look on in incredulity & amazement at the ongoing Shennannigans. The NHL suffers for its lack of care & integrity & is successful despite itself, and the chickens are starting to come home to roost.

 

[Fugu]

Nope Fugu, I just don't rate. On the other hand, I wasn't saying that 12 team league is as it should be.I'm saying those eleven cities are the strategically important cities.

U

Which comes full circle to the optimal size for a league like the NHL. 11 cities may need to be on any such list, in your opinion, but if those 11 cannot carry a league without any other cities being included--- the answer may not be quite as simple as you propose.

I probably did give Fourier my list, but haven't held up on my promise to deliver my version of the ideal league size.

 

[LadyStanley]

Unfortunately they had no arena. The team name and the arena are the only thing the owners really have.

And territory (and TV region).

Plus nickname/logos -- all the trademarked intellectual property.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Which comes full circle to the optimal size for a league like the NHL. 11 cities may need to be on any such list, in your opinion, but if those 11 cannot carry a league without any other cities being included--- the answer may not be quite as simple as you propose.

I probably did give Fourier my list, but haven't held up on my promise to deliver my version of the ideal league size.

I think its much more complex than what size is optimal. What is the vision? If the vision is the "traditional type of NHL, that 12 team league is likely optimal. If the vision is to make a play at much larger dollars, the strategy must be very different.

Perhaps we should start a new thread with a more clinical discussion of vision, strategies and tactics for achieving it . I think it would be fun.

 

[Killion]

Perhaps we should start a new thread with a more clinical discussion of vision, strategies and tactics for achieving it . I think it would be fun.

I think theirs a loose end to just such a thread somewhere here-in. "Whats your optimum sized NHL?". As I recall it unraveled rather quickly. The leap from subjectivity to clinical objectivity a bridge too far for many. It ended badly leek. Battlefield littered with corpses; dozens left walking but wounded; passports canceled. Persona non' grata Slips handed out by the Mods like Chiclets. Im not even sure if poor Fourier's recovered from his field wounds of that dreadful day yet. But sure, Im game.

 

[Fugu]

I think its much more complex than what size is optimal. What is the vision? If the vision is the "traditional type of NHL, that 12 team league is likely optimal. If the vision is to make a play at much larger dollars, the strategy must be very different.

Perhaps we should start a new thread with a more clinical discussion of vision, strategies and tactics for achieving it . I think it would be fun.

Depends on whose vision we're talking about, but yes, there are a set of goals that can be identified, with a case built for the size needed to fulfill it. As you know, I've never liked the ever-expanding model for a 'league'. We're not selling widgets here.

I'll try to work on something...

I think theirs a loose end to just such a thread somewhere here-in. "Whats your optimum sized NHL?". As I recall it unraveled rather quickly. The leap from subjectivity to clinical objectivity a bridge too far for many. It ended badly leek. Battlefield littered with corpses; dozens left walking but wounded; passports canceled. Persona non' grata Slips handed out by the Mods like Chiclets. Im not even sure if poor Fourier's recovered from his field wounds of that dreadful day yet. But sure, Im game.

I think that was the Construct the NHL or something? Or I hijacked a thread about some team's finances and we took it from there? (Canes or Oilers, maybe?)