Wetcoaster offered his take, you challenged it, someone else pointed out what a 3rd party (a media outlet - in this case, CBC) had to say about Goodenow around September 15, 2004, Wetcoaster provided a link which details how the union strengthened dramatically under Goodenow's watch while taking care of issues that caused problems while Eagleson ran the union - which helped strengthen the union even more. I haven't seen a link backing your assertion that Goodenow ran the union "in an ultra-autocratic manner" or that the union as a whole chased him out as a result.
BTW - while Goodenow may have been making for than Fehr, the union (be it rank-and-file or the executive committee ... more than a few people) actually gave their approval for him to have that salary; from prior reports, Saskin got his salary [and came to power as the head of the NHLPA] because Trevor Linden (not the rank-and-file, not the union's executive committee - Linden and Linden alone) wrote the contract that spelled out Saskin's terms of employment - and yes, the salary Saskin would earn as head of the NHLPA.
If you don't agree that Goodenow did a great job, fine - you're entitled to that opinion. Wetcoaster seems to have the opinion that Goodenow did a good if not great job. As much as you attacked Wetcoaster's post for being "your unsupported opinion (which you are trying to pass off as fact)," yours is equally opinionated and is an attempt to pass your opinion off as fact just as much as his.
My original post said two things:
1. There is no basis to assert that Goodenow did things with the thought of doing what was in the best interests of the players.
2. Anyone would look good after Eagleson.
IB, the link that was posted and the quote that Wetcoaster provided did nothing to contradict those points.
Note on my point #2 that I did not say Goodenow did not do positive things for the players, although (as is pointed out above) one can make a strong argument that Goodenow left the union more or less as he found it in functional terms. He did leave its members wealthier than when he joined, so I suppose one can argue that short-term for the members under his watch he improved their lot quite a bit and long-term he did nothing to strengthen the union as an entity for the benefit of players in the long term. Either way, as I pointed out above, my original point was not that Goodenow had zero achievements. Accordingly, my response to the first responder ("Your point?") is valid. Accordingly, also valid is my point #2; anyone WOULD look good after Eagleson. My point was not
If you don't agree that Goodenow did a great job, fine - you're entitled to that opinion.
In fact, I did not even say that in my original post.
As to my point #1, Wetcoaster has no basis to suggest that he is aware of Goodenow's supposedly altruistic motives. Unless he is Goodenow, he cannot say that for certain. Neither can I, for that matter. Accordingly, the information on which we have to judge his motives are his actions. I judge his actions to be those of a man who set up his union as a personal fiefdom where he was indispensible. For those of us who work in the corporate world - and you are one of them, IB - I think we all recognize this type of behaviour. It is not designed to improve one's organization. It is designed to secure one's place (and dominance, at the higher levels) in the organization.
The second manner in which I would judge Goodenow's actions is through the manner in which the lockout itself played out. Both with the 24% offer and the failed strategy, it was clear that positions were dictated at the top. When the 24% was offered, players were stunned; no one had consulted them or even given them the courtesy of advising them of such a fundamental move. When the cap was first offered, players like Scott Walker and others were only the day before saying a cap would NEVER be considered. I do not have a link, but go to your local library and read Marvin Miller's autobiography. Therein he will explain exactly how he built the MLBPA. He expressly states that he did not ever dictate positions. The strength of that organization came through the years of painstaking education that he gave to the rank and file. As Goodenow was a self-described fan of Miller, I must assume that Goodenow read that book cover to cover. Yet, the lessons do not seem to have taken.
Incidentally, you have no basis to state exactly how Goodenow's salary was set. Neither do I, but I would be willing to bet cash money that Goodenow decided how much he was getting, and the Board rubberstamped it.
Now, as to the quote that Wetcoaster provided as to what Goodenow did, the certification of agents was arguably not done to "protect the players". In fact, there are still guys who get ripped off. The problem has neve been so much the agents who do the ripping off, but the players' financial advisors (who are not certified, because they do not negotiate the player contracts). The certification is only with respect to individuals who negotiate SPC's with the teams. Players can still pick whomever they want to manage their finances, and they still get screwed from time to time (a la Modano) as a result. However, one CAN also say that the certification process gives the head of the NHLPA enormous (even total) power over agents who might advise their clients to question NHLPA leadership. But no, for Wetcoaster this obvious conclusion would not have occurred to Goodenow when he was setting this up.
As for Goodenow turning the NHLPA into an excellent business, as Wetcoaster's quote states? Let me put it this way: an "excellent business" - which to me is not just a business that makes a lot of money, but rather a business which is set up professionally and designed to last - does not wind up in the shambolic mess that it did. Certainly when Goodenow started it was a complete amateur show, but when he left it was equally clearly careening along in a completely unfocussed manner, with brutal internecine politics and factionalism. Maybe my standards are too high, but that is not an "excellent business". Pretty freaking far from it. IMO.
One more thing. While I have read many an article over the years about Goodenow's personal style being highly autocratic - articles to which I have no link (not everything is on the internet) - Fugu earlier posted in this thread (post 167) an article confirming this style.
http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.feature&featureId=2179. This article refers to "dozens" of other stories stating he was a bully (some of which are probably the ones I remember reading).
