NHLPA/Saskin Email Controversy (Saskin fired)

[thinkwild]

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

Why juxtapose the two ideas, 24% and offering a cap? One was done by Goodenow, the other wasn’t. Seems players like Walker really believed their position, it wasn’t dictated. He was in agreement with his unions position.

It wasn’t Goodenow that splintered first from the No Cap stance. It was his union. And he went along with them and then made a 2nd effort to save the season after the 24%, by giving them a $4xmil cap, which was again rebuffed by the owners. A cap which the owners said they couldn’t afford at $42. A stance now proven to be BS. Although rare is the owner suporrter brave and honest enough to mention it.

Why even portray the fact the 24% came from the top with surprise? Of course it did. As it should. The owners claimed to need a 24% drop in expenses to make money. Goodenow gave it to them along with new controls to keep it there and a new stable environment to operate in. From that point on, it is even more incredulous to me the owners had fans support. I know I will hear lots of bogus complaints how that couldn’t have worked, but I know those complaints are unfounded, passionate as they may be put forth now.

 

[Wetcoaster]

A more direct link to the story...
http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/hockey/comments/palaire_report_details_nhlpa_spying/

This was interesting as it was revealedhow Saskin tried to claim that he by accessing the e-mail accounts he was only doing what Goodenow had started and then tried to put all the blame on Kim.

Apparently it was not as Saskin claimed. Goodenow blocked outside access into the player acounts, he did not access the accounts for their personal e-mail according to the Palliare Report.

Paliare concluded that Saskin was wrong to access the e-mail accounts and the players’ votes on the CBA, a source said, and that they could not have been anything but attempts to gain intelligence for his personal benefit.

But the report exonerated Saskin’s predecessor, Goodenow, of wrongdoing, finding that although Goodenow monitored e-mail traffic into players’ NHLPA.com accounts, his actions were in the best interests of the union. Saskin has publicly blamed Goodenow for starting the practice of accessing player e-mails, while denying any wrongdoing.

Although the report cleared Goodenow, it stated that Saskin and Kim got the idea to monitor the NHLPA.com e-mail accounts from something Goodenow did during the NHL lockout of 2004-05, sources said.

Goodenow began blocking e-mails from some senders after he learned that a Canadian hockey reporter was trying to poll players on whether they would accept a salary cap. “Goodenow was trying to protect the union’s position at the bargaining table by trying to avoid [having] their system being used and infiltrated by a reporter in Toronto who was mass e-mailing players and trying to write that there was support for a cap,†one source said.

Sources said that Paliare interviewed Saskin and Kim and that Saskin tried to place the blame for the activities on Kim. But Paliare concluded in the report, “It makes little sense for Mr. Kim to have done this on his own.â€

According to the report Kim and Saskin went into Trent Klatt's personal (i.e non NHLPA) when Klatt appeared to no longer be using his NHLPA account to communicate in regards to the planned LRB challenge.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Apparently it was not as Saskin claimed. Goodenow blocked outside access into the player acounts, he did not access the accounts for their personal e-mail according to the Palliare Report.


According to the report Kim and Saskin went into Trent Klatt's personal (i.e non NHLPA) when Klatt appeared to no longer be using his NHLPA account to communicate in regards to the planned LRB challenge.

Keep in mind that Goodenow also monitored the email (although apparently not the personal non-NHLPA emails.

Wettie, i suspect we can both guess that a substantial portion of Saskin's position will be that in fact he WAS acting in the best interests of the NHLPA. Depending on the facts, he may have a more than solid position in that regard. IF, for example, one of Klatt's emails (and there were some between Saskin and KLatt) goes along the lines of "you are no good and I am going to tear you down, even if I have to take the PA down with it", or even something less strong than that, then that would change the entire perception of the matter, wouldn't it?

As for Goodenow's supposed exoneration, that is a rather fatuous conclusion on Paliare's part, IMO. Goodenow's entire being was wrapped up in the "no salary cap" position. You go against that, you are effectively saying Goodenow needs to go. Goodenow was IMO simply squelching dissent and protecting his own weakening position.

As for what Saskin claimed, it WAS in fact as Saskin claimed. He stated that email nmonitoring had occurred under Goodenow, and the report confirms same.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Keep in mind that Goodenow also monitored the email (although apparently not the personal non-NHLPA emails.

Wettie, i suspect we can both guess that a substantial portion of Saskin's position will be that in fact he WAS acting in the best interests of the NHLPA. Depending on the facts, he may have a more than solid position in that regard. IF, for example, one of Klatt's emails (and there were some between Saskin and KLatt) goes along the lines of "you are no good and I am going to tear you down, even if I have to take the PA down with it", or even something less strong than that, then that would change the entire perception of the matter, wouldn't it?

As for Goodenow's supposed exoneration, that is a rather fatuous conclusion on Paliare's part, IMO. Goodenow's entire being was wrapped up in the "no salary cap" position. You go against that, you are effectively saying Goodenow needs to go. Goodenow was IMO simply squelching dissent and protecting his own weakening position.

As for what Saskin claimed, it WAS in fact as Saskin claimed. He stated that email nmonitoring had occurred under Goodenow, and the report confirms same.

According to the what was set out in the article Goodenow did not monitor e-mail, he blocked access by a Canadian reporter.

 

[GSC2k2*]

According to the what was set out in the article Goodenow did not monitor e-mail, he blocked access by a Canadian reporter.

Here, for your ease of reference I highlighted part of your post where you quoted from the article (which I also read):

But the report exonerated Saskin’s predecessor, Goodenow, of wrongdoing, finding that although Goodenow monitored e-mail traffic into players’ NHLPA.com accounts, his actions were in the best interests of the union. Saskin has publicly blamed Goodenow for starting the practice of accessing player e-mails, while denying any wrongdoing.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Here, for your ease of reference I highlighted part of your post where you quoted from the article (which I also read):

Saw that but it does not accord with Palliare's specific findings as set out. It would not be the first time a reporter was less than judicious in the use of language.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Saw that but it does not accord with Palliare's specific findings as set out. It would not be the first time a reporter was less than judicious in the use of language.

Query which part was misstated.

Mind you, I don't know how one could decide emails should be blocked without reading them in the first place to find out who is being contacted and for what reason and the nature of the communication.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Query which part was misstated.

Mind you, I don't know how one could decide emails should be blocked without reading them in the first place to find out who is being contacted and for what reason and the nature of the communication.

According to what was reported Goodenow was blocking incoming e-mails from a specific source (a Canadian reporter).

Quite different from the allegations against Saskin/Kim.

 

[GSC2k2*]

According to what was reported Goodenow was blocking incoming e-mails from a specific source (a Canadian reporter).

Quite different from the allegations against Saskin/Kim.

Wettie, I know you can read. I refer you to the report stated above.