Where is the voice from the masses in the NHLPA?

[CarlRacki]

You guys are extremely good at managing other people's money, dictating other people lives.

Stalin would approve.

CeRtainly
membErs of the players' association would
neVer tell
othErs how to
speNd their
fUnds or
distributE their wealth.

Such
beHavior would be a complete
miscArriage of justice and against
tRuths we hold dear.
I for one am glad the association would
Never suggest such a socialist
arranGment.

 

[Chayos]

Keep in mind that we're talking about real currency, not monopoly board money. Fold up the gameboard, go out into the real world, manage a budget and then see what you'd think about such a cut in income.

Looking forward to seeing your fellow NHLPA-haters distance themselves from that hysterically naive quote above.

Sorry, that one ranks up there with "crush them like a grape."

***

"No matter how you 3 or 4 PA guys try and spin it, they are getting the shaft and they know it."

Yep, there are only 3 or 4 of us in the hockey world who believe that the vast majoirty of the union supports its leadership! What a radical concept!

But of course, the players are getting the shaft, they know it, you know it. Just that Goodenow doesn't know it! Or is ignoring it. Were he only to read the wisdom provided on this board, this all would be settled! :lol

Man what world do you live in?

How can the players consider themselves as being screwed when they have had their average salary rise by over 300% in a little over 10 years.

Geez what do you make now? consider going to triple that in the next 10 years and then when your boss comes back to you and says "hey we are losing money and we have to cut you back to 200%" do you quit and say no way i don't care if the company goes down i am not taking a cut? OR do you say ok but how about we make a deal that if you start making more money i still get the 200% plus 1/2 the profit you make above that?


If teh players were smart they make the best profit sharing deal tehy can tehn work with teh league to make it more marketable. If the owners make money so do the players. The time for division is over! the Players MUST get into a partnership with the owners for thier own good.

 

[Wetcoaster]

BUt what about the player who was a rookie last year? Or only two years under his belt and might be on the verge of breaking out or establishing a full time role? What about the AHL players who would have been promoted after only receiving a hand full of games last season? What about the guy who has spent his career bouncing between the minors and big league? What about the player that is clinging to an NHL spot who knows he only has another season or two to make bigger money before he drops of the NHL map? These are union members as well. Many are the future union members. Sure the 10 year guy doesn't care much but not everybody is a 10 year guy.

Most rookies and even second year and third year players are back in the minors pulling down a salary because the entry level contracts they signed are two way. Most were assigned prior to the lockout. They are making some money and the NHLPA was helping the players put their financial houses in order in the event of a lockout and lengthy work stoppage over the past couple of years providing finanacial planners for those players who were not already getting such services through their agent, personal accountant or legal counsel.

Any player who was not prepared properly only has himself to blame and there is the money being paid out of the lockout/strike fund.

There are 378 NHLPA members playing in Europe which probably takes care of their living expenses in the interim.
http://www.iihf.com/news/iihfpr8704.htm

I simply do not see any groundswell of support against the union negotiating position nor will you IMHO.

As Brian Burke noted yesterday on TSN the NHL owners seem to have badly miscalculated the players' resolve.

OTOH you might say that of the players' assessment of the owners' resolve.

This weekend's deadline may provide a better indication.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I agree i do not understand how the union is structured, but i do know that any organization has to have some sort of non confidnece clause where with enough support a vote can be brought about to bring down current leadership.

I also don't know that if there is opposition to the exectuives stances on the cap, but I do know that the union's current stance is particularly hard on the bottom 50% and as such should lead to some questions as to the direction the association is going!

Of course there is a "non-confidence clause".

All it takes is 50% plus 1 of the eligible NHLPA members voting unlike the NHL Board of governors where 8 owners can maintain the lockout.

 

[davidwii]

The taxman also allows rich people to find the loopholes to save themselves thousands. But that's beside the point. What's the average gross household income in the US, $40k a year? Before taxes? And the thought (not yours) that these 3rd and 4th line players will be so poverty stricken trying to live on $500k plus union money plus whatever they can get playing in Europe or the AHL for 2 or 3 years will force some kind of mass revolt within the PA is a bit ridiculous.

If you don't mind me asking...how old are you? I'm just curious becuase your statement..."The taxman also allows rich people to find loopholes" is pretty asinine.

Just because you make say 500K a year doesn't mean there are automatic loopholes that are to be had because your at that level. Tax Breaks and Tax Credits are usefull when you have excess money to spend. So if you say owe one hundred dollars in taxes...but have the hundred to spare and you use it on a say tax credit worth 100 dollars, then bam..you no longer owe one hundred dollars in taxes....BUT you still have to spend the money, with the ONLY BENEFIT being that you got to spend it on what you wanted, say on a charity or something that gave you notariety or something like that.

IMO, if you don't have the money to pay your bills...you certainly don't have the money to utilize tax breaks and tax credits....UNLESS the money you have already spent can be qualified as a tax break or tax credit..

The point is you don't have to be rich to take advantage of tax breaks and tax credits...BUT unless those tax breaks or tax credits can be had from spending out of your existing budget...you are gonna need excess money to spend to obtain them..

I think thats the point some are trying to make...

 

[Wetcoaster]

It's a fairly safe presumption that the lower end guys are furious. No matter how you 3 or 4 PA guys try and spin it, they are getting the shaft and they know it. The problem is that hockey players are followers. The blindly follow their coaches, captains, union bosses, etc. They followed their last union leader blindly for years even though the guy was selling them down the river.

No spin, just point out all the "lower end guys" who are speaking out.

All it takes to remove Goodenow is a vote of 50% plus 1.

Your presumption is totlally baseless.

 

[Trottier]

I agree i do not understand how the union is structured, but i do know that any organization has to have some sort of non confidnece clause where with enough support a vote can be brought about to bring down current leadership.

Chayos, I'm no union expert either. (Nor am I a union "supporter", despite suggestions by Crazy Lunatic to the contrary. )

What I was getting at was simply that while it is fair to guess that there is clearly not unanimous support for the NHLPA's stance across a membership of some 700 players (good luck getting 700 people to agree to anything!), it really is a leap to assume that there is a mutiny among the membership. If, as some hypothetize, there was significant rebellion in the ranks, a vote would be taken, word would have gotten through loud and clear, repeatedly, to Linden and Goodenow, the media, etc.

It's a fine line. Yes, Goodneow represents the players. However, the union is not a democracy consisting of 700 separate independent states so to speak. If it were, there would be no union to begin with. Ultimately, the players have charged Goodenow with getting them the best deal. Some (many) fans believe that he has failed in that regard. However, they are substituting their own beliefs for that of the players. Or at least, portaying them as one and the same. Therein lies the problem.

As such, your original question about where are the players speaking up on behalf of the union assumes that there are many who wish to. I would simply suggest that if there really were that many who hold the same utter lack of confidence in Goodenow as some fans hold, nothing could ultimately stop the union from splittering, and numerous (not a smattering) players giving out contrary comments.

Rightly or wrongly, the union, all signs indicate otherwise. The players are dug in, together. As are the owners. If that weren't the case, this would have been over long ago, and the union would have been "crushed", they would have "caved in," as some here experts have incorrectly predicted/wished for repeatedly overr the last several months.

 

[Trottier]

... Going from 500 thousand to 120 thousand is going to hurt like hell for that persons lifestyle and financial committments.

Being called clueless by you is the supreme compliment, for no one's board name is more appropriate. Will leave it to others to continue to snicker/comment at your inane posts, will simply point out chief that my post which you are criticizing states the exact point you are making here .

By the way, I'm touched by the lazy stereotypical characterization: "NHLPA sympathizer". Reading is fundamental. If you could read, you'd know that I am on ownership's side for the most part, with a few excpetions, notably an ultra-restrictive hardcap figure. Get it?

Shades of gray, instead of your extremist, bombastic and uninformed point of view.

Is your guess better than ours? Doubtful.
I agree fully that the silent majority are furious and would accept the piddly $1.3 - $1.8 million avg salary the league has proposed. I bet a poll would show that the majority of fans also agree.

Um, my "guess" is based upon what actually has happened to date (and what has not happened, as in no player revolt whatsoever). That is, based on reality to date.

Your's is based upon what you think is happening. (Wish to be happening.) Brilliant!

If you cannot make that distinction, you need to look elsewhere for help.

 

[kruezer]

I think the mass revolt should come from the fact they're not earning what they could now and they won't earn what they could later either.

I've heard analysts say that the "NHL pie" could shrink from $2.2B to $1.5B next year if there's no hockey this year. Players have to be lunatic if they think they'll be able to get more than 70% of revenues to themselves. Even at 70% of revenues going to them (which is not going to happen), it makes an average payroll of $35M per team, close to the current minimum payroll allocation of the salary cap. On top of it, they would have missed over $1B this year. Imagine if this goes on another year, payrolls at 70% of revenues could go back to less than $30M on average. Where's the gain for the players? I just don't see it.

This is definetaly the best post on this thread. Potential NHL revenues are dwindling every day, the unnattached fans have already left and the die-hards are getting disgruntled (though I think most would still return, but cancelling a year and getting into the next could hurt that).

The biggest sign of this is if the corporate sponsors start to abandon ship I think, not that they are the biggest form of revenue around, but if the business men out there looking out for their best interests don't think its worth it fiscally and from a marketing standpoint to stay with the NHL, then I'd be VERY worried about the future.

 

[Greschner4]

No spin, just point out all the "lower end guys" who are speaking out.

All it takes to remove Goodenow is a vote of 50% plus 1.

Your presumption is totlally baseless.

Dream on. There's absolutely no way a 27 year old 3rd liner with $10K in the bank was in favor of throwing a way a whole year's salary, maybe more, to get an agreement most of the benefits of which will go to primadonnas who've already made theirs like Modano and Guerin. Goodenow and his kool-aid drinkers sold those guys down the river completely, beyond any legitimate doubt. Moreover, it is undeniable and a matter of public record that several of these guys used their free speech rights to say so, only to have Goodenow and his goons bully them into phony, Soviet-style "retractions."

And those are the guys that make up most of the union and that supporters of real unions should support. As this supporter of real unions does.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Dream on. There's absolutely no way a 27 year old 3rd liner with $10K in the bank was in favor of throwing a way a whole year's salary, maybe more, to get an agreement most of the benefits of which will go to primadonnas who've already made theirs like Modano and Guerin. Goodenow and his kool-aid drinkers sold those guys down the river completely, beyond any legitimate doubt. Moreover, it is undeniable and a matter of public record that several of these guys used their free speech rights to say so, only to have Goodenow and his goons bully them into phony, Soviet-style "retractions."

And those are the guys that make up most of the union and that supporters of real unions should support. As this supporter of real unions does.

When all those 3rd liners begin to speak out, come and talk then.

Until then it is just wishful thinking on your part with no factual basis.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Really? How would you know what is "acceptable to these guys". How in the world would you know what their "lifestyle and financial commitments" are or what they are able to live on.

You are being presumptuous to think that you can speak for them. Not every NHLer has a multi - million dollar mansion and a trophy wife that sits and eats bon bons all day and some *gasp* actually know how to manage their money (or at least have someone do it for them) to prepare for life after hockey. Just because you would blow your earnings doesn't mean everyone else would.

Oh, so now you suggest that they are ravaging through their retirement savings. Thats even better. I know for a fact that NO SANE HUMAN BEING is happy getting his paycheck slashed by 3/4. Keep trying to spin it though.

 

[Greschner4]

When all those 3rd liners begin to speak out, come and talk then.

Until then it is just wishful thinking on your part with no factual basis.

They have talked, several of them. Practically everybody on the boards know who I'm talking about ... Ray, etc. Even Modano and Roenick.

Then the call from Goodenow's goon squad comes. The Soviet-style "retraction" immediately follows.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

When all those 3rd liners begin to speak out, come and talk then.

Until then it is just wishful thinking on your part with no factual basis.

The factual basis is common sense and its hardly wishful thinking to presume somebody would be pissed off at having a years salary flushed down the toilet. Any attempt at posturing by claiming these guys couldn't care less about losing (in some cases) up to 100% of their hockey income is insane.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Being called clueless by you is the supreme compliment, for no one's board name is more appropriate. Will leave it to others to continue to snicker/comment at your inane posts, will simply point out chief that my post which you are criticizing states the exact point you are making here .

I think you have multiple personalities (or absolutely no ability to judge sarcasm). When I pointed out that going from 500 to 120 was drastic and that any normal human being would be upset about it, you reacted like a feeak and started talking about monopoly money and "real world budgets". Then, you retract your statements and agree with me that it is a HUGE financial hit. Either make up your mind or somehow aquire the ability to recognise sarcasm, chief.

 

[mackdogs*]

Um, my "guess" is based upon what actually has happened to date (and what has not happened, as in no player revolt whatsoever). That is, based on reality to date.

Your's is based upon what you think is happening. (Wish to be happening.) Brilliant!

If you cannot make that distinction, you need to look elsewhere for help.

Oh, so Bob Goodenow finally decided to put this to a union vote? And the players agreed to stay the course? I hadn't read that yet, nor did I know you had insider information.

Thanks for that lesson Trottier. Here's one for you - lacing your posts with idiotic emoticons completely takes away credibility. Your smug attitude doesn't help either. Keep shoving your opinion down people's throats though, it's the best way to make your point.

 

[Trottier]

Keep shoving your opinion down people's throats though, it's the best way to make your point.

Shoving my opinion? Or challenging your's? Big difference.

Look, you wish to base your claim of alledged unhappiness/upheaval among the union membership on nothing more than hypotheticals and presumptions. As in: the union hasn't had a vote (that we know of) so - Aha! - they clearly are in turmoil!

I mean, has Bettman taken a vote of ownership? Do we know if all the owners are in merry agreement? Aha! There must be a revolt!

Specious arguments, dubious logic, both.

Best to sometimes go with that which we do know. Even if it runs contrary to your beliefs. For example: As of today, the union is standing strong, for better or worse.

Feel free to keep stating otherwise.

(No emoticons, just for you.)

 

[Wetcoaster]

They have talked, several of them. Practically everybody on the boards know who I'm talking about ... Ray, etc. Even Modano and Roenick.

Then the call from Goodenow's goon squad comes. The Soviet-style "retraction" immediately follows.

Sorry when did either Modano and Roenick become a "3rd liner with $10K in the bank"?

So several out of 750 is your proof the NHLPA leadership is going to be overthrown? I do not think so under any reasonable scenario.

 

[Wetcoaster]

The factual basis is common sense and its hardly wishful thinking to presume somebody would be pissed off at having a years salary flushed down the toilet. Any attempt at posturing by claiming these guys couldn't care less about losing (in some cases) up to 100% of their hockey income is insane.

In any lengthy labour dispute the union members will seldom if ever make up the money they have foregone during a strike lockout.

They may not be happy about it - I certainly would not but that does not mean they will overthrow the union or become replacement players. That is the leap of illogic you are attempting to make based on a couple of players speaking out.

Are you sure you are not Stan Fischler posting under a pseudonym???

 

[mooseOAK*]

Here's the voice of the masses, listen.

Baaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaa

 

[mackdogs*]

Look, you wish to base your claim of alledged unhappiness/upheaval among the union membership on nothing more than hypotheticals and presumptions. As in: the union hasn't had a vote (that we know of) so - Aha! - they clearly are in turmoil!

I'm basing my opinion the same way you are, something hypothetical. Thanks for making my point.

I mean, has Bettman taken a vote of ownership? Do we know if all the owners are in merry agreement? Aha! There must be a revolt!

Possibly, but I'm talking about the PA here. Thanks for putting words into my mouth.

Best to sometimes go with that which we do know. Even if it runs contrary to your beliefs. For example: As of today, the union is standing strong, for better or worse.

But we don't know this. Again this is your opinion based on hypotheticals. I think the majority are upset, but are too worried about retribution that comes when you go against your union. You think otherwise. Neither is fact. You know fact, something that is true. You can't know how the union is doing without having insider info.

(No emoticons, just for you.)

Exactly what I was talking about. Or do you want to be taken seriously?

ps. nice to see you don't dispute that you are smug. At least we agree on something.

 

[Trottier]

But we don't know this. Again this is your opinion based on hypotheticals. I think the majority are upset, but are too worried about retribution that comes when you go against your union. You think otherwise. Neither is fact. You know fact, something that is true. You can't know how the union is doing without having insider info.

For the sake of wasting no further time/space on this, will simply end by addressing the heart of your post.

How is stating that "As of today, the union is standing strong, for better or worse...." hypothetical? How is that not fact?

How cynical can one get?

The day the union rebels and the players instruct Goodenow to change course (and, though I'm doubtful, it could happen; see previous posts in this thread alluding to a "no confidence" clause), I will gladly acknowledge that your prophecies were spot on. Because the union will have splintered, for all to see. Until then, they have not. And again, if you wish to continue to assign your own feelings toward Goodenow to the majority of the union membership, feel free!

Final thought: I'll take my chances on being taken seriously here, thank you. And I will continue to not suffers fools easily. Has served me well for a good while, actually.

That's it on this topic, from this side.

 

[PecaFan]

I think the majority are upset, but are too worried about retribution that comes when you go against your union.

Yup. There's almost nothing to gain by speaking your mind, and everything to lose. One simply does not speak out against the "hive mind" of a union. I personally have gone through this exact thing. I didn't like the tactics my union was taking, but no way in hell was I going to speak out.

Personally, I'm actually surprised at how *many* players have spoken out. What's it been, 20 or 30 thereabouts? And for each one of them, how many think the same, but haven't spoken out? 5? 10?

I think there's easily a couple hundred players that are not happy, and fully expected to be back at work by now. But they're not phoning the union, and letting them know that.

 

[Marconius]

No spin, just point out all the "lower end guys" who are speaking out.

All it takes to remove Goodenow is a vote of 50% plus 1.

Your presumption is totlally baseless.

His whole presumption is based on the fact that most hockey players share some psychological characteristics, one of which has been drilled into them their entire lives. The concept of following your captains & trusting them.

 

[AM]

ever been bullied before?

When all those 3rd liners begin to speak out, come and talk then.

Until then it is just wishful thinking on your part with no factual basis.

Or are you usually the bully?