View Single Post
Old
09-02-2009, 08:47 AM
  #200
Jarqui
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
The guy who wanted the job but didn't get it now has a report that there are problems with the guy who did get the job. You don't think there is a credibility issue here?
Aside from hearsay (in no media that I've seen - just in the post on this board), where is there evidence that Pink wrote a report?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
I guess Hargrove's history gives him the benefit of the doubt, plus the fact he would tell us if he was planning a backroom maneuver.
It certainly doesn't give us the right to presume guilt. Particularly when it appears from his own testimony to the media (that the reps would know if it's truthful) that he followed the constitution by filing a report of the facts with no opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
What inspired this meeting in the first place? Of course Lindros wouldn't be there. And I'm sure there is no way possible that he had a few reps and/or Pink/Penney to his cottage for a "fishing" weekend either. Have you ever heard of plausible deniability? You set it up so it can be said since you weren't there, you can't be involved. You're making it seem like Pink/Penney/Hargrove/Lindros and player reps could have never even spoken about any of this prior to the meeting.
Here's what we do know according to the reps who have spoken about it:

1. There were concerns expressed by some players a year ago.
2. Lindros, an Ombudsman, wrote a 3 page letter when he resigned outlining his concerns
3. There were concerns expressed by some players in June.
4. Hargrove wrote a factual report on the concerns
5. Four reps looked into the matter with an HR consultant to verify what was fact or fiction related to all the concerns.

If Hargrove, Pink or Lindros was playing games, some evidence or suspicion ought to have turned up when the players checked into the concerns. Hargrove and at least one of the reps cleared Lindros because some of the reps have never met him or spoken with him and Lindros wasn't at the meeting and has not been involved since he resigned - except probably to answer questions about why he resigned. (So we've been told)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
"Have it survive that sort of scrutiny"? Exactly what kind of scrutiny do you expect a report about employees in an office to get by a bunch of player reps who don't believe their constitution needs to be followed when it comes to firing an exectuive director?
I have worked in places where people hate the boss, and have known people to stretch the truth when asked if they thought it could get that boss out of there. But hey, it's in that report so it must be true. The players accepted it. I'd be surprised if there was anything beyond a quick read of the report. 4 player reps. Out of 30.
The 30 players reps have the authority to follow their constitution and do just as they did when they removed Kelly. It did not require a membership vote. So I don't know where your accusation is coming from. Linden or players in the past have little or nothing to do with what is going on now because they've largely been replaced as has their constitution.

To have complaints of some players from a year ago, Lindros complaints, complaints from some players last June, the Hargrove report and the review by the four players reps all line up seems a little far fetched to me. I'm not much for unsubstantiated conspiracies though.

Further, Kelly was there to respond to this stuff. If there was something out of order, he could have brought it to their attention and convinced them to look into it. His failure to accomplish that doesn't help convince me that it was a powerplay. It might have been or it might have simply been that they had the goods on Kelly and he couldn't refute whatever it was that concerned them. Multiple reports suggest that it was more than one thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
While it may be that none of those guys really and truly won't accept it, don't forget the time-honored political tradition of saying you don't want the job, only to reach the "they can't find anyone else and I can't let this organization go down the tubes while I can do something to help." What else are they going to say? Saying they want the job right now totally reveals a power play.

There's an old joke about how to tell if a politician is lying: Check if their lips are moving. This is politics right now. Someone smells power and is trying to grab it. Between Alan Eagleson, the players looking the other way while Trevor Linden ignored the consitution to get Saskin hired, and now this, I don't think the players have learned much at all.

For the sake of this paragraph, I will stipulate Kelly needed to go. So that being the case, how much damage can he do in the week while the player reps go to their teams with the evidence, and the NHLPA takes a vote? They're in camp, so it's not as though people will be tough to find. Then you come back with "the membership took a vote, and due to ......., they voted to have Paul Kelly removed as ED." Instead, we hear quotes from players saying "we trust our reps, they told us what and why they did..." at 3:30 am on Sunday. If what they had was so damning, there would have been no issue getting the membership's support for the move, and while there may be a question or two, at least it was a membership decision, not a group of guys who not only may have axes to grind, but some whose very presence in that role is in question.
Anything is still possible at this juncture because we don't know all the facts. But there seem to be too many folks who have looked this over the past year in a variety of different efforts confirming it with a number of other people for me to conclude it must have been a powerplay by a few.

Jarqui is offline   Reply With Quote