NHLPA fires Paul Kelly (UPD: player review of firing completed)
View Single Post
09-15-2009, 01:41 PM
Join Date: Aug 2004
Originally Posted by
In other words "I can't come up with anything specific, so I'll stick to alluding to personal insults, rumour and innuendo".
LMAO - he asks the guys sitting in Windsor, Ontario...
Seriously dude, until you can come up with something concrete and not baseless insults, this is really a futile exercise. Here's a hint though - "where there's smoke there's fire" and "it's generally accepted" aren't specific.
What does it mean? It means contrary to your misconceptions, the public relations hits the players took in this ordeal are completely irrelevant. They needed to do what was right for their union, not for you and me.
I'll say it again - the "wide perception" doesn't matter.
Fan perception has nothing to do with why the players came back. If that mattered, we wouldn't have lost a year in the first place.
LMAO. Ernie, do a little reading. Maybe take a remedial level business course.
It didn't matter last time and it won't matter next time. The players will do what's right for them and so will the owners. We'll get hockey when they both decide it's time to give it to us.
I'm not going to go into depth about Lindros or Hargrove because each could take up a 40 page thread of their own. If it's your opinion that these are upstanding, fair-minded individuals, you're entitled to it. But at least concede that they don't have a good reputation.
You seem to think that PR doesn't matter at all. All I can say to you is that if the union had won the PR war last time around, the players wouldn't be playing under a salary cap right now. I never said that bad publicity forced the players back to the table. I said that the owners having most of the media and the fans on side allowed them to stay away indefinitely. This is extremely basic, and clearly something that the Goodenowe regime did not understand until it was way too late in the game.
I'd be willing to bet that I have a lot more business knowledge than you do. Seriously, how can you even mock others when you don't understand the basics of public relations?
I never said that the union was the same as a business. What I did say was that the union is in charge of protecting $1.5bn worth of revenues. The executive committee is roughly equivalent to a board of directors in a public company - their job is to make sure that the organization is being run in an above board manner that maximizes values for the players.
The players on the executive committee do not have the experience or the knowledge or even the intelligence to do that job properly. Indeed, that is pretty much acknowledged in the constitution, which is why they have an ombudsman to advise them. Unfortunately, their choices for ombudsman have been piss poor. That may be an opinion, as you say, but it's one that's shared by many.
Last edited by mouser: 09-15-2009 at
. Reason: not necessary
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ernie