HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHLPA fires Paul Kelly (UPD: player review of firing completed)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-31-2009, 04:00 PM
  #76
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Goodenow spent two years before the lockout travelling around briefing the players and the agents on the strategy that had been endorsed by the player reps. Goodenow had his marching orders blessed by the executive. Everyone at the NHLPAwas in agreement,

The NHLPA had worked its strike fund with a two year timeline in mind and provided financial planning to help players prepare for a lengthy work stoppage.

Goodenow was very clear with the players if they decided to go down this path it would not be until the second year of work stoppage that it would likely be possible to get an agreement.

His mistake was underestimating the commitment of many of the players and the ability of certain agents to undermine the strategy.
they never would have survived into year 2. going into year 2 would have made their position even more perilous. it was one of the stupidest plans I have ever seen. strike funds and financial planning are great, but when you are accustomed to a certain lifestyle... especially since the people who get squeezed are the bottom liners/pairers and don't particularly make that much money in the first place. not compared to what they spend. sure, the Jagrs of the world can piss away all the money they want and still get paid the same thing overseas, but that's not how it works for the lunchpail guys.

they got ****ed on the lockout and they got ****ed on the agreement, not surprising though, because sports unions only fight for the rich and the powerful, and the people who already have been paid but want to effect change.

and as for the league, going into year 2 also potentially could have been fatal.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:08 PM
  #77
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Goodenow spent two years before the lockout travelling around briefing the players and the agents on the strategy that had been endorsed by the player reps. Goodenow had his marching orders blessed by the executive. Everyone at the NHLPAwas in agreement,

The NHLPA had worked its strike fund with a two year timeline in mind and provided financial planning to help players prepare for a lengthy work stoppage.

Goodenow was very clear with the players if they decided to go down this path it would not be until the second year of work stoppage that it would likely be possible to get an agreement.

His mistake was underestimating the commitment of many of the players and the ability of certain agents to undermine the strategy.
I don't disagree that this was the "plan" and it was endorsed by seemingly everyone at the top of the NHLPA. I am merely stating that this "plan" was never going to work, was never going to pay off in terms of greater career earnings for 99% of the PA, and the end result was almost inevitable after the first year.

Egil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:13 PM
  #78
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section337 View Post
I'm guessing there was a lot of silence equals consent, support.
Nope there were secret ballot votes conducted team by team.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:18 PM
  #79
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
they never would have survived into year 2. going into year 2 would have made their position even more perilous. it was one of the stupidest plans I have ever seen. strike funds and financial planning are great, but when you are accustomed to a certain lifestyle... especially since the people who get squeezed are the bottom liners/pairers and don't particularly make that much money in the first place. not compared to what they spend. sure, the Jagrs of the world can piss away all the money they want and still get paid the same thing overseas, but that's not how it works for the lunchpail guys.

they got ****ed on the lockout and they got ****ed on the agreement, not surprising though, because sports unions only fight for the rich and the powerful, and the people who already have been paid but want to effect change.

and as for the league, going into year 2 also potentially could have been fatal.
The NHLPA had concluded that the NHL was prepared to lose one season but that they would not sacrifice a second so if you were locked out and planned to fight, that was the only viable strategy.

However cracks appeared in the union position and that was not forseen.

The fight was never about the stars - they were going to get their money.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:23 PM
  #80
ottsens08
 
ottsens08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: top secret
Posts: 1,392
vCash: 500
What a bunch of idiots the PA is!!!! Kelly was the right man for the job and they fire his ass. I guess they want someone who will fight the NHL every step of the way. NHL fans prepare your self for another labor war. the NHLPA is self destructing once again what a bunch of clowns they are.

ottsens08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:38 PM
  #81
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
and as for the league, going into year 2 also potentially could have been fatal.
The thing was, the NHL planned to counter it by canceling the next season. Bettman said later on that they "weren't that far off" from it, but I'm sure they would have waited the balance of the year before doing it.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:40 PM
  #82
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,835
vCash: 400
Damien Cox:

http://thestar.blogs.com/thespin/

the hockey union is controlled by a small clutch of hired executives and player reps while the vast majority of NHL players don't give a hoot or are waiting to be told what they think.

....the release from the NHLPA this morning regarding Kelly's departure was downright hilarious in its unwillingness to provide the hockey world with any specific information on why Kelly has been ousted.

This morning's release said the executive committee "voted overwhelmingly" to dump Kelly, the man who put Eagleson in jail,... Now it's lawyer Ian Penney and ombudsman Buzz Hargrove that may have led the charge against Kelly, men who were supposedly under his charge at the union.

Maybe Kelly wasn't hardline enough for some. But he was practical and reasonable. His biggest error may have been a naive belief he could trust those with whom he was working.

The knives at the NHLPA, it seems, are never actually put away.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:43 PM
  #83
gorskic
Registered User
 
gorskic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Central CT
Country: United States
Posts: 3,297
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to gorskic Send a message via Yahoo to gorskic
James Murphy (hockeyscribe22) had this little nugget on NESN.com:

Quote:
According to sources, part of this group’s desire to get rid of Kelly also stemmed from Kelly ordering an internal audit (by a top former FBI forensic accountant) of the players' association's expenses during the previous three years before he took over. That audit was still ongoing prior to Kelly’s dismissal. Through it, Kelly discovered that then-interim leaders Penny and Lindros were spending millions of dollars of the union’s money. Lindros ended up resigning, but word is, that move fueled this attack on Kelly, and Lindros was very much involved. Kelly also beat out Pink for the executive director job, and the belief is that Pink is still sour over that.
http://www.nesn.com/2009/08/kelly-fi...ver-learn.html

Groovy.

gorskic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:48 PM
  #84
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,709
vCash: 500
Once again the PA makes itself look foolish...what a bunch of drama queens!

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:49 PM
  #85
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,474
vCash: 50
This has become a mess. They'll never get it together before the next CBA, and the public opinion will be against them more than it was in 2004.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:53 PM
  #86
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
What specifically has Kelley accomplished during his tenure? (Not a loaded question, genuinely curious).

  Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:01 PM
  #87
Preds Partisan
Nothing
 
Preds Partisan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
This has become a mess. They'll never get it together before the next CBA, and the public opinion will be against them more than it was in 2004.

Pretty clear they don't care too much about that.

Preds Partisan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:13 PM
  #88
Wondercarrot
Classless
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Some of us believe players should get market value, and not some predetermined number like a communist regime.
no fan of communism am I, but that quote is so insufferably stupid it makes me want to vomit.

Wondercarrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:15 PM
  #89
Burke's Evil Spirit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 15,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorskic View Post
James Murphy (hockeyscribe22) had this little nugget on NESN.com:



http://www.nesn.com/2009/08/kelly-fi...ver-learn.html

Groovy.
What a mess. God damn.

Burke's Evil Spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:27 PM
  #90
Macke*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,756
vCash: 500
Bruce Dowbiggin was just on the radio and said escrow was the biggest reason and it was guys like Jarome Iginla leading the charge.

Macke* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:33 PM
  #91
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
This has become a mess. They'll never get it together before the next CBA, and the public opinion will be against them more than it was in 2004.
I think the only thing the NHLPA is going to go for in 2011 is status quo. They can't reasonably expect any serious changes to the system. The only thing they will fight for is no further restrictions.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:33 PM
  #92
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,006
vCash: 500
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/08/31/penny_nhlpa/

Ian Penny named interim exec director

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:36 PM
  #93
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macke View Post
Bruce Dowbiggin was just on the radio and said escrow was the biggest reason and it was guys like Jarome Iginla leading the charge.
How is this Kelly's fault? The players agreed to the CBA, with its clawback features. Revenues stagnated. Was the NHLPA supposed to decline on the automatic bump in next year's cap (which would mean even more players would be in Europe right now)?

As for getting a cut of expansion fees? Fat chance. Not in their wildest dreams.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:42 PM
  #94
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
They can't reasonably expect any serious changes to the system. The only thing they will fight for is no further restrictions.
If the owners are going to keep a hard cap, guaranteed contracts have got to go. Otherwise teams can get buried for years with just one bad choice - and ALL GMs make bad choices from time to time. Perhaps they can swap it for another 3 year reduction in the minimum age for UFA eligibility.

Between the PA doing it's thing and the owners getting stoopid over Phoenix/Hamilton/etc, there is a wide open door here for a 10-team "KHL West". A transcontinental Super Cup to cap the playoffs...

  Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:43 PM
  #95
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
If the owners are going to keep a hard cap, guaranteed contracts have got to go. Otherwise teams can get buried for years with just one bad choice - and ALL GMs make bad choices from time to time.

Perhaps they can swap it for another 3 year reduction in the minimum age for UFA eligibility.
they would have to loosen bonus restrictions and eliminate RFA compensation altogether (possibly RFA altogether) to have a prayer at that. I would also imagine that giving the players a higher percentage of league revenues would be necessary.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:46 PM
  #96
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
If the owners are going to keep a hard cap, guaranteed contracts have got to go. Otherwise teams can get buried for years with just one bad choice - and ALL GMs make bad choices from time to time. Perhaps they can swap it for another 3 year reduction in the minimum age for UFA eligibility.

Between the PA doing it's thing and the owners getting stoopid over Phoenix/Hamilton/etc, there is a wide open door here for a 10-team "KHL West". A transcontinental Super Cup to cap the playoffs...'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
they would have to loosen bonus restrictions and eliminate RFA compensation altogether (possibly RFA altogether) to have a prayer at that. I would also imagine that giving the players a higher percentage of league revenues would be necessary.
If contracts aren't guaranteed, I doubt you see any player signing longterm. It will just be 1-2 yr deals.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:46 PM
  #97
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
they would have to loosen bonus restrictions and eliminate RFA compensation altogether (possibly RFA altogether) to have a prayer at that. I would also imagine that giving the players a higher percentage of league revenues would be necessary.
I think we're thinking the same thing? -- if a player gets his contract un-contracted he would have to automatically be an UFA regardless of age or experience. Can't work otherwise.

  Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 05:47 PM
  #98
Sad Panda
Registered User
 
Sad Panda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/08/31/penny_nhlpa/

Ian Penny named interim exec director
Ridiculous.

Sad Panda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 06:02 PM
  #99
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
TSN has some interviews with Chelios, Hargrove and Ferrence. No details at all,
though ferrance says "there was information that came to us through the regular checks and balances that was too hard to ignore". What that means exactly is unclear.

Egil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 06:33 PM
  #100
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
You mean to tell me that a deal where not only is the compensation the owners have pay set at a limit, but the players have to hand over a portion of their salary to be held in an account for year, and if the businesss owners couldn't generate enough revenue they get to take that money(that they signed a contract to pay the player) back and spread it among themselves.
Wow, did you miss the boat on this one. Let's paint a more accurate picture:

1. The players are guaranteed a percentage of revenues whether or not teams are profitable, in the aggregate or individually.
2. The escrow mechanism is in place to ensure that players receive only the percentage of revenues that they are contractually set to receive; if the percentage of revenues paid exceeds what they're allowed to get, they pay in - if it's short, they don't pay in.
3. The growth in the cap assumes a 5% year-to-year increase; both sides have the option of agreeing to a different figure, but thus far they've yet to do so [with the exception of 2006-07, when the NHLPA elected to waive the inflator].

Furthermore,

4. While there is a maximum pay level set, it's based on the level of the cap in the year a contract is signed. More importantly, should the cap ever fall, the salary is guaranteed so the players never have to take a pay cut - even if their salary for a particular year ends up being more than 20% of the cap for that year.
5. The minimum NHL salary was dramatically increased - and, players now have UFA at age 27 [or earlier, if they have sufficient experience] instead of having to wait until 31.

BTW - if the owners really wanted to put the screws to the players, they could have.

So it is inaccurate to claim that "if the owners don't grow revenues enough, they get part of the players salaries." It is more accurate to state, "if player salaries exceed the allowable percentage, they pay to the owners; if it falls short, the owners pay to the players." The players get a guaranteed percentage of revenues, and still assume no risk for the inability of teams to operate profitably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
The star players are making as much or less than they did before(think Crosby signs for $8.7 without a cap?), and veterans who are not top stars are getting caught between the stars and young kids who come cheap. Except maybe for the cheap young kids, for whom exactly would things have been much worse for had they sat out another year?
Ask the players who would have been playing for $200,000 a year under the old CBA that now are guaranteed at least $500,000 a year [soon to be $525,000 a year]. Also ask the "kids" who would have been playing for $1 million or so under the old CBA that are getting paid market value now once their first contract expires. Those "veterans" having to take a pay cut were in many cases horribly overpaid [Sylvain Lefebvre? Stephane Quintal? Darius Kasparaitis? Bobby Holik? Shall I go on?] and quite arguably were taking dollars from more productive players, solely because one group was unrestricted and the other generally didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting lobbed an offer sheet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
Trevor Linden did not get a good deal for the players. He got a good deal for the owners. The only thing he did for the players was got them playing, which, in the cnotext of the deal they signed, was also a very good deal for the owners.
Don't blame Trevor Linden. Blame Bob Goodenow for offering up the 24% rollback unprompted, without consulting with the NHLPA about it. When Bob did that, it shredded the union's negotiating stance - the league happily tacked that onto their proposal and pressed forward even harder, smelling blood in the water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
This was the view from a thread regarding Detroit's creativity with the cap, when I asked why was a year given up:

"it wasnt about a hard cap, it was about linkage. Cost certainty. The transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars paid to the players back to the owners. And the owners have it. They have everything they wanted. The players surrendered on bended knee, giving complete and total victory of the triple cap payroll range system to the owners along with Goodenows head on a plate of Russian Borscht from which he is now taunting them. Escrow backed cost certainty."
And that's a completely accurate assessment of what happened and what is currently happening.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.