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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-01-2009, 01:17 PM
  #176
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,767
vCash: 500
And the ironic thing is that the Nashville Predators are thinking about bringing in Chelios as a 7th defenseman and another lockout would hurt them the most.

BigFatCat999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 02:16 PM
  #177
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Don't know if the Sharks were represented at the meeting. Brad Lukowich was the rep and Friday he was traded.

And AIUI, Mitchell volunteered to attend for the Canucks as their previous rep was not re-signed.

Would be nice to see a list of who (players) actually attended the meeting.
I believe that the NHLPA is obligated to keep minutes and with that attendance. I'm not sure about the public availability of said documents though.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 03:12 PM
  #178
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 60,481
vCash: 500
Talked with the Sharks players today. They were represented. Douglas Murray "attended" via phone.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 03:30 PM
  #179
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 60,481
vCash: 500
http://www.xmhomeice.com/audio/Kevyn...%2009%2001.MP3

Former NHLPA executive Committee member (and retired player) Kevyn Adams talks about Kelly's ouster.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 03:46 PM
  #180
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu View Post
My theory is that Chelios has brought in Buzz Hargrove to bring in an auto-worker style system that guarantees him an NHL roster spot due to seniority.
More likely it was Ron Pink. IIRC he worked with Hargrove and the CAW on labour matters in the past - specifically pensions and benefits as he is considered a leading legal expert in that field in Canada.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 07:19 PM
  #181
81ragnaH
Registered User
 
81ragnaH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lynn, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,736
vCash: 500
http://www.nesn.com/2009/09/bruins-n...aul-kelly.html

Boston Bruins rep Andrew Ference speaks about Kelley firing.

Quote:
“As for what’s being said out there about Buzz Hargrove or Ian Penny, Ron Pink and Eric Lindros, those are just complete fabrications,” Ference said. “Lindros had nothing to do with this. When he resigned, he was finished with official business as far as the union goes. Did he and Kelly disagree when he was ombudsman? Yes, but he had nothing to do with this decision.

“There were no personal agendas, I can tell you that. This was based on what our review found and things I unfortunately cannot discuss at this time. But all of that stuff is crazy.”
Quote:
According to Ference, questions over Kelly’s leadership arose at the NHLPA meetings in Las Vegas this past June, and a decision was reached to look at how business was being conducted within the NHLPA. What they found from this overview, according to Ference, was the basis for the decision to fire Kelly. Ference adamantly denied that their reasons for making this move were because they thought Kelly was “too soft” or “too cozy” with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and deputy chief Bill Daly.

“That was not the reason we fired Paul,” Ference said. “Why would we not want a proactive relationship with the league? This idea that we want a more militant leader or hard-liner in charge is crazy. Do we want our leader to be soft? No. But of course we want to have a line of communication with the league, and we realize what another work stoppage could do. That’s the last thing we want.”

81ragnaH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 07:27 PM
  #182
Ol' Jase
PLAYOFFS??
 
Ol' Jase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,817
vCash: 500
So I guess the audit looking into Lindros' use of NHLPA funds is over?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=4437496

Ol' Jase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 08:14 PM
  #183
Epsilon
#TeamRaccoon
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 40,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 81ragnaH View Post
http://www.nesn.com/2009/09/bruins-n...aul-kelly.html

Boston Bruins rep Andrew Ference speaks about Kelley firing.
I am going to laugh hysterically if it turns out the media and most fans were completely in the wrong about all of this, given how quickly conclusions were jumped to and anti-NHLPA narratives were drawn up.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 08:42 PM
  #184
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 60,481
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=289599

At least the NHL and NHLPA aren't accused of collusion (like the NFL/NFLPA, now a target of federal investigation).

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 08:48 PM
  #185
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 60,481
vCash: 500
From Twitter:
mirtle: NHLPA accountant quits after Kelly firing: http://fky3u.tk

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 08:50 PM
  #186
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
I am going to laugh hysterically if it turns out the media and most fans were completely in the wrong about all of this, given how quickly conclusions were jumped to and anti-NHLPA narratives were drawn up.
The problem is as much the process as anything else.

If I stipulate that Kelly indeed was the problem, and that the evidence they reviewed was damning, why is it that just before training camps open, the executive committee needs to hold a meeting at 3:30 am on a Sunday, and without going to the general membership? Surely if the evidence is that convincing the reps can go back to their teams and show the players the evidence, and the process be followed. Surely if the issue was embezzlement of funds or something as egregious as that, they would be front and centre with that. "Unfortunately I can't discuss it" leaves a big question. What the players did was essentially termination with cause, except that no one knows the cause.

Do they owe us the answer? An argument could be made for no, but consider that one of the few selling points the league has to potential owners at this point is the cost structure of the payroll. If you were a potential owner, how appealing would a PA that seems to hange exec dirs on a whim be to you? You never know if you are going to be dealing with a hardliner or someone who, while they still protect their position, you can work with. While it is not the players' responsibility to save the owners from themselves IMHO, at the same time, they have to be careful, because this eventually hurts them as well if no one wants to buy a team.

At best, the NHLPA is spot on with their assessment, and made themselves look like fools by handling this in the worst way possible. The best outcome for the PA is still not terribly appealing.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 09:04 PM
  #187
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
From Twitter:
mirtle: NHLPA accountant quits after Kelly firing: http://fky3u.tk
Bob Lindquist is much more than just an accountant. He is often referred to as the Godfather of Forensic Accounting.
http://web4.uwindsor.ca/units/alumni...c!OpenDocument

Sometimes people will say that so and so wrote to the book on such and such an area - in Bob Lundquist's case that was quite literally true.

Quote:
LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD * BOB LINDQUIST

Bob Lindquist who is the father of the Forensic and Investigative accounting discipline was presented with a "Lifetime Achievement Award" by the Association of Certified Forensic Investigators of Canada during the 2004 ACFI Fraud Conference.

There is no doubt that accountants have been performing investigations for quite some time and have, as well, been appearing in a court of law as a witness of fact or as an expert witness providing opinion evidence on matters pertaining to accounting. But it wasn't until approximately 1975 that the term Forensic & Investigative Accountant (ing) was coined and Canadians should feel proud of the fact that the term and discipline, which had its genesis in Canada, has now spread around the world.

The term "Forensic & Investigative Accounting" and its related discipline has been credited to two Canadian Chartered Accountants: Mr. Donald Holmes and Mr. Robert J. Lindquist. At our 6th Annual Fraud Conference Mr. Robert (Bob) Lindquist was honoured for his contribution with the presentation of a "Lifetime Achievement Award" which reads:

http://www.acfi.ca/NewsCurrLAABobLindquist.htm

Here is the press release when he joined the NHLPA:
Quote:
Mr. Lindquist is credited with helping create and develop the discipline of forensic and investigative accounting. During his career, Mr. Lindquist has been an active participant in many high profile investigations on behalf of corporations and governments around the world. Notable cases Mr. Lindquist has worked on include: Bre-X Minerals, the Volcker Commission to recover assets of the victims of the Holocaust, the World Bank Loan programme, and the investigation into the missing Romanian government funds following the death of former Romanian President Nicolai Ceausescu.
http://www.nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3777

If he is leaving over this.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 09:07 PM
  #188
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
The problem is as much the process as anything else.

If I stipulate that Kelly indeed was the problem, and that the evidence they reviewed was damning, why is it that just before training camps open, the executive committee needs to hold a meeting at 3:30 am on a Sunday, and without going to the general membership? Surely if the evidence is that convincing the reps can go back to their teams and show the players the evidence, and the process be followed. Surely if the issue was embezzlement of funds or something as egregious as that, they would be front and centre with that. "Unfortunately I can't discuss it" leaves a big question. What the players did was essentially termination with cause, except that no one knows the cause.

Do they owe us the answer? An argument could be made for no, but consider that one of the few selling points the league has to potential owners at this point is the cost structure of the payroll. If you were a potential owner, how appealing would a PA that seems to hange exec dirs on a whim be to you? You never know if you are going to be dealing with a hardliner or someone who, while they still protect their position, you can work with. While it is not the players' responsibility to save the owners from themselves IMHO, at the same time, they have to be careful, because this eventually hurts them as well if no one wants to buy a team.

At best, the NHLPA is spot on with their assessment, and made themselves look like fools by handling this in the worst way possible. The best outcome for the PA is still not terribly appealing.
Thus far there is nothing revealed that would constitute sufficient cause to terminate.

Quote:
No reason was given in a statement from the NHLPA. But a review of Kelly's performance over the summer produced a list of issues players had with his leadership, said Buzz Hargrove, the former Canadian Auto Workers boss who is now interim ombudsman for the NHLPA.

"I don't think you can point to any one (issue) and I'm not prepared to name one," he said, adding that "people had just lost confidence that Paul was the one" to lead the union.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/08/31/kelly_nhlpa/

I agree the process was very strange.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 09:40 PM
  #189
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Bob Lindquist is much more than just an accountant. He is often referred to as the Godfather of Forensic Accounting.
http://web4.uwindsor.ca/units/alumni...c!OpenDocument

Sometimes people will say that so and so wrote to the book on such and such an area - in Bob Lundquist's case that was quite literally true.


http://www.acfi.ca/NewsCurrLAABobLindquist.htm

Here is the press release when he joined the NHLPA:

http://www.nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3777

If he is leaving over this.
Having read a bunch and listened to a bunch of interviews, I'm left wondering if he's falling on his sword.

In some of the early reports yesterday, it was suggested that Kelly had a forensic accountant brought in to investigate Penny & Lindros.

We know Lindros resigned upset with Kelly last February. Both Hargrove & others have cleared Lindros as having nothing to do with what went on yesterday to the extent that a bunch of the player reps have apparently never met or talked with the man.

In some of the early reports yesterday, Penny and Hargrove were accused of a power play. Both have insisted that they will not accept a permanent job as NHLPA director.

Some questioned Penny's five year deal. Stajan and others said it was the players idea to give Penny the five year deal - not Penny's. There was a procedural issue with how they went about it so they did it again to make it right. Nothing sinister according to those who spoke about it.

There apparently were problems with Kelly a year ago. Then with Lindros last February. Then in the NHLPA meetings last June. So the players hire a HR consultant and four of the reps went around and interviewed every employee at the NHLPA to get to the bottom of it.

Hargrove wasn't "brought in" to replace Lindros. He was already on their advisory and moved over on an interim basis when Lindros resigned. Hargrove did his Ombudsman report independently and his only role was to present it to the reps. He was not in the room for the discussions of his findings or the findings of the players with the HR consultant.

Flatley resigned but he was not aware of what went on in the meetings as it was apparently only 27 of the 30 player reps with the other reps maybe on the phone.

So what if Penny and Lindros were not happy with what Kelly was doing and Kelly retaliated by calling in a forensic accountant to try and find dirt on Lindros and Penny vindictively like someone calling the IRS on someone else? Just a theory/speculation. But it fits with everything that's happened - including the resignation of this forensic accountant.

I think the media has been terrible in a rush to judgment of this situation. I think we ought to be patient and wait for the facts.

If anything, I'm encouraged by the behavior of the players - to have the structure in place for vigilance of the checks and balances needed to safeguard their union and to take the time and make the effort to professionally get to the bottom of these issues and then have the confidence and courage to act upon their confirmed findings when they knew the media would roast them.

As much as some suggest they're in disarray, I would suggest the above is a sign that they're finally taking proper control of their union and from where I sit, as painful as the short term might be, it looks good on them.

cleduc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 09:41 PM
  #190
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
Watters was going on about some anonymous letter on Leafs Lunch.

Anyone seen it?

nye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 10:20 PM
  #191
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
Having read a bunch and listened to a bunch of interviews, I'm left wondering if he's falling on his sword.

In some of the early reports yesterday, it was suggested that Kelly had a forensic accountant brought in to investigate Penny & Lindros.

We know Lindros resigned upset with Kelly last February. Both Hargrove & others have cleared Lindros as having nothing to do with what went on yesterday to the extent that a bunch of the player reps have apparently never met or talked with the man.

In some of the early reports yesterday, Penny and Hargrove were accused of a power play. Both have insisted that they will not accept a permanent job as NHLPA director.

Some questioned Penny's five year deal. Stajan and others said it was the players idea to give Penny the five year deal - not Penny's. There was a procedural issue with how they went about it so they did it again to make it right. Nothing sinister according to those who spoke about it.

There apparently were problems with Kelly a year ago. Then with Lindros last February. Then in the NHLPA meetings last June. So the players hire a HR consultant and four of the reps went around and interviewed every employee at the NHLPA to get to the bottom of it.

Hargrove wasn't "brought in" to replace Lindros. He was already on their advisory and moved over on an interim basis when Lindros resigned. Hargrove did his Ombudsman report independently and his only role was to present it to the reps. He was not in the room for the discussions of his findings or the findings of the players with the HR consultant.

Flatley resigned but he was not aware of what went on in the meetings as it was apparently only 27 of the 30 player reps with the other reps maybe on the phone.

So what if Penny and Lindros were not happy with what Kelly was doing and Kelly retaliated by calling in a forensic accountant to try and find dirt on Lindros and Penny vindictively like someone calling the IRS on someone else? Just a theory/speculation. But it fits with everything that's happened - including the resignation of this forensic accountant.

I think the media has been terrible in a rush to judgment of this situation. I think we ought to be patient and wait for the facts.

If anything, I'm encouraged by the behavior of the players - to have the structure in place for vigilance of the checks and balances needed to safeguard their union and to take the time and make the effort to professionally get to the bottom of these issues and then have the confidence and courage to act upon their confirmed findings when they knew the media would roast them.

As much as some suggest they're in disarray, I would suggest the above is a sign that they're finally taking proper control of their union and from where I sit, as painful as the short term might be, it looks good on them.
I believe these are different people. Murphy's article referred to a former FBI forensic audit specialist.

Lindquist was brought on board 04 February 2008 to ride herd on the owners and make sure all the HRR was accounted for. As you may recall the NHLPA had always had questions about accounting practises:
Quote:
In his position, Mr. Lindquist will be responsible for ensuring that NHLPA members receive the appropriate players’ share (over 55.6%) of the NHL’s and its member Clubs’ HRR revenues as defined under terms of the CBA. Mr. Lindquist will work with his counterparts at the NHL and at the Club level in his role with the Players’ Association.
The information I was given was that the report was written by Ron Pink - since I would be astonished if Hargrove could write such a report. The powerplay was masterminded Pink. Not Lindros and not Hargrove.

The process and meeting without going to the membership at large smacks of an ambush and looks like a pre-emptive strike.

As with Goodenow and Saskin we will likely never get all the facts. It seems like the NHLPA is prepared to terminate Kelly in accordance with the provisions in his contract. In that case there will likely be confidentiality clauses in the settlement agreement and speculation will be the order of the day.

If walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 10:27 PM
  #192
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
Watters was going on about some anonymous letter on Leafs Lunch.

Anyone seen it?
http://www.640toronto.com/HostsandSh...nch/Audio.aspx
Pat Flatley was interviewed.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 10:41 PM
  #193
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
I can't see why Paul Kelly was fired. Where is the smoking gun? Is the NHLPA really this dysfunctional? On the surface, he seemed like an ideal leader.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 10:46 PM
  #194
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post

I listened to that.

Watters mentions an anonymous letter, but he does not read it.

I am wondering if anyone knows where this anonymous letter can be viewed.

nye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 11:00 PM
  #195
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
From Twitter:
mirtle: NHLPA accountant quits after Kelly firing: http://fky3u.tk
That...is an alarm bell.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 05:42 AM
  #196
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
I listened to that.

Watters mentions an anonymous letter, but he does not read it.

I am wondering if anyone knows where this anonymous letter can be viewed.
I think it was during the Hargrove interview where it was said that it was Kelly who produced this letter for the reps. (I'm not saying Kelly wrote it. - just an fyi)

cleduc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 05:51 AM
  #197
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
As much as some suggest they're in disarray, I would suggest the above is a sign that they're finally taking proper control of their union and from where I sit, as painful as the short term might be, it looks good on them.
So 27 of 30 reps present firing the executive director at 3:30 in the morning without going to the membership first is "taking proper control"? Wow.

Bet old Buzz would have never stood for the union stewards and local presidents voting on important issues without ratification by the general membership before he became president.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 06:03 AM
  #198
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I believe these are different people. Murphy's article referred to a former FBI forensic audit specialist.

Lindquist was brought on board 04 February 2008 to ride herd on the owners and make sure all the HRR was accounted for. As you may recall the NHLPA had always had questions about accounting practises:


The information I was given was that the report was written by Ron Pink - since I would be astonished if Hargrove could write such a report. The powerplay was masterminded Pink. Not Lindros and not Hargrove.

The process and meeting without going to the membership at large smacks of an ambush and looks like a pre-emptive strike.

As with Goodenow and Saskin we will likely never get all the facts. It seems like the NHLPA is prepared to terminate Kelly in accordance with the provisions in his contract. In that case there will likely be confidentiality clauses in the settlement agreement and speculation will be the order of the day.

If walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
Well here's the part where I have a problem lining that up with what I've gathered from the various quotes and interviews in the media:

First of all, we have the players reporting problems a year ago. Then the 3 page Lindros letter of February. Then players reporting more problems in June. Then from this meeting:

a) No one brought up Pink's report in the media that I've seen

b) Hargrove claimed his report was done by him and exclusively under the role of Ombudsman - just reporting the facts of his findings with no opinion.

c) I believe it was Hargrove who said it was a reps only meeting - no Pink, Hargrove, Kelly or Lindros (who wasn't there) in constant attendance. Hargrove for example was brought in to specifically answer questions about his report for clarification and then left the meeting.

d) A group of four player reps and a HR consultant they hired went around and interviewed every NHLPA employee to confirm the information they had found out. And they reported that directly to the reps - with no Pink, Hargrove, Lindros directly in that loop.

That last point (d) is significant because it's pretty tough to put a powerplay hit piece together and have it survive that sort of scrutiny unless there's merit to it. And these folks who are being suggested as making a powerplay were not in the meetings full time to influence the reps as they reviewed the facts and findings.

Hargrove (emphatically), Penny and Pink have all been reported as stating they will not accept the full time directors position. So if they were making a power play, they're apparently not accepting the power.

Therefore, although I don't know enough of the whole story to be certain, I can't conclude that I'm very convinced of a true powerplay being made. If I had to bet on it, I think there were problems raised by various parties over the past year and those problems were thoroughly looked into by player reps. As a result, Kelly was dumped with good reason(s) that were verified by those reps.


Last edited by cleduc: 09-02-2009 at 06:08 AM.
cleduc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 08:04 AM
  #199
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
Well here's the part where I have a problem lining that up with what I've gathered from the various quotes and interviews in the media:

First of all, we have the players reporting problems a year ago. Then the 3 page Lindros letter of February. Then players reporting more problems in June. Then from this meeting:

a) No one brought up Pink's report in the media that I've seen.
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
b) Hargrove claimed his report was done by him and exclusively under the role of Ombudsman - just reporting the facts of his findings with no opinion..
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
c) I believe it was Hargrove who said it was a reps only meeting - no Pink, Hargrove, Kelly or Lindros (who wasn't there) in constant attendance. Hargrove for example was brought in to specifically answer questions about his report for clarification and then left the meeting..
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
d) A group of four player reps and a HR consultant they hired went around and interviewed every NHLPA employee to confirm the information they had found out. And they reported that directly to the reps - with no Pink, Hargrove, Lindros directly in that loop.

That last point (d) is significant because it's pretty tough to put a powerplay hit piece together and have it survive that sort of scrutiny unless there's merit to it. And these folks who are being suggested as making a powerplay were not in the meetings full time to influence the reps as they reviewed the facts and findings.
"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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
Hargrove (emphatically), Penny and Pink have all been reported as stating they will not accept the full time directors position. So if they were making a power play, they're apparently not accepting the power.

Therefore, although I don't know enough of the whole story to be certain, I can't conclude that I'm very convinced of a true powerplay being made. If I had to bet on it, I think there were problems raised by various parties over the past year and those problems were thoroughly looked into by player reps. As a result, Kelly was dumped with good reason(s) that were verified by those reps.
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.


Last edited by Bluefan75: 09-02-2009 at 08:14 AM.
Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 08:47 AM
  #200
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,819
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.

cleduc 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 05:12 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.