HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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
09-12-2009, 11:25 PM
  #351
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Or perhaps decertify the union and let the owners lose their anti-trust shield?
Yep. That thought occurred to me as well. Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the viability of that as a strategy.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 11:44 PM
  #352
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Andrew Ference:

Quote:
If the CEO of IBM has leadership issues, trust issues, issues in the office, it's a no-brainer. You pull the trigger because it's not working," Ference said. "It's very frustrating. The last thing you want is turmoil. It would be great if everything ran well and people were happy. Even if things weren't great, it would have been easy to say, 'Let's leave it alone and let them figure it out.' But that would be far from doing the right thing.


I would suggest that Mr. Ference has no idea what he is talking about. The next CEO that gets fired because he unsettles people or creates turmoil in the office will be the first one of which I am aware. Mr. Ference should refrain from commenting on business until he spends at least a single day in that world.

GSC2k2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 12:51 AM
  #353
CanadaBacon
 
CanadaBacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Andrew Ference:





I would suggest that Mr. Ference has no idea what he is talking about. The next CEO that gets fired because he unsettles people or creates turmoil in the office will be the first one of which I am aware. Mr. Ference should refrain from commenting on business until he spends at least a single day in that world.
So if the CEO cannot lead the company, he is not trusted and he "creates turmoil" in the office, he wouldnt be underthreat of being booted?

CanadaBacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 04:36 AM
  #354
Artyukhin*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,831
vCash: 500
http://www.torontosun.com/sports/col...67536-sun.html

Quote:
Do the well-informed players of the NHL, who voted out Paul Kelly, realize that Ian Penny, their interim leader, backed David Frost's candidacy as an NHL agent,and actually supported him in writing when others questioned it, even when the PA had disgusting photo evidence of Frost's behaviour from a year earlier? How proud they must be to have a man of such moral fibre in charge

Artyukhin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 07:48 AM
  #355
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadaBacon View Post
So if the CEO cannot lead the company, he is not trusted and he "creates turmoil" in the office, he wouldnt be underthreat of being booted?
CEOs do not get fired because they are not liked by their underlings or because the secretaries or people down the food chain think he is a jerk.

GSC2k2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 05:35 PM
  #356
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
Furthermore, do people understand that the work these reps are basically doing volunteer work for the good of the union and their fellow players? I'm amused by these conspiracy theories that they're just a bunch of morons with selfish agendas.
That's a nice sentiment.

But does anyone here actually think that Ference would be on the board of a corporation with over $1.5 billion in revenues?

If these guys had such good heads for business, why do they shell out 10% of their salary to their agents?

I think accountability is very important for the union as it is for any major organization, but hiring guys like Buzz Hargrove and Eric Lindros to be the ones responsible for that accountability shows that there are major flaws with the system. When the so-called accountability hinders the chief executive from doing his job, there is clearly not a good balance.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 08:29 PM
  #357
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Andrew Ference:





I would suggest that Mr. Ference has no idea what he is talking about. The next CEO that gets fired because he unsettles people or creates turmoil in the office will be the first one of which I am aware. Mr. Ference should refrain from commenting on business until he spends at least a single day in that world.
In your haste to you skipped past the first two things he said - "leadership issues, trust issues". On the contrary, the NEXT CEO that asks twice for confidential meeting transcripts, is rebuffed by his bosses twice and then takes a back door to get them anyway will be the NEXT CEO that gets fired.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 08:41 PM
  #358
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
That's a nice sentiment.

But does anyone here actually think that Ference would be on the board of a corporation with over $1.5 billion in revenues?
The NHL Players Association cannot possibly have anywhere near $1.5 billion in annual revenues. Unless you are counting their members' salaries in that number, but that we just be plain stupid.

Regardless, it has nothing to do with what we were talking about - evidently questioning Ference's character is as silly as including player salaries in NHLPA revenue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
If these guys had such good heads for business, why do they shell out 10% of their salary to their agents?
#1 - They don't shell out anywhere near 10% to their agents.
#2 - I don't think anyone is claiming they have good heads for business - which is why it is so important that they have the right people in positions of leadership of their union.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
I think accountability is very important for the union as it is for any major organization, but hiring guys like Buzz Hargrove and Eric Lindros to be the ones responsible for that accountability shows that there are major flaws with the system. When the so-called accountability hinders the chief executive from doing his job, there is clearly not a good balance.
How SPECIFICALLY does hiring either of those guys as Ombudsman show flaws within the system? If anything, this entire affair has shown that the controls that were put in place when they when through the painstaking process of re-writing their constitution are working.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 09:07 PM
  #359
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
You actually think that firing the union leader at 3:30am was a sign of that things are working?

Lindros and Hargrove et al are widely perceived to be a joke, and as long as any of them are involved in the union they won't be taken seriously by the NHL, the media, or the majority of fans. They should have been walking into the next CBA negotiation in a position to wrench some concessions from the owners.

Now it looks like it might be the other way around. Think the PR war doesn't matter? Think again. The players lost it in a major way last time, and it was a big reason that the owners were able to shut down the league for a whole season but see very little backlash. Instead the backlash went against the players, who were accused of being greedy.

The NHLPA is responsible for protecting the salaries of their players to a tune of over $1.5 billion. That membership is guaranteed 57% of all NHL revenues. [Mod: deleted] When the union has the kind of power to cut 24% of salaries across the board (a concession that Goodenowe actually agreed to), they need to have top notch leadership at the union. The general perception was that they had that with Kelly. Now??


Last edited by Fugu: 09-13-2009 at 11:21 PM. Reason: generalized flaming
Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 09:43 PM
  #360
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,501
vCash: 500
From the league's point of view a competent leader of the NHLPA was a good thing as well. No one wants another labor fight.

Now, who knows what the NHLPA is thinking? One of their vaunted advisors ran a union into the ground. They are consulting with another PA who has done a miserable job of protecting his own sport. An anti-establishment zealot makes up a third.

Everyone should feel nervous. The current situation is unstable and unpredictable.

Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:10 PM
  #361
FlyerFan
Registered User
 
FlyerFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Yep. That thought occurred to me as well. Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the viability of that as a strategy.
I think they should decertify. You have two rooms, one is the labor room, and the other is the antitrust room. When you have a CBA, you’re in the labor room. In the labor room, you can try to bargain with Gary Bettman and the owners, but I think it’s more advantageous to get into the antitrust room, and the way to do that is to decertify.

FlyerFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:16 PM
  #362
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
On the one hand, the players taking an interest in their association, and exercising the responsibilities they gave themselves seems like a pretty good thing and is probably a positive sign for optimistic negotiations.

I'd wonder though if they maybe havent gone a little too far. Bargaining against the owners representative who has broad powers, with a committee of their own may not be an effective means of winning. Or it may. I guess there can be benefits of the upside down pyramid structure, but why would they have wanted to keep those minutes from kelly in the first place. That almost seems the more interesting issue.

The players have maintained they are an association not a union. And even if they would decertify, surely they'd still have committee and association representation? At what point are they no longer a union? To decertify they would just have to agree to no longer collectively bargain salaries? Agents would become far more valuable? I wonder what issue could be the tipping point leading to the players deciding to go there.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:29 PM
  #363
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Lindros and Hargrove et al are widely perceived to be a joke
I asked you to tell us specifically what makes them "a joke" but you are unable. Like so many others, all you are able to do is vaguely question their character on a personal level. Without anything of substance to back it up, it's simply a red herring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
as long as any of them are involved in the union they won't be taken seriously by the NHL, the media, or the majority of fans. They should have been walking into the next CBA negotiation in a position to wrench some concessions from the owners.
Nonsense. It's impossible for you to say whether their position is stronger or weaker. None of us even know who will be leading them in their negotiations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Now it looks like it might be the other way around. Think the PR war doesn't matter? Think again. The players lost it in a major way last time, and it was a big reason that the owners were able to shut down the league for a whole season but see very little backlash. Instead the backlash went against the players, who were accused of being greedy.
That's all true, but none of it has anything to do with why the players buckled. They didn't buckle because people like you and me might have been calling them greedy. They buckled because none of them wanted to go another 12 months without a cheque.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
The NHLPA is responsible for protecting the salaries of their players to a tune of over $1.5 billion.
The difference between that and "a compnay with annual revenues of $1.5 billion" is approximately 1.5 billion miles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
When the union has the kind of power to cut 24% of salaries across the board (a concession that Goodenowe actually agreed to), they need to have top notch leadership at the union. The general perception was that they had that with Kelly. Now??
It doesn't matter what the "general perception" was. The perception of the player reps - those charged by ALL the members with making the decisions for ALL the members - is that the "general perception" was wrong.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:42 PM
  #364
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post

How SPECIFICALLY does hiring either of those guys as Ombudsman show flaws within the system? If anything, this entire affair has shown that the controls that were put in place when they when through the painstaking process of re-writing their constitution are working.
Not necessarily the controls or the positions aligned in the Constitution, but the person(s) occupying it (them). I suggest you go back and read posts #281 and #288 in this discussion.

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 03:45 AM
  #365
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
I asked you to tell us specifically what makes them "a joke" but you are unable. Like so many others, all you are able to do is vaguely question their character on a personal level. Without anything of substance to back it up, it's simply a red herring.
It is not a red herring. When there's smoke there's usually fire, and smoke follows Lindros around everywhere he goes. Why would I bother getting into it with someone who clearly has no intention of being intellectually honest?

As for Buzz Hargrove, are you even remotely familiar with his record? If you were, you'd realize how shocking it is that the players would allow themselves to be associated with him. It does speak to their level of unawareness. Buzz Hargrove is the last man you want answering media questions on your behalf. Donald Rumsfeld would be a better spokesperson.

Quote:
Nonsense. It's impossible for you to say whether their position is stronger or weaker. None of us even know who will be leading them in their negotiations.
What does that even mean? Of course none of us will be leading them. Who said otherwise?

The fact is that they've taken a major PR hit and every action they take is now going to view through this prism. The wide perception is that the players are not capable of running the union and that they are prone to bad decisions

Quote:
That's all true, but none of it has anything to do with why the players buckled. They didn't buckle because people like you and me might have been calling them greedy. They buckled because none of them wanted to go another 12 months without a cheque.
And the owners didn't buckle because they got all the cover they needed. The only thing that could have kept the league from getting its salary cap was pressure from the fans. Instead, the fans typically went great lengths to defend the billionaires from the millionaires. If you don't understand this you really are in no position to be commenting about this at all. Indeed, Bettman got away with saying things like "the fans are telling us to not come back until we get the deal we need".

Paul Kelly certainly seemed to get it.

Quote:
The difference between that and "a compnay with annual revenues of $1.5 billion" is approximately 1.5 billion miles.
That's (not) an interesting thing to say. I see you took the time to back it up, as you've done throughout this thread.

Quote:
It doesn't matter what the "general perception" was. The perception of the player reps - those charged by ALL the members with making the decisions for ALL the members - is that the "general perception" was wrong.
The general perception matters immensely and if that perception doesn't change it will end up hurting the players in the wallet just like the last time the CBA was up for re-negotiation.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 10:18 AM
  #366
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
I'd suggest you read up a little on Andrew Ference's background before you question his character and integrity. Particularly his work with Right to Play as well as his environmental work with David Suzuki.

These will get you started:

http://membershipus.righttoplay.com/...a_andrew_steve

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnew...ws12070702.asp

Furthermore, do people understand that the work these reps are basically doing volunteer work for the good of the union and their fellow players? I'm amused by these conspiracy theories that they're just a bunch of morons with selfish agendas.

And these things have what to do with the PA? Kenneth Lay was very generous with his money, but that didn't stop him from getting sent to jail, and few people hold a positive opinion of him either. It meant bupkus to what was going on, just like if Ference had done his best Mother theresa impersonation every day during the offseason would have been completely irrelevant to what he is doing within the PA.

Actually I'm amused reading your posts. "Amused by these conspiracy theories that they are just a bunch of morons with selfish agendas." Why else does someone like Ference push for a vote on the ED at 3:30 AM when even one of the most respected
people in the room is saying to sleep on it?

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 11:49 PM
  #367
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Looks like the beginning of more things to come now that camps are in full swing...

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...HLPA-coup.html

Quote:
“You’re absolutely right, there’s an awful lot of conversation going on among the players,” said Chris Chelios, who was a part of the meeting in Chicago where Kelly was dismissed. “We’re trying to figure out what happened. Players are going to have to find out how this could have happened to us again and then, obviously we’re going to have to make some decisions. There’s all kinds of questions about the process.”
Quote:
Other revelations, which have come to light via sources close to the situation who spoke to The Hockey News on a condition of anonymity, include:

Of the five players on the executive committee who voted against dismissing Kelly, four of them were Chelios, Shawn Horcoff of the Edmonton Oilers, Adam Burish of Chicago Blackhawks and Manny Malhotra of the Columbus Blue Jackets. For the record, Chelios would not say which way he voted and what his feelings were on the issue. It is interesting to note, however, he did deliver the statement from the NHLPA on the firing the day after it occurred.
Quote:
Not only was Penny’s contract extended for five years without Kelly’s input, which, according a source, violates the constitution, but the hiring of Hargrove and the move to hire out consultant Anne Marie Turnbull to conduct a review of Kelly’s leadership using NHLPA funds also violated the constitution.
Borrowing Wetcoaster's famous sign off.... YMMV

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 11:50 AM
  #368
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major4Boarding View Post
Not necessarily the controls or the positions aligned in the Constitution, but the person(s) occupying it (them). I suggest you go back and read posts #281 and #288 in this discussion.
I have done as you suggested. Unfortunately nothing there to answer my question.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 12:00 PM
  #369
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
It is not a red herring. When there's smoke there's usually fire, and smoke follows Lindros around everywhere he goes. Why would I bother getting into it with someone who clearly has no intention of being intellectually honest?
In other words "I can't come up with anything specific, so I'll stick to alluding to personal insults, rumour and innuendo".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
As for Buzz Hargrove, are you even remotely familiar with his record? If you were, you'd realize how shocking it is that the players would allow themselves to be associated with him. It does speak to their level of unawareness. Buzz Hargrove is the last man you want answering media questions on your behalf.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
What does that even mean? Of course none of us will be leading them. Who said otherwise?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
The fact is that they've taken a major PR hit and every action they take is now going to view through this prism. The wide perception is that the players are not capable of running the union and that they are prone to bad decisions
I'll say it again - the "wide perception" doesn't matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
And the owners didn't buckle because they got all the cover they needed. The only thing that could have kept the league from getting its salary cap was pressure from the fans. Instead, the fans typically went great lengths to defend the billionaires from the millionaires. If you don't understand this you really are in no position to be commenting about this at all. Indeed, Bettman got away with saying things like "the fans are telling us to not come back until we get the deal we need".
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
That's (not) an interesting thing to say. I see you took the time to back it up, as you've done throughout this thread.
LMAO. Ernie, do a little reading. Maybe take a remedial level business course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
The general perception matters immensely and if that perception doesn't change it will end up hurting the players in the wallet just like the last time the CBA was up for re-negotiation.
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.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 12:04 PM
  #370
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
And these things have what to do with the PA? Kenneth Lay was very generous with his money, but that didn't stop him from getting sent to jail, and few people hold a positive opinion of him either. It meant bupkus to what was going on, just like if Ference had done his best Mother theresa impersonation every day during the offseason would have been completely irrelevant to what he is doing within the PA.

Actually I'm amused reading your posts. "Amused by these conspiracy theories that they are just a bunch of morons with selfish agendas." Why else does someone like Ference push for a vote on the ED at 3:30 AM when even one of the most respected
people in the room is saying to sleep on it?
Clearly Ference just wants to steal every single one of those 1.5 billion dollars in imaginary annual PA revenues. His track record clearly shows thats the only reason he ever does anything.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 12:05 PM
  #371
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
In your haste to you skipped past the first two things he said - "leadership issues, trust issues". On the contrary, the NEXT CEO that asks twice for confidential meeting transcripts, is rebuffed by his bosses twice and then takes a back door to get them anyway will be the NEXT CEO that gets fired.
If a confidential meeting is conducted in defiance of the constitution of the organization (not for me or you to say whether it was or not), arguably the Executive Director has a fiduciary duty to the members to determine whether the meeting was so conducted.

That being said, if I was Kelly I would have retained outside counsel to review the minutes and provide me with a legal opinion.

In general, you seem to be assuming the veracity of a lot of "facts".

Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
Clearly Ference just wants to steal every single one of those 1.5 billion dollars in imaginary annual PA revenues. His track record clearly shows thats the only reason he ever does anything.
Outrageous strawmen don't add much to the discussion.

GSC2k2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 01:41 PM
  #372
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
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.

mod:delete


Last edited by mouser: 09-15-2009 at 03:03 PM. Reason: not necessary
Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 01:42 PM
  #373
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
Clearly Ference just wants to steal every single one of those 1.5 billion dollars in imaginary annual PA revenues. His track record clearly shows thats the only reason he ever does anything.
Given the events of the past few weeks, that is the most plausible scenario you've posited thus far.

Ference's actions do not mesh with the benevolence you wish to confer upon him. This would at least be in line with his actions.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 02:00 PM
  #374
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
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.
Actually the position of Ombudsman was created to give an avenue for players and staff to make complaints about how the NHLPA was being operated.
Quote:
The newly created position, under the recently ratified NHLPA constitution, will have Lindros resolving any complaints by members and/or staff of the NHLPA, reporting directly to the executive board.

Lindros will also serve as a non-voting member of the executive board, while supervising and co-ordinating the activities of the Divisional Player Representative program.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...a.html?ref=rss

As noted Lindros was also coordinator for the new Divisional Player Rep system which was set up under the new NHLPA constituion:
Quote:
The National Hockey League Players’ Association (NHLPA) today announced that former players Darby Hendrickson, Jim McKenzie, Joe Reekie, Dave Scatchard, Steve Webb and Rob Zamuner have been selected by the Executive Board to serve as the NHLPA’s first Divisional Representatives.

In their roles, the Divisional Representatives will provide support to the team Player Representatives and help facilitate communication between the NHLPA office and the membership. The NHLPA’s six Divisional Representatives will work with players in the following NHL divisions: Darby Hendrickson - Northwest; Jim McKenzie - Central; Dave Scatchard - Pacific; Joe Reekie - Southeast; Steve Webb - Atlantic; and Rob Zamuner - Northeast.

“Having the six Divisional Representatives in place is a key step going forward for the NHLPA,” said NHLPA Ombudsman Eric Lindros. “The Divisional Representatives will play a significant role in maintaining a strong relationship between the membership and our staff office in Toronto. The reps are very excited about their new role and eager to help continue to strengthen the NHLPA.”

Lindros, as NHLPA Ombudsman, will coordinate the activities of the NHLPA’s Divisional Field Representatives. The Divisional Representative roles were created as a part of the NHLPA’s new constitution that was ratified in October 2007.
http://www.nhlpa.com/MediaReleases/ReleaseDetails.asp?mediaReleaseDisplayId={363216FE-4AEF-470D-803B-B9B12E1A3408}

Matters of advice would come from the NHLPA General Counsel who is responsible for legal and policy advice and directing the Association's legal affairs.

However as I understand the problem there was not all that much in the way of complaints or much to do with the Divisional Reps and Lindros was trying to mix in NHLPA affairs that were outside the scope of his duties.

According to what I have heard he drove Paul Kelly nuts with a constant stream of memos about how the NHLPA should operate and running to his office on a continuing basis.
Quote:
NHLPA Ombudsman Eric Lindros resigned yesterday, citing in a letter to members of the executive board "a fundamental problem" between himself and Exec Dir Paul Kelly over matters including Lindros' role in fielding complaints about the union's operation. "It should be noted that this is not the result of conflict of personalities but a fundamental problem between the Current Executive Director and the office of the Ombudsman and the effort to create transparency," Lindros wrote in a letter to the 30 executive board members obtained by SportsBusiness Journal. In the three-page letter, Lindros raised the question of whether employees who complained about the union suffered retaliation. Although staff members who made complaints were doing so under agreements of confidentiality, Lindros wrote it was evident who made the complaints because the NHLPA HQs in Toronto is a small office. "The end result, however, should not be one whereby, some of those who stepped forward on the players' behalf, be told in or following their annual staff reviews that they are somehow not loyal to the Office of the Executive Director by the Executive Director," he wrote. Kelly could not immediately be reached for comment. Lindros, who played in the NHL from ’91-’07, became the union’s first Ombudsman in November ‘07, a month after Kelly was introduced as Exec Director
Quote:
In Toronto, Damien Cox notes the fact that Lindros and Kelly, "once friends and mutual admirers, had ceased to even speak cordially to one another was an open NHLPA secret." Kelly "made little effort to hide his dislike for the role Lindros was playing, essentially arguing that [he] was attempting to step far outside the boundaries of his position." It therefore was "hardly a shock when Lindros departed yesterday, although nobody's saying whether this was a resignation or a firing." Lindros "had become increasingly isolated within the union and won't be missed." However, while there is "no whiff of impropriety whatsoever about Kelly in this or any other union matter, the optics are always poor for any organization when a person in the position of being a watchdog becomes an enemy of the boss, and then walks the plank" (TORONTO STAR, 2/4).
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/127482

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 02:34 PM
  #375
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
You know, I said to myself I wasn't going to debate you any further on this matter, as it appears your bias regarding this situation is quite evident. That you have no intention of being open minded.

But these nuggets you've pain-stakenly bestowed upon us I just can't ignore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
I have done as you suggested. Unfortunately nothing there to answer my question.
Ok... In reference to Buzz Hargrove - so questionable practices and integrity, who you've associated with (Dionisio), and being a hypocrite shouldn't have any bearing in an environment (PA) that's already fragile and on shaky ground? Or did you not find anything to answer your question because I didn't specifically mention Lindros?

Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
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.
It appears now that Buzz can do no wrong in your eyes either. That any of us questioning Buzz Hargrove's endeavours you can scoff at simply because of the "guys sitting in Windsor"? Many of us here do not feel that Kelly got a "fair shake" with his dismissal. Hargrove says what Kelly did (the minutes) was a fireable offense. Hargrove says Dionisio didn't get "a fair shake".

So let's see, in Buzz's World... Kelly + obtaining minutes from player only meeting = "fireable offense".

Dionisio + his own confession of spying on his constituents + judgement against him that he knew there were forged contracts within his Local = "... a major insult. As a Canadian trade Unionist, that really bothered me. I have a great deal of respect for him as a trade Unionist and as a human being and a great deal of respect for his integrity. I don't think he got a fair shake (before the Labor Relations Board)."

Did you even bother to read the Keller Report? Or is that because Hargrove wasn't directly involved or mentioned in said report it has no pertinence to you? Or it's ok to pull the ethics, credibility, and integrity cards when they best suit you? Or simply because Hargrove and Lindros are "pals".

Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
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.

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.
Thank God statements like these didn't come out on behalf of either side now, or in 2005.

Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
I asked you to tell us specifically what makes them "a joke" but you are unable. Like so many others, all you are able to do is vaguely question their character on a personal level. Without anything of substance to back it up, it's simply a red herring.

In other words "I can't come up with anything specific, so I'll stick to alluding to personal insults, rumour and innuendo".
Please elaborate, if you would, on this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
LMAO! Craig Button?! Any time I saw him on The Score I wondered "how was this guy EVER an NHL General Manager?" He's a joke. Give him a top 5 payroll and people might have forgotten all of Mike Milbury's wonderful blunders.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...15#post3461815

Or this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
So then it becomes a question of credibility. I choose to believe Leclair (a solid citizen and class act and since the Flyers made good on their promise as soon as he came to camp). I don't recall that about Yashin, but if you say so I believe you, but choose not to believe Yashin (in light of his past holdouts, his reneging on the million dollar donation to the (center for the?) Arts, and the fact that his agent is a scum bag and that is well known to be his MO).
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...93#post3122593

And so on...

Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
LMAO! Rant and rave all you want Chelly, but face facts: I'm sure PA members will continue to pay their dues every month, but for all intents and purposes, Bettman has broken the union.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...95#post3059095

Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
Honourable Mention for Lindros - in this post-obstruction era where head-shots are frowned on Lindros would have been a force so dominant he'd make Ovechkin look like David Volek.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=642842&page=2

Quote:
Originally Posted by skippyx
Thank you Big E and good luck wherever you sign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
Eric didn't want to go through the registration process, think of a username and password. So he asked me to tell you "you're welcome".
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=150798

Were you being smirky, or joking when you posted that? Or is there some sort of relationship you guys have? Nothing wrong with that or saying that's a bad thing, just that it would go a long way in explaining your stance here if that were indeed the case.

Major4Boarding 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 02:13 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.