The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Rob Rossi: An inside look at how Lemieux, Pens tried to save NHL season
Agent Pat Brisson seems to be the guy behind the some of this:
Quote:
“Mario does not just do things; he considers everything,” said NHL agent Pat Brisson, a Lemieux friend dating to their days as competitors in the Quebec Major Junior league in the early 1980s.
“We have been talking for a long time about what we can do to get the league back. Mario, myself, we could not sit back and watch without trying something. The timing had to be on our side.”
...
This French Canadian Connection of Lemieux, Brisson, Robitaille and Bergevin gathered speed, and helped sweep aboard ownership groups in Toronto and Winnipeg, the NHL’s biggest and smallest Canadian markets.
There is no coincidence that the Penguins, Lightning, Maple Leafs and Jets were the four new franchises the NHL sent into a room with players this week in New York.
... Lemieux and Brisson had provided Burkle with a list of names if Bettman asked.
...
Brisson started leaning his highest profile NHL players, including vocal anti-owner Chicago captain Jonathan Toews. Brisson looked for signals as to who he could count upon.
...
Crosby and Brisson met last weekend in Los Angeles. On Monday, they flew with Burkle to New York, where they met Lemieux, Penguins general manager Ray Shero, CEO David Morehouse and COO Travis Williams.
Crosby split soon upon arriving to meet with players, including Doan and Toews.
Which other high profile players are represented by Brisson?
Also have to ask if Bettman knew owners were discussing CBA issues with a player, either directly and/or through Brisson.
Some of the bigger names if people don't want to Click
-Malkin, Tavares, Claude Giroux, Toews, Kopitar, Shane Doan, Martin Brodeur, Alferdsson, Briere, both Sedins and of coarse Crosby.
Most interesting name- soon to be selected, Nate Mackkinnon
Its great that the moderate owners and players are at least trying a different approach, but unfortunately, as long as Fehr and Jacobs are involved, I don't see much happening.
So are people supposed to hate the Pens less now? Hey, i don't mind. Certainly Jacobs killing hockey before hannukah affords us to hate the Bruins a bit more instead.
Its great that the moderate owners and players are at least trying a different approach, but unfortunately, as long as Fehr and Jacobs are involved, I don't see much happening.
As soon as I see an agent as the driving force, or facilitator of the disallowed owner-player contact, I have to question how noble is the cause.
As soon as I see an agent as the driving force, or facilitator of the disallowed owner-player contact, I have to question how noble is the cause.
Though you're probably right, I don't care if the cause is noble or not, as long as there's people trying to avoid (or rather circumvent) the politics of their respective big guns and actually work on a solution for a very solvable problem.
Though you're probably right, I don't care if the cause is noble or not, as long as there's people trying to avoid (or rather circumvent) the politics of their respective big guns and actually work on a solution for a very solvable problem.
What I meant is that Brisson's motives (and thus where and what is pushed) are probably things that help his raison d'etre. That motive may be more politically motivated than the big guns, who may indeed be most apoltical insofar as they're actually paid to negotiate what the majority of their constituency wants. Circumventing that process usually isn't for the best because there are checks and balances within their hierarchies and structures.
What I meant is that Brisson's motives (and thus where and what is pushed) are probably things that help his raison d'etre. That motive may be more politically motivated than the big guns, who may indeed be most apoltical insofar as they're actually paid to negotiate what the majority of their constituency wants. Circumventing that process usually isn't for the best because there are checks and balances within their hierarchies and structures.
True.
But Brisson didn't seem to have trouble gathering a pretty impressive group of owners unhappy with what their big guns negotiate. If everyone (or at least the majority) was still firmly on board and in agreement with how the negotiations go, they could've easily slammed the door in his face at his approach.
Maybe it's not the Union that breaks apart this time around, and he was just the one to put the strings together.
Still not noble, but if it helps ending this mess, I won't blame him for it.
Yeah, because they are the only ones who wanted to end the lockout. All hail Pittsburgh!
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
True.
But Brisson didn't seem to have trouble gathering a pretty impressive group of owners unhappy with what their big guns negotiate. If everyone (or at least the majority) was still firmly on board and in agreement with how the negotiations go, they could've easily slammed the door in his face at his approach.
Maybe it's not the Union that breaks apart this time around, and he was just the one to put the strings together.
Still not noble, but if it helps ending this mess, I won't blame him for it.
It's unfortunate, if true, that smaller groups controlled by self-interest can hijack or influence the process to a great degree. It may also be that everyone is one of 2-3 groups and there isn't anything approaching a majority that represents either side very well. Ideally, you like to think that there are rational answers to clearly identified problems. When you get smaller factions that don't have as much overlap in position, it may indicate that even the problems being solved aren't clearly agreed upon.
At the same time, Brisson calling on Lemieux to spearhead something at the very least makes me raise an eyebrow in Brisson's direction.
Hopefully they ARE breaking the player-owner rule and ideally it will convince other players to contact their owners in secret.
Rules are made to be broken.
Once again, it is a unique situation, because Crosby and Mario were teammates. Which isn't the case with most owners/players. Obviously some owners are going to have a better relationship with the players than others for various reasons.
Once again, it is a unique situation, because Crosby and Mario were teammates. Which isn't the case with most owners/players. Obviously some owners are going to have a better relationship with the players than others for various reasons.
Well, that's just tough for those players then. Better luck next lifetime.
If 30% of the NHL jumped ship and ditched the NHLPA and negotiated with the owners for a season instead, a solution would've been reached months ago.
It's funny. There are probably enough owners out there happy with the latest NHLPA proposal, and there are probably enough players happy with the latest NHL proposal. Bettman and Fehr both need to continue to step away, but then their jobs are in jeopardy. It's just funny how much progress is made this time and last time with Daly more involved, and with Saskin/S Fehr more involved. However, Bettman has done a lot for many owners on a financial level. It's a cluster ****, who knows how to fix it...
As soon as I see an agent as the driving force, or facilitator of the disallowed owner-player contact, I have to question how noble is the cause.
I would give a little more leeway until details came out. The agents benefit from complexity of the CBA and allowances for circumvention. I don't see much circumvention in Brisson's list. He also doesn't have a high profile history for conflict as far as I can tell. I would be far more suspicious of Walsh or Meehan.
Burkle pretty much blamed Fehr. Would love to see someone accuse him of being anti union
The idea to put players and owners together in the same room was a refreshing idea. Commissioner Bettman should be thanked for proposing it and the Fehrs should be thanked for agreeing to it.
The players came with a strong desire to get back to playing hockey.*They were professional and did a good job of expressing their concerns and listening to ours.
We wanted to move quickly and decisively. We have all spent too much time without any real progress at the expense of our fans, our sponsor and the communities we serve. It was time to make bold moves and get a deal.*Many people think we got over our skis and they are probably right, but we wanted to do everything we could to get back to hockey now. We didn't hold back.
We made substantial movement on our end quickly, but unfortunately that was not met with the same level of movement from the other side. The players asked us to be patient and keep working with them. It's not what they do and they wanted us to know they were committed. We understood and appreciated their situation. We came back with an aggressive commitment to pensions which we felt was well received. We needed a response on key items that were important to us, but we were optimistic that we were down to very few issues. I believe a deal was within reach.
We were therefore surprised when the Fehrs made a unilateral and "non-negotiable" decision — which is their right, to end the player/owner process that has moved us farther in two days than we moved at any time in the past months.
I want to thank the players involved for their hard work as we tried to reach a deal.
I hope that going backwards does not prevent a deal.
Burkle pretty much blamed Fehr. Would love to see someone accuse him of being anti union
Has he now? Has Burkle had any direct dealings with Fehr? My understanding is that only players and the deputies met with this group of owners. Furthermore, it was the players who said they wanted their leadership back in the room.
Has he now? Has Burkle had any direct dealings with Fehr? My understanding is that only players and the deputies met with this group of owners. Furthermore, it was the players who said they wanted their leadership back in the room.
That letter above was from Burkle whois a Liberal Democrat pro union guy. He flatout blames Fehr.
You know, I like Burkle. He seems like a good owner, in it for the right things, avoids the limelight, helped to save the Pens franchise, and so on. From that blurb:
We needed a response on key items that were important to us, but we were optimistic that we were down to very few issues. I believe a deal was within reach. We were therefore surprised when the Fehrs made a unilateral and “non-negotiable” decision—which is their right, to end the player/owner process that has moved us farther in two days than we moved at any time in the past months.
The way this has been reported over the weekend, after all the reporters had their chance to sum things up, was that those three things were not negotiable separately, and were part of the package.What the owners wanted from the players was a Yes or No to that package. The players, at least from how this was set up in the beginning, weren't supposed to 'negotiate' a CBA but explore ideas and options. When they got to that point, take-it-or-leave-it, they wanted Fehr back in the room. They were told that that would change the dynamic and the owners might not stay for that.
Obviously, we're not going to change each others minds on who was playing whom here, and both sides may have done some of that, but I still don't think asking to get your union head back in charge of the process was unreasonable if you still believe he's your leader. The players in that room clearly did so.
