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
09-04-2009, 05:14 PM
  #276
SpikefromDusseldorf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
Snooping might have cost Kelly his job
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1273993/


I think they mean no player stepped up to state his displeasure who was at the meeting though 5 of 27 did vote to continue to with Kelly.

So according to the above, they were having this problem:
"The main purpose of the Las Vegas meeting was to discuss Kellyís leadership. There were concerns and issues that emerged at the executive boardís annual meetings in Chicago a year ago, and resurfaced with the resignation of Eric Lindros as the unionís newly created ombudsman earlier this year."
... going back to Chicago, through Lindros and then the Las Vegas meeting that was dedicated to reviewing Kelly.

Not satisfied, they dispatch 4 reps and a HR consultant to check it out and speak with all the staff at the NHLPA. And they get Hargrove's report.

Let's tally the Kelly complaints concerns:
1. Complaints/concerns in Chicago meeting a year ago
2. Complaints/concerns by Ombudsman Lindros in Feburary who resigns
3. Complaints/concerns in meeting dedicated to deal with them in Las Vegas last June
4. Complaints/concerns by Ombudsman Hargrove recently
5. Four player reps & HR Consultant check them out with all the NHLPA staff and it looks like what they found wasn't all good.

In doing so, with his job already in question, the players find out Kelly was 'snooping' (or whatever you want to call it) and Kelly doesn't deny it. In light of what Saksin did, I can understand why the players might be a little hyper sensitive on that one.

Well, if that's all true, the conspiracy theory has to take a back seat as there were problems going back a year ago and coming from all kinds of directions. As well, for those concerned about employment law, Kelly already had notice on at least some some of these problems at the latest by February with the three page Lindros letter and failed to get the issues tamped down. It appears, if the above is true, that the players may have had reasonable cause with the 'snooping' being the straw that broke the sensitive camel's back.

Like the conspiracy theory, I take the above with a grain of salt because there are not a lot of quotes/hard evidence in that article. I also can't conclude what the players did was absolutely right or wrong under the circumstances with the sketchy, unverified details. But there's little doubt that the distinct possibility exists that the players had good cause to do what they did and that it was not as a result of a conspiracy/power play.
Gotta say as I read your posts that you are putting the most favorable light on absolutely everything reported for the cabal that ousted Kelly.

Buzz Hargrove has never successfully ran anything unless your idea of success is short term gain and catastrophic consequences for thousands upon thousands of unemployed autoworkers. So when someone argues "he just related the facts" I would run screaming from the room.

Then we have Eric Lindros who does not strike me as a particularly altruistic chap who consistently strikes me as being out for Eric but I am sure I can be convinced my impression is wrong.

Someone sure was out to get Kelly , had an axe to grind and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. For the east coast players in attendance, the meeting lasted till 4 am. There are not many decisions I make in my life, little alone iporatnt decisions, that I make at 4 a.m........... but that is probably just me

SpikefromDusseldorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2009, 11:33 PM
  #277
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
JR buries the executive committee.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=289964

Strangely enough, Shawn Horcoff apparently spoke out today about Brendan Shanahan's comments I posted the other day. (probably not because I posted them... )

His comments were something to the effect that Shanahan should shut up because he knows nothing about the union. His words, not mine. Makes you wonder what kind of idiots they're cultivating as reps.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 12:30 AM
  #278
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
JR buries the executive committee.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=289964

Strangely enough, Shawn Horcoff apparently spoke out today about Brendan Shanahan's comments I posted the other day. (probably not because I posted them... )

His comments were something to the effect that Shanahan should shut up because he knows nothing about the union. His words, not mine. Makes you wonder what kind of idiots they're cultivating as reps.
JR admits he doesn't know the details. Shanahan as I recall got some second hand but didn't have the whole story. Ted Lindsay flew in, caught one segment and didn't have the whole story. I have to take that crew with a grain of salt.

Guys like Flatley & Healy who were there for a bunch of it, have obviously come out on one side of the argument. To their credit, they were more plugged in for the ordeal over the past year.

Horcoff, Regehr, Stajan and Ference were also there for a bunch of it and have come down on the other side of the issue.

Takes two to fight.

Much of the media has provided hearsay, speculation, 'unnamed sources', etc and they haven't been on top of this story in terms of accuracy from the outset. Like the rest of us, they're still trying to find their way.

The one thing that I have now heard a few times is that the players approved Penny's contract without Kelly contrary to their constitution. When a complaint was raised about that, they repeated the process with Kelly to satisfy their constitution. I've heard varying accounts on how long it took to do that. But it does seem more of a technicality as the result didn't change.

What troubled me was more than one account has the board telling Kelly more than once that they did not want to provide him minutes of their meeting because his performance was being discussed and part of the complaint about Kelly was that he was going after NHLPA staff who had spoken openly with the Ombudsman. After them declining Kelly twice, Kelly went around them to the stenographer company and got his copy in defiance of the board. To me, that's insubordination and probable cause for dismissal.

So it's messed up. Neither side seems completely clean. If the account of Kelly defying his board is true, then yeah, I'd probably vote to fire him too if I were on that board.

Aside from that, I still don't have a clear picture of what all has happened aside from a good fight among themselves.

cleduc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 01:37 AM
  #279
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
JR admits he doesn't know the details. Shanahan as I recall got some second hand but didn't have the whole story. Ted Lindsay flew in, caught one segment and didn't have the whole story. I have to take that crew with a grain of salt.

Guys like Flatley & Healy who were there for a bunch of it, have obviously come out on one side of the argument. To their credit, they were more plugged in for the ordeal over the past year.

Horcoff, Regehr, Stajan and Ference were also there for a bunch of it and have come down on the other side of the issue.

Takes two to fight.

Much of the media has provided hearsay, speculation, 'unnamed sources', etc and they haven't been on top of this story in terms of accuracy from the outset. Like the rest of us, they're still trying to find their way.

The one thing that I have now heard a few times is that the players approved Penny's contract without Kelly contrary to their constitution. When a complaint was raised about that, they repeated the process with Kelly to satisfy their constitution. I've heard varying accounts on how long it took to do that. But it does seem more of a technicality as the result didn't change.

What troubled me was more than one account has the board telling Kelly more than once that they did not want to provide him minutes of their meeting because his performance was being discussed and part of the complaint about Kelly was that he was going after NHLPA staff who had spoken openly with the Ombudsman. After them declining Kelly twice, Kelly went around them to the stenographer company and got his copy in defiance of the board. To me, that's insubordination and probable cause for dismissal.

So it's messed up. Neither side seems completely clean. If the account of Kelly defying his board is true, then yeah, I'd probably vote to fire him too if I were on that board.

Aside from that, I still don't have a clear picture of what all has happened aside from a good fight among themselves.
I should put a big glowing "speculation" tag next to it, but from the tone of the article and quotes I put up a page or two back, it sounded like Shanahan voted for the Devils through Clarkson. Just from the tone of the comments from both of them.

I thought the most interesting thing in the JR article was the assertion brought up to JR that 90% of the reps are below 23. Which was where JR really buried them. If that is true, it does seem a tad bizarre.

Quote:
Watters suggested to Roenick that approximately 90 percent of players on the executive committee are under age 23, and wondered if they may be more heavily influenced by the administrators of the NHLPA.

"The education of those players is going to be very low - I would say that most of them have high school educations, not college educations, and not to put athletes down, but they are not the brightest bulbs in the box," said Roenick.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 02:10 AM
  #280
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
What troubled me was more than one account has the board telling Kelly more than once that they did not want to provide him minutes of their meeting because his performance was being discussed and part of the complaint about Kelly was that he was going after NHLPA staff who had spoken openly with the Ombudsman. After them declining Kelly twice, Kelly went around them to the stenographer company and got his copy in defiance of the board. To me, that's insubordination and probable cause for dismissal.
If Kelly is the boss, he has to be able to punish insubordination. Otherwise, how can he expect his orders to be followed, if every time an employee disagrees it becomes a huge issue?

This whole ombudsman situation is a complete joke, especially given the characters who have filled that position.

Should Kelly have looked at those minutes? Probably not.

What he should have done is make it clear to the executive committee that if they're going to have closed door meetings and extending staff contracts under him, but not give him the full story, he will not be continuing on as executive director. Otherwise his position is completely undermined.

Kelly clearly failed at controlling the situation. But is that an indication that he was not able to do the job, or is fulfilling the job just an impossible task?

Either way, the media is doing the players a big favor by keeping the pressure on. Exposing the problems in how this went down can only help them.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 04:47 AM
  #281
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
A Jelly Donut!?!
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
But it does seem more of a technicality as the result didn't change...

...Kelly went around them to the stenographer company and got his copy in defiance of the board. To me, that's insubordination and probable cause for dismissal.
And a contravention of their Constitution isn't? Asking him to leave the meeting in Vegas to conduct the ratification of Penny's 5 yr extension without his input went against the by law in that Constitution. The result didn't change because he had no power to stop it, as it's been said the Constitution states he has no power to do so. It does, however, require that he provide his input prior to the award. Hardly a "Technicality" in my opinion. He called them out on it, they re-did it in his presence, "satisfying" the "technicality". Amicably... alledgedly.

Now the other interesting thing is, if they found what they perceived as a loophole in the Constitution. To conduct the ratification of his 5 yr deal under the guise of a meeting about their confidence in the Executive Director. Which I'm to understand is a meeting Kelly could not be part of. That seems like collusion. I may be wrong. The end result was they awarded Penny his 5 yr extension and they voted that the union would hire a consultant to perform a staff assessment of the capabilities of the Executive Director going forward.

Wonder if that was the premise of the request for the minutes. Not to snoop, not to gain intel on who is losing confidence in his leadership, but to get the minutes where the 5 yr extension took place. Does that excuse him to go against the by laws himself? A circumvention for a circumvention? No. I wonder what the process would be to get that information without going against the by laws? Out of curiousity, did the request for the minutes come right after the meeting or after the re-do of Penny's extension award?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm still of the opinion however that this was a coup and unless it comes out later that Kelly conducted himself in an Eagleson-like manner, Sexual Harrassment, or threats of physical violence I don't believe I'm going to be convinced otherwise.

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 11:04 AM
  #282
hockeydadx2*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,147
vCash: 500
It should be obvious that the union is in no position to deal with a controversial bargaining situation at this time. Bettman probably realizes that, but can't feel good about the possibility of a work stoppage given the people who are in charge. Logic will not necessarily rule the day.

hockeydadx2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 11:58 AM
  #283
UnknownEric
Registered User
 
UnknownEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Country: United States
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydadx2 View Post
Logic will not necessarily rule the day.
When has it when dealing with the NHL?

Seriously though, at this point in time, between the mess in Phoenix and the instability of the PA, I have to conclude that both sides have completely lost their minds and I look forward to watching more AHL/junior hockey when the strike/lockout inevitably happens.

UnknownEric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 12:09 PM
  #284
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
I should put a big glowing "speculation" tag next to it, but from the tone of the article and quotes I put up a page or two back, it sounded like Shanahan voted for the Devils through Clarkson. Just from the tone of the comments from both of them.

I thought the most interesting thing in the JR article was the assertion brought up to JR that 90% of the reps are below 23. Which was where JR really buried them. If that is true, it does seem a tad bizarre.
Here's the reps I've confirmed with their ages:
Chelios, 47,
Mitchell,W, 32,
Horcoff, 30,
Ferrence, 30,
Regehr, 29
Allen, 29,
Peters, 29,
Exelby, 28,
Komisarek, 27,
Boyes, 27,
Schultz, 27,
Stajan 25, (in NHL full time six seasons ago)
Clarkson, 25,

*Note: players are representing the team they played for last season

Here's others who are possible reps but I have not confirmed
(some maybe listed in error):
Roloson, 39
Lukowich, 33
Perrin, 33
Halpern, 33
Valiquette, 32
Guite, 31
Fisher, 29
Malhotra, 29
Hartnell, 27
Ott, 27
Laich, 26
Hamhuis, 26
Talbot, 25
Winnik, 24
Ladd, 23

Other possible listing here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Pla...2.80.932009.29

I have been able to find only one rep Ladd who was 23 and no reps younger.

Just more BS from Jeremy.

cleduc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 12:25 PM
  #285
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
JR buries the executive committee.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=289964

Strangely enough, Shawn Horcoff apparently spoke out today about Brendan Shanahan's comments I posted the other day. (probably not because I posted them... )

His comments were something to the effect that Shanahan should shut up because he knows nothing about the union. His words, not mine. Makes you wonder what kind of idiots they're cultivating as reps.
Probably the kind of idiots that volunteer for a job and don't appreciate being criticized and second-guessed by the guys who could have volunteered but didn't. It's sorta like being the coach of the Pee-Wee travel team because your kid is on the team, then listening to the other Dads whine all year.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 12:29 PM
  #286
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
JR admits he doesn't know the details. Shanahan as I recall got some second hand but didn't have the whole story. Ted Lindsay flew in, caught one segment and didn't have the whole story. I have to take that crew with a grain of salt.

Guys like Flatley & Healy who were there for a bunch of it, have obviously come out on one side of the argument. To their credit, they were more plugged in for the ordeal over the past year.

Horcoff, Regehr, Stajan and Ference were also there for a bunch of it and have come down on the other side of the issue.

Takes two to fight.

Much of the media has provided hearsay, speculation, 'unnamed sources', etc and they haven't been on top of this story in terms of accuracy from the outset. Like the rest of us, they're still trying to find their way.
Every time I've seen "an unnamed NHL executive" I've read it as "Glenn Healy". That much has been pretty obvious going back to the day Lindros resigned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
What troubled me was more than one account has the board telling Kelly more than once that they did not want to provide him minutes of their meeting because his performance was being discussed and part of the complaint about Kelly was that he was going after NHLPA staff who had spoken openly with the Ombudsman. After them declining Kelly twice, Kelly went around them to the stenographer company and got his copy in defiance of the board. To me, that's insubordination and probable cause for dismissal.
Especially in light of the reasons his predecessor was let go. It's not exactly the same as spying on emails, but it's certainly in the same ballpark.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 12:36 PM
  #287
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
If Kelly is the boss, he has to be able to punish insubordination. Otherwise, how can he expect his orders to be followed, if every time an employee disagrees it becomes a huge issue?
Wasn't that one of the points? That speaking to the Ombudsman ISN'T insubordination?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
This whole ombudsman situation is a complete joke, especially given the characters who have filled that position.
From everything we've read, Lindros was doing the job he was hired to do - which is why Kelly had problems with him in the first place. Once again, someone is unable to separate their feelings about Lindros as a player from what he was doing for his fellow players in the union. He didn't want to play for Quebec. Get over it - it's almost 20 years later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Should Kelly have looked at those minutes? Probably not.
"Probably"?

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 12:45 PM
  #288
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
A Jelly Donut!?!
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,436
vCash: 500
And speaking of "What's not necessarily illegal doesn't mean it's ethical" front.

Buzz Hargrove is one to talk. Regardless of his tainted (alledgedly) past, involving the NDP and his CAW tactics, this is what I find the most interesting.

Hargrove - What Kelly had done was a fireable offense.

This coming from a guy who hitched his wagon to none other than former Local 183 head Tony Dionisio, loaning at least a reported $1 million of CAW monies over the course of time to start Dionisio's renegade local (CCWU). The same Tony Dionisio who...

* Admitted to spying on not only his own constituents, for loyalties sake, but the International Parent as well (Keller Report).

* A NLRB ruling (Keller Report) that although he himself did not forge contracts, he sure knew about them being forged.

* Allegations of having illegals on job sites without papers, charging them dues, and no residual benefits.

And then this gem, (Regarding Dionisio and the institution of a Trusteeship into Local 183 by LIUNA after the Keller Report)

Hargrove - "... 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)."

Keller Report
http://www.liuna.ca/news/Keller_decision.pdf

LIUNA's plan for Trusteeship
http://www.liuna.ca/PDFs/PLANFORTRUSTEESHIP.pdf

And while I'm at, to further show what a mess this NHLPA debacle is, guess who was the spearhead charged with investigating the need for LIUNA trusteeship into Local 183?

None other than... Ron Pink
http://www.liuna.ca/investigate.html
http://www.liuna.ca/timeline.html

But LIUNA isn't smelling all roses neither, according to this bit from CTV (Which at last check LIUNA is suing CTV)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew..._name=&no_ads=

http://www.thestar.com/article/190267

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 12:49 PM
  #289
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
A Jelly Donut!?!
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,436
vCash: 500
And don't get me started how "convenient" it is to me that Annie Marie Turnbull (AMT Associates Lmtd.) was the one who conducted the internal survey.

"Then there was the consultant hired to perform the survey, Anne Marie Turnbull, who previously worked for a member of the pro-Penny, anti-Kelly advisory board, Ian Troop. Sources said many, if not all, of the interviews were conducted in office space provided by Troop."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...804&type=story

Now, I unearthed nothing showing where she worked with Troop, but what I did find interesting is that she is the current Vice-Chair (Board of Directors) for Canadian Feed the Children who ironically lists on it's site the following 2 partners/friends of the Organization (pages 12, 13, & 15)

Universal Workers Union Local 183

Canadian Auto Workers - Social Justice Fund

http://24195.vws.magma.ca/pdfs/repor...report2008.pdf

Coincidence? Reading too much into it? Perhaps

Ted Lindsay - In regards to Anne Marie Turnbull

"I'm sitting there listening to this and she was stabbing [Kelly] every minute that she was talking, and she talked for more than an hour," said Ted Lindsay -- among the original pioneers of the NHLPA who attended the Chicago meetings -- to ESPN.com's Pierre LeBrun. "About his qualifications, his attitude, what they thought of him in the office Ö who knows what the questions were and who knows how they asked them -- this was her interpretation as far as I'm concerned."
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...804&type=story

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 12:49 PM
  #290
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
In response to Roenick's comments, especially the age issue, I decided to compile a list of what is known about the reps. I am including education, but that does not necessarily imply that those who did not go to an NCAA school are not intelligent. Don't even go into the academic shenanigans with which some NCAA schools have been involved. It does give better odds that they are educated, although not necessarily in politics.

Team, Age, Education (years), NHL tenure, vote (AK Anti-Kelly, AB abstain, PK Pro-Kelly)

Horcoff - Oilers - 30 - Michigan State (4) - 8 -AK
Stajan - Leafs - 25 - Junior - 5 - AK
Ference - Bruins - 30 - Junior - 10 - AK
Regehr - Flames - 29 - Junior - 9 - AK
Clarkson - Devils - 25 - Junior - 2 - PK?
*Murray - Sharks - 29 - Cornell (4) - 4 - ?
Chelios - Wings - 47 - Wisconsin (2) - 25 - PK?
Mitchell - Canucks - 32 - Clarkson (2) - 9 - ?
Allen - Panthers - 29 - Junior - 6 - ?
Peters - Sabres - 29 - Junior - 5 - ?
Exelby - Thrashers/Leafs - 28 - Junior - 6 - AK
Komisarek - Habs/Leafs - 27 - Michigan (2) - 6 - ?
Boyes - Blues - 27 - Junior - 4 - ?
Schultz - Wild - 27 - Junior - 7 - ?
Ott - Stars - 27 - Junior - 6 - ?
~Perrin - Thrashers - 33 - Vermont (4) - 3 - ?
~Halpern - Lightning - 33 - Princeton (4) - 9 - ?
~Valiquette - Rangers - 32 - Junior - 2 - ?
~Guite - Avalanche - 31 - Maine (4) - 3 - ?
~Fisher - Senators - 29 - Junior - 9 - ?
~Malhotra - Jackets - 29 - Junior - 11 - ?
~Hartnell - Flyers - 27 - Junior - 8 - ?
~Laich - Capitals - 26 - Junior - 4 - ?
~Hamhuis - Predators - 26 - Junior - 5 - ?
~Talbot - Penguins - 25 - Junior - 4 - ?
~Winnik - Coyotes - 24 - New Hampshire (3) - 2 - ?
~Ladd - Hawks - 23 - Junior - 4 - ?
~Roloson - Oilers - 39 - UMass Lowell (4) - 12 - ?
^Parros - Ducks - 29 - Princeton (4) - 4 - ?
^Staal - Hurricanes - 24 - Junior - 5 - ?
^Calder - Kings - 30 - Junior - 8 - ?
^Sutton - Islanders - 34 - Michigan Tech (4) - 10 - ?

*Murray was a last minute substitution for Lukowich who was traded. Murray attended by phone.
~Unconfirmed reps
^Other reps from 08-09 listing on wiki where not contradicted by another rep from same team

If anyone has another name of an attendee I will add it to the list. If a mod wants to update this post, please feel free to do so. Sorry and thanks Cleduc, I did not see your post earlier, but I hope this fills in details a bit.


Last edited by SJeasy: 09-05-2009 at 05:16 PM. Reason: updates
SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 02:52 PM
  #291
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
Probably the kind of idiots that volunteer for a job and don't appreciate being criticized and second-guessed by the guys who could have volunteered but didn't. It's sorta like being the coach of the Pee-Wee travel team because your kid is on the team, then listening to the other Dads whine all year.
No, it was a really dumb comment. The jist of Shanahan's complaint was that it was never brought up to the individual teams and that the reps were basically held hostage in a hotel room until 4AM. Hardly the kind of comments that Horcoff should have popped off on. It was asking legitimate questions, not popping off in a manner in which, say, JR did.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 02:54 PM
  #292
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
In response to Roenick's comments, especially the age issue, I decided to compile a list of what is known about the reps. I am including education, but that does not necessarily imply that those who did not go to an NCAA school are not intelligent. Don't even go into the academic shenanigans with which some NCAA schools have been involved. It does give better odds that they are educated, although not necessarily in politics.

Team, Age, Education (years), NHL tenure, vote (AK Anti-Kelly, AB abstain, PK Pro-Kelly)

Horcoff - Oilers - 30 - Michigan State (4) - 8 -AK
Stajan - Leafs - 25 - Junior - 5 - AK
Ference - Bruins - 30 - Junior - 10 - AK
Regehr - Flames - 29 - Junior - 9 - AK
Clarkson - Devils - 25 - Junior - 2 - PK?
Murray - Sharks - 29 - Cornell (4) - 4 - ?

Murray was a last minute substitution for Lukowich who was traded. Murray attended by phone.

If anyone has another name of an attendee I will add it to the list. If a mod wants to update this post, please feel free to do so.
Keep in mind, Roenick didn't bring up the age comment, it was presented to him. That's why I was interested in whether the "roughly 90% of the executive committee is under 23" assertion was true or not. Obviously from that list, it's not off to a good start in the being true department.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 03:05 PM
  #293
Kritter471
Registered User
 
Kritter471's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,719
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kritter471
Ott was definitely the Stars player rep as of the summer meetings in Vegas. That was confirmed in several local radio interviews and one radio interview on a (I believe) Toronto station.

No ideas on his opinion on the Kelly thing or if he attended the meeting in person or via phone.

Kritter471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 03:09 PM
  #294
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
Here's the reps I've confirmed with their ages:
Chelios, 47,
Mitchell,W, 32,
Horcoff, 30,
Ferrence, 30,
Regehr, 29
Allen, 29,
Peters, 29,
Exelby, 28,
Komisarek, 27,
Boyes, 27,
Schultz, 27,
Stajan 25, (in NHL full time six seasons ago)
Clarkson, 25,

*Note: players are representing the team they played for last season

Here's others who are possible reps but I have not confirmed
(some maybe listed in error):
Roloson, 39
Lukowich, 33
Perrin, 33
Halpern, 33
Valiquette, 32
Guite, 31
Fisher, 29
Malhotra, 29
Hartnell, 27
Ott, 27
Laich, 26
Hamhuis, 26
Talbot, 25
Winnik, 24
Ladd, 23

Other possible listing here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Pla...2.80.932009.29

I have been able to find only one rep Ladd who was 23 and no reps younger.

Just more BS from Jeremy.
First, Jeremy didn't say it, Bill Watters did. Second, the point of being 23 is irrelevent. His point was that they were young, and they are. Many are only 25 or younger.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 03:19 PM
  #295
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
Keep in mind, Roenick didn't bring up the age comment, it was presented to him. That's why I was interested in whether the "roughly 90% of the executive committee is under 23" assertion was true or not. Obviously from that list, it's not off to a good start in the being true department.
Thanks for the redirection on the comment, my misread. I don't expect to get all reps, but I am trying to track who they are and their political stance (hardline or not on lockout, pro and anti Kelly). My initial take on the comment is that even their brethren will look to the exceptions rather than the average when referring to intelligence. (Heck, we could go to Dryden on one extreme.) IMO, the player reps will tend to the more intelligent side although that does nothing to imply stance. I will also repeat that university education is an indicator but not an absolute measure. I know of a couple that went through junior programs that are anything but unintelligent.

Thank you as well Kritter.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 06:26 PM
  #296
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,075
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
IMO, the player reps will tend to the more intelligent side although that does nothing to imply stance.
I don't agree with that. Player reps will tend to be fanatics or zealots. Kool-ade drinkers. And very much less likely to be trying to look at both sides of any issue.

Their senior member is, after all, someone who thought a good thing to do during the first lockout was threaten the life of the commissioner to the media.

Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 06:49 PM
  #297
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
I don't agree with that. Player reps will tend to be fanatics or zealots. Kool-ade drinkers. And very much less likely to be trying to look at both sides of any issue.

Their senior member is, after all, someone who thought a good thing to do during the first lockout was threaten the life of the commissioner to the media.
Stance can apply to fanatic or zealot and not necessarily intelligence. And, intelligence doesn't mean the player will be well versed in politics (IMO that comes with age/experience if it comes at all). I can point to a couple that I know are not entirely over the top zealots/fanatics.

Just a thought from one of my experiences long ago. As a psych major taking 101, I was required along with others to act as subjects for a specific number of psych experiments. I volunteered for one which turned out to be a replication of the Milgram experiment. I only knew it was paid (some were unpaid); I didn't know what it was or the history at the time. Later, I found out that I was one of 1 or 2% that refused to shock the "subject". I later studied what went into the makeup of those people who refused that and refused in similar situations. It is rare for someone to oppose when there is overwhelming pressure. When the herd is going one way, it takes a lot to stand up and voice an opposing opinion. From the tone of what went on, it appears that the situation was one where there was that kind of pressure from one side. Either that or very real overwhelming evidence that surely would have come out by now. I don't think that 98% of the reps are zealots, just some, and I don't think there are a lot willing to oppose either.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 10:18 PM
  #298
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post

I have been able to find only one rep Ladd who was 23 and no reps younger.

Just more BS from Jeremy.
Doesn't matter. The point that as a group they are poorly educated and because of that likely in over their heads is valid. Paying guys to go away on a regular basis lately is pretty good evidence of that.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 10:20 PM
  #299
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
Wasn't that one of the points? That speaking to the Ombudsman ISN'T insubordination?
It depends. If the employee is undercutting the boss through the ombudsman and Kelly does nothing about it, then his position in the employee-employer relationship is seriously threatened.
Quote:
From everything we've read, Lindros was doing the job he was hired to do - which is why Kelly had problems with him in the first place. Once again, someone is unable to separate their feelings about Lindros as a player from what he was doing for his fellow players in the union. He didn't want to play for Quebec. Get over it - it's almost 20 years later.
This has nothing to do with Quebec. It has everything to do with Lindros' inflated sense of self importance and his inability to work things out peacefully. The role of ombudsman requires a diplomatic and fair-minded individual, which Lindros most certainly is not.
Quote:
"Probably"?
Probably. The argument can and should be made that executive meeting minutes cannot be held from the director in order for him to do his job properly, especially when decisions made in that meeting break the union rules.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 10:59 PM
  #300
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
A Jelly Donut!?!
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,436
vCash: 500
It'll be interesting what the "tweaks" will be...

Quote:
The NHLPA likely will make some minor alterations to its constitution in the wake of the Paul Kelly dismissal, union rep Garnet Exelby admitted yesterday.

But in no way will any signifi-cant changes be implemented that would strip the players of any of the "checks and balances" instituted to keep the union's executive director in line, whoever that might be.

"We'll probably make a few tweaks here and there, but we definitely want to keep our checks and balances," Exelby said. "That's the way we wanted it when (the constitution was rewritten). We wanted to make sure the players had control.

"We definitely want to keep the power dispersed so that no one person or group can hijack us."
http://chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDi...%20SUN%20MEDIA

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 05:15 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.