HFBoards

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-05-2009, 11:23 PM
  #301
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major4Boarding View Post
It'll be interesting what the "tweaks" will be...



http://chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDi...%20SUN%20MEDIA
Was he trying to be ironic? "Alright, we pulled a coup guys, now make sure we change the charter so that no coups can take place in the future!"

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2009, 08:12 AM
  #302
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
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.
...proving my point.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2009, 01:51 PM
  #303
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major4Boarding View Post
It'll be interesting what the "tweaks" will be...

http://chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDi...%20SUN%20MEDIA
Looks like the agents are starting pull the strings.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2009, 02:04 PM
  #304
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Looks like the agents are starting pull the strings.
That goes back to the undermining of Goodenow.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2009, 02:37 PM
  #305
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major4Boarding View Post
It'll be interesting what the "tweaks" will be...

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

This sounds somewhat strange, given the circumstances.

nye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2009, 06:06 PM
  #306
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
That goes back to the undermining of Goodenow.
No doubt.

But there have been comments made about how hockey players can be impressionable, and tend to listen to the educated individuals around them.

Hockey players have to trust their agents implicitly to look after their best interests. The relationship between agent and player is going to be the closest of all the relationships at play here, which gives the agents quite a bit of power.

Of course, the agents also have a vested interest in decisions made by the NHLPA. You could argue that they have more to lose than the players by getting a bad deal in the CBA.. ie should guaranteed contracts disappear the agents would really hurt - there goes their guaranteed income.

I'm betting that the agents are working behind the scenes to stack the next executive committee with players that can be trusted. It might even be just a case of encouraging the Crosby's, Luongo's, and Lidstrom's to volunteer as player reps. I would not be surprised at all to see an agent installed as NHLPA head once this is all said and done. They need someone who can hit the ground running, and unlike Kelly have some power base within the union.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2009, 08:59 PM
  #307
mikelvl
Registered User
 
mikelvl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 487
The more I read about the details of this farce and miscarriage of justice, the more furious I get. How can this be allowed to happen in this day and age! I hope Paul Kelly takes the PA to the cleaners in a lawsuit. These guys are a disgrace. Ian Penny is a backstabbing pig.

mikelvl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2009, 09:14 PM
  #308
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelvl View Post
The more I read about the details of this farce and miscarriage of justice, the more furious I get. How can this be allowed to happen in this day and age! I hope Paul Kelly takes the PA to the cleaners in a lawsuit. These guys are a disgrace. Ian Penny is a backstabbing pig.
If the NHLPA pays him out in full under his contract (or pursuant to a termination clause if there is one) then that pretty much ends it.

In that case it will be settled and mutual releases will be signed as well as confidentiality agreements. In that case we may never know the full story.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 07:58 AM
  #309
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelvl View Post
The more I read about the details of this farce and miscarriage of justice, the more furious I get. How can this be allowed to happen in this day and age! I hope Paul Kelly takes the PA to the cleaners in a lawsuit. These guys are a disgrace. Ian Penny is a backstabbing pig.
If the 30 reps told Kelly not to do something twice and he went ahead and did it anyway (looking at minutes of the meeting reviewing his performance) and some of the claims against him were that he went after people who spoke out against how the NHLPA was being run, where's the miscarriage of justice? On top of whatever other concerns the players had about him, that's pure insubordination and grounds for prompt dismissal.

Unlike Eagleson, Goodenow and Saskin, times have changed and the players learned from their mistakes. The players have taken control of their union and set up a new constitution to monitor the performance of their union and it's director. This time around, the NHLPA director works for them and takes direction from them - not the other way around. No longer will going after players or NHLPA staff be tolerated as happened to players like Klatt and as appeared to be starting to happen under Kelly. From what I've read, Kelly found that out that hard way.

There were far too many complaints: from Ombudsman Lindros, Ombudsman Hargrove, players meeting in Chicago a year ago, players meeting in Las Vegas last June and the players investigation with the HR consultant in recent weeks to brush this all off as some miscarriage of justice - particularly when all that got capped off with insubordination.

There's no way all that could be happening, happening for as long as it happened, coming from as many different sources as it came from and wind up with Kelly being clean as a whistle.

As for the power play conspiracy theory, it would seem that a bunch of the players who were on the search committee and began by supporting Kelly wound up on the other side of Kelly after they'd worked with him for a while. That's a pretty strange power play going against the man they had previously installed as "their man".

Secondly, the real power play took place after Saskin's departure and before Kelly's arrival. The players rewrote the NHLPA constitution so that the NHLPA would be a government of their union of the players, by the players and for the players. Kicking Kelly to the curb is those players exercising the franchise of power over their union that they seized when no director was around. To me, that's finally as it should be with the NHLPA. There's no miscarriage of justice in the players taking full control of their union and insisting that their employee, the director, do their bidding. It was long overdue.


Last edited by cleduc: 09-07-2009 at 08:05 AM.
cleduc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 08:38 AM
  #310
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,127
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
There were far too many complaints: from Ombudsman Lindros, Ombudsman Hargrove,
Certainly ombudsman Lindros and Ombudsman Hargrove had a big hand in this,no one is denying that. In fact that is part of the problem as, among other reasons,some people don't have a particularly high opionion of those two gentlemen or altogether trust their motives.

Why did this have to be rushed through in the middle of the night? Even if they wanted to move on it quickly, it would have been better to wait and present all sides of the argument to the whole membership. To rush through such an important matter in the middle of the night doesn't make it look as though the membership has taken charge of the process, it looks as though their representatives were maniputlated and stampeded into making a decison in the middle of the night
before they had a chance for informed debate or the input of thier membership.

In fact it looks exactly like a palace coup as Eric Duhatchuk and others have said. A small hard line group has seized the tiller of the organization and are preparing to reifight the last CBA, according to a number of media sources.

It doesn't look right, it doesn't feel right, in fact it reeks to high heaven as has been noted by virtually every reporter who covers the NHL, even the ones who were formerly on side with the union.


Last edited by pepty: 09-07-2009 at 08:45 AM.
pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 09:26 AM
  #311
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Certainly ombudsman Lindros and Ombudsman Hargrove had a big hand in this,no one is denying that.
Only a number of the people who were directly involved with this decision denied Lindros was significantly involved.

Both Ombudsman are restricted from providing opinion. They gather the facts on complaints and report those facts to the reps. They did not sit in on the rep meetings. They only attended a part of them to present their findings of facts, answer questions on those and then they depart the meeting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Why did this have to be rushed through in the middle of the night? Even if they wanted to move on it quickly, it would have been better to wait and present all sides of the argument to the whole membership. To rush through such an important matter in the middle of the night doesn't make it look as though the membership has taken charge of the process, it looks as though their representatives were maniputlated and stampeded into making a decison in the middle of the night
before they had a chance for informed debate or the input of thier membership.
Complaints go back the the meeting in Chicago a year ago. They carry on through with complaints filed by Lindros when he resigned last February. Then the complaints carried through to the meeting in Vegas last June. From that, the players had Hargrove present his findings of fact. And the four players reps investigated by interviewing all NHLPA staff and reported their findings to this most recent meeting where Kelly got canned.

Think about that timeline and all the effort that was made to get to the bottom of it. From the first complaints to a final decision took more than a year. That process doesn't seem like it was rushed to me.

The problem in terms of a decision was that it's tough for the players who are spread out all over the continent to get together. They'd already got together twice this summer on the same issue: Kelly.

These player reps are elected. They each represent their team and under the NHLPA constitution, those reps are empowered to act on their team's behalf in a matter like this.

They had a years worth of briefings etc. How do they disseminate all of that to all of the players? How does a vote of all the players on whether to keep Kelly really answer the issue when if it's gotten that bad that they have to consider such a vote? The man is effectively done anyway in terms of having the confidence of a large majority of players because he's lost the confidence of a major group of them in order for them to go forward with a vote. The vote will perpetually undermine their confidence in his position going forward no matter what the outcome unless it's a landslide (which it obviously wasn't going to be given a sizable portion of the reps were down on him and it was bad enough that they'd even consider a vote).

A CEO having 51% support of their board isn't a good thing and often in the face of such a result, they have to resign. They tend to need 75% or certainly minimally 67% to justify their continuing because this isn't merely an election - it's a measurement of the confidence the people have in supporting them - which should be strong, well beyond a bare majority.

So they canned him and per the above, that's rather rational reasoning on why they would do so at that time.


Last edited by cleduc: 09-07-2009 at 09:36 AM.
cleduc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 09:34 AM
  #312
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,427
vCash: 500
i wonder. how many of the pro firing of kelly posters are also pro hard line/not against another lockout?

Seems to me this has more to do with the next CBA than anything else.

txpd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 09:53 AM
  #313
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd View Post
i wonder. how many of the pro firing of kelly posters are also pro hard line/not against another lockout?

Seems to me this has more to do with the next CBA than anything else.
From what a number of the reps said, how much of a hard liner Kelly was had nothing to do with it. No rep I can recall stated otherwise. The only one who got close was Exelby who talked about the NHLPA director needing to provide them with 'strong leadership' - but his statement could just as easily be construed as 'strong' in that that leadership should have the vast majority of players behind it.

I'm also dead against another lockout/strike. The game can't afford it. Every avenue has to exploited to the fullest so that they avoid that.

I also do not see the lockout ending in a real defeat for the players. I'm obviously in the minority. Certainly one principle Goodenow desire of no cap got defeated. We also found out that the Levitt numbers were pretty close to the way it was. But I think the players got themselves a reasonably fair deal. I don't see a bunch of owners laughing all the way to the bank. They wound up with a system that is generally of mutual benefit to both parties.

Whatever inequities or complaints there are can get addressed in the next go round. But I don't see them nearly as severe or the divide between the two parties nearly as great as the last time.

A good contract is one that is mutually beneficial to both sides. I think they got that last time and that ought to be the mission the next time around. Hopefully, they can do so without hammering the crap out of each other.

cleduc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 11:31 AM
  #314
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,427
vCash: 500
I don't think the players involved in this incident with Kelly are going to announce they did it because they want a more confrontational leader. My take is, though, that the players leading this ousting are players that were generally not in favor of the NHLPA signing a deal with a salary cap in it.

Personally, I think with the economic collapse we have witnessed that the Salary cap may have been the only thing that kept the league away from disaster.

txpd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 12:43 PM
  #315
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd View Post
i wonder. how many of the pro firing of kelly posters are also pro hard line/not against another lockout?

Seems to me this has more to do with the next CBA than anything else.
Conversely, how many of the posters/journalists that are pro-Kelly/anti-NHLPA have taken those positions because they were secretly hoping Kelly was making the NHLPA a house union for the NHL?

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 01:54 PM
  #316
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Conversely, how many of the posters/journalists that are pro-Kelly/anti-NHLPA have taken those positions because they were secretly hoping Kelly was making the NHLPA a house union for the NHL?
None?

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 02:00 PM
  #317
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Conversely, how many of the posters/journalists that are pro-Kelly/anti-NHLPA have taken those positions because they were secretly hoping Kelly was making the NHLPA a house union for the NHL?
Third Question:

How many people are against this firing because they are so blatantly politically anti-union that they are blinded by any reasonable facts produced?

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 02:11 PM
  #318
mikelvl
Registered User
 
mikelvl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
If the 30 reps told Kelly not to do something twice and he went ahead and did it anyway (looking at minutes of the meeting reviewing his performance) and some of the claims against him were that he went after people who spoke out against how the NHLPA was being run, where's the miscarriage of justice? On top of whatever other concerns the players had about him, that's pure insubordination and grounds for prompt dismissal.

Unlike Eagleson, Goodenow and Saskin, times have changed and the players learned from their mistakes. The players have taken control of their union and set up a new constitution to monitor the performance of their union and it's director. This time around, the NHLPA director works for them and takes direction from them - not the other way around. No longer will going after players or NHLPA staff be tolerated as happened to players like Klatt and as appeared to be starting to happen under Kelly. From what I've read, Kelly found that out that hard way.

There were far too many complaints: from Ombudsman Lindros, Ombudsman Hargrove, players meeting in Chicago a year ago, players meeting in Las Vegas last June and the players investigation with the HR consultant in recent weeks to brush this all off as some miscarriage of justice - particularly when all that got capped off with insubordination.

There's no way all that could be happening, happening for as long as it happened, coming from as many different sources as it came from and wind up with Kelly being clean as a whistle.

As for the power play conspiracy theory, it would seem that a bunch of the players who were on the search committee and began by supporting Kelly wound up on the other side of Kelly after they'd worked with him for a while. That's a pretty strange power play going against the man they had previously installed as "their man".

Secondly, the real power play took place after Saskin's departure and before Kelly's arrival. The players rewrote the NHLPA constitution so that the NHLPA would be a government of their union of the players, by the players and for the players. Kicking Kelly to the curb is those players exercising the franchise of power over their union that they seized when no director was around. To me, that's finally as it should be with the NHLPA. There's no miscarriage of justice in the players taking full control of their union and insisting that their employee, the director, do their bidding. It was long overdue.
I would ask that you read Scott Burnside's column in ESPN and tell me what you think. Lindros and Penny were not hired by Paul Kelly and reacted with petty jealousy when the found out they could not have their way. Ron Pink coveted the job and together with Lindros, Penny, and Hargrove did everything in their power to backstab Kelly and influence a bunch of 23 year old high school graduates to vote in their favor. The end result is that the PA remains a laughingstock in the eyes of the NHL, the media, and many fans. They went from a felon to a hardliner who took them through two lockouts to an email spy. They finally had a competent professional and the entrenched backstabbers did what they had to do continue the anarchy that they helped to create.

mikelvl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 04:09 PM
  #319
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,127
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
Third Question:

How many people are against this firing because they are so blatantly politically anti-union that they are blinded by any reasonable facts produced?
That's hard to answer since there haven't been any facts, reasonable or not, produced yet.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 04:14 PM
  #320
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,504
vCash: 500
The people who are supporting Kelly aren't pro-union, they're anti-stupidity.

Something both Hargrove and Lindros are rather known for.

Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 05:46 PM
  #321
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelvl View Post
I would ask that you read Scott Burnside's column in ESPN and tell me what you think.
I didn't agree with his conclusions which wouldn't be a first for me and Burnside. I took more from what the reps who were fully informed and decided the issue and the actual process that took place to decide the issue than the conjecture, whispers and innuendo from Burnside and others in the media.

I think some media jumped the gun on this and went for a conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water when I review the whole thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelvl View Post
Lindros and Penny were not hired by Paul Kelly and reacted with petty jealousy when the found out they could not have their way.
Lindros was very much involved with the selection committee and was pro Kelly when they hired him. It wasn't until the complaints started to come in that Lindros had no choice but to report the facts of those complaints with no opinion. All but one of the items cited in Lindros resignation letter have been proven to be true. The last item, Kelly going after NHLPA employees for telling Lindros what was going on, is the only one I haven't seen completely substantiated but given the other stuff that went on (like the interviews of the NHLPA staff by the reps), I strongly suspect that one was also found to be true in light of their decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelvl View Post
Ron Pink coveted the job and together with Lindros, Penny, and Hargrove did everything in their power to backstab Kelly
The only thing I've seen on that is media speculation. Several reps shot down Lindros involvement as he was long gone. Hargrove was also limited to no opinion, just reporting the facts. Pink, Hargrove & Penny have all withdrawn their names from consideration for the director position. So the 'power play' doesn't make sense. because they're not winding up with any more power long term. Penny's 5 yr contract term came as a surprise to him - he didn't ask for it.

Further, how do Lindros, Hargrove and Penny account for the complaints lodged by others in Chicago a year ago, complaints lodged in Las Vegas, the findings of the four player reps who interviewed the entire NHLKPA staff and Kelly's insubordination when he reviewed the minutes? Lindros, Hargrove and Penny didn't have a lot to do with those things as they largely came from other sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelvl View Post
and influence a bunch of 23 year old high school graduates to vote in their favor.
Sounds like you've been sucked in by the media/Roenick BS. As I previously noted in this thread, only one unconfirmed rep was 23 or less that I could find (and he may have been replaced). That figure is one more sign of the media not doing their jobs and not checking the facts in this story. The reps collectively constitute an average age that is considerably older than the league average. They should have a few young guys to represent that age group.

Secondly, the purpose of the players new NHLPA Advisory Council is to provide the player reps with experienced smarts. It's a collection of people with expertise dedicated to inform and help the player reps understand some of the more complex issues. It was formed as result of studying where they had gone wrong in the past and while revamping their constitution. It was done so that powerful, knowledgeable dictator types like Goodenow couldn't dominate the reps with their knowledge.

So although it is true that the average NHLer isn't ideally educated, this advisory council (who primarily advise the players first and foremost - not the director so much per se) was formed to significantly address that, balance the power and help the player reps better understand the issues they were facing so that a sharp director couldn't pull the wool over their eyes as they had in the past.

As I said before, the power grab happened before Kelly showed up. The players took the power that rightfully should have been theirs in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelvl View Post
The end result is that the PA remains a laughingstock in the eyes of the NHL, the media, and many fans.
I don't think the NHLPA players really care about that. What they care about are the things that are truly important to them. Their new constitution was strengthened to give them more control and make sure that the whistle blowers didn't get hammered when things weren't going right. The players stuck to their guns on that and I think in the long run, they're already better off even though it's convenient for the media to sell papers and get ratings by pimping some sinister speculation.

What a lot of that speculation reveals to me is that those speculating media do not really understood what transpired within the NHLPA constitution and why. Protection of the whistle blowers was a big deal to the players when they rewrote their constitution. So when Kelly crossed that line, the players were more upset than they might have otherwise been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelvl View Post
They went from a felon to a hardliner who took them through two lockouts to an email spy. They finally had a competent professional and the entrenched backstabbers did what they had to do continue the anarchy that they helped to create.
I think the players found that all that glitters is not gold in Kelly. I think they found that a prosecutor doesn't necessarily equate to good quality management and knowing how to handle a staff. When we analyze management in general and see intimidation, we note it as the motivator of last resort. If we see too much intimidation, then we know the intimidating management is not being effective at using the full quiver of motivation techniques available to them and is small minded when it comes to taking criticism of their work.

Kelly needed to focus on the job at hand. If he received some criticism, he should have focused on explanation for his actions and corrective action and not focused on trying to shoot the messenger and not focus on going after those who informed the messenger. That's junior manager crap that does no one any good.

Lots of management makes mistakes. Good management recognizes their error and promptly acts to to correct it. I think the NHLPA reps took a pretty long hard look at Kelly and when they realized he wasn't up to snuff, they took prompt action. To me, that's encouraging. For the first time in their history, the players are methodically managing their union. They cut through the BS and said "we can do better." I tip my cap to them. I think they can do better and already are.


Last edited by cleduc: 09-07-2009 at 06:11 PM.
cleduc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 07:22 PM
  #322
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Certainly ombudsman Lindros and Ombudsman Hargrove had a big hand in this,no one is denying that. In fact that is part of the problem as, among other reasons,some people don't have a particularly high opionion of those
The people who count - the players - apparently have a high enough opinion of Lindros and the work he did for the union to give him the position of Ombudsman in the first place. Unlike Joe-fan, they don't care anymore that he refused to play for the Soo Greyhounds or the Nords, or that he didn't get along with Bobby Clarke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Why did this have to be rushed through in the middle of the night? Even if they wanted to move on it quickly, it would have been better to wait and present all sides of the argument to the whole membership. To rush through such an important matter in the middle of the night doesn't make it look as though the membership has taken charge of the process, it looks as though their representatives were maniputlated and stampeded into making a decison in the middle of the night
The player reps were elected by the whole membership to make the decisions - just as we don't have a referendum every time a decision needs to be made in the House of Commons, the player reps aren't supposed run back to their teams every time an issue arises. You might argue that this one was sufficiently large that they should have taken it to the membership but obviously the player reps - again, those elected to represent their teams and make decisions on their behalf - obviously disagreed. If the general membership is upset about it, they can make their voices heard when it's time to vote.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 07:28 PM
  #323
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd View Post
i wonder. how many of the pro firing of kelly posters are also pro hard line/not against another lockout?
Anyone who ISN'T against another lockout but purports to be a fan of professional hockey - especially to the extent that they would participate on a hockey message board - would have to be either an idiot or a moron. I don't know if Cleduc and I have EVER seen eye to eye on ANYTHING before this, but I can confidently say that neither of us want to see another lockout - and we've battled for a several years on a number of different boards.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 07:33 PM
  #324
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd View Post
I don't think the players involved in this incident with Kelly are going to announce they did it because they want a more confrontational leader.
I agree, especially after re-reading the things that were said about Kelly at the time he was hired. I believe the players are re-establishing their starting point for future negotiations. If you ultimately desire ending up at the midpoint between A and B, you aren't going to get there by starting in the middle while the other side starts at A. If you do that, you're sure to end up somewhere between the middle and the other side's starting point.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2009, 07:35 PM
  #325
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
Third Question:

How many people are against this firing because they are so blatantly politically anti-union that they are blinded by any reasonable facts produced?
Many many many. With the remainder being against the firing because a)they've never liked Lindros as a player and they never will or b)they're still holding a grudge against the "selfish" PA because of the first lockout.

salzy 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 07:05 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.