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
Notices

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
11-25-2009, 08:19 PM
  #826
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
There were several agents who were a problem but most were onside with Goodenow including some of the most influential such as JP Barry and Mike Gillis.

I do not see how clearing a 180 degree change in strategy and going against years of decided strategy would weaken anything. They were not issuing a press release - they were having confidential discussions regarding bargaining strategy.

Besides Bettman knew the players had caved the moment Linden and Saskin put it on the table.

I am not sure a busted union is the outcome the players should be pleased with.
Well, my understanding was that the NHLPA membership could not go another season without hockey - the players needed money. The NHLPA needed to make a deal - they were not in a good negotiating position. But Goodenow refused to budge, and was bypassed.

If there was a lot of internal opposition, why did 87% of the players vote to ratify the deal, especially if their agents were opposed as you maintain? That number is inordinately high from what I've seen in labor disputes (not that I'm an expert). If that many players voted for a CBA above Goodenow's objections, I don't see how you can not agree that he lost touch with the membership.


Last edited by Ernie: 11-25-2009 at 08:37 PM.
Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2009, 08:32 PM
  #827
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
According to this here

http://www.guetterman.com/index.php?itemid=645

The total payroll in 03-04 was $500,000 higher than what it was in 07-08. It has not increased a ton from 08, and that's with a bunch of teams just spending to the floor. Where has the income risen? There has been some redistribution, some guys on the bottom are making more, and guys on the top are making less. As a commenter notes, factor in inflation, and where have the players won? Oh, and in 03-04 they didn't hand over a chunk as per the CBA. And the Canadian dollar did not push up HRR like it has in the last 3 years.

Other than the fact players can become free agents sooner(although if teams have no cap room....) I have yet to see what exactly was so positive from the players point of view.
You're approaching it like the players could expect to come out of the lockout with an improved situation... that just wasn't going to happen.

The approach they settled on was to minimize their losses. The fact that they're better off now just a few years later is the positive. It was a much better alternative than holding out another year and setting revenues back even further. The lower age of free agency is just the cherry on the sundae.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2009, 08:35 PM
  #828
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
According to this here

http://www.guetterman.com/index.php?itemid=645

The total payroll in 03-04 was $500,000 higher than what it was in 07-08. It has not increased a ton from 08, and that's with a bunch of teams just spending to the floor. Where has the income risen? There has been some redistribution, some guys on the bottom are making more, and guys on the top are making less. As a commenter notes, factor in inflation, and where have the players won? Oh, and in 03-04 they didn't hand over a chunk as per the CBA. And the Canadian dollar did not push up HRR like it has in the last 3 years.

Other than the fact players can become free agents sooner(although if teams have no cap room....) I have yet to see what exactly was so positive from the players point of view.
I don't know who that blogger is, but he is using flawed sources and apparently is thoroughly unfamiliar with the NHL's business. Per the Levitt report for 2002-03, player comp (including benefits) were $1.494 billion ($1.429B in salary, $65 mil in benefits).

Based on ~$2.6 billion in revenue, NHL salaries and benefits are ~$1.473 billion. They are still $21 million behind. That is to say nothing of the several years of hundreds of millions in savings already achieved.

The blogger in question does not understand escrow, player benefits, the salary cap or exchange rates. The fact that it does not dawn on him that, while player salaries are still not where they were, the NHL has increased its colective revenue by US$600 million. And it's a mystery to him why the NHL can now pay players similar salaries as before (collectively $21 million less this year) at this point?

BTW, I established some time ago, to the satisfaction of all concerned, that the impact of the $CDN is minimal on a league-wide basis. One cent change in the exchange rate = US$8 million. In relation to a $2.6 billion business, $8 million is relative peanuts when compared to the revenue increases that are not related to exchange rate fluctuations.

GSC2k2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2009, 08:42 PM
  #829
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
You're approaching it like the players could expect to come out of the lockout with an improved situation... that just wasn't going to happen.

The approach they settled on was to minimize their losses. The fact that they're better off now just a few years later is the positive. It was a much better alternative than holding out another year and setting revenues back even further. The lower age of free agency is just the cherry on the sundae.
I think you're looking at it form the point of view that anything was better than another season of not playing. Which is short term gain for long term pain. The players only lost one season of pay. The owners got everything they wanted. that's not my definition of win/win.

Exactly what will the positive be if the Canadian dollar goes back to 75 cents US or lower? HRR will take a big hit, which means the cap will as well. So then the players are making less money....but they didn't lose that second season.

Saying they made the deal to avoid a second lost season is saying they really have no respect for what the players before them did to make things possible for them today.

The players got bent over without vaseline.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2009, 12:22 PM
  #830
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 15,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
I don't know who that blogger is, but he is using flawed sources and apparently is thoroughly unfamiliar with the NHL's business. Per the Levitt report for 2002-03, player comp (including benefits) were $1.494 billion ($1.429B in salary, $65 mil in benefits).

Based on ~$2.6 billion in revenue, NHL salaries and benefits are ~$1.473 billion. They are still $21 million behind. That is to say nothing of the several years of hundreds of millions in savings already achieved.

The blogger in question does not understand escrow, player benefits, the salary cap or exchange rates. The fact that it does not dawn on him that, while player salaries are still not where they were, the NHL has increased its colective revenue by US$600 million. And it's a mystery to him why the NHL can now pay players similar salaries as before (collectively $21 million less this year) at this point?

BTW, I established some time ago, to the satisfaction of all concerned, that the impact of the $CDN is minimal on a league-wide basis. One cent change in the exchange rate = US$8 million. In relation to a $2.6 billion business, $8 million is relative peanuts when compared to the revenue increases that are not related to exchange rate fluctuations.
Summing it up a little more simply:

in 2002-2003, that ~$1.5B in player costs represented ~75% of league revenue.

in 2008-2009 that ~$1.5B in player costs represented ~56.6% of league revenue.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2009, 02:21 PM
  #831
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
I think you're looking at it form the point of view that anything was better than another season of not playing. Which is short term gain for long term pain. The players only lost one season of pay. The owners got everything they wanted. that's not my definition of win/win.

Exactly what will the positive be if the Canadian dollar goes back to 75 cents US or lower? HRR will take a big hit, which means the cap will as well. So then the players are making less money....but they didn't lose that second season.

Saying they made the deal to avoid a second lost season is saying they really have no respect for what the players before them did to make things possible for them today.

The players got bent over without vaseline.
By summer 2005, it was eminently obvious that the NHLPA would have to agree to some sort of a salary cap - even Goodenow had agreed to a form of it earlier that spring when they were trying to save the season, though he was still refusing to tie it to revenues.

So it was better for the players to get the best deal possible than go another season without playing, and live to fight another day. Their worst fears about the cap haven't been realized.

It's hard to disagree with this - if the players were displeased with the deal, why did they extend it last year? There is absolutely no appetite for another lockout amongst the players - they seem pretty satisfied with the status quo (though as I mentioned, some annoyances like escrow might be addressed).

The dollar already did take a dive last season, and the cap was pinched because of it - and yet the CBA was renewed by the NHLPA. At this point, unless there is another economic catastrophe, it doesn't seem likely to see further weakness in the Canadian dollar - indeed, it has reached the level of stability where some foreign governments are starting to move some reserves out of US dollars and into Canadian dollars.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2009, 02:28 PM
  #832
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
BTW, I established some time ago, to the satisfaction of all concerned, that the impact of the $CDN is minimal on a league-wide basis. One cent change in the exchange rate = US$8 million. In relation to a $2.6 billion business, $8 million is relative peanuts when compared to the revenue increases that are not related to exchange rate fluctuations.
Not so sure that's accurate portrayal.

If the Canadian dollar maintains it's current levels, the yearly average will be around $0.94, up from $0.86. Using your $8m figure, that will add $64m to NHL revenues. That's about a 2.5% bump, and would translate to a $1.5m increase to the cap.

Indeed, the NHL grew by over 2% last season, but it was offset by a decrease in the Canadian dollar. If it can maintain that level of growth this season, in concert with the Canadian dollar strength we should be looking at about a $2.5m increase to the cap for 09/10.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2009, 04:24 PM
  #833
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I do.

Hire another Bob Goodenow who puts the players' interests first, then there is no problem. The amended constitution is what doomed Kelly to failure according to Steve Montador.
In spite of what Montador thinks, the constitution was re-written the way it is currently written by design - to foster the transparency that's been absent from the PA since its inception. To prevent another Eagleson or Saskin. The articles written at the time are too numerous to list, but not too difficult to find.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2009, 04:29 PM
  #834
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Are you kidding? Larmer and Baumgartner were both in the thick of this, and faced almost certainly being fired when they re-signed and made the comments they did. When Crosby got on that conference call told Ian Penny where to go, the jig was up for these guys.

Stajan? Sure, there are some members of the executive committee who haven't liked their actions called into question. They looked pretty stupid after that meeting where they fired Kelly, and JR's comments about their naivety didn't help matters I'm sure.
LMAO! Are you kidding? You really think anyone cares what Jeremy Roenick thinks? Let me guess - the last straw was when Don Cherry called them all stooopid lolzzzz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Ference was criticized for basically being Lindros' mouthpiece and working with Ian Penny et al to undercut Kelly.
A charge which he denied, which has never been substantiated and for which I have NEVER seen a source. Of course, nobody seems to care about sources unless it's critical of the Pro-Kelly's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
He was removed as player rep by his teammates for these actions.
Incorrect.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2009, 05:10 PM
  #835
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
In spite of what Montador thinks, the constitution was re-written the way it is currently written by design - to foster the transparency that's been absent from the PA since its inception. To prevent another Eagleson or Saskin. The articles written at the time are too numerous to list, but not too difficult to find.
Unfortunately the re-write did not work. It just made it impossible to for the NHLPA to function effectively.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2009, 05:46 PM
  #836
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Unfortunately the re-write did not work. It just made it impossible to for the NHLPA to function effectively.
I'll take that as a "yes" - the constitution WAS re-written the way it is currently written by design, in order to foster the kind of transparency that has been basically absent in the NHLPA throughout it's history. I think we can all agree that was the intent of the PA at the time, no matter how big a Goodenow fan someone might be. There can also really be no debate that in that regard, this whole ordeal has proven the constitution has provided exactly the kind of transparency it was intended to provide when it was re-written.

So now what they want to do is re-write the constitution again, and this time give up all that transparency that was apparently so important to the PA roughly 2 years ago and give the ED carte blanche to "do his job" - like they had in the good old days of Saskin, Goodenow and the Eagle.

And the players think people are laughing at them NOW?

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2009, 06:15 PM
  #837
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
A charge which he denied, which has never been substantiated and for which I have NEVER seen a source. Of course, nobody seems to care about sources unless it's critical of the Pro-Kelly's.


Incorrect.
Here is Stan Fischler's view and he has been one of the most anti-NHLPA and pro-NHL columnists out there:
Quote:
This mess did not have to happen; not at all.

But it all took place because a small group of malcontents — you can start with power-hungry NHLPA holdovers from the disgraced Bob Goodenow administration — decided to torpedo Paul Kelly, the first sane, clean executive director that the union ever had. It happened in a Chicago hotel room at three o’clock one morning.

Ron Pink, a member of the NHLPA advisory board, actually interviewed for the job Kelly eventually got.

“Pink badly wanted it,” says respected Hockey Night In Canada broadcaster-analyst Elliotte Friedman, “no matter his denials.”

Then, there was Ian Penny, another from Goodenow, Inc. who actually finagled his way to the level of “Interim” Executive Director until his machinations over landing a big, fat contract for himself led to a bye-bye Penny resignation.

This all was happening as the Kelly firing caused a HUGE boomerang effect against the Quislings who dumped Paul. A four-man investigative group among playerfs was formed.

It includes Nicklas Lidstrom, Rob Blake, Mark Recchi and Chris Chelios.

Once the Quislings realized that the quartet meant business — and might very well expose the wrong-doing behind Kelly’s ouster — they exited Stage Left one after another.

The last to leave was Buzz Hargrove, the so-called ombudsman and anti- Kelly type, who resigned from his NHLPA post on Sunday.

“Hargrove,” wrote Friedman, “was more radioactive than enriched plutonium. No one was going to listen to him. These individuals (Penny, Pink, Hargrove) were permanently tainted by the Chicago coup.”
http://www.maxhockey.com/blogs/2009/...hlpa/#more-196

Here is how John Buccigross sees things:
Quote:
Kelly was toppled by an advisory board and some of the senior managers who manipulated a few key players like Andrew Ference into thinking that Kelly wasn't the right man for the job. Those people within the NHLPA were paranoid about losing their power and their influence, as well as about the prospect that they were being held responsible for their performance, and they felt they needed to get rid of Kelly. It's curious that, once the players appointed the committee, all of the decision-makers ran for the hills, rather than addressing the questions around the termination.
http://proxy.espn.go.com/nhl/noteboo...cigross/091110

Unlike you these writers have the sources to know what is going on. And they do not agree with your spin.

Here was what Ference had to say in his defence of firing Kelly:
‘Oh, you need to have everybody vote on something that big,’ well, we had five guys voting on hiring [Kelly],’’ Ference said. “I didn’t hear too many guys complaining about the process of hiring him. We didn’t have 740 guys vote on that.’’

The problem is that is not what happened when Kelly was hired as pointed out by Kevin Dupont of the Boston Globe:
Quote:
Kelly’s election came as the result of a vote offered to all members of the NHLPA, who could have rejected him on the basis of his salary. Each player representative was asked to poll his members, asking if they would confirm a recommendation from within the NHLPA to hire Kelly. Each of the league’s 30 clubs voted to put Kelly into office.
Here are some named sources with direct quotes.

Ted Lindsay - who knows something about the history of the NHLPA:
Quote:
"That was the biggest scam job, execution, that I've ever seen in my life."

"I was thinking, boy, this is really a crucifixion of Paul Kelly that's going on."

"This was orchestrated, to me," Lindsay said, "with a particular thought of unionism and intimidation...to me, I say we're right back into the '67 era when (Alan) Eagleson was taking over. See, there's a lot of traits of Eagleson right here."

"He Kelly) has been very good to the present day players, but he's also been very, very good to the alumni," Lindsay said. "He's had their goodwill at heart and their interests at heart."

"Just understand that Paul Kelly is a class act."
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=289822

Brad Park - BTW Park has just finished proving the NHL owners had been playing games with widow and orphan benefits due from retired players to the tune of $30 million. It seems the NHL owners cannot keep their hands off of the players' pension funds.
http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009..._park_led.html
Quote:
“Let me tell Andrew Ference, one defenseman to another, he should spend more time worrying about going back to get the puck than to worry about Paul Kelly’s ability to do the job as head of the PA,’’ said Park, the Hall of Fame defenseman who spent 12 of his 15 NHL seasons as a vice president of the NHLPA. “When [Ference] was in junior, I assume he wasn’t going to college, so I ask, what makes him so [expletive] smart?

“They had a guy like Chris Chelios in that room who disagreed, told them to wait and think. Maybe guys like Ference should take time to listen to guys who are older and smarter.’’
And according to Recchi the Bruins players took Ference to task:
Quote:
“Look, I’m not the smartest guy in the world,’’ said the 41-year-old Recchi, long respected as one of the rank-and-file’s character individuals, “but the second I learned what happened in Chicago, I knew the process was wrong. It stunk. This should not have happened and we have to fix it. We can’t let this happen again.’’

According to Recchi, none of the league’s 740 players, other than the 27 who voted that morning in Chicago, knew that Kelly’s ouster was at hand. He said that was among the points made yesterday in a team meeting at Wilmington that was attended by everyone other than captain Zdeno Chara, who was given the day off by coach Claude Julien. Recchi said a number of Boston players emphatically expressed to Ference their displeasure with how it was handled.

“That’s 720 players who didn’t know what was going on,’’ said Recchi, noting that the latest developments have many believing the union is a laughingstock. “Why not tell guys in advance what’s going on? I don’t get it. A lot of guys don’t get it.

“I think Andrew understands now that the process is not right and something has to change. The process has to be looked at, how it went down. We want an internal investigation of how this was handled.’’
http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/...lpa/?page=full

And here is how Ference came to not be the player rep this season:
Quote:
In other union news, Andrew Ference, a leader in the charge to fire Kelly, has effectively been ousted as the Boston Bruins player representative and will no longer be a member of the executive board. Ference will be replaced by Mark Stuart. The move came after Mark Recchi reportedly made it known to his teammates that he would contest Ference’s spot and run against him in a vote among the Bruin players. Patrice Bergeron was appointed alternate player rep.

A source said Ference realized he would not win the election and bowed out of the race to avoid the embarrassment of losing. Players say it is extremely rare for a player to be replaced as a rep unless he steps down on his own and another player replaces him.

“I’ve never seen it (a player rep being contested) happen in my career and I’ve never heard of it happening before, ever,” a former player said.
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...-official.html

An unnamed source I know but since you hang your hat on that, it seemed fair.

And yet more sources:
Quote:
As the smoke clears from the stunning dismissal of NHL Players' Association boss Paul Kelly, some intriguing facts have started to emerge.

First, veteran defenceman Andrew Ference of the Boston Bruins has been clearly identified by several sources as the key player who led the charge against Kelly that culminated in his 4 a.m. firing in Chicago 11 days ago.

"This was a well-planned, well-thought-out coup d'état," said one prominent NHL star yesterday, requesting anonymity. "Players are starting to realize what happened in Chicago."
...
Third, more and more sources are suggesting that while former union ombudsman Eric Lindros was not involved in the Chicago meetings, Ference is viewed by many as a Lindros confidante.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/693438#

IMHO my unnamed sources trump your unnamed source.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2009, 06:40 PM
  #838
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
I don't know who that blogger is, but he is using flawed sources and apparently is thoroughly unfamiliar with the NHL's business. Per the Levitt report for 2002-03, player comp (including benefits) were $1.494 billion ($1.429B in salary, $65 mil in benefits).

Based on ~$2.6 billion in revenue, NHL salaries and benefits are ~$1.473 billion. They are still $21 million behind. That is to say nothing of the several years of hundreds of millions in savings already achieved.

The blogger in question does not understand escrow, player benefits, the salary cap or exchange rates. The fact that it does not dawn on him that, while player salaries are still not where they were, the NHL has increased its colective revenue by US$600 million. And it's a mystery to him why the NHL can now pay players similar salaries as before (collectively $21 million less this year) at this point?

BTW, I established some time ago, to the satisfaction of all concerned, that the impact of the $CDN is minimal on a league-wide basis. One cent change in the exchange rate = US$8 million. In relation to a $2.6 billion business, $8 million is relative peanuts when compared to the revenue increases that are not related to exchange rate fluctuations.
I'm not sure if you're simply discrediting the blogger, because you seem to also be making the point for me that from a players' perspective, they haven't gained anything. Like you say, without escrow, the players are still making less than they were before, and they didn't have anything saying they could only make so much money.

As for your point about the CDN dollar, $8 million is insignificant in and of itself, but from 2002-03 to 2007-08, we're talking an entirely different ballgame. According to the Bank of Canada(http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/exchform.html) in 2002 the Canadian dollar spent basically the whole year between 63 and 67 cents. In 2008, the dollar spent the first half above 90 cents. Conservatively and unscientifcally speaking I would say a 25 cent difference is a fair number to use. That means using your 1cent/$8 million, you're talking about $200 million from 2002 to 2008. That is very significant to the $600 million in increased revenues the league has seen.

While I agree with you that whether the dollar is at 92 or 93 cents is immaterial, I don't think we're singing the same tune about the league's revenues if the $CDN were to return to 2002 levels.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2009, 07:45 PM
  #839
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
LMAO! Are you kidding? You really think anyone cares what Jeremy Roenick thinks? Let me guess - the last straw was when Don Cherry called them all stooopid lolzzzz.
Maybe if JR was alone in those comments, but many said basically the same thing.
Quote:
A charge which he denied, which has never been substantiated and for which I have NEVER seen a source. Of course, nobody seems to care about sources unless it's critical of the Pro-Kelly's.
There were plenty of unnamed sources that made those allegations - apparently that's good enough for you.

Quote:
Incorrect.
I suppose that in spite of the fact he was so vocal about these issues, he doesn't have any say in NHLPA affairs by choice now, right? What's next, are you going to try to sell me some swamp land in Florida?

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 05:11 PM
  #840
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Here is Stan Fischler's view and he has been one of the most anti-NHLPA and pro-NHL columnists out there
LMAO! Now you're trying to pass a senile old man as a competent journalist. The fact that he's an anti-NHLPA columnist in this particular affair simply means he's a columnist - the coverage has been THAT embarassingly one-sided.

To top it off, his "source" is another columnist. One talking head interviewing another one. That's laughable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Here is how John Buccigross sees things:
http://proxy.espn.go.com/nhl/noteboo...cigross/091110
Wonderful - now ESPN is the be all and end all of hockey coverage. How convenient. You know they're plugged in considering that lucrative deal they have with the NHL right now. I'm surprised there's anyone left at the network that can even spell NHL. But yes, like the old fella, Buccigross does a nice job of summarizing other people's work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Unlike you these writers have the sources to know what is going on. And they do not agree with your spin.
LMAO! And yet neither of them seem to have told us who they were. All unnamed sources so far - which you made clear was a non-starter when the topic wasn't flattering to Chelios, Kelly, etc. Unless, of course, you consider Friedman - another writer - a source. And again, it isn't MY spin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Here are some named sources with direct quotes.

Ted Lindsay - who knows something about the history of the NHLPA:
Yes, Lindsay knows something about the history of the NHLPA - the ANCIENT history. As for the recent history, he knows very little. Might as well dig up Jimmy Hoffa from whereever he's buried and ask him what kind of job he thinks the UAW's doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
“Let me tell Andrew Ference, one defenseman to another, he should spend more time worrying about going back to get the puck than to worry about Paul Kelly’s ability to do the job as head of the PA,’’ said Park, the Hall of Fame defenseman who spent 12 of his 15 NHL seasons as a vice president of the NHLPA. “When [Ference] was in junior, I assume he wasn’t going to college, so I ask, what makes him so [expletive] smart?

“They had a guy like Chris Chelios in that room who disagreed, told them to wait and think. Maybe guys like Ference should take time to listen to guys who are older and smarter.’’
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
“Look, I’m not the smartest guy in the world,’’ said the 41-year-old Recchi, long respected as one of the rank-and-file’s character individuals, “but the second I learned what happened in Chicago, I knew the process was wrong. It stunk. This should not have happened and we have to fix it. We can’t let this happen again.’’

According to Recchi, none of the league’s 740 players, other than the 27 who voted that morning in Chicago, knew that Kelly’s ouster was at hand. He said that was among the points made yesterday in a team meeting at Wilmington that was attended by everyone other than captain Zdeno Chara, who was given the day off by coach Claude Julien. Recchi said a number of Boston players emphatically expressed to Ference their displeasure with how it was handled.

“That’s 720 players who didn’t know what was going on,’’ said Recchi, noting that the latest developments have many believing the union is a laughingstock. “Why not tell guys in advance what’s going on? I don’t get it. A lot of guys don’t get it.

“I think Andrew understands now that the process is not right and something has to change. The process has to be looked at, how it went down. We want an internal investigation of how this was handled.’’
This is completely irrelevant. The player reps were entitled to vote for the players they were elected to represent and they did so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
An unnamed source I know but since you hang your hat on that, it seemed fair.

IMHO my unnamed sources trump your unnamed source
I see - you spend a week proclaiming that unnamed sources are unacceptable - until one comes along to fit your agenda. Hypocritical much?

Tell me, where are the sources - named or unnamed - denying what Larmer, etc. have said about Chelios' crusade?

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 05:14 PM
  #841
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Maybe if JR was alone in those comments, but many said basically the same thing.

There were plenty of unnamed sources that made those allegations - apparently that's good enough for you.
LMAO! "Plenty of unnamed sources?" Dude, that makes absolutely no sense. If the source is UNNAMED, how would you know if you're reading the same source over and over again?

Furthermore, when it didn't fit your argument, unnamed sources weren't good enough for you. How convenient. Must have been a Black Friday sale on hypocrisy today.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 05:53 PM
  #842
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
LMAO! Now you're trying to pass a senile old man as a competent journalist. The fact that he's an anti-NHLPA columnist in this particular affair simply means he's a columnist - the coverage has been THAT embarassingly one-sided.

To top it off, his "source" is another columnist. One talking head interviewing another one. That's laughable.

Wonderful - now ESPN is the be all and end all of hockey coverage. How convenient. You know they're plugged in considering that lucrative deal they have with the NHL right now. I'm surprised there's anyone left at the network that can even spell NHL. But yes, like the old fella, Buccigross does a nice job of summarizing other people's work.

LMAO! And yet neither of them seem to have told us who they were. All unnamed sources so far - which you made clear was a non-starter when the topic wasn't flattering to Chelios, Kelly, etc. Unless, of course, you consider Friedman - another writer - a source. And again, it isn't MY spin.

Yes, Lindsay knows something about the history of the NHLPA - the ANCIENT history. As for the recent history, he knows very little. Might as well dig up Jimmy Hoffa from whereever he's buried and ask him what kind of job he thinks the UAW's doing.

See above.

This is completely irrelevant. The player reps were entitled to vote for the players they were elected to represent and they did so.

I see - you spend a week proclaiming that unnamed sources are unacceptable - until one comes along to fit your agenda. Hypocritical much?

Tell me, where are the sources - named or unnamed - denying what Larmer, etc. have said about Chelios' crusade?
The players voted for the committee with Chelios included to investigate what happened with Kelly's termination so by your reasoning that should be sufficient.

If you think Ted Lindsey is unaware of the current NHLPA, then you know very little about "Terrible Ted".

Brad Park BTW as I noted has just finished working on a court case with the NHLPA to get $30 million in benefits for widows and orpahans of deceased players wrongly withheld by the owners. He has pretty good grasp of what is going on at the NHLPA.

As I pointed out if you try to rely on unnamed sources then I can give you many more. Turnabout is fair play? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 06:22 PM
  #843
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
LMAO! "Plenty of unnamed sources?" Dude, that makes absolutely no sense. If the source is UNNAMED, how would you know if you're reading the same source over and over again?

Furthermore, when it didn't fit your argument, unnamed sources weren't good enough for you. How convenient. Must have been a Black Friday sale on hypocrisy today.
ah, I see how it works. I make a joke about using unnamed sources to back up arguments because you are so fond of them, and you take the opportunity to call me a hypocrite.

Desperation, thy name is salzy.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 08:54 PM
  #844
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The players voted for the committee with Chelios included to investigate what happened with Kelly's termination so by your reasoning that should be sufficient.
And by that same token, if YOU dismiss the merit of the very one-sided vote of player reps in Chicago, you must also dismiss the merit of the vote for Chelios and Friends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
If you think Ted Lindsey is unaware of the current NHLPA, then you know very little about "Terrible Ted".

Brad Park BTW as I noted has just finished working on a court case with the NHLPA to get $30 million in benefits for widows and orpahans of deceased players wrongly withheld by the owners. He has pretty good grasp of what is going on at the NHLPA.
None of that qualifies them in any way to comment on what was going on within the offices of the PA before Kelly was fired - at least not any more than any of the rest of us. They are outside observers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
As I pointed out if you try to rely on unnamed sources then I can give you many more. Turnabout is fair play? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?
In that case, I take it you recant everything you said with regards to unnamed sources when they pertained to criticism of Chelios and his agenda? Or is that not your brand of sauce?

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 08:59 PM
  #845
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
ah, I see how it works. I make a joke about using unnamed sources to back up arguments because you are so fond of them, and you take the opportunity to call me a hypocrite.
If you criticize someone for using for referring to an unnamed source, then turn around and do the exact same thing yourself, you're the very definition of a hypocrite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Desperation, thy name is salzy.
Considering you've resorted to quoting unnamed sources - apparently the bane of humanity, not to mention the very act you were so critical of mere hours ago - it would appear your desperation-meter is approaching critical levels. DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!!

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 09:06 PM
  #846
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
And by that same token, if YOU dismiss the merit of the very one-sided vote of player reps in Chicago, you must also dismiss the merit of the vote for Chelios and Friends.

None of that qualifies them in any way to comment on what was going on within the offices of the PA before Kelly was fired - at least not any more than any of the rest of us. They are outside observers.

In that case, I take it you recant everything you said with regards to unnamed sources when they pertained to criticism of Chelios and his agenda? Or is that not your brand of sauce?
As I said my sources trump your sources in terms of quantity, quality and identification.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 10:52 AM
  #847
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
As I said my sources trump your sources in terms of quantity, quality and identification.
And I shot down each and every one. Friedman and Fischler are columnists, not sources. Lindsay and Park are bystanding observers, not sources.

salzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 12:31 PM
  #848
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Not so sure that's accurate portrayal.

If the Canadian dollar maintains it's current levels, the yearly average will be around $0.94, up from $0.86. Using your $8m figure, that will add $64m to NHL revenues. That's about a 2.5% bump, and would translate to a $1.5m increase to the cap.

Indeed, the NHL grew by over 2% last season, but it was offset by a decrease in the Canadian dollar. If it can maintain that level of growth this season, in concert with the Canadian dollar strength we should be looking at about a $2.5m increase to the cap for 09/10.
A $1.5 million increase in the cap is, in business terms, peanuts.

GSC2k2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 12:57 PM
  #849
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy View Post
And I shot down each and every one. Friedman and Fischler are columnists, not sources. Lindsay and Park are bystanding observers, not sources.
Unfortunately for you that is not so.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 02:00 PM
  #850
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
A $1.5 million increase in the cap is, in business terms, peanuts.
You could argue that any amount would be peanuts. That doesn't make it true.

Ernie 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 04:30 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.