Newest rebel: Rob Ray
- Thread starter Seachd
- Start date
- Status
SuperUnknown
Registered User
That's the Union's thinking...
The Union always believes that there is some billionaire out there who will come in and rescue a sick NHL franchise. They don't care where the team is as long as it's still in the NHL.
In the 94 lockout there was no concern whatsoever that an NHL would be folded, they'd just move, like Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford did in the years following the lockout. Now, in 2004, contraction is a serious issue because of the huge discrepencies between the big and small markets.
If hockey is lost for 2 years, why would anyone in Houston, Cleveland, Portland, etc. want an NHL team? The interest in hockey would be so down in the US it would be a very hard sell to people who didn't grow up with the game. Not to mention, in some cities, like Cleveland and Houston, there's the issue of the other 3 pro teams that are also vying for Corporate sponsorship dollars in the area. Who'd invest in hockey when you have football, baseball and basketball in town?
The Union always believes that there is some billionaire out there who will come in and rescue a sick NHL franchise. They don't care where the team is as long as it's still in the NHL.
In the 94 lockout there was no concern whatsoever that an NHL would be folded, they'd just move, like Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford did in the years following the lockout. Now, in 2004, contraction is a serious issue because of the huge discrepencies between the big and small markets.
If hockey is lost for 2 years, why would anyone in Houston, Cleveland, Portland, etc. want an NHL team? The interest in hockey would be so down in the US it would be a very hard sell to people who didn't grow up with the game. Not to mention, in some cities, like Cleveland and Houston, there's the issue of the other 3 pro teams that are also vying for Corporate sponsorship dollars in the area. Who'd invest in hockey when you have football, baseball and basketball in town?
Buffaloed
webmaster
Rob consistantly supported management throughout his career and his stated goal is to get into coaching. He represents the neo-conservative wing of the NHLPA. 
Canadian Time
Registered User
The situation remains, it's doubtfull that fans will pay much to see a team of Rob Ray calibre replacement players. It matters not what the Commodores or Rays of the league are saying, until we see some of these comments coming from a few high-profile players, Goodenow won't care.
Another player who has either currently played for a Canadian team or played most of his career with a Canadian team. I don't know why it is, but I don't believe in coincedences.
Canadian Time
Registered User
Kravitch said:
What? Ray has been a lifelong Sabre aside from a handful of games with the Sens at the end of his career.
Buffaloed
webmaster
Street Hawk said:
If that were the case there would be 20-30 billionaires starting a new league. Goodenow should take note the most recent attempt to form a new league.
Lobstertainment
Oh no, my brains.
TiesAreLikeWins 2 Us said:
Maybee Thomas is now because of his age but a few years ago he certinly wasn't.
the point shouldn't be about what line you play on, in the Union arn't all the players equal? or do players with Multi-Million dollar contracts or Captains/Assistants get 2 votes?
last I checked your Rays and Commodores where equal to your Lidstroms and Prongers in a union vote.
Street Hawk said:
So far they are right, aren't they?
A serious issue to who? If the billionaires don't want to own a team in Buffalo or Edmonton or Nashville, turf the teams.
If the Buffalo Sabres can only turn $50 million in revenues and a billionaire owner doesn't want to subsidise them, why should the players? Why should fans in other cities? If the Buffalo fans don't want to pay for NHL hockey, good for them. It's their choice.
Why should anyone else care?
Tom
Protoman said:
Only players on an NHL roster get a vote. Lidstrom and Pronger get to vote for sure. About one in four players like Ray, Commodore or Brian Pothier count because 75% of them are in the AHL on opening day.
Tom
Buffaloed
webmaster
Tom_Benjamin said:
Currently there are no players on NHL rosters. Are voting rights retroactive to opening day of last season? Or might it be to players on NHL rosters at the close of last season (after roster were expanded)? Please provide us with a link to this information.
Buffaloed said:
The NHL was forced by the NLRB to produce a list of locked out players. Since roster sizes at the beginning of the year are 690 plus injured players, presumably that will be the maximum number.
The players in the AHL are not members of the bargaining unit. Here's a link to the story that was published when the union demanded to know who was actually locked out.
"It's a matter between us and the Players Association," NHL executive vice president Bill Daly said. "It's not something we see any benefit in discussing publicly."
I guess not. Why would Mike Commodore or Brian Pothier get a vote? They aren't locked out. There teams have assigned them to the AHL. As soon as they did, they are out of the bargaining unit.
Tom
Chelios
Registered User
Wouldn`t every player who paid union dues last year get a vote? Otherwise why in the hell are they paying the dues?
Digger12
Gold Fever
Chelios said:
That's kinda what I was wondering...what kind of screwed up union forces me to pay dues and require me to be a member of them if I want to work in the NHL, yet disallows me to have a vote on NHLPA matters?
Wouldn't it be easier just to throw my union payments into a shredder?
Digger12 said:
Commodore could probably file a grievance through the NHLPA and he might have a case. He didn't clear waivers before being assigned to the AHL. If he won his case, he gets a vote. Mind you he doesn't get his AHL salary and he doesn't have a place to play. He can't have it both ways.
Tom
Digger12
Gold Fever
Tom_Benjamin said:
I suppose, I guess it'll all come out in the wash when a vote is actually required. Then we'll see (hopefully) who gets to vote and who doesn't.
Buffaloed
webmaster
Tom_Benjamin said:
It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. The article deals with the NHLPA requesting a list of which players are "locked out". Regardless of that the list says, voting rights for NHLPA members are a separate issue determined by NHLPA bylaws. The easiest way to clarify this might be to find out what the NHLPA vote was on the last CBA and how the numbers correlate to NHL roster sizes and the number of teams at that time. I thought it would be easy to find, but so far no luck.
Buffaloed
webmaster
Tom_Benjamin said:
Commodore wasn't assigned to the AHL. Commodore, Jillson, McAmmond, and a few others signed separate AHL contracts. The waiver issue doesn't come into play during a work stoppage. It's no different than if they signed to play for European teams. It'll only be an issue for players on 2-way NHL contracts who were assigned to the AHL that were eligible for waivers. Oddly, those are probably the only guys paying NHLPA union dues at the present time.
I came across this definition from the CBA:
If you're correct about only players on an NHL roster being permitted a CBA vote, this will expand the numbers a bit as the lockout occurred during training camp.
Wow, I love it how the Pro-NHLPA guys call these people "borderline NHL players". Seems to me the guys who benefit the most from this horrid system would never be the ones to step up and complain to Goodenow anyway...
Nobody has to pay dues to the NHLPA during a work stoppage. Those guys you mention would pay into the PHPA.Buffaloed said:
Rob Ray is a kind of guy that makes me look up to hockey players. Our local radio announcers, who travel with the team, say if he had his choice of jobs, he would probably rather be the equipment manager than the coach. .He'd rather hang out with the guys and use a hammer and nails.
I admire Ray for standing up for guys like Commodore, Ference and Pothier. No matter what happens, guys like these have very difficult decisions and have more serious interests at stake than many of the top players. And if for the sake of their livliehoods and families they have to make difficult decisions to be replacement players, guys like Ray will be walking through the line with them. And I admire Rob for that. He's not a guy thats gonna stand for rich primadonna players thinking too much of themselves. But these guys arent millionaires. And I dont thikn its fair that they should feel any repercussions if the game were to resume.
Nevertheless, this is big business, and the players through their association have an obligation to maximize their interests and not fold to unfair extortion or pressure from management just because its a difficult thing to stand up to them for what is right. And noble and down to earth as Robs deeds are, if he doesnt want to work with his union, he may find that they get better off at his expense. So its not easy.
Rob Ray doesnt want a cap
Martin Gelinas doesnt want a cap.
Like Gelinas, Ray, and many others, they are saying the same thing. They dont want a cap, dont think its fair, but want Goodenow to get in theere and negotiate something. But all Bettman is settling for is a cap. And Ray himslef is saying he doesnt want that.
Its fair and good to push Goodenow to do something, but what? Maybe some pressure on Bettman to get off the cap is needed.
Burke looked right into the camera again and told the players, if you're not gonna propose linking salaries to revenues, dont even bother. So what are the options?
-----
Re who is in the NHLPA, I remember there was a thread wondering why certain players werent appearing on the NHLPA website. I didnt think much of it at the time. Seems more intriguing now
I admire Ray for standing up for guys like Commodore, Ference and Pothier. No matter what happens, guys like these have very difficult decisions and have more serious interests at stake than many of the top players. And if for the sake of their livliehoods and families they have to make difficult decisions to be replacement players, guys like Ray will be walking through the line with them. And I admire Rob for that. He's not a guy thats gonna stand for rich primadonna players thinking too much of themselves. But these guys arent millionaires. And I dont thikn its fair that they should feel any repercussions if the game were to resume.
Nevertheless, this is big business, and the players through their association have an obligation to maximize their interests and not fold to unfair extortion or pressure from management just because its a difficult thing to stand up to them for what is right. And noble and down to earth as Robs deeds are, if he doesnt want to work with his union, he may find that they get better off at his expense. So its not easy.
Rob Ray doesnt want a cap
Martin Gelinas doesnt want a cap.
Like Gelinas, Ray, and many others, they are saying the same thing. They dont want a cap, dont think its fair, but want Goodenow to get in theere and negotiate something. But all Bettman is settling for is a cap. And Ray himslef is saying he doesnt want that.
Its fair and good to push Goodenow to do something, but what? Maybe some pressure on Bettman to get off the cap is needed.
Burke looked right into the camera again and told the players, if you're not gonna propose linking salaries to revenues, dont even bother. So what are the options?
-----
Re who is in the NHLPA, I remember there was a thread wondering why certain players werent appearing on the NHLPA website. I didnt think much of it at the time. Seems more intriguing now
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - FINGER LAKES RACE 1 - Farmington, NYWagers: 2Staked: $540.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-