THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

What happens when the MLBPA meets the NHLPA

A takeover, practically:

When the players show up in Toronto Tuesday for the NHL Players’ Association’s North American summer meeting, they’ll be presented with a new constitution for the organization.

And if early reviews are right, it will, in many ways, bring the organization back to autocratic rule. And it will have been crafted by the man who will almost certainly lead them through the next round of collective bargaining.

Almost everyone connected with the game is of the opinion that former Major League Baseball Players’ Association executive director Don Fehr will ultimately be running the NHLPA, if not in title then in all practical terms. It’s probable someone else will be the executive director while Fehr takes on the role of consultant, but it will be Fehr effectively at the helm.

Not only is Fehr advising the NHLPA in its search for a new executive director, he’s also the driving force behind the rewriting of the constitution. And the constitution he’ll present to the players will give the executive director far more power than the unwieldy document that hamstrung lame-duck predecessor Paul Kelly.

Opinion:

1. I’m not opposed to an ombudsman for the NHLPA in a large capacity, just not Lindros or Hargrove. There were apparent bias issues, Lindros from being an ex-player and Hargrove from wanting Kelly’s job. It’s good to have a neutral party, just their job should be to be objective, on the outside and to not get involved in union matters which past ombudsman didn’t do. They acted like guys who got to play on both sides but pushed from one.

2. Why was there a division player group to begin with? What are old hockey players going to provide other than pension complaints? If you’re going to have a “group” oversee operations, at the least make it an even opinion akin to the Competition Committee.

3. I agree with the advisory board, the NHLPA executives are supposed to be the player’s advisers. This isn’t the Eagelson era, both sides should be working together.

4. I disagree with the quorum loosening, albeit a bit because I come from a business background where we demand quorum. If you sign up as a representative for your team, be able to donate the slight spare time needed for the job. It doesn’t make sense for the overwhelming majority to not be on the call when major business is being discussed either as we saw with Kelly when lack of knowledge was present it caused major confusion. From reports I’ve read, players would be sitting on calls for hour(s) waiting for quorum. In that case stricter regulation should be placed upon meeting quorum and not on relieving it.

5. To no surprise, Fehr is showing a lack of trust in the player’s judgment, which he rightly should however it will be interesting to see how this goes over upon presenting it to them. I imagine it will rub some the wrong way.

Takeaway from Ken Campbell:

Almost makes you wonder why they ever got rid of Bob Goodenow in the first place.