Friedman: Flames have begun extension talks with Gaudreau & Eichel speculation

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

But even then it doesn’t say he has to go along with the team’s wishes. It just says they don’t pay for it. Now, if he misses time because he went against their wishes, he can be suspended. Or, if they want and the breach is serious, they can terminate.

They might also seek an injunction to prevent the surgery.

So the Sabres have to abide by the negotiated CBA but the player doesn't and can work outside of the contract he signed? Wouldn't the second an injunction is granted allow the gloves to come off and it frees either the league or the team to take action against the player. It definitely allows the team to act within the rules of the CBA and suspend the player at minimum. Don't you think the Sabres likely have data in regards to the value that Eichel has brought in ticket sales and memorabilia sales, and they could extrapolate to make their argument and determine potential damages? Reputation is always tough to argue on (especially Buffalo's) but if they can determine possible lost revenues as a result that is that not a clear definition of possible damages?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Poe969

crazy prediction time: Buffalo doesn't want to trade him to the rangers so just to screw with him they trade him to the a different team even though the rangers offer was almost better. The other team then flips him to the rangers for a return that makes them better.

I would flip him for Zibanajed and Kakko if the Rangers wanted to.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't mean to, sorry. I was just awestruck by your capacity to use so many words to make such an astonishingly meaningless point. It is a marvel of composition that you should be proud of.

Sigh.. maybe the point was an attempt at humour? Thank you for trying to make me feel small and idiotic, however. Quite the accomplishment with 3 succinct sentences.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Sigh.. maybe the point was an attempt at humour? Thank you for trying to make me feel small and idiotic, however. Quite the accomplishment with 3 succinct sentences.

Don't listen to text, he is a grumpy old mod. . Seriously, I thought your post was the most enjoyable read I have had on here in months, well done!

[FanIn80]

Way of the NHL: Eichel will go to NY or Vegas, with salary retained. Word will leak that CGY could have had him last night, but Tree didn't want to give up something irrelevant like Kylington. Fans will be absolutely livid, but the team will go on as if it was just another weekend like any other... because there is zero transparency and accountability to the stakeholders (season ticket holders).

Imagine you're CEO of a corporation. You have an opportunity to purchase part of a competitor, and it's a part that your corporation needs in order to be more competitive. Part gets sold to yet another competitor, and work leaks that all you needed to do is throw in some coffee cups and a printing shop coupon, but you're like "nope, go F yourself."

Suddenly stakeholders are going nuts, sending emails threatening to sell their shares etc etc... what would happen? There'd be an emergency board meeting, your ass would be fired, and the CFO would be bumped up and put in charge of recommending your replacement. It wouldn't happen at the end of the fiscal year either, or after some grace period designed to not make you look bad. You'd be on your ass the next morning.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm very tired of the lack of transparency and accountability in pro sports. Whether it's reffing, or draft decisions, or contracts, trades, signings... I get that most of it needs to be kept quiet while it's happening, but afterward there should be a mechanism in place for transparent checks and balances. We don't need to watch the sausage being made, but we should be allowed to see exactly HOW the sausage IS made or WAS made.

/rant

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

because there is zero transparency and accountability to the shareholders (season ticket holders).

Season-ticket holders are not shareholders. They are customers. The owners are the shareholders. The rest of your analogy therefore doesn't work.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Was this the longest, most pointless post in CP history?


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

You can always tell when Calgary4LIfe isn’t feeling well when his posts are less than 10 paragraphs. They’re feeling great today!

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Season-ticket holders are not shareholders. They are customers. The owners are the shareholders. The rest of your analogy therefore doesn't work.

Obviously I meant stakeholders. It's a private corporation.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Obviously I meant stakeholders. It's a private corporation.

And as a private corporation, it is not required to disclose the inner workings of management to its customers. People are buying tickets to see hockey games, not board meetings.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And as a private corporation, it is not required to disclose the inner workings of management to its customers. People are buying tickets to see hockey games, not board meetings.

That's literally the point.


"I'd like to discuss allowing accountability to stakeholders."

"There isn't accountability to stakeholders."

"Yes, I know..."


Edit: Also, I'm a big fan of how you're glossing over the vast difference between a season ticket holder and someone who goes to one game every 5 years. Like they all mean the same thing to the organization.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

So the Sabres have to abide by the negotiated CBA but the player doesn't and can work outside of the contract he signed? Wouldn't the second an injunction is granted allow the gloves to come off and it frees either the league or the team to take action against the player. It definitely allows the team to act within the rules of the CBA and suspend the player at minimum. Don't you think the Sabres likely have data in regards to the value that Eichel has brought in ticket sales and memorabilia sales, and they could extrapolate to make their argument and determine potential damages? Reputation is always tough to argue on (especially Buffalo's) but if they can determine possible lost revenues as a result that is that not a clear definition of possible damages?

It would be an awfully fun case to defend. I wonder how many lapsed STH's they could call-on to explain their personal consumer behaviour.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Obviously I meant stakeholders. It's a private corporation.

Do stakeholders send angry emails threatening to sell shares, as you say below?

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Suddenly stakeholders are going nuts, sending emails threatening to sell their shares etc etc... what would happen? There'd be an emergency board meeting, your ass would be fired, and the CFO would be bumped up and put in charge of recommending your replacement. It wouldn't happen at the end of the fiscal year either, or after some grace period designed to not make you look bad. You'd be on your ass the next morning.

/rant

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

That's literally the point.


"I'd like to discuss allowing accountability to stakeholders."

"There isn't accountability to stakeholders."

"Yes, I know..."

As soon as you admit to yourself that ‘stakeholders’ is a meaningless PR buzzword, the point disappears.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Way of the NHL: Eichel will go to NY or Vegas, with salary retained. Word will leak that CGY could have had him last night, but Tree didn't want to give up something irrelevant like Kylington. Fans will be absolutely livid, but the team will go on as if it was just another weekend like any other... because there is zero transparency and accountability to the stakeholders (season ticket holders)...

Season ticket holders are not "stakeholders." Those would be tbe actual owners of the team. Season ticket holders are consumers or clients. Your analogy does not work.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[getbak]

If you were to remove your "stake" in the team, what will you get?

That tells you how much of a "stake" you really have.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Edit: Also, I'm a big fan of how you're glossing over the vast difference between a season ticket holder and someone who goes to one game every 5 years. Like they all mean the same thing to the organization.

I never even mentioned any such thing. Season ticket holders are valuable repeat customers, but they are still only customers. They were, in fact, the exact people I had in mind when I said that you buy tickets to see hockey games, not board meetings.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Way of the NHL: Eichel will go to NY or Vegas, with salary retained. Word will leak that CGY could have had him last night, but Tree didn't want to give up something irrelevant like Kylington. Fans will be absolutely livid, but the team will go on as if it was just another weekend like any other... because there is zero transparency and accountability to the stakeholders (season ticket holders).

Imagine you're CEO of a corporation. You have an opportunity to purchase part of a competitor, and it's a part that your corporation needs in order to be more competitive. Part gets sold to yet another competitor, and work leaks that all you needed to do is throw in some coffee cups and a printing shop coupon, but you're like "nope, go F yourself."

Suddenly stakeholders are going nuts, sending emails threatening to sell their shares etc etc... what would happen? There'd be an emergency board meeting, your ass would be fired, and the CFO would be bumped up and put in charge of recommending your replacement. It wouldn't happen at the end of the fiscal year either, or after some grace period designed to not make you look bad. You'd be on your ass the next morning.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm very tired of the lack of transparency and accountability in pro sports. Whether it's reffing, or draft decisions, or contracts, trades, signings... I get that most of it needs to be kept quiet while it's happening, but afterward there should be a mechanism in place for transparent checks and balances. We don't need to watch the sausage being made, but we should be allowed to see exactly HOW the sausage IS made or WAS made.

/rant

Mark Stone wouldn't sign an extension with Calgary
/

[AC]

Per @TheFourthPeriod, the #NJDevils, Rangers, and Islanders are “in a battle” for Vladimir Tarasenko. He adds that there “has been progress” on a trade.

Maybe the Rangers circled back to Tarasenko after Eichel talks fell off.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by AC

Per @TheFourthPeriod, the #NJDevils, Rangers, and Islanders are “in a battle” for Vladimir Tarasenko. He adds that there “has been progress” on a trade.

Maybe the Rangers circled back to Tarasenko after Eichel talks fell off.

Devils have been trying forever to get a Tarasenko deal done.

I think since they haven't got him yet he's gone to another team.

I figured the Blues would have shot him put of a cannon by now as well. They've blunder through this situation.

[dammage79]

End of the day I think Eichel boils down to Anaheim or Calgary.

And in the end he ends up a Duck.

[powderjunkie]

The retention thing is a simple negotiating ploy. At the end of the day they would weigh the best offer retained vs. best offer no retention and decide accordingly. Far more likely they take back a contract with shorter term instead of retaining, which may generate a return at it's last TDL.


A big question is how contract insurance works in the event of a trade. I couldn't find much recent info, but it seems most teams insure their highest paid 5-7 players through a league-wide policy (Geico) and premiums are determined accordingly...but I wonder how that works with a player trade? Would the coverage/premium be transferable?