Ray criticizes Goodenow for misleading players in labor talks

[Madferret]

Ray criticizes Goodenow for misleading players in labor talks
By JOHN WAWROW, AP Sports Writer
July 14, 2005
BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) -- Former Sabres enforcer Rob Ray is unhappy with the players' association, not only because the union denied him benefits and a monthly stipend during the lockout.

Ray accused players' association executive director Bob Goodenow of misleading players into believing they could avoid a salary cap in a new collective bargaining agreement.

"I just think he was trying to sell something to the players that was unrealistic,'' Ray said of the tentative deal reached Wednesday between the NHL and the union. ``And I just think they believed him for a long time, and he didn't come up with what he more or less promised them.'' Ray believes the 301-day lockout that wiped out last season could have ended sooner, and more favorably for players, if the union gave in earlier on the league's demand for a salary cap.

"I just think you had to realize that in some way, shape or form there was going to be some type of a cap or something,'' Ray said. ``When you knew it was going to have to be, why not sit and work with it?''

The NHLPA declined comment. Sabres defenseman Jay McKee, the team's union representative, defended Goodenow on Thursday. McKee said it's wrong to second-guess Goodenow and the union's negotiating strategy, noting that it was Goodenow who secured the last bargaining agreement in 1995 -- one that clearly benefited players.

"The easiest thing is to be the general after the war, the Monday morning quarterback,'' McKee said. "He's certainly going to take some heat, but I personally don't think it's justified. "From Day 1, I was behind them in saying we won't accept a salary cap, and I stand behind them today in accepting a cap. ... I have no regrets.''

Ray, a 15-year NHL veteran who finished the 2003-04 season with Ottawa, is suing the players' association, saying it was wrong for ruling him ineligible for lockout compensation. He believes the union might have shut him out as punishment after he said in October that he would cross the line if the NHL used replacement players. Starting in November, players were paid between $5,000 and $10,000 a month during the lockout and had their benefits covered.

Ray, who spent the first part of the 2003-04 season working as a commentator on Sabres TV broadcasts, argues he is owed the money because he is a union member, had not filed his retirement papers, and intended to continue playing. He played six games with the Senators in 2004 and was on the roster when Ottawa was eliminated by Toronto in the first round of the playoffs.

He has spent the last few months working out, including skating twice a week with a small group of NHL players at a suburban Buffalo rink. Ray hopes to sign with a team this season. "I'm going to look for the right situation, and if it arises, then I'll take it,'' he said.

http://www.pressconnects.com/bsens/stories/021904-69277p1.jpg


Sing it brother Ray...

[Mel]

The truth of the situation is that the players were destined to give into the owners from the start. It was not avoidable. Owners hold the purse strings. Owners decide not to open for business... then the players are out of a job. Plain and simple.

The owners kept the door shut until they got their cap. There was no amount of posturing or rhetoric from Bob Goodenow that was going to change that. So yes I believe he did mislead his union into thinking something was obtainable that was not. He gambled, goofed and lost badly.

one full season lost. 24% across the board rollback (which was Goodenow's idea). AND a hard salary cap of $39 million. At one time the very word "cap" would send players into fits and tirades.

Yes if I was an NHL Player I would feel very much mislead at this time.

[KB in Kelowna]

The NHLPA under Bob Goodenow has had a much improved communications structure then it ever did under Alan Eagleson. Goodenow warned the players 2 years ago the lock out was coming, he advised them to plan and save for the loss of 1 maybe 2 seasons. He had a mandate from the players going into this thing. Goodenow miscalculated on the owners resolve, because over the past 10 years all they had done was bicker amongst themselves and stab each other in the back.

The offer of the 24% roll back was an attempt to spur talks, instead it turned into the hammer which drove the nails in the Unions coffin.

Much of the gripe from players now reminds me of the whining out of the loosers lockeroom after a big game. Think of Terrel Owens after the super bowl.

The players have "won" a lower free agency age, increased minimum salaries which will rise as league revenues rise. With a minimum salary level or floor, and moves towards revenue sharing small market teams and the jobs associated with them will not disappear due to contraction. The pension plan for players has been improved. The NHLPA can opt out if this isn't working in 4 years, and if it isn't working I'll wager its because the owners muck it up again. The players get to participate in the Olympics.

With rule changes and I hope a structural change in supplementary discipline, the game will be safer and more entertaining.

A Union needs to negotiate the best deal possible under the economic climate. They never win open ended salary escalation, but non-monetary improvements can be just as good if not better most of the time.

For all the griping from a very vocal minority, I have yet to hear calls of decertify the NHLPA.