For Saskin, it’s all about the money
As the Saskin controversy continues to unfold, keep an eye out for Sheila Block to raise some serious questions about NHLPA practices. Following Saskin’s placement on paid leave, Block may be on the hunt to find enough reason to recommend his firing with cause. While noting in an earlier post that it was time for him to step down, it is quite apparent now that Saskin is in it for the money and is willing to throw anyone (and everyone) under the bus to get what he wants. At issue is Saskin’s severance should he be terminated from his position prior to the end of his contract, which could end up costing the players a pretty penny. As Rick Westhead of The Toronto Star notes:
“A clause in Saskin’s contact calls for the union to pay him the equivalent of 15 months salary if he’s terminated with notice – which would amount to a payout of more than $2 million (all figures U.S.). The same clause, which is sure to come under scrutiny tonight, says Saskin may be terminated at any time by the union “without notice for reasons of just cause.””
Even it if the payout period is a fraction of that, there’s enough motivation for him to fight tooth-and-nail for his position and severance.
In addition to Saskin’s handling of player email accounts, which he has to date denied, Windsor lawyer Patrick Ducharme (who represents Bob Probert, Jeremy Roenick and Denis Savard) has raised serious questions regarding war chest funds leftover from the 2004-2005 lockout. As highlighted in The Toronto Star, the list of questions reads:
1. Did you know that over a three-year period (2000 to 2003), $27,044,000 [all figures U.S.] was invested in a single U.S. mutual fund instead of being distributed to current and former players? Why was only one mutual fund used? Was any thought given to the consequences if this fund failed?
2. Did you know that during fiscal year 2002, $76,611,000 was invested in corporate bonds and $10,132,000 was invested in government of Canada bonds instead of being distributed?
3. Did you know that in fiscal year 2003, $32,654,000 was invested in corporate bonds?
4. Who selected these investments and who received commissions on these investments?
5. Did you know that the funds distributed during the lockout amounted to $57,778,000 and that the balance of the $146,450,000 in investments is still being held rather than distributed to members?
6. Did you know that the exchange rate for Canadian dollars declined from $1.5162 in 2003 to $1.12035 in September 2006 resulting in currency translation losses of $35,000,000? If the money had instead been distributed to the members, this loss would have been avoided.
7. Did you know that in fiscal year 2002, a loan of $2,970,000 was written off as a bad debt? Who borrowed this money? Who approved the loan?
8. Did you know that in fiscal year 2005, $9,417,000 was spent on collective bargaining negotiations? How much did the NHL spend? If the amounts are significantly different and the NHL’s expense was significantly lower, what is the reason?
9. Did you know that the association is holding $165,982,000 in cash and ‘long-term investments’ instead of distributing this to its members? Why does it take the NHLPA close to $7,000,000 annually to operate? What is the NHLPA doing with the rest of the money it holds? Why is it holding such significant amounts?
10. Has the committee considered that an accumulation of this capital might endanger the tax exempt status of the NHLPA? Has the committee discussed and considered that a loss of its tax exempt status might endanger a large portion of the accumulated funds? Has the committee been provided with my letter dated March 20, 2006, seeking confirmation of the information provided to me by Ted Saskin, Stu Grimson and Ian Penny on March 9, 2006?
11. Do the committee members know that the executive director [of the NHLPA] promised that there would be a distribution of funds to the entitled past and present members by July 2006? Why has that not happened?
Regardless of the outcome from here on in, what I find most interesting is that we can now hold the players partially responsible for bringing the NHLPA into the forefront of media attention. As outlined in Ducharme’s questions, the war chest is big enough to easily accommodate any payout to Saskin in return for his early departure and putting his mouth under lock-and-key. Unfortunately, as David Shoalts notes in a recent column, the union may need to keep him around as he is one of very few who truly understands “the hockey-related revenue, the money the club owners declare from their operations, and how it applies to the collective agreement,” adding, “Without him, the players would be at the mercy of the owners.”
Finally one has to wonder what happens to the players on the Executive Committe who have yet to face any scrutiny regarding their role in over and governance.
For more, check out David Shoalts’ columns here and here (with Tim Wharnsby), and Damien Cox from the Toronto Star.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: NHLPA
0 opinions for For Saskin, it’s all about the money
No one has left a comment yet. You know what this means, right? You could be first!
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: