Skip to content

Cleary: Players will overwhelmingly approve disclaimer of interest

Dec 17, 2012, 5:21 PM EDT

Daniel Cleary #11 of the Detroit Red Wings shoots during warmup before NHL action against the Toronto Maple Leafs at The Air Canada Centre January 7, 2012 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
(January 6, 2012 - Source: Abelimages/Getty Images North America) Getty Images

The players are still voting to determine if they should give the NHLPA executive committee the authority to file a disclaimer of interest, but Detroit’s Daniel Cleary doesn’t think the results will even be remotely close.

Cleary will be disappointed if anything less than “99.8%” of players vote in the affirmative, according to ESPN.

Edmonton Oilers captain Shawn Horcoff seems equally confident.

“Guys are going to be pretty highly in favor of it,” Horcoff said. “I’ve been in conference calls with 200-300 players. We just feel at this point the union has done everything they can for us and we’re not getting anywhere. It’s time for us to go in a different direction.”

That direction might be court. In anticipation of the union dissolving, the NHL has already filed a class action complaint. U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer has been assigned to the lawsuit.

It’s also possible that the two sides will be motivated to agree to a new CBA now rather than risk letting this matter get settled in court. That being said, things have been quiet on the negotiation front lately.

  1. id4joey - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:28 PM

    Brilliant! Note to self. Players are clueless business men. The “Fiscal Cliff” x2. Wow!

    • isithockeyseasonyet - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:53 PM

      I could not agree more, they think bettman and the owners trying to screw them and maybe they are but they hold the money, money = power…sorry, players but if you want to keep building that bank account escalating, you’ll take what you can get which is still better than 99.9% of the rest of society

      • isithockeyseasonyet - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM

        Clearly idid not edit my comment but you get the point

  2. id4joey - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM

    BTW, so much for secret voting. A subtle way to influence the membership Mr. Cleary. Eh!

  3. sportsfan69 - Dec 17, 2012 at 6:05 PM

    Stupid is Stupid does. Just like sheep.

    • isithockeyseasonyet - Dec 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

      Going out of your way to post a clip from forest gump is about as stupid as stupid gets or does

    • blomfeld - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:09 AM

      Comrade Sportsfan69 Rocks !!! :)

  4. revansrevenant - Dec 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

    Congratulations. You have succeeded in doing what I thought was not possible. You have made me side with the owners in this mess. I have absolutely ZERO RESPECT for unions that decide, when the going gets a little rocky, well, we’ll just decertify and file a lawsuit. I mostly don’t care about unions one way or another, though I do have the opinion that when working for large companies you need an equally large organization of workers to negotiate if you want anything other than scraps, but this sort of behavior sickens me. Negotiate, or cave. Filing suits is for b*****s.

    • killerpgh - Dec 17, 2012 at 7:04 PM

      So in your opinion are the owner demanding a “yes or no” and taking the deal off the table considered negotiating? Or are the player (who side you are not on anymore) who accepted some provisions and made others but had the NHL get all pissy and storm out and call off the talk to blame. To me negotiations usually involve a give and take. I can’t think of one thing the owners have giving up in any proposal from the last CBA.

      • id4joey - Dec 17, 2012 at 8:05 PM

        Hell yes! The owners are holding the purse. This is the only chance the owners get to define their terms of the labour agreement. Players negotiate when their contracts are up, and they usually end up getting an increase, or become RFAs. The players don’t want to play by the owners terms, then fine, sit out a season, go play overseas or bake donuts. Do you think the Saudi’s are giving us a discount on their oil? They hold the purse and we need the oil. Gas is too expensive, then you have alternatives. Do you have to pay your taxes? Hell no! There are alternatives. Not very appealingly, but alternatives nonetheless.

      • mpg44 - Dec 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

        Some people just don’t get it!! As for me , it is statements like this that so clearly show where the fans rank in the grand scheme of things with the players.

      • id4joey - Dec 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM

        It’s not about taking sides. It’s about making the most beneficial financial decision. Why lose more than they have to? I just can’t get it. Are they going to leave 1.7 billion on the table?

      • mpg44 - Dec 18, 2012 at 6:44 AM

        But hey …. At least they will have their principals!!

  5. fortwaynekomets - Dec 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

    DON’T FHER THE LOCKOUT, FEAR THE CONSEQUENCES!

  6. id4joey - Dec 17, 2012 at 6:50 PM

    According to Renaud Lavoie, there are 2 separate items the players are voting on. 1) disclaimer of interest 2) creating a professional association that will be responsible for non hockey related negotiation. i.e. no contract negotiations

  7. sportsfan69 - Dec 17, 2012 at 7:47 PM

    Attention, the NHLPA is having an Executive Board meeting right now.

    Someone please throw Donald “A Freak-in Bone Here”

  8. barkar942 - Dec 17, 2012 at 11:56 PM

    There are now no more Twinkies because of a union that was too stupid to work out a deal to keep a paycheck coming in. They voted to strike and the company shut down.
    There is no more hockey because the owners have locked out the players until they come to an agreement of how to slice up and divide their Twinkies.
    The players are deciding to commit legal suicide by decertifying. The owners will null and void all contracts and reform the league. Will Sutter, Parise, Richards, Kovy and all of the other players who got these stupid huge front loaded signing bonuses now have to give it all back since they will be voiding their own contracts with the NHL???
    It will also be interesting to see how quickly the NewHockeyLeague will be up and operating after all is said and done.
    If they decertify, it will change the landscape of the NHL and there will never be another sport that ever will decertify again. They will all learn from how short sighted the union here is and see what happens to hundreds of athletes who cut their own income potential at least 50%.
    It is all stupid!
    Congratulations, Mr. Fehr. You have destroyed the sport we all love. You must be proud, since you don’t like hockey anyway!

    • manchestermiracle - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:10 AM

      You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

      Hostess struggled for many years before going bankrupt because they chose to not innovate. They continued making sugary snacks and white bread while consumers moved to healthier alternatives, thus causing sales to dwindle every year for the past decade. Hostess filed for bankruptcy in 2004 and was purchased by Ripplewood Holdings, who promptly piled on $700 million in debt.

      Hostess recently tripled the pay of their CEO (to more than $2 million) while asking the union to take another pay cut “to save the company.” Nine other executives also received massive pay increases. At the time it filed its latest bankruptcy claim Hostess was paying employees an average of $10 an hour plus benefits. Union members were hardly raking it in.

      An interesting connection, made by examiner.com:
      “It is also worth remembering that Hostess executives agreed to pay the labor unions their high wages and generous pensions in an earlier contract. Much like NHL owners, the Hostess executives were trying to take back an earlier contractual promise made to the union.”

      The reality is that the company was poorly managed for years. The union had accepted less in their last negotiations, just as the NHLPA did in the last lockout. Go ahead and blame unions for the demise of the Twinkie and pro hockey, but the facts are the facts.

      • mpg44 - Dec 18, 2012 at 6:51 AM

        You are correct in saying that hostess had its problems with bankruptcy . But with that being said ,the union still wanted more when the company told them that there was no more to give. So the union really chose their principals over a paycheck in this one . You are correc in all you said but you did not mention that the union was told that this is the best deal we can give you or we will be forced to close for good . So in fact , the union can go stand in the unemployment line ….. with their principals of course!!

      • manchestermiracle - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:27 PM

        Hostess has something like $800 million debt against $1 billion in assets. In the first bankruptcy filing the employees took huge pay and benefit cuts. The company was sold to venture capitalists who did nothing to resolve the debt issue. Hostess went back to the employees before the current bankruptcy filing and asked them to take further cuts, while at the same time increasing executive pay by around 300%. If you were making ten bucks an hour how much more would YOU give back in the face of the hypocrisy shown by management? So, no, the union was not, in fact, demanding more. That is just flat wrong.

  9. antkowiak666 - Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM

    i’d like to file a disclaimer of interest from the NHL.

    • manchestermiracle - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM

      Take a number….

  10. id4joey - Dec 18, 2012 at 3:43 PM

    Can it be that the players will vote for the disclaimer of interest simply to give themselves some leverage. but never filling?

Featured video

Bettman hears the boos in Philly
Top 10 NHL Player Searches