Provost Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Dazzle said: You can basically say whatever you want on the internet because we'll likely never have to see your credentials. Unless you actually want to defend your 'reputation', I challenge you right now to see if you have the balls to do it. As you claim to be an HR director on the management side from blah blah blah, you likely wouldn't have the time that you do to post as much as you do on here. You're likely making in excess of 6 figures and you'll have no time to argue with people who make much less than you. Furthermore, for someone of your background, what the heck are you talking about here? "...so your simplistic take from a place of complete ignorance is ridiculous nonsense." My simplistic take... from a place of complete ignorance... is ridiculous nonsense. This is extremely wordy nonsense coming from someone with a supposed educational background. I'm not picking out grammar here to be a dick. I'm pointing out the fact that you've not cool and collected. As Burke says, you have to be "cool as a cucumber". Why would you be so riled up over a nobody poster like me? Yeah, I said it before and I'll say it again. Point number 4 actually suggests you've never done negotiations before - ever. Real estate runs along similar lines, so this stuff isn't really that surprising to me. Not riled up, just very confident that your simplistic take, from a place of complete ignorance, is ridiculous nonsense. Edited February 23, 2020 by Provost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 Just now, Provost said: Not riled up, just very confident that your simplistic take, from a place of complete ignorance, is ridiculous nonsense. I'm also very confident about what I'm saying too. Is this supposed to be a phallus measuring contest? What are you trying to prove here? As I said, real estate negotiations are quite similar to the negotiations here. The only difference is the media aspect due to the public nature of the process. Somehow, somewhere, "trade rumours" are leaked out. Why do you think this is the case? Are there really "insiders"? Or are leaks intentional? You should be very familiar with these types of 'tactics' if you claim to be who you say you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Dazzle said: I'm also very confident about what I'm saying too. Is this supposed to be a phallus measuring contest? What are you trying to prove here? As I said, real estate negotiations are quite similar to the negotiations here. The only difference is the media aspect due to the public nature of the process. Somehow, somewhere, "trade rumours" are leaked out. Why do you think this is the case? Are there really "insiders"? Or are leaks intentional? You should be very familiar with these types of 'tactics' if you claim to be who you say you are. You are the one who seems to be trying to argue, so try to be right at least if you go about challenging people in such a smarmy way. Negotiations within a management team are not made public, nor is the media used as a tactic or strategy. That is an indicator of thing having gone off track. Conflating that type of negotiation with a player contract with outside agents is incredibly simplistic, and plain wrong. I have also yet to see a real estate transaction, aside from a specific few large commercial ones that involves any sort of media leaking strategy, so even within your incorrect point, you are not coherent. If this negotiation is like real estate (which it isn’t), then media leaks are not part of it. Edited February 23, 2020 by Provost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 Just now, Provost said: Negotiations within a management tram are not made public, nor is the media used as a tactic or strategy. That is an indicator of thing having gone off track. Conflating that type of negotiation with a player contract with outside agents is incredibly simplistic, and plain wrong. I have also yet to see a real estate transaction, aside from a specific few large commercial ones that involves any sort of media leaking strategy, so even within your incorrect point, you are not coherent. If this negotiation is like real estate (which it isn’t), then media leaks are not part of it. Not necessarily. We'll take a brief look at Boeser's scenario for a minute. We all saw the 'intense' negotiations involving Boeser. At the very end though, they agreed, hence the negotiations finally worked (they likely met somewhere in the middle). And the media was absolutely involved in this process. We've seen both sides talk about their positions. For instance, Benning supposedly offering 7M at the start, only to be rejected by Boeser's camp (source: Matthew Sekeres https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/brock-boeser-contract-rejected-canucks Note how Sekeres uses the word "leaked" in this article. Leaked from whom? Was this intentional? I'd argue it was. After all, Boeser's agent Ben Hankinson describes this: https://www.nucksmisconduct.com/2019/9/17/20870931/brock-boeser-ben-hankinson-vancouver-canucks “This isn’t good, it’s gonna get ugly,” said Boeser’s agent shortly before putting pen to paper. He notes that while he’s happy with Boeser’s final deal, that there were some heated moments prior to putting pen to paper. More Hankinson and Boeser. I go to see the Vikings and Packers play Sunday, and he calls me right in the middle of the game. I tell him I'll call him later. Call him on the drive home, and we kinda got heated.Some swearing at each other. Like, this isn't good. It's gonna get ugly This is classic posturing from the agent. Is he serious? He'd rather watch a game than to do the contract? Of course not. He's acting like the offer isn't "good enough" to see who will make the first move. This type of tactic is SO common in real estate. You don't just say, "I'll take it". That's not how it works. The one who makes the first move often loses, more often than not. This is elementary stuff, but you are acting as if this is something you've never seen before. Therefore @Provost I don't think you are who you claim to be. You're definitely not this 'high level HR guy' that you say you are. Why lie? Someone who knows what they're talking about will just expose you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dazzle said: Not necessarily. We'll take a brief look at Boeser's scenario for a minute. We all saw the 'intense' negotiations involving Boeser. At the very end though, they agreed, hence the negotiations finally worked (they likely met somewhere in the middle). And the media was absolutely involved in this process. We've seen both sides talk about their positions. For instance, Benning supposedly offering 7M at the start, only to be rejected by Boeser's camp (source: Matthew Sekeres https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/brock-boeser-contract-rejected-canucks Therefore @Provost I don't think you are who you claim to be. You're definitely not this 'high level HR guy' that you say you are. Why lie? Someone who knows what they're talking about will just expose you. I didn't realize that Boeser was part of the Canucks management team.... that is a surprise and your point is absolutely right if he is indeed part of the team brass. Please cite your source for that and I will concede your point. I mean, it isn't possible that you are entirely proving my point by continuing to conflate player negotiations with negotiations within the management team.... that would be just too dumb on your part for anyone to believe.... When you find someone who knows what they are talking about with negotiations and HR, please feel free to connect them with me, as we will mock your position together. You shouldn't get so riled up... Edited February 24, 2020 by Provost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Provost said: I didn't realize that Boeser was part of the Canucks management team.... that is a surprise and your point is absolutely right if he is indeed part of the team brass. Please cite your source for that and I will concede your point. When you find someone who knows what they are talking about, please feel free to connect them with me, as we will mock you together. You shouldn't get so riled up... Actually, why shouldn't the media be involved in management talks? Were you even paying attention to the whole Linden situation? All of the rumblings were well discussed in the media. A lot of it is speculation which was mixed in with random bits of information. I think it is not easily decipherable what was fact and fiction. The media aspect is a unique dynamic in hockey negotiations. Otherwise, everything else remains the same. The same negotiation skills are very much transferable. Burke, being the lawyer that he is, is right. You have to be cool as a cucumber and not react. The more you are responding to this thread, the less credible you look in my eyes. You really do remind me of Wetcoaster, that supposed 'fake lawyer'. Very pompous individual. But when called out, has nothing to show. Edited February 24, 2020 by Dazzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Dazzle said: Actually, why shouldn't the media be involved in management talks? Were you even paying attention to the whole Linden situation? All of the rumblings were well discussed in the media. A lot of it is speculation which was mixed in with random bits of information. I think it is not easily decipherable what was fact and fiction. The more you are responding to this thread, the less credible you look in my eyes. You really do remind me of Wetcoaster, that supposed 'fake lawyer'. Very pompous individual. Yet another irrelevant point in the way you are trying to make it... that situation had nothing to do with a contract negotiation with Linden, they were not using the media as a tactic for negotiating an extension for him or Benning. Also even bringing it up entirely defeats your point. How did that Linden situation end? The exact same media you are talking about in the Brackett situation became aware that there was a rift between Linden and Benning/ownership. They turned out to be right as Linden was subsequently turfed (were you even paying attention to the whole Linden situation). Once those types of issues within a management team become public, it is a sure sign that the relationships are poisoned to the point that working together becomes untenable. You are literally arguing the opposite of what you are posting. Based on you not being able to understand a lot of pretty basic things in this thread, looking less credible in "your" eyes is probably the biggest compliment that you could give someone. Thank you. I have had enough trying to illuminate the dark recesses of your thought processes, teaching isn't my forte. Feel free to make your next random unrelated, and empirically wrong argument. No need to waste my time further as anyone reading this can make their own judgements and you aren't adding any actual content to the thread. Edited February 24, 2020 by Provost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 Just now, Provost said: Yet another irrelevant point in the way you are trying to make it... that situation had nothing to do with a contract negotiation with Linden, they were not using the media as a tactic for negotiating an extension for him or Benning. Also even bringing it up entirely defeats your point. How did that Linden situation end? The exact same media you are talking about in the Brackett situation became aware that issues were coming up of a rift between Linden and ownership. They turned out to be right as Linden was subsequently turfed (were you even paying attention to the whole Linden situation). Once those types of issues within a management team become public, it is a sure sign that the relationships are poisoned to the point that working together becomes untenable. You are literally arguing the opposite of what you are posting. Based on you not being able to understand a lot of pretty basic things in this thread, looking less credible in "your" eyes is probably the biggest compliment that you could give someone. Thank you. I have had enough trying to illuminate the dark recesses of your thought processes, teaching isn't my forte. Feel free to make your next random unrelated, and empirically wrong argument. No need to waste my time further as anyone reading this can make their own judgements and you aren't adding any actual content to the thread. Nah, @Provost, I merely brought up the Linden situation to show that the media had their fingers on that situation, so it is not at all farfetched to say they won't be involved in actual contract talks. If things were truly as toxic as you claim things are, Brackett can absolutely wait for another opportunity. You don't think he knows his value? Yet Benning felt the need to say that they were "working on something". Furthermore, look at how much discussion we have over what THEY have reported. THAT is what the media does. They report things - on anything sports related. Your statement about the media not being involved is absolutely foolish. Of course they'll be involved, if they get a chance. The big question is: WHY are there leaks? Surely someone from your field knows a thing or two about leaks. Don't misunderstand @Provost. You don't look credible in my eyes, so it's going to be very much disregarded by anyone higher up than me. Your facade about being in the HR industry might get you laid in bed, but anyone who knows a thing or two about negotiation knows you're full of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) We can essentially disregard anything Provost has posted in this thread. He's not actually who he claims to be. He can pretend all he wants with his personal put-downs and all. @Provost Sad that you have to lie to pretend to be credible. Called you out about your work credentials and now you're running. Shame. You're a fraud, Provost. 3 hours ago, Provost said: I have literally spent more than a decade as an HR Director on the management side of labour relations negotiating CBA's for some of the largest unions in the country... so your simplistic take from a place of complete ignorance is ridiculous nonsense. Virtually everything in your post is just you making things up that aren't what I said and are entirely irrelevant to the topic. It is you inventing a strawman argument so that you can beat yourself in arguing against yourself. It isn't a matter of taking a first offer, it is a matter of it not resolving after a long time and leaking out in public. There have been a number of reports that you can add to the public statements made and anyone with a modicum of sense can determine that all isn't well with that relationship. Every piece of information including this latest bit, continues to add to the pile of evidence of Brackett getting sidelined and not liking it. You have clearly never been involved in any sort of contract negotiation. Edited February 24, 2020 by Dazzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts