The following is a press release from the NHLPA:

TORONTO (November 12, 2009) – The National Hockey League Players’ Association (NHLPA) today announced that the NHLPA Executive Board has voted to establish two committees.  The first committee will review the NHLPA’s constitution.  The second committee will begin the search process for a new Executive Director.  

The Executive Board, which is comprised of one Player Representative from each of the 30 NHL clubs, has appointed four NHLPA members to serve on the Constitution Committee: Steve Montador of the Buffalo Sabres, Dominic Moore of the Florida Panthers, Tim Thomas of the Boston Bruins, and Marty Turco of the Dallas Stars.  The Constitution Committee will review the terms and operation of the NHLPA constitution, and will report its recommendations back to the Executive Board.   

A second committee will initiate the search process for a new NHLPA Executive Director. This Search Committee will develop and recommend appropriate criteria for the candidate search and, after consultation with the Executive Board, initiate the search process.  The Search Committee will consist of up to five NHLPA members to be appointed by the Executive Board. The selection process is underway and the committee members will be named shortly.  

After discussions with the NHLPA Executive Board, outgoing MLBPA Executive Director, Donald Fehr, offered to work with members of the Constitution and Search Committees.  The Executive Board voted without objection to authorize the committees to work with Mr. Fehr, who has served as MLBPA Executive Director since December 1983.  

Both committees will work concurrently with and have access to information from the recently formed NHLPA Review Committee.

With the Buffalo Sabres and the Boston Bruins playing each other, seeing the top two goaltenders for Team USA play against each other was a likely scenario, but instead both coaches played their backup. Due to an injury to Lalime, for Buffalo that meant starting Jhonas Enroth for the first time in his career.

This resulted in a 4-2 loss for Enroth, but he looked good in net. None of the goals against were due to mistakes on his part, and while allowing four against will never be outstanding he did rather well. He stopped at least three breakaway chances and quite honestly looked better than Patrick Lalime usually does.

As an American, the most foreign part of international soccer isn't the game nor the players: it's the promotion/relegation system that means a team can, theoretically, be playing in the top division one season and be in the regional minor leagues in a decade (and vice-versa).   In that system, it doesn't matter where a team plays or how big it's home market is, performance is the only yardstick.  It's a scary thought to those of us used to the franchise system, to think that our respective teams not only wouldn't be playing for the big prize, but that it could be years or even decades until they were. 

So, why then, would I ever in my right mind suggest that the NHL move to such a system?

Continue reading this post »

This was originally up at cbc.ca, but because it's apparently been removed, I'll post it in its entirety below.

This is a letter written by Ian Penny, former interim executive director of the NHLPA on October 23, 2009 to the organization's player executive board. It details reasons why he believes he was constructively dismissed by the NHLPA. It was obtained by CBCSports.ca

Executive Board Members: I am writing to the Board in my capacity as Interim Executive Director to share my concerns about a number of very troubling issues, including surveillance activities at the NHLPA office; the leaking of confidential information from Board meetings; fatal flaws with the review of operations; and my personal situation. I recognize that I am in a conflicted position when I comment on the review and some of the other office issues that concern me, but it remains my duty to advise the Board on these types of matters.

1. Poisonous Office Environment: In recent weeks, there have been a series of hostile and intimidating acts taken against members of the NHLPA staff. These acts are contrary to the legal obligation of the NHLPA to create a safe work environment that is free of harassment. Unfortunately, this obligation is not being fulfilled because of these acts, which include the following:

- Chris Chelios is using staff members inside the office to monitor the meetings and discussions of their fellow employees and report back to him on their activities

- Chelios has confronted multiple employees and interrogated them about why they were meeting with other staffers and what was said in their discussions

- The most recent example of this surveillance campaign occurred on Tuesday, when Chelios sent me the following text message while I was meeting with four other managers in a board room:

"Ian when you r done can you please call me and let me know what you 5 staff members are discussing with each other i would like to know being your guys Emplyer."

It is obvious based on this text message and other recent incidents that Chelios has staff members spying on their colleagues so that he can intimidate and harass the targeted staffers. This completely inappropriate conduct has created a hostile, fractured and distrustful work environment. It is the type of environment that exists in repressive, totalitarian regimes - not work places. It must stop immediately.

Chelios' suggestion that he is the employer and that he is entitled to engage in this form of harassment is simply wrong. No employer is entitled to intimidate employees in this manner. In addition, this view reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between the Executive Board and the staff. There are over 700 NHLPA members who dictate the union's course through 30 Player Reps acting as a group. No single Player and no single Player Rep directs the day to day management of the NHLPA or its staff. Not only would that be a recipe for chaos, it would allow a single Player to engage in activities that may create legal liability for the entire membership.

Because I am a target of Chelios' surveillance activities, I strongly recommend that the Board seek guidance from other counsel regarding the legal exposure that these activities may have created for the NHLPA.

2. Leaking of Internal Information: The hostile work environment that currently exists has been made significantly worse by the consistent leaking of information, including information from our recent Executive Board calls. Sensitive, confidential union information is appearing in the media within minutes of the meetings' conclusions. These leaks have resulted in a siege mentality among staff and have created the perception that we are an ineffectual organization that is incapable of governing itself. The NHLPA and the Board owe a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the matters discussed in Board meetings and they also owe a duty of confidentiality to staff. Now that the Board has authorized a review of operations, this practice of leaking information significantly raises the risk of legal exposure for the NHLPA. As I discuss more below, it will be the Board's responsibility to make sure that appropriate steps are taken to prevent the release of confidential information relating to the review.

3. Review of Operations: Consistent with my fiduciary duty to the Board, I am compelled to advise you that the review of operations is fatally flawed as it is currently designed. The key flaw is the well-established bias of Chris Chelios - one of the four committee members conducting the review. That bias is demonstrated by the following:

- In a conversation several weeks ago Chelios urged me to tear up my contract extension and then threatened me by claiming that I would not survive a review. This indicates that he has prejudged the matter and will not approach a review with the necessary balance and objectivity.

- As discussed above, Chelios has demonstrated his bias and hostility towards me and other staff by engaging in the surveillance of our activities at the office.

- During the September 28 and October 4 Board calls Chelios made false and misleading statements about my compensation history and my record. These statements, which Chelios admitted making, not only showed his personal bias, but created a false sense of distrust among other Board members and Players that prevents them from approaching a review with an open mind. This manufactured distrust also led to the improper reduction of my role in union affairs.

- Chelios has communicated with a number of Certified Agents in developing the presentations to Board members that have portrayed me in a negative light. Chelios' statement on Thursday that the review committee may seek assistance from Agents creates the appearance that the review will be dominated by individuals harbouring an improper bias.

- Following Paul Kelly's termination and prior to the Board's approval of the review, Chelios engaged in an unauthorized, personal investigation of my conduct during which he solicited negative information about me from staff and others. These efforts demonstrate a substantial, pre-existing bias towards me.

- Shortly after Paul Kelly's termination, Chelios and several other Board members received a written communication from Kelly encouraging him to investigate me and other staff. Since that time Chelios has continued to communicate with Kelly. These contacts create the appearance that the review is being coordinated with Kelly and that the review will target certain staff, while steering clear of Kelly's conduct and the conduct of his allies. That appearance was reinforced when Kelly recently offered public praise for the creation of the review committee and when Glenn Healy stated on the radio Wednesday that Players on the review committee want to bring Kelly back to the NHLPA (see summary of radio interview below).

Because of these significant flaws, the results of the review will be placed in doubt and the Board will be prevented from taking effective action.

The Board should also be concerned with the possibility that the review will result in breaches of privacy that would violate applicable privacy legislation. This concern should be heightened in light of Chelios' recent statement that he may involve Agents and individuals from other sports in the review process. To guard against privacy violations and to comply with the duty of good faith owed to staff, the Board needs to have effective controls in place to insure that information is not accessed by unauthorized individuals or otherwise leaked.

Given all of these circumstances, I recommend that the Board retain an independent, objective professional to conduct the review and that Chris Chelios have no further involvement. If those steps were taken, I would welcome the review and the opportunity to work with the independent professional in reaching a fair and balanced assessment based on all of the evidence.

Due to the fact that I am in a conflicted position in rendering this advice, I further recommend that the Board seek advice from other legal counsel. This advice should address whether the review committee is properly constituted given the strong appearance of bias and whether the review will allow the Board to meet its legal obligations with respect to privacy, confidentiality and good faith.

4. Ian Penny: Based on the actions that have been taken to date with respect to my employment, including the ongoing surveillance of my activities at the office and the reduction of my role through the circulation of false information, it is my view that I have been constructively dismissed by the union. However, what is more important to me is that it has simply become impossible to work for the Players in the environment that has been created. It is also unfair to the hard-working, dedicated staff of the NHLPA to have my untenable situation negatively impact them in any way.

Due to this unacceptable work environment, I am prepared to resign from the NHLPA subject to certain reasonable conditions being met. At the present time there is no person with whom I can discuss the situation. I therefore recommend that the Board appoint counsel who can handle such a discussion. If you appoint a representative, I will appoint someone to represent my interests. If an amicable resolution cannot be worked out, I will consult my representative about next steps.

In the meantime I intend to continue to perform my duties on behalf of the NHLPA. However, I will not respond to Chris Chelios' demands for information about my meetings and discussions with staff unless directed to do so by the Executive Board.

For those who want to believe that this memorandum is an attempt to undermine or avoid the review process, I suspect they cannot be convinced otherwise. The truth of the matter is that I would have no difficulty being held accountable in an environment where a fair and balanced assessment can be made. Unfortunately, that environment does not exist. This is due to the steady campaign of misrepresentations that has impaired the trust that needs to exist between me and the membership.

Please give these matters your prompt attention.

In solidarity,

Ian

Take the quiz and see how well you know our blogs.

Thanks to Chris for putting this thing together (and having too much time on his hands). Let me know how you scored below.

To break from our favorite topic of predicting the demise of the upstart Avs for a bit here, I have witnessed a disturbing trend in this year's games of goalies getting run, tackled, backed into, pushed into the net, hacked with sticks, guys standing with both feet in their crease butt to mask .... all without any calls of goaltender interference.  I'm actually starting to miss the "in the crease" rule. 

Is it just me or are the refs just not calling goaltender interference this season?  Seems like a very dangerous development.  Does anyone think it is some sort of edict from the NHL front office to try to increase scoring? 

In the past week all hockey fans have witnessed some of the most brutalizing and consequential hits seen in a while. Was Tuomo Ruutu's hit on Darcy Tucker over the line? Sure but was it any different than the hit David Booth received from Mike Richards? How about Willie Mitchell's hit on Jonathan Toews? We all agree that as hockey fans we love the open-ice hit as it brings a sense of excitement to the game but at what price? What constitutes going to far?

Remember Brian Campbel's hit on R.J. Umberger? Niklas Kronwall's hit on Martin Havlat? Both hits were deemed clean but both victim's were left unconscious on the ice all the while a meley broke out around them that could've made things a whole lot worse. Which begs the question should a suicide pass lead to such a destructive hit?
What about Chris Neil's hit on Chris Drury? Was that going to far? That was also deemed clean however that hit ultimately led to a line brawl on the next shift. Should a player when admiring a pass deserve to be knocked unconscious?

The debate is at what point will there be a line drawn on whether or not a hit is not longer deemed legal. There are way too many hits occuring in the NHL that are going beyond the boundries of the game and there has to be a time where "it's part of the game" shtick is no longer acceptable. Concussions are becoming a major epidemic in the game and if the NHL continues to turn a blind-eye to this situation it may lead to a catastrophic result-death. Do we have to wait until something like this happens or wait until it happens to Sydney Crosby? Either way something needs to be done for as of right now nothing is being done and that's the worst thing possible. It won't get any better by just closing their eyes and hoping it will go away.

There's been a lot of discussion here at From The Rink lately concerning expansion/relocation and possible arenas for NHL use. However, few arenas/locations that have been tossed around are checked against the following criteria:

1.) Is there a current arena ready for use?
-This is important to note. No matter the passion or fanbase in a given area, there must be up-to-date facilities for any NHL-caliber club to use should an owner expect a market to be viable and profitable. Given the trickiness of public funding for sports facilities, nothing is guaranteed (if you think otherwise, I'd suggest a case study of the 1976 Winter Olympics that were supposed to be held in Denver).

2.) Does the arena in this location have a suitable capacity *for hockey*?
-As some of you have noted, many people seem to be looking at a map of current/past NBA locations and throwing darts. What people forget (and Phoenix is a good example of this, given their original arena) is that not all arenas that have a high capacity for basketball can be configured in a manner that produces a high enough capacity for hockey to meet NHL standards. Conseco Fieldhouse (in Indianapolis), for example, loses nearly 4,000 seats in its configuration for hockey, which is about 2,000-2,500 more than most arenas lose between set-ups (in Toronto, the Air Canada Centre only loses 1,000 seats when crossing from basketball to hockey).

3.) Was the arena constructed or significantly renovated in the past 20 years?
-An arena should have been constructed or renovated in the past 10-15 at the latest, given the many changes that have been applied to arena architecture in the most recent building boom. Ideally, the arena will have been built in the past 10 years (or under construction now) to ensure it doesn't become outdated quickly.

Now, after using just those 3 criteria, I was able to run through the 29 largest U.S and 3 largest Canadian markets without NHL clubs, and narrow the list of NHL-ready arenas down to the following:

Houston
Portland
Cleveland
Orlando (arena under construction)
Kansas City
Oklahoma City

Now, James and many others have suggested that non-hockey-crazed American markets should ideally have a metropolitan area of at least 2 million to support a hockey club. Myself and a few others have argued that market saturation is also a critical element, as there are only so many entertainment dollars to go around. As such, sometimes smaller markets can support a team if it's not trying to support many (or any) others, and larger markets sometimes can support many, many teams (such as New York or Los Angeles) due to their massive size. To put this argument in terms of the '2 million' figure, Cleveland, for example, has over 2 million people, but is still about 450,000 people smaller than Denver, which is the smallest metropolitan area to have a team in all 4 'major' North American sports leagues. Notably, Denver also has an MLS team and numerous outdoor opportunities to distract, so it's probably safe to say that any area smaller than Denver shouldn't have a team in each major sport. As such, I'd subtract Cleveland from that discussion. Comparatively, Portland has about 150,000 people more than Cleveland (and is still roughly 300,000 people smaller than Denver), but only has 1 'major' sports team - the Trail Blazers - with an MLS team on the way. Without a team in the NFL or MLB, Portland is a much more viable market than Cleveland, despite similarly-sized metropolitan areas. It's also worth noticing that Portland is growing at a decent clip, with 14.5% growth between 2000 and 2008, which is above average.

Obviously, these factors aren't limited to their ability to host teams in the 'major' (NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL) sports - Miami is the 7th largest metropolitan area in the U.S./Canada, but has trouble drawing fans in anything that's not the Dolphins, a fact perhaps attributed to the South Beach lifestyle. Las Vegas is under the heralded '2 million' mark, but just barely. In fact, it is the first metropolitan area under this mark, and will likely surpass the 2 million mark in the next 5 years or so, growing at a 35.6% clip in 2008 before the economic turndown. It also doesn't have a major professional sports franchise, but it does have about a million other options for consumers to spend their disposable income on, not to mention it lacks an NHL-ready arena. This whole issue is an imperfect science, but the point is that many things aren't always immediately evident in looking at just arenas and population size. Some areas are major college football crazy (Austin), some places have major NASCAR events all over the calendar (Charlotte), and some places are just too dreamy (Miami, San Diego). Not that anyone's suggesting such places (and Miami, for example, already has the Panthers), but it's worth noting nevertheless.

As such, let's re-visit the markets that passed the first 3 criteria:

Houston: the 6th-largest metropolitan area in the U.S. and Canada combined, Houston has a metro population of 5.728 million and an arena (the Toyota Center) built in 2003 with a hockey capacity of 17,800. There aren't a terrible number of non-sports distractions in this area, and only Texas A&M (which is a healthy drive away) has major college football nearby. The area is also incredibly wealthy and continues to grow. Sunbelt-haters will rip on me for it, but this is a solid, solid market if done right (worth saying given the Phoenix clusterf*ck).

Portland: Portland is the 7th-largest U.S./Canadian metropolitan area without an NHL team, and the 25th largest metropolitan area on the continent north of Mexico. It only has 1 'major' sports competitor for sporting dollars, but it's arena is already 14 years old. The Rose Garden was notably renovated in 2007, however, and it has a hockey capacity of 18,280. Yes, it doesn't have a deep hockey history, but it's still much larger than many markets where NHL hockey currently resides, and it doesn't have near as much competition as many of those markets. It's also a relatively wealthy area with crazy population growth. Portland would definitely be a wise place to look.

Cleveland: Cleveland fits the '2 million' mark, but just barely. It's also shrinking and has teams (unsuccessful ones, at that) in all 3 other 'major' sports. Sadly, Cleveland has also taken an economic beating in recent years, with the current recession falling particularly hard on the area. On a positive note, Quicken Loans Arena is one of the U.S.'s nicer arenas despite being built in 1994, and it had recent renovations in 2007. It's hockey capacity is 19,941, which is amazing, but unfortunately not enough to overcome Cleveland's shortfalls. As mentioned above, the area is smaller than Denver, which is currently the bar for 4-sport markets - a bar Cleveland, most likely, won't surpass.

Orlando: Orlando is a tricky market. It's getting ready to have a beautiful new arena, but it has entertainment options galore (admittedly, however, mostly for tourists). It's also very near the Tampa market, despite being a separate metropolitan area. Notably, Orlando only has 1 'major' sports franchise, but enthusiasm for even this team (the Magic) is tepid at times it isn't experiencing great success. Orlando is likely a great fall-back option for a re-location of the Lightning or Panthers, should that ever happen.

Kansas City: With all the press this market receives, it probably surprises some to learn the facts on KC. This area has just the 13th-largest metropolitan population without an NHL team, and is the last market to be over the '2 million' figure. It does have a beautiful arena (the Sprint Center), which holds 17,752 for hockey, but the pre-season draw was mild at best. I'm not terribly sure this market can handle 3 franchises, as it would be the smallest market attempting to do so (if you don't count Milwaukee and Green Bay as the same area, which the census bureau doesn't), but the area seems Hellbent on filling their white elephant of an arena somehow. Basketball seems like a much better fit for this area given the deep basketball tradition in the area (rock, chalk, Jayhawk), and maybe they can even have their Kings back (?). Currently, Cleveland is the smallest area to host 3 'major' sports teams, with Pittsburgh running second (again, without counting Milwaukee and Green Bay as one), and both of those areas are larger than KC.

Oklahoma City: No. No, no.... no. I don't even think Oklahoma City is kidding itself on this one. Despite steady population growth and a nice arena (that can hold 18,036 for hockey), OKC is still a green market for the 1 'major' team it does have. Nor does it have much of a hockey tradition. And, it would easily be the smallest market not hit by Hurricane Katrina to attempt to have 2 'major' teams. If you subtract New Orleans (and, I do), Milwaukee is the smallest metropolitan area with 2 'major' teams, and it has about 350,00 more people than OKC. As such, 1.5 million appears to be the threshold for 2 teams.

Notable things I found while researching this:
Denver is the smallest area with 4 'major' teams and has a metro pop. of 2.506 million.
Cleveland is the smallest area with 3 'major' teams and has a metro pop. of 2.088 million.
Milwaukee is the smallest area with 2 'major' teams and has a metro pop. of 1.549 million.
Perhaps a basic formula for team support in an area (other factors aside) is 500,000 + (500,000  x  # of teams)?

Now, what does all this seem to prove? Basically, what James has been saying (in a roundabout way). Houston is currently the best market for an NHL team that doesn't already have one. As always, these things can't be decided by pure numbers. I certainly think a team in Southern Ontario would be a force to be reckoned with, but without an NHL-ready arena, this area can't honestly claim to be the best prepared (for now). Portland is also an important market to monitor, as it has incredible potential and continues to grow. Cleveland's at it's limit, and Orlando has a lot working against it due to extraneous factors (proximity to Tampa, entertainment options, being in Florida) despite a beautiful new arena on the way. Kansas City has a white elephant in its hands and egg on its face. I can only hope for its sake that it gets a basketball team. It can probably host a 3rd team (it's only marginally smaller than Cleveland, and KC's still growing), but I doubt a hockey team is more ideal than a basketball team. Oklahoma City? No.

But what about everywhere else? As you may recall, I said at the beginning that I looked at 29 U.S. markets and 3 Canadian markets at the start of my research. Well, I'd say they're all non-factors without an arena or a guarantee to build one. A lot of the places at the '2 million' mark don't have the plans or the desire to build a new arena, especially not for a hockey team. In my best estimation, I'd say Houston and Portland have the best shots inside the United States, with situations in Southern Ontario and possibly Quebec City worth monitoring in Canada. It's worth noting, however, that no matter how hockey-mad Quebec City is, it's still ultimately the 77th-largest metropolitan area in the United States and Canada combined. And no, I don't care to hear, "but... but... if you include X, X, and X nearby...." because you could do that with just about any metropolitan area. At the end of the day, Quebec City is slightly smaller than the McAllen-Edinburg-Mission (TX) metropolitan area, and slightly larger than the Greensboro, NC area. Haven't heard of those areas? That may be your sign.

This isn't to damn Quebec City. Nor is it to defend the Sunbelt (Houston) or the emerging (Portland) over the proven. Nor is it to damn or support Southern Ontario. Honestly, I think Southern Ontario's a non-issue without an arena and some sort of word on the resistance Toronto and Buffalo might be able to provide.

So, then what's the point? Basically, to give you something to think about. We can argue 'til the cows come home about the most viable markets for NHL teams, but having an actual NHL-ready arena and a sizeable population will always be important contributions to the discussion, as well other market factors (wealth, enthusiasm, saturation, etc.).

<!--Session data-->

This from Darren Dreger from TSN this morning:

Donald Fehr's days as head of Major League Baseball's players' association are winding down.

Fehr announced his retirement in June after 25 years of service to the MLBPA.

Fehr is considered one of the most powerful men in professional sports, so it should come as no surprise the National Hockey League players association has reached out to him.

Fehr wouldn't comment on any discussions he's had with the NHLPA, nor would he discuss the potential of any future role he may have with the PA when recently contacted by TSN.

So is this good or bad for the NHL as the next CBA approaches? Interested to hear what everybody thinks.

I have finished my 30 Dirty Players in 30 Days feature. Over the month of August, we featured the all-time dirtiest player from each NHL Team - From Anaheim to Washington.

The entire feature can be found here in my archives.

The list below is my ranking of the dirty players that we featured. Click on the player's name below to read his specific article.

1. NJD Claude Lemieux - Cheap hits, big turtles and justifies it with religion.

2. PHI  Bobby Clarke - Canadian hockey's biggest embarrassment.

3. SJS Bryan Marchment - You can't you argue with his rap sheet.

4. PIT Ulf Samuelsson - Think Samuelsson's gone? Don't be so sure.

5. ANA Chris Pronger - Crosscheck, elbow, foot stomp, he does it all.

6. DAL Steve Ott - Voted dirtiest in the league by his peers. No argument here.

7. TOR Darcy Tucker - Watch your knees, here comes Crazy Tucker.

8. STL David Frost - Not a player, but wouldn't we all like to see him play just one game in Junior?

9. BOS Ken Linseman - He was "the Rat".

10. CGY Gary Suter - Mr. Career Ender

11. LAK Marty McSorley - Dirty players sometimes dress like enforcers.

12. NAS Jordin Tootoo - The heartwarming story is looks like it will have a dirty ending.

13. TAM Steve Downie - Was one of the leagues dirtiest even before his first NHL game.

14. NYI Chris Simon - A tortured soul that had to be on the list.

15. MON Chris Nilan - If you need an enforcer (or a free bathing suit), call "Knuckles" Nilan.

16. WAS Dale Hunter - one-dirtyplayer, two-dirtyplayer, three-dirtyplayer.

17. EDM Peter Pocklington - Your dad's name on the cup? Peter, come on.

18. CHI Bobby Hull - Nice guy on the ice. Too bad his wife didn't play hockey.

19. OTT Jarkko Ruuto - "Who me?"

20. NYR Sean Avery - This agitator plays "sloppy seconds" to no one.

21. DET Chris Chelios - Dirty old man?

22. VAN Todd Bertuzzi - In this case, one cheapshot does make you a dirty player.

23. MIN Derek Boogard - This enforcer's dirtiest play is spawning his trade.

24. COL Krzysztof Oliwa - Is dirty the same as really, really mean?

25. PHO Tyson Nash - Dirty player, bad hair.

26. ATL Eric Boulton - Makes the list because there was no one else on Atlanta.

27. CARJesse Boulerice - He's played for many teams, but I stuck Carolina with him.

28. BUF Brad May - "It will be good when we get him." Hmm, maybe not so much.

29. FLA Brian McCabe - This "Flying Ass" was the inventor of the "Can Opener".

30.COL Steve Moore - Of course he didn't deserve it, but his hit on Naslund was dirty.