Break up the union?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
Some speculation on that here.

Yesterday, a league source said he's heard Bettman and the league might try to reopen the NHL in September of 2005 if there's no new agreement in place with the NHL Players' Association.

Under the plan, the following could be put into place.

After bargaining in good faith, the NHL could declare an impasse under U.S. labour laws and institute a new collective bargaining agreement with different work rules for the players.

The league could attempt to impose:

- A $31-million (all terms US) salary cap.

- Non-guaranteed contracts along with reduced qualifying offers.

- Contracts would all be two-way deals.

- Dramatically reduced pension and medical benefits.


The source said once the league declares the impasse, Bettman could then open the doors for business. Since the NHLPA wouldn't want to return under these types of rules, it could force the union to hold a vote.

An owners wish list for sure but if things do drag on indefinitely who knows?
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
Maybe at this point but if there is no NHL this year, this could be an interesting topic down the road. The NHL labour lawyers are sure to complete a review to see is this is a viable angle.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,673
37,463
Chili said:
Maybe at this point but if there is no NHL this year, this could be an interesting topic down the road. The NHL labour lawyers are sure to complete a review to see is this is a viable angle.


The owners can't wait that long. They can boast their $300 million war chest all they want. If they lose a whole season it will take years to make the money back they would have if they even only played 48 games.
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
We'll see but an old saying goes 'how bad do you want it?'. Short term pain for long term gain. I don't know how much resolve the owners have (nor the players). We shall see.
 
go kim johnsson said:
The owners can't wait that long. They can boast their $300 million war chest all they want. If they lose a whole season it will take years to make the money back they would have if they even only played 48 games.

There are at least a few owners who lose less money with empty buildings than they lose with full ones and the expenses they incur. To those owners this is definitely worth it.
 

pld459666

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,777
7,800
Danbury, CT
First

the Owners would have to start negotiating in good faith and presenting 1 offer with 6 different variations all tied into what they feel is a good deal for them is not good faith. The Owners would have been better served if they presented 6 seperate offers, even if it is pretty much the same thing. It's called establishing a pattern of good faith negotiations that they have not done.

Meanwhile, the players are in a similar situation in that they too have made 2 offers, both were pretty identical with the 2nd offer, also good for them, the difference is that the players requested information from the owners that would have helped them understand what the owners are looking for and constructed a deal surrounding that information.

So far the Owners have said, this is the system that we want and we will not allow you to play another game until we get it.

that is not negotiating in good faith and I could easily see (as of today mind you) the NHLPA getting an injunction preventing the league from imposing unilateral changes to how business is done.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
pld459666 said:
the Owners would have to start negotiating in good faith and presenting 1 offer with 6 different variations all tied into what they feel is a good deal for them is not good faith. The Owners would have been better served if they presented 6 seperate offers, even if it is pretty much the same thing. It's called establishing a pattern of good faith negotiations that they have not done.

Meanwhile, the players are in a similar situation in that they too have made 2 offers, both were pretty identical with the 2nd offer, also good for them, the difference is that the players requested information from the owners that would have helped them understand what the owners are looking for and constructed a deal surrounding that information.

So far the Owners have said, this is the system that we want and we will not allow you to play another game until we get it.

that is not negotiating in good faith and I could easily see (as of today mind you) the NHLPA getting an injunction preventing the league from imposing unilateral changes to how business is done.

The owners are the only ones that are taking the financial risk, they have every right to insist on a system they believe will make owning an NHL team less of a risk.

Good faith is more than just looking for very minor changes to the status quo...
 

pld459666

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,777
7,800
Danbury, CT
Good faith is also not

djhn579 said:
The owners are the only ones that are taking the financial risk, they have every right to insist on a system they believe will make owning an NHL team less of a risk.

Good faith is more than just looking for very minor changes to the status quo...

saying here's 6 variations of the same deal, take it or leave it.

Had they run their business correctly and not extended the status quo 2 times prior to today this is not a conversation we are having.

And as someone said in another thread altogether, there's no investment in the world today that will guarantee a profitable return on your initial investment. Not to say that you are guaranteed to lose money either, but it's not a slam dunk thing either way.
 
Last edited:

HckyFght*

Guest
Replacement Players!

They should lock the players out, and open camps on schedule holding tryouts with current NHL players invited to cross the line. Open the season on time and charge movie ticket prices.

While they are at it they should move the blue and red goal lines back to their pre-Bettman configuration returning 6 feet to the neutral zone and abolish the Instigator Rule. Tell goalies that 50% of the pads have to go.

The players haven't a leg to stand on and I can't think of one I'll miss.

-HckyFght
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
DownFromNJ said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't bringing in replacements illegal?

I've been curious about this as well. It doesn't seem there is a clear answer to that, depending on the implementation.

One thing I know is, labor laws vary from country to country and (to my knowledge) province to province. So making it work for the 30 teams might be VERY complex.
 

pld459666

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,777
7,800
Danbury, CT
If I'm not mistaken

Replacement players could only be used if the Union Players were to strike.

The Owners have called for this work stoppage and bringing in players when you have these guys under contract and have not paid them I think may be illegal.

I could be way way off on this though.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Vlad The Impaler said:
I've been curious about this as well. It doesn't seem there is a clear answer to that, depending on the implementation.

One thing I know is, labor laws vary from country to country and (to my knowledge) province to province. So making it work for the 30 teams might be VERY complex.

Good point. I just know that in NY, when we were looking at the possibility of our workers unionizing and going on strike, our legal advice was that we have every right to continue to produce, whether there is a strike or not. The problem came in with what happens after the strike since the replacement workers would automatically be part of the union (state law that if there is a union in a class of workers in a shop, everyone in that class is part of that union, whether they want to be or not) if they were still employed when the strike was over, so we could of had problems if we laid people off...
 

HckyFght*

Guest
Replacement Players

Whether or not all 30 teams get to participate in replacement games is immaterial to the objective to be gained. And that is for the NHL to reclaim control over capital outlay and correct the imperfections in the system that have thrown finances out of balance. Since the union has shown no desire to negotiate whatsoever, the only thing that could get their attention would be to stay in business and move forward without them. My guess is there are plenty of teams in right to work states for this to be a viable course of action.
-HckyFght
 

HckyFght*

Guest
Replacement Players

In addition to the above, as of 9/15 the contract with the union has expired, couldn't then, theoretically, the league sign a contract with another union of hockey players?
-HckyFght
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
HckyFght said:
Whether or not all 30 teams get to participate in replacement games is immaterial to the objective to be gained. And that is for the NHL to reclaim control over capital outlay and correct the imperfections in the system that have thrown finances out of balance. Since the union has shown no desire to negotiate whatsoever, the only thing that could get their attention would be to stay in business and move forward without them. My guess is there are plenty of teams in right to work states for this to be a viable course of action.
-HckyFght

I disagree. One of the strongest point of the NHLPA has been solidarity.

The very reason why the owners are suffering (and making the NHL a crappy product for us) is because of lack of solidarity.

What you are proposing is much the same. Now is not the time for a couple of owners to take a course of action, another couple to take a different course of action and so on...

Besides, any "replacement league" would already be diluted enough as far as the on-ice product (replacement players) without on top of that diluting the league's identity.

This is different from a food chain or the like. At these places you shop to get a burger and you don't care what the other McDonald looks like. In the NHL, the product is intricately tied to all teams. The standings, the rivalries, the trades, the whole league dynamic.

I'm not against the league eventually cutting back teams IF need be. But I am totally against a short term plan where teams cut back teams while they are in a labor war. This is shortsighted, IMO.

Whatever course of action the NHL take, it should include all teams that will go forward WELL past the labor war. Besides, if you are the owner of one of the teams stuck because of labor laws, are you going to sit down and smile while your comrades take a shortcut?

Everybody who has invested in this league should have a right to equaal consideration. In fact, that's the very reason why there IS a CBA war raging right now.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Malefic74 said:
There are at least a few owners who lose less money with empty buildings than they lose with full ones and the expenses they incur. To those owners this is definitely worth it.

Its hard to imagine who these owners would be. Perhaps teams like Edmonton that dont actually own their arena.

My understanding is that to declare an impasses they would have to go to court. I'd love to see them convince a judge they need a salary cap. That woiuld be a fun case. Maybe this time Bettman has a loophole that will for perhaps the first time in the history of sports allow the owners to win a court battle over the players.

The NHL is free to us replacement players I guess. I cant imagine any of them going into the corners with their striking brethren when the league returns. If the replacements arent unionized, they cant have free agency restrictions put on them, nor can they be drafted. Which according to the owners current position, would seem to mean they would have no choice but to break the cap rules they are proposing.

CBA talk is making me loony

.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
go kim johnsson said:
The owners can't wait that long. They can boast their $300 million war chest all they want. If they lose a whole season it will take years to make the money back they would have if they even only played 48 games.
how exactly will it take years to make the money they would have made if they played 48 games when they would LOSE money if they played 48 games
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
HckyFght said:
In addition to the above, as of 9/15 the contract with the union has expired, couldn't then, theoretically, the league sign a contract with another union of hockey players?
-HckyFght

I was thinking along the same lines. Is the NHL legally obligated to only deal with the NHLPA? What would happen if a group of players came together and set up the NAHPA (North American Hockey Player Association) and wanted to sign a CBA contract with the NHL?

I don't think any of the anti-owner people can have a problem with that. In a free market, a group of players are free to market their services to the NHL. If the NHLPA wanted to continue to represent NHL players, they would also have to compete with this new union for the NHL CBA contract. I would also think that any rookies currently being thrown under the bus by the NHLPA would be all for this idea...
 

Other Dave

Registered User
Jan 7, 2003
2,025
0
New and improved in TO
Visit site
djhn579 said:
I was thinking along the same lines. Is the NHL legally obligated to only deal with the NHLPA?

Pretty much, as long as the NHLPA is the recognized labor association representing NHL players.

djhn579 said:
What would happen if a group of players came together and set up the NAHPA (North American Hockey Player Association) and wanted to sign a CBA contract with the NHL?

I don't think they would be allowed to do so (by the government enforcing current labor law), in either the US or Canada, as long as the NHLPA existed. IANAL however.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
HckyFght said:
Great article here.

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/775/29/

Bring on the scabs!
-HckyFght!


Not a bad article, but I disagree with the part about guaranteed contracts. If a player decides he wants to play elsewhere, but the team won't trade him, it would be too easy to float until the team gets tired and either trades him or cuts him. It would be much better to make all contracts two way. If your not performing, to the minors with you!

I know that the union will never agree to that though, that would be even worse to them than a salary cap.
 

chara

Registered User
Mar 31, 2004
894
0
HckyFght said:
Whether or not all 30 teams get to participate in replacement games is immaterial to the objective to be gained. And that is for the NHL to reclaim control over capital outlay and correct the imperfections in the system that have thrown finances out of balance. Since the union has shown no desire to negotiate whatsoever, the only thing that could get their attention would be to stay in business and move forward without them. My guess is there are plenty of teams in right to work states for this to be a viable course of action.
-HckyFght

And in a lot of US cities, replacements may even be profitable. Much lower salaries translates into much lower ticket costs. Throw in tickets for a monster truck rally for each season's ticket package purchased and hockey might actually work in some markets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->