Brian Burke ON CKNW at 10:10 PT 1:10 AM EST

[SENSible1*]

Thanks for the response. I hadn't read your full opinion on this before.

This "brains over bucks" thing is a red herring, though, since the cap will limit per-team talent. You will be losing MORE talent under this system than, for example, the fake $50 million hard cap rumour, where you'd have a shot at keeping a lot more of it. This is of particular note for a team with a lot of talent near RFA age who is at or above the cap already, like yours.

But as long as you support the cap knowing this, as you seem to be doing, then fine.

--"This "brains over bucks" thing is a red herring, though, since the cap will limit per-team talent"--
No, the cap limits the amount of money you can spend on the talent on your roster and this is a crucial distinction. If a team consisitently drafts and develops more talent than other teams, they will retain a talent edge, since young talent it cheap talent.

Sure the Sens would lose more talent than most, but if they can continue to develop replacement parts, then they will be fine. In addition, the talent the Sens lose will be spread across the league instead of concentrating in a select few markets.

SSF,

As you have clearly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the limits of the Ottawa market, on occassions too numerous to mention, I will save us both the keystrokes and let you cling to your belief that the Sens will somehow magically morph into a "big market" capable of sustaining the current roster. Short of a return to the days of the "silicon valley north" tech boom and a removal of the prohibition on Federal Gov't employees from accepting tickets from suppliers there is simply no way that Ottawa can support the salary levels you envision. If you are counting on Melnyk wasting his money on the Sens so that you can live your dream of a dynasty, then you are in for a rude awakening.

Ottawa is and will remain a small to mid size market. For the long term success of the franchise, I'd prefer to see the effect of market disparity minimized as much as possible and allow the Sens to compete using skills they have already mastered.

 

[Greschner4]

But for all of this to happen, the NHL would need the NLRB to grant them an Impasse, which in MY OWN OPINION, doesn't have a good chance of happening.

The onus is on the players to have an impasse overturned, not on the league to get an impasse approved.

 

[Greschner4]

Wetcoaster most definitely has a clue.

He also has a clear agenda and is an accomplished spin doctor.

He may have a clue but little he writes about the applicable law or the history of pro sports labor negotiations is accurate.

 

[SENSible1*]

He may have a clue but little he writes about the applicable law or the history of pro sports labor negotiations is accurate.

I'd suggest that we all benefit from seeing the arguments the PA will bring forward under various scenarios. I just try and remind everyone that we are getting only one side of the legal arguments.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I really think that replacement players could work. The NHL can draw talent from:

1. European teams: You don't think the Euros would jump here in a second to triple their salaries and at the same time take the jobs away from the NHL bigwigs that did the same thing to them?

Foreigners would have difficulty obtaining work visa to be replacements in a labour battle.

Next ...

dr

 

[Greschner4]

Foreigners would have difficulty obtaining work visa to be replacements in a labour battle.

Next ...

dr

If an impasse is declared there wouldn't even be a "labor battle" unless the NHLPA struck.

Then, you're assuming that there's something in US and Canadian law that somehow limits the number of foreign work permits in situations where a bargaining impasse has been declared, and I highly doubt that there is (at least in US law) ... especially when a large percentage of union members are already European. You'd have Europeans replacing Europeans, not Europeans replacing US steel or auto workers.

 

[I in the Eye]

IMO, I think that we have to assume that getting an impasse is at least a very difficult thing to do... and costly in terms of lawyer fees and opportunity cost (not getting back to business)... not to mention exhausting mentally (rulings could go either way) - far from a 'slam dunk'...

I've heard a few comments made by lawyers on the impasse issue (both here and in 'real life')... the consensus seems to be 'good luck'...

From uneducated opinions, the consensus seems to be, IMO, "let's order an impasse, and once it comes in the mail, then we'll hire replacement players... We'll find them in strawberry hills, under chocolate skies, where replacement players grow on trees!"

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Hope that helps you feel better.

Maybe he is just bitter that there will be no season. Naslunds leaving and it's all downhill from there.

 

[Finkle is Einhorn]

If an impasse is declared there wouldn't even be a "labor battle" unless the NHLPA struck.

Then, you're assuming that there's something in US and Canadian law that somehow limits the number of foreign work permits in situations where a bargaining impasse has been declared, and I highly doubt that there is (at least in US law) ... especially when a large percentage of union members are already European. You'd have Europeans replacing Europeans, not Europeans replacing US steel or auto workers.

From what I have heard, the law in the US does state that all replacement players have to have US citizenship to play, and that will be upheld. If that's the case, and considering the labour laws in BC and Quebec, replacement players are not a viable option for the league.

 

[Da Game]

From what I have heard, the law in the US does state that all replacement players have to have US citizenship to play, and that will be upheld. If that's the case, and considering the labour laws in BC and Quebec, replacement players are not a viable option for the league.

I just looked it over, and your statement is correct. Even if a impasse is granted to the NHL, the NHL can only allow US citizen's to play.

And like I said before. If this wasnt the case, the NHL would have called for an impasse at least a few months ago.

 

[MagnusJondus]

And like I said before. If this wasnt the case, the NHL would have called for an impasse at least a few months ago.

According to US labor relations law, you have to appear to be bargaining in good faith and exhaust all options before declaring impasse. It's to be used as a last resort.

 

[mooseOAK*]

What are you basing the 'sens will lose players' no matter what on?

Give me a LOGICAL breakdown of which players we will lose and why. The only elite level talent the Sens had ever lost in his prime was Alexei Yashin, and we all know there were several reasons behind that. And it wasn't his salary, since we have Alfredsson, Chara and Redden making more, even during Bryden years.

Besides they got better with Chara and Spezza, or are you going to try and say that that was lucky?

Try again.

The Senators have a lot of good young and relatively young players that are going to be looking for raises in the future. The Senators will either lose some because of the cap or simply because they can't afford to pay them all even with a luxury tax scenario.

 

[Da Game]

According to US labor relations law, you have to appear to be bargaining in good faith and exhaust all options before declaring impasse. It's to be used as a last resort.

I know that pretty well Magnus. But the NHL has yet to act in good faith at all. Throwing out proposal doesn't mean a thing. It's always been the NHLPA giving the NHL proposal or calling them to the table.

 

[MagnusJondus]

I know that pretty well Magnus. But the NHL has yet to act in good faith at all. Throwing out proposal doesn't mean a thing. It's always been the NHLPA giving the NHL proposal or calling them to the table.

I respectfully disagree.

Here in the US, the NLRB is very conservative and generally unwilling to get involved in labor matters. The NHL would have to really screw up to be punished for declaring impasse and IMO, they haven't done so. They've been keeping the owners quiet (generally) to make sure their image of bargaining in good faith hasn't been tarnished. They've agreed to attend these meetings even though the fundamental point of a salary cap hasn't been capitualted by the players therefore wasting everyone's time. And besides from that Atlanta owner (who was punished severly) they haven't even whispered about replacement players or breaking the union. It would be difficult to prove in a US court of law that the owners haven't exhausted all their options... especially when they proposed to give over half of the money to the players.

Its like Bettman said, "this disagreement is about money, right?"

I can't speak for Canadian law however.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Wetcoaster,

I'm confused, the NFL used replacement players, got a hard cap and in return "lost" by giving free agency.

Do you think the NHL would have a problem with that outcome?

Yes, I agree you are confused.

The NFL players did not have any free agency and that was their primary bargaining demand. They traded free agency for a salary cap. In fact the NFL players under Ed Garvey had initially proposed a salary cap in 1982 as an attempt to get a greater percentage of the revenues. Many of the NFL owners referred to the demand as "communistic" at the time but by 1993 there was different take on things by the owners.

In the NHL the players already have free agency or sufficient enough in the NHLPA view that there is no need to trade enhanced free agency for a hard cap. To get the hard cap the owners will have to offer something of value to the players and thus far I see nothing on the table.

The NFLPA used decertication and anti-trust law to get the free agency they sought. They settled the court cases in return for free agency in 1993. Now the NFLPA has indicated that they are prepared to cut loose the salary cap as NFL owners have been pulling too much revenue out of the shared pot. As Gene Upshaw has stated once the salary cap is gone at the end of 2006, it will not be coming back.

Clear now????

 

[Wetcoaster]

Can the union call an impasse?

No. The point of an impasse decalration is that it allows the employer to open for busines and try to use replacement workers.

The union could go to the NLRB and claim lack of good faith in bargaining or an unfair laboour practise. problem is there is no real sanction other than the NLRB saying to the NHL "Go forth and sin no more."

 

[GKJ]

In the NHL the players already have free agency or sufficient enough in the NHLPA view that there is no need to trade enhanced free agency for a hard cap. To get the hard cap the owners will have to offer something of value to the players and thus far I see nothing on the table.

The NHL can trade unrestricted free agency at an earlier age.

 

[Wetcoaster]

As have the NHLPA's offers.

No, they are not.

The NHLPA proposal previous to December was for a one year 5% rollback. The last proposal was for a 24% rollback on all contracts for all years. Quite substantially different along with enhanced luxury taxes and revenue sharing.

Even Brian Burke agreed that was a major change and should have kick-started the negotiations. He stated last night that the NHL has not made any movement off its initial position.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

The NHL can trade unrestricted free agency at an earlier age.

What are you suggesting? 25 years of age??? or even lower?

 

[Greschner4]

Yes, I agree you are confused.

The NFL players did not have any free agency and that was their primary bargaining demand. They traded free agency for a salary cap. In fact the NFL players under Ed Garvey had initially proposed a salary cap in 1982 as an attempt to get a greater percentage of the revenues. Many of the NFL owners referred to the demand as "communistic" at the time but by 1993 there was different take on things by the owners.

In the NHL the players already have free agency or sufficient enough in the NHLPA view that there is no need to trade enhanced free agency for a hard cap. To get the hard cap the owners will have to offer something of value to the players and thus far I see nothing on the table.

The NFLPA used decertication and anti-trust law to get the free agency they sought. They settled the court cases in return for free agency in 1993. Now the NFLPA has indicated that they are prepared to cut loose the salary cap as NFL owners have been pulling too much revenue out of the shared pot. As Gene Upshaw has stated once the salary cap is gone at the end of 2006, it will not be coming back.

Clear now????

1. Yeah. It's clear that the NFL got a hard cap in exchange for free agency that they were in the process of having to give up by court decree anyway. It's also clear that that was awful negotiation by the NFLPA and doesn't remotely constitute a "loss" by the NFL. Quite frankly, by giving up a hard cap in exchange for so little in return, the NFLPA makes the NHL's argument that a hard cap is nowhere near a big a deal as the NHLPA is making it out to be.

2. If not being able to pick where you want to work until you're 31 is "enough" free agency for the NHLPA, I'd simply suggest that they go back to the drawing board and rethink. From a purely human perspective, I see no reason to fight for an uncapped league over being free to choose your employer and your workplace.

3. Upshaw can say there isn't going to be a cap after 2006 all he wants, but he's dreaming if he thinks there isn't going to be one.

 

[Greschner4]

No, they are not.

The NHLPA proposal previous to December was for a one year 5% rollback. The last proposal was for a 24% rollback on all contracts for all years. Quite substantially different along with enhanced luxury taxes and revenue sharing.

Even Brian Burke agreed that was a major change and should have kick-started the negotiations. He stated last night that the NHL has not made any movement off its initial position.

The best reporting has the initial hard cap at somewhere around $31 million and now at around $42. To say that that is no movement is preposterous.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

1. Yeah. It's clear that the NFL got a hard cap in exchange for free agency that they were in the process of having to give up by court decree anyway. It's also clear that that was awful negotiation by the NFLPA and doesn't remotely constitute a "loss" by the NFL. Quite frankly, by giving up a hard cap in exchange for so little in return, the NFLPA makes the NHL's argument that a hard cap is nowhere near a big a deal as the NHLPA is making it out to be.

2. If not being able to pick where you want to work until you're 31 is "enough" free agency for the NHLPA, I'd simply suggest that they go back to the drawing board and rethink. From a purely human perspective, I see no reason to fight for an uncapped league over being free to choose your employer and your workplace.

3. Upshaw can say there isn't going to be a cap after 2006 all he wants, but he's dreaming if he thinks there isn't going to be one.

The NFLPA has a supposed bad deal simply because there are 117 div 1-a college football programs. So if they did use replacements for whatever reason, the product would be great compared to the ECHLers that would play in the NHL.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I really think that replacement players could work. The NHL can draw talent from:

1. European teams: You don't think the Euros would jump here in a second to triple their salaries and at the same time take the jobs away from the NHL bigwigs that did the same thing to them?

No European players need apply. They cannot be issued work permits under Canadian or US immigration law while there is an ongoing labour dispute a decalration of impasse does not end the labour dispute - it is only a temporary measure.

Only US citizens or legal alien residents will be able to play for US based teams.

On Canadian citizens or legal permament residents will be able to play for Canadian based teams. That is even assuming that the Canadian teams are part of the NHL since in Canada there is no counterpart provision to an impasse declaration unde the various provincial labour codes.

In any event in BC no replacement workers at all so no Vancouver Canucks, in Quebec they would be prohibited upon a vote of the Habs players (as the Expos players did in the 1994 MLB dispute) and currently there is legisaltion proposed in Ontario to ban replacement workers again which was in force during the 1994 MLB dispute so that the Jays could not put a team in Toronto and if so no leafs and no Senators. While Alberta labour law permits replacement workers there is no guarantee the Alberta labour board would allow it.

 

[Wetcoaster]

If an impasse is declared there wouldn't even be a "labor battle" unless the NHLPA struck.

Then, you're assuming that there's something in US and Canadian law that somehow limits the number of foreign work permits in situations where a bargaining impasse has been declared, and I highly doubt that there is (at least in US law) ... especially when a large percentage of union members are already European. You'd have Europeans replacing Europeans, not Europeans replacing US steel or auto workers.

Immigration law does not limit them, it prohibits them during a labour dispute.

Since an impasse declaration is only a temporary solution, the dispute continues. if there is a labour dispute in progress - no work permits allowed.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I just looked it over, and your statement is correct. Even if a impasse is granted to the NHL, the NHL can only allow US citizen's to play.

And like I said before. If this wasnt the case, the NHL would have called for an impasse at least a few months ago.

Actually to be completely accurate it would be US citizens and legal US alien residents. Also because of the Jay Treaty and how it is applied by USINS any Canadian aboriginal player would also be free to work in the US. The reverse is not true as Canada Immigration does not recognize the Jay Treaty for US aboriginals.