Can someone explain to me how no-linkage is better for the PA?

[Jobu]

NO. Why would anyone do such a foolish thing? Baseball players also went on strike in July of 94

Ignorance runs deep on this board. The NHL played without a CBA for the whole year in 1992, prior to the strike at least.

 

[Jobu]

Exactly. They extended the previous CBA a year. That means there was a CBA when they went on strike.

You are officially the biggest idiot on this board. Please read the labour laws, or maybe read the following standard clause from the most recently expired CBA:

7.1. (a) Neither the NHLPA nor any player shall authorize, encourage, or engage in any strike, work stoppage, slowdown or other concerted interference with the activities of any Club or of the League during the term of this Agreement. Nor shall any player decline to play or practice or in concert with any other person otherwise interfere with the activities of any Club or the League, or individually or in concert encourage any other player to do so because of picketing or a labor dispute involving any other labor organization. The NHLPA shall not support or condone any action of any player which is not in accordance with this Section 7.01 and the NHLPA shall exert reasonable efforts to induce compliance therewith.

(b) Neither the League nor any Club shall engage in a lockout during the term of this Agreement.

 

[CGG]

Exactly. They extended the previous CBA a year. That means there was a CBA when they went on strike.

No and wrong. It wasn't extended. Neither side signed anything. Once a deal expires, unless there's a new one or a lockout or a strike, both sides go on WITHOUT a deal, but the terms and conditions of the previous one are still in effect. This isn't brain surgery.

 

[Jobu]

No and wrong. It wasn't extended. Neither side signed anything. Once a deal expires, unless there's a new one or a lockout or a strike, both sides go on WITHOUT a deal, but the terms and conditions of the previous one are still in effect. This isn't brain surgery.

It's a lost cause, gc2005. Humorous, though, seeing as he embarrasses himself everytime he posts.

 

[Wetcoaster]

No linkage means the NHLPA does not have to concern itself with going through the NHL books. All they have to be satisfied about is the upper limit being sufficient for their purposes.

Since they do not trust the owners' numbers, when the NHL dropped the requirement for linkage it opened the door for a possible deal.

Of course by dropping linkage, setting the cap at $40 million and not accepting revenue sharing and a payroll tax Bettman has cut off his strongest supporters at the knees - those low payroll/low revenue small market teams.

The NHLPA proposal did include revenue sharing and a luxury tax with teeth so money could be re-distributed to low revenue teams.

Those teams must wonder if got the license of the NHL truck that just ran them over.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Uh dude, you're like, totally wrong eh?

Check your history. 1992. Ring any bells? You know, like when the players went on strike in April, just before the playoffs.

Okay, checking history.

The CBA had already expired and the NHL was playing under the expired agreement while negotiations were ongoing. The strike was lawful.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Exactly. They extended the previous CBA a year. That means there was a CBA when they went on strike.

That is not correct.

They did not extend the CBA, they polayed under an expired CBA. That is quite common. The BC Nurses' Union worked under an expired CBA for over two years. Labour law provides that when an employer and union do this they are ina postion to strike or impose a lockout at any time as long as the proper notices are given.

It is illegal to strike during the currency of a CBA.

 

[SENSible1*]

Peca got one fact wrong. Big Deal.

Wetcoaster,

When Bobby-boy is looking for work following this deal, will you still be trying to spin this into a win for the PA?

 

[Egil]

This will set up an interesting negotiation next time. IF league revenues rise in the next 6 years, then the PLAYERS will be screaming for linkage come the next negotiation, and the owners will be content to simply up the cap.

BTW, I expect to see at least a 50% tax start at about 36-40 mil, up to a cap in the mid 40s. You will get some of the revenue sharing from the PA plan through this tax. Also, any NHL team that can't afford a 30 mil payroll is in trouble. Period.

 

[PecaFan]

You are officially the biggest idiot on this board. Please read the labour laws, or maybe read the following standard clause from the most recently expired CBA:

7.1. (a) Neither the NHLPA nor any player shall authorize, encourage, or engage in any strike, work stoppage, slowdown or other concerted interference with the activities of any Club or of the League during the term of this Agreement.

*You're* the one claiming the law prohibits striking during a CBA, you provide the legal cite.

Nothing here about a strike being illegal because a contract is signed:
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_fil...ing&useShared=/nlrb/employee/faqs/default.asp

That contract language backs my argument. Why does the CBA spell out there can't be any work stoppages during the CBA, if it's against the law? The CBA doesn't need to point out it's illegal to kill a player, does it? No, it doesn't need to point it out, because the laws of the land already make it so. The CBA lays out things that aren't laws, things the two sides are agreeing to. In fact, the CBA lays out things they agree to that would *otherwise* be against the law (draft, etc).

And drop the personal insults. It gets so tiring with you PA supporters, you can't have a debate without you guys going off into insults. I never insulted you, return the favour. If I'm wrong, prove it, and I'll gladly admit it.

No and wrong. It wasn't extended. Neither side signed anything. Once a deal expires, unless there's a new one or a lockout or a strike, both sides go on WITHOUT a deal, but the terms and conditions of the previous one are still in effect. This isn't brain surgery.

Both sides agreed to play the year under the old CBA. That's extending it. If legally, all the terms and conditions of the CBA are in effect, then there's a CBA. Otherwise, the NHL would have been in violation of a ton of anti-trust laws.

 

[Wolfpack]

Peca got one fact wrong. Big Deal.

Wetcoaster,

When Bobby-boy is looking for work following this deal, will you still be trying to spin this into a win for the PA?

 

[Wetcoaster]

Peca got one fact wrong. Big Deal.

Wetcoaster,

When Bobby-boy is looking for work following this deal, will you still be trying to spin this into a win for the PA?

What deal? At the moment there is no deal.

In 1994 all the pundits proclaimed Bettman and the NHL as the clear winners - and look how that has turned out.

We will have to wait and see if there is a deal and then how it plays out in the real world. These things have a way of not going as predicted.

The NHL gave up on linkage which was the central feature of Bettman's "cost certainty" and the NHLPA offered a cap with revenue sharing and a payroll tax.

Both sides moved. The NHL seems to have given up protecting the small market low revenue teams which was the whole rationale for cost certainty and NHLPA has accepted the notion of a cap.

By unlinking revenues the NHL has removed the biggest concern the players had - they did not trust the owners' numbers. That is no longer an issue if there is no linkage.

Both Bettman and Goodenow are likely to have some unhappy constituents if a deal is done.

 

[Jobu]

*You're* the one claiming the law prohibits striking during a CBA, you provide the legal cite.

US law does not prevent it (although practically speaking "wildcat strikes" are prevented by collective agreement). Canadian law does. Please see, e.g., the Ontario Labour Relations Act. But it doesn't matter anyway - language was in the CBA.

That contract language backs my argument. Why does the CBA spell out there can't be any work stoppages during the CBA, if it's against the law? The CBA doesn't need to point out it's illegal to kill a player, does it? No, it doesn't need to point it out, because the laws of the land already make it so. The CBA lays out things that aren't laws, things the two sides are agreeing to. In fact, the CBA lays out things they agree to that would *otherwise* be against the law (draft, etc).

You are a tool. Ontario's Labour Relations Act:

"46. Every collective agreement shall be deemed to provide that there will be no strikes or lock-outs so long as the agreement continues to operate. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, s. 46."

I'm wrong, prove it, and I'll gladly admit it.

Still waiting. But you better apologize 10 times, since that is about how many times you've been wrong in this thread alone.

Both sides agreed to play the year under the old CBA. That's extending it. If legally, all the terms and conditions of the CBA are in effect, then there's a CBA. Otherwise, the NHL would have been in violation of a ton of anti-trust laws.

Wrong. Wow, you are amazingly thick. And the worst part is, you keep arguing about something you know nothing about.

 

[PecaFan]

US law does not prevent it

Right. Just as I said.

While it's interesting that a couple of Canadian provinces have differing laws, they really don't amount to a hill of beans as to how the league is run.

 

[Jobu]

Right. Just as I said.

While it's interesting that a couple of Canadian provinces have differing laws, they really don't amount to a hill of beans as to how the league is run.

You are hilarious. You claimed that the NHL could go on strike during a CBA like last time. How many times were you wrong in that one sentence? Let's see:

- They were not playing under a CBA at that time.
- It would be illegal for the players to go on strike during the term of a CBA.
- The players have never gone on strike during the term of a CBA.
- Playing under the rules of an expired CBA does not mean playing under an existent CBA.

Go away until you read up. Ignorance.

 

[Wetcoaster]

*You're* the one claiming the law prohibits striking during a CBA, you provide the legal cite.

Nothing here about a strike being illegal because a contract is signed:
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_fil...ing&useShared=/nlrb/employee/faqs/default.asp

That contract language backs my argument. Why does the CBA spell out there can't be any work stoppages during the CBA, if it's against the law? The CBA doesn't need to point out it's illegal to kill a player, does it? No, it doesn't need to point it out, because the laws of the land already make it so. The CBA lays out things that aren't laws, things the two sides are agreeing to. In fact, the CBA lays out things they agree to that would *otherwise* be against the law (draft, etc).

And drop the personal insults. It gets so tiring with you PA supporters, you can't have a debate without you guys going off into insults. I never insulted you, return the favour. If I'm wrong, prove it, and I'll gladly admit it.

Both sides agreed to play the year under the old CBA. That's extending it. If legally, all the terms and conditions of the CBA are in effect, then there's a CBA. Otherwise, the NHL would have been in violation of a ton of anti-trust laws.

You are incorrect.

Labour law provides that as long as there is no strike or lockout the expired CBA continues - it does not need to be extended. If it is extended by agreement then there is a new CBA and there can be no strike or lockout during its currency.

However the union can strike or the employer can lockout the union with the proper notice as provided under the labour code if the business is operating under an expired CBA. This is very common.

In 1994 baseball was playing under an expired CBA. The players struck late in the season and as a result the World Series was cancelled. The strike was lawful.

 

[Jobu]

Wait, I thought Peca was right.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Jaded-Fan]

You are hilarious. You claimed that the NHL could go on strike during a CBA like last time. How many times were you wrong in that one sentence? Let's see:

- They were not playing under a CBA at that time.
- It would be illegal for the players to go on strike during the term of a CBA.
- The players have never gone on strike during the term of a CBA.
- Playing under the rules of an expired CBA does not mean playing under an existent CBA.

Go away until you read up. Ignorance.

So? Perhaps Peca got a fact wrong. God knows that I have mispoken or even been downright wrong at times. Still, I have enjoyed what Peca has brought to the table discussion wise more often than not. It certainly is not worth getting into a pissing contest over that fills three pages or more in this thread (where this seems to be heading).

 

[Wetcoaster]

Here is the timeline for the 1992 NHL players' strike from the CBC Sports website:

• The players' contract expired on Sept. 15, 1991, but the hockey season and union negotiations continued over the next six months.
• Owners and players agreed on pension contributions, limited free agency, extending the season length and boosting playoff bonuses. But they couldn't agree on other issues like salaries and licensing.
• On March 20, 1992, Bob Goodenow, executive director of the National Hockey League Players Association, set a strike deadline for March 30.
• After various proposals, counter-proposals and a strike extension, players walked out on April 1, 1992.
• One of the major sources of contention was licensing. The players' association had earned $11 million by allowing trading-card companies to use the players' images, and the owners wanted a share of that money. The length of the players' collective agreement and the owners' use of pension surpluses were also outstanding issues.
• After several days of negotiations, including a final marathon session, the impasse was resolved on April 10. Thirty games were postponed because of the strike.
• The players won the right to retain licensing revenues. According to Maclean's magazine, the owners objected to the players' use of those revenues to fund NHLPA operations. The NHLPA interpreted the owners' cash grab as an attempt to undermine its efforts.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-41-1430/sports/sports_disputes/

 

[Wetcoaster]

So? Perhaps Peca got a fact wrong. God knows that I have mispoken or even been downright wrong at times. Still, I have enjoyed what Peca has brought to the table discussion wise more often than not. It certainly is not worth getting into a pissing contest over that fills three pages or more in this thread (where this seems to be heading).

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and being wrong based on the facts.

There is no "perhaps" about it - he is wrong.

 

[HckyFght*]

The fear is that revenues will be shrinking over the next few years (consider the TV contract).
That is why the players don't want linkage.

Watch the NHL start making money hand over fist after the agree ment is signed...then the players will walk out demanding...you guessed it...LINKAGE!
-HckyFght!

 

[PecaFan]

You are hilarious. You claimed that the NHL could go on strike during a CBA like last time.

Go away until you read up. Ignorance.

<sigh> And still you persist with personal attacks.

For someone slinging so much crap, and acting like I'm "pwned", you haven't shown anything.

I made two claims:

(1) That it was not illegal to strike in the US under a CBA.
(2) They extended the CBA.

1 has been proven true, which you yourself admitted.
2 As Wetcoaster just said, if they agreed to extend the CBA, then there is a new CBA. It has not yet been shown either way whether they "officially" extended, or just "kinda" agreed to play under the old CBA.

It's all semantics regardless. The entire 91-92 season was played under the legally binding rules set down by the previous CBA.

 

[Jobu]

<sigh> And still you persist with personal attacks.

For someone slinging so much crap, and acting like I'm "pwned", you haven't shown anything.

I made two claims:

(1) That it was not illegal to strike in the US under a CBA.
(2) They extended the CBA.

1 has been proven true, which you yourself admitted.
2 As Wetcoaster just said, if they agreed to extend the CBA, then there is a new CBA. It has not yet been shown either way whether they "officially" extended, or just "kinda" agreed to play under the old CBA.

It's all semantics regardless. The entire 91-92 season was played under the legally binding rules set down by the previous CBA.

:lol :lol

And of course, they can always strike just before the playoffs, if they can't wait until the CBA expires. They've shown they like that strategy in the past.

Wrong.

Uh dude, you're like, totally wrong eh?

Check your history. 1992. Ring any bells? You know, like when the players went on strike in April, just before the playoffs.

Wrong.

Exactly. They extended the previous CBA a year. That means there was a CBA when they went on strike.

Wrong.

2 As Wetcoaster just said, if they agreed to extend the CBA, then there is a new CBA. It has not yet been shown either way whether they "officially" extended, or just "kinda" agreed to play under the old CBA.

Wrong.

Why does the CBA spell out there can't be any work stoppages during the CBA, if it's against the law? The CBA doesn't need to point out it's illegal to kill a player, does it? No, it doesn't need to point it out, because the laws of the land already make it so. The CBA lays out things that aren't laws, things the two sides are agreeing to. In fact, the CBA lays out things they agree to that would *otherwise* be against the law (draft, etc).

Wrong.

Both sides agreed to play the year under the old CBA. That's extending it. If legally, all the terms and conditions of the CBA are in effect, then there's a CBA. Otherwise, the NHL would have been in violation of a ton of anti-trust laws

Wrong.

While it's interesting that a couple of Canadian provinces have differing laws, they really don't amount to a hill of beans as to how the league is run.

Wrong.

Keep posting. This gets better all the time.

 

[Wetcoaster]

2 As Wetcoaster just said, if they agreed to extend the CBA, then there is a new CBA. It has not yet been shown either way whether they "officially" extended, or just "kinda" agreed to play under the old CBA.

It's all semantics regardless. The entire 91-92 season was played under the legally binding rules set down by the previous CBA.

No that is not what I said.

If the CBA was extended by an agreement, then you have a new CBA valid for whatever term of the extension, then you cannot strike. In 1999 the NHL and NHLPA extended the CBA by five years.

If you simply play on, then the previous CBA continues to be inplace until the employer locks out the union, the union strikes or a new CBA is signed.

Please do not misconstrue what I have said to bolster your argument that is wrong on the facts.

It is more than semantics - it is the law.

 

[PecaFan]

No that is not what I said.

If the CBA was extended by an agreement, then you have a new CBA valid for whatever term of the extension

Which is exactly what I attributed to you. There is no misconstruing going on. I said "if they agreed to extend the CBA, then there is a new CBA" which is *exactly* what you keep saying.

, then you cannot strike.

Only under BC, Ontario law, etc. Not in the US, where it matters.

Or are you disputing Jobu, where he said it wasn't illegal in the US? Cite?