Goodenow has advised players not to

Status
Not open for further replies.

David

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,007
0
Visit site
Bruwinz37 said:
Goodenow should realize that if that happens he loses and he is out of a job.

This guy is an absolute joke. He is not looking out for the best interests of the NHLPA. He is out to win and nothing else. If the league is gone for two years there will be 10 teams that wont be back when things get going again. Hundreds of "union" jobs would be lost. Anyone who supports this bozo is an absolute moron.

Bob Goodenow is smart enough to know that his head is going to roll regardless whether the players play this season or next season or never. Bob has nothing to lose by holding out and nothing to gain by giving in. It's now all personal for him because it's clear that Bettman outsmarted him this time just like he out did Bettman the last time.

However, the players are too stupid and scare to know that Bob no longer has their best interest in mind.

BOB is going down and he's gonna take ALL the players with him!!! It's not about reason anymore.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
Sure, always pleased to help the intellectually handicapped.

Souray is very clear:



Hope that helps.

What's that slurping sound? Oh, Wetcoaster must either be posting or cleaning another one of Bob's messes!

:lol

Can't wait to see you on the unemployment line with Greedenow and they rest of his parasitic cronies.
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
Sure, always pleased to help the intellectually handicapped.

Souray is very clear:



Hope that helps.
Terrific help from a burgeoning Clarica agent. Souray is very clear alright, clearly being led like a lamb to slaughter. What a mess.
 

Quantas

Registered User
Feb 4, 2004
843
0
Ottawa
Wetcoaster said:
I have been a labour lawyer (labour and management sides) and a VP of a national union before getting my law degree.

It is an extremely difficult thing to achieve and sitting on one position and repeating "cost certainty" is unlikely to get it done. the first requirement to get an impasse upheld is to demonstrate that you have bargained in good faith. In 1994 MLB was flexible, used a federal mediator and even the president and Congress became involved as mediators - that was not good enough and MLB was determined not to have bargained in good faith.
If you've been practicing law for so long, then you should know that negotiating in good faith "...does not require the labor organization or the employer to agree to a proposal by the other party or make a concession to the other party..."

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/basicguide.asp
(see section under Collective Bargaining).

So the NHL can keep repeating "Cost Certainty" all they want and not budge one iota.
Wetcoaster said:
Also when MLB owners were rumbling about trying again for a bargaining impasse recently the players' union said the magic words "union decertification" and the owners caved.
If decertification isn't just a pipe dream, why not do it now? Why wait to see if the Owners try to go for an impasse and bring in replacement players? Obviously there must be some risks (other than being tied up in courts for years, costing players both time and money) to this strategy.

The NBAPA held a vote in 1995 to decertify and it was defeated (226-134, http://members.aol.com/bradleyrd/labor.html). Why would the players not use a weapon in their arsenal if it truly is as potent as some claim it is.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
I believe that one of the moderators here is a labour lawyer, Buffaloed. Or at the least a lawyer; he posts so infrequently here, its hard to know for certain.

In any case, I'd be more willing to listen to someone with experience on the subject. Someone who understands the legal aspect more than us "Law and Order" types.
 
Last edited:

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Wetcoaster said:
Because it only makes sense if the NHL owners move to declare an impasse, impose a CBA and use replacement players. It is referred to by various experts as a "nuclear deterrent" - it a weapon to be used as last resort.

Nuclear deterrent? :lol More like "sparkler" or "roadside flare".

The owners would just *love* for the PA to blow themselves up, and Goodenow to self terminate along with them. They'd never have to deal with him again. "Bob: Hey Gary, can we talk?" "Gary: Who are you? We have no business relationship with you".

This so called deterrent is based on two assumptions, which border on assinine. Firstly, that once the players decertify, then the owners will be too stupid to understand the anti-trust laws, will obviously violate them, then the players can swoop in and sue their asses off.

This plan reeks of something the Scooby Doo gang dream up to catch the ghost.

And secondly, something you love to repeat: "the owners need the NHLPA to operate outside of anti-trust laws".

You're wrong. The owners need an association, not the NHLPA. They can strike a deal with any association they want, after the NHLPA has given up it's exclusivity rights. And I have no doubt that a hefty chunk of the players would form such a New Player's Association, and sign a new CBA. With a cap.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Wetcoaster said:
Because it only makes sense if the NHL owners move to declare an impasse, impose a CBA and use replacement players. It is referred to by various experts as a "nuclear deterrent" - it a weapon to be used as last resort. The MLBPA ( in tis last CBA negotiations) and the NBAPA threatened to use it and the owners backed down. The NFLPA did use it and won free agency as a result.

In 1994 the MLBPA could not use decertifcation because of baseball's judicial anti-trust exemption. That was changed by the US Congress in 1996 which removed the exemption for most purposes. In the last negotiation the MLBPA threatened to decertify and the owners folded.

See post #45 in this thread for a detailed explanation.



Let's assume there is an impasse

a) What happens to the NLRB approved impasse CBA if the NHLPA decertifies?

b) What if that CBA has a fixed wage for certain player skill levels?

c) given that professional sports in the US have had reserve system in the CBA, a reserve system unions are quite happy to approve, what makes it impossible that the NLRB would approve such a system in any impasse?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Steve L said:
So why hasnt there been a vote on a cap?

Because the player reps and executive bargaining committee have authority to negotiate on behalf of the players. It is up to the bargaining committee headed up by Trevor Linden to decide what should be put to a vote.

If the owners were to come back with what they termed their last, best and final offer then it would likely be put to a vote.

Until then a vote is premature.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
me2 said:
Let's assume there is an impasse

a) What happens to the NLRB approved impasse CBA if the NHLPA decertifies?

b) What if that CBA has a fixed wage for certain player skill levels?

c) given that professional sports in the US have had reserve system in the CBA, a reserve system unions are quite happy to approve, what makes it impossible that the NLRB would approve such a system in any impasse?

If the union decertifies there is no bargaining impasse because there is no one to bargain with. Remember an impasse declaration, imposition of a CBA and use of scabs is only a temporary measure that still requires continued bargaining. If the union decertifies then there is no dispute. In 1987(?) the NFLPA decertified and as a result won free agency.

Once there is no union then the NHL becomes subject to anti-trust laws and all the twists and turns that will bring. Each time a player finishes a contract he would become a free agent - no reserve clause. The entry draft would not exist because that would be prohibited so teams would be bidding for each player as they decalred themselves interested in playing in the NHL.

The NLRB does not approve the particulars of an imposed agreement - they simply determine if a bargaining impasse has been reached and that the employer has not committed an unfair labor practise. Impasse declarations are very seldom upheld.

The danger for the NHL is if they declare an impasse, impose a CBA and begin using replacement players AND lose before the NLRB on an unfair labor practise motion by the NHLPA, then they will become liable for all the money owning under the player contracts from the time they began using the replacements. And if there are anti-trust violations then they face treble damage awards.

If you are going to declare an impasse you better be darn sure that you can win because the economic downside could be huge.
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
misterjaggers said:
I suppose it could be a bluff.

Of course it's a bluff. You don't go out to buy a car, tell the dealer that youi are desperate to get one today and expect to make a good deal. Both the NHLPA and NFL aare saying that they could care less whether there is hockey next year. What else do you expect them say. It's all part of the bargaining process.

Honestly, the naivete of most posts on the strike is amazing. There are people who actually believe all these selfserving pronouncements.
 

Crosbyfan

Registered User
Nov 27, 2003
12,633
2,442
If the union decertifies what happens to existing contracts?

Do owners have to start paying them or only if they start playing again or can they ignore them or pick and choose the ones they want?

Can the players under contract consider themselves free agents and ignore the contracts? I know the answer is probably a balance between the two sides but which is it? :dunno:

If the League starts up without decertification is a player obligated to come back to histeam if he is playing in a different league? :dunno: I think I know the answer to that one but I'm not sure.

Also if the League was somehow able to use replacement players could the NHLPA allow/request certain players to cross the line and, say, donate half their salary to the NHLPA warchest/strikefund? I'm particularly thinking of players with long term contracts that have signed for hugh amounts, and the team/league would really prefer if they didn't come back.

?
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Question: If the owners are so terrified of the players decertifying and suing them, why the hell don't the players do just that? Isn't that their best strategy to get what they want?
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Wetcoaster said:
Because the player reps and executive bargaining committee have authority to negotiate on behalf of the players. It is up to the bargaining committee headed up by Trevor Linden to decide what should be put to a vote.

If the owners were to come back with what they termed their last, best and final offer then it would likely be put to a vote.

Until then a vote is premature.

Thanks for finally answering my question! (Post 45 of this thread)

Wetcoaster said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
What does it take to actually have the NHLPA vote on a CBA? How many on the players side can make that happen?



Wetcoaster said:
50% plus 1.

So, a small handful of players decide when a vote will be held and what will be voted on, regardless of the support they have (or don't have...). Unless, over 50% of the players are able to organize themselves well enough to have a private vote to force the executive committee to do something different...
 

Crosbyfan

Registered User
Nov 27, 2003
12,633
2,442
The Iconoclast said:
Question: If the owners are so terrified of the players decertifying and suing them, why the hell don't the players do just that? Isn't that their best strategy to get what they want?

Isn't that considered a better alternative than a CBA forced on them but not otherwise good for the players? Also the players wouldn't necessarily sue them as long as they all got UFA (after expiry of current contracts? :dunno: )
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Wetcoaster said:
If the union decertifies there is no bargaining impasse because there is no one to bargain with. Remember an impasse declaration, imposition of a CBA and use of scabs is only a temporary measure that still requires continued bargaining. If the union decertifies then there is no dispute. In 1987(?) the NFLPA decertified and as a result won free agency.

Once there is no union then the NHL becomes subject to anti-trust laws and all the twists and turns that will bring. Each time a player finishes a contract he would become a free agent - no reserve clause. The entry draft would not exist because that would be prohibited so teams would be bidding for each player as they decalred themselves interested in playing in the NHL.

The NLRB does not approve the particulars of an imposed agreement - they simply determine if a bargaining impasse has been reached and that the employer has not committed an unfair labor practise. Impasse declarations are very seldom upheld.

The danger for the NHL is if they declare an impasse, impose a CBA and begin using replacement players AND lose before the NLRB on an unfair labor practise motion by the NHLPA, then they will become liable for all the money owning under the player contracts from the time they began using the replacements. And if there are anti-trust violations then they face treble damage awards.

If you are going to declare an impasse you better be darn sure that you can win because the economic downside could be huge.

So, If the union decertifies, The NHL shuts down until a group of players currently under contract form their own union, then they set up an agreement with them? Or, since the NHL's business model would violate so many anti-trust laws, they have to restructure to in a way that will not violate anti-trust laws, yet allow for some form of balance?

How is this new league, the WHA, being set up with a cap, even though they don't have a players union to negotiate with? What about other sports leagues, such as the arena footbal league? These leagues have rules that limit the size of the payrolls (last I heard anyway...). What is to stop the NHL from reorganizing in this way? After all, you are saying that what they do now would violate anti-trust laws. Wouldn't they be forced to go to a business model that does not violate anti-trust laws? The NHLPA may not like it if the NHL does do something along these lines, but they can't say or do anything about it since they decetified and it would show that the decertification was just a bargaining ploy, which I think is illegal. The NHLPA can't decertify and still direct or advise the players to take legal action.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Keep dry humping the decertification exit strategy. It's good for a laugh. Even in the best case scenario for the PA their salaries drop through the floor while they eliminate a good chunk of their membership.

The NHL just needs a group of players to organize a new PA and agree to a CBA and the current NHLPA will be up the creek without a paddle.
 

Boilers*

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
Keep dry humping the decertification exit strategy. It's good for a laugh. Even in the best case scenario for the PA their salaries drop through the floor while they eliminate a good chunk of their membership.

The NHL just needs a group of players to organize a new PA and agree to a CBA and the current NHLPA will be up the creek without a paddle.


That's pretty much the best solution out there is for either the owners or player to form a spin-off company from the NHLPA and start anew. Now you as an owner have a choice of which company you want to do business with. The spin-off company, or the tired old NHLPA,hmm so difficult to choose.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
I also forgot to mention what happens to the NHLPA pension plan? With decertification, the players will have to plan their own pension and new players will get no benefit from the plan that has been working for at least the last 10 years...
 

Mighty Duck

Registered User
Jul 6, 2003
334
0
Visit site
eye said:
Maybe Newsguyone will finally start to understand that there is only one thing preventing an agreement, Bob Goodenow's stubborn pride and EGO. GoodEGOnow doesn't give a s""" aobut common sense or the good of the NHL and the thousands of employees that count on the NHL being played. Newsguyone, are you starting to see it yet?

The issue is not what you or I think about Bettman or Goodenow, it is what the players and owners think, as they have given each guy a mandate to follow. We can sit here and call these guys all the names we want, but that is a tactic a 10 year old would resort to. Name calling will not light a fire under each sides 8utt, but I do agree that popularity in the US is going down hill like a snow ball head to h8ll. The issues have been beaten to death on this board and others. Yet no solution. I suggest, you go do the other things you are threatening to do, and come back when this whole mess is resolved if you choose to do so. You are going to go into cardiac arrest worrying about Goodennow preventing a new CBA from happening. Even if 100% of the fans felt is was all Goodenow's fault, it still is not going to get this deal done any sooner!
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
I just can't let this idea of decertification go...

The way I see it, the NHLPA is opposed to a salary cap of any kind on "philosophical" grounds. (Philosophically, if team salaries are capped, you can only suck so much money out of the owners...) Also, they want to keep an arbitration system that is very heavily in their favor, even if the owners can take a player to arbitration. The NHLPA is also against giving up the 75% buyout on contracts, and I'm sure they don't want all contracts to be two-way contracts. If you listen to some posters here, a cap will hurt the lower end players the most, since the best will still get their money. If the NHL tries to force a salary cap on the players by declaring an impasse (assuming they win...), the NHLPA will vote to decertify.

If the NHLPA does decertify, where does that leave the players? They will win on the salary cap issue by decertifying. but what about the rest?

Arbitration? Can't have that without a CBA

Buyouts? Has to be negotiated separetly by each player. The better the player, the better deal he will be able to get.

Two-way contracts? Has to be negotiated separetly by each player. The better the player, the better deal he will be able to get.

How about some other issues...

Insurance. I'm sure each team will have a very basic insurance package, which the players will have to pay for, just like you and I do, and I'm pretty sure that the players will be able to buy additional coverage if they want, but that will be on them.

Travel. Busses whenever possible. Commercial flights for everyone....

Hotels. If I were an owner, I'd be looking at dormatories at local colleges, or perhaps each team will buy a building next to their areana and set up a big bay type barracks, kind of like if they were in the army...

Travel allowances/stipends. Negotiated individually

And then back to who gets the money. The stars will still get the best money and the best contracts. The lower end players will get even less than they would under a cap since their contract will not be guaranteed, and if they falter, they go to the minors, no matter how long they have been in the league.

Yep. The players will certainly win if they decertify...

(I know some of the above is extreme, but it can happen...)
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
I don't see what Souray's problem is. He says he misses NHL hockey. He says he's worried about his future.

Guess what, Sheldon? There's an (inevitable) solution - all you have to do is accept it. You'll still be making millions of dollars, and you'll be playing NHL hockey.

How can the players be this stupid? Really.

I don't know if I've heard a player give us his expectations for the future, or what they plan to come out with when all of this is done. I guess it goes to show how disorganized/out of touch these guys actually are.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
Because the player reps and executive bargaining committee have authority to negotiate on behalf of the players. It is up to the bargaining committee headed up by Trevor Linden to decide what should be put to a vote.
And who do you think controls those players?

Right now, more than 50% of players want to play but theres no way for them to vote for it.

The union is nothing more than a mob as I would have thought the union would have voted on the NHLs offers instead of a handful of people turning it down almost straight away but they dont want to do that in case a vote goes for accepting the offer.
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,237
New York
www.youtube.com
Seachd said:
I don't see what Souray's problem is. He says he misses NHL hockey. He says he's worried about his future.

Guess what, Sheldon? There's an (inevitable) solution - all you have to do is accept it. You'll still be making millions of dollars, and you'll be playing NHL hockey.

How can the players be this stupid? Really.

I don't know if I've heard a player give us his expectations for the future, or what they plan to come out with when all of this is done. I guess it goes to show how disorganized/out of touch these guys actually are.

Souray talked about NEVER,EVER accepting a cap even if took FIVE years.These guys are clueless.FIVE YEARS?If they lose this season,this league is ****ed in the U.S.Big Time :shakehead
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->