Goodenow has advised players not to

Status
Not open for further replies.

Habs13

Registered User
Dec 30, 2004
13,919
10,803
Montreal
Simple way to return NHL hockey.. are you reading this Gary (the snail)?

1) Replacement players. Ex-NHLer's, overage minor league players.. etc.
2) Cap and fix the system.
3) Play..
4) Either bring up prospects or wait for NHLPAer's to cross over..

Fixed.. in 4 easy steps.
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
Habs13 said:
Simple way to return NHL hockey.. are you reading this Gary (the snail)?

1) Replacement players. Ex-NHLer's, overage minor league players.. etc.
2) Cap and fix the system.
3) Play..
4) Either bring up prospects or wait for NHLPAer's to cross over..

Fixed.. in 4 easy steps.
By George, he's got it!

Have you been reading any of this thread? It's far from 4 easy steps to fix this problem.
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
djhn579 said:
The NHLPA can't decertify and still direct or advise the players to take legal action.
Sure they can. One of the posts from Wetcoaster talks about this very scenario, so unless I'm misreading it, they absolutely can.

A person is entitled to hire whoever he wants to act as his own counsel, and they can also get together as a group and hire someone to represent them as a group. They'll just hire Goodenow and Saskin to act as their legal counsel. Of course, they'll have a enormous task to represent the players as a group, and it's likely that not every player will go into this group. Who do you think will be able to get contracts signed more quickly? Guys being represented by someone other than Goodenow or a guy/group being represented by Goodenow?

The big risk for the players in decertiying is that (in addition to what's been discussed in another post above) is that there's a very good chance they'll get even less as an individual. And if they do take the League or a team to court it is going to be a very lengthy and expensive process. Pro athletes have a very small window of opportunity to earn as much as they can, so they don't want to be tied up in court for a couple of years and paying some hefty legal bills.

The owners aren't interested in decertifying the union and the players don't really want to either.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
HF2002 said:
Sure they can. One of the posts from Wetcoaster talks about this very scenario, so unless I'm misreading it, they absolutely can.

A person is entitled to hire whoever he wants to act as his own counsel, and they can also get together as a group and hire someone to represent them as a group. They'll just hire Goodenow and Saskin to act as their legal counsel. Of course, they'll have a enormous task to represent the players as a group, and it's likely that not every player will go into this group. Who do you think will be able to get contracts signed more quickly? Guys being represented by someone other than Goodenow or a guy/group being represented by Goodenow?

The big risk for the players in decertiying is that (in addition to what's been discussed in another post above) is that there's a very good chance they'll get even less as an individual. And if they do take the League or a team to court it is going to be a very lengthy and expensive process. Pro athletes have a very small window of opportunity to earn as much as they can, so they don't want to be tied up in court for a couple of years and paying some hefty legal bills.

The owners aren't interested in decertifying the union and the players don't really want to either.

And that will be in court just as quickly as if the owners do something that a player considers to violate the anti-trust laws. I could have sworn that I read something to that effect. The union can't decertify as a bargaining tactic, then continue to act like the union.

I think someone other than Goodenow and Saskins would be able to get players signed more quickly. All the players have agents, and I would think most agents have at least some legal background. Why would the players want to sign with Goodenow and Saskins when they already have an agent, especially considering the agents have a better working relationship with the NHL?

I agree that the owners don't want to have the union decertify, but if they do, only the top 100-200 players will benefit. The rest will be in worse shape. Even the league minimum salary would no longer apply.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
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.

These off-contract UFAs would not being playing for any team, they have no contract and are not bound to any team via reserve clause. As a result of this wouldn't all of the off-contract UFAs lose their right to vote for the formation of a new union since they are no longer employees of any NHL team? Also, wouldn't that mean that any new union is now in the hands of those who are currently employed, aka scabs, replacements and the small minorty of NHLers with active contracts?

Does Bill Guerin really want some nobody determining his salary in the new CBA?

Does Bob Goodenow really want his power to stop exisiting and to be transferred to some guy from a beer league?

Let's assume there may be problems with anti-trust, what is to stop the NHL shutting down/locking out again if the NHLPA decertifies? No point being a UFA in a league with no teams.

Lastly, why can't the NHL pay a fixed wage. Almost every other business operates on fixed wages. Why should the NHL not be allowed to?
 
Last edited:

no13matssundin

Registered User
May 16, 2004
2,870
0
Souray's column solidifed the belief I had that the players are making an error in logic in their whole position.. it was when he said the following:

"It makes sense that if we miss this year, the owners will be sitting there in September saying, "We've got to get a deal to get this season started."

What Souray's, and what seems to be 51% of the PA dont seem to understand is that the owners will not suddenly turn and say "Oh no! We've got to start playing in order to make money". Theyre not the old owners from 1994... theyre multi-billionaires... theyre major multinational corporations... in some cases theyre a conglomorate of minority owners with minor stakes in it.

The Fatal error Souray and players are making is that, instead of the incorrect prediction of the owners suddenly scrambling to start the season in '06 or '07, they will simply liquify their assets and fold their stake in the franchise. Simply put, they;ll close up shop.

The players dont seem to get that... the owners arent Millionaires... theyre BILLIONaires, as in 1000 times richer, more secure, and much more to lose in a money losing venture, and more willing to leave that venture and find another one that will make them money. Its a business to them... nothing more, nothing less. If its not profitable, theyre not gonna "fold" to lose more money. Nope. If the PA doesnt bend, the only folding that'll happen will be teams or, heaven forbid, the league itself.

Unfortunately, its going to take them 2 or 3 years to realize this. :shakehead
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
no13matssundin said:
Souray's column solidifed the belief I had that the players are making an error in logic in their whole position.. it was when he said the following:

"It makes sense that if we miss this year, the owners will be sitting there in September saying, "We've got to get a deal to get this season started."

What Souray's, and what seems to be 51% of the PA dont seem to understand is that the owners will not suddenly turn and say "Oh no! We've got to start playing in order to make money". Theyre not the old owners from 1994... theyre multi-billionaires... theyre major multinational corporations... in some cases theyre a conglomorate of minority owners with minor stakes in it.

The Fatal error Souray and players are making is that, instead of the incorrect prediction of the owners suddenly scrambling to start the season in '06 or '07, they will simply liquify their assets and fold their stake in the franchise. Simply put, they;ll close up shop.

The players dont seem to get that... the owners arent Millionaires... theyre BILLIONaires, as in 1000 times richer, more secure, and much more to lose in a money losing venture, and more willing to leave that venture and find another one that will make them money. Its a business to them... nothing more, nothing less. If its not profitable, theyre not gonna "fold" to lose more money. Nope. If the PA doesnt bend, the only folding that'll happen will be teams or, heaven forbid, the league itself.

Unfortunately, its going to take them 2 or 3 years to realize this. :shakehead


I wouldn't think the owners would ever fold because they have so much money invested in their respective franchises. For example, the new owner of the Sabres just bought the team two years ago for $70 million. Folding it now is essentially throwing away $70 million.
The owners are conducting this lockout not so much to boost their annual bottom line, but to improve the long-term prospects of their investment and the overall health of the league. Right now - because so many are losing money, labor disputes and declining fan interest - most NHL teams aren't worth spit compared to teams in other sports. But get cost-certainty, build a more balanced playing field and make the product more attractive for fans - a la the NFL - and watch those franchise values soar.
 

no13matssundin

Registered User
May 16, 2004
2,870
0
CarlRacki said:
I wouldn't think the owners would ever fold because they have so much money invested in their respective franchises. For example, the new owner of the Sabres just bought the team two years ago for $70 million. Folding it now is essentially throwing away $70 million.
The owners are conducting this lockout not so much to boost their annual bottom line, but to improve the long-term prospects of their investment and the overall health of the league. Right now - because so many are losing money, labor disputes and declining fan interest - most NHL teams aren't worth spit compared to teams in other sports. But get cost-certainty, build a more balanced playing field and make the product more attractive for fans - a la the NFL - and watch those franchise values soar.

I dont mean to sound condecending, but thats where you, and the players, are wrong. They liquify their assets and make up the majority of their losses by selling them to bidders (arena, franchise naming rights). Its been done before and just because the three letters N, H & L are involved by no means it cant happen to the League. Remember, we have many owners in the NHL whose franchise is nothing more than an add on to a bigger pie... in Atlanta, the franchise is a small piece of a conglomorates' pie... Illich's primary money maker is his Little Caeser's empire... Walmart's owners holds a majority stake in a NHL franchise and if you think THEY do well with losing money, then youre dead wrong.... Leonosis has AOL... MLSE is a teacher's pension... Ducks' are owned by Disney... and on it goes. These teams are nothing more than "divisions" or a larger encorporation. And when youre a multi-billion dollar entity, divisions that lose money, investments that have no long or short term return, are cut off. Truth is that liquifying assets produces a great deal of money... much more than holding onto assets that arent producing any money.

Welcome to the new reality of the doom of the NHL... IF the players continue to do what theyre doing. The sad thing is, as ive said, theyre not gonna get it until teams start folding and the league begins to dissolve. Like the folks on the beaches in the Tsunami zone, they cant see how big the wave is until its too late.

(P.S. no offense intended in using the Tsunami as a example)
 

grego

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
2,390
97
Saskatchewan
The owners if the players decertify should make the players negotiatiate assuming a 40 hour work week.

At $100/ hr ( these are special guys they say ) * 40 hours + 52 weeks in the year

= 208, 000

That is a pretty good wage, so I think that could be a superstar in the league.

Maybe set minimum wage at about $20. That isn't too uncommon in a union

$20 * 40 * 52 = $41600

Yeah the players are making money now.

Who can argue that $20 starting wage is a bad thing. And to make up to $100 is pretty good.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
djhn579 said:
Thanks for finally answering my question! (Post 45 of this thread)



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...

Kind of like the governemnts we elect under the representative democracy model.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
no13matssundin said:
I dont mean to sound condecending, but thats where you, and the players, are wrong. They liquify their assets and make up the majority of their losses by selling them to bidders (arena, franchise naming rights). Its been done before and just because the three letters N, H & L are involved by no means it cant happen to the League. Remember, we have many owners in the NHL whose franchise is nothing more than an add on to a bigger pie... in Atlanta, the franchise is a small piece of a conglomorates' pie... Illich's primary money maker is his Little Caeser's empire... Walmart's owners holds a majority stake in a NHL franchise and if you think THEY do well with losing money, then youre dead wrong.... Leonosis has AOL... MLSE is a teacher's pension... Ducks' are owned by Disney... and on it goes. These teams are nothing more than "divisions" or a larger encorporation. And when youre a multi-billion dollar entity, divisions that lose money, investments that have no long or short term return, are cut off. Truth is that liquifying assets produces a great deal of money... much more than holding onto assets that arent producing any money.

Welcome to the new reality of the doom of the NHL... IF the players continue to do what theyre doing. The sad thing is, as ive said, theyre not gonna get it until teams start folding and the league begins to dissolve. Like the folks on the beaches in the Tsunami zone, they cant see how big the wave is until its too late.

(P.S. no offense intended in using the Tsunami as a example)

First, you're incorrect in assuming I'm pro-PA.
Second, it doesn't matter that the owners have millions of dollars from other revenue streams. $70 million (one of the least valuable franchises) is still $70 million and they're not going to throw it away because the players association is giving them headaches.
Third, why would the owners divest themselves of the assets you name? With or without the NHL, Bill Wirtz isn't going to sell his share of the United Center (as an example). And whatever assets an owner could liquidate would pale in comparison to what the franchise would be worth in a healthy NHL. In this case, the whole is worth far more than the sum of its parts.
This is a simple matter of the owners having equity in something of value. Think of it like a house. Let's say you buy a house for $200,000 then find all sorts of problems with it that. Do you tear it down and sell the old materials for $50,000? Or do you invest a little more money in it to fix it up and make it worth $250,000 five years from now when it's time to sell. What you're suggesting is that the owners to walk away from their $200,000 house rather than deal with the problem of fixing it. It won't happen.
 

grego

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
2,390
97
Saskatchewan
But under the idea of the house you said.

If it cost you $5000 to $20 000 in repair to the house.

Some teams are losing up to 20 million on a 200 million investment ( not sure what team cost that much but it is the number you used, I know some are worth that )

There is a time where it is best to take a picture of the house, think of the memories and then use a wrecking ball to destroy it.

The NHLPA has no interest in helping to correct the problem. So what else can the owners do in this situation. Continue to see more and more money lost on the team.
Who cares if you own a 200 K house if it costs you up to a tenth of its value to keep it. That is called a losing investment. And even the most flattering report on the NHL, which based their figures on random guesses and no books. Stated the NHL was a bad investment

The best fiscal move, honestly, is to fold many teams in the league. This would include most of the teams in Canada also, and to shrink the leage to about a 12 to 16 team league. Essentially only any city where you could support a salary of $40 million or more withough losing.

Any other team would have to go from the league. To me an NHL that small is useless, and I would rather see the league die then shrivel to that size.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
PecaFan said:
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.

The NFLPA decertified in 1987 to win free agency.

Both the NBAPA and MLBPA have threatened decertification during negotiations and the owners backed off.

Here is how it worked in the NFL situation. This is taken from Paul Weiler's course material in his sports law course taught at Harvard Law school (a copy of his book "Levelling the Playing Field" - one of his 30 odd books he has published over the years). Weiler is one of the pre-eminent labour lawyers in the US specializing in sports and entertainment law and is a Canadian lawyer who taught a law school at Univesity of Toronto and was head of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board before being seduced by the bright lights of Boston in 1978. His brother Joe teaches sports law at the University of British Columbia law school.

See pages 108 to 110:
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/educators/pdf/weilex.pdf
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
HF2002 said:
Sure they can. One of the posts from Wetcoaster talks about this very scenario, so unless I'm misreading it, they absolutely can.

A person is entitled to hire whoever he wants to act as his own counsel, and they can also get together as a group and hire someone to represent them as a group. They'll just hire Goodenow and Saskin to act as their legal counsel. Of course, they'll have a enormous task to represent the players as a group, and it's likely that not every player will go into this group. Who do you think will be able to get contracts signed more quickly? Guys being represented by someone other than Goodenow or a guy/group being represented by Goodenow?

Yes that is precisely what the NFLPA did when it decertified. See my post above regarding the intricaies of that dispute as et out by Harvard law professor Paul Weiler.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Quantas said:
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.
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.

Because it is generally considered a weapon of last resort.

It has been used by the NFLPA in 1987 and it took 6 years for things to shake out with all the court cases.

That may or may not get the NHL owners to impasse. If they are wrong the financial penalties could be horrendous.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Wetcoaster said:
The NFLPA decertified in 1987 to win free agency.

See pages 108 to 110:
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/educators/pdf/weilex.pdf

Great. The owners caved (even though the legal outcome was in question) and the players "won" free agency.

I'm sure this is highly relevant, if the NHLPA didn't already have free agency. :)

You've got completely different groups, in completely different sports, in completely different financial situations, fighting over completely different issues. And armed with the knowledge of the mistakes of the past.

It still fails the "if it was so good, why haven't they done it already" test. The rational explanation is that it was a highly dangerous course of action that happened to work out for them, because the owners caved.

Good book reference though, have to give you credit for that. Interesting to see that the last CBA was voted 17 to 8 in favour. A huge chunk of the knew from the beginning just how bad the last CBA was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->