Honest question: Will the PA be better off?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Ar-too, Feb 28, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ar-too

    Ar-too Zealous Scrub

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Messages:
    11,112
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    I'd like to know from some PA supporters if they think they players will be better off financially on the whole after this is all resolved than they would've been if they'd accepted the owners' last offer.

    I understand the players' point of view on the issues, but I think they've done irreparable damage to their earning power throughout this process and the average payroll won't approach what it was last year ever again IMO.
     
  2. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    One would think that rejecting every offer that the NHL put to them and not making a counter offer that was even close to what the league needed that the PA has a plan to win this thing and come out on top.

    Trouble is nobody has a clue about what that plan would involve because I don't see the owners coming up with more of their own money to counter the loss of revenues AND sweeten the last offer they made.
     
  3. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,401
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    The NHLPA thinks it is going to win in the courts .. This CBA deal will not likely be made between the NHL and NHLPA at least not with both leaders in power .

    Goodenow END GAME is to have this go to court .. proving that "Rejecting every offer" was in the best interest of the NHLPA and was in fact not "Good Faith " bargaining on behalf of the NHL ..

    In court the Levitt report will come under scrutiny and be exposed as a Financial Review and not Super Audit as the NHL claims .. The Courts will order its own IRS service to audit the 30 owners books and those books better hold up as accurate or the NHL is in for a lot of trouble and every paper headline reading

    "I told you So" quoting Bob Goodenow ..

    When MLB went to court the NLRB ruled in favour of the PA and the old CBA was re-installed and the Owners Self Imposed CBA thrown out ..

    Goodenow will point to that precedence and ruling in courts by the same NLRB that ruled then and hope that "LIGHTNING STRIKE TWICE" ..
     
  4. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    And if it never ends up in court?
     
  5. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    so, you are saying that he is going to intentionally and willfully refuse to bargain, and then will expect to go into a court room and say that the NHL is solely at fault for not getting the NHLPA to agree to a deal?

    Do you think the NLRB is too stupid to see through something like this and identify it for what it is: bad faith bargaining by the NHLPA...
     
  6. X0ssbar

    X0ssbar Guest

    An intersting theory however I think its just as risky for Goodenow to see this thing end up in court as it is the NHL. If court was the NHL's & NHLPA's end game strategy all along then this thing is way beyond of the point of rationality.

    At this point in the game I think your right as far as this thing utimately getting decided in court (if the two heads aren't replaced first) but I don't neccesarily think an impasse was the ultimate end game strategy for each side primarily b/c of the huge risk factor.
     
  7. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    To my knowledge the IRS only gets involved if there is reason to believe on their part that taxes aren't being paid. They do not exist as some kind of super accounting arm of the government.

    Taking the NHL to court is a huge gamble on the part of the NHLPA because there is the real possibility that the league is telling the truth about the state of their finances. Guys who are making money off of a business aren't liable to shut it down on their own volition.
     
  8. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    16,824
    Likes Received:
    849
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    Not only that but....how does the old CBA get re-instated when the PA has already conceeded that it needs drastic changes (including conceeding to a cap)?

    It isn't just proving the NHL negotiated in bad faith but the PA has to prove they negotiated in good faith from what I understand. How does the PA argue the NHL negotiated in bad faith while they never seriously gave a counter until the clock stuck midnight? How do they rationalize a guarantee of 55-58% of revenues going to players as not being in good faith?

    They are taking a mighty big gamble if they think a MLRB appointed auditor is going to come up with anything different. The PA may also have to explain what sources of hockey revenue are not contained in the URO's that they feel should be there....the discussion the league has wanted from the beginning. Like or not the Levitt report concluded that the URO numbers were accurate. Those numbers included money from affiliated businesses etc. The argument the PA will have to make is what's missing in the revenue streams I think.

    The PA takes just as big a chance in this going to court if not bigger. The owners may get their hands slapped IF they are lying (it should be apparent based on the players using the LEvitt report in their own calculations and offer in December and the owners not caving that they aren't but i digress...). But if the owners get their hands slapped it really wouldn't matter that much to them...it would be an understood risk in going to the NLRB even if they fee their case is excellent. But the players could end up being crushed even more than what it currently looks like they will be.
     
  9. Man this guy is full of it.

    The players are screwed, the longer this goes, the worse it gets for them, the owners don't need a deal signed ever, they're going to be rich no matter what, but at least 50% of the NHLPA need those cheques coming in to support themselves and their families.

    The players will never ever make their money back from this, and the longer it goes, the more they lose.
     
  10. CantHaveTkachev

    CantHaveTkachev Still a joke of a team

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    24,863
    Likes Received:
    1,246
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St. OILbert
    how come the PA refuses to look at the NHL books. they keep saying "the owners are lying!" yet they've not actually proved it.
     
  11. Because they know whats in the books, otherwise they would have looked. If I were the PA, I would dread going to court, because its just going to prove what everybody already knows, and what the PA refuse to acknowledge.

    And I can't understand how there is any sort of trust issues here, the owners have made the players millionaires, the average player is a millionaire, and the owners are writing the cheques, how do you not trust someone who has made you a millionaire ever year?
     
  12. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The more comments that I hear from PA members, the less hope that I have that I will see NHL hockey soon - or that when I do, the current players will be wearing my team's jersey.

    Listening to the radio on the weekend I heard Keith Primeau say that it was 75% the owners fault that the season got cancelled, and that they were all just a bunch of billionaries who don't care about hockey and don't know how to run their team like a business.

    Then Chris Pronger came on and was asked whether there would be NHL hockey in September - he actually laughed and said "With us as players?" He said if he was a betting man he'd go "all in" on no season next year.

    So... after all that has happened these players STILL need a reality cheque. It appears to me from their tone that they are still very confident they they are somehow still going to come out of this on top - whether it is in the courts or not, I do not know.

    The other possibility is that I heard the comments of two veterans who have already made their millions and who really don't care whether they ever play in the NHL again. I know that if I was a young player just breaking into the league I'd be very upset to hear these guys making light of replacement players and such.
     
  13. HockeyCritter

    HockeyCritter Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would force them back to the tables.

    EDIT: Because sometimes my fingers type faster than my brain thinks . . . ::blushing::
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2005
  14. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Well. We are making progress here. At least you are admitting that the NHLPA’s strategy all along was to force the owners into declaring an impasse.

    The IRS is independent from the NLRB. Is the IRS wants to audit any one of the American NHL teams, it can do so at any time.

    I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on this board…but the NLRB would have to determine several things…among which would be…did both sides bargain in good faith. You have just admitted that the NHLPA did not. It is possible the NLRB might see it that way as well.

    Going the impasse/NLRB/court route is risky for both sides. Would the NHLPA get as favorable a ruling as the MBLPA did? Who knows? That is the risk. However, you are wrong to say the ‘same NLRB’ that ruled for MLBPA would rule on this case. I would not bet that any of the people on the NLRB who made the MLB ruling are still there.

    The NLRB will rule on this case on its merits. The NHLPA would be foolish to assume that they will win because MLBPA won.

    One more point…How about dropping the fonts, bolds, and caps junk? If you make your points concisely instead of cutting and pasting page upon page, we will be able to figure out your arguments without you resorting to the message board equivalent of shouting.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2005
  15. HockeyCritter

    HockeyCritter Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    D'oh . . . that's a big nevermind.
     
  16. Hockee

    Hockee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque
    The PA is dead.
     
  17. neelynugs

    neelynugs Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    31,190
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Vote Quimby!
    Home Page:
    i think the messenger just got shot :D :amazed:
     
  18. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,401
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    I realize about the IRS .. That was said for Dramatic effect .. You can correctly insert Court ordered independant 3rd party accounting service to go over the 30 owners books with a fine tooth comb..

    I may have been jumping too far ahead and Mr Wirtz and Mr. Jacobs may hear from that service when the True Super Audit is over and True Revenue's come out ..

    I don't really see it as a big gamble for the NHLPA .. Right now the NHL is really not throwing them a lot of bones to work with and in IMPASSE situation the Owners will implement its own self imposed OWNER Friendly CBA ..

    If the NHLPA wins in court fine .. This is going infront of a Labour board .. these are usually designed to protect the rights of employees, so by definition will be leaning the players side in a restrictive CBA .. as Owners are not Employees but Employers .. and as it baseball tie goes to the runner as it did previously ..

    and if all else fails and Goodenow losses or is lossing can always decertify the Union and set its players free on the NHL in both unfair labour cases or back to work if they chose .. but the Self imposed Owners CBA is again void technically as it was written for this NHLPA and folded those rules would not longer apply .. THen what not sure what happens ..
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2005
  19. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    I must have missed something, because I don't see anything the NHL has done that would be a problem...
     
  20. guymez

    guymez The Seldom Seen Kid

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    20,955
    Likes Received:
    686
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Location:
    Alberta

    The NLRB is not always pro player (employee) as you have stated. The only time it did rule on the side of the players Clinton (a decidedly left leaning president) and the democrats were in power.
    IIRC every other NLRB sports related decision has been pro owner and happened when a Republican was in the whitehouse. George W Bush may well have an indirect influence in this sorted affair, if the impasse route is attempted. I am surprised that you think that the NLRB, with its Bush appointed members, will side with the players.:amazed:
    Time for a reality check.
     
  21. dedalus

    dedalus Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Meh. Ask Mike Modano if he's confident the PA can stand another full year off. His answer will be quite different from that of Chris Pronger's.

    Actually, Chris Pronger will cross the line, too, when he sees 80% of his brethren have surrendered.

    Talk is cheap and the NHLPA issued a lot of it, swearing for the past three years that it would never accept a salary cap nor even a tax that acted like a salary cap (from its perspective).

    We see where all that swagger went when push came to shove.
     
  22. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,401
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    I inserted the word NOT in my previous sentance ..

    I agree to this date they have not done anything wrong technically ..but the really haven't given the CBA a Proposal yet that could be accepted by the NHLPA.

    but this is long from over yet .. The NHL new this year would be lost ..thus the WAR CHEST .. and sadly it had to be .. You can't declare and impasse until time and negotiating and exchange of proposals in good Faith have been exchanged .. but now it starts getting tricky ...

    I firmly believe the best system for the NHL is a System with Linkage .. That way as the Market Fluctuates in Revenue so does the share each side receives while the % remains the same ..

    Right now the NHL took that off the table and if they re-insert it in future proposals then they have to hope the Levitt report was accuarte and the Owners reported correctly .. Accountants would know that was a Review and not an Audit .. and as such the courts would never accept it and rule in favour of Linkage unless trust and the numbers are accurate ..

    So Now what .. If the NHL wants replacement players and its own 35 Mil linkage system then it will need a win in court and that gets tricky .. IMO
     
  23. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    32,638
    Likes Received:
    890
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    Baseball completely screwed up its CBA implementation. Didn't bargain of mandatory items (NHL has), didn't really do much bargaining at all (NHL has).

    I'd rate the NHL chances of impasse solid but not amazing.

    Decertification = admission the union was beaten

    Let's see how it might work out for the NHLPA

    7-8 teams spend $50-80m

    Team like the Nucks and Habs wait until the Rags and Leafs have finished taking all of the best talent for the stacked teams, then step in with offers in the $250K-500K range because they can't win the cup and so won't spend. Bottom market teams suspend.


    I can see it now. Local job in a Vancouver paper

    Wanted 23 hockey players
    Pay $250K-500k
    non-guaranteed contracts
    mandatory 2-way (25% pay if in minors)
    non-disclosure agreements on all contracts
    Please apply in writing to Dave Cobb, Vancouver Canucks.

    That's what the 10-15th best paying team is offering. OUCH! WELCOME TO THE FREE MARKETPLACE MR GOODENOW.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2005
  24. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,401
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Again the ruling has to be based on facts .. We still do not know the final CBA that they will be ruling on so its still speculation right now .. and while I agree that your above statement is true to a point .. The governing party regardless of Repulican or Democrate still needs to rule Fairly by the letter of the law, and a Labour route intent is to protect employee rights, but not to the point of always ruling one way or another ..

    Your statement sounds like regardless of the facts of the case the NLRB will rule in favour of the Owners because of its party affiliation .. That simply is not true .. Inclined maybe ..but then you could say that if the NHL offered a 10 mil Hard Cap and 10% linkage they would still win ...
     
  25. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,401
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    I beg to differ .. The NHL stance was always it needes a Hard cap for Parity and equal opportunity at the Stanley Cup for 30 teams and its last 42.5 proposal had no floor .. (other than min wage 300 -350 k X 23 players ~ 7-10 mil ) .. Well the difference between 42.5 and 10 is 32.5 Mil ..So what is the difference from that and the OLD CBA where a small market team like Phoenix had a 33.0 Mil Salary and the Leafs a 65.0 M Salary .. Still a 32.0 Mil difference in disparity for a Cup .. The numbers are just different .. "Bad Faith" Perhaps !!!

    And if an owner decided to bring up his AHL team and play it as his NHL team nothing would prevent the Current NHLers from such a tactic in the Owners CBA and just took away 23 NHL jobs .. in a tank for a top prospect move ..

    So then an offer of 42.5 mil could in that respect still be questioned in court as being unfair and understandable why it does not address the issue it set out to due ..

    Also the magnet theory of drawing team to the High number will be challenged .. 4-5 straight years Phoenix has never exceeded a 33 mil in an non Cap world and then suddenly under a Cap it now will shoot for or spend 42.5 or 45 .. etc .. "Bad Faith" Perhaps.!!!

    Also look at a team like Boston 95 Mil recorded in Revenue last year, one of the Top teams .. and they are the ones pushing for a 42.5 or lower Cap and are partially responsible for a lost season .. Well if you do the math 95 - 42.5 is not 55% or so of Revenues the league offered in Linkage .. "BAD Faith" Perhaps

    Other issues as well they may have discussed Revenue Sharing but in the last NHL proposal it starts in year one and declines to Zero in year 6 .. The reason again for the Hard Cap is to allow for meaningful revenue sharing for all teams to build up Team Salaries in Small or Non Hockey markets, by help from their friends thus creating better paying jobs and employment for players that are Capped at the Top Team wise and that would leave the weak back to old CBA and affordability.."Bad Faith" Perhaps ..

    Qualifying offers at 75% .. unless there is a off setting Salary Arbitration in place to give the players an avenue to dispute or make sure They are paid fairly and not getting automatic 25% decreases regardless and no avenue but to withhold services to be treated Fairly.. "Good Faith" Perhaps !!!

    The Levitt report itself by nature is flawed as a Review and not Audit to base figures on and as you know then they looked at just 4 teams the NHLPA auditor found a misreported 52 Mil missing in the total Revenue total .. SO that gives merit to the NHL to not accept the Financials as presented and avoid linkage until a system is in place to verify the figures .. " Bad Faith"
    etc etc ..


    A court would have to listen to and rule on each item and any one of a number of items could rule the NHL IMPASSE CBA invalid and in Bad Faith negotiating all depends on the NLRB .. IMO

    Then it comes down to determine if the NHLPA was within its right under labour laws and rightfully never accepted any NHL proposal in light of these issues or others.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2005
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"