Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Chilly Willy*, Mar 16, 2005.
Wow an NHL player that understands...amazing
I was about to say the same about him. He really should cross (probably be one of the best available and command a nice contract as a result), and maybe he will even though he says he won't now. But nice to see a player make sense about this.
Yep, the NHL players can't blame the replacements for crossing. Legace knows it first hand how hard it is to wait for your chance. It will give them a chance to earn a bit of money to help pay some of that mortgage and whatever else. But it would not help them much in terms of securing future NHL jobs, they would still be unproven against the top players.
The only possible complaint by NHLPA members would be against the owners hiring the replacements, and against the crossing NHLPA members.
Translation: Legace will cross as will at least 50% of his union brothers.
well thats an interesting translation of this quote:
I imagine most NHLers feel as Legace does. But I could also understand it being a tough decision for some guys. Guys like Pothier on Ottawa, fighting to establish themselves, i dont think i'd be too upset at a guy like him making a tough choice. But any player that has earned over a million dollars net from hockey, i would be expecting to stick together.
This is now the battle the lockout is aboot imo. Its been quite clear from day one that the NHLs strategy has been to create this chaos. THey have no intention of negotiating a fair deal that can work, only imposing their way as if its the only way. Owners are going to insult us with a season long CBC-Making the Cut, and see what happens. If the players stick together, meh, they tried, no one is hurt as far as they are concerned.
It's rather obvious that Legace, as a NHLPA representative, is taking the diplomatic route rather than deliberately inflame the situation.
Ask Joe Montana how it affected him when he walked across the so-called picket line in 1987 !!! We will see.....
As a met fan, I always stuck up for Rick Reed, never begrudged him anything, actually respected him for playing....
shanahan recently said the same thing as legace.
Legace is a scab, playing in Russia. So yeah, he can't point the finger at replacements in NHL
Do you have any idea what a scab player is? Maybe you should do a little research before you look like even more of a fool.
Their carears are short enough, even those making 5-10 million will lose that revenue if they strike or don't cross - and even if the they play in Europe or a minor league like the WHA - they wont get a sniff of large dollar contracts. That is a lot of money to give up (even if you can afford to sit out, why lose an extra year on the contract?). They will never see contracts like this again and most players will only get 1 big contract over the course of the carear.
Keep in mind that the teams would still have to honor the contract signed under the previous CBA. Current UFAs are the only ones who have no reason to cross, but again, they will likely make more in the NHL then other leagues.
Well, please tell me, what is a scab? In my opinion Legace is a scab, and I'm from Europe.
A scab is someone who replaces a striking worker. There isn't a strike in Russia, Sweden, Germany, Finland, etc.
Not everyone accepts the "union supporter" definition of scab.
As I've said before, say there's an ongoing lockout in the NHL:
(1) Player Smith goes to work for X. Player Jones, formerly of X is out of a job.
(2) Player Jones goes to work for Y. Player Smith, formerly of Y is out of a job.
Now, which one is the "acceptable" just competing for jobs situation, and which one is the "he's the scum of the earth, the lowest of the low, he's a SCAB!!" situation?
They're *IDENTICAL* until I label X as Detroit Red Wings, and Y as MoDo. Then suddenly we attach different meaning to one vs the other? In fact, they could literally swap jobs, each taking the job the other used to have, and one would be just a good little foot soldier, the other a worthless human being. Totally non-sensical.
Ok, my bad indeed...scab wasn't in my vocabulary.
A "scab" is anyone who takes work from another by crossing a legal picket. The only thing stopping players, displaced by locked out NHL'ers, from maintaining thier jobs is thier ability.
The NHL has failed in it's attempt's to negotiate with the NHLPA due to it's own heavy handed tactics. So far threats haven't worked. The NHL has tried to dictate MASSIVE retractions in players rights and thier ability to negotiate compensation for services rendered. The only concessions they have offered was to reduce the amounts to be taken from the players.
But of course, it's only a one-way street, right?
IE, if you cross the line from inside to outside, that's ok. But if you cross it from outside to inside, then you're a "scab".
Hypocritical union BS.
Wrong, by working in Europe etc they are not crossing any picket, your arguement is flawed. Unfortunately for those displaced the NHL has created a much larger pool of Free Agents for the lesser leagues to draw from.
I understand your resentment that the players have resisted the screams of some fans by maintaining thier skills and at least some semblance of an income playing for nickels and thus prolonging the dispute. I miss NHL hockey too.
Both sides have held too many cards to thier chests during the negotiations, miscalculating the others resolve. It truly sucks.
There are also no replacement players right now. We were talking about a future hypothetical NHL, where there were replacement players and picket lines.
And while there are no physical picket lines at this moment, there is a work stoppage. There could be picket lines, if the players could actually force themselves to act like an actual union (as hard to imagine as that is). So if the players put up a picket line tomorrow, all the players in Europe will quit? HA HA HA.
My point stands. The union are hypocrites, in that they allow one way traffic. You can pass through a work stoppage/picket line from inside to outside and you're a union darling, go the other way, and you're a scab.
I would think if the players are striking and playing in Europe, they wouldnt be worried about or challenging scabs playing in the NHL. They would readily allow that two-way traffic.
That's not hypocritical at all! The NHL is trying to force the players to accept a deal by blackmailing them with economic hardship. All unions expect you to man your share of pickets if you want your strike pay, if you can do something to mitigate the damage your employer is inflicting on you by working that's just swell.
It's all very easy to sit on the outside and call them hypocites but they have mortgage payments due as well. BTW that is exactly the point of the picket: to impede the flow of replacement workers and to draw public attention to the cause.
Filling in a position temporarily while displacing the original worker = scab
Therefore any NHL player in Europe is a scab. They have no intention of staying. Also they are worse than scabs in that prices for the fans will increase, so maybe you're right, we should call them leeches. Sound better?
Main Entry: 1scab
Etymology: Middle English, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Swedish skabbr scab; akin to Old English sceabb scab, Latin scabere to scratch -- more at SHAVE
1 : scabies of domestic animals
2 : a crust of hardened blood and serum over a wound
3 a : a contemptible person b (1) : a worker who refuses to join a labor union (2) : a union member who refuses to strike or returns to work before a strike has ended (3) : a worker who accepts employment or replaces a union worker during a strike (4) : one who works for less than union wages or on nonunion terms4 : any of various bacterial or fungus diseases of plants characterized by crustaceous spots; also : one of the spots