Leipold" "Foreigners can be replacement players"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
Thunderstruck said:
but your post is based on the assumption that the NHL makes its move after the European's have been signed and that no PA members would cross.

I'm not sure either assumption has any merit.

Everything I write have merit. The NHL should have made it move two month ago. I would say that 50 % of all players without contracts have signed extensions or with other teams already. In another 6 weeks all players will have signed.

If the drives in Nascar was looked out, would the owners bring in cab drivers from NY? :lol :lol :lol
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
PecaFan said:
Wetcoaster reads that and says "Nope. It cannot happen".
Actually Wetcoaster posts quite a bit more than "Nope. It cannot happen"

Based on statements like this:

MarkTinordi24 said:
If replacement players are brought in then I guarantee you players will cross the line and all it takes is guys like NHL versions of Howie Long and Joe Montana to do so and their teammates will follow suit.

OTTSENS said:
Come next October it will be GAME ON. And I predict that the attendance will be around 50% to 75% full capacity. It's the only way this thing will get settle one way or the other. .

...it seems like the Betteman-lovers are a bit more "black only" wouldn't you say???
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
MarkTinordi24 said:
Lets assume 75% attendance!!! Lets also assume you give replacement players 50% of the salaries NHL players would otherwise have (HUGE ASSUMPTION HERE AS most would get a fraction of the 1.8 mil average!!)....To me you'd cut costs tremendously since player salaries are about 75% of revenues.
You're leaving out the other component.. Ticket price. Do you really believe that fans will be willing to pay $25-$150 to see guys that they payed $10-$30 to see in a different jersey? Fans aren't going to pay full price to see CHL/ECHL/UHL level talent. Even STH's wanting to maintain their senority will demand some concessions from the teams to make up for a boring product being played by marginal players..

75% attendance at 50% of normal ticket costs works out to 37.5% of original revenues... If player costs drop by 50% (your number) and revenues drop by 62.5%, owners are in a huge world of hurt..
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
EndBoards said:
You're leaving out the other component.. Ticket price. Do you really believe that fans will be willing to pay $25-$150 to see guys that they payed $10-$30 to see in a different jersey? Fans aren't going to pay full price to see CHL/ECHL/UHL level talent. Even STH's wanting to maintain their senority will demand some concessions from the teams to make up for a boring product being played by marginal players..

75% attendance at 50% of normal ticket costs works out to 37.5% of original revenues... If player costs drop by 50% (your number) and revenues drop by 62.5%, owners are in a huge world of hurt..


Until you provide a link stating there'd be no drop in ticket prices in a replacement league, you're making things up and can't be respected in this argument.
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
nomorekids said:
Until you provide a link stating there'd be no drop in ticket prices in a replacement league, you're making things up and can't be respected in this argument.
No link necessary. The assumption is built into MarkTinordi24's post. He assumes that 75% attendance = 75% of past revenue. The only way for that to happen is if prices remain at past levels. My point is that his assumption is faulty.

The assumption that prices would go down is based on solid reasoning. If you would like, you can dig up a poll that I created on this board that shows a majority of respondents not willing to pay full price to see replacements - in spite of the decidedly pro-owner/pro-replacement slant on here.
 

Tinordi24*

Guest
EndBoards said:
No link necessary. The assumption is built into MarkTinordi24's post. He assumes that 75% attendance = 75% of past revenue. The only way for that to happen is if prices remain at past levels. My point is that his assumption is faulty.

The assumption that prices would go down is based on solid reasoning. If you would like, you can dig up a poll that I created on this board that shows a majority of respondents not willing to pay full price to see replacements - in spite of the decidedly pro-owner/pro-replacement slant on here.

I also assumed replacement players would on average make 900K which would be pretty much over the top. More realistically it would be 150k-250k.

Also the owners, even if they lost money, would be losing less money than not playing.

Also it would only be temporary as the players would smash thru those gates before pro NHLPAers could come up with justifications as to why they did so!

I could see it now...Wetcoaster saying "Its because they took LINKAGE off the table!!"
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
MarkTinordi24 said:
I also assumed replacement players would on average make 900K which would be pretty much over the top. More realistically it would be 150k-250k.

Also the owners, even if they lost money, would be losing less money than not playing.

Also it would only be temporary as the players would smash thru those gates before pro NHLPAers could come up with justifications as to why they did so!

I could see it now...Wetcoaster saying "Its because they took LINKAGE off the table!!"


Exactly. Yes...prices would go down...but so would the bills. You can't compare a system in which fans pay 125 dollars to see 3 million dollar players and the debt created...to a system in which they might pay at most 50 dolalrs to see 150,000 dollar players. The prices would go down...and so would the payrolls.
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
MarkTinordi24 said:
I also assumed replacement players would on average make 900K which would be pretty much over the top. More realistically it would be 150k-250k.

MarkTinordi24 said:
Also it would only be temporary as the players would smash thru those gates before pro NHLPAers could come up with justifications as to why they did so
Please explain how both of these things can be true.

Point being - if PA members are going to cross, there has to be more incentive than an average salary of $250,000...
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
nomorekids said:
Exactly. Yes...prices would go down...but so would the bills. You can't compare a system in which fans pay 125 dollars to see 3 million dollar players and the debt created...to a system in which they might pay at most 50 dolalrs to see 150,000 dollar players. The prices would go down...and so would the payrolls.
Drop the emotional attachment that you have to the idea replacements and think it through.

First off, non-player costs will not drop. They'll still need the same trainers, coaches, transportation, equipment, facilities, and staff.

Second, based on the NHL's own proposals, a the idea of $150,000 salaries paid to replacements is entirely unrealistic. In order to get replacements in the first place, the league has to prepare a comprehensive (i.e. complete - all I's dotted and T's crossed) CBA, implement it, and operate under it.

Again, the 62.5% drop in revenues (based on 75% attendance, 50% ticket price) applied to the Levitt report's $1.996B in revenue works out to new league revenues of $748 million. Consider the following two scenarios..

Scenario #1: The league formalizes and implements the $39MM non-linked cap proposal that was offered before the cancellation of the season.

Since salary caps are magnets (as Mr. Bettman claims) all teams will have a payroll of oh, say $37MM. $37MM divided between 690 players works out to an average salary of $1.6 million.

Scenario #2: league formalizes a 55% linked cap proposal..

Based on the $748 million in revenues assumed above: 55% of that is $411 million, split between 690 players works out to an average salary of $596,000 - not $150,000 like you guys are thinking..

Now, take it a step further...
Using $775 million in non-player operating costs from the Levitt report:
Scenario #1 results in total costs of $1.885B and a loss of $1.137B ($38M per team)
Scenario #2 results in total costs of $1.186B and a loss of $438M ($14.6M per team)
According to the Levitt report, losses in 2003 were $273M ($9.1M per team)

Using the league's own proposals and logic, they lose MORE money with replacement players.
 

Munchausen

Guest
EndBoards said:
Scenario #1: The league formalizes and implements the $39MM non-linked cap proposal that was offered before the cancellation of the season.

Since salary caps are magnets (as Mr. Bettman claims) all teams will have a payroll of oh, say $37MM. $37MM divided between 690 players works out to an average salary of $1.6 million.

I'm sorry but to say your argument here is weak really is an understatement (BTW, 39M? It was 42.5M last time I checked). The cap acts as a magnet? That's it? That's your argument? It may be so when they pay NHLers NHL money, but it certainly ain't so for replacement players. The only minimum player salary the owners would be forced to comply with under an imposed CBA is the league minimum salary.

You might have noticed also that in the NHL's last offer, there was no floor. There might be a reason for this. Sure the owners will tell you they aren't focusing on the replacement option, but they sure as hell made sure they covered their asses every step of the way in case it gets there.

Finally, do the owners really care if they play at a loss for a little while if they beleive this will destroy the union? The idea here is not to make a profit, it's to bring back the biggest number of fans in the arena to put pressure on the PA, not make a profit out of replacement hockey.

I don't think you could see replacement hockey for one full year. The whole idea about replacement players is so some NHLers start to cross the picket line either because they're in financial trouble or because they disagree with their union's position. That leads to the players caving.

On the other hand, if replacements are used and half a season is played without a significant number of NHLers crossing, the owners will likely have to call it a day and cave to the players' demands.

The replacement player strategy is the biggest and riskiest game of chicken the two sides could end up playing, but at least that's one where we're sure one of the two sides will ultimately raise the white flag.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Munchausen said:
I don't think you could see replacement hockey for one full year. The whole idea about replacement players is so some NHLers start to cross the picket line either because they're in financial trouble or because they disagree with their union's position. That leads to the players caving.

On the other hand, if replacements are used and half a season is played without a significant number of NHLers crossing, the owners will likely have to call it a day and cave to the players' demands.

The replacement player strategy is the biggest and riskiest game of chicken the two sides could end up playing, but at least that's one where we're sure one of the two sides will ultimately raise the white flag.

I disagree. I think it will depend on how many NHLers cross AND of the success the replacement players have. If the replacement players bring in decent attendance figures and muster enough interest, they'll keep on the whole year even if no NHLers cross.

Now, I'm not saying they will be popular year long, but I couldn't say otherwise either. Look at the success of some AHL teams in Canada. People want to see hockey, regardless of the names on the back of the sweater. In the US, fans don't know the game and the names that much, so will it really do a big impact on those markets to have replacement players? As long as the NHL can market the game and build some hype to it, they should do okay.
 

Munchausen

Guest
Smail said:
I disagree. I think it will depend on how many NHLers cross AND of the success the replacement players have. If the replacement players bring in decent attendance figures and muster enough interest, they'll keep on the whole year even if no NHLers cross.

Now, I'm not saying they will be popular year long, but I couldn't say otherwise either. Look at the success of some AHL teams in Canada. People want to see hockey, regardless of the names on the back of the sweater. In the US, fans don't know the game and the names that much, so will it really do a big impact on those markets to have replacement players? As long as the NHL can market the game and build some hype to it, they should do okay.

That's the optimistic way to look at it. I'd rather assume conservatively that replacement players truly are a last card kind of solution and a do or die one at that. Because just as much as I beleive the fans, if we take into account every poll that has been made so far regarding allegiances, will indeed come back in great number at low ticket prices to make a point and support their teams more than the players on it, sooner or later, over an extended period of time, they will start to lose interest for an inferior type of hockey and fall into indifference again. That might be what the players are counting on too. Lots of intangibles here.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
transplant99 said:
He better check with an legal expert on this - say Washington Capital's immigration law advisor.

Jonathan Avirom, managing partner of Avirom & Associates in New York City is the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). His firm specializes in every facet of immigration and in securing visas, including for entertainers and athletes.

He has assisted hundreds of NHL players in securing work visas and has been immigration counsel to the Washington Capitals for the last four years.

"The Department of Labor and Immigration under Homeland Security have always said that if there is a labor dispute, they would freeze the process," Avirom said.

The immigration prohibition on hiring foreign workers during a labour dispute is absolute. There is no discretion, no weighing of econimic impact, number of foreign workers usually employed there, etc. Labour dispute = no work visas.

The same law applies in Canada.

It has already happened once during the ECHL labour dispute when US immigration closed the border to foreign players destined to the ECHL and cancelled the existing work visas.
Immigration laws another potential roadblock if NHL opts for impasse

Allen Panzeri
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, January 15, 2005

It is called, by the union for minor-league hockey players, which used it two years ago, the "immigration" card.

It is also one the National Hockey League Players' Association would likely play if the NHL tried to restart with replacement players.

Of all the legal hoops the NHL would have to jump through before it could get its impasse -- the first step in unilaterally setting its own terms and restarting with replacement players -- the ones it probably won't get through are immigration laws in Canada and the United States.

Neither country will issue work visas to workers who are coming to take the jobs of those on strike or involved in labour disputes, and that includes hockey players.

Such regulations would effectively shrink what is otherwise a global talent pool.

Only United States residents would be able to work for U.S.-based teams, while only Canadian residents would be able to work for Canadian-based teams.

Using these immigration regulations was successful for the Professional Hockey Players' Association, which represents American Hockey League and East Coast Hockey League players, in contract talks with the ECHL two years ago.

Eight weeks before the start of the 2003-2004 season, the PHPA struck.

Association executive director Larry Landon said the strategy was taken in an "effort to create an environment that would get the teams back to the table."

The PPHA had to jump through several legal hoops with the National Labour Relations Board and the U.S. Department of Labour.

However, once the strike was certified, the border was effectively shut. The U.S. would not issue work visas to those hoping to come in as replacement workers, would not extend visas and would rescind visas that had already been issued.

The strategy worked. The league came back to the table.

The strike lasted seven weeks, but the season opened on schedule.

"As it turned out, we got the deal done," Landon said. "By closing the border and going around the clock, we got the deal done."

Because that immigration card is available to play, Landon doesn't believe the NHL will declare an impasse, not to mention that such a move would alienate the players.

"The NHL keeps saying it wants a partnership with the players," Landon said. "Why, then, would you divorce your partner before you get married?"

Also, since everyone who plays in the AHL and the ECHL is a card-carrying member of the PHPA, anyone who crosses the line as a replacement player would be offending two unions.
Mr. Leopold appears to not have a clue about this issue.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
Unless of course the NHL lawyers have found a loophole.
It is a statutory bar. There are no loopholes in US or Canadian immigration law. Labour dispute = no work visas or permits.

I suppose the law could be changed but that seems highly unlikely and takes a fair period of time.
 

SPARTAKUS*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
It is a statutory bar. There are no loopholes in US or Canadian immigration law. Labour dispute = no work visas or permits.

I suppose the law could be changed but that seems highly unlikely and takes a fair period of time.

So tell me something. If impasse is so difficult to obtain why then does it exixt? Why not just make it illegal. But it does exixt doesn't it ? So it must be for a reason. You make it sound like it is something that is almost impossible to do?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
ceber said:
I swear I remember reading something about someone in Montreal government saying that the law restricting replacements had specific wording exempting professional sports teams. I can't find it now, unfortunately.

Seems like the law is rarely black and white, especially when it comes to business. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some very smart lawyers believe there are few barriers to replacement players in all 30 markets. They still might be wrong, though.
The report dealt with the fact that the NHLPA is not certified as the bargaining agent for the players in Quebec and normally that means that the Labour code would not apply.

However there is an exception under labour law to that general rule called "voluntary recognition". Where an employer has voluntarily recognized the union as the bargaining agent and the employees have accepted the union as their representative, then a certification vote is not needed and the labour code applies.

In this case the NHL recognized the NHLPA as the exclusive bargaining and put that acceptance in writing in previous CBA's. This is what the last CBA said in its preamble:
NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement
Preamble

This Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA" or
"Agreement"), which is the product of bona fide, arm's length
collective bargaining, is entered into effective the 13th day of
January, 1995, by and between the National Hockey League, a joint
venture organized as a not-for-profit unincorporated association
("NHL" or "League"), which is recognized as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of the present and future
Clubs of the NHL, and the National Hockey League Players'
Association ("NHLPA" or "Association"), which is recognized as
the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of present and
future players in the NHL.
The NHL and the NHLPA hereafter shall
be referred to collectively as "the parties". This CBA, together
with all Exhibits hereto, supersedes and replaces all prior CBA's
and Memoranda of Understanding between the parties.

This exception applies in all provinces including BC which also has a ban on replacemnt players. here is how the BC Labour relations Board explains "voluntary recogntion" in its published "Guide to the Code" used by management and union labour law practioners:
If a group of employees wants to be represented by a union, the Code provides the means for that union to be legally recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent for those employees. This recognition is called “certification†and carries with it certain rights and obligations. The union acquires the right to bargain with the employer on behalf of the employees it represents (the bargaining unit) and, on their behalf, to enter into a collective agreement setting out the terms and conditions of their employment. In return for that right, the union has the duty to represent all of the employees in the bargaining unit in a manner which is not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, whether or not those employees are members of the union.

Even where a union has not sought certification under the Code, an employer may agree to acknowledge the union as bargaining agent for the employees and to conclude a collective agreement with the union. This is called voluntary recognition. In such cases the union will normally have the same rights and be subject to the same obligations under the Code as a certified union. The Board, however, must be satisfied that the voluntary recognition has been approved by the employees affected.

Many pepole including reporters have confused these issues and have not considered the exception of "voluntary recognition" to the general certification of a bargaining agent requirement.

I have worked with immigration law for over 30 years. The bar on foreign nationals getting work visas or permits during a labour dispute is absolute in Canada and the US. There is no discretion in the immigration law as written.

A very smart immigration lawyer (one of the best in the US) sees no way around this and he advises one of the NHL teams. Jonathan Avirom, managing partner of Avirom & Associates in New York City is the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). His firm specializes in every facet of immigration and in securing visas, including for entertainers and athletes. He has assisted hundreds of NHL players in securing work visas and has been immigration counsel to the Capitals for the last four years.

"The Department of Labor and Immigration under Homeland Security have always said that if there is a labor dispute, they would freeze the process," Avirom said.

Pretty clear.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
triggrman said:
I thought that neither Montreal nor BC recongnized the NHLPA as a union.
They are recognized as a union but they have not been formally certified as the bargaining agent. Which is immaterial in any event since the NHL has previously recognized the NHLPA so certification is not required.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
OTTSENS said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster
It is a statutory bar. There are no loopholes in US or Canadian immigration law. Labour dispute = no work visas or permits.

I suppose the law could be changed but that seems highly unlikely and takes a fair period of time.


So tell me something. If impasse is so difficult to obtain why then does it exixt? Why not just make it illegal. But it does exixt doesn't it ? So it must be for a reason. You make it sound like it is something that is almost impossible to do?

It's not that the impasse itself is too dificult to obtain (we'll ignore those pesky NLRB issues for now), it's the immigration issues with using foreign workers during a labor dispute.

If a steel mill (for example) manages to declare an impasse, it has no problems hiring replacement workers - as long as they are Americans (or Canadians for a Canadian mill) or legal residents. The same applies to the NHL.

The problem is that the NHL teams (unlike the steel mill) are not using domestic workers currently, but will be limited to using them as replacements.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
kdb209 said:
It's not that the impasse itself is too dificult to obtain (we'll ignore those pesky NLRB issues for now), it's the immigration issues with using foreign workers during a labor dispute.

If a steel mill (for example) manages to declare an impasse, it has no problems hiring replacement workers - as long as they are Americans (or Canadians for a Canadian mill) or legal residents. The same applies to the NHL.

The problem is that the NHL teams (unlike the steel mill) are not using domestic workers currently, but will be limited to using them as replacements.


Keep in mind how many players have dual citizenship, though...even in the minor leagues.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
PecaFan said:
Heh. Was thinking that myself. :lol

Wetcoaster has some good info, but he's just so "black only" (as opposed to seeing everything in black & white). For example, he quotes Avirom who says "There are a lot of complicated regulations and there are always visa issues" in regards to replacements.

To me, I read that and see that it will be a complicated matter getting replacement players up and running, and there will be issues with getting visas. Insurmountable issues? He doesn't say that at all.

Wetcoaster reads that and says "Nope. It cannot happen".

There's just no acknowledgement whatsoever that issues can be worked around, and that the law isn't as black and white as he likes to portray.
No I say it because I have actually worked with immigration law for 30 years. I have had clients arrested who worked for employers involved in a labour dispute using what they thought were valid work permits. They were ordered out of Canada by an Immigration Adjudicator.

In the case of the NHL if there is a labour dispute foreign nationals may not be used as replacement players. The reason it is black is that it is black letter law.
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
Smail said:
In the US, fans don't know the game and the names that much, so will it really do a big impact on those markets to have replacement players? As long as the NHL can market the game and build some hype to it, they should do okay.

That is such an uninformed, rude comment.

I know plenty of Candians who couldn't name a current NHL player if their life depended on it and yet I know more Americans that could rattle stats off the top of their heads about the top 50 players in the league, the rules of the game, standing etc.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
transplant99 said:
Clearly he has.




Of course you say its not possible...so end of story.

Everyone have that now??
As I said he should check with an immigration lawyer.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
Wetcoaster said:
As I said he should check with an immigration lawyer.


I think it's pretty silly to think that these guys aren't checking with the right people. If they have reason to believe there's a way to do this..they've probably investigated all the alleyways.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
nomorekids said:
Keep in mind how many players have dual citizenship, though...even in the minor leagues.

Some Canadians maybe, but not a lot of Europeans.

Looking forward to the flood of "Green Card" marriages (just joking I know it would still take a time to get residency/citizenship)

Howabout all the American's who flee to Canada and ask for refugee status - I'm from a blue state hockey team and am being persecuted by the evil Bush administartion. Don't you get a work permit then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->