Leipold" "Foreigners can be replacement players"

[Other Dave]

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

I'd bet that only a small minority of NHLers have dual citizenship.

 

[kdb209]

I'd bet that only a small minority of NHLers have dual citizenship.

Somewhere Brett Hull is going "Yesss".

 

[Wetcoaster]

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?

A declaration of impasse exists because a US court carved out a small exemption a number of years ago. Because it runs contrary to the stated intent of the NLRA which is promote collectively bargained agreements, the threshhold and requirements are very high and less than 10% of impasse decalarations make it past the NLRB.

It is possible to achieve but very difficult as Major League Baseball discovered. If you have committed an unfair labour parctise (and there are long list of those) or failed to bargain in good faith, you do not get to impasse. In many cases the NLRB rules that there is not an impasse in fact.

If the NHL is wrong and the NLRB does not uphold the declaration of impasse then the financial repercussions and penalties could be enormous. Like paying out the players still under contract, antitrust suits, etc.

 

[Other Dave]

Somewhere Brett Hull is going "Yesss".

That's one out of several hundred. Any others? Let's make a list.

 

[Wetcoaster]

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

Not all that many.

 

[mudcrutch79]

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.

Or he's trying to create confusion and pressure within the union. Look at how Bettman lifted the gag order briefly prior to the season being cancelled. Is there any doubt that that was done for the purpose of having management create pressure with comments to the media?

 

[Other Dave]

No... it's impossible, ask Wetcoaster.

If Wetcoaster's claim is so suspect, why don't you try researching it yourself?

It took me about twenty minutes to find the relevant US statute using only google.

 

[mudcrutch79]

That's one out of several hundred. Any others? Let's make a list.

Yzerman...it's pretty rare, as far as I know. You need a pretty long residency in the US to get citizenship I think.

 

[Mighty Duck]

From todays Tennessean...




http://www.tennessean.com/sports/predators/archives/05/01/66371015.shtml?Element_ID=66371015

Typical American business man, big bully attitude. Just like the softwood issue. Some buddy should help this guy get the paper bag off his head, or out of his wallet.

 

[Wetcoaster]

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.

No that is not the case. Immigration law is very specialized and arcane.

You would be amazed the number of times very good lawyers failed to take immigration considerations into account when advising cleints. I made a very good living cleaning up such messes.

The right person to check with on this issue would be one of the top immigration counsel in the US who happens to advise the Washington Capitals. He is crystal clear. If there is a labour dispute no work visas for foreign nationals.

 

[Wetcoaster]

That's one out of several hundred. Any others? Let's make a list.

Adam Deadmarsh. There are few others but not that many.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Yzerman...it's pretty rare, as far as I know. You need a pretty long residency in the US to get citizenship I think.

You could play if you are a legal US immigrant (Green Card Holder) as well because then you are exempt from the need for a work permit. Same in Canada. That expands the potential pool a little bit.

 

[Mess]

No that is not the case. Immigration law is very specialized and arcane.

You would be amazed the number of times very good lawyers failed to take immigration considerations into account when advising cleints. I made a very good living cleaning up such messes.

The right person to check with on this issue would be one of the top immigration counsel in the US who happens to advise the Washington Capitals. He is crystal clear. If there is a labour dispute no work visas for foreign nationals.

I think this one has teeth ..
Avirom, 66, 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.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/sports/10957160.htm

"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. "In other words, new people who want to play in a sport where they don't have visas, they won't get a visa while the dispute is going on."

To me since 911 and the setting up of Homeland Security ..This organization trumps all other civil and labour rights issues .. For Obvious reasons ..

The way I see it a company in the states to in a work dispute bringing in Foreign replacements could provide a huge loophole to allow the possibility of Terrorists to exploit this .. Homeland security stop the issuing of all Green Cards in a work disputes ..

 

[Wetcoaster]

I think this one has teeth ..
Avirom, 66, 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.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/sports/10957160.htm

"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. "In other words, new people who want to play in a sport where they don't have visas, they won't get a visa while the dispute is going on."

To me since 911 and the setting up of Homeland Security ..This organization trumps all other civil and labour rights issues .. For Obvious reasons ..

The way I see it a company in the states to in a work dispute bringing in Foreign replacements could provide a huge loophole to allow the possibility of Terrorists to exploit this .. Homeland security stop the issuing of all Green Cards in a work disputes ..

This prohibition pre-dates Homeland Security by a number of decades.

There is the same long-standing prohibition under Canadian law - it was there in the 1951 Immigration Act.

 

[YellHockey*]

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.

Or maybe he's just lying since he's trying to keep his season ticket holders. How many would he keep if they knew for sure that the American teams would get dominated by the Canadian teams because he can't play any foreign players?

 

[SuperUnknown]

If Wetcoaster's claim is so suspect, why don't you try researching it yourself?

It took me about twenty minutes to find the relevant US statute using only google.

That's not the point... the point is that every law up to the constitution is arguable and can be argued about. Hence, it's quite possible that the NHL finds a way to have international players as replacement players. Of course, "Wetcoaster" aka MBG (Message Board God) said otherwise, so we better cower in fear...

This is a message board, a place to discuss and showcase your opinion. You can back your opinion all you want, it will never make it the only "truth". There ain't any universal truth. Even old accepted physic "laws" are often put into question. To put forward that your "truth" is the only one is to take God's place and I'm sorry but I laugh at that.

Besides, I don't want to spend the time researching things that matters very so little to me. I come here to exchange ideas and for enjoyment, not to prove my point. I know of Wetcoaster's ideas, I respect them, but I don't always agree with them. He has a way to look at things that is not mine. It's okay like this, the world would be bland if everyone agreed to the same thing. I just don't like his attitude, which is laughable to me (and to others).

Lastly, I just posted this last bit to humor myself, because Wetcoaster has painted himself in a corner and if the NHL were to ever be successful in using international replacement players he'd definately become a "poser" and a "google-genius" more than a "lawyer" as he claims to be. (or maybe a lawyer, but spelled otherwise)

 

[Epsilon]

If immigration law was as easy to bend and change as some on here are desperate to believe, Elian Gonzalez would still be in the United States.

 

[transplant99]

You could play if you are a legal US immigrant (Green Card Holder) as well because then you are exempt from the need for a work permit. Same in Canada. That expands the potential pool a little bit.

See here is where things ARENT so "black letter" as you like to say. This was explained to me a week or so ago by an immigration attorney who is a consultant for minor pro leagues in the US.

The vast majority of pro hockey players in the US that come from Canada dont hold green cards either. They are in the US on H-2 permits.

Also, since its foreign born players taking up these spots to begin with, its now a foreigner replacing a foreigner when it comes to replacement players. Not a foreigner taking up a US citizen's job. Which is part of what the NLRB has to rule on to begin with.

This thing isn't so straight forward as you have been espousing it to be. There are all kinds of circumstances involved with this particular case that the NLRB never usually has to consider when making decisions.

 

[SENSible1*]

Lastly, I just posted this last bit to humor myself, because Wetcoaster has painted himself in a corner and if the NHL were to ever be successful in using international replacement players he'd definately become a "poser" and a "google-genius" more than a "lawyer" as he claims to be. (or maybe a lawyer, but spelled otherwise)

Wettie knows his stuff, but it would be a red letter day around here if the NHL lawyers do have something up the sleeve that proves he was letting his bias get in the way of his presenting a balanced opinion here.

 

[triggrman]

In other words, new people who want to play in a sport where they don't have visas, they won't get a visa while the dispute is going on."

So the players already in the us playing in the ECHL, AHL CHL and UHL could play since they aren't "new"

What about players that have american wives? I know more than a few of our players have married americans and some will be soon (Hartnell)

 

[LordHelmet]

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).

I used $39MM because apparently the owners weren't happy with the offer of $42.5MM. If you'd like to redo the math with a $42.5MM cap, it's even worse for the league.

The cap acts as a magnet? That's it? That's your argument?

No, it's Bettman's 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.

Which was $300,000 - not the $150k that people on here are leading themselves to believe. Run the numbers with every replacement player making $300k...

$300k * 690 = $207MM + $775MM = $982MM in operating costs.
$748MM and $982MM in costs = a loss of $234MM. Not much better than the loss reported in the Levitt report.

Finally, do the owners really care if they play at a loss for a little while if they beleive this will destroy the union?

But wait, I thought the owners were doing this for the good of the game, the health of the league.. I thought they wanted a partnership with the players.. Now you're saying that their motivation is to destroy the union? Who would have known???

The point is this: Although pro-Bettman folks on various boards are pumping up the idea of replacements, the actual numbers involved in using replacements show that it's a very costly option for the owners - even if you pay every single player the league minimum salary.

Furthermore, if you're only offering the league minimum salary, there's very little temptation for PA members to cross the lines.

 

[Munchausen]

Which was $300,000 - not the $150k that people on here are leading themselves to believe. Run the numbers with every replacement player making $300k...

$300k * 690 = $207MM + $775MM = $982MM in operating costs.
$748MM and $982MM in costs = a loss of $234MM. Not much better than the loss reported in the Levitt report.

So what are you getting at? Did I say I thought the average salary would be 150K? Some people might think it'll be 900K, some 150k, it's irelevent. Your numbers are completely arbitrary at best. Nobody knows the operation costs because they won't have to pay as much insurance, they might have a reduced roster, the arenas could be packed or empty, the ticket prices could be only slightly reduced or a fraction of the actual costs (this might depend a lot on the number of NHLers that would cross). You make it sound like those figures are rock solid.

Furthermore, like I stated previously, I don't beleive the owners would play a full season of replacement hockey. It is a bold tactic but if it doesn't work in the first few months, it's never going to work.

But wait, I thought the owners were doing this for the good of the game, the health of the league.. I thought they wanted a partnership with the players.. Now you're saying that their motivation is to destroy the union? Who would have known???

Nice try but I wasn't borned yesterday. You're not talking to an extreme pro-owner here, don't put words in my mouth I never intended to say. I know full well as should you that the owners are businessmen, what they care about is making a profit. It's an investment (except for a supposedly few who treat their team as a toy, but that's beside the point). The owners want to stop bleeding money, I can certainly understand that, but I'm not naive enough to think anyone of them has the good of the game at heart, nor does the PA (weirdly enough). Not a single soul in this lockout has thought about the good of the game in this mess, and that's why we are here today.

All that being said, destroying the union is a way to make sure the players will come back crawling under their conditions and to make sure as well that they won't have to play the waiting game 'til 2010. It's also a way to weaken the players and gain back some control over their businesses. In other words, it's a business strategy. You can act like it's Braveheart's 2nd war all you want, the only thing at stake for both sides here is money, regardless of the consequences on more noble things like the good of the game or fan support.

 

[dakota]

If immigration law was as easy to bend and change as some on here are desperate to believe, Elian Gonzalez would still be in the United States.

there was not a 2.3 billion dollar industry in that case... peoples jobs were not at stake... tax money etc., its a different case.

 

[ladybugblue]

See here is where things ARENT so "black letter" as you like to say. This was explained to me a week or so ago by an immigration attorney who is a consultant for minor pro leagues in the US.

The vast majority of pro hockey players in the US that come from Canada dont hold green cards either. They are in the US on H-2 permits.

Also, since its foreign born players taking up these spots to begin with, its now a foreigner replacing a foreigner when it comes to replacement players. Not a foreigner taking up a US citizen's job. Which is part of what the NLRB has to rule on to begin with.

This thing isn't so straight forward as you have been espousing it to be. There are all kinds of circumstances involved with this particular case that the NLRB never usually has to consider when making decisions.

Maybe this what the NHL lawyers will try and argue. They may say they are not taking away American citizens jobs. That is the whole point of the law I believe and with at least one of the owners (Hicks) knowing George Bush they may try something like this. Not to say it would be successful but the NHL lockout is not like a dispute with GM or Ford where American workers are effected. In fact, they could argue that by keeping the lockout more American jobs are effected due to by-product jobs like concessions, areans upkeep etc. Again not an expert but there are different situations than the average labour dispute and may have to be treated in a new manner (i.e. they could get a professional sport league exemption on the labour laws). They would still need to get an impasse but it is not as impossible as some lawyer posters on here suggest...new ground...open minds.

 

[Other Dave]

Also, since its foreign born players taking up these spots to begin with, its now a foreigner replacing a foreigner when it comes to replacement players. Not a foreigner taking up a US citizen's job.

How does a new foreigner get an H-2 visa to work as a replacement? Your lawyer buddy knows that he has to provide proof in any new applications that there isn't currently a labor dispute going on. Nothing on the USCIS site about whether the dispute involves 'mostly foreign workers' or not.