New NHLPA headache - most fans would accept replacements

[Hasbro]

Did you happen to watch the level of play when the NFL used replacement players like Mailmen and UPS drivers, former US college players that where out of the sport by then .. It was worse then the USFL that failed miserably .. The NFL replacement attempt failed after only 3 months as well and the NFL went crawling back to the NFLPA then ..

Your mistaken here the NFL scabs, as bad as they were, broke the strike in 3 weeks. Players crossed the picket lines starting week 2 of scab ball.

I think you're thinking of the XFL too. The USFL was good quality football.

For ticket revenue the NHL has the adventage of season ticket holders who either don't want to lose their space on the queue and will dump tickets on other people or corperate seats who don't care anyway.the leagues slight tv revenue would go alot further with the smaller payroll.

 

[eye]

I see, so season cancelled and they reach an agreement next week, you'll stop being an NHL fan forever? I don't think so.

I can think and speak for myself thank you.

If the season is cancelled meaning no NHL hockey this season I being one of many thousands that likely feel the same way will never support current NHL players with a dime of my hard earned money.

 

[CGG]

I can think and speak for myself thank you.

If the season is cancelled meaning no NHL hockey this season I being one of many thousands that likely feel the same way will never support current NHL players with a dime of my hard earned money.

And since those current NHL players will be back in the league if the lockout ends between now and Sept, then you therefore can't be a fan of the league any longer. At least can't be a fan of any team that uses a player drafted before 2005. Even by watching on TV you increase ratings, which generates revenue for the teams, revenue that is used to pay the same NHL players you so despise. So I say it again, you would have to stop being a fan of the NHL. Stop being so overly dramatic.

 

[Trottier]

If the season is cancelled meaning no NHL hockey this season I being one of many thousands that likely feel the same way will never support current NHL players with a dime of my hard earned money.

Excellent, and congratulations for exercising your individual right to spend your resources as you wish. And, indeed, that will be the best (only) way in which you will have any effect on the NHL and the NHLPA. Fewer customers will have a tangible effect the game. Much moreso than ceaseless idle threats of doom and gloom on a message board, that is certain.

As for myself, I look forward to anti-NHL player fans such as yourself doing what you promise to do, and being "replaced" by others. For you apparently see no difference between NHL and others...just like some see absolutely no difference between chicken salad and chicken ****. All a matter of taste/standards. Your choice; that's cool.

Enjoy watching minor leaguers and eating your chicken **** sandwiches in 3/4 empty arenas. (For the 3 weeks or so that such a farce would last.)

Replacement players? Nah. The league will benefit much moreso by an influx of "replacement fans".

 

[arkady123]

Most of these kind of players can be seen in the AHL already and right now .. Why need to watch them in NHL jerseys .

Just catch and Edmonton Roadrunners game to see Torres or the Providence Bruins to see Bergeron ..

Crosby has already stated he would not be a replacement player and a player like Jeff Carter would have to be a scab player for a Canadian team as Labour laws currently in the US and Canada prohibit players from other countries to be replacement players ..

In fact Canadian born players could only play on Canadian teams, and US on US teams .. So if Joe Sakic or Joe Thornton crossed which they wouldn't they would only be permitted to be scab players on Canadian teams unless they are now US citizens and I am not sure what they are .. but junior players or AHLers are not for sure ..

Crossing picket lines will not go un noticed by the NHLPA or players that consider them scabs ..

So not sure what you are envisioning .. It is very complicated ..

As scabs players could cross picket lines and play for any team they want ..

I'm not sure who first brought up this idea of U.S. born players only being allowed to play in the U.S. and Canadain's only being allowed to play in Canada but it keeps getting thrown out on these boards and it's wrong. If there is an impasse a player that is a Landed Immigrant in Canada or an LPR in the U.S. would be able to play. The only players that would not be allowed to would be those that hold non-immigrant visas. So if Joe Thorton or Joe Sakic hold immigrant Status in the U.S. and they wanted to cross the line they could.

 

[hockeyfan33]

The large majority of fans who support the NHL's stance I think will support replacement players because it will serve as a means to break the union and bring the economic parity fans for the most part feel the game needs. The rest will be folks who want to see some semblance of NHL hockey even if it means rooting for laundry.

At some point or even as soon as camps open players will likely cross.

The end numbers I think will run somewhere between seventy-eighty percent who will support scabs with the thirty-twenty percent made up of people who just do not want to see replacements vs those who consider the NHLPA a true union as opposed to the association many others see it as.

If it reaches this point it will revert from an owners lockout to a players strike.

this is extremely optomistic thinking for all these things to fall in place (if you are a replacement players supporter that is)

 

[Trottier]

this is extremely optomistic thinking for all these things to fall in place (if you are a replacement players supporter that is)

It is delusional, actually.

But, some people can be sold anything, apparently. Or at least have short/selective memories.

NYI, in the late 90s iced a minor league team on Long Island, was in grave economic danger, and played in front of crowds of 5,000. Based on that experience, one would think that an NYI fan would know first-hand that you cannot fool many people. Apparently not.

A sucker is born everyday, as P.T. Barnum once observed...But certainly not enough to sustain a league of minor-leaguers masquerading as NHLers.

 

[dakota]

I'm not sure who first brought up this idea of U.S. born players only being allowed to play in the U.S. and Canadain's only being allowed to play in Canada but it keeps getting thrown out on these boards and it's wrong. If there is an impasse a player that is a Landed Immigrant in Canada or an LPR in the U.S. would be able to play. The only players that would not be allowed to would be those that hold non-immigrant visas. So if Joe Thorton or Joe Sakic hold immigrant Status in the U.S. and they wanted to cross the line they could.

so what does landed immigrant status mean? or LPR in the states? does this mean that if Jagr wants to play for the rangers and cross the line he can? how does one becompe and LPR or landed immigrant? i dont know anything about this but this could be very important part of the impasse... allowing some players who want to earn their money play... a la joe montana in the NFL situation years ago.. leading to more players playing... i wonder if some of those UHL players will play in the new NHL to get some $$ for their families?

 

[alecfromtherock]

The NHLPA calls itself a union when it serves their purposes, but fall back on the association label when the less savory aspects of what unions represent (set wages, protection of all jobs vs. culling the herd to protect the nobility) are brought to their attention.

This is why replacement players in Quebec isn't something to be tossed out of hand, because the NHLPA isn't recognized as a union there last I heard...

JD said as much on Hockey Central that replacement would be allowed in Quebec because the government of Quebec does not recognise the NHLPA as a union.

Quebec will fight tooth and nail for a recognized union(Wal-Mart clearly does not know who they are dealing with by closing the first Quebec unionized store)

 

[chicpea*]

The good news just keeps coming if you are a player who thinks that the owners are going to break, doesn't it?

'First, consider what the current NHL players would do. Some might cross the line and compete as replacements, but most replacements likely would be young or fringe players — not the league's biggest stars. So it seems logical that most people wouldn't want to watch a lower-level game played by unknowns.

But keep in mind that remaining loyal to specific players has been difficult for years, as players follow dollar signs to new cities and trades make the term franchise player comically antiquated. In this climate, is the idea of fans handing over hard-earned cash to see skating temps that far-fetched?

A poll by FOXSports.com gave us the answer, and NHL players should be a little concerned.

With nearly 10,000 votes cast, 64 percent said they would pay to see replacement players. So a majority of these NHL fans would be willing to rip the Roenick off their authentic jerseys and root for whoever is on the home team. Of course, there was a caveat. In the hundreds of e-mails that arrived with the votes, most people wanted assurance of much lower ticket prices to see minor leaguers.'

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/3365130

Wow. A poll from Fox leans towards scabs. I'll send you the bill for my pants soiled in shock.

 

[arkady123]

so what does landed immigrant status mean? or LPR in the states? does this mean that if Jagr wants to play for the rangers and cross the line he can? how does one becompe and LPR or landed immigrant? i dont know anything about this but this could be very important part of the impasse... allowing some players who want to earn their money play... a la joe montana in the NFL situation years ago.. leading to more players playing... i wonder if some of those UHL players will play in the new NHL to get some $$ for their families?

An LPR is a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S(most people refer to this as a Green card). Landed Immigrant is the same thing for Canada. If Jagr is an LPR he could play for the Rangers. Whether he is one or not I have no idea but there are two factors that I believe would have made most foreign players in the NHL adjust from non-immigrant to immigrant status in the last few years, if they already havent.

1.) They knew the lockout was coming and had an idea that it would last for more then a year but wanted to continue living in the U.S.or Canada during this time. If they were on a non-immigrant P visa there is a good chance they could lose their status, since they were no longer employed, in the U.S. and either would have to go back home or live "illegally" in the U.S. during the lookout. Also if they thought that they would want to be replacement players during the lockout, I'm not saying they would, this would allow them to do so. I do not believe that a club will be able to petition for a player to be an LPR or Landed Immigrant if there is an impasse so all this would have had to be done last year or before.

2.) This has nothing to do with the Lockout but if they liked living in Canada or the U.S. and wanted to continue so after there careers were over at some point in time they would adjust status. In order for a person to become an LPR or a Landed Immigrant someone has to petition for you, which an NHL club as an employer could easily do. Also a player might not want to put up with having to renew a non-immigrant visa and could ask their club to petition for them since once they have their status

I'm not sure if I answered your question but my feeling on this is that the players knew what was coming and if they had a good agent or whoever else it is that might give them advice then they would have become LPR's or Landed Immigrants. All it is is paper work that would have to be filed. There might be rookies or fringe players who go up and down between the AHL who aren't but I would think most established NHLers who are foreign born would have immigrant status. Players who have not played in the NHL and would need a non- immigrant visa to play would be the ones out of luck if replacements were used.

 

[Other Dave]

I think it's a stretch to assume that many European players in the NHL foresaw a long lockout, followed by a bargaining impasse, followed by an implementation which used replacement players, AND that they would want to be among those replacement players, AND that they would seek to change their citizenship without the press catching wind of it.

 

[arkady123]

I think it's a stretch to assume that many European players in the NHL foresaw a long lockout, followed by a bargaining impasse, followed by an implementation which used replacement players, AND that they would want to be among those replacement players, AND that they would seek to change their citizenship without the press catching wind of it.

What does changing their citizenship have to do with it? You do realize the difference in being an immigrant and a citizen right?

 

[Other Dave]

What does changing their citizenship have to do with it? You do realize the difference in being an immigrant and a citizen right?

Do you?

 

[Wetcoaster]

I am not 100% sure on this but don't you actually have to be a union for this to apply? They are not a union but a players association, and I bet if this issue came up the owners would be in court protecting the right of their employees who do want to work.

I thought this myth was put to bed months ago.

The NHLPA is a union under the NLRA and under the definitions in the various provincial labour codes.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Wow. A poll from Fox leans towards scabs. I'll send you the bill for my pants soiled in shock.

The topic provoked some pretty good discussion. And it is easy to attack the source, that said I do not think that the attitude is that far off from what I see. This is a vastly different feel than in the baseball strikes of the past. Remember cancelling the world series in 1994? The general attitude was disgust that two vastly wealthy groups could not divide so much money among themselves. I do not feel that this time, the feel is more like 'the model is broken and unless we want to go through this every five years or so get it the hell fixed.' I think that anything that would break the union would find support from enough to make a difference. Scab games at $10 a ticket? Sure, sign me up, I would watch and enjoy the show. I think that if you conduct a poll from a source that you might listent too . . . hmmm, wonder if Michael Moore is availalble . . . . . .the results still would come up in ways that would alarm me if I were a player. As would other polls that would break on owner/player issues.

The fans want their games taken back . . . true they are picking some awfully sullied knights in shining armor in the NHL owners, but I think that their actions and attitudes are speaking volumes as to what their frustrations are.

 

[Wetcoaster]

The NHLPA calls itself a union when it serves their purposes, but fall back on the association label when the less savory aspects of what unions represent (set wages, protection of all jobs vs. culling the herd to protect the nobility) are brought to their attention.

This is why replacement players in Quebec isn't something to be tossed out of hand, because the NHLPA isn't recognized as a union there last I heard...

The union is not certified but it is recognized as a union as defined under the Quebec code. There is conflicting opinion on whether or not the Habs (and Canucks) would have to hold a certification vote as a bargaining unit in order for the ban on replacement players to be in place.

In the 1994 MLB dispute the Expos could not use replacement players in Quebec and the law has not changed since then.

Also the provincial labour codes have an exception to the certification of a bargaining unit requirement where a national or international union has previously negotiated a CBA on behalf of that bargaining unit and they have operated under that CBA.

Several labour lawyers I have spoken with (mamagement and union) claim that is sufficient to prevent replacement players being used in BC or Quebec. There is legislation pending in Ontario to re-enact the ban on replacement players that was in force in the past and prevented the Jays from playing scab ball in Ontario in 1994.

Even if certification of the particular teams as a bargaining unit were required it is a very simple procedure needing only 50% plus one of the members of the bargaining unit to file.

Intersetingly it appears the NHL would have to file a similar type of application (called "accreditation" in BC) to be able to gain standing before the BC LRB. I would assume this is the case in other provincial jurisdictions as well.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I was just reading The Code Guide on the LRB-BC site the other day, and it seems to suggest that since the NHLPA and the NHL have entered into a CBA, the PA has been voluntarily recognized by the NHL as the bargaining agent for the players, and so would be so recognized in BC.


Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this information.

That is correct and there is a similar provision in the Quebec Labour Code as well as the other provincial codes.

According to a number of labour lawyers (management and union) I have spoken to this would be sufficient to ban the use of replacement workers in BC and Alberta.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Your mistaken here the NFL scabs, as bad as they were, broke the strike in 3 weeks. Players crossed the picket lines starting week 2 of scab ball.

Whereupon the union ordered everyone back to work, decertified the union, filed a number of antitrust suits and won what they had been seeking - the removal of the Rozelle Rule and free agency. The NFL also had to pay $195 million dollars in damages to settle the antitrust lawsuits. BTW the salary cap ws proposed by the NFLPA to try to get a fair share of the big revenue pie. It had first been proposed by Ed Garvey, Executive Director of the NFLPA, in 1982 and had been strongly resisted by the NFL owners.

The union then re-constituted and signed a new CBA.

 

[Greschner4]

Whereupon the union ordered everyone back to work, decertified the union, filed a number of antitrust suits and won what they had been seeking - the removal of the Rozelle Rule and free agency. The NFL also had to pay $195 million dollars in damages to settle the antitrust lawsuits. BTW the salary cap ws proposed by the NFLPA to try to get a fair share of the big revenue pie. It had first been proposed by Ed Garvey, Executive Director of the NFLPA, in 1982 and had been strongly resisted by the NFL owners.

The union then re-constituted and signed a new CBA.

Of course it took them six years between the 1987 strike to the 1993 settlement to get free agency, during which probably 80% of the guys who went on strike moved on to other jobs, but who's counting?

And of course every other league had had free agency, one for almost two decades, before 1993, but who's counting?

And of course, the players had to give up a hard cap to gain free agency, but who's counting?

And of course the owners saved -- and players lost -- more than the $195M they paid out by having their own CBA for those six years, but who's counting?

And finally the legal fees the union ran up probably ate away several million of the $195, but who's counting?

 

[Lobstertainment]

I would watch replacement players. No doubt about it. I'm a fan of hockey, and my TEAM. Sure, I would rather have the real NHL players playing, but it seems that they aren't willing to compromise... something they have been preaching since day one.

For example... When the Baby Sens came to the ACC to play the Baby Leafs... You could tell the players were not all exactly NHL calibre, but the game was exciting and fun to watch. And I watched the Baby Leafs as I would have the Toronto Maple Leafs...

So as a Canadian, I would watch my team.

I don't need to post, that sums up my feelings exactly.

I go for what's on the front of the jersey not whats on the back

You bet your asses I'll pay to see replacment players, and I'LL ENJOY IT!

 

[Wetcoaster]

so what does landed immigrant status mean? or LPR in the states? does this mean that if Jagr wants to play for the rangers and cross the line he can? how does one becompe and LPR or landed immigrant? i dont know anything about this but this could be very important part of the impasse... allowing some players who want to earn their money play... a la joe montana in the NFL situation years ago.. leading to more players playing... i wonder if some of those UHL players will play in the new NHL to get some $$ for their families?

Jagr cannot play for any team in a replacement NHL. He is a Czech citizen and not a legal immigrant. Pre-existing P-! visas would no longer be valid and would be cancelled due to the labour dispute already in progress as occurred during the ECHL strike of several years back.

You must apply for an immigrant visa and qualify. In Canada it is known as Permanent Resident status (prior to 1978 they were referred to as "Landed Immigrants"). The old slang term in the US was "Green Card Holder" because proof of your legal immigrants status in the US as an "Alien Resident " was an ID card which was green in colour.

It is about a two year process for Canada and it can be longer in the US because they have country by country quotas for immigrants.

Anyone on a minor league visa or work permit would not be able to play in the replacement NHL unless theywere a US citizen and play for a US based team or a Canadian citizen and play for a Canadian based team. The visas for minor pro are different.

 

[dakota]

Jagr cannot play for any team in a replacement NHL. He is a Czech citizen and not a legal immigrant. Pre-existing P-! visas would no longer be valid and would be cancelled due to the labour dispute already in progress as occurred during the ECHL strike of several years back.

You must apply for an immigrant visa and qualify. In Canada it is known as Permanent Resident status (prior to 1978 they were referred to as "Landed Immigrants"). The old slang term in the US was "Green Card Holder" because proof of your legal immigrants status in the US as an "Alien Resident " was an ID card which was green in colour.

It is about a two year process for Canada and it can be longer in the US because they have country by country quotas for immigrants.

Anyone on a minor league visa or work permit would not be able to play in the replacement NHL unless theywere a US citizen and play for a US based team or a Canadian citizen and play for a Canadian based team. The visas for minor pro are different.

but would these players not still have there "green card" with them? What if they were just honoring their existing contract with the team? Would this not qualify them? i mean BONK is still living in Ottawa and practicing is he illegally living here then?

 

[Trottier]

This is a vastly different feel than in the baseball strikes of the past. Remember cancelling the world series in 1994? The general attitude was disgust that two vastly wealthy groups could not divide so much money among themselves. I do not feel that this time, the feel is more like 'the model is broken and unless we want to go through this every five years or so get it the hell fixed.' I think that anything that would break the union would find support from enough to make a difference....I think that if you conduct a poll from a source that you might listent too...the results still would come up in ways that would alarm me if I were a player. As would other polls that would break on owner/player issues.

The fans want their games taken back . . .I think that their actions and attitudes are speaking volumes as to what their frustrations are.

True. The fans are unhappy. The majority of fans side with the owners on this one. Your's truly does not disagree with a word quoted above...Except, the idea that players should be shaking in their boots because the "fans" do not support them in these negotiations.

Your, my and any other fan's opinion on this business matter between the NHL and NHLPA, in which they are determining the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars is...well, nice. And it makes for sometimes, engaging, sometimes intelligent, board talk. But our opinion one way or the other ultimately is not going to shape what goes on in meetings. Some feel good about themselves to think otherwise, but it's delusional.

Your opinion counts only if/when the lights are turned on again at NHL rinks. Should you choose to (or not to) invest your money in the league's product, you will then have an impact. And at this point, the cry of some to "NEVER go to another NHL game!," is well, an idle threat. And it is a hypothetical that negatively effects both owners and players equally. That is, if you do not go to any more NHL games, that is money coming out of both the players' and owners' pocket.

Otherwise, sorry. Goodenow and Bettman are (thankfully!) not going to have these critical business decisions determined in any way whatsoever by some donk spamming an unscientific poll on some sanctimonious sports website. And if you were in their shoes, one would hope that you would not be so easily swayed by the opinion of those on the outside.

You see, there is a fabulous paradox here. Fans pay the freight to a large extent when the NHL is in operations. However, they are not to be confused with shareholders. Much as some wish to believe otherwise, they cannot impact the decisions being made regarding this CBA.

To put it more simplisticly, once you pay for the ticket for "NHL product", it is no longer your money, hence you have no control over it, who it goes to, etc. Nor, should you.

To be sure, this point hits a nerve with some...because it is true.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

True. The fans are unhappy. The majority of fans side with the owners on this one. Your's truly does not disagree with a word quoted above...Except, the idea that players should be shaking in their boots because the "fans" do not support them in these negotiations.

Your, my and any other fan's opinion on this business matter between the NHL and NHLPA, in which they are determining the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars is...well, nice. And it makes for sometimes, engaging, sometimes intelligent, board talk. But our opinion one way or the other ultimately is not going to shape what goes on in meetings. Some feel good about themselves to think otherwise, but it's delusional.

Your opinion counts only if/when the lights are turned on again at NHL rinks. Should you choose to (or not to) invest your money in the league's product, you will then have an impact. And at this point, the cry of some to "NEVER go to another NHL game!," is well, an idle threat. And it is a hypothetical that negatively effects both owners and players equally. That is, if you do not go to any more NHL games, that is money coming out of both the players' and owners' pocket.

Otherwise, sorry. Goodenow and Bettman are (thankfully!) not going to have these critical business decisions determined in any way whatsoever by some donk spamming an unscientific poll on some sanctimonious sports website. And if you were in their shoes, one would hope that you would not be so easily swayed by the opinion of those on the outside.

You see, there is a fabulous paradox here. Fans pay the freight to a large extent when the NHL is in operations. However, they are not to be confused with shareholders. Much as some wish to believe otherwise, they cannot impact the decisions being made regarding this CBA.

To put it more simplisticly, once you pay for the ticket for "NHL product", it is no longer your money, hence you have no control over it, who it goes to, etc. Nor, should you.

To be sure, this point hits a nerve with some...because it is true.

I disagree only slightly . . . the fans opinions and choosing to side with the owners in this one do matter, because that is the player's only potential leverage remaining. In 1994 baseball owners saw that fans were bleeding from the sport and caved . . .in 2002 the mere fear of this caused a big time cave on the owner's part. What do the players have left to play in their favor? Even in this it is apparent that the anger and keeping away from the game that baseball owners feared in 1994, 2002, are not there as a weapon for the players in this dispute.