NHL's non-Impasse options?

[txomisc]

Over the right to play in an arena that's previously only had one pro hockey team as a tenant.

The right to an arena? Doesn't the Arena have the right to have whatever tenant it can reach a deal with?

 

[djhn579]

What would the WHA have to sue a building over?

I think he is angling at the WHA saying that the NHL can't prevent them from playing in an NHL arena, though I think most of them would have some kind of exclusivity agreement stating that they don't have to allow any one to play in the building if it is direct competition with the NHL team. That though, is not an anti-trust issue, it's a matter of whatever agreement was signed between the building owners (city gov't, county gov't...) and the primary tenant (usually some corporation affiliated with the NHL team).

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Over the right to play in an arena that's previously only had one pro hockey team as a tenant.

Even if that hockey team had an exclusive contract with an NHL team, there may be a reasonable ground for a lawsuit if the league is not playing.

If I owned a rink that had a deal with an exclusive deal with an NHL team that was going into the second year of a lockout, wouldn't I - at some point - have the right to rent the rink to someone else? I would think so, but maybe one of the lawyers will set me straight.

If I would have that right, wouldn't the Palladium Corporation? So why doesn't the Palladium Corporation exercise that right? Obviously because the owner of the rink is also the owner of the Senators. Isn't that on the face of it anti-competitive?

What if the rink is owned by the public? How can they refuse the WHA?

Tom

 

[mudcrutch79]

I think he is angling at the WHA saying that the NHL can't prevent them from playing in an NHL arena, though I think most of them would have some kind of exclusivity agreement stating that they don't have to allow any one to play in the building if it is direct competition with the NHL team. That though, is not an anti-trust issue, it's a matter of whatever agreement was signed between the building owners (city gov't, county gov't...) and the primary tenant (usually some corporation affiliated with the NHL team).

In Canada, at least, there's an argument to be made that such an agreement is a conspiracy to restrain trade. I think in Canada it'd only be applicable in Edmonton or Calgary though-the rest of the teams own their own arenas, and can do what they want.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

In Canada, at least, there's an argument to be made that such an agreement is a conspiracy to restrain trade. I think in Canada it'd only be applicable in Edmonton or Calgary though-the rest of the teams own their own arenas, and can do what they want.

I don't think the rest of the teams do own the arena. They are separate businesses. They are owned by the same person or entity, but they are separate businesses.

Tom

 

[mudcrutch79]

I don't see any of this happening though-it takes a lot of infrastructure to run a hockey league. The WHA can't compete with the NHL once it's up and running. There would be no way to outbid NHL teams for talent; the losses would be huge initially. Investing in litigation to force rinks to be opened is a waste of money-by the time the litigation wound up, the NHL would be running again.

The WHA guys are vultures. They have no interest in actually investing in the business of hockey, they just hope to scoop some of the cash while the NHL and NHLPA sort out their problems.

 

[djhn579]

Even if that hockey team had an exclusive contract with an NHL team, there may be a reasonable ground for a lawsuit if the league is not playing.

If I owned a rink that had a deal with an exclusive deal with an NHL team that was going into the second year of a lockout, wouldn't I - at some point - have the right to rent the rink to someone else? I would think so, but maybe one of the lawyers will set me straight.

If I would have that right, wouldn't the Palladium Corporation? So why doesn't the Palladium Corporation exercise that right? Obviously because the owner of the rink is also the owner of the Senators. Isn't that on the face of it anti-competitive?

What if the rink is owned by the public? How can they refuse the WHA?

Tom

It would depend on whatever lease the gov't signed with the corporation running it. If the gov't gave them a 10 year lease with an exclusivity clause, the gov't can't do anything about until the lease expires. They gave their rights to run the arena over to the leasee, and to the gov't, it doesn't really matter. They are getting their money whether anyone is playing in it or not (usually...). I'm sure that if they really wanted a WHA team to play in the arean, they could try to buyout the lease, but that would probably be expensive.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Cl, have another crown royal, at least TB was taking a stab at it. All you did was take a staggering effort at telling TB he has his head up his 8utt. I side with TB!!!! At least he was sobber.

You side with him in what? Everything he's said has been easily refuted. Continue to believe that players are acting against their own interests and instead taking a principled stand. Grow up, man. Or better yet, ask Bob Goodenow why the players resolve is still strong. He would tell you flat out that its about money and how much the players should be making.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

It would depend on whatever lease the gov't signed with the corporation running it. If the gov't gave them a 10 year lease with an exclusivity clause, the gov't can't do anything about until the lease expires. They gave their rights to run the arena over to the leasee, and to the gov't, it doesn't really matter. They are getting their money whether anyone is playing in it or not (usually...). I'm sure that if they really wanted a WHA team to play in the arean, they could try to buyout the lease, but that would probably be expensive.

Uhhh... not to mention the WHA has a HARD CAP of less than 20 million. So much for principle I guess.

 

[Egil]

Any Rival league is going to have a Salary Cap, so it won't actually help the players, I don't think.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

I don't think the rest of the teams do own the arena. They are separate businesses. They are owned by the same person or entity, but they are separate businesses.

Tom

And you think these people will start allowing the WHA to play in their buildings. Keep dreaming, day dreamer. How could players support the WHA with its hard cap of less than 20 million anyway, it would go against their principle. HA HA HA!

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Investing in litigation to force rinks to be opened is a waste of money-by the time the litigation wound up, the NHL would be running again...

The WHA guys are vultures. They have no interest in actually investing in the business of hockey, they just hope to scoop some of the cash while the NHL and NHLPA sort out their problems.

I agree to an extent, but they pick their spot with the lawsuit. They only launch one. I think the WHA is a vulture league. But if they get off the ground next year with six or eight teams they will present a very credible product. When the second season is cancelled, they announce expansion.

I don't think it gets easier for the NHL and NHLPA to settle once they cancel a season. I think it gets harder. The vulture league wants to be in position to present a credible alternative just in case the NHL does keep this going until the league commits suicide. The longer the dispute goes on, the more likely the WHA becomes hockey's major league.

The lockout gives the WHA the opportunity to make a few bucks while the NHL contemplates its next step. That's worth the investment. The longshot opportunity is to become the major professional hockey league in North America. I don't think they will close that opportunity down. To keep it open, they will have to crack open the venue issue, so they may as well find a weak link and fight it.

What if they go after Pittsburgh and Edmonton to start? Make Mario fight the lawsuits for exclusivity in a rink he says is inadequate for the NHL. Will the rest of the NHL be allowed to help him with his legal costs?

I'll bet the WHA tries to get the NHLPA to represent the workers, too.

I guess my main point on all of these issues is that the NHL faces a bunch of them, big and small. It is to the advantage of the players if someone fights the NHL on every single one of them, the mosquitoes and the elephants.

I don't think we are going to see hockey. I do think we are going to see NHL and team lawyers in and out of court rooms.

Tom

 

[Wetcoaster]

When you say antitrust lawsuits from Juniors I assume you mean drafted players playing in Juiniors? Im not sure exactly what they could sue for?

A declaration that they are free agents. Once they have that it really does not matter what the new CBA says.

 

[mudcrutch79]

Any Rival league is going to have a Salary Cap, so it won't actually help the players, I don't think.

I swear to God, I'm going to make a list of people I've disabused of this notion. The WHA won't have a salary cap for the same reason the NHL can't just decide to have one. It's a violation of antitrust law.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I think the WHA will also launch at least one lawsuit against a building. I'm not sure the NHLPA will go along on the unsigned Junior issue. Maybe, but I don't see them coming to any agreements at all with the NHL until there is a CBA. It is not a sure thing the players would win, I would guess, but I think the NHL would enjoy seeing the NHL fight lots of court battles.

Tom

May be difficult to win as there are all sorts of restrictive covenants which have been upheld as a matter of contract law. I would assume that most teams would have a right of approval to allow any other professional team to use the building.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Any Rival league is going to have a Salary Cap, so it won't actually help the players, I don't think.

I'd bet $1,000 the WHA has already called Bob Goodenow and told him they will cut basically any agreement he thinks is fair. The WHA won't be able to generate enough revenues to pay the players very much, but they won't need a cap to tell them that.

That's not a bad next move for Goodenow. Tell the WHA the union will deliver the players under a model CBA that can be just as easily applied to the NHL.

It won't help the players make more money, but this dispute is not about money. It will help the players bring the NHL to its knees.

Tom

 

[CarlRacki]

It won't help the players make more money, but this dispute is not about money. It will help the players bring the NHL to its knees.

Tom

You're smarter than that Tom. This dispute is about nothing other than money. I know you like to believe that for the players it's a principle thing, but the defining component of that principle is money and who makes it.

 

[thinkwild]

I don't think the rest of the teams do own the arena. They are separate businesses. They are owned by the same person or entity, but they are separate businesses.

Tom

lol, thats great karma. Of course if they made all the arena revenue, designated hockey revenue ...

 

[wazee]

It will help the players bring the NHL to its knees.

Tom

And hockey fans should cheer for that why?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

And hockey fans should cheer for that why?

Who said we should cheer for it? The NHL has done everything it can to inflict economic damage on the players. That's the point of the lockout. Now the NHLPA will do everything it can to inflict economic damage on the NHL. That's the way labour wars work.

Tom

 

[SENSible1*]

Who said we should cheer for it? The NHL has done everything it can to inflict economic damage on the players. That's the point of the lockout. Now the NHLPA will do everything it can to inflict economic damage on the NHL. That's the way labour wars work.

Tom

And this will really help their earning potential how?

Kill the golden goose? Great plan!

If you think the majority of players will sit by while Goodenow tries to sell them that particular flavour of kool-aid, you are in for a rude awakening. They stuck it out to this point hoping the league would cave. There are already numerous reports from trusted sources confirming a healthy % would agree to abandon the fight right now. If you really think they'll be able to keep everyone in line by next January, then you've had one sip too many yourself.

 

[YellHockey*]

And hockey fans should cheer for that why?

I can give one reason why hockey fans in Chicago should cheer for that.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

And this will really help their earning potential how?

Kill the golden goose? Great plan!

If you think the majority of players will sit by while Goodenow tries to sell them that particular flavour of kool-aid, you are in for a rude awakening. They stuck it out to this point hoping the league would cave. There are already numerous reports from trusted sources confirming a healthy % would agree to abandon the fight right now. If you really think they'll be able to keep everyone in line by next January, then you've had one sip too many yourself.

He's completely whacked out on the NHLPA kool-aid.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

I swear to God, I'm going to make a list of people I've disabused of this notion. The WHA won't have a salary cap for the same reason the NHL can't just decide to have one. It's a violation of antitrust law.

Too late, pal. When the WHA started up for the first time (or re-started) it HAD A SALRY CAP of less than 20 million. Go to the WHA website and tell them about your antitrust ********.

 

[me2]

A declaration that they are free agents. Once they have that it really does not matter what the new CBA says.

Under the current CBA unsigned juniors (ie Carter in a normal year) can opt to go back into draft if they want a new team. Its hard to see why a new CBA could not do the same but vary the age ie any unsigned player under 24 or what ever must reenter the draft and be reallocated.