PHPA could sue NHL

[egotist]

The question then is whether the $75K limit for callup waivers is effectively a limit on AHL salaries - forcing AHL players to choose between what they deem to be market rate for their salaries (as negotiated between them and the AHL team and subject to the terms of the AHL/PHPA CBA) and an artificially imposed limit which would allow for the possibility of an NHL callup.

I would add that with respect to the distinctions made by others between 1-way AHL deals and 2-way NHL/AHL deals, that players are subject to the CBA of the league they are in, at the time they are in it.

Seeing as AHL salaries are determined within the context of the "market", imposing a $75k limit from above has the effect of driving down salaries across the board. Sure, an AHL team in theory can contract with a career minor leaguer, but its a nearly impossibble battle for him to justify his claim to a higher salary under the terms of the existing salary structure. This is a fundamental change to salary mechanisms in the AHL which is a collectively bargained issue between the PHPA and the AHL. Players have already left en masse in response to this. This is essentially what the PHPA is arguing.

If the PHPA can prove that the NHL/NHLPA knew what they were doing and intended to produce this effect, wouldn't that be the very definition of antitrust?

 

[hillbillypriest]

I would add that with respect to the distinctions made by others between 1-way AHL deals and 2-way NHL/AHL deals, that players are subject to the CBA of the league they are in, at the time they are in it.

Seeing as AHL salaries are determined within the context of the "market", imposing a $75k limit from above has the effect of driving down salaries across the board. Sure, an AHL team in theory can contract with a career minor leaguer, but its a nearly impossibble battle for him to justify his claim to a higher salary under the terms of the existing salary structure. This is a fundamental change to salary mechanisms in the AHL which is a collectively bargained issue between the PHPA and the AHL. Players have already left en masse in response to this. This is essentially what the PHPA is arguing.

If the PHPA can prove that the NHL/NHLPA knew what they were doing and intended to produce this effect, wouldn't that be the very definition of antitrust?

I don't think your premise that the NHL/NHLPA "knew what they were doing and intended to produce this effect" is a consideration here. I think both those parties would reasonably argue that they were thinking about preserving movement rights of major league calibre players and really didn't think that much about the possibility that their trigger point ($75,000) would have an effect on the maximum market value of minor league players. As a result, I think this falls into the sphere of "indirect and consequential", not direct and intended as you've suggested.

As I said in a previous post, the real beef, if any, is that the AHL franchise owners appear to be applying a $75,000 limit on what they will pay minor league players that they contract with directly, not as assigned players from an affiliated NHL franchise. This IMO is not an NHL/NHLPA issue.

HBP

 

[egotist]

I don't think your premise that the NHL/NHLPA "knew what they were doing and intended to produce this effect" is a consideration here. I think both those parties would reasonably argue that they were thinking about preserving movement rights of major league calibre players and really didn't think that much about the possibility that their trigger point ($75,000) would have an effect on the maximum market value of minor league players. As a result, I think this falls into the sphere of "indirect and consequential", not direct and intended as you've suggested.

As I said in a previous post, the real beef, if any, is that the AHL franchise owners appear to be applying a $75,000 limit on what they will pay minor league players that they contract with directly, not as assigned players from an affiliated NHL franchise. This IMO is not an NHL/NHLPA issue.

HBP

I think you're right to some extent, and I think this what the NHL-NHLPA will argue.

However, I think it will be difficult for the NHL cartel to argue "indirect and consequential" when almost half of AHL franchises are owned by their NHL affiliates. I mean, where would they get the arbitrary figure of $75,00 from? It reduces the wages they will pay on two-ways and has the ripple effect of establishing a market premium for the rest of the AHL hopefuls.

Antitrust is intended to protect companies from predatory practices and unfair competition. Effectively imposing wage constraints on AHL players who wish to earn a spot on an NHL franchise, would appear to qualify in this instance.

It is going to be an interesting case, for sure.

 

[Resolute]

and how is that any different when the NHLPA were saying if the owners believed overspending in exchange for "whatever reason" that owner had was fair because it was there decision ?

the argument was always, well what one owner does affected the others. well the same applies here, what one minor leaguer agree's to will affect the others.

dr

I'll invite you go to back to 100 or so lockout threads where this very question was answered.

 

[Weary]

I'll invite you go to back to 100 or so lockout threads where this very question was answered.

Well you could at least link to one as an example. But I doubt the effect of two-way contracts upon AHL-only contracts was ever discussed once.

 

[Resolute]

No, it wasnt. But I was not responding to a post whining about how this rule is affecting AHL contracts, but a post whining about the owners spending. And yes, I could have included a link, but to the best of my knowledge, DR's search button isnt broken.

 

[Weary]

No, it wasnt. But I was not responding to a post whining about how this rule is affecting AHL contracts, but a post whining about the owners spending. And yes, I could have included a link, but to the best of my knowledge, DR's search button isnt broken.

No, you were not responding to a post whining about anything. You responded to a post that pointed out that the owners' own argument during the lockout can be used to support the PHPA's position now.