Possible replacement players?Will AHLers be part of it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
You are assuming that the NHL would declare an impasse, that the NLRB/courts would ultimately uphold the declaration of impasse (and on the case law that is less than 1 in 10) or that the NHLPA does not decertify.

If they NHL goes ahead and holds a draft and then the declaratation of impasse is rejected the drafted players can file antitrust suits and they are entitled to treble damages.

i would think they would wait until the declariation of impasse is awarded then hold the draft no? i realize this is assuming that they are awarded the impasse... i was just wondering about the process...

so that is good news if the impasse is awarded that the players drafted can play in the NHL
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
wazee said:
In 1994, both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. Since labor unions are a major constituency of the Democratic Party, it is not surprising they would not act in 1994.

Since 1995, Congress has been controlled by Republicans who do not benefit from labor unions.

The Republican Congress had taken over in the winter of 1995, during the process. MLB's hopes of using replacement players were dashed with the Republicans in power.
 

richardn

Registered User
Mar 6, 2004
8,513
80
Sault Ste. Marie
Jag68Vlady27 said:
You honestly think a "replacement hockey" ticket anywhere is going to cost $198? You get what you pay for, so expect ticket prices to be adjusted accordingly.

In the end, it'll be far less of a ripoff than any NHL regular season game since 1993-94.

What about season ticket holders that have already paid full price on there tickets. Also many AHL players said they would cross only for a minimum of 500,000. Prices will be steeper then everyone thinks. NHL overhead costs and expenses are high so they need to bring in a good chunk of revenue to make it worth while. If the owners are going to continue to lose money, I don't think they want to lose money and fail with replacements. There is to many obstacles and risks invoved with using scabs. I think the owners would be better off keeping the players locked out.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Chuck Shick said:
Last week 18 of the 22 Edmonton Roadrunners (AHL) said they would cross and go to NHL camps, remember these guys make anywhere from 50-90 K a year so you give them 250k and they'll be laughing. The work permit/visa issue is a cakewalk and very small hurdle to overcome. You'll see the NHL teams hire a specialist to handle this if they haven't already done so.
Baby Leafs and Baby Habs were polled before their recent game :

If the players have a choice in the matter, the NHL had better not come looking for replacements with the Baby Leafs or the Hamilton Bulldogs. Of the 37 players surveyed before the Leafs played Hamilton last night, just four said they would cross a picket line next season in exchange for a $500,000 (all figures U.S.) contract. Twenty-five said they would not be replacement players and eight were undecided.

Couple of Comments :

St. John's Maple Leafs top scorer Kyle Wellwood said he would adamantly refuse to be an NHL replacement player next season, ....."I want to play with the best players in the world," Wellwood said, "and the best players in the world wouldn't be playing in the NHL."

Dallas Stars prospect Steve Ott of the Bulldogs was even more vocal in his opposition to crossing the picket line.


"I'm not going to let myself be used by the NHL to try and get the other guys back," Ott said. "It would be a bush league, a mock version of the AHL. The reason why 3,000 people come to AHL games and 20,000 go to NHL games is because the NHL has the greatest players in the world."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1109199010781&call_pageid=1044442959412&col=1044442957278&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
 

Vaive-Alive

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
598
7
Toronto, Ontario
Wetcoaster said:
That was just the beginning.

Then the NFLPA decertified, relied upon the courts, filed antitrust suits and won the war.

Won the war? You have an intersting slant on history ;).

If the legal recourse the NFLPA membership sought upon decertification excites you - imagine the joy the NFL ownership felt when they got their salary cap...
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Vaive-Alive said:
Won the war? You have an intersting slant on history ;).

If the legal recourse the NFLPA membership sought upon decertification excites you - imagine the joy the NFL ownership felt when they got their salary cap...

At least his slant on history reflects facts. FYI, it was the NFLPA that wanted a salary cap.
 

richardn

Registered User
Mar 6, 2004
8,513
80
Sault Ste. Marie
The Messenger said:
Baby Leafs and Baby Habs were polled before their recent game :

If the players have a choice in the matter, the NHL had better not come looking for replacements with the Baby Leafs or the Hamilton Bulldogs. Of the 37 players surveyed before the Leafs played Hamilton last night, just four said they would cross a picket line next season in exchange for a $500,000 (all figures U.S.) contract. Twenty-five said they would not be replacement players and eight were undecided.

Couple of Comments :

St. John's Maple Leafs top scorer Kyle Wellwood said he would adamantly refuse to be an NHL replacement player next season, ....."I want to play with the best players in the world," Wellwood said, "and the best players in the world wouldn't be playing in the NHL."

Dallas Stars prospect Steve Ott of the Bulldogs was even more vocal in his opposition to crossing the picket line.


"I'm not going to let myself be used by the NHL to try and get the other guys back," Ott said. "It would be a bush league, a mock version of the AHL. The reason why 3,000 people come to AHL games and 20,000 go to NHL games is because the NHL has the greatest players in the world."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1109199010781&call_pageid=1044442959412&col=1044442957278&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Marc Moro also said he was very surprised to see some teams having such high numbers of willing particiapants to cross the picket line, especially on the Edmonton Roadrunners. And Stajan showed his solidarity for the union by wearing his NHLPA hat.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/AHL/2005/02/23/939758.html
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
richardn said:
What about season ticket holders that have already paid full price on there tickets. Also many AHL players said they would cross only for a minimum of 500,000. Prices will be steeper then everyone thinks. NHL overhead costs and expenses are high so they need to bring in a good chunk of revenue to make it worth while. If the owners are going to continue to lose money, I don't think they want to lose money and fail with replacements. There is to many obstacles and risks invoved with using scabs. I think the owners would be better off keeping the players locked out.

Payrolls will be around $12-15M with replacement players. Since salaries were 75% of last CBA, this leaves a lot of room to reduce ticket prices. Anyway, prices will be put at a price point that meets the market, whether it makes the team profits or not. Imo, that means avg ticket prices of about $25.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
richardn said:
Marc Moro also said he was very surprised to see some teams having such high numbers of willing particiapants to cross the picket line, especially on the Edmonton Roadrunners. And Stajan showed his solidarity for the union by wearing his NHLPA hat.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/AHL/2005/02/23/939758.html

One more reason to wish for replacement players, the Leafs would have a bad team and be in the bottom of the standings, right where they belong. :p:
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
The Republican Congress had taken over in the winter of 1995, during the process. MLB's hopes of using replacement players were dashed with the Republicans in power.
Baseball's bid to use replacement players was squashed by the NLRB. Members of the NLRB are appointed by the President. Clinton was President at the time.
 
Last edited:

Vaive-Alive

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
598
7
Toronto, Ontario
hockeytown9321 said:
At least his slant on history reflects facts. FYI, it was the NFLPA that wanted a salary cap.

That is not really true, or at least the idea of what a salary cap would accomplish changed from what the NFLPA might have had in mind originally to what was finally agreed upon in the 1993 agreement. Remember that the NFLPA wanted free agency, and a salary cap may have been hoped to act as a ceiling on teams that would force player movement. I honestly don't know who first proposed a cap.
After the league was ruled by the courts of being insulated from any anti-trust action based on the mere existance of there being union representation during the impasse, the NFLPA had no recourse but to decertify. This effectively removed any insulation the league had from anti-trust law. Realizing this, the league came up with Plan B for free agency that basically opened up free agency to 10 players per team to attempt to try and protect itself, but a group of players filed an anti-trust suit against the leagues plan B and the league lost that battle in court after a jury found it to be too restrictive to the players. Instead of appealing the decision, the ownership initiated a new round of negotiations and eventually settled on an agreement with the union that opened up free agency to basically what it is today in exchange for a salary cap that would protect them from excessive spending. The NFLPA may have been the first to propose a cap - possibly back in 1987 before the strike. I don't know. But what was agreed upon by the time 1993 came around was a compromise solution to offset the union's gains in free agency, and this has favoured the ownership - particularely as the agreement coincided with a number of huge renewed TV deals in the early 90's around the time of the new agreement. Increased revenues and capped expenses ( outside of the signing bonus loop-hole ). Not to say that the players haven't benefited from the agreement, but if I were an owner - that would put a smile on my face. No matter who proposed it first.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
wazee said:
Baseball's bid to use replacement players was squashed by the NLRB. Members of the NLRB are appointed by the President. Clinton was President at the time.

Right. The post I responded to implied that the Democrats controlled Congress at the time, I just pointed out that they didn't.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Vaive-Alive said:
That is not really true, or at least the idea of what a salary cap would accomplish changed from what the NFLPA might have had in mind originally to what was finally agreed upon in the 1993 agreement. Remember that the NFLPA wanted free agency, and a salary cap may have been hoped to act as a ceiling on teams that would force player movement. I honestly don't know who first proposed a cap.
After the league was ruled by the courts of being insulated from any anti-trust action based on the mere existance of there being union representation during the impasse, the NFLPA had no recourse but to decertify. This effectively removed any insulation the league had from anti-trust law. Realizing this, the league came up with Plan B for free agency that basically opened up free agency to 10 players per team to attempt to try and protect itself, but a group of players filed an anti-trust suit against the leagues plan B and the league lost that battle in court after a jury found it to be too restrictive to the players. Instead of appealing the decision, the ownership initiated a new round of negotiations and eventually settled on an agreement with the union that opened up free agency to basically what it is today in exchange for a salary cap that would protect them from excessive spending. The NFLPA may have been the first to propose a cap - possibly back in 1987 before the strike. I don't know. But what was agreed upon by the time 1993 came around was a compromise solution to offset the union's gains in free agency, and this has favoured the ownership - particularely as the agreement coincided with a number of huge renewed TV deals in the early 90's around the time of the new agreement. Increased revenues and capped expenses ( outside of the signing bonus loop-hole ). Not to say that the players haven't benefited from the agreement, but if I were an owner - that would put a smile on my face. No matter who proposed it first.


I realize all that. The fact is, the NFLPA was the first to propose a cap, and their acceptance of one wasn't the result of bitter negotiations like in the NHL. As long as they got free agency, they were happy. If the players hadn't gotten free agency, the NFL probably wouldn't have wanted a cap.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
wazee said:
Baseball's bid to use replacement players was squashed by the NLRB. Members of the NLRB are appointed by the President. Clinton was President at the time.

Baseball's bid to use replacement players was squashed by the NLRB based on its merits, not the political affiliation of the board members or the current president. That had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying you are suggesting a republican NLRB would automatically side with the owners, but some people do make that gigantic assumption, assuming political party is more important than the law, and that is unfortunate.
 

Munchausen

Guest
gc2005 said:
Baseball's bid to use replacement players was squashed by the NLRB based on its merits, not the political affiliation of the board members or the current president. That had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying you are suggesting a republican NLRB would automatically side with the owners, but some people do make that gigantic assumption, assuming political party is more important than the law, and that is unfortunate.

Problem is, where the law becomes subjective, political biases do play a role, and bargaining in good faith isn't all black or white. It needs to be interpreted by the median party. Interpretation isn't a law. There are boundaries, of course, but there is still a committee that must take a decision based on both the evidences and their beliefs.
 

Vaive-Alive

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
598
7
Toronto, Ontario
hockeytown9321 said:
I realize all that. The fact is, the NFLPA was the first to propose a cap, and their acceptance of one wasn't the result of bitter negotiations like in the NHL. As long as they got free agency, they were happy. If the players hadn't gotten free agency, the NFL probably wouldn't have wanted a cap.

So whats your point? When I stated, "Imagine the joy the NFL ownership felt when they got their salary cap..." knowing that their revenues were going to increase substantially throughout the course of the agreement thanks to increasingly lucrative TV contracts and other rev. streams, how was I not basing that statement on fact? If you want to get in a pissing match about who proposed a cap first - so be it - you win! But that wasn't the point of my post. The original poster had said that the NFLPA won the war - I disagree. They were humiliated in their first legal challenge ( Powell ), won their second ( well a group of players did ) that forced the league to renegotiate a deal that has ultimately favoured the owners financially - the cap ensured that and it doesn't matter who proposed it first.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Vaive-Alive said:
So whats your point? When I stated, "Imagine the joy the NFL ownership felt when they got their salary cap..." knowing that their revenues were going to increase substantially throughout the course of the agreement thanks to increasingly lucrative TV contracts and other rev. streams, how was I not basing that statement on fact? If you want to get in a pissing match about who proposed a cap first - so be it - you win! But that wasn't the point of my post. The original poster had said that the NFLPA won the war - I disagree. They were humiliated in their first legal challenge ( Powell ), won their second ( well a group of players did ) that forced the league to renegotiate a deal that has ultimately favoured the owners financially - the cap ensured that and it doesn't matter who proposed it first.

The point is the cap wasn't really an issue to the NFLPA. They went on strike and then decertified to get free agency, nothing more. They got it. That means they won.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
Munchausen said:
Problem is, where the law becomes subjective, political biases do play a role, and bargaining in good faith isn't all black or white. It needs to be interpreted by the median party. Interpretation isn't a law. There are boundaries, of course, but there is still a committee that must take a decision based on both the evidences and their beliefs.

Bush's NLRB has rejected impasse declarations already, and these come from typical grunt unions, not a union representing several hundred millionaires. A little secret that a lot of people don't realize: a large number of US athletes tend to be Republican. They like Bush's tax brackets quite a bit. It's not as cut and dry as "Republicans support the businesses and screw the workers". NHL vs. NHLPA is not the same thing as Amtrak vs. Teamsters or something along those lines.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Will AHL players currently playing on NHL 2 way contracts have a choice? If this dispute continues on into next season I can see NHL teams not allowing their prospects to return to the AHL because by the time the NHL returns their prospects might be playing somewhere else.

This would put more pressure on the NHLPA to get a deal done as these young PA members won't have the savings that veteran NHL players might have and they might not be as interested in the cause.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
hockeytown9321 said:
The point is the cap wasn't really an issue to the NFLPA. They went on strike and then decertified to get free agency, nothing more. They got it. That means they won.

Yup, they won the right to have the most restrictive cap in pro sports.

The won the right to have the weakest PA of all the major sports.

The NFL owners have been the big losers since they used replacement players.

Sure thing sparky.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Thunderstruck said:
Yup, they won the right to have the most restrictive cap in pro sports.

The won the right to have the weakest PA of all the major sports.

The NFL owners have been the big losers since they used replacement players.

Sure thing sparky.

The NFL players won free agency, that's what they wanted. They took a cap in order to get it. And correct me if I am wrong but didn't the players want a linked cap because it would increase spending?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Vaive-Alive said:
Won the war? You have an intersting slant on history ;).

If the legal recourse the NFLPA membership sought upon decertification excites you - imagine the joy the NFL ownership felt when they got their salary cap...
The salary cap had been proposed by the NFLPA as means of getting a bigger share of the revenue.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
So we're right back to "Why doesn't the NHLPA accept the owners offer, and win this fight?"

Silly players. They've won, all they needed to do was to accept the offer and vote. How stupid do you have to be not to recognise when you've won the battle?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
PecaFan said:
So we're right back to "Why doesn't the NHLPA accept the owners offer, and win this fight?"

Silly players. They've won, all they needed to do was to accept the offer and vote. How stupid do you have to be not to recognise when you've won the battle?
Because that is not what the cap does for the NHL players in these circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->