Re Impasse
- Thread starter AM
- Start date
- Status
Kritter471
Registered User
AM said:
Your argument holds no water because the teams over $45 million were not necessarily the ones who lost money (see: Toronto Maple Leafs). And anyways, an impasse is about bargaining in good faith. I could make a strong case that neither side in this particular case holds that water mark. An impasse is not an option.
... well considering tons of players are FA's (including many that would be UFA's) thus arn't included...nyr7andcounting said:
I really don't care much for the 24% rollback. WIth the rollback, tons of teams now have extra money to blow on FA's. The rollback is essentially useless unless there is a cap - a low cap.
What will likely get the league the impasse is moving off linkage.
Kritter471
Registered User
And yet... the owners would have the option of using the players offer (minus that stinky article #7) with the rollback to keep salaries down. It's a negotiable offer. Now, should the owners have taken it? Probably not. But it's enough to match the owner's movement away from linkage.
AM said:
Okay, but now you are also leaving out that the PA accepted a cap, which would extend savings into the future by stopping spending at a certain point no matter what.
When the 2 sides are on the same philosophy it would be very hard to get an impasse. It has basically come down to numbers and unless one side drastically changes their stance there won't even be an impasse attempted.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
1. The owners can only lose, as far as I can see if the NLRB rules against them. The players are counting on this, that can be the only reason that they have taken the hard line that they have.
2. The Owners have a $300 million war chest that they have not touched.
3.The Owners make the real money during the playoffs.
4. Weighing 1 - 3 above, I highly doubt that the owners declare an impass. I think that their chances pretty good before the NLRB if they do, but they have no chance of losing if they never declare an impass. They will wait, make motions toward negotiating at lower figures and as summer turns to fall, halloween rolls by with thanksgiving around the corner the players will cave without ever getting a whiff of the NLRB.
2. The Owners have a $300 million war chest that they have not touched.
3.The Owners make the real money during the playoffs.
4. Weighing 1 - 3 above, I highly doubt that the owners declare an impass. I think that their chances pretty good before the NLRB if they do, but they have no chance of losing if they never declare an impass. They will wait, make motions toward negotiating at lower figures and as summer turns to fall, halloween rolls by with thanksgiving around the corner the players will cave without ever getting a whiff of the NLRB.
The 2 sides only agreed on philosophy before the cancellation. The league could make a VERY strong case on backlash cancelling the season had, thus having to either drastically drop the number from 42.5 million or go back on linkage.nyr7andcounting said:
It was said that the 42.5 million was proposed such that the league would lose money the first 2 seasons, but gain it back in the next 4. That was the presumption and that was why Gary Bettman wasn't sure all 30 teams could survive with the 42.5 million cap. It was a risky gamble, but he knew the consequences would be and will be drastic, and thus moved off the principal of linkage.
If and when Gary Bettman goes to the labour board, he will likely present to them a proposal without likange, but an offer significantly lower then the 42.5 million and reason the loses that the league has and will lose as a result of the length of hte lockout. In that instance, I think he'll get the impasse.
Should he argue on the basis of having linkage, however, that might be a little more challenging.
AM said:
Before you start talking about impasse, I suggest you do a little light reading on the subject. Here I wll attach some precendents from the courts to help you get started.
http://www.braunconsulting.com/bcg/newsletters/spring2001/bargain2.html
http://web.missouri.edu/~labored/Case18A-1.html#Case XVIII-Answers
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/ALJ/JD-119-04.pdf
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/334/334-68.pdf
I also recommend reading McLatchy as well. Salary caps could be viewed as merit wage proposals and thus the only exception to the impasse ruling.
AM said:
It is not the job of the board to review the contents of the deal, only the way it has been negotiated essentially. However in this case a cap tied to revenue could be viewed as a merit wage proposal and thus bad faith.
the respondent's implementation of this proposal would not create any fixed, objective status quo as to the level of wage rates, because the Respondent's proposal for a standardless practice of granting raises would allow recurring unpredictable alterations of wage rates and would allow the Respondent to initially set and repeatedly change the standards, criteria and timing of these increases."
http://www.saspc.com/artnlrb2.htm
Last edited:
Jaded-Fan said:
According to Bettman, some have. And remember, its only $10 million per team. Nashville can't use part of the Rangers' money of they need it.
Splatman Phanutier said:
I agree with that. If they go bck to linkage, the NLRB will see that as going backward. The league will probably come with a non linked cap of about $30-35 million. Impasse is extremely easy to break, all the players would have to do is move slightly toward the owners number. They also look at the bargaining history of the parties, and its obvious the two sides make progress when they have to. They did in 1995, and they did last week. I just can't see how impasse is viable.
hockeytown9321 said:
The owners could agree to share this money at any time, as needed.
The owners have consistently shown a willingness to lose money to protect their investment. Why anyone would expect this to change is beyond me.
AM said:
1. Do you understand how the labor board works?
2. Are you even slightly familiar with its history, both long term and short term?
3. Do you think the labor board might have better things to do than get involved in a battle between millionaires and billionaires.
4. Do you think the labor board might just decide that a league that spends 160 days trying to win a cap ought to spend more trying to negotiate the numbers?
5. DO you think the labor board will want any part of the stunts and PR tactics?
Thunderstruck said:
The main reason we don't have a deal today is the owners' refusal to do any kind of revenue sharing. The big teams don't want to help the little ones. Why in the name of god's green earth do you think that all of a sudden the Rangers (who I'm sure could eventually use some or all of their $10 million) would generously give Nashville some cash when they vehemently refuse to do so during a normal regular season?!??
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
gc2005 said:
I could think of reasons. If they thought that maintaining the lockout would benefit them for instance. I doubt that the players could hold it together until January of next year, if I am an owner of the Rags, and halloween is approaching, and I believed that the players were waivering, I may loan my share of that war chest to Nashville who was tapped. All hypothetical, but you were saying basically that you could not see any reason for it happening based on the revenue sharing issue (which btw, Bettman addressed, and it may be more significant than you think). Here is one scenerio.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Kucherov becomes 5th player in history to record 100 assists in a season
- Latest: klefbombs shoulder
