so what is the NHL's plan B ?

Plan A is to negotiate a cap with the union. it seems to have not worked.

There is a good case that shows the NHL really wont be able to get an impasse considering the many legal arena's and jurisdictions that they would need to overcome.

They cant use replacemenet players since its a lockout and not a strike, unless they get an impasse declared.

So what other options do they have to get their deal and hockey back ?

Seems to me plan B can only be to wait out the players.

DR

 

Correct. Feels good being right, doesn't it? You should try more often.

 

Just as the players do not have to agree to a cap, the owners don't have to agree to end the lockout if they don't have a cap.

What is the players plan B? Wait? Start a new league? Play in Europe? Bag at Walmart?

 

How about plan C ; the nhlpa will accept a salary cap.

 

No, that's plan A.

 

There's no need for other plans. Look at the "blogger's" thread where I've written why it is totally stupid to keep not negociating a hard cap (for the players). On the other hand, as long as they get a cap in the end, the owners will make more money in the next 10 years regardless of how long the lockout is.

 

I think that you need to study this area a little bit more...

 

since you are so smart, why dont you tell us how the owners can overcome the legal hurdles it will require to declare an impasse and use replacement players.

dr

 

Getting a little nervous are you? I think that you should be...and this is why I call the players stupid...blindly following a guy who is obviously smart enough to know that he cannot win and is therefore no longer can be trusted...

 

No, he asked you how the owners could get to an impasse and use replacement players. Since the legal obstacles appear almost insurmountable please share with us how this would be done.

Check out the problems the NHL would face in trying to declare and implement an impasse declaration, then tell us how to get around these obstacles. Simple challenge. See Post #4 on the following thread:
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=125166

Over to you.

 

Ya man I dont know about the states but some provinces like British Columbia got some hard union laws that would need to be overcome.

 

Oh, it's not just British Columbia, there are other provinces too...but without giving too much away, let me just say that TIME is the owners' best ally.

As I suggested before, why don't we all talk again next January and then talk again the January after that?

 

First I'll say it's too early to talk about an impasse.

Second, every case of impasse is "unique" as in it's hard to predict what the NLRB decision will be.

Third, the NHL might prefer to wait than to use replacement players. They may lose less money waiting than using replacement players.

It's kind of needless to discuss this so soon.

As to the link to post #4, I have a few comments about it. If an impasse was so "easy" to assess as to let a "message board fighter" draw 100% sure conclusions, we could drop lawyers altogether. Also, unless you think you're a sibling of God, I suggest that instead of taking your position as granted and your word as godly, you should stop using your own word as "the final word". It's interesting, but nothing more. Anyone who think you can predict rulings by analysing a few cases and the "rules" (or more precisely: a specific interpretation of those rules) needs to get his head checked.

 

Are you kidding? Im on the owners side here, but even I think they cant go longer then 2 years. The NHL will lose fans faster then a fat guy can eat a cheeseburger.

 

Wetcoaster is a lawyer. If you polled the people with legal backgrounds on the boards, I think you'd find that they are all saying the same thing: the impasse route is too risky, and has too many potentially expensive uncertainties for the owners to risk taking it. I'm on board with that. Tom_B has indicated that he agrees with the basic premise of that. I'm pretty sure Wetcoaster has said as much. Any lawyer types out there who disagree?

 

Actually, I never said that I was smart...that was your assessment...but what I did say was that the players are stupid...

I should clearify...some players are stupid since there are obviously smart ones like Joe Juneau...

 

But who cares? They can't keep going on with the current system! With cost certainty, whatever the revenues are, they can budget to end up the year with black ink.

What's better, losing $300M out of a $2.1B industry, when your projections don't show any profit expectancy within the next 10 years (in other words, with your capital eroding yearly) OR making $10M out of a $500M industry, when your projections show increasing profits as the popularity of the sport comes back?

And now, for the players, what's better? Making 55-58% of a $2.1B industry or making 75% of a $500M industry?

The answer lies right there, eventually the players will break (whatever they say), the owners only have to wait.

 

I agree. I am willing to wait as a fan, but I am not sure whether certain fans in certain southern markets will do the same. Some people will say that we can afford to lose 6-8 franchises but im talking about up to 15 or 16 American cities that might not even remember what hockey is in 2-3 years.

 

So what if he's a lawyer? With law, there's only one thing that's certain: you will always find a lawyer to pick up your side. Why do lawyers go to supreme court to lose? If they're so smart and able to predict decisions, why didn't that lawyer just sit? Because the law is made of interpretations, and as such is never 100% predictible. Brian Burke is a lawyer, does it mean that everything he says is gold? No.

I don't think the owners will try to get an impasse either, but to pass your word as God's is just non productive. While I do agree it's improbable, who knows how it would really end up once the process started? No one can. The rest is just babble.

If we were to seek a lawyer to get a case of impasse, I'm sure we'd be able to find one who would tell you he's sure he'd win because of "x" and "y".

 

Surely the NHL has made marketing research in those markets to make sure it could launch back the game up to some point. I believe that the fact the NHL was a lesser sport will help them in this case, as they could relaunch it and in some markets it might be stronger than where it left off. With a cap, the NHL will offer new "hope" to the fans of many smaller markets, while the bigger markets will recover eventually.

 

I agree Smail. Im hoping that the NHL, through some rule changes, can make the game much more marketable then it has been since, really since 1994.

 

Of course not. The fact remains, I've yet to hear anyone with any legal background who understands the composition of the league that thinks that impasse is the route that the owners will take. I've heard lots of people with no clue bring it up, but no one with any legal training. The word of people who actually understand what's going on is relevant, and to be blunt, is a hell of a lot more relevant than the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the law. The opinions of the vast majority of hfboards posters on this are irrelevant. Even if they were to be end up being right, it's not because of any unique insight, or understanding of the process, it's because they got lucky. It's worthless analysis, much like that offered by most of the media.

I haven't heard anyone say their word is God's. I have heard people say, effectively, "My word is more relevant than yours, because I've been trained in this field and you haven't. I understand how this field works and you don't." Myself, I've been very careful not to couch what I've said in absolutes-this isn't an area about which I have great knowledge, being a) Canadian, and b) just a law student. That said, I'll put my knowledge of the law, and ability to understand what I do read about it up against anyone here who doesn't have any legal training. The fact that there isn't a single person with a legal background willing to make the case that impasse is the route for the owners to go is telling, IMO.

I don't think you'd find a lawyer who'd say he's sure of winning anything, IMO. Lawyers are as aware as anyone else that the legal process is unpredictable-look at Wetcoaster's comments. You have to be careful not to conflate the two issues as well. Winning impasse is one thing. Winning impasse, and not losing the war is another. I don't think that they can win an impasse AND win the war. If they can't do both, then it's actually irrelevant whether they can win an impasse, unless you're an academic. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the vast majority of those hung up on winning a legal impasse aren't legal academics.

 

From an observator, it sure looks like trying to pass this off as the "exact picture", since it's being used to counter any argument. I don't have links handy, nor do I want to look for them (cause I think discussing impasse at this point is pointless), but there are lawyers who have said in the press that the NHL might have a case of impasse. I've seen it, so I can understand how some people would write on here about how they think it is a possible avenue.

Now about the lawyers saying they're sure of winning... I know a heck of a lot of people who have gone to court and they were assuring me they'd win. Their lawyer had told them it was a sure win. Well guess what, not all of them won.

Last point: I really want to stress out that when you get a hearing or go to court, you can play on the interpretation of the law. There are people that dedicate their lives at defining the basis of a law for a pointy subject for the sakes of its interpretation. The impasse subject is so large that I really doubt that Wetcoaster read all those people's life work on each point that he raises. As well, someone with a new approach could give a new "meaning" to the basis of the law. Or the law could be changed, or altered by politicians for a "special situation". In other words, there's nothing that's more uncertain about whether the NHL could or couldn't get an impasse. At first sight, it looks like a difficult thing to accomplish, but who knows really if they go that way what will happen? Hence if you say it's "impossible" to any argument and then point out your post where you made a certain assertion of the situation (however educated it is), it looks like you think gold is coming out of your mouth.