Something for those that are on the players side...

[Wetcoaster]

no, it's an association of individual contractors

No, it is a union as defined under the US NLRA and under the various Canadian provincial labour codes that govern this dispute. I thought this myth had been put to bed months ago?

 

[Wetcoaster]

If the owners really want a cap, they can enter into agreement among themselves, e.g. no owner will offer more than X amount to players as from today. So every time they negotiate a new contract with a player they would do it within the cap. Of course, they would still have to pay salaries under existing contracts until such contracts expire. This is however better than nothing, coz any sane person would be silly to voluntarily agree for a salary reduction. Would you?

Pardon???????

Not unless they want to be hit with antitrust lawsuits in the US and anti-competitve practises charges in Canada.

Without a valid CBA to insulate the owners from antitrust action there can be no cap or entry draft, reserve clause, restricted free agents, etc.

 

[Wetcoaster]

so do associations of management employees. i don't consider these as unions either.

That is because they are not unions as defined in the various labour laws, the NHLPA on the other hand is so defined.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Thanks for explanations on collusion. Damn, the solution did look to simple to be true.

Just a question: if owners and NHLPA decide to have a cap, can individual players, or third parties, sue for collusion?

In the past the courts have generally held that where there is an existing CBA it binds individuals even if they are not members of the union or not eligible for membership, e.g. incoming junior players are subject to the entry level salary cap.

There is however one case where Dale McCourt challenged his rights being awarded by an under the CBA to Los Angeles as compensation for the Wings signing Rogie Vachon.

A major legal battle erupted after NHL arbitrator Ed Houston ordered that Detroit transfer McCourt's NHL rights to Los Angeles as compensation for the signing of restricted free agent Rogie Vachon on Aug. 8, 1978. The Red Wings had been offering Jim Rutherford and Bill Lochead as compensation, but the Kings demanded McCourt, and the arbitrator sided with Los Angeles, which was offering McCourt a $3 million contract. Despite the big money, McCourt refused to go to Los Angeles, and sought legal protection. He got a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Court Judge Robert DeMascio on Sept. 18, 1978, overturning the arbitrator's decision and allowing him to remain with the Red Wings. The judge ruled that compensation requirements on NHL free agency were an illegal restraint of trade because they limited competition. McCourt's lawyer, Brian Smith, then sued the NHL, the NHLPA, the Red Wings and Kings in an effort to prevent McCourt from ever being sent to Los Angeles as part of any compensation package. While the cases were tied up in the courts, McCourt continued to play for Detroit, spending the entire 1978-79 season there along with Vachon. In the process, McCourt angered many fellow players, who thought his actions were undermining the NHLPA, which had agreed to the compensation requirements in its Collective Bargaining Agreement. McCourt appeared to have lost his legal battle at the end of the 1978-79 season, when the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld the arbitrator's original decision, but McCourt immediately appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. The situation was resolved, and the need for a Supreme Court ruling avoided, when Los Angeles traded McCourt's rights back to Detroit for Andre St. Laurent, 1980 first-round pick (Larry Murphy) and the option of having Detroit's 1980 second-round pick or 1981 first-round pick (Los Angeles chose the 1981 first-round pick -- Doug Smith) on Aug. 22, 1979. This was an alternate compensation package that Los Angeles had been willing to accept in 1978, but Detroit had rejected. Los Angeles' original request, before the McCourt request set off a legal battle, had been for Reed Larson, two No. 1 picks and $700,000 in cash. The McCourt case helped to eventually change the NHL's rules on compensation but the experience took its toll on McCourt. He later said he lost his love for being in the NHL as a result of the legal ordeal

http://www.hockeydraftcentral.com/1977/77001.html

Oddly enought the law student who helped research the law on the McCourt case for the plaintiff was none other than Bob Goodenow who was attending the University of Detroit Law school at the time.

 

[Hawker14]

That is because they are not unions as defined in the various labour laws, the NHLPA on the other hand is so defined.

associations of management employees aren't defined as unions ? from the canada labour code -

Where a trade union applies for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit comprised of or including employees whose duties include the supervision of other employees, the Board may, subject to subsection (2), determine that the unit proposed in the application is appropriate for collective bargaining.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/l-2/sec27.html


in any event, i should have been clear. i don't view the nhlpa as a union in my own personal view of what a union is and what it stands for.

 

[Wetcoaster]

associations of management employees aren't defined as unions ? from the canada labour code -


http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/l-2/sec27.html


in any event, i should have been clear. i don't view the nhlpa as a union in my own personal view of what a union is and what it stands for.

You said management not supervisory - big difference in labour law terminology.

Your personal view has nothing to do with the legal status of unions.

 

[thinkwild]

So when you use this simple equation, and your best player demands more than you can afford using this definition, you just let him sit (which means you lose his services, which leads to lost games, which leads to lost revenue...), or you trade him for other assets which in general are not as good as you are giving up (which means you lose talent, which leads to lost games, which leads to lost revenue...), or you let him walk away for nothing (which means you lose his services, which leads to lost games, which leads to lost revenue...).

Or you trade him for Chara and Spezza and improve over the long run, win games, increase revenue, or you trade him for a couple of first rounders, or you make a good trade and bring up your best prospect who is ready ..

I cant imagine its often out-of-the-blue, that a player asks for a pay raise. Im sure Muckler is looking at Spezza, Hossa, Havlat, Volchenkov, Fisher and has a 5 year plan for their pay raises, the projections would be pretty easy to ball park. Which UFAs we will have to let go and prospects to bring up to accomodate it. When rebuilding, you probably shouldnt be setting a salary budget of all your available revenue, you need to bankroll some of that for later.

In Ottawa's case, we are going to have bankroll further increases with more revenue - playoff revenue. If we dont make it out of the 1st round 3 years in a row, Alfie and Redden are goners. Perhaps Hossa too. You cant keep a high pried loser together unless you want to repeat the experiences of Wash and NYR. You may think its a luxury to maintain high priced UFA losers and make the playoffs, but it just means you will crash harder. UFAs mostly want to play for winners, and only proven winners benefit from signing them.

 

[djhn579]

Or you trade him for Chara and Spezza and improve over the long run, win games, increase revenue, or you trade him for a couple of first rounders, or you make a good trade and bring up your best prospect who is ready ..

I cant imagine its often out-of-the-blue, that a player asks for a pay raise. Im sure Muckler is looking at Spezza, Hossa, Havlat, Volchenkov, Fisher and has a 5 year plan for their pay raises, the projections would be pretty easy to ball park. Which UFAs we will have to let go and prospects to bring up to accomodate it. When rebuilding, you probably shouldnt be setting a salary budget of all your available revenue, you need to bankroll some of that for later.

In Ottawa's case, we are going to have bankroll further increases with more revenue - playoff revenue. If we dont make it out of the 1st round 3 years in a row, Alfie and Redden are goners. Perhaps Hossa too. You cant keep a high pried loser together unless you want to repeat the experiences of Wash and NYR. You may think its a luxury to maintain high priced UFA losers and make the playoffs, but it just means you will crash harder. UFAs mostly want to play for winners, and only proven winners benefit from signing them.

Management can expect players to ask for raises, but it is impossible to predict how much they will ask for since one team can offer a similar player far beyond what another team thinks a player of that caliber is worth. Then you also have arbitration that can significantly increase players salaries also based on players recieving contracts that another team may not feel is justified.

And yes, sometimes things work out well. Sometimes you get a player back of equal value that contributes immediately. Does that happen every time? 50% of the time? 25% of the time? It's totally unpredictible. Spezza and Chara worked out well in Ottawas case, but Ottawa also had a good core previously. If you put Sezza and Chara on Pittsburgh (for instance) would they have the same impact? Would they carry Pittsburgh deep into the playoffs on their own?

In most cases however, if the player does not like what he is offered and holds out, the team is hurt at least in the short term, and that can be the difference between making a profit or losing money. And the player holding out can also have a detrimental effect on the team chemistry, i.e. if he is a very popular player in the dressing room or if you have NHLPA reps constantly agitating and making comments about how unfair it is that the owner just doesn't give him the money he wants, and how the owner is too cheap to pay for a contending team. This will hurt the entire team even more. I have no proof of this happening (the NHLPA reps part) but it does not seem out of character for them either.

 

[HckyFght*]

One thing is for certain: owners and club managers know **** all about their jobs. If you are a manager and if you know that you club cannot pay 10m to a player, then don't.

Unless some judge orders you to...or your season ticket base , your primary source of revenue, threatens to evaporate, and your radio and TV money goes south without your marquee player to promote...

If the owners really want a cap, they can enter into agreement among themselves, e.g. no owner will offer more than X amount to players as from today.

...and get fined tens of millions for collusion.