Ted Saskin Statement

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Crows*, Feb 19, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Crows*

    Crows* Guest

    TSN just reported a statement ted saskin said, when asked if the offer will get worse and worse from now on.

    "I can't see anything worse than what they put on the table today,""

    THIS proves that the union leadership is leading it's members to a path of a 32 million dollar cap with an average salary under a million within a year.

    It's quite incredible that the players continue to believe what their union leadership says.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2005
  2. acr*

    acr* Guest

    He needs to get his head out of his ass. The rest of the world can't imagine the union getting a deal BETTER than the one they got today.
     
  3. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,188
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    What floors me is that he expects the cap to go up with revenues. Are these guys seriously that stupid?

    So after arguing for months against a link between revenues and salaries, they expect a link between revenues and the salary cap (thus, of course, salaries), but only when it goes up.

    They want "protection" as I heard it described, yet they're willing to offer zero back to the owners in terms of "protection".

    And then they have the audacity to say the NHL isn't doing their part to negotiate. It's mind boggling.
     
  4. not quite yoda

    not quite yoda Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    this is a mess.

    replacement players start your engines.
     
  5. Big McLargehuge

    Big McLargehuge 13

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    68,508
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    S. Pasadena, CA
    Completely agree. Sucks that the guys with no power want this to work but the guys with all the power in the world are also the most stubborn people in the world.

    Works on both sides.
     
  6. greatlakeshab

    greatlakeshab Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the union may just win in the end by decertifying. There is a very good chance they can force the NHL in becoming just like any other job out there. This means you go apply for whatever team you want to play for. The premier players will be free to move around and could actually see their wages increase. The NHL will not even be able to make up their own rules if the labor board agrees in free market dynamics. The cheap Boston's and Chicago's of the league would never see a star player again and could just as easily fold when the fans refuse to pay for poor product. The owners don't want to bust the union in this scenario because it will be much costlier in the end and it would be impossible for them to even use a salary cap since it could be fought in the courts as price collusion of a product(the players).
     
  7. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,891
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    On the other hand, the NHL teams don't have to offer jobs... They could wait for another union to form and negociate with that union.
     
  8. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    BS.

    NLRB wouldnt let that slide through for a minute. Owners are winning this battle. And guess what, the PA has finally acknoledged that a cap is needed.
     
  9. tritone

    tritone Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,979
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    callcentrehell
    Location:
    Laval
    Home Page:
    A major problem with your theory...if small market teams are no longer viable then the owners will simply cease to own the team and therefore there will be less teams....less teams = less players with jobs .... does the Union really want to cut their work force ? Does the union want a league contraction of 10-20 teams so that the remaining players can make the salary they want? If this is the case then they can all go to h...
     
  10. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why would the NLRB do anything about a union decertification by NHL players? Doing so is completely within their rights.
     
  11. Kestrel

    Kestrel Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    7,273
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Here's a question... everyone has made it sound like the union decertifying is a move that'll kill the owners' position - what I am wondering is, if the union decertified, is there anything stopping a group of players from forming another union, and the owners from negotiating with this union, leaving the other players out in the cold? If this can't happen, then maybe decertification is a major threat, but if it can - maybe this is more of a gamble than the players would be willing to make.
     
  12. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's the players, not the owners, that determine what union does or does not represent the players.
     
  13. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    I dont buy it. The players are turning the page about the cap. Jay McKee just said so on 590 that he now sees the light of having a salary cap.

    They've been brainwashed by Goodenow. All that's left is Bob needs to tell them to drink the Kool-Aid at Jonestown
     
  14. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because more than half the players would have to vote for decertification. Also more than half would have to vote for the new union. So if the players go the decertification route, it's unlikely they will turn around and go the union route again.
     
  15. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And just what does that have to do with your assertion that the NLRB wouldn't let the players decertify the union?
     
  16. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    My point is that the NHL might complete their Impasse procedure before the Decertification went through.

    Plus, that's nuts that they'd decertify. A lot of people have been treating all 700 players as if they all say the same thing. They dont. 10 players can't decertify the union.
     
  17. Kestrel

    Kestrel Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    7,273
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    139
    A lot of players are already going to be out of contracts... meaning a lot of new contracts are going to have to be signed. A union forms, and teams start signing contracts with members of that union, whether they've previously been NHL players or not. Seems like an opportunity for non-NHLers to suddenly find themselves playing on NHL teams.
     
  18. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep. A lot of contracts would have to be signed. But if the NHLPA is decertified it won't be a big problem because every player without a contract will be an unrestricted free agent. Crosby would be an unrestricted free agent too.

    Those with contracts will have to honor them. But they must be paid full value -- no 24% rollback in that case.

    No labor agreement means no draft, no restricted free agency, and no salary cap.

    Which teams will benefit from that scenario?
     
  19. greatlakeshab

    greatlakeshab Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Here's a question... everyone has made it sound like the union decertifying is a move that'll kill the owners' position - what I am wondering is, if the union decertified, is there anything stopping a group of players from forming another union, and the owners from negotiating with this union, leaving the other players out in the cold? If this can't happen, then maybe decertification is a major threat, but if it can - maybe this is more of a gamble than the players would be willing to make. "

    All of the southern hockey teams are actually in right to work states. Technically a player like Crosby could say right now he wants to play for Dallas and use the courts to gain his rights. Now players have not done this because you can imagine trying to play against other players after pulling something like this. The other problem owners may have is if they bring in replacements the US teams will not be able to use foreign players and the Canadian teams may not even allow replacements.

    The other to consider is what happens if many players do decide to cross but choose were they want to go play. The small market teams will actually lose with even replacements when the better players are attracted to the better teams. Truthfully the $45 million cap would of helped the small markets. After refusing again they may just of ended their franchises.
     
  20. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    That would kill the league and its 30 franchises. You think a majority of the PA has the balls to do that?
     
  21. Steve L*

    Steve L* Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southampton, England
    Home Page:
    It also means no league so how would the players benefit?
     
  22. Mr Sakich

    Mr Sakich Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    8,843
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Motel 35
    Home Page:
    the nlrb would not let the union decertify in order to exempt the mhl from anti-trust laws. In a US supreme court case of Brown vs NFL, it was made very clear. This info was from the ex head of the nba players association who was interviewed a week ago on the fan 590.
     
  23. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,891
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Yeah but it's the NHL teams that offers or not jobs. Because the players are decertifying doesn't mean that the NHL teams have to offer those players a job. As well, due to anti-trust provisions, it's almost impossible for a league to operate without a union.

    How do you think new leagues (such as the upcoming WHA) to implement their CBAs?
     
  24. Kestrel

    Kestrel Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    7,273
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    139
    The point is that that would allow teams a lot of roster spots to fill - with players from a different union.

    ie - company A has 500 jobs to fill, and would prefer to work with a union... there are 1000 unemployed workers out there - 500 of which can use this opportunity to quickly form a union, and take those 500 jobs.

    The NHL isn't required to work with the NHLPA if there is another union out there. If you're a fringe player who likely wouldn't ever quite make the NHL under previous circumstances, but you can make you and your fellow fringe players look attractive to the NHL teams by forming a quick union and agreeing to a salary cap that's low, yet still far above what you're already earning - wouldn't you be quite tempted to do that? For these fringer players, there's also the intangibles - recognition, popularity, endoresement contracts, the like.

    Player A may be the superior player, but if he won't work for what Team A is going to pay, Player B will probably get the job. If Union A won't work with the NHL, or rather, disolves, maybe Union B will step up to the plate.
     
  25. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It wouldn't kill the league. It wouldn't kill 30 franchises. It might kill a few. But Bettman has made it obvious that he intends for any CBA to contain a salary cap that will make the lowest revenue teams profitable.

    From an economics standpoint, the players will be better off if they can kill off a the lowest revenue franchises.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"