What if players vote no ?

[Hawker14]

as suggested by tom benjamin, what happens if the players vote no to this deal and decertify the union ?

would each player be able to negotiate with all the teams without any of the CBA restrictions ?

Click to read more...

 

[Calgary_Moe]

If the players vote "no" the owners will open camps under their own new financial structure and invite tryouts.

IMO

Moe

 

[MojoJojo]

If the players vote "no" the owners will open camps under their own new financial structure and invite tryouts.

IMO

Moe

If they do that and try to impose a salary cap, hold a draft, or hold onto their RFA's, they are looking at a court fight, since any attempt at restricting the players salary without a CBA would constitute collusion. The league needs the players to sign the CBA more than the players need to have their rights restricted by it. The players could have played last year without a CBA as free agents after all, but the league chose instead to lock them out to get a CBA.

 

[Weary]

as suggested by tom benjamin, what happens if the players vote no to this deal and decertify the union ?

would each player be able to negotiate with all the teams without any of the CBA restrictions ?

Any player without a contract would be an unrestricted free agent, including players who would have been in the 2005 draft. I don't think it's ever been tested whether the existing contracts would have to be honored or not. But I don't know why they wouldn't. Teams would not be required to offer the pension plan, guaranteed contacts, or other things the previous CBA included. But they would still be free to offer them if they wished.

I don't think it will happen, but it would be fun if it did.

 

[sensens]

If they do that and try to impose a salary cap, hold a draft, or hold onto their RFA's, they are looking at a court fight, since any attempt at restricting the players salary without a CBA would constitute collusion. The league needs the players to sign the CBA more than the players need to have their rights restricted by it. The players could have played last year without a CBA as free agents after all, but the league chose instead to lock them out to get a CBA.

Actually, I don't believe that the league could have successfully operated without what could be considered a reasonable attempt at bargaining with the NHLPA (which could not have been accomplished before September). But I think that the loss of a year would have constituted that, and I think this is why there is the pressure on the NHLPA to get something done before training camp. As for the lack of a CBA, the need for a CBA does not necessarily equate a need for a CBA with the NHLPA. The owners could have drawn up a CBA to their liking and allowed a new players union to sign onto it - one made up of players willing to comply with its terms. The NHLPA is only the NHLPA because the NHL does business with them, not because of sany exclusive legal right that they have.

 

[Weary]

The owners could have drawn up a CBA to their liking and allowed a new players union to sign onto it - one made up of players willing to comply with its terms.

Nope. The bargaining unit consists of all players. A new union would require endorsement of a majority of those players. Now if a majority of the players ditch the NHLPA as their representative, what are the odds they'll agree to be represented by a union that's in bed with the owners?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

If the players vote no and they have tryouts and use the scabs i am done with the NHL for good.

 

[PecaFan]

as suggested by tom benjamin, what happens if the players vote no to this deal and decertify the union ?

Ah, good ol' Tommy Boy, still throwing around the absurd scenarios. Based on legal counsel by Wetcoaster, no doubt. I notice he no longer here, probably got tired of having to back up these wild claims.

It's not going to happen. Even Wetcoaster admitted that de-certification was a last gasp, avoiding impasse or replacement players, mutual death scenario.

 

[Mess]

I don't think it will happen, but it would be fun if it did.

While we all want hockey back, can you imagine that 700+ UFA and a complete free for all ..

Hockey has never seen and would never see something like that again.

 

[Impossibles]

I heard on the radio that if the union denies a ratification vote presented by its executive commitee, the executive commitee is dissolved and a new one has to be formed, and then collective bargaining would have to restart with a new commitee and set the entire process back 6 months. This is an absolute worse case scenario.

Does anybody know what percentage of the players have to accept the deal for it to pass? Is it 50%+1, or a super-majority?

 

[joepeps]

While we all want hockey back, can you imagine that 700+ UFA and a complete free for all ..

Hockey has never seen and would never see something like that again.

If no deal is sign the League will bust.... if door arn't open this year.. kiss the NHL goodbye......

 

[Hawker14]

If no deal is sign the League will bust.... if door arn't open this year.. kiss the NHL goodbye......

i disagree, i can't see the owners walking away from what has been valued as a $ 3.5 billion plus business.

 

[mackdogs*]

If the players vote no the owners should vote yes to the Bain offer. Shortly after the rumored league minimum of 400k/year will now become the league average.

 

[HockeyCritter]

While I understand there will be a “no†percentage based on nothing but principal, but would the players fail to ratify a CBA negotiated by their own executive committee.

 

[Hawker14]

While I understand there will be a “no†percentage based on nothing but principal, but would the players fail to ratify a CBA negotiated by their own executive committee.

that's the real question. and in today's day and age, do they really even need an association any more ?

i think the league may need the union (for player rights, salary cap, entry draft) possibly more than any player does.

 

[Mess]

While I understand there will be a “no†percentage based on nothing but principal, but would the players fail to ratify a CBA negotiated by their own executive committee.

If the majority did not think it is in their best interest then yes .. If they vote no in fact the papers are reporting that the committee would step down or be removed ..

Goodenow has loyalists and if the committee's direction is not his then that is your no vote population ..

What next would be anyone's guess at that point ..

 

[HockeyCritter]

Goodenow, it appears, has lost the faith of the majority of the players ---- sure he has his hardliners, but they are few and far between.

 

[Mess]

Goodenow, it appears, has lost the faith of the majority of the players ---- sure he has his hardliners, but they are few and far between.

How do any of us definitively know that ? ..

I have never read or seen a report that suggest what you are saying .. In fact I have read its going to be close or ratification is no guarantee type reports instead .

I don't think the CBA will be voted down, because the Hard Cap ceiling effects so few players in fact .. If you team will not spend to the cap then you will get your money, and if your team spends near the cap then only the last guys to sign does the cap become a factor .. If you are a player I would get my agent to try to get me a deal as fast as possible and sign early .. Those players that wait for best deal might be SOL when the Hard Cap ceiling is near ..

Players are only really concerned about the issues that effect them Qualifying offers, Arbitration and UFA age ..

 

[Impossibles]

Goodenow, it appears, has lost the faith of the majority of the players ---- sure he has his hardliners, but they are few and far between.

Mike Brophy of THN told TEAM 1040 radio that Goodenow isn't even a part of the negotiations anymore.

 

[cjbhab*]

Mike Brophy of THN told TEAM 1040 radio that Goodenow isn't even a part of the negotiations anymore.

good, they don't need that fool, he lost the players a lot of money and in the end, Gary saved our game. Thank-you Gary!

 

[HockeyCritter]

Hasn't Bettman been absent from meetings as well?

It is my understanding that it mostly lawyers attending the meetings.

 

[kdb209]

If they do that and try to impose a salary cap, hold a draft, or hold onto their RFA's, they are looking at a court fight, since any attempt at restricting the players salary without a CBA would constitute collusion. The league needs the players to sign the CBA more than the players need to have their rights restricted by it. The players could have played last year without a CBA as free agents after all, but the league chose instead to lock them out to get a CBA.

Be careful though about speculating about the chaos in a post-decertification world. The league still could hold a draft, hold onto the RFAs, impose a salary cap, untill the players went through a long and costly series of court cases.

Look what happened in the NFL after the NFLPA decertified in 1989. The draft continued. Restrictive Plan B free agency continued. It took lengthy and costly court challenges (funded by the NFLPA through it's lucrative liscencing revenues - something the NHLPA does not have, at least not at the level's of the NFLPA). The only case that actually went to trial was the McNeil v NFL where Freeman McNeil and 8 others challenged the continuing Plan B free agency. The players won, but didn't get a decision until 1992 and only 4 of the 8 players were awarded damages totalling only $543K. Plan B was struck down, but many owners wanted to then implement a slightly less restrictive Plan C and force the players to go through the whole legal process again, and again.

Note that the court didn't rule that any restrictions on free agency were disallowed, only that the rules of Plan B were more restrictive than necessary be to accomplish the league's stated goals of preserving cometitive balance and fan interest.

I find it kind of interesting that there were no challenges to the NFL draft during the period of NFLPA decertification.

Finally the NFL and NFLPA came to a peace agreement in 1993. The league agreed to free agency in return for a salary cap. The NFL paid out $195M to settle all pending litigation. The NFPLA re-certified.