Break up the union?

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Chili, Sep 14, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    Some speculation on that here.

    An owners wish list for sure but if things do drag on indefinitely who knows?
     
  2. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    140,792
    Likes Received:
    2,592
    Trophy Points:
    232
    It is all verbiage.
     
  3. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    Maybe at this point but if there is no NHL this year, this could be an interesting topic down the road. The NHL labour lawyers are sure to complete a review to see is this is a viable angle.
     
  4. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    140,792
    Likes Received:
    2,592
    Trophy Points:
    232

    The owners can't wait that long. They can boast their $300 million war chest all they want. If they lose a whole season it will take years to make the money back they would have if they even only played 48 games.
     
  5. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    We'll see but an old saying goes 'how bad do you want it?'. Short term pain for long term gain. I don't know how much resolve the owners have (nor the players). We shall see.
     
  6. Malefic74

    Malefic74 Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
    Home Page:
    There are at least a few owners who lose less money with empty buildings than they lose with full ones and the expenses they incur. To those owners this is definitely worth it.
     
  7. pld459666

    pld459666 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,084
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Danbury, CT
    First

    the Owners would have to start negotiating in good faith and presenting 1 offer with 6 different variations all tied into what they feel is a good deal for them is not good faith. The Owners would have been better served if they presented 6 seperate offers, even if it is pretty much the same thing. It's called establishing a pattern of good faith negotiations that they have not done.

    Meanwhile, the players are in a similar situation in that they too have made 2 offers, both were pretty identical with the 2nd offer, also good for them, the difference is that the players requested information from the owners that would have helped them understand what the owners are looking for and constructed a deal surrounding that information.

    So far the Owners have said, this is the system that we want and we will not allow you to play another game until we get it.

    that is not negotiating in good faith and I could easily see (as of today mind you) the NHLPA getting an injunction preventing the league from imposing unilateral changes to how business is done.
     
  8. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    The owners are the only ones that are taking the financial risk, they have every right to insist on a system they believe will make owning an NHL team less of a risk.

    Good faith is more than just looking for very minor changes to the status quo...
     
  9. pld459666

    pld459666 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,084
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Danbury, CT
    Good faith is also not

    saying here's 6 variations of the same deal, take it or leave it.

    Had they run their business correctly and not extended the status quo 2 times prior to today this is not a conversation we are having.

    And as someone said in another thread altogether, there's no investment in the world today that will guarantee a profitable return on your initial investment. Not to say that you are guaranteed to lose money either, but it's not a slam dunk thing either way.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2004
  10. HckyFght*

    HckyFght* Guest

    Replacement Players!

    They should lock the players out, and open camps on schedule holding tryouts with current NHL players invited to cross the line. Open the season on time and charge movie ticket prices.

    While they are at it they should move the blue and red goal lines back to their pre-Bettman configuration returning 6 feet to the neutral zone and abolish the Instigator Rule. Tell goalies that 50% of the pads have to go.

    The players haven't a leg to stand on and I can't think of one I'll miss.

    -HckyFght
     
  11. DownFromNJ

    DownFromNJ Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't bringing in replacements illegal?
     
  12. Vlad The Impaler

    Vlad The Impaler Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    12,102
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Montreal
    I've been curious about this as well. It doesn't seem there is a clear answer to that, depending on the implementation.

    One thing I know is, labor laws vary from country to country and (to my knowledge) province to province. So making it work for the 30 teams might be VERY complex.
     
  13. pld459666

    pld459666 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,084
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Danbury, CT
    If I'm not mistaken

    Replacement players could only be used if the Union Players were to strike.

    The Owners have called for this work stoppage and bringing in players when you have these guys under contract and have not paid them I think may be illegal.

    I could be way way off on this though.
     
  14. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    Good point. I just know that in NY, when we were looking at the possibility of our workers unionizing and going on strike, our legal advice was that we have every right to continue to produce, whether there is a strike or not. The problem came in with what happens after the strike since the replacement workers would automatically be part of the union (state law that if there is a union in a class of workers in a shop, everyone in that class is part of that union, whether they want to be or not) if they were still employed when the strike was over, so we could of had problems if we laid people off...
     
  15. HckyFght*

    HckyFght* Guest

    Replacement Players

    Whether or not all 30 teams get to participate in replacement games is immaterial to the objective to be gained. And that is for the NHL to reclaim control over capital outlay and correct the imperfections in the system that have thrown finances out of balance. Since the union has shown no desire to negotiate whatsoever, the only thing that could get their attention would be to stay in business and move forward without them. My guess is there are plenty of teams in right to work states for this to be a viable course of action.
    -HckyFght
     
  16. HckyFght*

    HckyFght* Guest

    Replacement Players

    In addition to the above, as of 9/15 the contract with the union has expired, couldn't then, theoretically, the league sign a contract with another union of hockey players?
    -HckyFght
     
  17. Vlad The Impaler

    Vlad The Impaler Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    12,102
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Montreal
    I disagree. One of the strongest point of the NHLPA has been solidarity.

    The very reason why the owners are suffering (and making the NHL a crappy product for us) is because of lack of solidarity.

    What you are proposing is much the same. Now is not the time for a couple of owners to take a course of action, another couple to take a different course of action and so on...

    Besides, any "replacement league" would already be diluted enough as far as the on-ice product (replacement players) without on top of that diluting the league's identity.

    This is different from a food chain or the like. At these places you shop to get a burger and you don't care what the other McDonald looks like. In the NHL, the product is intricately tied to all teams. The standings, the rivalries, the trades, the whole league dynamic.

    I'm not against the league eventually cutting back teams IF need be. But I am totally against a short term plan where teams cut back teams while they are in a labor war. This is shortsighted, IMO.

    Whatever course of action the NHL take, it should include all teams that will go forward WELL past the labor war. Besides, if you are the owner of one of the teams stuck because of labor laws, are you going to sit down and smile while your comrades take a shortcut?

    Everybody who has invested in this league should have a right to equaal consideration. In fact, that's the very reason why there IS a CBA war raging right now.
     
  18. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,879
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Its hard to imagine who these owners would be. Perhaps teams like Edmonton that dont actually own their arena.

    My understanding is that to declare an impasses they would have to go to court. I'd love to see them convince a judge they need a salary cap. That woiuld be a fun case. Maybe this time Bettman has a loophole that will for perhaps the first time in the history of sports allow the owners to win a court battle over the players.

    The NHL is free to us replacement players I guess. I cant imagine any of them going into the corners with their striking brethren when the league returns. If the replacements arent unionized, they cant have free agency restrictions put on them, nor can they be drafted. Which according to the owners current position, would seem to mean they would have no choice but to break the cap rules they are proposing.

    CBA talk is making me loony

    .
     
  19. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    how exactly will it take years to make the money they would have made if they played 48 games when they would LOSE money if they played 48 games
     
  20. Vlad The Impaler

    Vlad The Impaler Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    12,102
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Montreal
    Exactly.
     
  21. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    I was thinking along the same lines. Is the NHL legally obligated to only deal with the NHLPA? What would happen if a group of players came together and set up the NAHPA (North American Hockey Player Association) and wanted to sign a CBA contract with the NHL?

    I don't think any of the anti-owner people can have a problem with that. In a free market, a group of players are free to market their services to the NHL. If the NHLPA wanted to continue to represent NHL players, they would also have to compete with this new union for the NHL CBA contract. I would also think that any rookies currently being thrown under the bus by the NHLPA would be all for this idea...
     
  22. HckyFght*

    HckyFght* Guest

  23. Other Dave

    Other Dave Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Academic administration
    Location:
    New and improved in TO
    Home Page:
    Pretty much, as long as the NHLPA is the recognized labor association representing NHL players.

    I don't think they would be allowed to do so (by the government enforcing current labor law), in either the US or Canada, as long as the NHLPA existed. IANAL however.
     
  24. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY

    Not a bad article, but I disagree with the part about guaranteed contracts. If a player decides he wants to play elsewhere, but the team won't trade him, it would be too easy to float until the team gets tired and either trades him or cuts him. It would be much better to make all contracts two way. If your not performing, to the minors with you!

    I know that the union will never agree to that though, that would be even worse to them than a salary cap.
     
  25. chara

    chara Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And in a lot of US cities, replacements may even be profitable. Much lower salaries translates into much lower ticket costs. Throw in tickets for a monster truck rally for each season's ticket package purchased and hockey might actually work in some markets.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"