Could the owners just "lift" the lockout in January?

[I in the Eye]

ARTICLE 3
Duration of Agreement
(b) Neither the League nor any Club shall engage in a lockout during the term of this Agreement.

But the term of this Agreement has expired... What I imply this statement to mean is that before the expiration date of the agreement, the NHL cannot engage in a lockout...

It is clear that the NHL could legally lockout the players after the expiration date... It is my understanding that instead of a lockout, it could have been 'business as usual' while both sides continue negotiations...

If both are legal, I don't understand why 'a bit of both' can't be...

 

[Egil]

Not every CBA is written the same. I can see what is written in this one though...

What is written is that either party, should they wish to terminate the CBA (and thereby give themselves a legal strike/lockout position) must give notice 120 in advance of the CBA expiring. If this is not done, the agreement is extended for a year, and neither side can engage in a strike or lockout. But, the owners CLEARLY gave notice 120 before Sept. 15. Now, what if they decided to lock the players out on Oct. 1, or right before the season started, what rules would have applied then? It is the current CBA, guaranteed.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Wow. That's kind of out of left field...

Where did the NHL declaring impasse come into this plan of yours? And as you stated, the NHL can't declare impasse until after they present a full CBA to the NHLPA.

Sure they can. They just can't win before the NLRB. In this case, the intent is to lose.

The only point I was trying to make is that this CBA is dead. It can't be lifted unless both sides agree to a new CBA.

Or unless the NLRB restores it because the NHL is obviously bargaining in bad faith.

I just don't see why the NHL would do this...

Because they want to win the labour dispute.

Tom

 

[djhn579]

What is written is that either party, should they wish to terminate the CBA (and thereby give themselves a legal strike/lockout position) must give notice 120 in advance of the CBA expiring. If this is not done, the agreement is extended for a year, and neither side can engage in a strike or lockout. But, the owners CLEARLY gave notice 120 before Sept. 15. Now, what if they decided to lock the players out on Oct. 1, or right before the season started, what rules would have applied then? It is the current CBA, guaranteed.

The players were locked out as soon as the agreement was terminated on Sept. 15th. The NHL had to terminate the agreement to do this. Now, how the agreement would apply in any way after Sept. 15 , I don't know. I just see what the CBA says. Could the NHL have opened training camps? possibly, but that would only be done with agreement of some sort with the NHLPA. There would be too many legal and insurance issues otherwise.

 

[GabbyDugan]

The Lawyers would have a field day with this , I'm sure

It is clear that the NHL could legally lockout the players after the expiration date... It is my understanding that instead of a lockout, it could have been 'business as usual' while both sides continue negotiations...

According to one section of the old CBA quoted by djhn579, the NHL had to give 120 days notice prior to September 15th, 2004 ,or else the CBA would have been in effect for another full calendar year. The NHL could only lock out the players on September 15th....not September 16th , not November 26th, not December 31st....not again until September 15th, 2005. (the players did not give strike notice 120 days prior to September 15th, 2004. Does that mean if the lockout is "lifted", they would not be able to declare a strike until September 15th,2005)?????


"This Agreement is effective retroactive to September 16, 1993, and shall remain in full force and effect until midnight on the 15th day of September, 2004, and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter unless and until either party shall furnish the other a written notice of termination of this Agreement 120 days prior to the 15th day of September, 2004 or not less than a like period in any year thereafter.
3.2. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the NHL, the Clubs, the NHLPA and all the players covered by this Agreement and their successors or assigns."

 

[djhn579]

Sure they can. They just can't win before the NLRB. In this case, the intent is to lose.



Or unless the NLRB restores it because the NHL is obviously bargaining in bad faith.



Because they want to win the labour dispute.

Tom

How about we get back to the original topic instead of contiuing to drag this of course...

You brought the owners declaring impasse into this discussion, I don't know why. We were discussing your plan to have the owners lift the lockout in Jan... Not the owners declaring impasse.

 

[djhn579]

But the term of this Agreement has expired... What I imply this statement to mean is that before the expiration date of the agreement, the NHL cannot engage in a lockout...

It is clear that the NHL could legally lockout the players after the expiration date... It is my understanding that instead of a lockout, it could have been 'business as usual' while both sides continue negotiations...

If both are legal, I don't understand why 'a bit of both' can't be...

From the way it is written, if written notice was not given 120 days before Sept. 15 2004, the agreement couldn't be terminated again until Sept. 2005. Failure to give written notice 120 days prior to the expiration date moves the expiration date to the next year after Sept 2004

 

[I in the Eye]

According to one section of the old CBA quoted by djhn579, the NHL had to give 120 days notice prior to September 15th, 2004 ,or else the CBA would have been in effect for another full calendar year. The NHL could only lock out the players on September 15th....not September 16th , not November 26th, not December 31st....not again until September 15th, 2005. (the players did not give strike notice 120 days prior to September 15th, 2004. Does that mean if the lockout is "lifted", they would not be able to declare a strike until September 15th,2005)?????


"This Agreement is effective retroactive to September 16, 1993, and shall remain in full force and effect until midnight on the 15th day of September, 2004, and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter unless and until either party shall furnish the other a written notice of termination of this Agreement 120 days prior to the 15th day of September, 2004 or not less than a like period in any year thereafter.
3.2. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the NHL, the Clubs, the NHLPA and all the players covered by this Agreement and their successors or assigns."

Ya, but... hmmm...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

According to one section of the old CBA quoted by djhn579, the NHL had to give 120 days notice prior to September 15th, 2004 ,or else the CBA would have been in effect for another full calendar year. The NHL could only lock out the players on September 15th....not September 16th , not November 26th, not December 31st....not again until September 15th, 2005. (the players did not give strike notice 120 days prior to September 15th, 2004. Does that mean if the lockout is "lifted", they would not be able to declare a strike until September 15th,2005)?????

The fact that one party terminated the CBA gives either party the right to initiate the work stoppage. They aren't tied to a date.

If the players told the NHL that they were willing to negotiate a salary-revenue relationship, the owners would probably lift the lockout right now while the parties argued about definitions and shares. If the negotiations fell apart at some point thereafter, the lockout could be renewed.

Tom

 

[djhn579]

The fact that one party terminated the CBA gives either party the right to initiate the work stoppage. They aren't tied to a date.

If the players told the NHL that they were willing to negotiate a salary-revenue relationship, the owners would probably lift the lockout right now while the parties argued about definitions and shares. If the negotiations fell apart at some point thereafter, the lockout could be renewed.

Tom

But wouldn't they need to have some kind of new agreement in writing stating that they are going to operate under certain terms of the previous CBA pending concluding negotiations of a new CBA that includes X, and that the NHL has the right to re-impose the lockout if negotiations break down?

On top of that, I read somewhere that the last lockout was lifted in a similar manner and that after play resumed, the NHLPA was insissting on adding various clauses that were not previously agreed to. Those clauses got into the CBA because the owners did not want to shutdown the season again. This time they have stated that they will have a full CBA approved before they lift the lockout.

 

[Kickabrat]

Yes, this is the point. THey would both agree to it forthe sake of the fans and the season while the players position is weakened. No unilateral - an agreement to negotiate while playing out the season. The players already offered to do this. The owners gain benefit from it. Dont you see?

I see just fine. like I pointed out before, why the hell would they agree to this? For the sake of the fans? Are you serious? If the sake of the fans meant anything to these people, we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd be at the games. This dispute is about money, not about the fans. The owners will not agree to going back to the old CBA under any circumstances. I would venture a guess that if forced to do so by a court of law, they would close up shop and start up a new league.

any interim agreement involving the old CBA weakens the owners position that it is an intolerable piece of s*** that must be eliminated. How can they sit there and say what a piece of crap the CBA is if they keep wanting to renew this agreement?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

But wouldn't they need to have some kind of new agreement in writing stating that they are going to operate under certain terms of the previous CBA pending concluding negotiations of a new CBA that includes X, and that the NHL has the right to re-impose the lockout if negotiations break down?

Why? The NHL has that right anyway. They acquired that right when they gave notice to terminate the old CBA.

On top of that, I read somewhere that the last lockout was lifted in a similar manner and that after play resumed, the NHLPA was insissting on adding various clauses that were not previously agreed to. Those clauses got into the CBA because the owners did not want to shutdown the season again. This time they have stated that they will have a full CBA approved before they lift the lockout.

Like that wasn't owner propaganda. Nobody heard any of this stuff until 10 years later. What clauses do you think the NHLPA insisted on adding?

The NHL has indeed said this, but what is the implication if you stop and think about it. They clearly could lift the lockout, but they won't, not unless every t is crossed and every i is dotted, no sir.

I would certainly expect them to say that right up until they do announce they will have a season. They hope the players crack. If not, the owners concede the first battle because it is in their interest to concede the first battle. The only battle that will count in this war is the last one.

Tom

 

[Egil]

If the players don't agree to the lifting of the lockout, they have an easy out, they strike. The expiration of the CBA simply makes striking and locking out legal practices. But, should neither party strike or lockout, business continues as usual. The way OUT of a CBA you don't like is to strike or start a lock out. The clause given in this thread is related to an automatic renewal of the CBA, not of what happens after it expires, which eventually it must.

BTW, 100% guaranteed the owners did not need to lock the players out at 12:01 on Sept 16th. Their 120 days notice was for the termination of the CBA, giving them a legal position to lock out the Players, not a forced date of a lockout.

 

[gary69]

This seems to be a good agenda item for the December 2nd meeting with the GMs, eh? What else is it they plan to discuss? The schedule won't be difficult. It might be a little early, but suppose they come out of that meeting and announce training camps start December 15th and the season starts on January 7th.

I think this is another positive for the plan. Make the players bail on their European teams and hop the next flight home. When the lockout is re-imposed next year, will the Europeans be as anxious to hire NHL players? Will the players be as willing to go if they understand it is probably another half season lockout?

Tom

Those dates sound pretty good also when considering the European leagues' situation. For example, Swedish league has the last transfer windows to sign any new players this season open between 15th-21st of December and 24th-31st of January.
(I didn't bother to look to other leagues' dates, but I doubt they differ a lot, since in most those countries playoffs are played in March-April 2005).

And most NHL players in Europe don't have to excatly bail out on their teams, since most of them have signed a contract until Christmas or thereabouts anyway, and if the NHL season in canceled they will sign for the rest of the European season in January.

 

[Puck]

I've been trying to stay on the fence in this lockout. If the NHL is devious enough to play out these machinations, I think I'd fall off that fence squarely landing in the NHLPA camp. After all the NHL's whining that they can't operate under this CBA and they're losing money and would rather close up than play, well, wouldn't ending the lockout just be saying that they believe this current CBA is still a workable document? Where's their argument now? I think a lot of fans would jump off that NHL bandwagon. Even Kickabutt

 

[Kickabrat]

I've been trying to stay on the fence in this lockout. If the NHL is devious enough to play out these machinations, I think I'd fall off that fence squarely landing in the NHLPA camp. After all the NHL's whining that they can't operate under this CBA and they're losing money and would rather close up than play, well, wouldn't ending the lockout just be saying that they believe this current CBA is still a workable document? Where's their argument now? I think a lot of fans would jump off that NHL bandwagon. Even Kickabutt

Whoa whoa whoa. Who said I was on the owners side. I blame both the owners and players in this mess. The only reason I am posting anything in this thread is because of the lame brain notion that the owners strategy should be to lift the lockout and go to a perpetual lockout and play 40 games a season.

Thanks for agreeing with me that the owners would have no chance in hell of arguing in front of any court that the CBA was unworkable if they keep asking the players to renew it every chance they get.

Plus not to mention the laughable assertion that the owners would actually WANT to negotiate in bad faith so they could lose on purpose. If they were ever found to be negotiating in bad faith the repercussions would be so severe that they would probably go bankrupt. For example, one penalty the NLRB could order (and has in other labor matters) would be backpay for the employees i.e. players.

 

[PecaFan]

Gah, more useless speculation.

Look, it's simple. These two sides disagree *vehemently*. So if one side declares they want to go back to the old CBA, you can damn well take it to the bank that the other side will refuse. Because if the other side wants to do something, it's clearly good for them, and by extension *bad* for you. So there ain't no way in hell both sides are going to agree to play.

And finally, if Tom (a past employee of players and their agents) is saying "the owners should do X", you can be damn sure that that would be the best thing for the players.

 

[SENSible1*]

Gah, more useless speculation.

Look, it's simple. These two sides disagree *vehemently*. So if one side declares they want to go back to the old CBA, you can damn well take it to the bank that the other side will refuse. Because if the other side wants to do something, it's clearly good for them, and by extension *bad* for you. So there ain't no way in hell both sides are going to agree to play.

And finally, if Tom (a past employee of players and their agents) is saying "the owners should do X", you can be damn sure that that would be the best thing for the players.

The simple fact that all the pro-nhlpa posters think this is a good idea should tell you just how bad it would be for ownership and how well the NHL's current plan is working.

 

[thinkwild]

Thanks for agreeing with me that the owners would have no chance in hell of arguing in front of any court that the CBA was unworkable if they keep asking the players to renew it every chance they get.

What would be the set of circumstance that would be leading the NHL to argue in court that the current CBA was unworkable? I cant see them having any chance of winning a case like that in court, even if I could imagine the cicumstances that would lead to it. Not even a labour board will try and make that determination. Courts dont buy that guff like fans do.

Lifting the lockout is just a plausible scenario from some of us hopeful a season would be played rather than retrenchment and holding out and no hockey. Seeing as there seems to be little other hope ion the horizon. I cant imagine why "NHLPA supporters" would like this strategy, it leaves players in a tough spot and potentially weakened in the long run. I cant imagine why Bettman bootlicks wouldnt support it. Oh right, crush the union, prove the system doesnt work in court. Yes, if taking this perspective, I guess I can see it. The owners dont need to prove anything. If they wanted to prove something they would show the books the owner looks at when allocating a budget for a team. Not the budget he ends up allocating for the team.