Finally, someone smart speaks up on the situation.

[me2]

They’ll decertify. No union, no CBA, no cap, no draft. The UFA age drops from 31 to 18.

Picture all those UFAs, and picture the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Leafs can spend $60M on salaries and still make $20M in profit. The Leafs will spend, guaranteed.

And if Toronto spends $60M+, you can bet that Philly, New York and Detroit will spend $50M+ to keep up. And Montreal, Colorado, Dallas, Vancouver, … will all spend $40M+ to ice a competitive team.

Those bigger would likely spend $60m-80m, what they are spending now, give or take a little. Of course twice as many stars on each roster means they all take a paycut to fit under budget.


Teams like Vancouver would be better off not competing at all with $40m budgets in an all UFA market. They can pick up who ever is left over and offer there $500-600K per year. Those players have got no where else to go, they'll have to take what they are offered, they won't get that much in Europe (elites will be on the big spenders).

The weakest clubs that do decide to play will likely pick up rookies and young players on $200K-250K per year unguaranteed contracts. No need to offer any more, they won't make that in the minors or the CHL. The rich clubs won't bother signing them since they can signed them later when they need them (all UFAs remember).

$42.5m/team would look very nice.

A number of teams will probably fold. If we are to believe Edmonton’s owners, without “cost certainty†they’ll have to suspend operations, so Edmonton is likely done.

Teams like Edmonton will suspend their franchise and deprive the NHLPA of roster spots and drive down the market value of the players. You could see up to 14 teams choose to suspend activities. Teams can do maximum damage to the NHLPA by suspending.

I don’t know about Mario and Pittsburgh. Maybe if they get their new arena they can survive, but it may be in a world where Fleury and Malkin go to the highest bidder. A few years from now, a set of $45M handcuffs for the Toronto Maple Leafs might sound awfully nice to Mario in retrospect.

And a $42.5m cap would look pretty great to the 40% of NHLers out of work, and the the other 40% that took a huge paycut to play in a reduced team NHL.

 

[Mess]

Several teams are losing LESS money because they are not playing so for them your theory doesn't apply at all. Number of those teams is ~10-15 so they can veto any proposal..

Losing less but still losing .. So all 30 owners are losing money by not playing .. It just means that some teams have player costs greater then Revenue .. Regardless the deal on table know with Revenue sharing and Cap and 24% could have changed that for owners ..

If 80% of large public is against the player there's a good chance that the courts see it the same way. Remember it's not black & white, courts have to make an objective decision have players & owners negotiated in good faith and then their personal opinions do affect their decisions...

The courts rule based on evidence and previous cases and the Law ..not public opinion .. IMO

He is hoping for an impasse? I don't think so. With public opinion so firmly against PA, I'm certain that people would go to see replacement players especially with lower ticket prices. As much as they want to see the most talented players in the world, they want to see players giving their absolute best every night & play with passion. Many times fans are disgusted with the floating millionaires who have no desire to even try. AHL games are often much more entertaining because players are playing with fire & passion (to get chances in NHL) and with AHL ticket prices they would be hugely popular games.

Also you forget that many PA members would cross the line and play with replacement players....

THis I don't think you have put a lot of thought in .. First you say lower AHL ticket prices and then you say players will cross at which time they will get paid again .. If Roenick crosses then he will get his millions to play .. Then what each game ticket price is based on who crossed .. A floating system .. How would owners set prices not knowing what to pay out and who will cross ..

Well several owners have offered PA to check out their books and PA has refused so far, I don't see why owners wouldn't let the courts check out their books. Do you seriously think NHL has not considered this option?? Of course they have....

Why should the NHLPA do this .. They don't care what the books say they don't want a Cap and certainly not linkage .. SO the books are irrelevant .. The NHLPA wants to negotiate a deal for them .. How the owners spend or run their businesses is on no concern to the NHLPA .. but Goodenow will call the NHL bluff and at IMPASSE the court will do the dirty work and depending on the results this could swing big time .. If the books are accurate the Owners win and courts rule in their favour if the numbers are wrong then the NHLPA will call the shots . If the NHL is found quilty of bad faith bargaining and the courts rule in favor of the players there is talk that the owners would have to pay all the contracts back to the players .. If Goodenow wins in court and the players get the 1.5 mil from last season awarded .. Goodenow will be a God in the NHLPA eyes ..

You're really living in a dream world dude. Decertifying would be a total suicide for majority of the players (all europeans for example). No guaranteed contracts, no mininum wages, no mandatory allowances, plane tickets, holidays etc. Yeah, the sakics and broudeurs of hockey world would get the money but the 4th line grinders would be in real trouble.

Do you know how decertification works .. If the NHL was as you said it would why would any NHL player return to that mess .. They would go to Europe or set up another union or the NHL will have to have something in place no Pro Sport has no union .. It will only be a tatic to get lots of money for its players .. Its a last ditch offer but this explains it best ..

the other end, the NHL Players' Association could potentially pull some good trump cards of its own - strike or decertification.
Under a strike scenario, the union simply won't accept the new work rules and walk out. They would gamble that fans wouldn't flock back into arenas to watch non-regulars dressed in NHL uniforms.

The other option is for NHLPA members voting to decertify the NHLPA as their representative body. That way, the new framework of the CBA would not be applicable to them. Simply put, you can't have new labour practices applying to members of a union if that union doesn't exist anymore.

This specific process will essentially fragment the union's former membership. Decertified players who think they can make better money under a new CBA could head back to work, while players who take a financial hit from the new CBA could sue the league under anti-trust laws. If 'Hockey Player X' made $9 million US under the old deal, and only $6 million US because of restrictions - whether it be a salary cap, luxury tax, or re-vamped salary arbitration - under a new deal, he could seek damages for as much as three times the difference.

The other impact of decertification is its effect on the NHL as a product. No one knows how many players would return to such a 'new' NHL, and if most rosters are filled with replacement players, would fans be willing to watch a 'lesser quality' of hockey?

 

[djhn579]

Those bigger would likely spend $60m-80m, what they are spending now, give or take a little. Of course twice as many stars on each roster means they all take a paycut to fit under budget.


Teams like Vancouver would be better off not competing at all with $40m budgets in an all UFA market. They can pick up who ever is left over and offer there $500-600K per year. Those players have got no where else to go, they'll have to take what they are offered, they won't get that much in Europe (elites will be on the big spenders).

The weakest clubs that do decide to play will likely pick up rookies and young players on $200K-250K per year unguaranteed contracts. No need to offer any more, they won't make that in the minors or the CHL. The rich clubs won't bother signing them since they can signed them later when they need them (all UFAs remember).

$42.5m/team would look very nice.





Teams like Edmonton will suspend their franchise and deprive the NHLPA of roster spots and drive down the market value of the players. You could see up to 14 teams choose to suspend activities. Teams can do maximum damage to the NHLPA by suspending.



And a $42.5m cap would look pretty great to the 40% of NHLers out of work, and the the other 40% that took a huge paycut to play in a reduced team NHL.

And in the NHL you have described above, all those star players on the high spending teams will be in constant fear of being run and injured by players that make considerably less than them. The other players will know that they can't match the stars talent so they have to take the stars out physically every chance they get or the lower spending teams will find someone else who will. The big market teams will have all the best players, but few of them will make it through a season without injury. How else would the lower priced teams be able to compete?

 

[me2]

You do realize that all the players have to lose is money for playing when they are not playing. Thats it .. The are giving up unearned money and those the went to Europe 1/2 are even still making moiney not what they did but, still making it none the less..

The Owners even if hockey is not played have lots of cost .. Property tax, Fire Insurance., office staff, scouting staffs, President, GM, Coaches Salaries , light, heat ,power, leases, loans etc etc .. Every minute they don't play and bring in money they lose money.. Which means its costs them money to sit around.

Rangers parent company saw it's operating income fall from $11m -> $41m recently. Oh sorry, did I say fall. Is still called falling when it goes up $31m because the Rangers aren't playing? You'd think the Rangers management would love them to stay out longer.

Impasse to me will get the courts to force all 30 owners open its books and an IRS audit done.. No court will rule in favour of the NHL until it knows all the facts particularly if linkage is involved by the NHL ..

How long will it take to get through the courts, audit the books, go back through the courts? 1 year? You think the NHLPA can hold out that long?

and even if it comes to the final straw and he feels a Hard Cap and linkage is enivitale .. he will de-certify the union allow all the players to work the best deal possible but all the players would be UFA and total chaos for the owners who would once again be bidding against each other and raising Salaries again . and the players could file law suits agains the NHL and get millions in rewards ..

Risky move that could bite the NHLPA if the NHL has a good strategy to deal with it.

 

[me2]

This bit has been backed up by Burke and a few other sources

The NHL and the NHL Players' Association have not had a failed bargaining session since last Saturday, when Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky took part at the request of the players. Lemieux said he and Gretzky only took part because they were led to believe the union was prepared to make an offer that included a $45 million slary cap.

"The only way that Wayne and I would have gotten involved is because we believed there was a new proposal coming from the Players' Association," Lemieux told the Post-Gazette. "We were told by some of the players we were talking to that there would be a new proposal on the table at the $45 (million) level."

No such offer was made at the meeting, and the NHLPA later denied that an offer was even in their pocket, never mind on the table. The NHLPA said they only attended the meeting at the league's invitation. League commissioner Gary Bettman later told a New York radio station that he, Gretzky and Lemieux had been "set up" by the union, a notion NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow vehemently denied.

Lemieux avoided such talk in the aftermatch of the failed talks, but acknowledged he felt he was misled by the players - he just doesn't know why.

"It's a mystery to me," he said.

WTF was going on?

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

This specific process will essentially fragment the union's former membership. Decertified players who think they can make better money under a new CBA could head back to work, while players who take a financial hit from the new CBA could sue the league under anti-trust laws. If 'Hockey Player X' made $9 million US under the old deal, and only $6 million US because of restrictions - whether it be a salary cap, luxury tax, or re-vamped salary arbitration - under a new deal, he could seek damages for as much as three times the difference.

The other impact of decertification is its effect on the NHL as a product. No one knows how many players would return to such a 'new' NHL, and if most rosters are filled with replacement players, would fans be willing to watch a 'lesser quality' of hockey?

i dont know how decertifying the union will work, but if its anything like you said, the nhlpa CAN NOT lose! accroding to you, they are all UFAs without a union, so they can sign for as much as anybody will offer. and if they dont AT LEAST GET AS MUCH AS THEY USED TO, they can just go sue their team for anti-trust (and win as much as THREE TIMES the differences!), which for some players, are better than signing any contract under the old player-friendly cba. but the good part is, the nhl's revenue WILL decrease, so they WILL pay less for players, so the players WILL win any anti-trust case. maybe this is goodenow's plan b after all?

 

[me2]

Why should the NHLPA do this .. They don't care what the books say they don't want a Cap and certainly not linkage .. SO the books are irrelevant ..

Didn't the NHLPA ask for upwards linkage. Care to explain how they are going to know what amount to move the cap up IF they don't look at the books. After all, you keep saying they don't trust the owners numbers on URO and other pre-prepared statements.........

 

[me2]

i dont know how decertifying the union will work, but if its anything like you said, the nhlpa CAN NOT lose! accroding to you, they are all UFAs without a union, so they can sign for as much as anybody will offer. and if they dont AT LEAST GET AS MUCH AS THEY USED TO, they can just go sue their team for anti-trust (and win as much as THREE TIMES the differences!), which for some players, are better than signing any contract under the old player-friendly cba. but the good part is, the nhl's revenue WILL decrease, so they WILL pay less for players, so the players WILL win any anti-trust case. maybe this is goodenow's plan b after all?

If decertification was everything its cracked up to be then the NHLPA would have done it years ago. It isn't. No arbitration. Teams will also put non-disclosure agreements on their contracts/offers, players won't know how much other players are getting and won't be able to use that against bidders.

 

[Mess]

This bit has been backed up by Burke and a few other sources

WTF was going on?

IMPASSE posturing ...

Look at this nonsense..

The only way that Wayne and I would have gotten involved is because we believed there was a new proposal coming from the Players' Association," Lemieux told the Post-Gazette. "We were told by some of the players we were talking to that there would be a new proposal on the table at the $45 (million) level."

Lemieux also acknowledged that if the union did make the $45 million offer, he's not sure it would have been accepted by the league.


So lets recap :

Okay so both Wayne and Mario are mad that the NHLPA made no proposal at 45 mil ..

but even if they did, then they are not sure it would be accepted ..

So WTF as you say does that accomplish .. Mario and Wayne are mad they had nothing to turn down ??

If $45 would not have gotten a deal done why does it matter if they made it or not if it would be rejected ..

 

[Mess]

Didn't the NHLPA ask for upwards linkage. Care to explain how they are going to know what amount to move the cap up IF they don't look at the books. After all, you keep saying they don't trust the owners numbers on URO and other pre-prepared statements.........

Usually getting higher numbers in not a problem with trust .. That could only benefit them .. If they are cheated out of it TOO BAD .. But Negative or declining revenue and and a Shrinking Hard Cap based on cooking the books is a concern ..

If decertification was everything its cracked up to be then the NHLPA would have done it years ago. It isn't. No arbitration. Teams will also put non-disclosure agreements on their contracts/offers, players won't know how much other players are getting and won't be able to use that against bidders.

What do you mean years ago .. It takes a Work Stopage or new CBA that effects players rights for this reward to be possible .. If you do it under an agreed on going CBA what does it do?? Players would get every penny owned on guaranteed contracts before ..

This is im place to prevent businesses from UNFAIR Labour Practices ..

 

[Mess]

i dont know how decertifying the union will work, but if its anything like you said, the nhlpa CAN NOT lose! accroding to you, they are all UFAs without a union, so they can sign for as much as anybody will offer. and if they dont AT LEAST GET AS MUCH AS THEY USED TO, they can just go sue their team for anti-trust (and win as much as THREE TIMES the differences!), which for some players, are better than signing any contract under the old player-friendly cba. but the good part is, the nhl's revenue WILL decrease, so they WILL pay less for players, so the players WILL win any anti-trust case. maybe this is goodenow's plan b after all?

Actually that is not my opinion but fact.. I cut and pasted right from this :

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=9941 ( see last two paragraphs)

Well take a player like Yashin and his 10 mil multi year contract .. If the new NHL want to pay him 5 mil now .. He is going to pay Goodenow to push for decertify the union..

3 times the Difference at 5 mil = 15 Mil a season fines to the NHL .. for 1 year .. and even if its just 1 -1 fines .. 5 mil dif X 7 years remaining = 35 Mil fin .. The after taking this money he simply signs a new deal on quitely retires to Russia ..

WOW is all I can say .. Think of Jagr and Holik, Guerin type mult-year contracts ..

Is anyone sure this is not Goodenow's plan .. If he win in Impasse the NLRB will implement the old cba like they did with Baseball and if he is losing in court he simply goes this route and makes his clients millions ..

 

[firstroundbust]

Mario is right, the sooner we get this CBA done, the better it is for the players...
I can't see how thing's are gonna get better for the players by not agreeing to a lower cap and/or linkage. Can someone please tell me how the players are gonna win??

the players can't win.

the owners might get their way, but they aren't gonna win either.

nobody wins in the whole lockout.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

Actually that is not my opinion but fact.. I cut and pasted right from this :

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=9941 ( see last two paragraphs)

Well take a player like Yashin and his 10 mil multi year contract .. If the new NHL want to pay him 5 mil now .. He is going to pay Goodenow to push for decertify the union..

3 times the Difference at 5 mil = 15 Mil a season fines to the NHL .. for 1 year .. and even if its just 1 -1 fines .. 5 mil dif X 7 years remaining = 35 Mil fin .. The after taking this money he simply signs a new deal on quitely retires to Russia ..

WOW is all I can say .. Think of Jagr and Holik, Guerin type mult-year contracts ..

Is anyone sure this is not Goodenow's plan .. If he win in Impasse the NLRB will implement the old cba like they did with Baseball and if he is losing in court he simply goes this route and makes his clients millions ..

WOW is all i can say as well. this is just insane, basically the players are going to bring the court in to force owners to continue overpaying them. i know its their legal right to do so, but still...
there is a catch though. since taking a pay cut is no longer an option, i think we'll see ALOT of one year contracts. those 5 yrs $45M contracts, and those 10 yrs $90M contracts will be a thing in the past. no longer can a player have one great season at the age of 30, sign a 5 yrs contract and coast through their remaining time in the nhl. so the marchant and lapointe are not going to like this.
if the nhl (as a whole) was on life support before this, it will surely die a quick and painful death now. score one for the union for successfully destroying the nhl (and their industry), they got lots to celebrate about.

 

[djhn579]

Actually that is not my opinion but fact.. I cut and pasted right from this :

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=9941 ( see last two paragraphs)

Well take a player like Yashin and his 10 mil multi year contract .. If the new NHL want to pay him 5 mil now .. He is going to pay Goodenow to push for decertify the union..

3 times the Difference at 5 mil = 15 Mil a season fines to the NHL .. for 1 year .. and even if its just 1 -1 fines .. 5 mil dif X 7 years remaining = 35 Mil fin .. The after taking this money he simply signs a new deal on quitely retires to Russia ..

WOW is all I can say .. Think of Jagr and Holik, Guerin type mult-year contracts ..

Is anyone sure this is not Goodenow's plan .. If he win in Impasse the NLRB will implement the old cba like they did with Baseball and if he is losing in court he simply goes this route and makes his clients millions ..

In order to get this award, it will take more than just Jagr getting offered less than his previous contract. The union would have to decertify first, then the owners would have to offer less than what Jagr considers market value. Jagr and his lawyers will have to prove that the owners conspired to offer all players less than market value. That will take a lot more than a contract offer. They will need to prove that the NHL owners talked about it and agreed to do so. If the owners go to court and show that they are spending in line with their revenue. It will be hard to prove they violated the law.

 

[Mess]

WOW is all i can say as well. this is just insane, basically the players are going to bring the court in to force owners to continue overpaying them. i know its their legal right to do so, but still...
there is a catch though. since taking a pay cut is no longer an option, i think we'll see ALOT of one year contracts. those 5 yrs $45M contracts, and those 10 yrs $90M contracts will be a thing in the past. no longer can a player have one great season at the age of 30, sign a 5 yrs contract and coast through their remaining time in the nhl. so the marchant and lapointe are not going to like this.

You are right the new owners offer to the NHLPA was just like you said .. 1 2 and only 3 year deals for proven stars ..

Maybe the NHL is prepared to buyout all these mistakes ..take the one time hit and move forward with a Cap and Linkage .. Perhaps some of this revenue sharing is actually designed to help teams with these big buyouts ..

I am with you .. Many people say the NHLPA is screwed .. I am not so sure the more I read .. about this stuff .. We are going to tied up in courts for a while but maybe the ending is worth it ..

 

[wazee]

If $45 would not have gotten a deal done why does it matter if they made it or not if it would be rejected ..

We will never know, will we? The NHLPA played TGO and Lemieux for fools.

 

[txomisc]

You are right the new owners offer to the NHLPA was just like you said .. 1 2 and only 3 year deals for proven stars ..

Maybe the NHL is prepared to buyout all these mistakes ..take the one time hit and move forward with a Cap and Linkage .. Perhaps some of this revenue sharing is actually designed to help teams with these big buyouts ..

I am with you .. Many people say the NHLPA is screwed .. I am not so sure the more I read .. about this stuff .. We are going to tied up in courts for a while but maybe the ending is worth it ..

Do you think the PA is so opposed to the cap that they are willing to basically destroy the entire league, losing they meal ticket in the process?

 

[me2]

IMPASSE posturing ...

Look at this nonsense..

So in your opinion Mario is just whoring his good name for Bettman's pleasure?

 

[SJeasy]

What would happen if a second players association, RPA (Replacement Players Association), formed from dissatisfied 3/4 liners, AHLers, etc., bargained with the NHL for a contract and effectively replaced the NHLPA? This might avoid the pitfalls of working without a union.

Would the NHL be liable for anything in their previous agreement with the NHLPA or in anything involved in a transition between the two associations? Would it be just like any other company switching contractors for price or satisfaction? Assume that the RPA has studiously avoided collusion with the NHL.

This question stems from trying to guess Bettman's position in the final press conference saying that there would be hockey next year. He can't believe that Goodenow will cave now. Bettman and Daly have also studiously avoided the issue of impasse. What is up his sleeve?

 

[me2]

Actually that is not my opinion but fact.. I cut and pasted right from this :

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=9941 ( see last two paragraphs)

Well take a player like Yashin and his 10 mil multi year contract .. If the new NHL want to pay him 5 mil now .. He is going to pay Goodenow to push for decertify the union..

3 times the Difference at 5 mil = 15 Mil a season fines to the NHL .. for 1 year .. and even if its just 1 -1 fines .. 5 mil dif X 7 years remaining = 35 Mil fin .. The after taking this money he simply signs a new deal on quitely retires to Russia ..

WOW is all I can say .. Think of Jagr and Holik, Guerin type mult-year contracts ..

Is anyone sure this is not Goodenow's plan .. If he win in Impasse the NLRB will implement the old cba like they did with Baseball and if he is losing in court he simply goes this route and makes his clients millions ..

If the union decertifies, the NHL might drop its impasse CBA, drop the draft, drop RFA status. One big free for all. Can't be sued for the usual unfair labour restriction claims if they open up the market.

Of course, the consequence of that are teams shutting up shop and suspending (union can't touch them for that provide they deal with the contracted players properly). Then its just a case of business as usual while the vast majority of the union suffer. Maybe the Maple Leafs win the Stanley Cup or maybe the NHL doesn't offer up the Stanley Cup that year because the season is a joke. Wouldn't that be funny, the Leafs finally win and its the Bettman Cup not the Stanley Cup. :lol

 

[octopi]

Well...duh...No offense to Mario, but the press has already said this day in and day out, as , I believe have other owners and older retired players. Sucks, don't it?

 

[Mess]

So in your opinion Mario is just whoring his good name for Bettman's pleasure?

Who said that ..

Somehow the NHLPA must have believed that the NHL was ready to agree to 45.0 or the meeting was not needed was it ??

 

[me2]

Usually getting higher numbers in not a problem with trust .. That could only benefit them .. If they are cheated out of it TOO BAD .. But Negative or declining revenue and and a Shrinking Hard Cap based on cooking the books is a concern ..[\quote]

Trust is trust. They can't have it both ways.

What do you mean years ago .. It takes a Work Stopage or new CBA that effects players rights for this reward to be possible .. If you do it under an agreed on going CBA what does it do?? Players would get every penny owned on guaranteed contracts before ..

This is im place to prevent businesses from UNFAIR Labour Practices ..

If the union thought decertification was a gold mine they would have done it in 92, 94-95, 99 or 2004. It isn't, decertification is worse for the majority of the union than a cap.

 

[shveik]

What would happen if a second players association, RPA (Replacement Players Association), formed from dissatisfied 3/4 liners, AHLers, etc., bargained with the NHL for a contract and effectively replaced the NHLPA? This might avoid the pitfalls of working without a union.

Would the NHL be liable for anything in their previous agreement with the NHLPA or in anything involved in a transition between the two associations? Would it be just like any other company switching contractors for price or satisfaction? Assume that the RPA has studiously avoided collusion with the NHL.

This question stems from trying to guess Bettman's position in the final press conference saying that there would be hockey next year. He can't believe that Goodenow will cave now. Bettman and Daly have also studiously avoided the issue of impasse. What is up his sleeve?

IMO the replacement players exist only if the NHL have successfully pulled off the impasse scenario. And if the NHLPA declares a strike against the imposed CBA. Then the NHL could bring in the scabs to replace the NHLPA members. But NHLPA would still exist, and I do not think you can have a scab union in addition to the main one. If NHLPA decertifies, then there is no union anymore, and a new one could be formed from the players currently employed by the NHL. Now, if the NHL purposely tries to avoid hiring of the former NHLPA members and instead hire some ECHL and AHL players and encourage a formation of a more agreeable union amongst them, I beleive it would be against the labor laws.

As for Bettman's statement that there would be hockey next year, it is just damage control. He is trying to stop the bleeding of corporate sponsorships.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Humm.

I think that a 2nd union could be formed...

Airlines and the like sometimes have two or three unions representing different locations in the US....

but I am not 100% sure on that..