Goodenow's plan

[GKJ]

All speculation...what do you think his intentions are?


As it stands, I expect Goodenow to takes the NHL to the next wire where they will agree on cap numbers and then he will lower the boom on the NHL by making ridiculous demands regarding free agency (age 24?), arbitration and rookie contracts. He will use this as a way to save face.

Looking at other sports, the way free agency is set up now, the fact you have to wait until you are 31 to be a unrestricted free agent is incredibly generous to the owners. If Bettman really wants to get something done here, he can drop that number. And it would make it easier for the owners to cut off dead weight and get under a cap/tax number.

 

[Mess]

I guess I was wrong about unions being able to decertify anytime while an agreement was in place... but outside of that, there are few limits...

In Hockey you can pull the goalie at any time for an extra attacker, however there are times when that is most advantageous ... Decertifying falls into that same category .. Its a last resource when all other avenues have been exhausted and you are out of moves .. Then you decide if you can make more money under the current imposed likely IMPASSE CBA or in the FREE market ...

The players will get together and form another union again anyways in time for the next CBA talks.

 

[txomisc]

In Hockey you can pull the goalie at any time for an extra attacker, however there are times when that is most advantageous ... Decertify falls into that same category .. Its a last resource when all other avenues have been exhausted and you are out of moves .. Then you decide if you can make more money under the current imposed CBA or in the FREE market ...

The players will get together and form another union again anyways ..

Lets take the analogy farther.
In hockey, 9 times out of 10, pulling the goalie results in an even bigger loss.

 

[djhn579]

In Hockey you can pull the goalie at any time for an extra attacker, however there are times when that is most advantageous ... Decertifying falls into that same category .. Its a last resource when all other avenues have been exhausted and you are out of moves .. Then you decide if you can make more money under the current imposed likely IMPASSE CBA or in the FREE market ...

The players will get together and form another union again anyways in time for the next CBA talks.

Then why go through this cherade(sp?) of negotiating? The most advantagous time would have been before the players lost over $1B. They could have done a pre-emptive thing like I mentioned before: "We realize that the NHL wants a CBA that is more generous to the NHL, but we have taken a decertification vote by the players. If you negotiate a hard cap or linkage between revenues and salaries, we will immediately decertify the union..."

Doing that would have had the players on the ice one way or another last season and the players would not be out over $1B...

 

[Mess]

Lets take the analogy farther.
In hockey, 9 times out of 10, pulling the goalie results in an even bigger loss.

Decertifying will not be a benefit for all no question .. But either will a restrictive Hard cap with a 24% rollback on Salaries and linkage that involves Owner trust ..

This could be the best choice between two evils in the NHLPA minds ..

Many players will do well enough .. The NFL decertifying certainly has not hurt player salaries today ..

The big thing is Freedom of choice that would entice the players .. Players like Joe Thornton could get away from his love/hate relationship with Boston and Jacobs and make far more money ..

The younger players Nash, Kovalchuk, Healey .. etc could all get major increases well above what the old CBA would have given them ..

Players having the choice is the key .. That's pretty juicy stuff from a player perspective .. Freedom of movement .. Again the NFL model has a very liberal UFA system in order for Owners to have a cap with linkage and decertifying is going to be the only route to get there .. The NHL is not going to drop the UFA to 26 freely and let players move around .. There CBA systems restricts movement as that limits increases, while a player realizes his biggest windfall comes as a UFA if he can force a bidding war for his services ..

The key is players feel they get paid what they are worth not based on age and years of service .. A player like Rick Nash and Ilya Kovalchuk are playing for 1.25 mil and UFA like Holik are getting $7 - 8 mil, or Martin Lapointe 5 mil to play the same game .. Basically every man for himself and your value will determine your pay amount..

 

[djhn579]

Decertifying will not be a benefit for all no question .. But either will a restrictive Hard cap with a 24% rollback on Salaries and linkage that involves Owner trust ..

This could be the best choice between two evils in the NHLPA minds ..

Many players will do well enough .. The NFL decertifying certainly has not hurt player salaries today ..

The big thing is Freedom of choice that would entice the players .. Players like Joe Thornton could get away from his love/hate relationship with Boston and Jacobs and make far more money ..

The younger players Nash, Kovalchuk, Healey .. etc could all get major increases well above what the old CBA would have given them ..

Players having the choice is the key .. That's pretty juicy stuff from a player perspective .. Freedom of movement .. Again the NFL model has a very liberal UFA system in order for Owners to have a cap with linkage and decertifying is going to be the only route to get there .. The NHL is not going to drop the UFA to 26 freely and let players move around .. There CBA systems restricts movement as that limits increases, while a player realizes his biggest windfall comes as a UFA if he can force a bidding war for his services ..

The key is players feel they get paid what they are worth not based on age and years of service .. A player like Rick Nash and Ilya Kovalchuk are playing for 1.25 mil and UFA like Holik are getting $7 - 8 mil, or Martin Lapointe 5 mil to play the same game .. Basically every man for himself and your value will determine your pay amount..

The problem with that is that now you have players that have been missing their paychecks for a season and are hurting. The only players that will benefit from decertification will be the top players, most others will do worse. The rest of the players have seen how NFL veterans are released to cut costs and will realize that that could happen to them in a decertified NHL. How is Goodenow going to get a majority to vote for decertification when the majority know that they will be even worse off in the NHL after the union decertifies, even if the other option is to play under a restrictive CBA?

The most advantages time to play the decertification card would have been as soon as the CBA expired. The NHLPA could have sold it on the basis of we will not accept a hardcap or linkage. They then would have been dealing from a position of strength instead of their current position of weakness. Now, Goodenow has misled the players considerably, and I would think has very little chance of getting a decertification vote. If I was a player, I wouldn't trust anything he has to say...

 

[Mess]

Then why go through this cherade(sp?) of negotiating? The most advantagous time would have been before the players lost over $1B. They could have done a pre-emptive thing like I mentioned before: "We realize that the NHL wants a CBA that is more generous to the NHL, but we have taken a decertification vote by the players. If you negotiate a hard cap or linkage between revenues and salaries, we will immediately decertify the union..."

Doing that would have had the players on the ice one way or another last season and the players would not be out over $1B...

The Charade as you call it is a necessary evil .. You have to abide by the rules of collective bargaining and bargain in "Good Faith" or the other side will call you on it and you have lost the battle ..

No one is a mind reader .. but Goodenow told his players from the start that this will be a long hard fought battle .. It will be at least a year and likely 18-24 months to resolve .. .That plan is still right with in that range and it seems only Fans keep using the 1.2 bil Salary lost as an issue .. Not a single player has come out and said look at what I lost .. Impatient Fans are only thinking this is a factor to the break the players ..

If the NHLPA thinks it can hold together and out wait the owners , how do we know that the Owners would not have cracked or given into their demands or still will as time goes on. After all in 1994 at the last CBA, Goodenow out lasted the Owners and got his Player favourable CBA. Why can't that happen again ??

Goodenow has done everything the NHLPA has asked of him .. They took the NO CAP stance and definitely no Linkage and to this day that is what they have ..

Goodenow has been very clever in his approach to/when to offer a new proposal .. He has also made headway to block replacement players in BC and Quebec which virtually eliminates that option .. Without a players strike and the ability to cross a picket line to return, his union members stay fast and united and nothing the NHL can do to divide and concur .. Goodenow has also played the right cards so that IMPASSE has not yet been an Owners option as each time the NHL feels it is getting close Goodenow puts something on the table the gives the perception that the difference is only numbers and not philosophy.. This prevents the NHL from putting their own CBA in place as it would never hold up to IMPASSE Rules by definition.. But it also means that while they remain apart on issues he does not need to sign off on a deal he doesn't like.. All this while making the largest concessions to avoid any claims of Bad Faith bargaining in the course of this dispute.

The NHLPA in now using the lost entry draft and the uncertainty of unsigned Picks and RFA missing qualifiers on the table to put pressure on Owners and in hopes of getting the players a better deal. This current time of year and the season alone preventing season ticket drives and sponsors is dividing the Owners group further. Last season the owners collected all the money up front to live on throughout the year and then slowly reimbursed fans later .. This year they are going in Cold Turkey with only the War Chest to sustain operations

Will they go a second year with a lockout??

However keeping 30 owners together is certainly easier then 700+ players ..

Also Goodenow's request for meaningful Revenue sharing is a reasonable request that even both sides as far as supporters goes would admit, but that clever request turns that into a internal owners issue to resolve .. Again intended to divide and concur the Owners group.. They need to come up with a plan to resolve that, until they do IMPASSE is impossible to them on that issue to be used against the NHLPA .. If the owners will not be partners then it not unreasonable to believe that the players should not be forced into a partnership either, where they are silent partners to boot on Revenue Decisions that end up controlling their very Salaries.

You will also notice the NHLPA members are very quiet .. The occasional Domi get rid of them both comes out .. but if you had a disgruntled players group you would hear it loud and clear .. You can't have a silent mutiny .. It would take 350+ players to vote on and accept a NHL proposal on the table.. and they would be doing that with many not having NHL contracts in place so no guarantees of jobs and against its own leaders of the NHLPA and Council requests. Not very likely at all really.

Again right now Goodenow has the owners talking about a hybrid system that he suggested that has a $30-50 mil range and independent cap system for each team ..(that really is not much different then the old CBA ).. The few teams that are capped spending at $50 mil, has been copensated for by bringing the floor up to $30 mil mim for all teams to create better paying jobs in poorer markets.

The NHL may have to settle for this type of deal that certainly is not 54% linkage nor a true HARD CAP but more of a luxury tax system that forces Revenue Sharing and creates jobs for his players in a range high enough that it will not really effect many players at all salary wise.

And at the very end if everything he tries has failed to work he can still chose "Blow it all up" and decertify and allow each and every player the opportunity in a totally UFA system to get their best deal, not forcing them to be bound to anything that he has negotiated for them. This plays right into the hand of players that are not happy with his performance, as that is the same as replacing him. Players that have contracts will file anti-trust cases against the NHL and that fear of Millions in claims awarded will put Goodenow in the drivers seat to force a more freindly players CBA post decertification like the NFL did.


The NFL remained in this state of Flux for 5 years playing under a very players friendly CBA until both sides could agree to a new CBA. Goodenow hopes that will repeat itself again in the NHL world.

Decertify for a dumb hockey player is an easier sell then telling them to give back 24 % and then be confined in an owners world that controls them from 18-31 years old, and that forces players in all 30 markets to be paid based on the whole and not their own market determined by a Hard Cap limitation, and limiting all increases and constantly attempting to put a drag on their earnings regardless of their own performance. Basically punishing all players unilaterally for bad management decisons and poor TV deals created by Bettman and the Owners that causes lost Revenue in the future.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Looking at other sports, the way free agency is set up now, the fact you have to wait until you are 31 to be a unrestricted free agent is incredibly generous to the owners. If Bettman really wants to get something done here, he can drop that number. And it would make it easier for the owners to cut off dead weight and get under a cap/tax number.

The league offered a lower UFA age in one of their proposals -- I think to 28 (or 29) -- so it shouldn't be a problem to do it again.

 

[djhn579]

The Charade as you call it is a necessary evil .. You have to abide by the rules of collective bargaining and bargain in "Good Faith" or the other side will call you on it and you have lost the battle ..

No one is a mind reader .. but Goodenow told his players from the start that this will be a long hard fought battle .. It will be at least a year and likely 18-24 months to resolve .. .That plan is still right with in that range and it seems only Fans keep using the 1.2 bil Salary lost as an issue .. Not a single player has come out and said look at what I lost .. Impatient Fans are only thinking this is a factor to the break the players ..

If the NHLPA thinks it can hold together and out waited the owners , how do we know that the Owners would not have cracked or given into their demands. after all in 1994 at the last CBA, Goodenow out lasted the Owners and got his Player favourable CBA ..

Goodenow has done everything the NHLPA has asked him of .. They took the NO CAP stance and definitely no Linkage and to this day that is what they have ..

Goodenow has been very clever in his approach to/when to offer a new proposal .. He has also made headway to block replacement players in BC and Quebec which virtually eliminates that option .. Without a players strike and the ability to cross a picket line to return, his union members stay fast and united and nothing the NHL can do to divide and concur .. Goodenow has also play the right cards so that IMPASSE has not yet been an Owners option as each time the NHL feels it is getting close Goodenow puts something on the table the gives the perception that the difference is only numbers and not philosophy.. This prevents the NHL from putting their own CBA in place as it would never hold up to IMPASSE Rules by definition..

The NHLPA in now using the lost entry draft and the uncertainty of unsigned Picks and RFA missing qualifiers on the table to put pressure on Owners and in hopes of getting the players a better deal. This current time of year and the season alone preventing season ticket drives and sponsors is dividing the Owners group.. However keeping 30 owners together is certainly easier then 700+ players ..

Also Goodenow's request for meaningful Revenue sharing is a reasonable request, but that turns that into a internal owners issue to resolve .. Again intended to divided and concur the Owners group.. They need to come up with a plan to resolve that, until they do IMPASSE is impossible to them on that issue to be used against the NHLPA ..

You will also notice the NHLPA members are very quiet .. The occasional Domi get rid of them both comes out .. but if you had a disgruntled players group you would hear it loud and clear .. You can't have a silent mutiny .. It would take 350+ players to vote on and accept a NHL proposal on the table.. and they would be doing that with many not having contracts in place and against its own leaders of the NHLPA and Council requests. Not very likely at all really.

Again right now Goodenow has the owners talking about a hybrid system that he suggested that has a $30-50 mil range and independent cap system for each team ..(that really is not much different then the old CBA really).. The few teams that are capped at 50 mil, has been copensated for by bringing the floor up to $30 mil.

The NHL may have to settle for this type of deal that certainly is not 54% linkage and a true HARD CAP but more of a luxury tax system that forces Revenue Sharing and creates jobs for his players in a range high enough that it will not really effect many players at all.

And at the very end if everything he tries has failed to work he can still chose "Blow it all up" and decertify and allow each and every player the opportunity in a totally UFA system to get their best deal, not forcing them to be bound to anything that he has negotiated for them. This plays right into the hand of players that are not happy with his performance ..

The NFL remained in this state of Flux for 5 years playing under a very players friendly CBA until both sides could agree to a new CBA ..

Decertify for a dumb hockey player that is an easier sell then telling them to give back 24 % and then be confined in an owners world that controls them from 18-31 years old, and that forces players in all 30 markets to be paid based on the whole and not their own market, all limiting all increases and constantly attempting to put a drag on their earning regardless of their own performance. Basically punishing all players unilaterally for bad management decisons and poor TV deal created by Bettman and the Owners ..

Another problem...

If the union decertifies, there is no bargaining in bad faith. Since the union will no longer exist, there is no one to charge with an unfair labor practice...

The time to decertify is past...

Goodenow has not been clever. He has painted himself in a corner. By agreeing to negotiate a hard cap and linkage, he can no longer say he doesn't want that without facing an unfair labor practice charge for negotiating in bad faith. Why do you think he has been criticized by other sports union heads?

Did he prevent the NHL from declaring impasse? Maybe, Maybe not. There is no clear evidence that the NHL was going to declare an impasse. They could have used replacement players without declaring impasse.

At this point, it sure looks like the players have lost their strength. That happens when your leader swears up and down that you will never accept something like a hard cap, then turn around and accept one without discussing it with the people you represent...

Getting the NHLPA to agree with decertifying now is a pipe dream...

 

[Weary]

The league offered a lower UFA age in one of their proposals -- I think to 28 (or 29) -- so it shouldn't be a problem to do it again.

They offered to lower it 30. They also offered to lower it to 28 if the NHL unilaterally got rid arbitration.

 

[Weary]

Another problem...

If the union decertifies, there is no bargaining in bad faith. Since the union will no longer exist, there is no one to charge with an unfair labor practice...

Wrong. Decertification doesn't absolve a party of previous bad fath bargaining. It doesn't mean the NHL is free and clear of prior unfair labor practices.

Goodenow has not been clever. He has painted himself in a corner. By agreeing to negotiate a hard cap and linkage, he can no longer say he doesn't want that without facing an unfair labor practice charge for negotiating in bad faith.

If that were the case, the PA would've run to the NLRB the moment Bettman said subsequent offers would only be worse. Changing your mind does not equate to bargaining in bad faith.

Getting the NHLPA to agree with declaring an impasse now is a pipe dream...

Why would the NHLPA want to declare an impasse?

 

[djhn579]

Wrong. Decertification doesn't absolve a party of previous bad fath bargaining. It doesn't mean the NHL is free and clear of prior unfair labor practices.
?

If the union decertifies, that is not an act of bad faith bargaining. That is the union deciding that they will be better off without a union than accepting what the owners are pushing for. They can do that. I'm sure they could also say in advance what terms they will trigger them to decertify without being found to be negotiating in bad faith...

If that were the case, the PA would've run to the NLRB the moment Bettman said subsequent offers would only be worse. Changing your mind does not equate to bargaining in bad faith.?

If you read up on the topic, regressive bargaining as the NHL doing when they say their future proposals will not be as good as they could have made in the past is not bargaining in bad faith if the NHL can show that their revenues will be decreased as the lockout continues. You can say what you want about how you feel about that, but a labor judge will make the determination and I'm pretty sure the NHL has experienced labor lawyers that are sure that they can prove that before they would make a public statement to that effect...

Why would the NHLPA want to declare an impasse?

Yawn... get real...

 

[HF2002]

This means all players will become UFA and at least then they can all negotiate with the team of their choice for the best deal, every man for himself. The players talk of a free system and being unrestricted sounds pretty good to them ..

(I think djhn579 has touched on this already but I've had a few beers, so cut me some slack if this is redundant or non-sensical)..

Then why did they form a 'union' in the first place? I find it very hard to believe they're better off as individuals.

Anti-trust cases can last for years, and if you're a player, the last thing you want to do is get stuck in a court room during your prime playing years instead of playing a game that could make you a multi millionaire.

If I were a player, there's no way I want to go to court to fight any of this as an individual against some billionaire. They have more money than god. "Every man for himself" is the worst possible route for 85% of the players.

edit: in the time it took to write this it seems the discussion has already covered this. crud.

 

[Larionov]

The only place I have ever seen decertification discussed as an option is here in the fever swamps of internet message boards. There has not been one representative from the 'PA who has even hinted about it, nor has their been a player, agent, or other proxy putting it up as a trial balloon.

Decertification is a two way street, something that 'PA supporters seem to forget. It isn't just salaries and free agency for the big names we are talking about here -- it's also roster sizes, the draft, waiver rules, language in standard contracts, even things such as meal money and comp tickets would be out the window. The owners would use the period of decertifcation to wipe out many of these gains for players, and they would never come back again.

For every Jarome Iginla or Sidney Crosby out there, there are half a dozen or more fourth line grinders, seventh defencemen, and backup goalies. These guys would get absolutely reamed in decertification, and their agents know it. This thing will never see the light of day anyway, but if decertification ever was voted on it would die a very quick death, as the agents would instruct their clients to vote against it.

 

[Weary]

If you read up on the topic, regressive bargaining as the NHL doing when they say their future proposals will not be as good as they could have made in the past is not bargaining in bad faith if the NHL can show that their revenues will be decreased as the lockout continues. You can say what you want about how you feel about that, but a labor judge will make the determination and I'm pretty sure the NHL has experienced labor lawyers that are sure that they can prove that before they would make a public statement to that effect...

I would suggest that you read up on it. The NHL is free to modify its offer in any way they please as long as they bargain in good faith. The NHLPA is also free to do the same. Your assertion that the Goodenow cannot rescind the salary cap offer has no foundation.

Yawn... get real...

Get real about what? You stated: "Getting the NHLPA to agree with declaring an impasse now is a pipe dream..". Then you edited it after the fact without noting the correction. Couldn't you just admit that you'd made an error?

 

[Weary]

Decertification is a two way street, something that 'PA supporters seem to forget. It isn't just salaries and free agency for the big names we are talking about here -- it's also roster sizes, the draft, waiver rules, language in standard contracts, even things such as meal money and comp tickets would be out the window. The owners would use the period of decertifcation to wipe out many of these gains for players, and they would never come back again.

Due to antitrust considerations:
It's unresitricted free agency for everyone
Roster sizes cannot be fixed by league rules
No draft can be held
Waivers would have to be modified[/QUOTE]

For every Jarome Iginla or Sidney Crosby out there, there are half a dozen or more fourth line grinders, seventh defencemen, and backup goalies. These guys would get absolutely reamed in decertification, and their agents know it. This thing will never see the light of day anyway, but if decertification ever was voted on it would die a very quick death, as the agents would instruct their clients to vote against it.

The guys on the bottom end would be the biggest beneficiaries. With unlimited spending, there is still a market for their skills. With a salary cap, most will be paid the league minimum.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

The guys on the bottom end would be the biggest beneficiaries. With unlimited spending, there is still a market for their skills. With a salary cap, most will be paid the league minimum.

Nah, they'll be unemployed because with unlimited spending there will only be a handful of teams left to play for.

 

[Weary]

Nah, they'll be unemployed because with unlimited spending there will only be a handful of teams left to play for.

Once again we're faced with the realization that the owners can't run the league when left to their own devices.

 

[Mess]

I would suggest that you read up on it. The NHL is free to modify its offer in any way they please as long as they bargain in good faith. The NHLPA is also free to do the same. Your assertion that the Goodenow cannot rescind the salary cap offer has no foundation.

It interesting how many posters make the mistake that they believe that once something is in the bargaining table that it needs to stay on and in the next CBA..

The NHLPA offered a 24% rollback in order as they say save the season and obviously avoid a Hard Cap .. Once the NHL rejected that offer the NHLPA could have removed that offer at any time, even if the NHL wrote it into their proposal ..

The NHL took linkage off the table and made a $42 mil hard Cap offer UNLINKED FINAL OFFER.. The NHLPA responded with a Hybrid counter at $52 and then $49 mil Cap , with the ability for a team to go over that limit 3 times in a 6 year CBA .. They also included a Cap floor, luxury tax system for Revenue Sharing ..knowing full well the NHL would never accept all that .. So nothing more then a brilliant Bluff by Goodenow and the Shock and Awe on the players faces just help sell it, and by not telling them got some real honest quotes in the papers ..

Once that the NHL rejected that proposal .. The NHLPA is no longer obligated to stick to or honour any part of that ... The NHL returned a few weeks later with a linkage offer at 54% in its proposal .. The NHLPA can in turn pull any Hard Cap position that was perceived as a result .. All fair in love and bargaining as they say .. Its all posturing and strategy to avoid IMPASSE on behalf of the NHLPA ..

That is the closest the NHL ever got the NHLPA to even remotely agree to a CAP .. Now the NHL no longer pushes that issue, so the NHLPA needs no reason to publicly state they have changed their minds ..

Right now I would say the odds are 50 / 50 of either side cracking .. Its long from over IMO ..

 

[kdb209]

In Hockey you can pull the goalie at any time for an extra attacker, however there are times when that is most advantageous ... Decertifying falls into that same category .. Its a last resource when all other avenues have been exhausted and you are out of moves .. Then you decide if you can make more money under the current imposed likely IMPASSE CBA or in the FREE market ...

The players will get together and form another union again anyways in time for the next CBA talks.

Remember their are significant downsides to de-certification that can make it dangerous for the players too - especially the non-stars who make up the bulk of the voting NHLPA. The stars will get their money under just about any system - your 3rd and 4th line players, 5th and 6th D-men, and older veterans have a lot to lose.

Some things you could see in a post decertification world:

All current contracts could be voided. The Standard Player Contract is governed by the expired and any future CBAs. No Union - No CBA - no SPCs. Alexei Yashin, Goodbye $70M.

No RFAs, no draft, no draftee rights, everyone is a UFA.

The NLRB no longer has any jurisdiction. There is no longer any mechanism to reinstate the expired CBA through court injunction. Any future legal actions are covered by anti-trust law, not labor law.

Anti-trust suits will have to be based on future actions by the teams and the league, not any past actions. Just because a player's salary is lower in a post-decertification world than it was before the lockout is not grounds for any legal action unless it can be proven that the teams and the league have acted in unison (collusion) to depress salaries. If each team independently sticks to a budget, their isn't much the players or the PA (what's left of it) can really do about it.

Minimum salaries - gone.

Guaranteed contracts - gone.

League/Team, pension contributions - gone.

Pay while injured - gone. It may be up to players to get their own insurance.

Public sharing of salary information - gone. There would no longer be any central salary registry. Teams could legally have confidentiality clauses in their contracts so players and agents legally could not disclose contract terms - sure shoots bargaining leverage all to hell.

The league could reorganize itself into a single ownership/MLS/Bain model. Right now, the league cannot do this - it would be an unfair labor practice. They could sell to an outside group (Bain) that could do this, but the current ownership could not. After decertification, all that could prevent this is the FTC on anti-trust grounds, and given the current administration (which doesn't think Microsoft is a monopoly) and the fact that the lockout has shown that there is a external labor market (AHL, Europe) that the players have already showed a willingness to avail themselves of, it is quite possible that it would be allowed. Then the players are really screwed - they are no longer protected by a union and most labor law and a new central ownership league could pretty much do whatever it wanted and be immune from any anti trust challenges.

Decertification is the nuclear option - it could pretty much blow up the league to the point of pretty much starting from scratch. The threat of it gives the PA some leverage, but if the league has good legal advisors, it's not certain that the players would gain from it. Remember in the case of the NFL, the anti-trust case was based on the leagues actions after decertification (Plan B Free Agency). If the NHL has learned from the NFL's mistakes, both sides would be heading into terra incognito.

 

[Mess]

Remember their are significant downsides to de-certification that can make it dangerous for the players too - especially the non-stars who make up the bulk of the voting NHLPA. The stars will get their money under just about any system - your 3rd and 4th line players, 5th and 6th D-men, and older veterans have a lot to lose..

No doubt there a downsides but those same players above you mentioned could just as easily be replaced by AHL farm hands and players on entry level contracts .. Those same players are in the most danger with a restrictive cap .. IMO .. If you have a few big stars on larger contracts then you would have to offset that with several bargain basement prices.. The players that would make the least impact to lose would be those you mentioned above as the jobs being replaced with cheaper players in a Hard Cap world. The new CBA the NHL proposal guarantees these players nothing in the new world ..

Some things you could see in a post decertification world:

All current contracts could be voided. The Standard Player Contract is governed by the expired and any future CBAs. No Union - No CBA - no SPCs. Alexei Yashin, Goodbye $70M...

Alexei Yashin's long term contract would be ripe for being used after decertification may be the perfect anti-trust case .. Yashin could care less and would be more then happy to file for damages and play in Russia until his BIG anti-trust cheque comes in .. What would the NHL offer him post decertification ??

No RFAs, no draft, no draftee rights, everyone is a UFA....

Why is this a bad thing ??.. Crosby joins Montreal .. Brule for his home town WHL team and Vancouver.. Draft rights do not guarantee a young player anything in the form of money .. It only restricts him to the team that drafted him, possibly even a team he could care less about.. That team can not offer him a deal and set him free .. Why not start Free ??

RFA are good for owners and franchise values .. Not good for players .. The systemic issues and controls of a CBA determine Qualifying offers and when he has arbitration rights .. Heatley , Kovalchuk , Nash type players made 1.25 base .. on the open market they would earn many times that amount .. Same opportunity for all to earn the max their skills and contribution to a team allow .. You still have 30 teams and 22 players per team .. Same amount of jobs available to fill teams required only the faces change per team, the amount they make left up to the work of their lawyer .. You suggest no minumum wage .. fair enough what is Europe offering certainly they can compete with minimum wage of old CBA ..

The NLRB no longer has any jurisdiction. There is no longer any mechanism to reinstate the expired CBA through court injunction. Any future legal actions are covered by anti-trust law, not labor law......

That is why decertification is a last option .. I would assume that before that button is pushed that the NHL would have imposed its own IMPASSE CBA and also survived the court case against the NHLPA, and had it upheld .. Being pro big business as the Bush govt promotes that is all possible .. At that point decertifcation is designed to blow up that IMPASSE CBA in place, and the NLRB would no longer be of any use for the NHLPA by then, already have ruled against them .. Anti-trust law would be the route the NHLPA would now prefer to be ruling on their cases and damages. Basically they had no option but to decertify because the new CBA is to restrictive and dramatically effects their earning ability old to new CBA ..

Anti-trust suits will have to be based on future actions by the teams and the league, not any past actions. Just because a player's salary is lower in a post-decertification world than it was before the lockout is not grounds for any legal action unless it can be proven that the teams and the league have acted in unison (collusion) to depress salaries. If each team independently sticks to a budget, their isn't much the players or the PA (what's left of it) can really do about it......

Right to a point .. The dramatic change old to new would be challenged .. but the real point is as you say if all teams could stick to a BUDGET in the first place we would not be here in the first place.. A restrictive hard cap designed for the weakest teams and linkage that basically ties each teams spending (budget of Salaries) at 54% in the IMPASSE CBA is almost collusion by its nature alone. The Cap itself is handicapping the big market team spending and reducing both better paying jobs and forcing some players out of work in cost cutting measures. Loss of wages and jobs and employee rights is the bases for anti-trust law..

The league could reorganize itself into a single ownership/MLS/Bain model. Right now, the league cannot do this - it would be an unfair labor practice. They could sell to an outside group (Bain) that could do this, but the current ownership could not. After decertification, all that could prevent this is the FTC on anti-trust grounds, and given the current administration (which doesn't think Microsoft is a monopoly) and the fact that the lockout has shown that there is a external labor market (AHL, Europe) that the players have already showed a willingness to avail themselves of, it is quite possible that it would be allowed. Then the players are really screwed - they are no longer protected by a union and most labor law and a new central ownership league could pretty much do whatever it wanted and be immune from any anti trust challenges.......

Sure the could try .. Even make that suggestion .. Even the Bain offer only got 15 minutes of play at a Owners meeting . But how would that fly. Many teams like the Leafs have said their teams are not for sale to Bain or anyone. Why would they sell now. Big Market teams with money would like nothing better then to increase franchise values by snapping up great young talent for its team.. You would need 30 teams owners to agree to it .. Good luck with that .. The league can't even get them to Revenue share and you think that they would agree to give up all management of the team. Teams that own other sports teams and buildings would be hard pressed to agree, all things considered . .This might in fact make the gap even larger between the have and have nots of the NHL ..

This action alone might not withstand anti-trust as the NFL and other manoeuvres " Plan B" did not avoid them in the NFL even when they set all the players free. Management under one company even if you could get it to fly and its so remote .. If it was that easy all sports would do it .. If we have learned one thing Billionaires don't like being told anything for anyone else ..

Decertification is the nuclear option - it could pretty much blow up the league to the point of pretty much starting from scratch. The threat of it gives the PA some leverage, but if the league has good legal advisors, it's not certain that the players would gain from it. Remember in the case of the NFL, the anti-trust case was based on the leagues actions after decertification (Plan B Free Agency). If the NHL has learned from the NFL's mistakes, both sides would be heading into terra incognito.

No question it is .. But in the end it may be the best for the League ..Whole new CBA .. Owners want cap and linkage players want freedom of choice .. Starting from scratch with ever contract wiped out and all 30 teams starting from ground zero is fair for all ..

The players will form a new union again just like the NFL did and work on a new CBA again .. Freedom of movement among players may be the trade off to a Hard Cap system in the future the only way the NHL players are ever going to get the Owners to agree to it is blow it up and take that control out of their hands ..

 

[alecfromtherock]

Remember their are significant downsides to de-certification that can make it dangerous for the players too - especially the non-stars who make up the bulk of the voting NHLPA. The stars will get their money under just about any system - your 3rd and 4th line players, 5th and 6th D-men, and older veterans have a lot to lose.

Some things you could see in a post decertification world:

All current contracts could be voided. The Standard Player Contract is governed by the expired and any future CBAs. No Union - No CBA - no SPCs. Alexei Yashin, Goodbye $70M.

No RFAs, no draft, no draftee rights, everyone is a UFA.

The NLRB no longer has any jurisdiction. There is no longer any mechanism to reinstate the expired CBA through court injunction. Any future legal actions are covered by anti-trust law, not labor law.

Anti-trust suits will have to be based on future actions by the teams and the league, not any past actions. Just because a player's salary is lower in a post-decertification world than it was before the lockout is not grounds for any legal action unless it can be proven that the teams and the league have acted in unison (collusion) to depress salaries. If each team independently sticks to a budget, their isn't much the players or the PA (what's left of it) can really do about it.

Minimum salaries - gone.

Guaranteed contracts - gone.

League/Team, pension contributions - gone.

Pay while injured - gone. It may be up to players to get their own insurance.

Public sharing of salary information - gone. There would no longer be any central salary registry. Teams could legally have confidentiality clauses in their contracts so players and agents legally could not disclose contract terms - sure shoots bargaining leverage all to hell.

The league could reorganize itself into a single ownership/MLS/Bain model. Right now, the league cannot do this - it would be an unfair labor practice. They could sell to an outside group (Bain) that could do this, but the current ownership could not. After decertification, all that could prevent this is the FTC on anti-trust grounds, and given the current administration (which doesn't think Microsoft is a monopoly) and the fact that the lockout has shown that there is a external labor market (AHL, Europe) that the players have already showed a willingness to avail themselves of, it is quite possible that it would be allowed. Then the players are really screwed - they are no longer protected by a union and most labor law and a new central ownership league could pretty much do whatever it wanted and be immune from any anti trust challenges.

Decertification is the nuclear option - it could pretty much blow up the league to the point of pretty much starting from scratch. The threat of it gives the PA some leverage, but if the league has good legal advisors, it's not certain that the players would gain from it. Remember in the case of the NFL, the anti-trust case was based on the leagues actions after decertification (Plan B Free Agency). If the NHL has learned from the NFL's mistakes, both sides would be heading into terra incognito.

The NHL would have the ULTIMATE HAMMER in this lockout if as a result of the union decertifying all current contracts would be void.

Decertification will only be applicable if it can be proven(by the PA Brass and the players agents) that the majority of current NHLers will not be negatively effected($$$) as a result.

Q1: Would decertifying effect the players from re-certifying later on?

Q2: If the NHL gets an impasse declared and impose their own CBA and it is held up in the labour courts, would the owners still be anti-trust exempt?

Red Tape in the courts could hold up the individual players’ anti-trust cases for years, years in which they would not be earning a salary or even playing in the NHL.

Q3: Union decertifies: can individual players have any say on game changes if they are not represented by the one body?

Lets say owners reduce roster sizes to 20, take away the centre line, reduce goalie equipment, increase the minium fines... how could the decertified players stop the owners from implementing any game changes?

Q4: Decertified players sign contracts with their teams under confidentially, if the players re-form a union could any of the information be made available to their union?

The Microsoft is not a Monopoly quote shows what the PA is up against in relation to the labour boards.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
The league could reorganize itself into a single ownership/MLS/Bain model. Right now, the league cannot do this - it would be an unfair labor practice. They could sell to an outside group (Bain) that could do this, but the current ownership could not. After decertification, all that could prevent this is the FTC on anti-trust grounds, and given the current administration (which doesn't think Microsoft is a monopoly) and the fact that the lockout has shown that there is a external labor market (AHL, Europe) that the players have already showed a willingness to avail themselves of, it is quite possible that it would be allowed. Then the players are really screwed - they are no longer protected by a union and most labor law and a new central ownership league could pretty much do whatever it wanted and be immune from any anti trust challenges.......

Sure the could try .. Even make that suggestion .. Even the Bain offer only got 15 minutes of play at a Owners meeting . But how would that fly. Many teams like the Leafs have said their teams are not for sale to Bain or anyone. Why would they sell now. Big Market teams with money would like nothing better then to increase franchise values by snapping up great young talent for its team.. You would need 30 teams owners to agree to it .. Good luck with that .. The league can't even get them to Revenue share and you think that they would agree to give up all management of the team. Teams that own other sports teams and buildings would be hard pressed to agree, all things considered . .This might in fact make the gap even larger between the have and have nots of the NHL ..

This action alone might not withstand anti-trust as the NFL and other manoeuvres " Plan B" did not avoid them in the NFL even when they set all the players free. Management under one company even if you could get it to fly and its so remote .. If it was that easy all sports would do it .. If we have learned one thing Billionaires don't like being told anything for anyone else ..

There are a couple of fundamental differences between the league transforming itself into a single ownership entity league and selling it to an outside part like Bain. Unlike the Bain scenerio, the owners would not be forced to sell and lose control/ownership - they would just be converting the value of their franchise into some percentage ownership of the new league entity (a percentage based on some assessment of current relative franchise values), a much smaller hit to the ego. Secondly, there was no pressing need to accept the Bain offer. The league making the change itself would be in a direct response to the changes brought about by decertification - immunity from anti trust challenges for team/league operations.

This league transformation would be completely different than the Plan B challenge to the NFL - one would be an issue for the courts, the other for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Plan B case was a challenge to the actions of the NFL and seperately owned teams under anti trust law. A NHL league transformation could not be challenged as a violation of anti trust laws in the courts. Instead, the FTC would have to approve (actually just not block) the change - it would just rule on whether the new league entity would be considered monopolistic. And remember that the FTC is much more concerned with the effects of competition on consumers, not employees. And once transformed to a single entity MLS style ownership model, the league could implement policies like salary caps, a draft, any type of free agency it wished, etc, without facing any challenge on anti trust grounds - it would just be a single entity making policies for its employees.

 

[djhn579]

I would suggest that you read up on it. The NHL is free to modify its offer in any way they please as long as they bargain in good faith. The NHLPA is also free to do the same. Your assertion that the Goodenow cannot rescind the salary cap offer has no foundation.

Get real about what? You stated: "Getting the NHLPA to agree with declaring an impasse now is a pipe dream..". Then you edited it after the fact without noting the correction. Couldn't you just admit that you'd made an error?

So, you've never posted something, realized it was wrong as soon as it hit the screen and corrected it? Yawn... get real... If your going to jump on any little slip to make your self feel good, you have a problem...


And Goodenow offereing something, then refusing to negotiate that in the future would be considered regressive bargaining unless the NHL agreed to discuss something else. Look it up. I've posted it before...

EDIT: Have you noticed that even though the NHLPA says the 24% rollback is off the table, the NHL still is using that in it's proposals? If Goodenow in the future says that he will not discuss a hardcap, the NHL could probably file a complaint saying Goodenow was bargaining in bad faith, probably surface bargaining, and have to explain to the court why he agreed to accept a hardcap and now refuses to discuss it. "Uh, your honor, I changed my mind..." is not going to cut it...

 

[Weary]

So, you've never posted something, realized it was wrong as soon as it hit the screen and corrected it? Yawn... get real... If your going to jump on any little slip to make your self feel good, you have a problem...

I have done that. I just felt no need to take it out on somebody else when it was misinterpreted.

And Goodenow offereing something, then refusing to negotiate that in the future would be considered regressive bargaining unless the NHL agreed to discuss something else. Look it up. I've posted it before...

EDIT: Have you noticed that even though the NHLPA says the 24% rollback is off the table, the NHL still is using that in it's proposals? If Goodenow in the future says that he will not discuss a hardcap, the NHL could probably file a complaint saying Goodenow was bargaining in bad faith, probably surface bargaining, and have to explain to the court why he agreed to accept a hardcap and now refuses to discuss it. "Uh, your honor, I changed my mind..." is not going to cut it...

If that's the case, then NHL is bargaining in bad faith right now by not offering the $42.5M cap any longer. Taking something off the table is not an act of bad faith. Since you said I should "read up," please feel free to provide links to reading material that contradicts that.