Honest question: Will the PA be better off?

Status
Not open for further replies.

lazaer

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
25
0
e-town
The Messenger said:
Again the ruling has to be based on facts .. We still do not know the final CBA that they will be ruling on so its still speculation right now .. and while I agree that your above statement is true to a point .. The governing party regardless of Repulican or Democrate still needs to rule Fairly by the letter of the law, and a Labour route intent is to protect employee rights, but not to the point of always ruling one way or another ..

Your statement sounds like regardless of the facts of the case the NLRB will rule in favour of the Owners because of its party affiliation .. That simply is not true .. Inclined maybe ..but then you could say that if the NHL offered a 10 mil Hard Cap and 10% linkage they would still win ...

linkage at 53-55% would probably be good enough for Republicans and the boys at NLRB to agree with the NHL because they have a similar POV. i got a question though, if the NHL goes to the NLRB and loses then is the lockout still on for the Canadian teams? and could the owners be using that as leverage?
 

Vagabond

Registered User
Dec 24, 2004
8,995
3,608
Edmonton
The Messenger said:
I beg to differ .. The NHL stance was always it needes a Hard cap for Parity and equal opportunity at the Stanley Cup for 30 teams and its last 42.5 proposal had no floor .. (other than min wage 300 -350 k X 23 players ~ 7-10 mil ) .. Well the difference between 42.5 and 10 is 32.5 Mil ..So what is the difference from that and the OLD CBA where a small market team like Phoenix had a 33.0 Mil Salary and the Leafs a 65.0 M Salary .. Still a 32.0 Mil difference in disparity for a Cup .. The numbers are just different .. "Bad Faith" Perhaps !!!

And if an owner decided to bring up his AHL team and play it as his NHL team nothing would prevent the Current NHLers from such a tactic in the Owners CBA and just took away 23 NHL jobs .. in a tank for a top prospect move ..

So then an offer of 42.5 mil could in that respect still be questioned in court as being unfair and understandable why it does not address the issue it set out to due ..

Also the magnet theory of drawing team to the High number will be challenged .. 4-5 straight years Phoenix has never exceeded a 33 mil in an non Cap world and then suddenly under a Cap it now will shoot for or spend 42.5 or 45 .. etc .. "Bad Faith" Perhaps.!!!

Also look at a team like Boston 95 Mil recorded in Revenue last year, one of the Top teams .. and they are the ones pushing for a 42.5 or lower Cap and are partially responsible for a lost season .. Well if you do the math 95 - 42.5 is not 55% or so of Revenues the league offered in Linkage .. "BAD Faith" Perhaps

Other issues as well they may have discussed Revenue Sharing but in the last NHL proposal it starts in year one and declines to Zero in year 6 .. The reason again for the Hard Cap is to allow for meaningful revenue sharing for all teams to build up Team Salaries in Small or Non Hockey markets, by help from their friends thus creating better paying jobs and employment for players that are Capped at the Top Team wise and that would leave the weak back to old CBA and affordability.."Bad Faith" Perhaps ..

Qualifying offers at 75% .. unless there is a off setting Salary Arbitration in place to give the players an avenue to dispute or make sure They are paid fairly and not getting automatic 25% decreases regardless and no avenue but to withhold services to be treated Fairly.. "Good Faith" Perhaps !!!

The Levitt report itself by nature is flawed as a Review and not Audit to base figures on and as you know then they looked at just 4 teams the NHLPA auditor found a misreported 52 Mil missing in the total Revenue total .. SO that gives merit to the NHL to not accept the Financials as presented and avoid linkage until a system is in place to verify the figures .. " Bad Faith"
etc etc ..


A court would have to listen to and rule on each item and any one of a number of items could rule the NHL IMPASSE CBA invalid and in Bad Faith negotiating all depends on the NLRB .. IMO


:lol I'm not even gonna comment. Is there something anybody can do to put some common sense in this poor helpless soul? It seems these days that common sense isn't so common.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
lazaer said:
linkage at 53-55% would probably be good enough for Republicans and the boys at NLRB to agree with the NHL because they have a similar POV. i got a question though, if the NHL goes to the NLRB and loses then is the lockout still on for the Canadian teams? and could the owners be using that as leverage?
Actually If we are in courts that means that the NHL has declared an IMPASSE and inserted its own CBA and began with Replacement players .. In order to have all this the NHL would have to also drop its lockout stance .. The NHLPA would then go on strike and put up picket lines and would have filed Unfair Labour paractices charges and thus the NLRB ruling..

If the NLRB is ruling .. and lockout is already gone and we are in a strike position ..

In the Baseball fight the NLRB ruled in favour of the PA , and your question implies a loss here as well .. IN the previous Baseball case the NLRB had the Owners New CBA thrown out and they enforced the old Player Friendly CBA instead ..
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
To answer the original question of if the PA will be better off, the answer is absolutely not. Remember this is all coming from a basically pro-PA person, but they are just being stupid if you ask me. They have already lost a years salary. They are not going to get a better deal then they were offered a few weeks ago. I don't think that was a great deal, but I have to agree its the best deal they are going to get. Sometimes its smarter to cut your losses and get on with it.

The players COULD HAVE saved the game and been seen as just that, the players that saved the NHL. Instead they came across as just being plain stupid. I admire Trevor Linden for trying to get something done. I admire Mike Modano for speaking his mind and showing that not all high paid players are happy with the situation. Too bad there aren't more players like them.

On the subject of impass, its very risky for NHL to try and implement and impass. If they do try and they win, the CBA that gets put into effect is the FINAL offer CBA or the $42.5M deal. I am not sure how many happy owners there will be if that happens, considering when it was made there was hope of some kind of 2004-05 season. Bettman screwed himself with that move, by calling it his final offer.

Bettman also screwed himself when he rejected the players cap offer. He claimed all along he needed a cap, they gave it to him, and he turned it down. It doesn't look good for the league. Of course one could argue that it was too unreasonably high to actually function as a cap, but then it would just appear that Bettman doesn't want to negotiate and that isn't good for him either. So basically Bettman screwed himself with the last offer.

The other thing that is risky, remember not only can they not use NHLPA members as replacement players, but there are many players who have played in the AHL and NHL last season who could not play. Any player that played more than I belive 5 NHL games in the 2003-04 season is a member of the NHLPA and is technically locked out and therefore can not be a replacement player. But even if they can, the NHL risks nobody coming to the games. Then what? Now they are paying players salaries and nobody is coming to the arenas. Their screwed. I don't think its a risk they are willing to take.

I also wouldn't bet the NLRB being so fast to declare an impass, remember the NBA is right on their heels and the last thing the NLRB wants is two major sports in the US not playing. If they do it for the NHL they will have to follow the same rules for the NBA and I don't see them wanting to do that.

The best outcome would be for both Bettman and Goodenow to be removed. These two have been trying to negotiate this CBA since 2003. Its 2005 and they have made no progress, why does anyone think they will? Get some fresh bodies and ideas in there and I bet this CBA can be hammered out in no time.

So I know I am pro-player, but I can see things from the owners sides also, but I just don't think the impass is as clear cut as many of you think.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Icey said:
On the subject of impass, its very risky for NHL to try and implement and impass. If they do try and they win, the CBA that gets put into effect is the FINAL offer CBA or the $42.5M deal. I am not sure how many happy owners there will be if that happens, considering when it was made there was hope of some kind of 2004-05 season. Bettman screwed himself with that move, by calling it his final offer.
No. The league is perfectly capable of submitting another (presumably lower cap) CBA deal offer - and use that as the basis for a post-impasse CBA. In no way are they bound by their last offer, as long as they can justify any retrograde terms on economics.

The other thing that is risky, remember not only can they not use NHLPA members as replacement players, but there are many players who have played in the AHL and NHL last season who could not play. Any player that played more than I belive 5 NHL games in the 2003-04 season is a member of the NHLPA and is technically locked out and therefore can not be a replacement player.
Incorrect. Once the NHL declares an impasse and implements it's "Final Offer" CBA, the lockout is over. The league opens up training camp, and it's then up to the NHLPA to vote to strike or not. Any current player would be free to cross a picket line and play as a replacement player.

And I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that if the NHL's impasse CBA was close to the last $42.5 cap offer that the NHLPA would vote to strike. Up till now, Goodenow and the PA excecutive have done a good job silencing the rank-and-file. But what would happen when the 700+ rank-and-file members get a secret ballot vote to strike - effectively a vote on the leagues final offer. I think you'll find lots of players, who have already lost one year of their short careers, will vote not to strike.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
me2 said:
I can see it now. Local job in a Vancouver paper

Wanted 23 hockey players
Pay $250K-500k
non-guaranteed contracts
mandatory 2-way (25% pay if in minors)
non-disclosure agreements on all contracts
Please apply in writing to Dave Cobb, Vancouver Canucks.

That's what the 10-15th best paying team is offering. OUCH! WELCOME TO THE FREE MARKETPLACE MR GOODENOW.
Okay say goodbye to Naslund, Bertuzzi, Jovo, Ohlund, Sedins Etc ..

and Vancouver would be fielding a "Making the Cut Team"

While all the Big Market teams would now careless for its other brothers and spend its 45. Mil and sign all the NHL all-stars.. Smart business teams like NJ and others would soon ice competitive teams within its budget to compete and make money ..

and all of them would then compete for the Stanley Cup ..

Because if you believe Smart busnessmen would follow your strategy even if they could would not for one minute .. They would secure the best players and triple their Franchise values over night and


while Vancouver Canucks would go 0-82 -0 on the season and Bankrupt in the process and throw the owners money right out down the drain... When Zero Fans would show up ..

Then you could say we would be right back to square 1 Free Society very similar to the old CBA in fact with team spending .. and as you say WELCOME TO THE FREE MARKETPLACE MR GOODENOW

. well all except you Canucks of course who have decided a AHL team is better suited for Vancouver.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
kdb209 said:
And I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that if the NHL's impasse CBA was close to the last $42.5 cap offer that the NHLPA would vote to strike. Up till now, Goodenow and the PA excecutive have done a good job silencing the rank-and-file. But what would happen when the 700+ rank-and-file members get a secret ballot vote to strike - effectively a vote on the leagues final offer. I think you'll find lots of players, who have already lost one year of their short careers, will vote not to strike.
If that were the case, the league would go the impasse route as soon as feasible. If the NHLPA were silencing its members, the strike vote would fail.
 

Vagabond

Registered User
Dec 24, 2004
8,995
3,608
Edmonton
Originally Posted by The Messenger
"I beg to differ .. The NHL stance was always it needes a Hard cap for Parity and equal opportunity at the Stanley Cup for 30 teams and its last 42.5 proposal had no floor .. (other than min wage 300 -350 k X 23 players ~ 7-10 mil ) .. Well the difference between 42.5 and 10 is 32.5 Mil ..So what is the difference from that and the OLD CBA where a small market team like Phoenix had a 33.0 Mil Salary and the Leafs a 65.0 M Salary .. Still a 32.0 Mil difference in disparity for a Cup .. The numbers are just different .. "Bad Faith" Perhaps !!!"

^"The Numbers are just different" There's not a 'fine' line between "just the numbers" from the old CBA and the NHL's proposal. ..It's a huge, bold, clear as day boarder that seperates the two!

"And if an owner decided to bring up his AHL team and play it as his NHL team nothing would prevent the Current NHLers from such a tactic in the Owners CBA and just took away 23 NHL jobs .. in a tank for a top prospect move .."

^HUH?

"So then an offer of 42.5 mil could in that respect still be questioned in court as being unfair and understandable why it does not address the issue it set out to due .."

^HUH

"Also the magnet theory of drawing team to the High number will be challenged .. 4-5 straight years Phoenix has never exceeded a 33 mil in an non Cap world and then suddenly under a Cap it now will shoot for or spend 42.5 or 45 .. etc .. "Bad Faith" Perhaps.!!!"

^Did you know there's a floor and a ceiling presented in the cap? :lol The ceiling is the limit a team can spend on payroll, meaning: Teams are not 'permitted' to spend past the ceiling, or limit of the cap. ..Nor are they(the teams) permitted to spend less than the floor on payroll. In otherwords; all teams are to spend within the floor(the minimum) and the ceiling(the maximum). :shakehead I cannot believe I had to explain this.. Why do teams have to spend the maximum?

"Also look at a team like Boston 95 Mil recorded in Revenue last year, one of the Top teams .. and they are the ones pushing for a 42.5 or lower Cap and are partially responsible for a lost season .. Well if you do the math 95 - 42.5 is not 55% or so of Revenues the league offered in Linkage .. "BAD Faith" Perhaps"

^ That my friend is called disparity within the league. Now, look at the picture from another perspective and you'll find teams loosing significant money as well. It's sad realy.. that a cap is the only solution from preventing players salaries from inflating as well as petering off the foolish spending some of the teams spend. Without contradicting myself, I'm not soley for a cap. I'd like to see Arbitration changed to not favor one side, along with the 24%rollback to offset the outrageous salaries. With arbitration changed, players will be evaluated fair and should further prevent salary escalation. Major luxury taxes should be implimented and split evenly with the other teams that don't spend foolishly, as well as losing draft picks in up-coming drafts.

"Other issues as well they may have discussed Revenue Sharing but in the last NHL proposal it starts in year one and declines to Zero in year 6 .. The reason again for the Hard Cap is to allow for meaningful revenue sharing for all teams to build up Team Salaries in Small or Non Hockey markets, by help from their friends thus creating better paying jobs and employment for players that are Capped at the Top Team wise and that would leave the weak back to old CBA and affordability.."Bad Faith" Perhaps .."

^For once, you have a point. The only reason why players encourage revenue sharing is for the simple fact they (the players)will benifit from it. The reason why rich teams don't want revenue sharing is because they'd be giving-up revenue and wouldn't benifit them at all.

"Qualifying offers at 75% .. unless there is a off setting Salary Arbitration in place to give the players an avenue to dispute or make sure They are paid fairly and not getting automatic 25% decreases regardless and no avenue but to withhold services to be treated Fairly.. "Good Faith" Perhaps !!!"

^That has nothing to do with the player signing for 75% less, it just keeps them from being an URFA. A team has to at least qualify a player at 75% of their last salary inorder to keep their rights.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
The Messenger said:
Again the ruling has to be based on facts .. We still do not know the final CBA that they will be ruling on so its still speculation right now .. and while I agree that your above statement is true to a point .. The governing party regardless of Repulican or Democrate still needs to rule Fairly by the letter of the law, and a Labour route intent is to protect employee rights, but not to the point of always ruling one way or another ..

Your statement sounds like regardless of the facts of the case the NLRB will rule in favour of the Owners because of its party affiliation .. That simply is not true .. Inclined maybe ..but then you could say that if the NHL offered a 10 mil Hard Cap and 10% linkage they would still win ...
That the ruling will be based on the facts goes without saying. What I am suggesting is that a pro business Republican appointed NLRB may have a slightly different take on what is fair. If I was a betting man (and I am :D ) I would lay heavy odds on the NLRB, as it stands right now, ruling that 55% (+ or - a couple) of revenues is more than fair. It seems quite clear that the players are running out of options to leverage their position.
GB appears to have Goodenow by the throat. I'm hoping he has the presence of mind and the stomach to finish him off.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
The Messenger said:
Okay say goodbye to Naslund, Bertuzzi, Jovo, Ohlund, Sedins Etc ..

Probably.

and Vancouver would be fielding a "Making the Cut Team"

Far from it. After the top 8 teams load up with about 120-160 of the best players where are the next 160 going to go and the 160 after that and the 160 after that?

While all the Big Market teams would now careless for its other brothers and spend its 45. Mil and sign all the NHL all-stars.. Smart business teams like NJ and others would soon ice competitive teams within its budget to compete and make money ..

They are loading up, $50m+ could do it just fine. Broduer + 8 or so star quality players at $4m-5m and some quality defensive players for $50m sounds about right.

and all of them would then compete for the Stanley Cup ..

If it was offered that year

Because if you believe Smart busnessmen would follow your strategy even if they could would not for one minute .. They would secure the best players and triple their Franchise values over night
while Vancouver Canucks would go 0-82 -0 on the season and Bankrupt in the process and throw the owners money right out down the drain... When Zero Fans would show up ..


Why? The Nucks and Habs would make a bunch of money with a defensive $10m teams.

Then you could say we would be right back to square 1 Free Society very similar to the old CBA in fact with team spending .. and as you say WELCOME TO THE FREE MARKETPLACE MR GOODENOW

Goodenow turns $1.2B in salaries into $600m-750m, get 1/3 of workforce displaced.

. well all except you Canucks of course who have decided a AHL team is better suited for Vancouver.

That's were you are wrong, they won't be AHL quality, just not elite NHL quality. Combine them with a trap and they'll be competitive, not cup challenger quality but competitive.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Who says that the league is going to declare an impass? If you think that the NHLPA is fractured now, imagine how they will be when it becomes apparent that the one card they have left will not be played, that the owners will sit another season if need be. How many will watch their second year go by (out of an average 4 yr. career)? I doubt that the NHLPA lasts until thanksgiving before breaking.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
The Messenger said:
I beg to differ .. The NHL stance was always it needes a Hard cap for Parity and equal opportunity at the Stanley Cup for 30 teams and its last 42.5 proposal had no floor .. (other than min wage 300 -350 k X 23 players ~ 7-10 mil ) .. Well the difference between 42.5 and 10 is 32.5 Mil ..So what is the difference from that and the OLD CBA where a small market team like Phoenix had a 33.0 Mil Salary and the Leafs a 65.0 M Salary .. Still a 32.0 Mil difference in disparity for a Cup .. The numbers are just different .. "Bad Faith" Perhaps !!!


The difference? Phoenix could afford a playoff capable team at around $32m-37m, they could afford a rebuilding team at $10m*. Can they afford a rebuilding team at $32m-37m, probably not?
A challenger Phoenix at $32m can compete against TO at $42m. $10m difference between challenging teams is better than $46m difference (Wings at $78m) .


*This $10m payroll argument is exceedingly spurious anyway. If a team is spending $10m its because they want to not because they have to financially. Of course in a player reserve system with arbitration there isn't much likelihood of teams trying to get $7m payroll because they'd lose their reserved players. Which pretty much shoots down the whole $10m plan.

And if an owner decided to bring up his AHL team and play it as his NHL team nothing would prevent the Current NHLers from such a tactic in the Owners CBA and just took away 23 NHL jobs .. in a tank for a top prospect move ..

Penguins 2003-04?


Also look at a team like Boston 95 Mil recorded in Revenue last year, one of the Top teams .. and they are the ones pushing for a 42.5 or lower Cap and are partially responsible for a lost season .. Well if you do the math 95 - 42.5 is not 55% or so of Revenues the league offered in Linkage .. "BAD Faith" Perhaps

Which is balanced by other teams overspending. There is also $90m-100m in revenue sharing to hand around.

there is a off setting Salary Arbitration in place to give the players an avenue to dispute or make sure T

Players should have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Keep arbitration but don't let them know how much other players in that grouping are earning. Let both sides pick out players to use as an example without knowing how much the player earns. Make it a lucky dip. I think this is much fairer than the current system where teams pick the extremes..
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
me2 said:
That's were you are wrong, they won't be AHL quality, just not elite NHL quality. Combine them with a trap and they'll be competitive, not cup challenger quality but competitive.
So why you support this the Nucks ran a good business under the old system why would they do anything else again ..

You are kidding yourself if you believe that a team that you suggest 300-500 K times ..would be completive .. Your old nucks would annihilate this Pub team ..

and you expect 17,000 fans to show up like before .. Attendance records during losing years was terrible in Vancouver ..

You Nucks would have no choice to abandon this strategy of yours in no time .. Once the key players are secured by other teams you Owner would freak .. and your team would have nothing but the cast-offs for a long time .. What UFA would sign there with a roster full of pluggers .. Your new NHL team would be like Replacement players when the other teams went back to the regulars ..

I think you better reconsider your stance on this concept of a 10 Mil team ..

Once the feeding frenzy for Sakic and Brodeur and Lidstrom begins it would snowball into uncontrollable spending for lots of teams .. It would put the NHL in a worse position then now in fact ..
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
The Messenger said:
So why you support this the Nucks ran a good business under the old system why would they do anything else again ..

Most of the nucks top talent is UFA once they union decertifities. They are free to go, the nucks would be stupid to get into a bidding war they can't win to try to keep them. The best thing to do is let them go if they want and pick up what they can on the cheap.

The Nucks are probably one of the teams that could stretch to $50m and compete. Whether they would I don't know. But they'll do for this example.

You are kidding yourself if you believe that a team that you suggest 300-500 K times ..would be completive .. Your old nucks would annihilate this Pub team ..

This "pub team" would likely have players like Sedins, Cooke, Linden, Ruutu, Allen, Sopel (might even upgrade Cloutier!), rookies like Kesler and prospects like Brule and others. No big spender is going to sign Brule, Crosby yes, Brule no. They'll just let him develop for a few years.

and you expect 17,000 fans to show up like before .. Attendance records during losing years was terrible in Vancouver ..

But they fans were paying $50 a ticket to see worse team with a $50m payroll miss the playoffs. I'm not surprised they didn't come in vast numbers.

Still this team would be better than the Penguins team and a few others going around last year. And 11,000 showed up to watch them.

You Nucks would have no choice to abandon this strategy of yours in no time ..

They can field a mixed bag. Some vets, some rookies, some elite prospects. They've only got to cover $10m in payroll. Playoffs are a pretty good bet if 16 out of 20-22 teams make it (suspended teams make it easier).

Once the key players are secured by other teams you Owner would freak .. and your team would have nothing but the cast-offs for a long time.

Not a long time. Just long enough for the union to break under the strain of now being in a worse position than a $42.5m cap. How long do you think the union would last in the face of that? Not that long.

The stars would be taking big paycuts because of the sheer number of other stars on their teams.

2nd tier players would get terrible offerers.

3rd tier players would get dumped all together.

What UFA would sign there with a roster full of pluggers.

One that wanted to be paid. If you miss the payday on the big clubs where else are you going to go? Only so many high priced Euro jobs, and they go to the stars the big clubs have locked up not 2nd tier players.

Your new NHL team would be like Replacement players when the other teams went back to the regulars .

Probably no worse than Minny or Edmonton or Buffalo in 03-04.

Once the feeding frenzy for Sakic and Brodeur and Lidstrom begins it would snowball into uncontrollable spending for lots of teams .. It would put the NHL in a worse position then now in fact ..

Hardly. Only so many rich teams can get into bidding wars. The rest will just put their hands up in defeat. They can't outbid TO or Philly or NY or Detroit. Why would they even try. They can pick up the scraps for 10-20% of the cost. Try and make money by running a mediocre to solid NHL team with a low payroll.
 
Last edited:

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
The Messenger said:
I agree to this date they have not done anything wrong technically ..but the really haven't given the CBA a Proposal yet that could be accepted by the NHLPA.

If I understand the requirements for collective bargaining in good faith as set forth by the NLRB, the employer isn't required to set forth a proposal that "could be accepted," it's required to set forth proposals that can be negotiated. Big difference.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,875
Missouri
Boltsfan2029 said:
If I understand the requirements for collective bargaining in good faith as set forth by the NLRB, the employer isn't required to set forth a proposal that "could be accepted," it's required to set forth proposals that can be negotiated. Big difference.

That's the way I've heard it talked about from various "experts" as well.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
kdb209 said:
No. The league is perfectly capable of submitting another (presumably lower cap) CBA deal offer - and use that as the basis for a post-impasse CBA. In no way are they bound by their last offer, as long as they can justify any retrograde terms on economics.


Incorrect. Once the NHL declares an impasse and implements it's "Final Offer" CBA, the lockout is over. The league opens up training camp, and it's then up to the NHLPA to vote to strike or not. Any current player would be free to cross a picket line and play as a replacement player.

And I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that if the NHL's impasse CBA was close to the last $42.5 cap offer that the NHLPA would vote to strike. Up till now, Goodenow and the PA excecutive have done a good job silencing the rank-and-file. But what would happen when the 700+ rank-and-file members get a secret ballot vote to strike - effectively a vote on the leagues final offer. I think you'll find lots of players, who have already lost one year of their short careers, will vote not to strike.

Good post.
 

alecfromtherock

Registered User
Feb 2, 2004
507
0
guymez said:
The NLRB is not always pro player (employee) as you have stated. The only time it did rule on the side of the players Clinton (a decidedly left leaning president) and the democrats were in power.
IIRC every other NLRB sports related decision has been pro owner and happened when a Republican was in the whitehouse. George W Bush may well have an indirect influence in this sorted affair, if the impasse route is attempted. I am surprised that you think that the NLRB, with its Bush appointed members, will side with the players.:amazed:
Time for a reality check.

JD said as much on Hockey Central pointed out that 3/5 of the NLRB members are Republicans.

Politics have nothing to do with the US legal system?(didn’t Bush get ‘elected’ by the GOP controlled Supreme Court?)

Baseball is Americas pastime, hockey to put bluntly is rated lower then lawn bowling.

The Messenger said:
Okay say goodbye to Naslund, Bertuzzi, Jovo, Ohlund, Sedins Etc ..

Bertuzzi is the epitome of what the NHL player has become, whos absence from the game can only make it better.

me2 said:
I can see it now. Local job in a Vancouver paper

Wanted 23 hockey players
Pay $250K-500k
non-guaranteed contracts
mandatory 2-way (25% pay if in minors)
non-disclosure agreements on all contracts
Please apply in writing to Dave Cobb, Vancouver Canucks.

You have captured the essence of what all of the 30 teams player recruitment printed articles would look like.

Team X is holding tryouts on date Y for the 2005-2006 NHL season.

Salary info

Contact Mr.GM if you are interested
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
kdb209 said:
No. The league is perfectly capable of submitting another (presumably lower cap) CBA deal offer - and use that as the basis for a post-impasse CBA. In no way are they bound by their last offer, as long as they can justify any retrograde terms on economics.

And that ought to carry a lot of weight and meaning. This is the leagues 19th final offer, take it or leave it. The NLRB ought to be really impressed with that.

kdb209 said:
Incorrect. Once the NHL declares an impasse and implements it's "Final Offer" CBA, the lockout is over. The league opens up training camp, and it's then up to the NHLPA to vote to strike or not. Any current player would be free to cross a picket line and play as a replacement player.

But lets be realistic here. In previous labor fights where the league used replacement players (football for example) once the labor war was over (and this will end at some point) any player who crossed the picket line and played was no longer allowed to be part of the union. What player is going to risk that? Do you really think the young kids who are trying to make it in the NHL are going to risk playing for 6 weeks or even 6 months just to be blacklisted once the NHL and PA come to an agreement?

So all those players who we have seen glimpses of last year, won't be crossing the line. Instead it will be a bunch of kids who couldn't make it in the NHL if the true talent was playing. Maybe your willing to pay to watch that, but I'm not and I think that is something the league needs to think about. What happens when nobody shows up and they are still paying salaries but there are no ticket sales and no corporate sponsors?

You seem to think they will be crossing the line in droves to play, I don't agree.

kdb209 said:
And I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that if the NHL's impasse CBA was close to the last $42.5 cap offer that the NHLPA would vote to strike. Up till now, Goodenow and the PA excecutive have done a good job silencing the rank-and-file. But what would happen when the 700+ rank-and-file members get a secret ballot vote to strike - effectively a vote on the leagues final offer. I think you'll find lots of players, who have already lost one year of their short careers, will vote not to strike.

So which final offer are you talking about? You just finished saying that the league would submit ANOTHER final offer. They may vote for the $42.5M final offer, but I doubt they would vote yes to a $30M cap that you seem to be suggesting.

Bettman has done just as good of a job silencing the owners and Goodenow has the players, the difference is Goodenow doesn't slap a fine on them when they speak up. Guess thats the only way the league can keep the vocal owners silent.
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
Thunderstruck said:
Good post.

Except he's wrong on the law. Despite what eveyone here wants to think, there are still laws that need to be followed. Your final offer is your final offer.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Jaded-Fan said:
Who says that the league is going to declare an impass? If you think that the NHLPA is fractured now, imagine how they will be when it becomes apparent that the one card they have left will not be played, that the owners will sit another season if need be. How many will watch their second year go by (out of an average 4 yr. career)? I doubt that the NHLPA lasts until thanksgiving before breaking.
Personally, I think that the players are collectively dumb enough to follow Goodenow off of another cliff. I hope I'm wrong but public quotations since make me think that way.
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
Icey said:
Except he's wrong on the law. Despite what eveyone here wants to think, there are still laws that need to be followed. Your final offer is your final offer.
Yep. But your final offer is the last offer you make. Calling something your final offer during negotiations does not make it your final offer. IF the NHL goes the impasse route, the 'final offer' will be the last offer they make...and I look for them to make at least one more before they reach that point.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Icey said:
Except he's wrong on the law. Despite what eveyone here wants to think, there are still laws that need to be followed. Your final offer is your final offer.


It is you who are misinformed.

The "last offer" simply refered to the last chance to get a deal done before the cancellation of the 04-05 season.

The owners will create new offers in the next round of negotiations and if they feel that impasse has been reached, the last offer they presented the PA will be considered the "last offer" in the legal battle over impasse and implementation.

The logic of YOUR position is that the NHL could never present the PA with a new proposal since they have already delivered their "last offer".

You are 100% wrong.
 

Luc Labelle

Lucius 895 Injuries
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2005
762
3,107
Winnipeg
icey said:
Your final offer is your final offer.
The final offer pertained to coming to an agreement to resume play for the 2004-2005 NHL season. That entity no longer exists, we have not even heard the first offer that will reflect the current economic reality.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Icey said:
But lets be realistic here. In previous labor fights where the league used replacement players (football for example) once the labor war was over (and this will end at some point) any player who crossed the picket line and played was no longer allowed to be part of the union. What player is going to risk that? Do you really think the young kids who are trying to make it in the NHL are going to risk playing for 6 weeks or even 6 months just to be blacklisted once the NHL and PA come to an agreement?
Crossing the picket line and being kicked out of the PA really hurt the Hall of Fame careers of
JOE MONTANA
TONY DORSETT
JOHN ELWAY

to name just 3 of many.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->