Except businesses dont have the right to a hard cap. Its like telling doctors, they dont get paid if a patient dies. If they dont accept this CBA change, they wont be allowed to work. And then saying, ok well, we're at impasse, lets split the difference, you only lose half the money. It wasnt reasonable in the first place. It seems it wasnt even real anyway by Bettman, this hardline stance, it was just leverage for a good deal of money.
Is Anybody else Hearing the RUMOR?
- Thread starter FLYLine27*
- Start date
- Status
I believe the union doesn't expect the NHL to accept this deal. It's more of a PR move by them.
If the owners walk away without negotiating, that's basically the worst thing they can do. It's a half decent proposal by the NHLPA, obviously it's not going to be accepted by the owners but both groups must use it as a starting point in negotiating a new CBA. If tomorrow night comes by with no deal done, that won't surprise me, and it shouldn't surprise anyone, it's a starting point in my mind, and hopefully there will be a deal in the next couple weeks.
If there's any type of personal attacks between the two sides, there will be no season. The best we can look for tomorrow is that both parties talked for an extended period of time.
If the owners walk away without negotiating, that's basically the worst thing they can do. It's a half decent proposal by the NHLPA, obviously it's not going to be accepted by the owners but both groups must use it as a starting point in negotiating a new CBA. If tomorrow night comes by with no deal done, that won't surprise me, and it shouldn't surprise anyone, it's a starting point in my mind, and hopefully there will be a deal in the next couple weeks.
If there's any type of personal attacks between the two sides, there will be no season. The best we can look for tomorrow is that both parties talked for an extended period of time.
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
ArtG said:
well, from what i see, at least the players have been willing to give up on many issues, its the owners who want each and every point in there favour.
dr
ArtG
Registered User
I wouldn't say they want each point in their favour. They just want one critical point in their favour. Which is what the sides happen to disagree on. IMO, it's a very reasonable demand. Linking revenues to salaries. I mean really, why is this so hard for the players to accept?DementedReality said:
struckmatch
Registered User
ArtG said:
Well, linking salaries to revenues is definitely not an unreasonable demand. No business can operate without a connection between their earnings, and how much they pay their employees.
The only problem with a hard cap is, it may take 1 - 2 years for the union to break and accept a hard cap, which would be incredibly detrimental to the game, and the NHL, something they may never recover from.
I really think a stiff luxury tax would benefit the league in many ways, such as, a dollar for dollar tax over 40 million would provide a lot of tax money to be paid among the lower revenue teams in the league, helping support a level playing field. For the big spending, and revenue earning teams(Leafs, Red Wings, Avs, Flyers, Rangers, Canucks, Stars, Sens etc.) All those teams did relatively well revenue wise last year, and in recent years, except for NYR, who even if they are losing money can still afford to sign big name talent. These teams do not want a 2 year hiatus from the NHL, as they are profitable, and do have a faithful following that will generate them money.
Its these owners that are able to live and operate under a tax system, and if the NHLPA plants the luxury tax seed out there, Bettman may feel the pressure from these owners really soon.
vanlady said:
And how exactly would that be bad for the owners?
Once again please provide an answer for the following. If the players really would be better off post-decertification and the owners worse off, then why haven't the players already done so?
The NHL would welcome decertification.
Now that the PA has presented it's FIRST real offer, the owners will table a full CBA offer. I suggest you take a good long look at it. Unless the players bargain based on it's terms, then it will be the one imposed after impasse has been declared.
Reading the paper this morning, I was surprised to read the following:
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2004-12-08-labor-talks-resumption_x.htm
A European Super league could most likely challenge what the NHL can offer as far as salary goes. Plus it would be a place to play other than the NHL. The league better think long and hard before they go and reject the new proposal.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2004-12-08-labor-talks-resumption_x.htm
RichPanther said:
If a European super league could compete with the current NHL with the salary structure the NHL currently has (the one the players want) it would not be dependent on whether the NHL is essentially toast. I would say there isn't much to it.
In other news Marc Savard was cut by SC Bern for being too fat and too slow.
Turco and Kim Johnson have also left their European teams.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=107525&hubName=nhl
Thunderstruck said:
And why would the owners welcome no draft? The war for Sydney Crosby would be on. These owners blew the last CBA do you really think they wouldn't find a way around a cap for a kid like Crosby? No restricited free agency, Edmonton fans a screaming now over losing players, how would they like it if players could move every year? The union will never decertify, they are the second strongest union in pro sports, only second to baseball.
[/QUOTE]Now that the PA has presented it's FIRST real offer, the owners will table a full CBA offer. I suggest you take a good long look at it. Unless the players bargain based on it's terms, then it will be the one imposed after impasse has been declared.[/QUOTE]
The union has presented 3 offers, without the owners negotiating once. That my dear is bad faith. For the owners now to present there first offer as there last and final is a clear signal of surface bargaining. Here let me provide you with a little light reading. Katz and Insurance Brokers are the standard for bad faith and applied for the last 40 years, Republican or not the NLRB has always upheld this standard. Oh and both these standards are US Supreme Court rulings.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=361&invol=477
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=369&invol=736
Also remember that MLB negotiated strongly with there union, had mediators and even the intervention of the US Congress and there impasse was overturned, here let me provide that for you as well.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/october95/95-6048.html
Here are a few other cases for you.
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/321/321-142.pdf
http://www.braunconsulting.com/bcg/newsletters/spring2001/bargain2.html
This one gives you the 5 part impasse test, as you will see the NHL has had no bargaining, which means that the NHL fails the 5 part test.
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/342/342-97.htm
So no you will not see the NHL implement any post impasse, because at this point they have been engaged in surface bargaining, and bad faith bargaining will see the old CBA in place until they can "NEGOTIATE" a new agreement.
The market would be flooded and the salaries would drop accordingly. And how exactly would it bother the owners to spend a smaller portion of their money on a young stars instead of washed up former stars?vanlady said:
vanlady said:
Well at least you got one thing right, the PA would never decertify. The lack of a free market is the only thing keeping their salaries artificially inflated.
vanlady said:
The PA has presented one real offer and the owners are currently in the process of negotiating with them. The NHL's counter offer will be a complete CBA. The PA will be free to negotiate that with them. If they choose to present another counter offer, then I'm sure the NHL will present a slightly amended version of their CBA as a counter offer. At some point, they will have established that neither side is willing to move off the "cost certainty" sticking point. When this has been reached, they will be at impasse and the final offer from the owners will be the basis of an implemented CBA.
The players will accept cost certainty or will end up at impasse. Assuming there is a series of counter proposal between the parties the final offer from the owners will be slightly different from the initial offer.
The owners have the best experts money can buy advising them on how to best apply leverage and protect their legal interests. If they do get to impasse, they will have made sure their case is strong.
FLYLine4LIFE said:
Hey all, haven't visited this board in a while, but I know the person that posted the message on the other board, and trust me I wouldn't get your hopes up based on the sayings of that person! The person does know a lot of people in the hockey world, but I wouldn't say that they no ANYONE well enough that they got this kind of information from them.
If there is stuff on TSN/Sportsnet that is completely different, but like I said I would consider the source of the post on the other board COMPLETELY and TOTALLY UNRELIABLE! Let's just say that my two year old could probably get better information.
Exactly.Thunderstruck said:
There sure are a lot of experts here telling tall tales about the legal sytem, good faith bargaining, blah blah blah. Given the amount of media scrutiny, I find it hard to believe that either side is just hired the guys with the fanciest commercial.
"And remember, we don't get paid until you do!"
Thunderstruck said:
The owners have never negotiated anything. The my way or the highway tecnique is a no no. There is a huge difference between hard bargaining and surface bargaining. The NLRB has always held the standard that no union will be left worse off if they weren't certified. The NLRB will also not leave any union a "paper tiger" . Any contract with the NHL that live on the premise of financial extingeny will require that the owners cough up the real books, not the Levitt Report, see ConAgra.
Recently on TSN Brian Burke was quoted that the owners would not go to impasse, why, IMO because the real books become a target and something that the NLRB would determine, not the owners.
The players have already gone to the board once with a unfair labor complaint, and with the new republican board overturning Ellicott, these charges are open game to be brought up as evidence of a pattern of bad faith bargaining on the part of the NHL. Battista is famous for his opinions on hard bargaining and I sincerely doubt that the NHL will even attempt impasse.
Battista is also famous for not limiting parties behavior to the bargaining table, which means guess what, that means all comments made in the media including those made by the Thrashers owner, Belkin, become free for introduction to the board.
The reality is this, the owners have never provided the PA with any counter proposal, that in itself is grounds for bad faith, and a strong indication that the owners are engaged in surface bargiaining.
I will leave you with a comment from one of my favorite ALJ's
"For one side to be so wedded to a subject of bargaining is in itself a sign of bad faith"
Your working very hard to make an arguement that no one is contesting.
If the owners were to attempt to declare impasse right now, they would lose.
IF they choose to do so at a future date, you can rest assured that they will have a strong case.
If the owners were to attempt to declare impasse right now, they would lose.
IF they choose to do so at a future date, you can rest assured that they will have a strong case.
PecaFan
Registered User
vanlady said:
This first case is irrelevant. It says that a union interfered with the conduct of the business, and that even then it *WAS NOT* bad faith bargaining. As long as they're meeting and discussing, it's good faith.
Also irrelevant. The employer unilaterally implemented wages and benefits, circumventing the union, and the ongoing negotiations. That is bad faith.
Has the NHL implemented a CBA unilaterally? No.
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_fil...=/nlrb/employee/faqs/default.asp#questionID87
"Bargaining obligations are imposed equally on the employer and the representative of its employees. It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other. The obligation does not, however, compel either party to agree to a proposal by the other, nor does it require either party to make a concession to the other.
I guess I'm going to have to attach this to my avatar. The NHL and NHLPA are meeting. They are having negotiations. That is good faith bargaining.
And frankly, no one has *any idea* of what sort of concessions have been discussed, or already negotiated. None of us are in those meetings. For all we know, the free agency age has changed, per diems are up, and there's free hookers for all players on road trips.
The fact the NHL is firm on one point is meaningless.
- Status
