NHL files unfair labor practice against NHLPA to NLRB

[mooseOAK*]

king gary and the merry men

A lot of the teams that need a new CBA in order to continue were in the league long before Bettman showed up.

Do you put any thought into your responses or are you just seeing how many you can get in in an hour?

 

[mr gib]

A lot of the teams that need a new CBA in order to continue were in the league long before Bettman showed up.

Do you put any thought into your responses or are you just seeing how many you can get in in an hour?

i'm just farting around sorry - mad that this thing has killed the canuck's chance's at the stanley cup

 

[Munchausen]

i'm just farting around sorry - mad that this thing has killed the canuck's chance's at the stanley cup

And no offense, but from the tone of all your replies, it is quite obvious this is all you think or care about, just like (conincidence or not, most likely not) almost all the PA supporters on these boards are cheering for big market teams.

I'd suggest shaking your fan bias off for a sec. and thinking about the long term consequences for the league if the owners caved once more. You would see 5-6 teams go bankrupt in the next 10 years and a situation approaching MLB where the payroll disparity becomes so out of hand that only a handful of teams can compete every year.

As a Canucks fan, you don't care, your team was set to make good money next year, but that kind of teams is a minority right now in the NHL.

 

[mr gib]

And no offense, but from the tone of all your replies, it is quite obvious this is all you think or care about, just like (conincidence or not, most likely not) almost all the PA supporters on these boards are cheering for big market teams.

I'd suggest shaking your fan bias off for a sec. and thinking about the long term consequences for the league if the owners caved once more. You would see 5-6 teams go bankrupt in the next 10 years and a situation approaching MLB where the payroll disparity becomes so out of hand that only a handful of teams can compete every year.

As a Canucks fan, you don't care, your team was set to make good money next year, but that kind of teams is a minority right now in the NHL.

it's cool - i understand - the game has just slid so far -

 

[fan mao rong]

Well , there's the idea that a player will be asked or decide on their own to "quit the union". Not necessary. In an impasse situation, which I do not think will occur, all that is necessary is for a player (NHLPA type) to report for work or cross the line. Then the Union will declare them to be "not a member in good standing" and they are automatically out.

 

[JohnnyB11]

You would see 5-6 teams go bankrupt in the next 10 years and a situation approaching MLB where the payroll disparity becomes so out of hand that only a handful of teams can compete every year.

And it's funny, I saw an interview with Ted Saskin a couple of months ago where this same argument was made, that the NHLPA seems intent on a CBA which looks more like MLB and that only a handful of teams can compete each year. To this he responded that their research shows that this type of setup is what fans like - made no sense then and certainly no sense now.

 

[Munchausen]

And it's funny, I saw an interview with Ted Saskin a couple of months ago where this same argument was made, that the NHLPA seems intent on a CBA which looks more like MLB and that only a handful of teams can compete each year. To this he responded that their research shows that this type of setup is what fans like - made no sense then and certainly no sense now.

What he forgot to specify is this is what fans of the 7 big market teams like. Not the rest of the league's teams' fans. How you could like your team acting as a farm team for the big spenders and having the odd good run here and there once every five years is beyond me.

 

[SuperUnknown]

What he forgot to specify is this is what fans of the 7 big market teams like. Not the rest of the league's teams' fans. How you could like your team acting as a farm team for the big spenders and having the odd good run here and there once every five years is beyond me.

By drawing wrestling fans? Like having a couple good teams in the right markets and the others they can beat again and again?

 

[JohnnyB11]

What he forgot to specify is this is what fans of the 7 big market teams like. Not the rest of the league's teams' fans. How you could like your team acting as a farm team for the big spenders and having the odd good run here and there once every five years is beyond me.

Heheheh, as a life-long fan of the Montreal Expos, I know EXACTLY what you're talking about ... and you know what? I'm not even so sure that all the fans in the few big market cities even like that set up. It's fun and interesting going into a season knowing that any team has a decent chance to win.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

What he forgot to specify is this is what fans of the 7 big market teams like. Not the rest of the league's teams' fans. How you could like your team acting as a farm team for the big spenders and having the odd good run here and there once every five years is beyond me.

Actually, that's not true. As a fan of a big market team, I agree that we need some kind of viable product and all 30 teams need to be healthy and profitable.

What I disagree with is the way to get to that point where all 30 teams are healthy. I think the 24% rollback and luxury tax can work. The problem is that the league doesn't want any kind of potential guess work and wants a fool proof system in place.

The only issue I have with a fool proof system is that once again, it allows for bad owners (we all know who they are) to make a profit and I'll always have an issue with that. This isn't about competitive balance and it will never be about competitive balance. This lockout is about teams like the Blackhawks and Bruins who want to nickel and dime everything and expect the fans to swallow their crap.

We've never heard about any kind of viable revenue sharing plan the league has to offer, we've never heard any kind of plan on what to do if a team intentionally tanks a season to max out profits, etc.....If the owners want an idiot proof system, then they need to put a bunch of safeguards in so that teams will not view this as an opportunity to sell of players all in the name of profit and so far, Bettman has failed to put in place any plan like that. That's my issue with the current CBA negotiations.

 

[Munchausen]

Actually, that's not true. As a fan of a big market team, I agree that we need some kind of viable product and all 30 teams need to be healthy and profitable.

What I disagree with is the way to get to that point where all 30 teams are healthy. I think the 24% rollback and luxury tax can work. The problem is that the league doesn't want any kind of potential guess work and wants a fool proof system in place.

The only issue I have with a fool proof system is that once again, it allows for bad owners (we all know who they are) to make a profit and I'll always have an issue with that. This isn't about competitive balance and it will never be about competitive balance. This lockout is about teams like the Blackhawks and Bruins who want to nickel and dime everything and expect the fans to swallow their crap.

We've never heard about any kind of viable revenue sharing plan the league has to offer, we've never heard any kind of plan on what to do if a team intentionally tanks a season to max out profits, etc.....If the owners want an idiot proof system, then they need to put a bunch of safeguards in so that teams will not view this as an opportunity to sell of players all in the name of profit and so far, Bettman has failed to put in place any plan like that. That's my issue with the current CBA negotiations.

Actually, there's a very simple way around having crooked owners like Wirtz being able to underspend to keep profits coming in with a mediocre team, and it's to have a fairly high floor put in place so that it would become a liability to put a non-competitive product on the ice even at the bare minimum floor level, so that all owners have incentives to put a decent product on the ice to attract fans because if they don't, they'll lose money.

And of course I'm sure a tax system only might work, but certainly not anything close to the joke of a tax system the PA proposed. I look at MLB and I think to myself this is THE model I want the NHL to avoid at all costs.

But sure, a tax system with sharp enough teeth might work, but will the PA agree more to a strong tax system with a low enough threshold that goes in the 1-for-1 / 2-for-1 range in penalities? I think it's not more likely they'll accept this than accept the hard cap system the owners want.

 

[Mess]

Actually, there's a very simple way around having crooked owners like Wirtz being able to underspend to keep profits coming in with a mediocre team, and it's to have a fairly high floor put in place so that it would become a liability to put a non-competitive product on the ice even at the bare minimum floor level, so that all owners have incentives to put a decent product on the ice to attract fans because if they don't, they'll lose money.

And of course I'm sure a tax system only might work, but certainly not anything close to the joke of a tax system the PA proposed. I look at MLB and I think to myself this is THE model I want the NHL to avoid at all costs.

But sure, a tax system with sharp enough teeth might work, but will the PA agree more to a strong tax system with a low enough threshold that goes in the 1-for-1 / 2-for-1 range in penalities? I think it's not more likely they'll accept this than accept the hard cap system the owners want.

Absolutely .. A Hard CAP floor creates more jobs and better pay then an OPTIONAL Hard Cap ceiling does from and NHLPA point of view ...

A Floor also quarantees the % (linkage) that the NHLPA receives .. A hard Cap ceiling that just a few teams will reach set at 54% as the NHL suggests does not accomnplish that ..

I would think the NHL and NHLPA would want to eliminate the Washington episode of last season where a team can sell off all its big contracts .. be rewarded the 1st pick in the entry draft and then return to Free Spending for UFA again when the next market opens .. This would certainly be in the best interest of everyone Fans included and season ticket holders if a Hard Cap Minimum was set at a resonable amount so an NHL team can't make their AHL team into their NHL team when ever it fits their interests best ..

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Actually, there's a very simple way around having crooked owners like Wirtz being able to underspend to keep profits coming in with a mediocre team, and it's to have a fairly high floor put in place so that it would become a liability to put a non-competitive product on the ice even at the bare minimum floor level, so that all owners have incentives to put a decent product on the ice to attract fans because if they don't, they'll lose money.

But that's the problem though. The NHL has no plan like that in place. There's nothing there to prevent a Wirtz, a Jacobs, or a Leopold (Nashville owner I believe) from doing something like that. And that's what bugs me. The NHL is quick to point out when teams are spending too much, but why don't they say anything when a team doesn't spend enough and consistently screws the fans out of a competitive team. That's what makes no sense to me.

And of course I'm sure a tax system only might work, but certainly not anything close to the joke of a tax system the PA proposed. I look at MLB and I think to myself this is THE model I want the NHL to avoid at all costs.

Oh, the MLB system is nothing short of a joke. I wouldn't want that either. But when you start paying $0.75 on the dollar for every dollar you're over, that begins to add up. I'll never agree on a 2 to 1 ratio because good teams who generate big revenue shouldn't be punished because they have a little more to spend. That's why revenue sharing is a must.

But sure, a tax system with sharp enough teeth might work, but will the PA agree more to a strong tax system with a low enough threshold that goes in the 1-for-1 / 2-for-1 range in penalities? I think it's not more likely they'll accept this than accept the hard cap system the owners want.

See, what gets me about all this talk about guess work is, if you're over the cap, how can you not figure out what your tax is? If the owners can calculate losses with no problem, then there's no reason why they can't calculate a tax. To say there's too much guess work involved is the most assinine thing I've ever heard. If you're over, you pay a tax. It's as simple as that.

I think there's been a lot of posturing by both sides. This has been nothing more than a PR battle and the players are having their backsides handed to them in that matter. I am a pro player, but I also realize that PR wise, we've been getting knocked around and to listen to guys like Linden and Guerin say that the NFL system doesn't work is probably the most uneducated comments ever made.

I think what is needed on both sides is new leadership at the tables. It's clear that as long as the current players remain the same, nothing gets done. It's time that Jacobs, Hotchkiss, Leopold go from the owners and you bring a Eugene Melnyk, Ed Snider, and the new owners in Vancouver. For the players, Linden and Guerin need to go. Bring in a Chris Pronger and a Robert Esche.

Hopefully cooler heads will eventually prevail. I feel for some GMs though especially those who were players at one time. You can bet that this has been a nightmare for them to deal with and you can bet that there's gonna be hostility from them towards the owners and players negotiating teams.

 

[Buffaloed]

Smart move by the NHL. If they get a ruling against the NHLPA, that's strike one already against the NHLPA contesting a possible future impasse. As well, it bolsters their position that if they don't get an agreement with the NHLPA they are going with replacement players, putting further pressure on the players.

Agreed, I think it's a way for the NHL to show the NHLPA that they can't win through the NLRB. I'm certain that the NHL has made discreet inquiries through third parties and are confident the ruling will go in their favor. They can move the process along by filing a claims now rather than waiting 3-4 months for the NHLPA to do so. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the Bush appointed pro-management lawyers on the NLRB have represented some of the owners in the past. If the NHL doesn't get a favorable ruling, they've badly miscalculated and it's a major blunder. Given that the makeup of the NLRB is 3-2 with the majority being management attorneys, I don't see much chance of that.

 

[Munchausen]

But that's the problem though. The NHL has no plan like that in place. There's nothing there to prevent a Wirtz, a Jacobs, or a Leopold (Nashville owner I believe) from doing something like that. And that's what bugs me. The NHL is quick to point out when teams are spending too much, but why don't they say anything when a team doesn't spend enough and consistently screws the fans out of a competitive team. That's what makes no sense to me.

You're right, the NHL didn't address this until late in the negotiations, and they still have to address the revenue sharing part, but this is something that matters to the PA, not the owners, so it was Goodenow's responsabilty to hammer at those issues early in the negotiations. But the PA was simply too oblivious to anything else surrounding the no cap debate to actually take a closer look at the elements they needed to address, much more so than the cap IMO, one of which was the hard floor.

Had Goodenow agreed early on a cap, the owners would have been so happy that they would have likely caved on a myriad of sub things like QO, arbitration, floor, etc. But now it's too late, the PA has waited too long to capitulate on the cap and right now, the owners from what we've been seeing recently, have nothing else in mind than completely crush the union. I'm not sure it was their mindset from the get go, but it sure is now. They won't accept to be bossed around by the players for an other year. Right now, they're charging.

Oh, the MLB system is nothing short of a joke. I wouldn't want that either. But when you start paying $0.75 on the dollar for every dollar you're over, that begins to add up. I'll never agree on a 2 to 1 ratio because good teams who generate big revenue shouldn't be punished because they have a little more to spend. That's why revenue sharing is a must.

The thing is, I don't think the owners will agree to meaningful long term revenue sharing (and they're dumb for that) unless it comes directly from tax money. So the difficult task with a tax only system is to find a threshold and a rating system that will prevent big market teams to control the market place and raise their payrolls 2-3 times over that of small markets (competitive balance issue) and at the same time, the tax must not be too restrictive so that big markets DO spend above the tax threshold and generate enough revenue out of it for a meaningful revenue sharing plan. The MLB tried it, and failed miserably.

I think what is needed on both sides is new leadership at the tables. It's clear that as long as the current players remain the same, nothing gets done. It's time that Jacobs, Hotchkiss, Leopold go from the owners and you bring a Eugene Melnyk, Ed Snider, and the new owners in Vancouver. For the players, Linden and Guerin need to go. Bring in a Chris Pronger and a Robert Esche.

If Goodenow and Bettman remain in place, you can be sure that no matter who you put behind them in those negotiations, the results will remain the same. They are the ones pulling the strings and triggers and although they theoretically work for the owners and players, they are the ones calling the shots in this negotiation.

And problem is, we as fans might want to see them gone, but the owners hate Goodenow so much that they want Bettman to humiliate him, and the players hate Bettman so much that they want Goodenow to stand his ground until his last breath. So although from an outside perspective it sure looks like it would be better if both of them stepped down, the reality is I don't think the owners are about to replace Bettman, same thing for the players and Goodenow.

 

[txomisc]

With any lawsuit you have to name the claimants ... The NHL does not have to give anything back.

I clearly see this as an issue of a Player(s) and his Union .. Why the NHL is even involved is confusing .. The NHL lockouts the player(s) withholding millions in guaranteed salaries and now is concerned if the player has to repay 70 K to his Union in strike pay? The player is more concerned about the Strike pay then the NHL contract amount .., when if the NHL is found of UNFAIR labour practices may be forced to repay last year player salaries, but again its this minimal strike pay that is an issue ??

They have to be filing this on behalf of a player(s) .. They are the ones being threatened and then how does the NHL even know what was said behind Union closed doors unless they are talking directly to the players themselves who told them what was said .. WE all have watched enough Law and Order to know that is "HEAR SAY" and isn't even allowed in court .. if there is such a lawsuit then the player himself would have to testify ..

I don't think the NHL filed anything .. I bet some Owners is just yanking Al Strachan or some media guys chain and he is running with it .. Just like we have a Deal type articles, purposely leaks to stir up the players and the NHLPA .. Now the NHLPA has to do damage control and tell 700 members that this is all a big act ..

Until a player crosses a picket line and is demanded to repay strike pay its a none issue anyways ... How can you file a claim for something that never happened yet? ..He can't even consider crossing until an Impasse is ruled by the NHL .. How do we know that event will even happen ?? ..Talk about the Cart before the Horse story here ..

Of course the NHL should get involved. If the PA bends it's players over and threatens them with having to give money back if they play, it clearly is a way of hurting the NHL. They would not be doing it so much to hurt their PA members, but rather to keep the NHL from getting those players.

edit: The mere threat to the players from the PA hurts the NHL.

 

[Russian Fan]

How exactly do you know that using replacements will blow up in the owners faces? Check the poll in the other tread, 75% of fans would watch replacements.
I for one think people will watch and the only ones who will have anything "blow up in their faces" will be the players.
Only time will tell!

Well who's stupid to think that 75% of pro-owners would WATCH scabs ? Do you see the KEY WORD here : WATCH

Turn this poll into : WHO WOULD PAY TO SEE SCABS ? You will get an answer depending on how much the ticket will cost to them.

Even if the 3rd LEVEL building is SOLD-OUT @ 20$ , the real answer will come from the 1st LEVEL ticket @ 65-150$ & the Luxury boxes !

If you can't see that , than keep your blinders on & watch the next episode on ''Where is my NHLCBANews.com update''

Russian Fan

 

[txomisc]

I dont like the NHL's move on this one. To me it shows that theyre not looking to make a deal now, theyre looking to go to Impasse and replacement players no matter what at this point. Although, in some eyes that's been the goal all along.

Yeah but doesn't there come a point in time where you have to start looking other directions? The try to get a deal agreed upon route has been beaten like a dead horse. They can still work on it, but at this point it looks highly unlikely that it will ever result in anything. Nothing wrong with also pursuing other avenues, just in case.

 

[Buffaloed]

Well who's stupid to think that 75% of pro-owners would WATCH scabs ? Do you see the KEY WORD here : WATCH

Turn this poll into : WHO WOULD PAY TO SEE SCABS ? You will get an answer depending on how much the ticket will cost to them.

Even if the 3rd LEVEL building is SOLD-OUT @ 20$ , the real answer will come from the 1st LEVEL ticket @ 65-150$ & the Luxury boxes !

If you can't see that , than keep your blinders on & watch the next episode on ''Where is my NHLCBANews.com update''

Russian Fan

Who's losing the largest percentage of their per capita income? Is it the players or the owners?

Who's going to be unable to maintain their standard of living if the lockout continues? Players or owners?

What do you estimate the payroll for replacement players to be? I don't see it being more than $10 million. It's likely to be $5-8 million. AHL payrolls run $2-3 million and we're basically talking about a league slightly better than the AHL. If they sell 8000-1000 tickets per game at a 50% discount, they'll make money. At the very least they'll be losing less money than they've been under the last CBA even if they only sell 3000-5000 tickets per game. NHL owners can go on indefinitely losing $3-5 million a year. They're losing that now by not playing. Players don't have that option. Even if a replacement player league is a giant flop, it's a no win for the player.

 

[Mess]

Of course the NHL should get involved. If the PA bends it's players over and threatens them with having to give money back if they play, it clearly is a way of hurting the NHL. They would not be doing it so much to hurt their PA members, but rather to keep the NHL from getting those players.

edit: The mere threat to the players from the PA hurts the NHL.

Even if the NLRB rules and says that the players do not have to give it back ..that still does not mean they will cross the Strike picket line in the future .. In other sports any player crossing a picket line gets his Union membership revoked .. That is a bigger issue for the player to be an outcast from the union then the money repayment IMO.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Well who's stupid to think that 75% of pro-owners would WATCH scabs ? Do you see the KEY WORD here : WATCH

Turn this poll into : WHO WOULD PAY TO SEE SCABS ? You will get an answer depending on how much the ticket will cost to them.

Even if the 3rd LEVEL building is SOLD-OUT @ 20$ , the real answer will come from the 1st LEVEL ticket @ 65-150$ & the Luxury boxes !

If you can't see that , than keep your blinders on & watch the next episode on ''Where is my NHLCBANews.com update''

Russian Fan

Flames fans, for one. Average of 15,000 people to watch our 2nd line of Chris Clark, Clarke Wilm and Jeff Shantz.

 

[txomisc]

Even if the NLRB rules and says that the players do not have to give it back ..that still does not mean they will cross the Strike picket line in the future .. In other sports any player crossing a picket line gets his Union membership revoked .. That is a bigger issue for the player to be an outcast from the union then the money repayment IMO.

Yeah unfortunately this thing appears to be headed towards the courts. Every little battle won will help at this point.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Leafs fan, try to avoid the same thing occuring to my team in a Bettman world ..

Personally I would find it though to grow the game of Hockey and get a TV Revenue sharing deal when 30 teams have a 2nd line of Chris Clark, Clarke Wilm and Jeff Shantz.

PS. You have to stop living in the past Clarke Wilm has not been a Flame for 3 full seasons already .. How long have you been away from Hockey ??

The poster was wondering how many people would watch a lineup of replacement players. I gave him one example.

I really don't see how "living in the past" has any sort of revalence to the topic at hand (although your post is rather incoherant).

 

[shveik]

The problem with your assessment is that your assuming that putting a rule in place is not actually an unfair practice until it is broken. Fortunately/unfortunately, unfair practices do not work that way. The two rules itself are unfair pracitces as they would hold the players/agents in a semi-hostage state. It may not be to the point where the rules come into play, but that does not make them any less wrong.

Basically what you are saying that it can be considered as some sort of a threat. Threats are an unfair labor practice for sure, but to me such a conditional threat, and to boot it is not a threat to health or whatever, but a threat to resort to an unfair labor practice... It just seems weak.

If the players had to sign NHLPA contracts with those clauses then that may be sufficient without having to resort to the "future" as a key component.

...unless of course such stipulation is included in the lockout compensation contract. Is there any indication that it is?

 

[Phanuthier*]

Huh? I have no idea what your trying to say.

Can you rephrase that in a more grammically-correct setense so its at least partially understandable?