NHL II - It will take 5 years to replace top 100 NHL players-rest are interchangable

Status
Not open for further replies.

HckyFght*

Guest
eye said:
If it happens that owners start up a new league titled NHL II then IMO it will only take about 5 years to replace the top end talent of the current NHL. :

It'll take five months because after that 90% of the players will come back. Garunteed. The minute the flodgates open...comes the flood! Standing on principal is great, until they see someone else wearing their jersey and getting their check. The NHL should roll the dice and attempt to get the impasse declared. If the law forbids replacements in some jurisdictions, oh well, those will be the jurisdictions without hockey. But laws can be changed, just like CBA's can be.
-HckyFght!
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
HckyFght said:
The NHL should roll the dice and attempt to get the impasse declared. If the law forbids replacements in some jurisdictions, oh well, those will be the jurisdictions without hockey. But laws can be changed, just like CBA's can be.
-HckyFght!


Problem is if they try and declare an impasse and lose ... then they've lost all leverage. It would be a HUGE gamble.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
HckyFght said:
It'll take five months because after that 90% of the players will come back. Garunteed. The minute the flodgates open...comes the flood! Standing on principal is great, until they see someone else wearing their jersey and getting their check. The NHL should roll the dice and attempt to get the impasse declared. If the law forbids replacements in some jurisdictions, oh well, those will be the jurisdictions without hockey. But laws can be changed, just like CBA's can be.
-HckyFght!

And after rolling the dice and losing they can then pay out all contracts. That would be smart.

Also no Canadian players or European players allowed for US teams and no US or European players allowed for any Canadian teams that might be able to start up - remember no impasse procedures in Canada. Trying to break a union is an unfair labour practise in all provinces in Canada.
 

BrickRed

Registered User
Oct 23, 2003
219
0
Phoenix
Visit site
eye said:
If it happens that owners start up a new league titled NHL II then IMO it will only take about 5 years to replace the top end talent of the current NHL. The top 100 or so players would be replaced by the likes of youngsters like Spezza, Ovechkin, Crosby, Carter, Richards, Phoenuf, Bergeron, Malkin, Dube, Pouliot, Staal, Nash and dozens of other good young players. The next 1300 top hockey players in the world are pretty much interchangable. The game actually might be better off for it because skilled players or undersized players may actually bring more entertainment to the game than countless one dimensional grinder types that dominate the NHL right now.

So no impasse needed. Just a new league with pretty much the same owners and venues all operating under a different set of economic rules. Bring it on. I'm tired of the attitude of many current NHL stars and especially their leadership. Time to refresh the league with a new vision and a new breed of players. :handclap: :handclap: :handclap:

After watching and enjoying the WJRC I fully agree.
 

HckyFght*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
And after rolling the dice and losing they can then pay out all contracts. That would be smart.

Also no Canadian players or European players allowed for US teams and no US or European players allowed for any Canadian teams that might be able to start up - remember no impasse procedures in Canada. Trying to break a union is an unfair labour practise in all provinces in Canada.

Good to see Wetcoaster back in the debate! We all sorely need your expertise. Couldn't a motion be made in the national legislature to make an exception in the labor law for hockey? Or simply get the law changed? Just a thought.
-HckyFght!
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
HckyFght said:
Good to see Wetcoaster back in the debate! We all sorely need your expertise. Couldn't a motion be made in the national legislature to make an exception in the labor law for hockey? Or simply get the law changed? Just a thought.
-HckyFght!
In Canada labour law relating to the NHL is under provincial jurisdiction.

I cannot see any provincial legislature doing any such thing it would be construed as interfering in a private dispute. The legislature enacts laws of general application to govern private dealings - they do not act to favour one side.
 

grego

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
2,390
97
Saskatchewan
Canada is much more socialist then the US, and at the same time more union friendly as was stated.

Courts and the law would side with union before business.

US businesses that come to Canada and face unionization dislike the laws in Canada because it makes it much harder to try and crush a union. Essentially there is no way to do it in much of Canada, if the players want a union the business must accept their right to exist and negotiate an agreement with them.

To get politicians here to pass special laws is very unlikely. It would be a very unpopular move to make a law against the unions. If any province would make a special law like that it would be Alberta as they have the most right wing gov't of all the ones with an NHL team. Other then that there are too many people in Quebec and Ontario that work for unions. To make any anti union law could be political suicide in much of Canada.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Epsilon said:
Don't tell that to eye ' if he thought it up, it must be realistic and fair.

I didn't think this up. I'm simply repeating what others in the hockey business have been thinking and some that have said it out loud.

Question to Westcoaster who seems to have a lot of time on his hands for a lawyer!! I know that I can close my business down today and open up a similar if not almost exact business tomorrow. Why couldn't NHL owners do the same? Is there a scenerio that these same owners could use to create a new league? Are the laws the same on both sides of the border?
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
loudi94 said:
While I don't think a new league is a possibility, let's put to rest the idea that players are not replaceable. With the exception of 2 players in the last 20 years, realistically,the league has no one who puts butts in the seats simply because he's coming to town. The Naslunds, Yzermans and Sakics etc. are great players, but it's the teams the majority of fans come to see. When Montreal scores a goal it is secondary who put the puck in, only that they scored really matters. Hockey will be about the team and an ugly goal counts as much as a pretty goal. A game with a bunch of no names can be just as exciting as watching the "elite". Check out the minors and Junior leagues and you'll see it to be true. Of course I wouldn't pay more than $15 to see any team play.

I'd pay a little more than AHL ticket prices to see a new league play. The vast majority of hockey fans pay to cheer for the name on the front of the jersey and not the name on the back.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Trottier said:

I never said that players are a dime a dozen. I said it would take about 5 years to bring the level of play and hopefully better the level of play we saw just last year. Many players would cross the line. Fresh blood and new concepts would rejuvinate a league that is searching for answers in hope of returning the level of entertainment back to what it was just 11 years ago. Players on 2 ways will cross the line very quickly as most of them don't have a big bank account to draw from. Go to any training camp and see just how difficult it is to differentiate between players that make the NHL and those that don't. Go to any NCAA or CHL game and see how many players that look to be going to the NHL but don't quite make it while lesser players do because they have a size advantage. Most fans don't care about how tall their team is. They want to be entertained by a game with tremendous tempo, quick puck movement, exciting plays, scoring chances, big hits and the odd fight. You don't have to be 6'5" to entertain the fans. There are many players in the minors or in Europe that are under 6' that have far superior skills to many players in the NHL. IMO, The game would be better off.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I suspect that most of you that think there is a huge difference between the weakest 500 NHL players and the next best 500 players in the world likely have not played the game at a high level.

I don't hate the players. I don't like a few of them that don't think before they speak in public these days, I dispise their boss for misleading them and for misreading the resolve of the owners and I am disappointed in the players that do want to play for not having the balls to stand up for themselves and stick to their guns. IMO they would have more support and respect from other players that feel the same way. I just want to be able to see NHL hockey when I'm on my road trips looking for something to do at night. Selfish - perhaps! I just wanted to be able to see the Coyotes play deep into the playoffs for a change - selfish - i think not!
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
eye said:
I didn't think this up. I'm simply repeating what others in the hockey business have been thinking and some that have said it out loud.

Question to Westcoaster who seems to have a lot of time on his hands for a lawyer!! I know that I can close my business down today and open up a similar if not almost exact business tomorrow. Why couldn't NHL owners do the same? Is there a scenerio that these same owners could use to create a new league? Are the laws the same on both sides of the border?
Not if you are unionized and and in the middle of negotiations. There are successor rights, unfair labour practises, etc.

Why do you think there is so much convoluted caselaw on bargaining impasses before the NLRB if an employer could simply close down a business and re-open?

In Canada there is no impasse procedure.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
Not if you are unionized and and in the middle of negotiations. There are successor rights, unfair labour practises, etc.

Why do you think there is so much convoluted caselaw on bargaining impasses before the NLRB if an employer could simply close down a business and re-open?

In Canada there is no impasse procedure.

I was not referring to an Impasse. Simply owners closing the doors of their existing business operations and reopening a new one. Different names, different mandates, different economic system, new and improved product.

I'm hopeful that a settlement does take place this week but if it doesn't one can reasonably assume that players will never accept working under some form of cost certainly cost linkage system so this seems to be another avenue that owners could pursue besides calling an Impasse.

What's the alternative. No NHL hockey until all of todays players are too old to play? We all know that hockey players that say they will never play under any form of cap system will be true to their word!
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
eye said:
I was not referring to an Impasse. Simply owners closing the doors of their existing business operations and reopening a new one. Different names, different mandates, different economic system, new and improved product.

It is illegal. If it were that easy employers would never have to negotiate.
 

Double-Shift Lasse

Just post better
Dec 22, 2004
33,355
14,030
Exurban Cbus
While it may be true that fans come to see the teams, not the players, a new league would create an even greater challenge. Convincing fans in longtime markets that their NHL II team is legit and not minor league. This will be enhanced by the fact that the top however-many percent of current NHL'ers aren't on rosters.

Try telling a Habs fan that the NHL II's Maroons are on par with the Canadiens; a Ranger fan that the hockey Giants are the new Rangers; or any market for that matter. Especially without the best players. Re-branding isn't a piece of cake in any circumstnces, let along with a sports league with ardent fans. I'm not sure you'd last five years or however long it would take to build the game itself back to where it was.
 

HckyFght*

Guest
grego said:
Canada is much more socialist then the US, and at the same time more union friendly as was stated.

Courts and the law would side with union before business.

US businesses that come to Canada and face unionization dislike the laws in Canada because it makes it much harder to try and crush a union. Essentially there is no way to do it in much of Canada, if the players want a union the business must accept their right to exist and negotiate an agreement with them.

To get politicians here to pass special laws is very unlikely. It would be a very unpopular move to make a law against the unions. If any province would make a special law like that it would be Alberta as they have the most right wing gov't of all the ones with an NHL team. Other then that there are too many people in Quebec and Ontario that work for unions. To make any anti union law could be political suicide in much of Canada.

All this may be true, I wonder, however, just how the provincial legislatures in, say Quebec, might react, if the NHL started up without the Canadiens, or Ontario without the Leafs. Nothing is ever set in stone. You can always get a new stone. Plus, why should the 26 teams in the States remain dormant because a few Canadian teams are handcuffed by such restrictive labor laws?
-HckyFght!
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
HckyFght said:
All this may be true, I wonder, however, just how the provincial legislatures in, say Quebec, might react, if the NHL started up without the Canadiens, or Ontario without the Leafs. Nothing is ever set in stone. You can always get a new stone. Plus, why should the 26 teams in the States remain dormant because a few Canadian teams are handcuffed by such restrictive labor laws?
-HckyFght!
The US has restrictive labour laws as well but they are different and the financial penalties in the US can be way higher if the owners cannot make out a case for an impasse before the NLRB.

Plus both countries have similar immigration limitations for replacement players.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
From what I could gather from listening to Charles Grantham x-NBAPA E.D, legal analyst Dennis Becker and Bob McCown it appears to me that the NHL are preparing to call in Impasse in September and operate under the latest NHL proposal.

The NHLPA may then call a player strike and challenge the Impasse before the NLRB. Becker said that since the NHLPA are not certified in B.C. or Quebec there would not be any legal grounds to contest replacement players working in either province. It's also believed that the Republican based NLRB would side with the owners. The NHL does not have to wait for appeals to be heard and can start play right away. If the NLRB should decide against the NHL then back wages may be forthcoming but it appears to be a gamble that owners are prepared to take.

Bob McCown feels that a minimum of 200 NHL players will cross the picket line right away and that many others will quickly follow.

How to avoid an Impasse and Replacement players. Goodenow will have to come up with something real quick that makes it worth while for his players to accept working under cost certainly or linkage right now.

The owners want to teach Goodenow a lesson on who actually runs the show and pays the bills. The owners are not prepared to as Brian Burke says underwrite a players payroll that far exceeds the revenues of the league. It's not just small market teams owners that feel this way = it's most if not all of them.
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
eye said:
From what I could gather from listening to Charles Grantham x-NBAPA E.D, legal analyst Dennis Becker and Bob McCown it appears to me that the NHL are preparing to call in Impasse in September and operate under the latest NHL proposal.

The NHLPA may then call a player strike and challenge the Impasse before the NLRB. Becker said that since the NHLPA are not certified in B.C. or Quebec there would not be any legal grounds to contest replacement players working in either province. It's also believed that the Republican based NLRB would side with the owners. The NHL does not have to wait for appeals to be heard and can start play right away. If the NLRB should decide against the NHL then back wages may be forthcoming but it appears to be a gamble that owners are prepared to take.

Bob McCown feels that a minimum of 200 NHL players will cross the picket line right away and that many others will quickly follow.

How to avoid an Impasse and Replacement players. Goodenow will have to come up with something real quick that makes it worth while for his players to accept working under cost certainly or linkage right now.

The owners want to teach Goodenow a lesson on who actually runs the show and pays the bills. The owners are not prepared to as Brian Burke says underwrite a players payroll that far exceeds the revenues of the league. It's not just small market teams owners that feel this way = it's most if not all of them.

Sounds good to me. Unions are formed to protect workers, not to bully their bosses and run their business. This is a union that deserves to get stomped on like a grape. Next up, the Baseball union.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
Each team is going to spend $32M on replacement players? I don't think so. There won't be enough players crossing and there won't be enough people watching for this to work.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
eye said:
If it happens that owners start up a new league titled NHL II then IMO it will only take about 5 years to replace the top end talent of the current NHL. The top 100 or so players would be replaced by the likes of youngsters like Spezza, Ovechkin, Crosby, Carter, Richards, Phoenuf, Bergeron, Malkin, Dube, Pouliot, Staal, Nash and dozens of other good young players. The next 1300 top hockey players in the world are pretty much interchangable. The game actually might be better off for it because skilled players or undersized players may actually bring more entertainment to the game than countless one dimensional grinder types that dominate the NHL right now.

So no impasse needed. Just a new league with pretty much the same owners and venues all operating under a different set of economic rules. Bring it on. I'm tired of the attitude of many current NHL stars and especially their leadership. Time to refresh the league with a new vision and a new breed of players. :handclap: :handclap: :handclap:
are you a hockey fan at all?
 

futurcorerock

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
6,831
0
Columbus, OH
eye said:
From what I could gather from listening to Charles Grantham x-NBAPA E.D, legal analyst Dennis Becker and Bob McCown it appears to me that the NHL are preparing to call in Impasse in September and operate under the latest NHL proposal.

The NHLPA may then call a player strike and challenge the Impasse before the NLRB. Becker said that since the NHLPA are not certified in B.C. or Quebec there would not be any legal grounds to contest replacement players working in either province. It's also believed that the Republican based NLRB would side with the owners. The NHL does not have to wait for appeals to be heard and can start play right away. If the NLRB should decide against the NHL then back wages may be forthcoming but it appears to be a gamble that owners are prepared to take.

Bob McCown feels that a minimum of 200 NHL players will cross the picket line right away and that many others will quickly follow.

How to avoid an Impasse and Replacement players. Goodenow will have to come up with something real quick that makes it worth while for his players to accept working under cost certainly or linkage right now.

The owners want to teach Goodenow a lesson on who actually runs the show and pays the bills. The owners are not prepared to as Brian Burke says underwrite a players payroll that far exceeds the revenues of the league. It's not just small market teams owners that feel this way = it's most if not all of them.
why did you ressurect the infamous "dumbest post in the history of HFBoards"?
 

SJeasy

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
12,538
3
San Jose
Wetcoaster,

Is there any possibility that the provincial governments of Canada would grant and cede authority to US law to resolve an impasse situation in the NHL? The only reason this would happen would be from Canadian public pressure. Thanks for your expertise.
 

Anksun

Registered User
Dec 13, 2002
3,616
1
Montreal
Visit site
It wont happen but i for myself dont think the starter of this thread is far for truth.

The average NHL career is what ?? 6 years approx.

There's gonna be already 1 year passed soon. If a scenario like this would happen, it would mean another year passed. That makes for 2 full years. Half of the 3rd-4th liners in the entire NHL would really be interchangable pass that time.

The gap would not be that big for a long time, AND in all fairness if something like that was to happen. You could gamble a good pack of money that AT LEAST 50% of the current NHL would cave and come back (And 50% IS VERY conservative).

All in all, 1 year, perhaps 2 years of hockey and the NHL would be back in close to same shape as of now.

Just feel I should said something after reading comments saying the starter had no clue about hockey, etc. His conclusion was optimist, but probably more close to the truth than many of you think.
_____________________

That been said, I hope they come to an agreement. I dont want all those guess to actually happen.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
SJeasy said:
Wetcoaster,

Is there any possibility that the provincial governments of Canada would grant and cede authority to US law to resolve an impasse situation in the NHL? The only reason this would happen would be from Canadian public pressure. Thanks for your expertise.
No that would be abrogating legal sovereignty and that is not going to happen.

Besides i am not sure as to public pressure, the latest polls show fans becoming more apathetic as the dispute drags on.

Anyone for the World Cup of Poker????? :joker:
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
Wetcoaster said:
No that would be abrogating legal sovereignty and that is not going to happen.

Besides i am not sure as to public pressure, the latest polls show fans becoming more apathetic as the dispute drags on.

Anyone for the World Cup of Poker????? :joker:
funny you should mention poker - when did it become a sport? -
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->