The Messenger said:
I realize about the IRS .. That was said for Dramatic effect .. You can correctly insert Court ordered independant 3rd party accounting service to go over the 30 owners books with a fine tooth comb..
26 of the teams provided financial statements audited and signed off by qualified, independent accountants to Levitt. Most of the arenas and NHL affiliated entities did too. For teams/arenas that didn’t due to financial problems (ie bankruptcy, whatever), Levitt’s people or independent auditors under Levitt’s direction went in and got the numbers. Levitt then tested the numbers and reconciled ALL the revenue that didn’t appear on the UROs with the financial statements. The Labor Board, a court or an accounting body would recognize that work as expert opinion that could only be refuted with something of similar substance.
There’s a danger if the NHLPA were to submit the Forbes report to do that. Someone might laugh themselves to death at the very notion when it's reveal they never looked at the books. It is up to the NHLPA to make their case - not the court or Labor board. If the NHLPA wanted to do that, they should have taken the NHL up on their offer to audit the books.
Having said all that, the Labour board could care less about auditing the numbers. Their job is to hear the arguments on both sides regarding labor relations laws. If the NHLPA doesn’t like the NHL’s numbers, that is the NHLPA’s problem - not the Labor Board’s.
The Messenger said:
I don't really see it as a big gamble for the NHLPA .. Right now the NHL is really not throwing them a lot of bones to work with and in IMPASSE situation the Owners will implement its own self imposed OWNER Friendly CBA ..
If the NHLPA wins in court fine .. This is going infront of a Labour board .. these are usually designed to protect the rights of employees, so by definition will be leaning the players side in a restrictive CBA .. as Owners are not Employees but Employers .. and as it baseball tie goes to the runner as it did previously ..
The Labor Board is there to protect the rights of both parties - not just the employees. Very, very roughly, Goodenow has a 50/50 chance of winning these labor battles. It isn’t a sure thing for either party. But his chances there may be better than where his chances presently are if the players will back him on the risk.
To avoid those chances, the owners may well wait until the end of the 2005-6 season before they would test impasse. Time is more on the owners side with relative short playing careers. If you haven’t been able to get a deal done after trying to start negotiations in 1999, I’d say that by 2006, rational people ought to be coming around to the notion that the parties really are at an impasse. Naturally, it would have to survive the legal defintion.
The Messenger said:
and if all else fails and Goodenow losses or is lossing can always decertify the Union and set its players free on the NHL in both unfair labour cases or back to work if they chose .. but the Self imposed Owners CBA is again void technically as it was written for this NHLPA and folded those rules would not longer apply .. THen what not sure what happens ..
I read recently that the anti-trust, decertify option that has been pulled in the past isn’t as good an option now due to a more recent ruling by the Supreme Court. I’ve read a couple of opinions on that but only in the paper. Here’s one :
Star link
It's likely that the owners could complete at least an entire 82-game regular season and the playoffs before a prospective bargaining complaint from the union was resolved.
"For the union, these kinds of delays are a death knell," said one sports labour lawyer familiar with the NHL-union battle. "Having this case last so long wouldn't be doing the union any favours."The union might also have a so-called "nuclear option," Gould said.
"If the union realizes it's not going to get an injunction, which it probably won't, then it might decertify and try to sue under antitrust law," Gould said.
Trouble is, a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a pro football labour battle probably would thwart the hockey players' prospects.
In 1989, the National Football League and its players failed in a series of venomous negotiations to agree on a new collective bargaining agreement. More than 200 NFL players took the league to court, arguing that a contract introduced unilaterally by the league violated U.S. law.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the league was exempt from antitrust laws and the players didn't deserve any special consideration that wouldn't be given to other workers, such as meat packers or coal miners.
MLB players beat replacements by winning a case on bad faith bargaining.
