Only 288 players have contracts in 2005-06 season

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by dakota, Mar 1, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. dakota

    dakota Registered User

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    Does this factor into the NHLPA "new" strategy?

    This number is down from the 592 that had contracts for 2004-05... throwing away over 1.1 billion

    next year they only commit to 288 players for 660 million in lost wages

    I know that in the 2006-07 season this number drops to 112 players with contracts.
    That means that more than half (462) their 750 membership do not have contracts...

    Maybe these guys should vote before Sepetember 2006 when only 112 players will have contracts...

    I still have no idea what plan b is for NHLPA if they lose another season what then?
     
  2. Drury_Sakic

    Drury_Sakic Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Home Page:
    so what happens in 2 years if the PA has no players under contract.. and this lockout is still going on..(well, I think there might be one or two , but thats it)


    :lol


    Don't think it will happen, but funny to think about..
    :(
    :cry:
     
  3. dakota

    dakota Registered User

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    good question... if the player doesnt have a contract it makes me wonder why he is technically part of the PA but i have no idea about this stuff... what it does tell me is that if there is replacement players this year (which I doubt the owners or players want)... then there are 462 players who are potential players... who can sign under the new system for whatever they can get and begin their career again.
     
  4. ti-vite

    ti-vite Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
  5. Remember what Ottawa did to Yashin for sitting out?

    my guess is that the NHLPA will use the judgement in the Yashin case to win the argument that a precedent was set in the Yashin ruling and all the lost year(s) on contracts at the time of the owners imposed lockout be honored. Hence, the contracts will be rolled back to where they were on 9/15/05. Bet on it.
     
  6. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,894
    Likes Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Yes, but the players offered a 24% rollback . . . ignore the fact that it only effects about a third of the league.
     
  7. chriss_co

    chriss_co Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    CALGARY
    I completely agree... i think that is one thing the owners should give to the PA cuz it also saves them some hectic signings...
     
  8. ti-vite

    ti-vite Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    I dont think its automatic they will be pushed back. I think Owen Nolan had it integral into his contract...probably means it had to be in his contract for it to be upheld.(?)
     
  9. Jester

    Jester Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    34,075
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St. Andrews
    they may try... but i think legally that is a completely different situation. Yashin was an employee who was in breach of contract. the owners have locked a Union out (which they are allowed to do) in order to negotiate a CBA... if the Union had agreed to terms with them then they would have immediately been obligated to pay those contracts, which they would have done.

    it isn't apples and oranges, but it is oranges and tangerines.

    and for the poster that agreed with this being what the union should do and something that the owners should give them... losing the old contracts off the books is one of the best things that is happening for the owners. outside of the threat of losing players they would love to have all contracts nixed and then replaced by contracts signed under the new CBA and marketplace.
     
  10. dakota

    dakota Registered User

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
  11. dakota

    dakota Registered User

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    ya but that was during a CBA... this is not this is when there is no CBA... I hope not... I hope the owners can wash their hands of that 1.1 billion that they were going to have to pay out...
     
  12. Jarqui

    Jarqui Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,895
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Home Page:
    Completely agree. Yashin's situation has no bearing.

    I had read only 26 players were under contract for 2006-7. Maybe the difference in all these numbers is due to options ?
     
  13. Fish

    Fish Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Actually that clause in Nolan's contract caused some great consternation upon the part of the league and they went to arbitration on it. I can't find a link, but I was under the belief that the league won their case and the clause was nullified...
     
  14. ti-vite

    ti-vite Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    If you consider that a whole pile would get bought out of the last year of the contract, the numbers fall even more...
     
  15. dakota

    dakota Registered User

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    Goodenow's strategy may be that only 288 players have contracts for next season and they will lose 660 million dollars in lost wages.... so really they are ahead of where they were last year because the lost 1.1 billion in wages... lol..

    How long will the players go before they realize that things will only get worse the longer they wait?
     
  16. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    23,442
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Toronto
    Nope.

    Nolan is indeed under contract for next year to the Leafs.

    Although my doubt that they really will devote 6.5 million in capspace for him next year is growing, no matter what the cap ceiling ends up being.
     
  17. Jarqui

    Jarqui Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,895
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Home Page:
    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 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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2005
  18. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    20,758
    Likes Received:
    2,509
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    They will not realize any of this until they get a new figure head to represent them, Bob Goodenow has himself and the PA that he is doing the right thing...
     
  19. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,585
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    Yashin case is fairly irrelevent. The old CBA had no workstop clauses in it. There is no CBA, the NHL is entitled not to renew the players contracts. If the players want their contracts entended by a year (less 24% reduction offered) they can politely ask the NHL/teams and I'm sure the NHL teams might consider the request as it saves a lot of hassles.
     
  20. Jarqui

    Jarqui Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,895
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Home Page:
    This was somthing else that I read on it :
    http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/968/print
    Facts
    : After their collective-bargaining agreement expired, the National Football League (NFL) -- a group of football clubs -- and the NFL Players Association -- a labor union -- began to negotiate a new contract. The NFL presented a plan that would permit each club to establish a "developmental squad" of substitute players, each of whom would be paid the same $1,000 weekly salary. The union disagreed. When the negotiations reached an impasse, the NFL unilaterally implemented the plan. A number of squad players brought an antitrust suit, claiming that the employers' plan unfairly restrained trade. The District Court awarded damages to the players, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision.

    Question to US Supreme Court
    Are several employers immune from a union anti-trust suit when these employers, bargaining together, unilaterally impose terms on the union if the collective bargaining process reaches an impasse?

    Conclusion:
    Yes. In affirming the Court of Appeals decision, the Supreme Court held that federal labor laws protect professional football franchises from anti-trust actions brought by their players when those franchises unilaterally impose terms after the collective bargaining process breaks down. Labor laws stabilize, encourage, and protect the collective bargaining process. When that process breaks down, labor laws provide adequate remedies. Employee suits under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, by contrast, might undermine the integrity of collective bargaining and preempt unnecessarily the labor laws.


    If the WHA is up and running, you'd start to wonder about the "monopoly" claim (maybe as well as the Euro leagues though they are foreign so are 90% of the NHL in the US). It also would not surprise me to find out one day that the NHLPA has an arrangement with the WHA with some control over start up which they would argue only came about because of the lockout.
     
  21. Fish

    Fish Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Well it appears you're correct...at least as far as I can tell. The NHL did file a grievance against that clause, but I can't find anything that details what happened to the grievance...whether it was dropped or even heard by a mediator.
     
  22. Jarqui

    Jarqui Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,895
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Home Page:
    There's the link on the grievance
    Nolan Grievance

    But I could not find out how they settled it either tonight. I did read an old post of mine that said he "won the grievance" but whether the NHL dropped it or never fully filed it, I'm not sure. The Leafs have since confirmed that the clause still exists and is valid.

    I've always thought that the league "fought" this under false pretenses. If the NHLPA rushed to Nolan's aid, as they appear to have done as I recall, to defend this clause in Nolan's contract, it would clarify without a doubt that all other existing contracts under the existing CBA were lacking of this feature or right. When I read the CBA, the issue seemed a little grey. I think the grey area was that the CBA had expired but the players contract which was based upon that CBA had not. (I don't remember what troubled me beyond that)

    Once the NHL had the evidence of the NHLPA's position on this, I wasn't so sure that the specific Nolan clause really mattered that much to the NHL. As once the NHLPA protested to support Nolan, it became black and white for all existing contracts on how the NHLPA interpreted the existing CBA going forward.

    There is nothing to stop either party from trying to negotiate rolling back the clock on the contracts in the new CBA. That has now become a new issue with the cancellation of the season. I doubt it will happen.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"