Sportsnet: Two companies proposed to buy the NHL in yesterday's meeting

Status
Not open for further replies.

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
shakes said:
The NHLPA just doesn't "go away" if that happened. They would still have to negotiate with them.
Of course they don't just go away, but the NHL would not longer have to negotiate holding itself to a budget. Basically right now the NHL has to beg the players "oh please, oh please allow us to agree amongst ourselves not to pay you more than we can afford." In this system the NHL would be free to set its budget whereever it wants because there would be no collusion issue.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
gc2005 said:
If you want to artificially cap your workers' salaries, you better get them to agree to it in a CBA, otherwise the anti-trust and unfair labor practices show up.
See where you are wrong is calling it a cap. It would not be a cap, it would be one business setting its budget however it feels necessary. There's no collusion issues.
Look I don't think it will happen and I don't know that I am particularly fond of the idea, but it could work.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
gc2005 said:
Link to Toronto Star

I don't know where everyone is getting the idea that the NHLPA would cease to exist or just go away if there's only one owner. Some Wal-Marts are unionized. Same with McDonalds. If the players aren't happy with the pre-set "budgets" for each team then guess what, the CBA expires and players go on strike. How there's a bunch of player haters salivating over the possibility of this deal going through is beyond me.
I don't believe that I saw everyone state that they have the idea that the NHLPA would cease to exist. You kinda just thought that up yourself.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Funny thought

Toronto Star said:
While the group didn't name any prospective partners, Bain, which has $48 billion in assets under management, partnered in 1999 with the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan in an investor group that bought Shoppers Drug Mart., Canada's largest drugstore chain.

The teachers are majority owners of the Maple Leafs.

Leafs and other 29 teams sell to this company, which is Leafs ownership, who then buys the whole league. You thought TSN and CBC were Toronto centric then .. :)
 

StevenintheATL

Registered User
Jun 12, 2004
2,747
0
The ATL!
It's really an apple and oranges thing here by using the MLS as a comparison to a single owner NHL. The MLS really in a lot a ways is a place for developing US talent to play in hopes of securing a bigger pay check overseas. Before the MLS came into being, who would have thought that US players would be playing for such teams as Manchester United and Rangers? In years past, most US players in Europe played on lower division clubs. Most US players pre-MLS how actually made it on to clubs in the top divisions in Europe made it onto clubs that were either middle of the table or relegation fodder. If the NHL were to be controlled by one company and have a max player salary, the only beneficiary of this would be the leagues in Europe, as they'd probably pay players more than the NHL could pay them. So in a way, the NHL becomes a development league for the hockey leagues in Europe. I can imagine it, Sidney Crosby plays a few seasons in the NHL and then gets picked up by a team in Europe making double what he could make in the NHL......
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
vespajet said:
If the NHL were to be controlled by one company and have a max player salary, the only beneficiary of this would be the leagues in Europe, as they'd probably pay players more than the NHL could pay them. So in a way, the NHL becomes a development league for the hockey leagues in Europe. I can imagine it, Sidney Crosby plays a few seasons in the NHL and then gets picked up by a team in Europe making double what he could make in the NHL......

Why do you think an MLS model NHL would pay players less than th European league. Just because there is a single entity owning all the teams, suddenly all the revenue will disappear. There may be team budgets less than the $42M cap, but even with a team budget of $30M, salaries will still be several times greater than Europe.

Yes, the new NHL will face competition for players from the European leagues, the WHA, and the "Trevor Linden, we'll never give up, coming to a back yard near you, travelling Allstars and PA executive comittee". But still no European league will have the revenues of the NHL. There may be bidding wars on a few players, and a few European stars may stay there, but the vast bulk of the worlds best players (including virtually all of the US and Canadians) will follow the $'s and flock back to the NHL.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
shakes said:
The NHLPA just doesn't "go away" if that happened. They would still have to negotiate with them.

The NHLPA goes away (for the time being at the very least) if it is just a sale of assets which is very likely under the circumstances. NHL2 (or whatever the new corporation would be called) would have no player employees, no labor contracts, no CBA, no NHLPA, etc at startup. It would be a totally clean labor slate.

NHL2 may also decide to put the "jobs" out to tender and each year contract players as clear cut contractors - not employees. That may well make it more difficult for a union to re-form or enjoy all of the labor relations act even if they did re-form as they had before under the NHL CBA. Certainly, set contract rates could be on the table without the fear of collusion.

If a new union formed, maybe it takes on the form of something like the Screen Actors Guild or some entertainers union who have minimum rates & basic benefits but under the new structure/corporation, not nearly the carnivorous financial and legal teeth available that they ha under the existing CBA .

The existing owners could buy shares in the new corporation down the road or maybe have some sort of shotgun arrangement if shares go up for sale.

Antitrust seems a non-issue at start up because they're not a monopoly at that time - they're a new business with no players. Given 350 NHLers trotted off to Europe and a bunch more to other leagues and that 90% of these players are foreigners, on going anti-trust concerns get very grey to me.

I haven't thought all the possibilities through as there are many possibilities but it looks like it would be a whole new labor ball game for the owners should they sell their assets and the NHLPA would be at square one either trying to form their own league (WHA?) or in total disarray wondering where Bob Goodenow has led them. For many of the existing NHLers, their careers would be over as they could dilute the hardliners out in the transition.
 
Last edited:

Wetcoaster

Guest
oil slick said:
Which antitrust law?
The one that prohibits trusts, cartels and monopolies - the one that prohibits the lesseining of competition and suppression of salaries. Familiar?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
oil slick said:
But people are still flinging out anti-trust arguments, and I'm totally unclear on what this means. Wouldn't it be tantamount to a company buying 30 small comanies? Maybe I'm being naieve?
No it would be tantamount to a company buying up the entire market - it is referred to as monopoly, trust or cartel - that is illegal.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
mudcrutch79 said:
I think that the problem referred as anti-trust law is that the new owner of the league would effectively be buying a monopoly. In theory right now, teams compete with one another for consumers. In places like NY, where there are three teams, this is undoubtedly true. Were they to be owned by the same entity, the competition would disappear, and the new owners would have less of an interest in competing for consumers. I don't know what the position of the Tribunal in Canada would be, but s. 92 of the Competition Act would make this move subject to review under Canadian law, I believe.

I can't believe that there's any seriousness to this. Not to mention that $3.5 billion would be a bargain price.
It would also run afoul of the specific provisions in the Competiton Act dealing with professional sports.
Conspiracy relating to professional sport
48. (1) Every one who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person

(a) to limit unreasonably the opportunities for any other person to participate, as a player or competitor, in professional sport or to impose unreasonable terms or conditions on those persons who so participate, or

(b) to limit unreasonably the opportunity for any other person to negotiate with and, if agreement is reached, to play for the team or club of his choice in a professional league

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Wetcoaster said:
The one that prohibits trusts, cartels and monopolies - the one that prohibits the lesseining of competition and suppression of salaries. Familiar?

How many professional hockey leagues are there in the US? What about the rest of the world? Is the NHL looking to prevent another league from forming?

I don't think the NHL would be considered to have a monopoly, even if they do someday fall under the ownership of one corporation. In fact, they could probably make a good case that salaries are being kept artificially too high in the NHL as evidenced by the going rate players are getting in other leagues...
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
The AHL UHL ECHL and other pro hockey leagues operate in NA.

The SEL, RSL....operate in Europe.

The PA has already had over half their membership find work elsewhere.

No monoploy would be formed.
The NHL teams are unique market since the NHL is the elite league in the world. As pointed out previously the courts do not look at competition, they look at reasonable competition.

This proposal is monopolistic and anti-competitive. The law frowns upo such things.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
Thank you for saving me the keystrokes.
Yes but you cannot do it by creating a monopoly - that is why antitrust laws exist.
 

Other Dave

Registered User
Jan 7, 2003
2,025
0
New and improved in TO
Visit site
djhn579 said:
How many professional hockey leagues are there in the US?

US immigration law, for one, considers the NHL a league apart from all the others.

It's pretty clear that any new owner or owners who intend to continue to do business in the field of elite hockey will inherit both the current employee bargaining agent and the same labor dispute.
 

futurcorerock

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
6,831
0
Columbus, OH
I know, I know...

What about Pro Wresting. No, it's not sport, but look what happened a few years ago. They bought out WCW and at the same time ECW caved. They hold a serious monopoly on their market.

Definitely stopped watching when ECW caved.... I know, I know
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
oil slick said:
I guess I'm looking at it from a common sense approach (which I will admit is not the best approach with law), but it seems that the point of Sherman (and others) was to protect consumers from monopoly situations. Maybe it's only high profile cases I've ever heard about, but it seems that protecting consumer interestest with Bell and Microsoft is very different from protecting NHL player interests with the NHL.
It is not just consumer protection it is also to protect against salary suppression.

The Canadian Competition Act (our antitrust law) spells out in the statute what the US courts have developed over the years in various cases.

Antirust law promotes competiton - this proposal lessens it.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Keep dreaming Wettie.

They would have little difficulty getting this one past the courts.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
Keep dreaming Wettie.

They would have little difficulty getting this one past the courts.
And this based upon your legal education, vast knowledge of antitrust law and case precedent or what precisely???
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
It would also run afoul of the specific provisions in the Competiton Act dealing with professional sports.

Wetcoaster said:
Conspiracy relating to professional sport
48. (1) Every one who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person

(a) to limit unreasonably the opportunities for any other person to participate, as a player or competitor, in professional sport or to impose unreasonable terms or conditions on those persons who so participate, or

(b) to limit unreasonably the opportunity for any other person to negotiate with and, if agreement is reached, to play for the team or club of his choice in a professional league

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.

I don't see how this arrangement limits "unreasonably the opportunities for any other person to participate, as a player or competitor, in professional sport". The players jobs are up for grabs to all comers. The only limit is how many jobs are open = 30 teams x 23 players.

As we haven't seen any of the terms or conditions, I don't see how they are imposing any "unreasonable terms or conditions on those persons who so participate".

I also don't see how this arrangement will "limit unreasonably the opportunity for any other person to negotiate with and, if agreement is reached, to play for the team or club of his choice in a professional league" The new corporation could set up 30 franchises made up of 100% free agents and may the best men win those jobs through negotiation or their price/performance with any of those franchises. It just so happens that each of those franchises has a payroll cap which limits payroll expenditure like any company's budget thouh their contract may well be with the league that grants them the right to play for those franchises.

Further, in start up, none of these teams have any players so no one can argue they have the best players at that time. The world is the free market. If the new company wins bids for their services, so be it. That doesn't stop the OSHL, WHA, SEL or whoever from bidding for their services nor restrict them from playing for any team in the world.

I don't think it is a clear cut as you are making it out to be. The MLS is doing just fine under this structure.
 

Other Dave

Registered User
Jan 7, 2003
2,025
0
New and improved in TO
Visit site
cleduc said:
I don't think it is a clear cut as you are making it out to be. The MLS is doing just fine under this structure.

The MLS didn't start out as a league made up of independent owners who then sold their assets to a consolidating enterprise during a devastating labor dispute.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
1) Do you think the people offering 3.5 B are going to do so without a plan to get it through the courts?

2) What is to prevent the new league from offering wages comparable to those in Europe, thus ensuring they no longer hold the mantle of "elite hockey league" in the world?
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
Another league centrally owned is the WNBA. Isn't that the best women's professional basketball league in the world ? How many antitrust suits are they fighting ?
 

Other Dave

Registered User
Jan 7, 2003
2,025
0
New and improved in TO
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
1) Do you think the people offering 3.5 B are going to do so without a plan to get it through the courts?

Yes. I think that the offer is a BS publicity stunt.

2) What is to prevent the new league from offering wages comparable to those in Europe, thus ensuring they no longer hold the mantle of "elite hockey league" in the world?

Among other things, that would put this 'NHL2' in competition for the annually-limited quota of H-category visas.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
Other Dave said:
The MLS didn't start out as a league made up of independent owners who then sold their assets to a consolidating enterprise during a devastating labor dispute.

There have been many plants/businesses close in the face of a union dispute and sell their assets off - sometimes to the competition. Once an owner sells off his assets and winds down his company, the labor dispute is over. He is out of business counting the money from his assets.

The new owner of assets is under no obligation to hire the displaced workers. He bought assets and is free to do with them what he will. He doesn't have to hire a single existing NHLer ever. He could use those assets to start a ball hockey league or lacrosse on ice (which might televise a little better :lol ).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->