Theoretical Lockout Question...

[Larry Fisher]

Watching TSN tonight and caught a last minute comment from Gino Reda that got me thinking.

He said something to the effect of, 'No other professional sports league has excepted a salary cap...talks broke down and the cap was enforced.'

If that is so then what is the hold up here. Why are there even proposals on the table? Why don't the owners pick one of their 6 'fixes' and ENFORCE it. Worst case and most likely scenario the players strike but the league continues.

Replacement players are brought in for the time being until either the players take too much heat from the media or the fans begin to forget about the 'used to be's' and take a liking to the lesser paid and marginally lesser talented replacements.

Is this a legitimate possibility and if not WHY? Did I misunderstand Reda? Does he have his facts crossed?

Can players leave the Union? How does this Union work...say a young marquis player such as Heatley decides the owners system is sufficient for his needs and he wants to get back to playing in the NHL...does he have the right/priviledge of boycotting the union and lace them up under Bettman & Co.'s new system?

What's the scoop and what would your opinion be if say Xmas is approaching and Bettman announces that the owners are in favour of this system and the players have the option to play under that system or strike, in which replacement players would brought in?

P.S. I miss hockey already and the lockout has NOT last 30 minutes in Alberta...

Click to read more...

 

[H/H]

Can players leave the Union? How does this Union work...say a young marquis player such as Heatley decides the owners system is sufficient for his needs and he wants to get back to playing in the NHL...does he have the right/priviledge of boycotting the union and lace them up under Bettman & Co.'s new system?

Well, Heatley would probably be quite lonely with an entire league for himself

 

[Disco Volante]

Pretty good questions, I'm curious too. Does the NHL still has an obligation linking it to the NHLPA now that the CBA has expired?

 

[ceber]

Labor laws still have some effect on what happens now. I don't think the league could just do whatever they wanted now that the CBA has expired. The NHLPA could sue them to prevent it. However, if the negotiations go nowhere for long enough, I think the league could say they are at an impasse, and then basically dictate whatever terms they want for a new system and open the doors. It would be pretty big step, but I bet the league would have to lose a whole season before the courts would let them do it. I don't think that's how it's happened in the other sports negotiations.

 

[David Puddy]

Both Major League Baseball and the National Football League used replacement players. However, that was during strikes in both instances. I don't know if the owners can lockout the NHLPA members and bring in replacement players at the same time.

When the NFL did it in 1987, quite a few regular players broke the strike, including Gary Hogaboom (who was mentioned on a Saturday Night Live sketch with Dana Carvey as George Plimton.)

Baseball used minor league players to replace the striking-players in 1995. I don't know of any union members that broke the line, but some of the guys that played during that time period later had problems in the clubhouse, like Brian Daubach.

 

[Legolas]

I don't think there's anything stopping the NHL from starting over after a certain period of time, the question becomes where are they going to get their players from. Goodenow alluded to it in his speech when he responded to Bettman's speech about the NHL considering starting up again in a year. I don't know what the legal ramifications of that move would be, but I bet the NHLPA is counting on the owners not being able to hold out long enough to get to that point where they can basically start a new NHL.

As for Gino Reda's comments, I think it goes more towards the idea that the entire concept of a salary cap has never been accepted by any players' union. The only reason the other leagues have them is because the owners were stronger than the players in the NFL and NBA.

 

[fan mao rong]

Once the legal state of impasse is reached, management can set the terms and conditions of employment and invite union members to play or not having enough there augment with or use replacement workers. Then Union is required to have a vote among it's members to accept or reject the new contract. If it is rejected players may cross the line accept the contract and probably be blackballed from the union. If the management can get enough workers to cross or continue for a long enough time with replacement workers the Union might collapse or lose enough members to be de-certified. They could also be voted out. I do not think the union could have so much support or intimidation factors that no one remotely qualified would cross. I would kind of like to see what would happen in this case. Should be interesting.

 

[HckyFght*]

Great article on all this here.

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/775/29/

I'm all for it! Bring on the scabs!
-HckyFght!

 

[I in the Eye]

Labor laws still have some effect on what happens now. I don't think the league could just do whatever they wanted now that the CBA has expired. The NHLPA could sue them to prevent it. However, if the negotiations go nowhere for long enough, I think the league could say they are at an impasse, and then basically dictate whatever terms they want for a new system and open the doors. It would be pretty big step, but I bet the league would have to lose a whole season before the courts would let them do it. I don't think that's how it's happened in the other sports negotiations.

I think it works the way you explained... After one whole season with a lockout (i.e. after one full year of work stoppage without an agreement between the employer and the union) - after the employer (NHL) submits their final last ditch effort proposal, any time after the end of the lockout season - the NHL can apply for legal impasse... If granted, that basically ends any labour relationship between the NHL and NHLPA... and the NHL would then be free to hire replacement players, set up any system they want, etc...

Edit: Trying to find out for sure, I searched the net and came across this powerpoint presentation (business school theory)... I briefly skimmed it and couldn't find the exact info (on one of the pages it says something like - if a legal impasse is reached, an option for the company is to unilaterally implement their 'last, best effort proposal' - pretty interesting read IMO:

http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ322/orazem/Bargaining Rules.ppt

 

[thinkwild]

Well I dont know where or how it works, but id assume that to declare a legal impasse, they'd be making this declaration in the courts, as if for bankruptcy.

And the court will say, Why are we at this impasse?

And Bettman will say, they wont accept my salary cap.

<Judge trying to decide between snickering and indignation>


If the owners do try to use replacement players, they will then have to cross the picket line. You thought the checking line was nasty ...

Hopefully it wont leave fans as turned off as by the Bertuzzi incident.

What if instead of using replacement players, the owners just cave in to the players completely. And then promptly replace the hundreds of millions of dollars of unsigned UFAs with tens of millions worth of their best farm prospects?

No picket line to cross.

 

[me2]

Well I dont know where or how it works, but id assume that to declare a legal impasse, they'd be making this declaration in the courts, as if for bankruptcy.

And the court will say, Why are we at this impasse?

And Bettman will say, they wont accept my salary cap.

And Goodenow will say, "because we can't live on the $1.3m per player that they offered. That is 3rd world sweatshop money I tell ya."

 

[thinkwild]

Players arent saying they cant live on that money. The owners are using them to generate that money.

How much more money could owners charge for tickets if they have the NHLers back vs having AHLers play. Perhaps all that difference should go the players?

If 3 mansions and a beautiful pool and park were built next to your house, quadrupling its value, would you accept a cap on your capital gains of 100%. Sorry, we know your house is worth $400,000, but we have capped your profits, you can only charge $200,000. Really who need more than a $100,00 profit on their house, it would be greedy wouldnt it to try and sell it to me for that much? you wouldnt really expect me to pay the market value would you?

 

[victor]

Really who need more than a $100,00 profit on their house, it would be greedy wouldnt it to try and sell it to me for that much? you wouldnt really expect me to pay the market value would you?

Ahhh, the "Open market" argument. Doesn't work, as this is not, nor has ever been, an open market.

If this truly was an open market, players could play for any amount a specific owner chooses, as defined by that individual owner and negotiated by that individual player.

Currently, there is a system in place where 30 owners are percieved as collusive partners when they negotiate as a market, while the "union" is free to collectively bargain as a single entity.

 

[David A. Rainer]

Once the legal state of impasse is reached, management can set the terms and conditions of employment and invite union members to play or not having enough there augment with or use replacement workers. Then Union is required to have a vote among it's members to accept or reject the new contract. If it is rejected players may cross the line accept the contract and probably be blackballed from the union. If the management can get enough workers to cross or continue for a long enough time with replacement workers the Union might collapse or lose enough members to be de-certified. They could also be voted out. I do not think the union could have so much support or intimidation factors that no one remotely qualified would cross. I would kind of like to see what would happen in this case. Should be interesting.

Yeh! I am not alone. This is exactly what I have been trying to tell people in other threads in this forum. Once/if impasse is reached, the last/best is implemented and the process goes from there.

 

[me2]

Players arent saying they cant live on that money. The owners are using them to generate that money.

How much more money could owners charge for tickets if they have the NHLers back vs having AHLers play. Perhaps all that difference should go the players?

If 3 mansions and a beautiful pool and park were built next to your house, quadrupling its value, would you accept a cap on your capital gains of 100%. Sorry, we know your house is worth $400,000, but we have capped your profits, you can only charge $200,000. Really who need more than a $100,00 profit on their house, it would be greedy wouldnt it to try and sell it to me for that much? you wouldnt really expect me to pay the market value would you?

Unfortunately for your analogy the players are not houses or house owners. They are employees, they do not own a share of the NHL. If the employees of a company work in building that goes up in value by 50% because new buildings are built next door the owner of that building won't give them 75-100% of that increase in their salaries. I'll have to see if my boss will give me a $20K bonus next time the building goes up in value, and keep paying me that bonus until I quit.

We'd see a lot of rich maids and gardeners around hollywood.

If they want to they can pool their money together and start buying teams. They can easily afford it. They take in a billion each year in salary. If they pooled 1/2 of that they could buy majority ownership in 5 teams a year. The old put their money where their mouths are.