Will players get a better offer?

[SENSible1*]

Miracle on Ice

The Year 1980 .. These things happen ..

Who here had Calgary and TB in the final before last years playoffs ??

You got to love cheering for the underdog in all aspects of life .. MLB took their PA to court and lost BIG TIME .. History has a way of repeating itself ..

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The question is, which side has done a better job learning from the past?

Based on the results to this point it is clear that the NHL has learned and adapted their tactics better than Goodenow and the PA.

 

[Munchausen]

Yea I am not a moron I understand how linkage works. I don't even know what to reply to that, I agree I guess. That is how linkage works, you are a genius.

Anyway, what don't you understand about "going so far backward for a linkage to work that it would be bargaining in bad faith"?

It is clear that if the NHL had any system where teams would have to spend at least around $28 million, a lot of teams would lose money when they come back and some teams might even fold. The problem is they have already offered that the linked cap would not go any lower than $32 million. Now I can see the NLRB granting a small exception to that number going backwards, but not too far backwards. I would say the best the NHL would be able to slip by the NLRB is around $28 million (it's a stretch but let's say they can do it). And, at that number it would probably be too high for the first couple of years, they might lose some teams if they force them to spend $28 or $30 million. In other words, if the NHL won an impasse it would likely be worse for the league than negotiating a hard cap and no floor.

And what would the NHL have to do to get a linked impasse that would be more effective then negotiating? The floor would have to be like $20 million if the NHL wants to minimize losses and keep all 30 teams. But clearly, if they offered that and than tried to win an impasse the NLRB would slap them with bad faith negotiating. Remember, they have previously offered a $32-$42 range, going down to $20-$30 would never work, that is too far. This is what I mean by the linkage having to drop so much to work that the NLRB would call them on bad faith negotiating. In this case, the outcome would be even worse than if the NHL won an impasse.

The bottom line is the risk of an impasse by the league is much greater than it's rewards. And either way, win or lose, the NHL would be better off negotiating a hard cap/no salary floor deal with the PA. The NHL needs a deal without a floor to get teams back on their feet. Like I said in an earlier post... you are Mario Lemieux. If winning an impasse means you have to spend $30 million and go out of business and losing an impasse means you have to pay players for time missed and play under the old CBA, and thus go out of business, would you support attempting an impasse? No way, wouldn't make any sense. The best deal for the NHL no doubt would be a $42-$45 million cap with no floor. That is not a deal that they can get through impasse, therefore I don't see that as there next move or a move at any time in this process.

You still didn't answer my question. Why is going back to x number too far and therefore bargaining in bad faith? Where are your arbitrary numbers coming from? Bad faith negotiating has nothing to do whatsover with how far downward their offer will go. They can put a 10M cap offer with a 2M floor if they want to as long as they can prove the current economics justify those numbers. As I said, the financial state of the league has changed when the season was canceled. Right now, no previous offer stands. I don't know why you keep saying they can't go bellow 28M. They can go as low as they want. Bargaining in bad faith would imply that they're only trying to bust the union, and that would need to be proven by the NHLPA. One more time, regressive negotiating is not illegal.

 

[monkey_00*]

Just wondering how the general fanbase sees it playing out...

MLH..........

The PA blew it big time.........as soon as they caved in and agreed to a salary cap the owners knew right then and there they had the players in the palms of their hands........and now they have them by the balls.

 

[arnie]

I dont think theres any way the PA can expect an equal or better offer. Look at what's facing the NHL in terms of ammunition against the PA:

1) ESPN Looking to bail out on it's commitment to hockey

2) NBC's deal only being a one-year with an option

3) Millions in lost ad revenue from teams and their expired contracts with promotions

All the owners have to do is reload with those issues and the NHLPA has nothing to debunk those claims. They are visible woes that the NHL could never amplify, even if it wanted to.

You're dreaming. There is no way the NHL won't have to improve their offer. It might not be a cap number, but it will be a better deal on arbitration, qualifying offers, free agent age, etc. Despite what Goodenow and Bettman said, it is impossible to go back on an offer once made. If the NHL lowered their offer, they players never, never come back.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

You still didn't answer my question. Why is going back to x number too far and therefore bargaining in bad faith? Where are your arbitrary numbers coming from? Bad faith negotiating has nothing to do whatsover with how far downward their offer will go. They can put a 10M cap offer with a 2M floor if they want to as long as they can prove the current economics justify those numbers. As I said, the financial state of the league has changed when the season was canceled. Right now, no previous offer stands. I don't know why you keep saying they can't go bellow 28M. They can go as low as they want. Bargaining in bad faith would imply that they're only trying to bust the union, and that would need to be proven by the NHLPA. One more time, regressive negotiating is not illegal.

Going back x number too far is bad faith because the idea of negotiating is for the 2 sides to come to an agreement, not for the 2 sides to make unreasonable demands and just sit there and wait for the other to take it. If the NHL came back and offered a $10 million cap that would be bargaining in bad faith. After offering a $42 million cap they are now going regress $32 million? I doubt the NLRB would buy that no matter what numbers the NHL can present.

"Bad faith negotiating has nothing to do whatsover with how far downward their offer will go." "Bargaining in bad faith would imply that they're only trying to bust the union, and that would need to be proven by the NHLPA."

It has plenty to do with how far downward their offer goes. Because as you said, bad faith is when you are not trying to come to a deal but rather just trying to bust the union. Now please tell me how offering a $10 or $15 million cap would not be an obvious attempt to bust the union, and an obvious case of bad faith bargaining? Do you really think that the PA would ever even think about accepting that? That's clearly negotiating in bad faith and the PA would have no problem convincing the board of that.

I don't care how much revenues have changed, not that it can be proven anyway, but it really doesn't matter. How much revenues change will affect the owners and how they decide to run their franchises. If they get the best deal for themselves, no floor and a $42-$45 million cap, than how much revenues fall will only affect how much each owners decides to spend. If an owner in this case decides he can only spend $10 million than so be it. But, there is a difference between an owner spending $10 million and the league getting a CBA with a cap at $10 million. I'm not saying an owner can't spend $10-$20 million, some might have to and that's why the league needs a CBA without a floor, but the league can't get a cap at that level, that's minor league hockey.

So one more time, I never said regressive negotiating is illegal. What I said is that it is not favorable with the NLRB and it would be very tough to win an impasse if the NHL did it. And considering the consequences of losing an impasse it just wouldn't make sense for the NHL to attempt one with a $10 or $20 million cap. If they had a good chance of winning it's because their offer was high enough that the NLRB would allow it, but if it's that high it is not beneficial for the league anyway. The best deal for the NHL is a deal with no salary floor, and they aren't going to get that by attempting an impasse.

 

[futurcorerock]

You're dreaming. There is no way the NHL won't have to improve their offer. It might not be a cap number, but it will be a better deal on arbitration, qualifying offers, free agent age, etc. Despite what Goodenow and Bettman said, it is impossible to go back on an offer once made. If the NHL lowered their offer, they players never, never come back.

Did you read what i said?

ESPN is about to pull the plug on the NHL. That's leverage for the Owners. Individual teams have advertisers' contracts running up this year, what if they don't renue. Each team will report back with a monetary figure of what this lockout is costing them. Times WILL change from now until the summer and you're ignorant not to see that.

 

[Mess]

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The question is, which side has done a better job learning from the past?

Based on the results to this point it is clear that the NHL has learned and adapted their tactics better than Goodenow and the PA.

If this goes to court we may not know the answer until all the dust settles and the final ruling is in ..

You know the "DON'T YOUR CHICKENS " before they are hatched speech ..

Neither side has one anything yet .. The players lost a year or Salary to date ..

If the NHL makes a mistakes in negotiating and the NLRB and courts rule in favour of the NHLPA like it already did in Baseball ..Then the NHL is far from winning at the moment ..

Last time I checked Fan's supporting a side did not factor into legal court decisions...

 

[Mess]

Did you read what i said?

ESPN is about to pull the plug on the NHL. That's leverage for the Owners. .

Okay Fair enough until they do its only talk and that is cheap ..

Even if they pull the plug which is understandable since the NHL is giving them nothing to broadcast ..

They can't really use that in courts .. because the obvious reason would exist ..

The minute the NHL started up again ESPN would again pick up its TV deal again.. So the NHL can't use that to get a better CBA deal, and then the minute they do, they turn around and flip the switch on again and ESPN is back on the Air.

 

[djhn579]

You're dreaming. There is no way the NHL won't have to improve their offer. It might not be a cap number, but it will be a better deal on arbitration, qualifying offers, free agent age, etc. Despite what Goodenow and Bettman said, it is impossible to go back on an offer once made. If the NHL lowered their offer, they players never, never come back.

Here are a few cases where the NRLB had no problem with regressive bargaining, and say that it is not bad faith to offer a worse deal if circumstances have changed. There is still some risk involved, but I think the NHL can prove that circumstances have changed since they are now losing advertising $$'s, possibly ESPN, and definitely customers.

http://www.kzrd.com/html/4q98a.html

 

[Munchausen]

After offering a $42 million cap they are now going regress $32 million? I doubt the NLRB would buy that no matter what numbers the NHL can present.

It's only logical that they can (BTW, I was using the 10M figure to make a point, I don't seriously beleive the league would do such a move). They are entilted to regress because the economic situation the league was in when it made that final offer was better the the one it will be in when they make their next offer. If they can convince the NLRB the pie has shrunk from 2B to 1B, bringing down the cap from 42.5M to say 30M makes perfect sense and it isn't negotiations in bad faith, only a reflection of the consequences of not having been able to save the season. They can argue they will have a seriously depleted fanbase, they only have to point the finger at MLB to prove that case.

If what you're suggesting was true, that the owners regardless of the fact revenues are melting like ice cream in the desert, are condemned to only go forward in negotiations, not being able to significantly reduce their previous offer, regardless of the changes in the financial landscape of the NHL, they would probably have caved and accepted the 49M deal offered by the PA, in order to salvage the season (along with season ticket holders, sponsership, TV revenues, etc.).

Furthermore, If that was true, the players would have also conceded significantly less than they did during those negotiations, playing the waiting game, watching the owners' revenues melt and the pressure on them increasing, because the PA would have had all the leverage.

But it isn't the case, because nothing prevents the league next month to come back with a 25M-35M offer with linkage, and the NLRB would certainly not oppose to that, especially the NLRB run under a pro-business Republican government. That is why every analyst out there, regardless of pro-PA or pro-NHL biases, agrees to say the deal will only get worse for the players. Not better. Not even equal. Much, much worse.

 

[Mess]

But it isn't the case, because nothing prevents the league next month to come back with a 25M-35M offer with linkage, and the NLRB would certainly not oppose to that, especially the NLRB run under a pro-business Republican government. That is why every analyst out there, regardless of pro-PA or pro-NHL biases, agrees to say the deal will only get worse for the players. Not better. Not even equal. Much, much worse.

You hear this a lot how do we know its not just fancy lawyering or Scare tactics ..

... The NHL may get an easier road to declaring an Impasse perhaps but The law is still the law ..

That is like saying that the OJ Simpson trial would have a different outcome if tried today in the courts ..

Also .. The NHL is multi-national USA and CANADA .. How would the 6 Canadian teams be bound to decisions made based on what party is in power in the States.

They may need a 3rd party unaffiliated impartial judge to rule or you would have clear reasons to dispute any rulings if they were perceived to be biased NO??

How could a US court anyway dictate how a Canadian team can and should do business and have its ruling binding. A separate Canadian Court may need to hear some of the proceedings and rule .. . .. ?? Different rules apply in Different countries for Labour rulings ..

 

[djhn579]

You hear this a lot how do we know its not just fancy lawyering or Scare tactics ..

... The NHL may get an easier road to declaring an Impasse perhaps but The law is still the law ..

That is like saying that the OJ Simpson trial would have a different outcome if tried today in the courts ..

Also .. The NHL is multi-national USA and CANADA .. How would the 6 Canadian teams be bound to decisions made based on what party is in power in the States.

They may need a 3rd party unaffiliated impartial judge to rule or you would have clear reasons to dispute any rulings if they were perceived to be biased NO??

How could a US court anyway dictate how a Canadian team can and should do business and have its ruling binding. A separate Canadian Court may need to hear some of the proceedings and rule .. . .. ?? Different rules apply in Different countries for Labour rulings ..

I read not too long ago that both the NHLPA and NHL have agreed that the US NLRB has jurisdiction in this dispute...

 

[Munchausen]

You hear this a lot how do we know its not just fancy lawyering or Scare tactics ..

... The NHL may get an easier road to declaring an Impasse perhaps but The law is still the law ..

That is like saying that the OJ Simpson trial would have a different outcome if tried today in the courts ..

Also .. The NHL is multi-national USA and CANADA .. How would the 6 Canadian teams be bound to decisions made based on what party is in power in the States.

They may need a 3rd party unaffiliated impartial judge to rule or you would have clear reasons to dispute any rulings if they were perceived to be biased NO??

How could a US court anyway dictate how a Canadian team can and should do business and have its ruling binding. A separate Canadian Court may need to hear some of the proceedings and rule .. . .. ?? Different rules apply in Different countries for Labour rulings ..

The NLRB has full power to make a decision applicable to the entire league. The league as a whole has recognized the NLRB's authority over both Canadian and US based teams. And yes, the fact the board is run under a Republican government is a very clear advantage to the owners. They have biases that are directly linked to the people in charge of the country.

 

[Mess]

The NLRB has full power to make a decision applicable to the entire league. The league as a whole has recognized the NLRB's authority over both Canadian and US based teams. And yes, the fact the board is run under a Republican government is a very clear advantage to the owners. They have biases that are directly linked to the people in charge of the country.

Lots or articles out there on this topic ..

While declaring an impasse would almost certainly be legal under federal U.S. labour laws, the implementation could be a whole different story. In response, the union could file an unfair labour practice charge with the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB). NLRB staff would investigate whether the parties are truly at an impasse, and review whether the league has bargained in good faith.

Anyone familiar with the inner workings of public administration will tell you that it is a strenuous process that could take a lot of time and red tape to resolve. To make matters worse, the NHL and NHLPA could still be bound by law to continue bargaining while the board's investigation takes place.

In Canada, labour laws work under provincial jurisdiction and their respective authorities have varying standards and practices across the board. Most provinces have labour laws in place that do not recognize an employer's right to declare an impasse or hire replacement workers.

Replacement players would be possible for the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames because the provincial laws in Alberta could work in favour of such a move. But other teams - Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal - could run into legal challenges from the NHL Players' Association.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=9941

The more serious legal questions would start once the NHL tried to implement its last contract offer. The union would seek an injunction preventing that implementation to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, and possibly the four Canadian provinces - each of which have their own labour legislation. The union would charge that the two sides aren't at impasse and/or that the league didn't bargain fairly.

Let's say the NLRB decides in favour of the league, and no Canadian authorities question the board's conclusion.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=115284&hubName=

The legal route is fraught with challenges - allegations of unfair labour practices, multiple jurisdictions with varying labour laws, and potentially antitrust litigation.

If that's the road the NHL wants to take - and the league has never stated it's their preferred outcome - it's a risky one.

It's not clear whether labour laws or other business legislation applies to player contracts in Canada, says former Ontario premier Bob Rae, a longtime expert in mediation and arbitration.

''The contracts are very unique ... they're combinations of being business contracts, commercial agreements and employment agreements, so they touch on many different aspects of the law,'' Rae says.

Rae's advice is for the two sides to avoid this legal mess by hiring a neutral third party to steer further talks

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=113552&hubName=

 

[Munchausen]

Lots or articles out there on this topic ..

While declaring an impasse would almost certainly be legal under federal U.S. labour laws, the implementation could be a whole different story. In response, the union could file an unfair labour practice charge with the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB). NLRB staff would investigate whether the parties are truly at an impasse, and review whether the league has bargained in good faith.

Anyone familiar with the inner workings of public administration will tell you that it is a strenuous process that could take a lot of time and red tape to resolve. To make matters worse, the NHL and NHLPA could still be bound by law to continue bargaining while the board's investigation takes place.

In Canada, labour laws work under provincial jurisdiction and their respective authorities have varying standards and practices across the board. Most provinces have labour laws in place that do not recognize an employer's right to declare an impasse or hire replacement workers.

Replacement players would be possible for the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames because the provincial laws in Alberta could work in favour of such a move. But other teams - Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal - could run into legal challenges from the NHL Players' Association.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=9941

This isn't the same thing. You asked How could a US court dictate how a Canadian team should do business and have its ruling binding. The response is both the league and the PA have recognized the NLRB's authority to take a decision that would apply to the entire league. Now as far as I know, the decision to go for impasse and use replacement players is not dependent of the NLRB's approval. The NLRB comes into play only if the players file for an unfair labor practice claim. Those are 2 separate issues.

 

[Mess]

This isn't the same thing. You asked How could a US court dictate how a Canadian team should do business and have its ruling binding. The response is both the league and the PA have recognized the NLRB's authority to take a decision that would apply to the entire league. Now as far as I know, the decision to go for impasse and use replacement players is not dependent of the NLRB's approval. The NLRB comes into play only if the players file for an unfair labor practice claim. Those are 2 separate issues.

True
The process of declaring an impasse in the United States is fairly straightforward.

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Canadian conundrum[/font]

Even if the NHL is able to declare an impasse in the United States, declaring one in Canada could prove more difficult.

There is significant debate over whether the NHL could use replacement players in British Columbia and Quebec, where legislation prohibits the use of replacement workers.

Part of the confusion is whether or not provincial labor laws recognize the players' association. Individually, NHLers are considered independent contractors and aren't covered by the anti-scab laws, in art because the union does not negotiate their individual contracts. The NHLPA would not comment on whether they would seek recognition in either province.

One provincial labor official, who asked not to be identified, said Canada's pro-union political climate should also be considered. About one-third of Canadian workers are unionized, second in percentage to Italy among countries in the G-8, (a group of industrialized nations that also includes the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, France and Japan), he said. In Quebec, 40 percent of workers are unionized.

If the NHL tries to introduce replacement players, especially in British Columbia and Quebec, they will face a firestorm of controversy. Hardly a desirable climate for a league that will be desperate to mend fences with its fans, he said.

"It would be viewed as bad business practice and somewhat immoral," he said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=1993070

I haven't found the Article I wanted to yet that I read .. but this here shows that not only the CBA binding issue but that the Impasse ruling could be challenged in Canada ..

 

[Mess]

This isn't the same thing. You asked How could a US court dictate how a Canadian team should do business and have its ruling binding. The response is both the league and the PA have recognized the NLRB's authority to take a decision that would apply to the entire league. Now as far as I know, the decision to go for impasse and use replacement players is not dependent of the NLRB's approval. The NLRB comes into play only if the players file for an unfair labor practice claim. Those are 2 separate issues.

Here is a good article on the NLRB ..its by Stachan but it has some interesting points ..

With that in mind, let's look a bit further at what would probably happen if the NHL were to apply to the National Labor Relations Board in the United States to have an impasse declared.
First of all, the NLRB wouldn't want to hear the case. It made that point crystal clear when Major League Baseball tried to go down this path.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say the NLRB did agree to consider the NHL's argument.

STRIKE ONE

Read on for the Full story .. lots of interesting things not discussed yet ..

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Strachan/2005/01/14/898401.html

 

[djhn579]

Here is a good article on the NLRB ..its by Stachan but it has some interesting points ..

With that in mind, let's look a bit further at what would probably happen if the NHL were to apply to the National Labor Relations Board in the United States to have an impasse declared.
First of all, the NLRB wouldn't want to hear the case. It made that point crystal clear when Major League Baseball tried to go down this path.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say the NLRB did agree to consider the NHL's argument.

STRIKE ONE

Read on for the Full story .. lots of interesting things not discussed yet ..

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Strachan/2005/01/14/898401.html

Strike one is totaly wrong. Negotiating in good faith does not mean that you have to move off of a core belief, such as a salary cap...

Under Section 8(d), neither party is required to make concessions or agree to a proposal. As a result, hard bargaining by itself is presumably legal.

http://www.missouri.edu/~labored/1997-18.html

Strike two is solely his opinion...

Strike 3 is not a problem as pointed out by Wetcoaster who has definite leanings to the PA side and a labor law background

Strike 4 is also solely his opinion...

 

[nyr7andcounting]

It's only logical that they can (BTW, I was using the 10M figure to make a point, I don't seriously beleive the league would do such a move). They are entilted to regress because the economic situation the league was in when it made that final offer was better the the one it will be in when they make their next offer. If they can convince the NLRB the pie has shrunk from 2B to 1B, bringing down the cap from 42.5M to say 30M makes perfect sense and it isn't negotiations in bad faith, only a reflection of the consequences of not having been able to save the season. They can argue they will have a seriously depleted fanbase, they only have to point the finger at MLB to prove that case.

If what you're suggesting was true, that the owners regardless of the fact revenues are melting like ice cream in the desert, are condemned to only go forward in negotiations, not being able to significantly reduce their previous offer, regardless of the changes in the financial landscape of the NHL, they would probably have caved and accepted the 49M deal offered by the PA, in order to salvage the season (along with season ticket holders, sponsership, TV revenues, etc.).

Furthermore, If that was true, the players would have also conceded significantly less than they did during those negotiations, playing the waiting game, watching the owners' revenues melt and the pressure on them increasing, because the PA would have had all the leverage.

No way the floor gets as low as $20 million, if that's what you are saying by the cap at $30 million. And if you meant that the range would be $30-$40 million but because of revenues the cap the first year will be $30 million, than that is exactly why it does not make perfect sense for the NHL to do it. There are a lot of teams that can't afford to pay their players that much after this lockout and if they are forced to they will fold.

The other huge thing working against the owners here that I have not mentioned so far pertains to the 2nd bold sentance. The owners had the option of suffering the consequences of cancelling the season or not. This is not a strike, it is a lockout. The owners didn't HAVE to cancel the season, they didn't HAVE to destroy their revenues, but they decided they wanted to. And I can guarantee you that in the case of an impasse this is something Goodenow would make very clear to the NLRB, he's already tried to make it very clear to anyone who will listen.

And I never suggested the owners are "condemned" to go forward in negotiations. In fact, I admitted that they probably won't have to. But the problem is with "significantly reducing their offer". In my eyes and I am sure in the eyes of many, if they attempt an impasse with linkage, they have already significantly reduced the offer. If they attempt to lower the linkage range from the $32-$42 that they offered, than they are trying to reduce it even further. They won't be able to go much lower than their 2/2 proposal... bringing linkage back would be bad enough, but understandable. But following that by decreasing the linkage offer as well, that's just not going to work.

And even if for some reason you are convinced the NLRB would let them go to something like a $18-$28 linkage range, which is a huge stretch, is it worth the risk of losing an impasse? Is it worth potentially putting a number of teams out of business and likely having to play under the old CBA while having to negotiate with the union anyway? No, it isn't.

The best deal for the NHL right now, and the one that can be achieved with the least risk involved, is negotiating a $45 million hard cap/no salary floor CBA with the union. In that case the top teams can't spend out of control anymore and all teams, without a salary floor, would be able to get back on their feet after this lockout. And over time the average team salary would be in the mid $30's and the gap between top spenders and lowest spenders would be at most $20 million...but that's something that could be improved upon through revenue sharing. Please tell me how this is not the best deal for the NHL. If you can't tell me how it isn't, than that means it IS the best deal for the NHL. And if you believe that, than you must believe that this deal WILL NOT be achieved through an impasse. Which is why that is NOT the NHL's next move and why the sides will continue to negotiate.

 

[Munchausen]

No way the floor gets as low as $20 million, if that's what you are saying by the cap at $30 million. And if you meant that the range would be $30-$40 million but because of revenues the cap the first year will be $30 million, than that is exactly why it does not make perfect sense for the NHL to do it. There are a lot of teams that can't afford to pay their players that much after this lockout and if they are forced to they will fold.

I don't know why you only think the range can be of 10M (maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying). What if the cap is set at 35M or 40M and the floor at 20M? There's nothing preventing the owners from doing this. Also, revenue sharing should help all the teams get to the floor level, in the event a floor is indeed what the league wants. In any event, I'm sure if the league comes up with a floor, they won't shoot themselves in the foot and will likely make sure every team can at least reach that bare minimum.

The other huge thing working against the owners here that I have not mentioned so far pertains to the 2nd bold sentance. The owners had the option of suffering the consequences of cancelling the season or not. This is not a strike, it is a lockout. The owners didn't HAVE to cancel the season, they didn't HAVE to destroy their revenues, but they decided they wanted to. And I can guarantee you that in the case of an impasse this is something Goodenow would make very clear to the NLRB, he's already tried to make it very clear to anyone who will listen.

I understand your point, but I don't agree. I don't see what is relevent in the fact it's a lock-out and not a strike. The CBA has expired, there's nothing illegal in this lock-out, nor would a strike be illegal if the players were getting screwed under the previous CBA and had decided to hold out until the owners give them a better deal. The NLRB won't look at the fact it's an owners' lockout against any partie. It's irrelevent. Both sides are responsible. Both sides were not able to come to an agreement. What should the owners have done? Keep the league going during the negotiations, continue to burn money while the NHLPA drags this thing for 5 years making out like bandits under the previous terms? The bleeding had to stop. NLRB will certainly not see this decision as a negative against the league.

And I never suggested the owners are "condemned" to go forward in negotiations. In fact, I admitted that they probably won't have to. But the problem is with "significantly reducing their offer". In my eyes and I am sure in the eyes of many, if they attempt an impasse with linkage, they have already significantly reduced the offer. If they attempt to lower the linkage range from the $32-$42 that they offered, than they are trying to reduce it even further. They won't be able to go much lower than their 2/2 proposal... bringing linkage back would be bad enough, but understandable. But following that by decreasing the linkage offer as well, that's just not going to work.

Again, we'll just agree to disagree, everything I've read so far shows otherwise. There is no limit or threshold I am aware of at which regressive negotiations would go from necessity to bad faith other than what the economic situation dictates. If the revenues have taken a hit so much that the owners can no longer afford more than a 30M cap, so be it. If revenues diminish, it's only logical that salaries do too. To me, what would be negotiating in bad faith would be to tinker with the 53%-55% the owners want to give the players in salary from the get go and reduce that amount significantly. There would be no justification in this and that would be blatant bad faith on the owners' part.

And even if for some reason you are convinced the NLRB would let them go to something like a $18-$28 linkage range, which is a huge stretch, is it worth the risk of losing an impasse? Is it worth potentially putting a number of teams out of business and likely having to play under the old CBA while having to negotiate with the union anyway? No, it isn't.

I would agree with you, an impasse no matter where you stand is a huge risk. If the owners follow that route, it will only be because there is just no way the conflict will ever get solved in their minds, not this summer, not next year, not in 5 years. Therefore, this would become a valid solution. Until then, I don't think the NHL is seriously considering impasse.

The best deal for the NHL right now, and the one that can be achieved with the least risk involved, is negotiating a $45 million hard cap/no salary floor CBA with the union. In that case the top teams can't spend out of control anymore and all teams, without a salary floor, would be able to get back on their feet after this lockout. And over time the average team salary would be in the mid $30's and the gap between top spenders and lowest spenders would be at most $20 million...but that's something that could be improved upon through revenue sharing. Please tell me how this is not the best deal for the NHL. If you can't tell me how it isn't, than that means it IS the best deal for the NHL. And if you believe that, than you must believe that this deal WILL NOT be achieved through an impasse. Which is why that is NOT the NHL's next move and why the sides will continue to negotiate.

It is not the best deal simply because there is no linkage. I don't think the owners care about the cap as much as they care about cost certainty. I'm sure lots of owners, just like the players with their cap, were angry Bettman caved on linkage. Linkage guarentees the players will never be over or under paid. It means they always get 55% of revenues, and if the league takes a hit due to this lockout, which it will, it's quite obvious, then linkage guarentees the owners won't be stuck with a ridiculously high cap that is worth nothing considering the weak amount of generated revenues league wide. Also, a floor is a good thing for the league. It forces dimwits like Wirtz to stay competitive and attract the fans and it introduces parity, which increases competitiveness. It's in the league's advantage to get a deal that will give them the smallest gap possible between bottom and top spending teams. Finally, I don't care if there is contraction. If the league gives the small market teams the tools to compete and they still can't generate profit, they don't belong in this league. There is just so much the league can do to keep all the 30 teams.

 

[djhn579]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Here is a good article on the NLRB ..its by Stachan but it has some interesting points ..

With that in mind, let's look a bit further at what would probably happen if the NHL were to apply to the National Labor Relations Board in the United States to have an impasse declared.
First of all, the NLRB wouldn't want to hear the case. It made that point crystal clear when Major League Baseball tried to go down this path.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say the NLRB did agree to consider the NHL's argument.

STRIKE ONE

Read on for the Full story .. lots of interesting things not discussed yet ..

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnist.../14/898401.html




Strike one is totaly wrong. Negotiating in good faith does not mean that you have to move off of a core belief, such as a salary cap...

Under Section 8(d), neither party is required to make concessions or agree to a proposal. As a result, hard bargaining by itself is presumably legal.

http://www.missouri.edu/~labored/1997-18.html

Strike two is solely his opinion...

Edit on strike 2...

Multiemployer bargaining itself is a well-established, important, pervasive method of collective bargaining, offering advantages to both management and labor. See Appendix (multiemployer bargaining accounts for more than 40% of major collective-bargaining agreements, and is used in such industries as construction, transportation, retail trade, clothing manufacture, and real estate, as well as professional sports); NLRB v. Truck Drivers, 353 U.S. 87, 95 (1957) (Buffalo Linen) (Congress saw multiemployer bargaining as "a vital factor in the effectuation of the national policy of promoting labor peace through strengthened collective bargaining"); Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 454 U.S. 404, 409, n. 3 (1982) (Bonanno Linen) (multiemployer bargaining benefits both management and labor, by saving bargaining resources, by encouraging development of industry-wide worker benefits programs that smaller employers could not otherwise afford, and by inhibiting employer competition at the workers' expense); Brief for Respondent NLRB in Bonanno Linen, O. T. 1981, No. 80-931, p. 10, n. 7 (same); General Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education and Labor, Multiemployer Association Bargaining and its Impact on the Collective Bargaining Process, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 10-19, 32-33 (Comm. Print 1964) (same); see also C. Bonnett, Employers' Associations in the United States: A Study of Typical Associations (1922) (history). The upshot is that the practice at issue here plays a significant role in a collective-bargaining process that itself comprises an important part of the Nation's industrial relations system.

http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Court Rulings/Brown.htm



Strike 3 is not a problem as pointed out by Wetcoaster who has definite leanings to the PA side and a labor law background

Strike 4 is also solely his opinion...

 

[dakota]

Here is a good article on the NLRB ..its by Stachan but it has some interesting points ..

With that in mind, let's look a bit further at what would probably happen if the NHL were to apply to the National Labor Relations Board in the United States to have an impasse declared.
First of all, the NLRB wouldn't want to hear the case. It made that point crystal clear when Major League Baseball tried to go down this path.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say the NLRB did agree to consider the NHL's argument.

STRIKE ONE

Read on for the Full story .. lots of interesting things not discussed yet ..

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Strachan/2005/01/14/898401.html

Dont take this lockout personally messenger... business is business, and the owners have every right to want to fix their business... they will just wait out the players for 2-3 more years if necessary. They do not really need to declare impasse...No big deal. If players want to goto Europe they are free to go... when the league is fixed it will be a healthy league and the best players will want to play in the NHL once again.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I understand your point, but I don't agree. I don't see what is relevent in the fact it's a lock-out and not a strike. The CBA has expired, there's nothing illegal in this lock-out, nor would a strike be illegal if the players were getting screwed under the previous CBA and had decided to hold out until the owners give them a better deal.

I would agree with you, an impasse no matter where you stand is a huge risk. If the owners follow that route, it will only be because there is just no way the conflict will ever get solved in their minds, not this summer, not next year, not in 5 years. Therefore, this would become a valid solution. Until then, I don't think the NHL is seriously considering impasse.

Being it is a lockout is relevent in this case...because in order to win a deal through impasse that would work for them, the NHL is going to have to claim that the economic condition has changed and that revenues have dropped so far that they need to go backwards with their deal. Even if they could convince the NLRB of this, it is also obvious that because it is a lockout it was their choice to cancel the season. It was the NHL's choice to have a lockout and their choice to not take a deal but rather cancel the season. They knew the economics where going to change. It just makes it a little harder for them to convince the NLRB that they need to regress negotiations.

And if you agree with me that impasse is not the NHL's next move than how can you say the deal will get worse? If they negotiate how do you see the deal getting worse? The players are never going to accept a 30 million cap or something like that. The cap will be in the 40's and all of the other issues will be more in favor of the PA than they were in the NHL's last offer. If the NHL is going to get a 20-30 million payroll range of some sort, they are only going to get it through impasse. If you admit they won't try impasse than how do you see them getting that deal through negotiations? It doesn't make sense. Both sides need to negotiate there is no other option right now and probably won't be until half of next season is lost, something neither side wants. Because of that I see the PA getting a better deal than the last NHL offer.

 

[Munchausen]

And if you agree with me that impasse is not the NHL's next move than how can you say the deal will get worse? If they negotiate how do you see the deal getting worse? The players are never going to accept a 30 million cap or something like that. The cap will be in the 40's and all of the other issues will be more in favor of the PA than they were in the NHL's last offer. If the NHL is going to get a 20-30 million payroll range of some sort, they are only going to get it through impasse. If you admit they won't try impasse than how do you see them getting that deal through negotiations? It doesn't make sense. Both sides need to negotiate there is no other option right now and probably won't be until half of next season is lost, something neither side wants. Because of that I see the PA getting a better deal than the last NHL offer.

Why? Simple. Because their next offer will be worse for the PA, no matter if they go for impasse or not in the future. You're dreaming if you think the league will offer a bigger de-linked cap with better sub components to the deal from now on. The 42.5M is history. The players were foolish to refuse it and they'll have to live with the consequences. They'll never see such a high number again. This thing is going down.

The most likely scenario is the league coming back in March with a lower cap in a tweaked system, say 35M, linked to revenues, maybe with more profit sharing with the players to show they're willing to compromise on what they can afford to compromise. Then Goodenow refuses, states the offer is ridiculous, etc. The NHL comes back with an other proposal. The NHLPA counters, etc. (basically all the same things we've seen from the begining of this lockout).

Then if neither the PA or the league has come up with a solution to get the parties closer by September, the owners make a final offer, the NHLPA rejects it, they decide we're done since this is going nowhere again, the lockout's over, the owners impose their last offer as the new CBA and re-open the league. Likely then, players strike and file a claim for unfair labor practice or decertify. Replacement players are brought in, etc. etc. etc. and the legal mess begins. I'm sure the owners don't want to arrive to that point, but they will if it's the only choice left. One thing is for sure. The owners will not lose an other entire season again. They'll take whatever means necessary to re-open under a system where they no longer lose money.

 

[Nich]

the players won't have their own league.