Will you support an NHL with replacement players?

[K215215]

If the league declares an impasse and the players go on strike and the NHL brings in replacement players (as has been said will happen in some recent articles) will you still spend your entertainment dollars on an NHL with replacement players?

Click to read more...

 

[ehc73]

Seeing as the Canucks will likely be out of the NHL if that happens (labour laws in BC prevent doing that kinda thing), I'd have to say no. Besides, if it goes on that long, I'll probably be paying more attention to junior hockey anyways.

 

[struckmatch]

The impasse would last about a week, the players would fold like a cheap chinese bicycle when they watched a bunch of other guys taking their jobs, just like they did in europe.

 

[X0ssbar]

Yes, I would. But then again, I am Blue Jackets fan and we have been playing with replacements for 4 years - so not much of a difference for me :lol

Don't foget the NFL used replacements in 1987 and look where they are now. Sometimes you have to break something down and rebuild it from scratch to make it stronger for the future. You may take a hit in the short term - but over the long haul you hope your product is stronger. Prolly wishful thinking but I'm trying my damndest to stay positive in this mess.

 

[HckyFght*]

I can't wait to see replacement games!

Here's an article I posted elsewhere on these boards called "Bring on the Scabs!" advocating just that.

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/775/69/

-HckyFght

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The impasse would last about a week, the players would fold like a cheap chinese bicycle when they watched a bunch of other guys taking their jobs, just like they did in europe.

It is a lot harder than this. The first thing the players would do is file an unfair unfair labour practice claim. There can be no impasse if the owner's are not bargaining in good faith. Good faith is difficult to determine, but it is a requirement to a finding of impasse. The employer cannot engage in surface bargaining and then declare impasse. In other words, a party may not enter into negotiations with a predetermined resolve not to budge from an initial position. Good faith bargaining requires more than merely appearing at meetings and going through the motions, while harboring a take it or leave it attitude.

If the players win, the imposed CBA is thrown out the window and the players report to work under the provisions of the old CBA.

The second thing they can do is strike. The assumption that the teams can find enough replacement players is not a sure thing. It is one thing for the NFL to hire replacements when the NCAA produces a huge number of NFL ready players each year. It is another thing for the NHL to hire a bunch of veteran AHL players and ECHL players. It is one thing for the NFL to break a strike because gambling is a huge part of the sport, another thing to convince fans to watch minor league hockey while pretending it is major league hockey.

A third thing the players could do is report to work and keep working until they get their last paycheque of the season. Then they strike and torpedo the playoffs.

Finally, the NHLPA could blow up the whole works by decertifying.

Tom

 

[HckyFght*]

Another advantage the NFL had going for them was that most fans had already paid for their tickets to the games where the players were replaced, meaning that the teams were simply finding a way to live up to their ticket commitments, meaning it's easier to put some bodys on the field than giving back the money. However, I don't see any problem for the NHL to find a few hundred hockey players, also there will be plenty of NHLers crossing the line.

Also, the league has been on record for a year and a half trying to get the union to the table and, seeing the writing on the wall, they aren't coming. They are at a genuine impasse now. Thirdly, since the agreement is expired, why couldn't the league sign with a different union? Just because a union exists there's no reason a business has to get it's workers only from it. Laws can be changed, exceptions made. And if a team such as Vancouver lives in a place where it isn't allowed...oh well...
-HckyFght!

 

[flip588]

Nope. I'll just be watching more junior hockey, in particular the OHL. Go Attack Go!

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I don't see any problem for the NHL to find a few hundred hockey players, also there will be plenty of NHLers crossing the line.

What makes you think this?

Also, the league has been on record for a year and a half trying to get the union to the table and, seeing the writing on the wall, they aren't coming.

It doesn't matter how long the sides have been arguing. We are talking the legal defintion of impasse. There is no impasse if the employer is not bargaining in good faith.

Thirdly, since the agreement is expired, why couldn't the league sign with a different union?

Because the workers get to choose their union or whether they have one.

Tom

 

[Seachd]

Will you support an NHL with replacement players?

Absolutely.

 

[Sotnos]

If the league declares an impasse and the players go on strike and the NHL brings in replacement players (as has been said will happen in some recent articles) will you still spend your entertainment dollars on an NHL with replacement players?

Not for the current ticket prices.

 

[coachbob]

I stuck with the Leafs through the eighties when they played like replacement players. Bring em on.

 

[Blind Gardien]

I will support the NHL with replacement players.

 

[x-bob]

If it helps the game then no doubt, Anyways, soon later, the players are gonna come back

 

[f1nn]

yep, although I would probably follow the SM-liiga more.

 

[Orv]

If I can be one of the replacement players. This may be my only chance to make the show.

 

[NFITO]

a lot of good points in this thread so far.

I agree with Tom's points that the NHL actually setting up another league with replacement players is not going to be easy, but at this point I'm taking this whole thing more as a threat to see if the player's side moves, then anything they would (or could) seriously do.

excellent point though on supporting replacement players IMO:

Don't foget the NFL used replacements in 1987 and look where they are now. Sometimes you have to break something down and rebuild it from scratch to make it stronger for the future. You may take a hit in the short term - but over the long haul you hope your product is stronger. Prolly wishful thinking but I'm trying my damndest to stay positive in this mess.

the owners side in the end IMO has the last say... they can hold out a lot longer than the players... going with replacement players - which won't be easy, but IMO we'd end up seeing them before a 2-3 or more year lockout - could be the best thing for the league in long term... and for the owners, if they manage to get replacement players, they'd be making money - in many cases more than they are now.

I think that replacement players will sell out arenas still in cities... of course taking into account drastic drops in ticket prices, reflective of drastic drops in salaries....

IMO they'd also be players crossing over... while the top stars - especially the young ones who have a long career ahead of them, will try holding out long, you'll have the 3rd/4th liners, 30-somethings that would cross - many of them are already fighting for a job at the NHL level, how long would they hold out seeing a job waiting for them... and guys like Gelinas, May, etc - guys that aren't going to benefit at all by waiting through a lockout, while having another 2-4 years or so of being able to earn a living at all in this sport....

the younger future stars - Crosby, Brule, etc... even the Ovechkins, Malkins, Barker, etc .. talented guys who haven't signed an NHL contract could join a new league (remember a new league could set it's own age limits and rules... it wasn't that long ago that a young Gretzky was signed by Indianapolis and went to Edmonton, bypassing the draft)... a few years, and drafts later, the change in overall talent won't be as visible... and will disappear after some years.

a league that went through this would definitely be in the owner's favour.... a couple or three years of hits (which won't be as bad if replacements are used) could lead to many more years of a bigger bottom line for them.

In the end, going the NFL route could also be the best thing for the NHL right now... in some cities this could even help their market, generate more fans... fan support is weak in the NHL down south (overall), and changing the target market - from trying to attract fans that pay $50+ per ticket at times, to ones that pay $20-25 per ticket could be the best thing for the NHL overall when trying to open up to a bigger market....

from a fan's perspective - lockout for a year, 2 years, 10 years... when they get back to work, I'll still be a fan

 

[StanleyCH25]

Well, to begin with, as I assume most of you do, I follow a hockey team and not a hockey player. If Patrick Roy is traded to the Colorado Avalanche, I don't become a Colorado fan. So what makes Ted Saskins believe that hockey fans will all of a sudden feel cheated if the top players won't be playing. We've been through it.. we've seen teams forced to trade their top stars to top paying teams. Do you honestly think that makes us want to support the current collective bargaining agreement or any agreement that is not based on maintaining competitveness throughout the league?

The flip side of this argument, of course, is that with a salary cap in place, teams should still have some way of being able to hold onto talent that was developed from the inside so as to once again prevent fans from seeing their star players being traded because it now exceeds the salary cap. My proposition would be to declare a franchise player (or two, or three, etc..) that do not count towards the salary cap. However, if a team does exceed the salary cap from signing a franchise player, they then would have to pay a luxury tax to be redistributed to teams who remain below the cap.

 

[garry1221]

Well, to begin with, as I assume most of you do, I follow a hockey team and not a hockey player. If Patrick Roy is traded to the Colorado Avalanche, I don't become a Colorado fan. So what makes Ted Saskins believe that hockey fans will all of a sudden feel cheated if the top players won't be playing. We've been through it.. we've seen teams forced to trade their top stars to top paying teams. Do you honestly think that makes us want to support the current collective bargaining agreement or any agreement that is not based on maintaining competitveness throughout the league?

The flip side of this argument, of course, is that with a salary cap in place, teams should still have some way of being able to hold onto talent that was developed from the inside so as to once again prevent fans from seeing their star players being traded because it now exceeds the salary cap. My proposition would be to declare a franchise player (or two, or three, etc..) that do not count towards the salary cap. However, if a team does exceed the salary cap from signing a franchise player, they then would have to pay a luxury tax to be redistributed to teams who remain below the cap.

i'd make a set value for going over the cap with signing a franchise player, with what you have written in this post it would make the 'franchise player' clause a moot statement, now if the club went over by say 5 + mil that's another story... still shaky ground though

 

[mr gib]

If the league declares an impasse and the players go on strike and the NHL brings in replacement players (as has been said will happen in some recent articles) will you still spend your entertainment dollars on an NHL with replacement players?

i don't think they could legally do it -

if it did happen - i would watch in on tv - read about it - hang at the board here and see what you guys say - but i would never ever buy a ticket or any merchandise ever again - i would boycott this new nhl for life - or until they got the best players back -

 

[Jovo Cop]

Sure i would ..the players have no loyalty to the fans so i could care a rats behind about the players .I will cheer for whomever wears my favorite teams togs and will hope they beat whom ever is wearing the enemies togs .If it is the real players so be it ..if it is "scabs " ..Go team Go!!!!

 

[hillbillypriest]

It is a lot harder than this. The first thing the players would do is file an unfair unfair labour practice claim. There can be no impasse if the owner's are not bargaining in good faith. Good faith is difficult to determine, but it is a requirement to a finding of impasse. The employer cannot engage in surface bargaining and then declare impasse. In other words, a party may not enter into negotiations with a predetermined resolve not to budge from an initial position. Good faith bargaining requires more than merely appearing at meetings and going through the motions, while harboring a take it or leave it attitude.

If the players win, the imposed CBA is thrown out the window and the players report to work under the provisions of the old CBA.

The second thing they can do is strike. The assumption that the teams can find enough replacement players is not a sure thing. It is one thing for the NFL to hire replacements when the NCAA produces a huge number of NFL ready players each year. It is another thing for the NHL to hire a bunch of veteran AHL players and ECHL players. It is one thing for the NFL to break a strike because gambling is a huge part of the sport, another thing to convince fans to watch minor league hockey while pretending it is major league hockey.

A third thing the players could do is report to work and keep working until they get their last paycheque of the season. Then they strike and torpedo the playoffs.

Finally, the NHLPA could blow up the whole works by decertifying.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Why do you think that the NLRB would judge the NHL's stance to be bad faith in the circumstances? The NHL's position that they would be seeking a cap has been communicated to the NHLPA for at least five years, and the NHL has made overtures since that time about the renegotiating the CBA well before its expiry. I would suggest that the NHLPA would have a hard time convincing the NLRB that there had been bad faith bargaining in this instance.

Look forward to your views. HBP

 

[djhn579]

I would whole heartedly support the replacment players. As others have mentioned, my loyalty is to my team, not any individual player. I would also be able to attend more games since the ticket prices would probably be lower.

As for the best players not playing, so what. They don't care about the fans, and there will be new top players established within 5 years.

 

[thinkwild]

I would support picket line violence. Anything that makes it an unpleasant family experience. It would certainly be worth it to go to a few games, just to shout- go scab go. If the owners truly have no concern for me, I will spit on them.

It really seems hard to believe that the owners could demand a cap, and then attempt to get unilateral implementation by forcing the players to accept something that is illegal without their acceptance. Expecially when it must be a laughable proposition that a cap is the only way to go.

If the Sens return, and Spezza, Havlat, Redden, Hossa, Alfie, Volchenkov, on and on .. arent playing, i will be laughing at the suckers that pay for it.

It makes no sense that the owners could find this a proper and profitable way to go forward. They would have to be really spiteful fools.

 

[StanleyCH25]

I would support picket line violence. Anything that makes it an unpleasant family experience. It would certainly be worth it to go to a few games, just to shout- go scab go. If the owners truly have no concern for me, I will spit on them.

It really seems hard to believe that the owners could demand a cap, and then attempt to get unilateral implementation by forcing the players to accept something that is illegal without their acceptance. Expecially when it must be a laughable proposition that a cap is the only way to go.

If the Sens return, and Spezza, Havlat, Redden, Hossa, Alfie, Volchenkov, on and on .. arent playing, i will be laughing at the suckers that pay for it.

It makes no sense that the owners could find this a proper and profitable way to go forward. They would have to be really spiteful fools.

Just curious to find out which part of the players' position you really support? Until I hear valid points that make me feel sorry for the players, I can't help but side with the owners. The owners have shown that they are taking losses. The owners have shown that their proposals are based on other leagues that are working wonders currently (NBA, NFL). The players have shown proposals based on a league that is broken (MLB). So if you truly feel that the owners are at fault (which is possible and that's why I'm replying), what do you think is the problem with their proposals and what do you think is right about the players' approach?

Or am I just a sucker for sarcasm?