HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   How to stop a lockout... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=104555)

TehDoak 09-19-2004 01:42 AM

How to stop a lockout...
 
This was originally in response to another post, but as I wrote it, I realized it wasn't a bad idea for its own post:

That the Owners lose much less $ (just arena fees, taxes, administration fees) than if they have a team. Who is really getting the shaft are the resturaunt/parking lot owners in the 30 cities arena disctricts. How is this going to be resolved? Form a nationwide union of buisness owners in the arena district and open a lawsuit against both the NHLPA and NHL owners for monatary and punitive damages because of the lockout for lost revenue. For example, 40 buisnesses from LA, 40 from NYC and 30 from 10 other large market cities. That would 340 buisnesses, who is my estimation, on average, could claim .5 million on average loss in buisness every month. Take that and put it at 3 months. Thats a 510 million dollar lawsuit, just in monatary damages. Add to that court fees, other expenses, it could get very ugly quickly

Overall, This could have one of three effects:
#1. Force both sides to sit down and get a settlement
#2. Break the NHLPA
#3. Fold the NHL.

me2 09-19-2004 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdoak
This was originally in response to another post, but as I wrote it, I realized it wasn't a bad idea for its own post:

That the Owners lose much less $ (just arena fees, taxes, administration fees) than if they have a team. Who is really getting the shaft are the resturaunt/parking lot owners in the 30 cities arena disctricts. How is this going to be resolved? Form a nationwide union of buisness owners in the arena district and open a lawsuit against both the NHLPA and NHL owners for monatary and punitive damages because of the lockout for lost revenue. For example, 40 buisnesses from LA, 40 from NYC and 30 from 10 other large market cities. That would 340 buisnesses, who is my estimation, on average, could claim .5 million on average loss in buisness every month. Take that and put it at 3 months. Thats a 510 million dollar lawsuit, just in monatary damages. Add to that court fees, other expenses, it could get very ugly quickly

Overall, This could have one of three effects:
#1. Force both sides to sit down and get a settlement
#2. Break the NHLPA
#3. Fold the NHL.

That is some of the finest "outside the square" thinking I've seen on this new CBA. Unfortunately I don't think you can sue a business for not opening unless you have some contractual arrangements.

Street Hawk 09-19-2004 01:58 AM

Substitution Effect...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mdoak
This was originally in response to another post, but as I wrote it, I realized it wasn't a bad idea for its own post:

That the Owners lose much less $ (just arena fees, taxes, administration fees) than if they have a team. Who is really getting the shaft are the resturaunt/parking lot owners in the 30 cities arena disctricts. How is this going to be resolved? Form a nationwide union of buisness owners in the arena district and open a lawsuit against both the NHLPA and NHL owners for monatary and punitive damages because of the lockout for lost revenue. For example, 40 buisnesses from LA, 40 from NYC and 30 from 10 other large market cities. That would 340 buisnesses, who is my estimation, on average, could claim .5 million on average loss in buisness every month. Take that and put it at 3 months. Thats a 510 million dollar lawsuit, just in monatary damages. Add to that court fees, other expenses, it could get very ugly quickly

Overall, This could have one of three effects:
#1. Force both sides to sit down and get a settlement
#2. Break the NHLPA
#3. Fold the NHL.

Something from Econ. Yes, businesses that benefit from hockey will suffer, and that means sports bars, taxis, hotels, etc. But, hockey fans will use that money elsewhere in the economy. They may shift their dining from sports bars to family restaurants or casual dining with a girl. Maybe, spend a weekend at a nice local resort somewhere. Take in other events.

So, a good chunk of the hockey money people spend will be used, just not where they typically would. It will be spent in other business sectors.

TehDoak 09-19-2004 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Hawk
Something from Econ. Yes, businesses that benefit from hockey will suffer, and that means sports bars, taxis, hotels, etc. But, hockey fans will use that money elsewhere in the economy. They may shift their dining from sports bars to family restaurants or casual dining with a girl. Maybe, spend a weekend at a nice local resort somewhere. Take in other events.

So, a good chunk of the hockey money people spend will be used, just not where they typically would. It will be spent in other business sectors.

But the money spent elsewhere would not be to those buisnesses, thus it would hurt buisnesses who are paying through the roof lease fees just to be located there. When city bring in NHL teams, they do so for 2 reasons: Improves quality of living and ups property value in a certain block radius. Shoot, how many resturaunts work together with teams in special promotions? Tons.
It boils down to this:

#1. Buisnesses pay much higher lease fees/taxes by being in arena districts. Most of the time, this is due to the lone fact that there is a NHL team in the arena and 41 nights a year, there are 19000 potential customers there.
#2. The NHL and NHLPA, by their actions, are directly hurting the revenue of these small buisnesses.

I think you could even take it as far that most teams have 20-30 year leases on the arena, and that implies that not only that they will pay a 'rent' to the city, but that they will provide a product to fill the arena a certain number of nights a year. I guess it would depend on the wording of the contracts each team has. The entire goal would of any sort of lawsuit would be the force both sides to either get an arbitrator to settle the differences and force a season to start.

GabbyDugan 09-19-2004 09:24 AM

Do any of these businesses that you want to start suing the NHL pay licensing fees of any kind to the NHL teams for the right to do business in close proximity to their arenas? Or do they just sit back and take the money from all those extra customers walking through their doors on game days?

Punitive damages? Why should every company that is getting a free ride because there is an arena in their neighborhood start suing because the gravy train won't be stopping by for a while?

Locking out the players may not be the right thing to do, but the owners have the legal right to do so in both Canada and the USA. How can you ask for punitive damages against soomeone you are freeloading off of when they commit a perfectly legal act?

TehDoak 09-19-2004 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GabbyDugan
Do any of these businesses that you want to start suing the NHL pay licensing fees of any kind to the NHL teams for the right to do business in close proximity to their arenas? Or do they just sit back and take the money from all those extra customers walking through their doors on game days?

Punitive damages? Why should every company that is getting a free ride because there is an arena in their neighborhood start suing because the gravy train won't be stopping by for a while?

Locking out the players may not be the right thing to do, but the owners have the legal right to do so in both Canada and the USA. How can you ask for punitive damages against soomeone you are freeloading off of when they commit a perfectly legal act?

First off, the buisnesses are not 'freeloading', they are paying premium property fees/rent which in turn go helping the NHL team build new arenas. Overall, you have missed the entire point. The point is not to start sucking money from the owners or the players union. The point is to apply enough pressure to force the NHL and the NHLPA to either go to an arbitrator or get this settled quickly.

HughJass* 09-19-2004 10:30 AM

Not an impossible idea, some of you are quick to knock.

Will it happen? Probably not. From a legal standpoint I wish someone would challenge just to set the precedent.

thinkwild 09-19-2004 10:50 AM

I think anything that fans can do that makes it unbearable for both sides to continue is a great idea.

How about we start boycotting the owners other businesses until they come back to the table and negotiate? I can think of a good one to start with - Little Ceasers Pizza. It may make Boston hold out a little longer, but it will force the owners who are making money to apply pressure. And thats how we stop this. The players arent going to crack. But the owners like Toronto and Philadelphia are going to crack.

GabbyDugan 09-19-2004 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdoak
First off, the buisnesses are not 'freeloading', they are paying premium property fees/rent which in turn go helping the NHL team build new arenas. Overall, you have missed the entire point. The point is not to start sucking money from the owners or the players union. The point is to apply enough pressure to force the NHL and the NHLPA to either go to an arbitrator or get this settled quickly.

I have not missed the point, I simply do not buy into taking this course of action. The purpose of your lawsuit is to get outside parties to take legal action influencing the NHL and NHLPA to negotiate under terms that take the interests of outside parties into consideration.

I own my own business, and one of the realities and risks is that my customers, suppliers, competitors, governments, and non-related businesses in my locality may take actions that benefit or harm my business. If they take actions that are clearly in violation of the law, then I'll be on the phone and speed dial my lawyer and seek remedies.

In this case, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and NHLPA has been terminated by one party in a manner that is completely legal under the laws of Canada and the United States. It seems to have been done in a rather sloppy, shoddy, and somewhat angry manner - but a perfectly legal manner, nevertheless.

Paying premium property fees/rent which in turn go to helping the NHL team build new arenas? Even if they are, almost every lease, property purchase agreement, business license, or other commercial contract has attachments, clauses, and so on specifying that third parties are not entitled to any benefits, claims, or damages from the said contract.

TehDoak 09-19-2004 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GabbyDugan

In this case, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and NHLPA has been terminated by one party in a manner that is completely legal under the laws of Canada and the United States. It seems to have been done in a rather sloppy, shoddy, and somewhat angry manner - but a perfectly legal manner, nevertheless.

The question of the day is, is the fact that they have a lease with the city for the arena imply that the team in under the responsibility to fill the arena? If that can be proved, the disagreement between the NHL and NHLPA will be in violation of the arena leases. Alot of it will depend on the wording of the contract of the teams lease, and that will be where it can be attacked in the courts, and thus applying pressure.

David A. Rainer 09-19-2004 04:22 PM

What are you going to base your lawsuit on?

Negligence? The NHL and NHLPA does not owe a legal duty to any of those businesses to keep their business open and prevent a work stoppage.

Sue on the contract? There is no contract between the NHL and those businesses to sue to enforce. The best you might find is a contract between the team and the arena, or a team and there concessionb suppliers. But then those contracts either have an out-clause or will need to be paids as the work stoppage continues anyways. I am presuming you mean the little shops near arenas that will get hurt by a stoppage and do not have a contract with the NHL organization.

Violation of a state law? The NLRA will trump anything any state can throw together. In fact, even if a lawsuit was filed on one of the other two theories, I still think the considerations expressed in the NLRA would supersede the lawsuits.

Sorry, but this point is so moot it is not even funny. I understand that fans are frustrated and just want to get the stoppage over. And I understand that some businesses that feed off of the commerce generated by sports are going to be hurt. But that should not exempt the NHL and the NHLPA from exerting their rights under the NLRA. Just because someone is losing money because of the actions of someone else does not give them a cause to sue. There needs to be something more and that something more just isn't there.

The best those businesses could do is use public opinion/support to pressure the two parties into coming to terms.

David A. Rainer 09-19-2004 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdoak
#2. The NHL and NHLPA, by their actions, are directly hurting the revenue of these small buisnesses.

The NHL and NHLPA has no legal duty to those businesses. And those businesses enter into their lease agreements at their own risk. If the arena should to cease to be active, they assume the risk of loss and not the NHL or NHLPA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdoak
The point is not to start sucking money from the owners or the players union. The point is to apply enough pressure to force the NHL and the NHLPA to either go to an arbitrator or get this settled quickly.

But you cannot commandeer the legal process to do this. This reminds me of an old adage from law school - anyone can sue anyone for anything, but only lawsuits based in the law will get past the first day of motions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdoak
The question of the day is, is the fact that they have a lease with the city for the arena imply that the team in under the responsibility to fill the arena? If that can be proved, the disagreement between the NHL and NHLPA will be in violation of the arena leases. Alot of it will depend on the wording of the contract of the teams lease, and that will be where it can be attacked in the courts, and thus applying pressure.

No, it does not imply this. In fact, the contracts are replete with several clauses denying just that. And even if not, a craftily constructed force majeure clause would get the NHL out of any obligations to the arenas.

I see what you are saying, and it is a good argument in theory. But it is basic contract drafting 101 (if we are talking about suing on the contract and not sue in negligence, that is) to get out of any of this. And even if not, contract law does not recognize third party beneficiaries because they are not, what is called, "privy to the contract". They were not contemplated by the two parties involved in the contract and therefore have NO standing to sue (unless there is a violation of a law).

David A. Rainer 09-19-2004 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GabbyDugan
I have not missed the point, I simply do not buy into taking this course of action. The purpose of your lawsuit is to get outside parties to take legal action influencing the NHL and NHLPA to negotiate under terms that take the interests of outside parties into consideration.

I own my own business, and one of the realities and risks is that my customers, suppliers, competitors, governments, and non-related businesses in my locality may take actions that benefit or harm my business. If they take actions that are clearly in violation of the law, then I'll be on the phone and speed dial my lawyer and seek remedies.

In this case, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and NHLPA has been terminated by one party in a manner that is completely legal under the laws of Canada and the United States. It seems to have been done in a rather sloppy, shoddy, and somewhat angry manner - but a perfectly legal manner, nevertheless.

Paying premium property fees/rent which in turn go to helping the NHL team build new arenas? Even if they are, almost every lease, property purchase agreement, business license, or other commercial contract has attachments, clauses, and so on specifying that third parties are not entitled to any benefits, claims, or damages from the said contract.

I could not have said it better myself. If only I had taken the time to read down this far before replying, I would have been able to save myself the time of writting all my posts of the NHL and NHLPA and they not having any duty to third party beneficiaries.

Wetcoaster 09-19-2004 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GabbyDugan
I have not missed the point, I simply do not buy into taking this course of action. The purpose of your lawsuit is to get outside parties to take legal action influencing the NHL and NHLPA to negotiate under terms that take the interests of outside parties into consideration.

I own my own business, and one of the realities and risks is that my customers, suppliers, competitors, governments, and non-related businesses in my locality may take actions that benefit or harm my business. If they take actions that are clearly in violation of the law, then I'll be on the phone and speed dial my lawyer and seek remedies.

In this case, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and NHLPA has been terminated by one party in a manner that is completely legal under the laws of Canada and the United States. It seems to have been done in a rather sloppy, shoddy, and somewhat angry manner - but a perfectly legal manner, nevertheless.

Paying premium property fees/rent which in turn go to helping the NHL team build new arenas? Even if they are, almost every lease, property purchase agreement, business license, or other commercial contract has attachments, clauses, and so on specifying that third parties are not entitled to any benefits, claims, or damages from the said contract.

Spot on.

However what might be interesting would be for season ticket holders to demand their entire prepayments back for the 2004-05 season. At the moment the NHL clubs have the use of that money.

transplant99 09-19-2004 07:33 PM

One of the strangest suggestions I have read on the entire CBA/lockout mess.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.