HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Biggest reason for this prolonged lockout - Goodenow "we will not play under a cap" (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=114994)

eye 11-23-2004 07:20 PM

Biggest reason for this prolonged lockout - Goodenow "we will not play under a cap"
 
Goodenow unwisely escalated the CBA dispute, prolonged the lockout and painted himself into a corner by being so rigid in his intial stance on the current CBA negotiations. He committed the 1st and seemingly insurmountable error in negotiations by taking a stand and not leaving any middle ground for a possible compromise. Bettman on the other hand has always said he wants to negotiate a fair settlement that involves cost certainty and a partnership with players including honoring guaranteed contracts and the sharing of revenues. I would say Bettman was the wiser of the two in that he at least said he is willng to negotiate, listen to offers-ideas that fit into the parameters set out by the owners who he represents. Goodenow now has nowhere to go but to concede and break his promise. Result, an impasse that will cost NHL fans/players at least one full season of hockey and likely longer plus his players will lose billions in the future. It will also cost the NHL years to recover it's corporate sponsors and ticket buying fans who I really believe will rebel in much higher numbers than baseball fans did after 94. Can any of you think of a way for Goodenow to overcome his initial statement without losing face? I can't - so he won't. The sooner we get to the impasse stage the better as far as I am concerned. :madfire:

bling 11-23-2004 07:44 PM

Bettman unwisely escalated the CBA dispute, prolonged the lockout and painted himself into a corner by being so rigid in his intial stance on the current CBA negotiations. He committed the 1st and seemingly insurmountable error in negotiations by taking a stand and not leaving any middle ground for a possible compromise. Goodenow on the other hand has always said he wants to negotiate a fair settlement with owners including honoring guaranteed contracts and the sharing of revenues. I would say Goodenow was the wiser of the two in that he at least said he is willng to negotiate, listen to offers-ideas that fit into the parameters set out by the players who he represents. Bettman now has nowhere to go but to concede and break his promise. Result, an impasse that will cost NHL fans/players at least one full season of hockey and likely longer plus his minions will lose billions in the future. It will also cost the NHL years to recover it's corporate sponsors and ticket buying fans who I really believe will rebel in much higher numbers than baseball fans did after 94. Can any of you think of a way for Bettman to overcome his initial statement without losing face? I can't - so he won't. :lol

struckmatch 11-23-2004 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eye
Goodenow unwisely escalated the CBA dispute, prolonged the lockout and painted himself into a corner by being so rigid in his intial stance on the current CBA negotiations. He committed the 1st and seemingly insurmountable error in negotiations by taking a stand and not leaving any middle ground for a possible compromise. Bettman on the other hand has always said he wants to negotiate a fair settlement that involves cost certainty and a partnership with players including honoring guaranteed contracts and the sharing of revenues. I would say Bettman was the wiser of the two in that he at least said he is willng to negotiate, listen to offers-ideas that fit into the parameters set out by the owners who he represents. Goodenow now has nowhere to go but to concede and break his promise. Result, an impasse that will cost NHL fans/players at least one full season of hockey and likely longer plus his players will lose billions in the future. It will also cost the NHL years to recover it's corporate sponsors and ticket buying fans who I really believe will rebel in much higher numbers than baseball fans did after 94. Can any of you think of a way for Goodenow to overcome his initial statement without losing face? I can't - so he won't. The sooner we get to the impasse stage the better as far as I am concerned. :madfire:

It's known about Collective Bargaining that you are not supposed to say "never" when negotiating. I don't know if Bettman has said they will "never...", but I know Goodenow has, and according to Good Bargaining principles, thats just something you don't do.

OlliMackBjugStud 11-23-2004 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puck you
It's known about Collective Bargaining that you are not supposed to say "never" when negotiating. I don't know if Bettman has said they will "never...", but I know Goodenow has, and according to Good Bargaining principles, thats just something you don't do.

not true ..

if one side says "never" and the other side is interested in negotiating, its pretty much up to them to come up with a solution that the "never" side will agree with.

if i said to you i want to buy your car and you said i can buy it, but you will never sell it for less than $x.xx. how much chance do i have of buying that car if i wont negotiate your terms ? hey, if i dont want your car bad enough, i can walk away. but if your car is the only car that suits my needs and you have drawn a line in the sand, i should come up with a solution you will accept.

dr

waffledave 11-23-2004 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DementedReality
not true ..

if one side says "never" and the other side is interested in negotiating, its pretty much up to them to come up with a solution that the "never" side will agree with.

if i said to you i want to buy your car and you said i can buy it, but you will never sell it for less than $x.xx. how much chance do i have of buying that car if i wont negotiate your terms ? hey, if i dont want your car bad enough, i can walk away. but if your car is the only car that suits my needs and you have drawn a line in the sand, i should come up with a solution you will accept.

dr

Except the players NEED a league to play in and the owners can always hire scabs. Goodenow said never when he doesn't exactly have the power in the situation.

me2 11-23-2004 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DementedReality
not true ..

if one side says "never" and the other side is interested in negotiating, its pretty much up to them to come up with a solution that the "never" side will agree with.

if i said to you i want to buy your car and you said i can buy it, but you will never sell it for less than $x.xx. how much chance do i have of buying that car if i wont negotiate your terms ? hey, if i dont want your car bad enough, i can walk away. but if your car is the only car that suits my needs and you have drawn a line in the sand, i should come up with a solution you will accept.

dr

That could also mean that Bettman wants cost certainty so he should get it and that its Goodenow that should retreat from his "never" strategy (and take a hit to his ego) if he wants to get jobs for his players badly enough? And that if he doesn't retreat then he doesn't want jobs for his players badly enough to compromise.

Neither side is retreating, egos are too big. They are both right and both wrong.

eye 11-23-2004 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DementedReality
not true ..

if one side says "never" and the other side is interested in negotiating, its pretty much up to them to come up with a solution that the "never" side will agree with.

if i said to you i want to buy your car and you said i can buy it, but you will never sell it for less than $x.xx. how much chance do i have of buying that car if i wont negotiate your terms ? hey, if i dont want your car bad enough, i can walk away. but if your car is the only car that suits my needs and you have drawn a line in the sand, i should come up with a solution you will accept.

dr

Say what? :dunno: :shakehead :banghead: Makes absolutely no sense just like Goodenow painting himself into a corner or standing in a round room looking for the corner.

OlliMackBjugStud 11-23-2004 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eye
Say what? :dunno: :shakehead :banghead: Makes absolutely no sense just like Goodenow painting himself into a corner or standing in a round room looking for the corner.

well i dont know what you do for a living, but i negotiate with suppliers, labour and customers every single day.

good thing i understand what i was talking about !

dr

OlliMackBjugStud 11-23-2004 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waffledave
Except the players NEED a league to play in and the owners can always hire scabs. Goodenow said never when he doesn't exactly have the power in the situation.

seems to me at least 300 players have found a place to play without the NHL.

dr

Tom_Benjamin 11-23-2004 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waffledave
Except the players NEED a league to play in and the owners can always hire scabs. Goodenow said never when he doesn't exactly have the power in the situation.

Who says they can? There is this assumption that the NHL can wave a magic wand and get the NLRB to allow them to impose a CBA. If they tried right now, the NLRB would laugh them out of court. They will probably laugh them out of court even if they get specific and do table a real offer and make several efforts to negotiate it.

MLB could not make an impasse stick when they tried the "salary cap or nothing" strategy. The NLRB rejected the idea that the parties were at impasse in a situation that was not dissimilar. Why does anyone believe the NHL owners will be any more successful?

The one advantage MLB had was they could use strikebreakers because the players were on strike. It was a shortlived effort because the fans could see that the teams being fielded were bush league and they obviously weren't buying, but still the league could try. This is not a strike. It is a lockout. You can't use replacements to break a lockout.

The NHL has to put some real specific proposals on the table and they have to negotiate them in good faith. They haven't even started the process.

Tom

SENSible1* 11-23-2004 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Who says they can? There is this assumption that the NHL can wave a magic wand and get the NLRB to allow them to impose a CBA. If they tried right now, the NLRB would laugh them out of court. They will probably laugh them out of court even if they get specific and do table a real offer and make several efforts to negotiate it.

MLB could not make an impasse stick when they tried the "salary cap or nothing" strategy. The NLRB rejected the idea that the parties were at impasse in a situation that was not dissimilar. Why does anyone believe the NHL owners will be any more successful?

The one advantage MLB had was they could use strikebreakers because the players were on strike. It was a shortlived effort because the fans could see that the teams being fielded were bush league and they obviously weren't buying, but still the league could try. This is not a strike. It is a lockout. You can't use replacements to break a lockout.

The NHL has to put some real specific proposals on the table and they have to negotiate them in good faith. They haven't even started the process.

Tom

But they will, right after the players establish the baseline by forcing them to cancel the season.

struckmatch 11-23-2004 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DementedReality
not true ..

if one side says "never" and the other side is interested in negotiating, its pretty much up to them to come up with a solution that the "never" side will agree with.

if i said to you i want to buy your car and you said i can buy it, but you will never sell it for less than $x.xx. how much chance do i have of buying that car if i wont negotiate your terms ? hey, if i dont want your car bad enough, i can walk away. but if your car is the only car that suits my needs and you have drawn a line in the sand, i should come up with a solution you will accept.

dr

According to the Art of Collective Bargaining, which I used in a report of mine recently, it is true that you are not supposed to use the term "never" when you are in a labor dispute.

Sanderson, John P. The Art of Collective Bargaining. Toronto, Ontario: Richard De Boo Limited, 1979: 32-33

^ If you want to read up on it.

Now, if Bettman said never, I would be all over him for it too, if he has, someone please point it out to me, but all I've read has been Goodenow saying it.

gary69 11-23-2004 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waffledave
Except the players NEED a league to play in and the owners can always hire scabs. Goodenow said never when he doesn't exactly have the power in the situation.

Sure, NHL can play their 100 mil revenues and 750 mil fixed expenses + replacement salaries for any number of years they want to, but if Goodenow and NHLPA has a legally binding (=financially severely hurting) steadfast support of top 300-400 players for the next 10 years (which they apparently have), then profit-making owners are not really that stupid businessmen, that they are not willing to negotiate a compromise not including a hard cap, in an effort to restore their 2+ billion revenue industry.

me2 11-23-2004 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary69
Sure, NHL can play their 100 mil revenues and 750 mil fixed expenses + replacement salaries for any number of years they want to,

This is an interesting point. If replacement players are used we get to find out just what the NHLers real market value is. If the replacement players play for peanuts and the teams go OK financially its not good the NHLers market value. If a trained monkey can do your $2m/y job then you are clearly overpaid at $2m/y. If the teams lose money but less than currently, again its not good for the NHLers market value. If the teams do much worse than before then it strengthens the NHLers market value, because it links financial success to their quality and star power.

Its an interesting risk for both sides.


Quote:

but if Goodenow and NHLPA has a legally binding (=financially severely hurting) steadfast support of top 300-400 players for the next 10 years (which they apparently have), then profit-making owners are not really that stupid businessmen, that they are not willing to negotiate a compromise not including a hard cap, in an effort to restore their 2+ billion revenue industry.
Goodenow may have their support now, and have their intended support for the next 10 years. Unfortunately that "intended" support isn't worth the paper it isn't written on because they can change their minds at any time in the future. They could change their minds 3 months into a replacement player season, despite what their feelings are now, if they see a few jump ship. If enough players change their minds and accept the NHL conditions they can vote the union back to work and thats the end of it and richest 300 can do what they like for the next 10 years once their contracts are up by telling their agents not to sign any NHL contracts and to get them deals in Europe until they retire. I doubt very much the top 300 hold out if the rest go back to work.

Tom_Benjamin 11-23-2004 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
But they will, right after the players establish the baseline by forcing them to cancel the season.

They will what? Explain what "establishing the baseline" means. Nobody is forcing the owners to cancel the season.

Tom

SENSible1* 11-23-2004 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary69
Sure, NHL can play their 100 mil revenues and 750 mil fixed expenses + replacement salaries for any number of years they want to, but if Goodenow and NHLPA has a legally binding (=financially severely hurting) steadfast support of top 300-400 players for the next 10 years (which they apparently have), then profit-making owners are not really that stupid businessmen, that they are not willing to negotiate a compromise not including a hard cap, in an effort to restore their 2+ billion revenue industry.

The NHL has stated publically their willingness to negotiate a soft cap.

If you seriously think that the "top 300-400" players will sit out of the highest paying league in the world for the next 10 years over the principle of no link between salaries and revenues, then you are kidding yourself.

BTW,

The "profit making owners" will make even bigger profits if they can lower the players % of league revenues.

mudcrutch79 11-23-2004 10:42 PM

Quote:

Under President Bush, the makeup of the 5-member NLRB panel (currently with one vacancy) has changed dramatically since the Clinton administration, with a markedly pro-management tilt. Ownership believes that with the appointment of Mike Bartlett, formerly of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and William Cohen, formerly with Institutional Labor Advisors, the NLRB will reject a potential MLBPA claim of failure to negotiate in good faith. If that happens, the owners will be free to unilaterally impose new work rules, including all the provisions of their most recent offer. From that point on, negotiations and contract signings would take place under the rules sought by the owners rather than the terms of the expired CBA.
This is from an article Doug Pappas wrote for ESPN.com during the last MLB showdown. The change in the NLRB panel does seem like a fair point to me. I don't know the jurisprudence on the issue, or what the legal tests are to declare an impasse, but it seems to me that there is at least some validity here. Pappas was a pretty respected commentator on the business of baseball. The only thing is, further down in the same article, he talks about the possibility of decertification if the owners had had an impasse declared. At that point, the owners can't restrict anything about salaries, or entry into the league. Maybe the players have more leverage than is believed, at least in terms of preventing an impasse. The only sticking point on that in my mind is that I have a hard time seeing Goodenow allowing the NHLPA to blow up.

gary69 11-23-2004 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2
Goodenow may have their support now, and have their intended support for the next 10 years. Unfortunately that "intended" support isn't worth the paper it isn't written on because they can change their minds at any time in the future. They could change their minds 3 months into a replacement player season, despite what their feelings are now, if they see a few jump ship.

I don't claim to have seen 300 or 400 hundred players' signed agreements, and I don't know without any doubt whatsoever what can be considered a legally binding document, but I would just say that quite a few players are pretty unified on this matter.

And I'm first to admit that almost anything can be negotiated away with good lawyers, but with possible "liabilities", those players' salaries wouldn't probably fit into most capped teams' salaries.

So at this point I would be inclined to say it's either a capped NHL with replacement players for the next 1 to 10 years or a "normal" NHL without a cap with all the best players (excluding the retired).

OlliMackBjugStud 11-23-2004 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puck you
According to the Art of Collective Bargaining, which I used in a report of mine recently, it is true that you are not supposed to use the term "never" when you are in a labor dispute.

Sanderson, John P. The Art of Collective Bargaining. Toronto, Ontario: Richard De Boo Limited, 1979: 32-33

^ If you want to read up on it.

Now, if Bettman said never, I would be all over him for it too, if he has, someone please point it out to me, but all I've read has been Goodenow saying it.

well in your book, does it address how to negotiate with a party who has said "never" .. surely it takes more finesse and logic than having a take it or leave it stance.

NHLPA has said never and made a counter proposal that was open to negotiation. its now up to the NHL to find a solution that works, or in the alternative we have what we have now. nothing.

dr

gary69 11-23-2004 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The NHL has stated publically their willingness to negotiate a soft cap.

If you seriously think that the "top 300-400" players will sit out of the highest paying league in the world for the next 10 years over the principle of no link between salaries and revenues, then you are kidding yourself.

BTW,

The "profit making owners" will make even bigger profits if they can lower the players % of league revenues.

I don't even pretend to know who would be kidding who, if the sides end up in yearslong legal wranglings, but if that happens I would bet that the league in question would no longer be the "highest paying league in the world" and meanwhile quite a few of those players would be plying their trade in some other leagues.

Of course those owners would make even bigger profits if they could institute slavery, but I would assume they have to settle for less.

me2 11-23-2004 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary69
I don't claim to have seen 300 or 400 hundred players' signed agreements, and I don't know without any doubt whatsoever what can be considered a legally binding document, but I would just say that quite a few players are pretty unified on this matter.

And I'm first to admit that almost anything can be negotiated away with good lawyers, but with possible "liabilities", those players' salaries wouldn't probably fit into most capped teams' salaries.

So at this point I would be inclined to say it's either a capped NHL with replacement players for the next 1 to 10 years or a "normal" NHL without a cap with all the best players (excluding the retired).

I also doubt those top players break ranks immediately, its 3-6 months in the pressure starts building. The problem for the NHLPA is if enough do break ranks then the can get the 50% support they want to vote the punitive contracts into oblivion. The players might also leave the union and choose to pay dues to the union instead of union membership fees.
Quote:

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that private sector employees have the right to refuse membership in their workplace union even if the language of the collective bargaining agreement in question states to the contrary.39 Despite the fact that the worker resigns from the union, he or she still must abide by the remaining provisions of the collective bargaining agreement including any negotiated work rules in that contract.
Apparently employees retain the right to not join the union even where it appears compulsory unionism is in their CBA (provided they pay dues).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...l=473&invol=95

Here the union tried to fine workers who left the union during a strike as per clauses in their union agreements. Court ruled the fines as illegal despite the employees signing up to the union agreements with the fines as clauses.

Without knowing the details of these supposed agreements between the elite players and the NHLPA its hard to say how valid they are or whether they come under similar rules to the above situation. The NHLPA may only be able to fine them if they are members. If they legally resign before crossing over the NHLPA might lose all power to fine them depending on what they signed.

also
Quote:

The decision in NLRB v. Textile Workers, 409 U.S. 213 (1972), also supports the Board's view that 8(b)(1)(A) prohibits unions from punishing members not free to resign. There, 31 employees resigned their union membership and resumed working during a strike. We held that fining these former members "restrained or coerced" them, within the meaning of 8(b)(1)(A). In reaching this conclusion, we said that "the vitality of 7 requires that the member be free to refrain in November from the actions he endorsed in May." Id., at 217-218. Restrictions on the right to resign curtail the freedom that the Textile Workers Court deemed so important. See also Machinists v. NLRB, 412 U.S. 84 (1973).
So players are free to quit the union, cross over and do what they like. The NHLPA might not let them back in after that. Risky move for the NHLPA though because if enough quit the union they can vote to have the NHLPA dumped and install a new union. It depends entirely on numbers and whether Goodenow has them or not.

SENSible1* 11-23-2004 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
They will what? Explain what "establishing the baseline" means. Nobody is forcing the owners to cancel the season.

Tom

They NHL will put a full CBA on the table that will establish the baseline for negotiations.

The players, by refusing to even begin to examine/discuss the central plank of the owners position are forcing the cancellation of the season.

Tom_Benjamin 11-23-2004 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
They NHL will put a full CBA on the table that will establish the baseline for negotiations.

When? Why haven't they already done this? how can they possibly flush a season without even establishing a baseline for negotiations?

Quote:

The players, by refusing to even begin to examine/discuss the central plank of the owners position are forcing the cancellation of the season.
Central plank in what position? The owners haven't established that baseline yet, remember? Let's see their proposal for a cap. Let's see what age they want free agency. Let's see what the owners mean by significant revenue sharing. Let's see what the owners really want.

Tom

SENSible1* 11-23-2004 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary69
I don't even pretend to know who would be kidding who, if the sides end up in yearslong legal wranglings, but if that happens I would bet that the league in question would no longer be the "highest paying league in the world" and meanwhile quite a few of those players would be plying their trade in some other leagues.

The NHL will continue to be the highest paying league in the world for years to come, a few hundred poorly advised players notwithstanding. Their revenue generating ability will take a short term hit, but as long as the product is entertaining and competitive, the consumers will forget about the longterm holdouts and focus on new "stars".


Quote:

Of course those owners would make even bigger profits if they could institute slavery, but I would assume they have to settle for less.
Hmmm...how many groups of "slaves" do you know that were offered a 1.3M average salary by their "owners".

The point is that the NHLPA is barking up the wrong tree if they expect the "profit making" owners to run Bettman out of town, as they stand the most to gain from letting their pit bull loose on the Union.

struckmatch 11-23-2004 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DementedReality
well in your book, does it address how to negotiate with a party who has said "never" .. surely it takes more finesse and logic than having a take it or leave it stance.

NHLPA has said never and made a counter proposal that was open to negotiation. its now up to the NHL to find a solution that works, or in the alternative we have what we have now. nothing.

dr

Well, to be honest, I think the ball is in the players court. Considering that their last proposal was a joke. You'll argue that it was a starting point, but it wasn't. The League wants cost-certainty, Bettman insists that it must come under a salary cap, although its widely known that a reasonable luxury tax and revenue sharing would provide an adequate sense of cost-certainty.

Now, with the league so incredibly set on achieving cost-certainty, with the league winning the PR war by a large margin, and with players losing paychecks, and in contrast, some owners actually making, and saving money by not playing, don't you think its the players who should become a bit more realistic in their stance?

I don't say that as an avid owner supporter, because thats not what I am, I say that as a hockey fan, because I don't see this dispute ending until the players accept that there will be some form of reasonable cost-certainty, and until they come to terms with that, and propose a luxury tax that is meaningful, and could actually be a starting point, as stated by Bill Daly, then I would say the owners have to negotiate that proposal.

But there's no need to negotiate a proposal that isn't meaningful, and that does barely anything to address the fiscal problems in the business. In a nutshell, the faster the players make concessions, the faster we'll be watching NHL hockey. I don't want the players to concede because I love cheering for John McCaw, Francesco Aquilini, Eugene Melnyk, and some other owners, I cheer for the players on the ice. However the only way we'll see those players on the ice anytime soon, is if the PA concedes its stance on barring cost-certainty from the NHL. The players can't win this, they are prolonging the inevitable.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 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.