HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Toronto Maple Leafs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Why can't the NHL do this? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=125491)

MOGiLNY 01-23-2005 08:54 PM

Why can't the NHL do this?
 
Why can't Bettman and co. say screw the union, and implement the rules that they want into the NHL? Bettman can have the NHL use the cap, rookie cap, and every other form of cost certainity that he wants.

Once that's done, Bettman can come out and say, that any player that wants to leave the NHLPA and sign with the NHL teams is welcome to do so. The others can sit at home or go to Europe.

That way there would be no player union, and every man is for himself. If somebody doesn't like the new NHL rules, nobody is forcing them to sign here, and they can go play somewhere else.

I think this way would also ensure that there are no lockouts in the future as there will be no PA to strike.

Thoughts?

leaflover 01-23-2005 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOGiLNY
Why can't Bettman and co. say screw the union, and implement the rules that they want into the NHL? Bettman can have the NHL use the cap, rookie cap, and every other form of cost certainity that he wants.

Once that's done, Bettman can come out and say, that any player that wants to leave the NHLPA and sign with the NHL teams is welcome to do so. The others can sit at home or go to Europe.

That way there would be no player union, and every man is for himself. If somebody doesn't like the new NHL rules, nobody is forcing them to sign here, and they can go play somewhere else.

I think this way would also ensure that there are no lockouts in the future as there will be no PA to strike.

Thoughts?

LOL
So basically the players would have 0 representation and collective clout. :dunno:
You make Bettman seem logical.

andora 01-23-2005 11:05 PM

he's on the right path though, if bettman sets up a similar system with his main points in there (salary cap) it's not that illogical at all...

MOGiLNY 01-23-2005 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leaflover
LOL
So basically the players would have 0 representation and collective clout. :dunno:
You make Bettman seem logical.

the players can represent themselves. but why do 700 people need a Goodenow to speak for them? I think it's pretty clear that more than a few players really don't mind Bettman's plan, but aren't even allowed to speak out in public.

Players who don't like the NHL rules can go play somewhere else, nobody is forcing them to stay here.

I think if they did this, eventually, all or most of the players would jump ship and go back to the NHL..

Bicycle Repairman 01-23-2005 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOGiLNY
Why can't Bettman and co. say screw the union, and implement the rules that they want into the NHL? Bettman can have the NHL use the cap, rookie cap, and every other form of cost certainity that he wants.

Once that's done, Bettman can come out and say, that any player that wants to leave the NHLPA and sign with the NHL teams is welcome to do so. The others can sit at home or go to Europe.

That way there would be no player union, and every man is for himself. If somebody doesn't like the new NHL rules, nobody is forcing them to sign here, and they can go play somewhere else.

I think this way would also ensure that there are no lockouts in the future as there will be no PA to strike.

Thoughts?

Why can't he?

Because it would be illegal.

leaflover 01-23-2005 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andora
he's on the right path though, if bettman sets up a similar system with his main points in there (salary cap) it's not that illogical at all...

Yes it is.
Who with even the slightest hint of active brain activity is going to abandon the group that by being a member of is your only source of bargaining power?
The nhl would be lucky to entice 10% of the NHLPA into this foolish self-defeating scheme.
Without any collective power the players would be turning back the clocks 40 years.

Epsilon 01-23-2005 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOGiLNY
Why can't Bettman and co. say screw the union, and implement the rules that they want into the NHL? Bettman can have the NHL use the cap, rookie cap, and every other form of cost certainity that he wants.

Once that's done, Bettman can come out and say, that any player that wants to leave the NHLPA and sign with the NHL teams is welcome to do so. The others can sit at home or go to Europe.

That way there would be no player union, and every man is for himself. If somebody doesn't like the new NHL rules, nobody is forcing them to sign here, and they can go play somewhere else.

I think this way would also ensure that there are no lockouts in the future as there will be no PA to strike.

Thoughts?

It's absolutely illegal, a total violation of antitrust law.

andora 01-23-2005 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leaflover
Yes it is.
Who with even the slightest hint of active brain activity is going to abandon the group that by being a member of is your only source of bargaining power?
The nhl would be lucky to entice 10% of the NHLPA into this foolish self-defeating scheme.
Without any collective power the players would be turning back the clocks 40 years.

i'm saying it isn't illogical to attempt to break the union.. i hope it happens

leaflover 01-23-2005 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andora
i hope it happens

Ya i noticed ;)

If they ever did manage to dissolve this form of the NHLPA a different form would quickly be organized and back to square 1 we go.

Dark Knight 01-23-2005 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOGiLNY
the players can represent themselves. but why do 700 people need a Goodenow to speak for them? I think it's pretty clear that more than a few players really don't mind Bettman's plan, but aren't even allowed to speak out in public.

Players who don't like the NHL rules can go play somewhere else, nobody is forcing them to stay here.

I think if they did this, eventually, all or most of the players would jump ship and go back to the NHL..

Think again. Its all about the money! Outside, if they will be offered significantly more than here then they will leave NHL and go play in Russia, Sweden, Czech Republic etc. I dont think NHL wants to risk it.

It Kills Me 01-24-2005 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOGiLNY
Why can't Bettman and co. say screw the union, and implement the rules that they want into the NHL? Bettman can have the NHL use the cap, rookie cap, and every other form of cost certainity that he wants.

Once that's done, Bettman can come out and say, that any player that wants to leave the NHLPA and sign with the NHL teams is welcome to do so. The others can sit at home or go to Europe.

That way there would be no player union, and every man is for himself. If somebody doesn't like the new NHL rules, nobody is forcing them to sign here, and they can go play somewhere else.

I think this way would also ensure that there are no lockouts in the future as there will be no PA to strike.

Thoughts?

So you want the Belaks to sign on the new NHL. While Forsberg returns home, Naslund decides he's better off retireing and so forth?

The is what the NHLPA will say, "WE ARE A ROCK, you can't get us"

Dar 01-24-2005 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOGiLNY
the owners can represent themselves. but why do 30 teams need a Bettman to speak for them? I think it's pretty clear that more than a few teams really don't like Bettman's plan, but aren't even allowed to speak out in public.

Teams who don't like the NHL rules can go start a new league, nobody is forcing them to stay in the NHL.

I think if they did this, eventually, all or most of the players would jump ship and go to the new league..

Just changed up your quote there.

Lobstertainment 01-24-2005 09:05 AM

Yes it would be illegal to just impliment their plan like that.

they have to go to impase first to even try to do that legally...and doing that is a big enough of a hurddle alone.

joecool 01-24-2005 10:22 AM

Why can't the NHL do that ?

1. It's illegal ... the nhlpa is a union, and their "working relationship" with he nhl is governed by US labour laws.

Why shouldn't the NHL do that ?

2. Because in a few years Ted Lindsey would show up and start all over again.

3. Without a union, the owners become autocratic, and control player's futures to the eventual detriment of the game. Seriously, go read about Ted Lindsay, and what the NHL was like at that time.

And why doing that would be meaningless:

This is nothing more than a contract negotiation with 2 sides dividing up the pie, and trying to get the most favourable terms possible. What is needed here is a union for the fans !

Mess 01-24-2005 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dar
Just changed up your quote there.

Yes and that would be legal as well ... and a really good idea to boot .

They should have two leagues ..

1 for the Big market teams that CAN compete on an equal playing surface without a Bettman to baby-sit them

and

The second one where Bettman can hold their hands and help them run their businesses and make all his silly rules ...

TrueBlue 01-24-2005 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOGiLNY
Why can't Bettman and co. say screw the union, and implement the rules that they want into the NHL? Bettman can have the NHL use the cap, rookie cap, and every other form of cost certainity that he wants.

Once that's done, Bettman can come out and say, that any player that wants to leave the NHLPA and sign with the NHL teams is welcome to do so. The others can sit at home or go to Europe.

That way there would be no player union, and every man is for himself. If somebody doesn't like the new NHL rules, nobody is forcing them to sign here, and they can go play somewhere else.

I think this way would also ensure that there are no lockouts in the future as there will be no PA to strike.

Thoughts?

I'm all for this idea. I don't really care who is wearing the blue and white, as long as they are working their butts off and I would watch them and cheer for them just as I normally do.

Bicycle Repairman 01-24-2005 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
Yes and that would be legal as well ... and a really good idea to boot .

They should have two leagues ..

No, a breakaway league would still violate anti-trust law. They'd have the NHLPA coming at 'em on one side, the remaining NHL partners from the other.

Mess 01-24-2005 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bicycle Repairman
No, a breakaway league would still violate anti-trust law. They'd have the NHLPA coming at 'em on one side, the remaining NHL partners from the other.

I don't follow that logic .. If the NHL folds or and NHL Impasse is declared and replacement players are used as we know it or the NHLPA union is broken and the league starts up again as the NNHL .. then none of these violate any anti-trust laws ... If an NHL owners removes his team contracts it from the NHL and then offers his building and services to new league or the WHA etc.

I see no anti-trust issues if it leaves its current players with the former NHL and the NHLPA and signs UFA or undrafted players like a Sydney Crosby and or froms a new league with Winnipeg, Quebec, Hamilton etc. Not much different then the WHA trying to start up a rival league ..

Bicycle Repairman 01-24-2005 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
I don't follow that logic ..

Then you are illogical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
If the NHL folds or and NHL Impasse is declared and replacement players are used as we know it or the NHLPA union is broken and the league starts up again as the NNHL .. then none of these violate any anti-trust laws ... If an NHL owners removes his team contracts it from the NHL and then offers his building and services to new league or the WHA etc.

Breakway owners are required to first settle their differences with the NHLPA, as there is an ongoing labour dispute. They can't just walk away from the problem unscathed. That's the scenario originally posited in this thread.

LeafErikson* 01-24-2005 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
Yes and that would be legal as well ... and a really good idea to boot .

They should have two leagues ..

1 for the Big market teams that CAN compete on an equal playing surface without a Bettman to baby-sit them

and

The second one where Bettman can hold their hands and help them run their businesses and make all his silly rules ...

I have never disagreed with anyone more on this subject than I do with you. So have a handful of teams, that can pay their players exorberant amounts of money, that they do not deserve, or need, just so you can have a SUPERLEAGUE, and screw small market Canadian teams in the process. Glad to see you are such a patriotic Canadian that cares about the game in his own back yard. :shakehead
I'm sad to say, but maybe Bettman does care more about hockey in Canada than some Canadians, ie Toronto fans.

LeafErikson* 01-24-2005 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
I have never disagreed with anyone more on this subject than I do with you. So have a handful of teams, that can pay their players exorberant amounts of money, that they do not deserve, or need, just so you can have a SUPERLEAGUE, and screw small market Canadian teams in the process. Glad to see you are such a patriotic Canadian that cares about the game in his own back yard. :shakehead
I'm sad to say, but maybe Bettman does care more about hockey in Canada than some Canadians, ie Toronto fans.

actually sorry guys, I don't want to bunch all leaf fans in the same category, but their does seem to be a lot of Leaf fans that really don't give a crap about the small market Canadian teams, or even the small market american teams like Minnisota. They have every right to have NHL hockey in their town. Face it, hockey isn't that big in the states, and the revenues don't justify the salaries, a superleague for just the large market teams is selfish, and WRONG.

Mess 01-24-2005 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiedaeagle20
I have never disagreed with anyone more on this subject than I do with you. So have a handful of teams, that can pay their players exorberant amounts of money, that they do not deserve, or need, just so you can have a SUPERLEAGUE, and screw small market Canadian teams in the process. Glad to see you are such a patriotic Canadian that cares about the game in his own back yard. :shakehead
I'm sad to say, but maybe Bettman does care more about hockey in Canada than some Canadians, ie Toronto fans.

"I have never disagreed with anyone more on this subject than I do with you."

You just don't see enough of this passion nowadays ..

Remember I was following hockey already when the original 6 teams made up of Boston, Toronto, Detroit, NYR, Chicago, and Montreal made up the NHL ... So I can relelate to a smaller league where the talent is not so watered down...

I am actually suggesting a 2 tier league .. The top 16 teams play in Division I and the bottom 14 play in Division II .. Just like English Soccer, and the Euro Hockey Leagues do this today

Division I plays for the Stanley Cup and has more freedom to manage its expenses and costs and Div II plays for its own trophy and seasons end ..

After the season is over the 2 bottom teams are relegated drop down to Div II and the 2 top teams in Div II are propmoted to compete in Div I the following year ..

Thats my plan .. Not get rid of the small Market Teams just let them determine if they play in Div I or Div II ..

And if you go back a read some of my other posts I have even suggested a whole Canadian Division in a NEW NHL with REALIGNMENT .. for the sake of the fans that would see all 6 Canadian teams play in triple headers each HNIC on Saturdays against each other .. but that had contraction of US small hockey markets to reduce the NHL down to a smaller number of teams .. The Canadian teams might be small market but certainly not non Hockey market .. They would stay for sure ..

TrueBlue 01-24-2005 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
I don't follow that logic .. If the NHL folds or and NHL Impasse is declared and replacement players are used as we know it or the NHLPA union is broken and the league starts up again as the NNHL .. then none of these violate any anti-trust laws ... If an NHL owners removes his team contracts it from the NHL and then offers his building and services to new league or the WHA etc.

I see no anti-trust issues if it leaves its current players with the former NHL and the NHLPA and signs UFA or undrafted players like a Sydney Crosby and or froms a new league with Winnipeg, Quebec, Hamilton etc. Not much different then the WHA trying to start up a rival league ..


Oh Hamilton! I like the sounds of that! :yo: :handclap: :)

You know the idea is not far fetched at all. If the WHA stands to run a league next year, and the NHL is not bound by any law to be held accountable in any legal matters verses the players, then they could compete with the WHL and really start up a new one and blow all the other leagues away.

But if a new NHL starts, I hope they consider the real hotbeds of hockey and think about putting teams in those cities aforementioned by the Messenger.

And the one factor that has me convinced that this is more possible now than it was ever before is the surging loonie.

Some owners are already watching the loonie and are seriously considering relocating. Cause when everything is said and done, the reason why we lost the Canadian teams in the first place was because of the weak Canadian dollar. It's the reason why all the guys like Gretz, Messier and a whole list of others went to the States. You can also credit the stronger loonie for keeping Iginla in Calgary this year.

LeafErikson* 01-24-2005 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
I am actually suggesting a 2 tier league .. The top 16 teams play in Division I and the bottom 14 play in Division II .. Just like English Soccer, and the Euro Hockey Leagues do this today

Division I plays for the Stanley Cup and has more freedom to manage its expenses and costs and Div II plays for its own trophy and seasons end ..

After the season is over the 2 bottom teams are relegated drop down to Div II and the 2 top teams in Div II are propmoted to compete in Div I the following year ..

Thats my plan .. Not get rid of the small Market Teams just let them determine if they play in Div I or Div II ..

I just don't think it has to be this way. But would I like to see something like this, ya, on a more international level, instead though, we have teams in Europe, and north america, both play their own league, no crossover games, except maybe the allstar game, but at the end of the season have a champions league type thing with the top four teams from each league plays for the cup, so now stockholme has a chance to win the cup alongside Toronto, Edmonton and Detroit. I think Europe is a venue that make more economical sense then say, Carolina.

Bicycle Repairman 01-24-2005 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueBlue
You know the idea is not far fetched at all.

Yes it is far-fetched. Possibly lysergic.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24 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.