HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Could Replacement Players Break the NHLPA? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1266605)

DocBrown 10-02-2012 11:32 PM

Could Replacement Players Break the NHLPA?
 
Sending in the scabs would be the nuclear option for the National Hockey League and its owners during the 2012-13 lockout.

It was a tactic that was discussed back in the 2005 work stoppage, but the talk was about beginning the following season with replacement players. The scabs weren't seriously entertained as a way to break the union during the eventually cancelled 2004-05 campaign.

But might that change this time around?


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/could-nhl-replacement-players-break-nhlpa-150604157--nhl.html/


Didn't see a thread on this specific subject. Feel free to merge it if one exists.

So, my understanding was replacement players couldn't happen, due to some lawyery type stuff, but this article makes it seem like its a real possibility, is it?

If so, will we see replacement players earlier than later, has the ownership group been planning this as a fail safe all along?

Would you pay full price for AHL (or worse) players?

Can NHLers complain after heading over sees and taking other players jobs?

I found this article fascinating, as it gives credence (minimally admittedly) to something I thought was impossible.

5RingsAndABeer 10-02-2012 11:35 PM

I would not watch the NHL if replacement players played. I'd simply follow all of the actual NHL players that I like in their respective leagues.

DocBrown 10-02-2012 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5RingsAndABeer (Post 54732299)
I would not watch the NHL if replacement players played. I'd simply follow all of the actual NHL players that I like in their respective leagues.

Hmmmm, I would definitely watch, for the curiousity factor alone, theres no way I could turn away. Would I pay for full season tickets? Absolutely no.

I wonder if ratings go through the roof the first few weeks before people realize its bad hockey. Unless it ends up being exciting 80's style hockey.....

Epsilon 10-02-2012 11:40 PM

Since the NHLPA is locked out rather than on strike, the NHL would have to jump through considerably more hoops in order to use replacement players: approval from the NLRB, possible legal issues with scabs being used primarily for anti-labor activities rather than for a primarily economic purpose, etc.

Fugu 10-02-2012 11:40 PM

If the owners want to make a mockery of their own hockey product, then sure, go ahead.

JuniorNelson 10-02-2012 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 54732377)
If the owners want to make a mockery of their own hockey product, then sure, go ahead.

Not sure if serious?

Hypothetically the use of replacement players might force the issue. I think it would force a new league, though.

RedWingsNow* 10-02-2012 11:46 PM

I would encourage this.
I want this thing to go nuclear and blow up in the NHL's face.

I believe the only way to end the NHL's Lockout Series is for the NHL owners to get smashed in the nose ...

Any sort of linkage with a salary floor (and you need some kind of floor linked to revenues if you have a cap, unless you just want to create the kind of disparity in payroll we saw pre-cap) going to put us back in the same situation 5-7 years from now ...

Because without revenue sharing, the problem isn't fixed. The NHL's proposal is a band-aid at best. It will prevent a couple bad franchises from bleeding to death for 2-3 years and that's about it.

DocBrown 10-02-2012 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuniorNelson (Post 54732477)
Not sure if serious?

Hypothetically the use of replacement players might force the issue. I think it would force a new league, though.

What do you mean it would force a new league? Are you saying instead of hurrying a new deal between the players and owners, it would push the players to start their own league?

MarkGio 10-02-2012 11:50 PM

I wouldn't pay to watch. But I'd be happy to play.

DocBrown 10-02-2012 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Bob (Post 54732485)
I would encourage this.
I want this thing to go nuclear and blow up in the NHL's face.

I believe the only way to end the NHL's Lockout Series is for the NHL owners to get smashed in the nose ...

Any sort of linkage with a salary floor (and you need some kind of floor linked to revenues if you have a cap, unless you just want to create the kind of disparity in payroll we saw pre-cap) going to put us back in the same situation 5-7 years from now ...

Because without revenue sharing, the problem isn't fixed. The NHL's proposal is a band-aid at best. It will prevent a couple bad franchises from bleeding to death for 2-3 years and that's about it.

I totally agree, BUT, I differ on the current circumstances.

I think the league needs more revenue sharing, typically the amount of revenue shared in other leagues is mostly made up of profit, and the disparity between what teams share isn't outrageous. One exception might be MLB and the yankees.

If you look at the operating income as reported by forbes (its all we got) there are only 7 teams with substantial profits (The lack of huge TV deal hampers the NHL comparitively, making rev sharing comparisons difficult at best and inappropriate at worst). I think the floor needs to be dropped or changed, and I think players portions need to go down (I think 53 to 50% is fair for players) so that more teams have substantial profit. If those concessions are made, there damn well better be a lot more substantial revenue sharing agreed to by the owners.

The problem is more rev sharing alone doesn't solve it, nor does simply reducing the players share, as you stated.

seanlinden 10-03-2012 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epsilon (Post 54732373)
Since the NHLPA is locked out rather than on strike, the NHL would have to jump through considerably more hoops in order to use replacement players: approval from the NLRB, possible legal issues with scabs being used primarily for anti-labor activities rather than for a primarily economic purpose, etc.

This.

Plus, without a union, salary cap, UFA rights, the draft, are all illegal. "Breaking the union" is the last thing the owners can afford to do. The union is what allows them to be compete in the US market.

RedWingsNow* 10-03-2012 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown (Post 54732649)
I totally agree, BUT, I differ on the current circumstances.

I think the league needs more revenue sharing, typically the amount of revenue shared in other leagues is mostly made up of profit, and the disparity between what teams share isn't outrageous. One exception might be MLB and the yankees.

If you look at the operating income as reported by forbes (its all we got) there are only 7 teams with substantial profits (The lack of huge TV deal hampers the NHL comparitively, making rev sharing comparisons difficult at best and inappropriate at worst). I think the floor needs to be dropped or changed, and I think players portions need to go down (I think 53 to 50% is fair for players) so that more teams have substantial profit. If those concessions are made, there damn well better be a lot more substantial revenue sharing agreed to by the owners.

The problem is more rev sharing alone doesn't solve it, nor does simply reducing the players share, as you stated.

In my estimation, a fair deal would involve reducing the HRR
55-54-53-52-51-50-50
Plus some serious revenue sharing.
PLUS give the players a meaningful voice at the table on team locations..

Is that going to save Phx? Probably not.
But if the league were to grow 7 percent... and the players share is 55 percent instead of 57 percent

That's revenue of 3.5Billion ... 2 percent of that is 70Million... IMO, 1/2 of that 70M should go to the so-called small market teams via revenue sharing.

Do that again the next year.. revenue at 7 percent is now 3.8B
a 1 percent drop in hrr is 38 Million ... 19M goes to revenue sharing....
Now you're at 54M more in revenue sharing then right now.
Next year is 4Billion with 7 percent growth. Player share falls another percent. 40 million. Half goes to revenue sharing... that's 20M. Now you're at 74Million extra in revenue sharing

Assuming 7 percent growth (which may not be that crazy)... you could be talking about an additional 125M a year in revenue sharing. The owners get the players down to 50-50 within 5 years. The players have no instant rollbacks. Players get more say in important revenue decisions.
Win-Win-Win-Win


It's not going to be an instant panacea.

In any industry, there are going to be businesses/franchises etc that take longer to grow -- even if they are well managed... And I don't think Phx can claim to be well managed.

MarkGio 10-03-2012 12:15 AM

Seriously, I want to play for the replacement NHL. Yes, Brendan Shannahan would have me on speed dial, and yes, I'd be the sole reason for the invention of the "Power-bombing" penalty, but regardless, I want to be in the NHL.

I want you all to pay to watch guys like me drink beer instead of Gatarade, bring back the bench-clearing brawls, and cause the Refs to go on strike. Our goalies will bring back the red line because they will literally take the puck up-ice in order to score goals. We won't be tossing our sticks to kids in the crowds, we'll be flirting with their moms and fighting with their dads. And we'll finally see what the "Flying V" looks like during an NHL game.

I don't care if my performance sets the league back 50 years in terms of being taken seriously, and I don't care if NBC tries to ban me because I use the "F" word too much. I'd be a replacement player and it will be awesome!

Right...?

Realm 10-03-2012 12:22 AM

If the NHL is the 4th or 5th most popular sport in the USA and water it down THAT much it will fall well below soccer and anything else out there. I think I would rather watch my dad take a shower than watch the NHL brink in replacement players.

Erik Estrada 10-03-2012 01:05 AM

I'd be curious to see what would happen with replacement players... I'd be more likely to follow it if there's actual NHL-level prospects. But if it's career minor leaguers it would still have that circus sideshow feel... I'm not sure if it would keep my attention for long, but I'm sure I'd at least look what it's all about.

Lard_Lad 10-03-2012 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epsilon (Post 54732373)
Since the NHLPA is locked out rather than on strike, the NHL would have to jump through considerably more hoops in order to use replacement players: approval from the NLRB, possible legal issues with scabs being used primarily for anti-labor activities rather than for a primarily economic purpose, etc.

And that's not even getting into the issues for the Canadian teams, where it's simply illegal in some provinces.

Then throw in the complications of using foreign players as replacements, something that probably won't be allowed: Would US teams only be able to use American replacements? Would Canadian teams (assuming any can play) be permitted to bring their replacement players, presumably Canadians, into the US, and vice-versa?

LadyStanley 10-03-2012 01:57 AM

Heard a comment today on Sirius/XM NHL Network Radio along the lines of Bettman would be done if replacement players were brought in.

Mainly because the quality of (on ice) product would be so poor that it would not be worth watching/support.

kcunac 10-03-2012 02:23 AM

Where would the players come from? I would watch about as much as I watch the leagues that the replacement players came from, which is not much. Further, do owners really want their own prospects to become scabs? Would that make for a positive dressing room after the lockout is over?

TheDevilMadeMe 10-03-2012 02:28 AM

Aren't scabs illegal in Ontario and Alberta?

KEEROLE Vatanen 10-03-2012 02:28 AM

nobody is going to pay the prices the NHL charges to see minor league hockey, the NHLPA would laugh at the joke the NHL would keep making of itself

DontToewzMeBro 10-03-2012 05:40 AM

It would be interesting as hell! You guys are crazy.

DancesWithWookies 10-03-2012 06:23 AM

worked for the NFL...

ottawah 10-03-2012 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown (Post 54732237)
Sending in the scabs would be the nuclear option for the National Hockey League and its owners during the 2012-13 lockout.

It was a tactic that was discussed back in the 2005 work stoppage, but the talk was about beginning the following season with replacement players. The scabs weren't seriously entertained as a way to break the union during the eventually cancelled 2004-05 campaign.

But might that change this time around?


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/could-nhl-replacement-players-break-nhlpa-150604157--nhl.html/


Didn't see a thread on this specific subject. Feel free to merge it if one exists.

So, my understanding was replacement players couldn't happen, due to some lawyery type stuff, but this article makes it seem like its a real possibility, is it?

If so, will we see replacement players earlier than later, has the ownership group been planning this as a fail safe all along?

Would you pay full price for AHL (or worse) players?

Can NHLers complain after heading over sees and taking other players jobs?

I found this article fascinating, as it gives credence (minimally admittedly) to something I thought was impossible.

This has been talked about before.

As I understand it, the proper process would be for the league to declare an impasse (players may fight this, but I do not think they would win, I think the owners have a very strong case they bargained in good faith, certainly far more than the players IMHO), impose a CBA (their last offer). Players are then are of course free to strike. When striking they can employ "scabs" (I hate that term really in this situation, we are not talking minimum wage salaries here).

I can see this only really being an option if the lockout looked to be heading into a second year.

I do not think anyone wants to go that route. But hands may be forced. Heck, if it was used to get this resolved faster so be it.

Could the league get players? Easily. Lots of ex junior guys out there probably bitter over the fact ex teammates make millions while they flip burgers. Not great players for sure, not even good players, but not beer leaguers either. And they certainly would not be playing with a sense of entitlement. Some of the early season games may actually be better )(OK, thats a stretch ...).

I'd not be going to games, but then again I prefer CHL to NHL anyways. I doubt I would even care to watch games that much, maybe the playoffs. But if the league dropped the ticket prices substantially, who knows. Works for CHL.

Passchendaele 10-03-2012 07:36 AM

You guys make it sound like the whole AHL will jump one level.

There are still unsigned, NHL-level players that would be most likely willing to play, no matter what the NHLPA thinks, considering they're not set to make money in 2012-13 anyway.

Confucius 10-03-2012 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown (Post 54732649)
I totally agree, BUT, I differ on the current circumstances.

I think the league needs more revenue sharing, typically the amount of revenue shared in other leagues is mostly made up of profit, and the disparity between what teams share isn't outrageous. One exception might be MLB and the yankees.

If you look at the operating income as reported by forbes (its all we got) there are only 7 teams with substantial profits (The lack of huge TV deal hampers the NHL comparitively, making rev sharing comparisons difficult at best and inappropriate at worst). I think the floor needs to be dropped or changed, and I think players portions need to go down (I think 53 to 50% is fair for players) so that more teams have substantial profit. If those concessions are made, there damn well better be a lot more substantial revenue sharing agreed to by the owners.

The problem is more rev sharing alone doesn't solve it, nor does simply reducing the players share, as you stated.

It is my belief that the revenue sharing in other leagues comes from the revenue generated by the league. For example the national TV money. Since the league generated revenue is so low, the NHL would have to try and get the locally generated money from some teams. Seems more difficult to do. For example, rather than some teams approaching the league for advances or even just expected payments, the league would have to say yeah sure your cash is coming however the Leafs are saying the cheque will be in the mail shortly.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.