HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Owners cannot legally 'control' themselves with contracts (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1276957)

Master Shake 10-28-2012 11:16 PM

Owners cannot legally 'control' themselves with contracts
 
So before you blame the owners for lack of self control with contracts you need to read this.
It explains why it is illegal and how they could and would get sued.

Please note the one common name all over those collusion suits. It should be a familiar name by now, because he is now involved in NHL CBA talks


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_collusion

thinkwild 10-28-2012 11:30 PM

You are linking to an article listing the history of the collusive attempts of baseball owners to illegaly keep player salaries down and are attempting to use their losses in court cases for that as a sympathy generating factor for why they had no self control in signing contracts? And are also attempting to tar Fehr for his efforts to prevent these billionaires from restraining salaries illegally.

Ok, so before i blame the owners, i read this article listing all the ways they have colluded to illegaly hold down salaries in past and some of the court cases they lost from that. And now presumably i will start to feel sympathy for them? Is that where you were going with this?

Master Shake 10-28-2012 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild (Post 55364399)
You are linking to an article listing the history of the collusive attempts of baseball owners to illegaly keep player salaries down and are attempting to use their losses in court cases for that as a sympathy generating factor for why they had no self control in signing contracts? And are also attempting to tar Fehr for his efforts to prevent these billionaires from restraining salaries illegally.

Ok, so before i blame the owners, i read this article listing all the ways they have colluded to illegaly hold down salaries in past and some of the court cases they lost from that. And now presumably i will start to feel sympathy for them? Is that where you were going with this?



My point is that the owners CANNOT legally hold back salaries. They cannot 'control themselves' because they can then be sued.

If the owners get together and the bulk of them says to the teams like say Philly " Hey you cannot hand out any more big contracts like that Weber deal", they have then broken the law and will get killed in court in damages.

THIS is what people need to understand. I see so many fans who do not understand CBA stuff say " its the owners fault they cant control themselves". This thread is for those people and there is sadly ALOT of them

Donald Fehr filed Collusion suits a few times against the owners of the last sport he worked for a PA

Kestrel 10-28-2012 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Shake (Post 55364627)
My point is that the owners CANNOT legally hold back salaries. They cannot 'control themselves' because they can then be sued.

If the owners get together and the bulk of them says to the teams like say Philly " Hey you cannot hand out any more big contracts like that Weber deal", they have then broken the law and will get killed in court in damages.

THIS is what people need to understand. I see so many fans who do not understand CBA stuff say " its the owners fault they cant control themselves". This thread is for those people and there is sadly ALOT of them

Donald Fehr filed Collusion suits a few times against the owners of the last sport he worked for a PA

I tend to agree with you. The idea that the owners should control themselves is very naive, and way too simplified. They have to be controlled as a group, otherwise individual owners will have the choice of controlling themselves and not competing - or competing, and continuing to accelerate the problem. Controlling themselves as a group takes CBA type measures.

Master Shake 10-28-2012 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kestrel (Post 55364677)
I tend to agree with you. The idea that the owners should control themselves is very naive, and way too simplified. They have to be controlled as a group, otherwise individual owners will have the choice of controlling themselves and not competing - or competing, and continuing to accelerate the problem. Controlling themselves as a group takes CBA type measures.

If they control themselves as a group without it being under a CBA they then expose themselves to a massive Collusion Lawsuit. The owners simply do not have any recourse other than salary caps and a firm CBA

Disgruntled Observer 10-28-2012 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild (Post 55364399)
You are linking to an article listing the history of the collusive attempts of baseball owners to illegaly keep player salaries down and are attempting to use their losses in court cases for that as a sympathy generating factor for why they had no self control in signing contracts? And are also attempting to tar Fehr for his efforts to prevent these billionaires from restraining salaries illegally.

Ok, so before i blame the owners, i read this article listing all the ways they have colluded to illegaly hold down salaries in past and some of the court cases they lost from that. And now presumably i will start to feel sympathy for them? Is that where you were going with this?

Half the owners are losing money.

If they tried to simply not offer big contracts, they'd get sued for collusion.
When they try creating a CBA to protect themselves, the players (whose minimum wage is half a million) refuse to sign it.

The owners should just shut this league down. I can't see why they don't.

Kestrel 10-28-2012 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Shake (Post 55364699)
If they control themselves as a group without it being under a CBA they then expose themselves to a massive Collusion Lawsuit. The owners simply do not have any recourse other than salary caps and a firm CBA

Exactly - but most people don't seem to realize that.

CN_paladin 10-28-2012 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kestrel (Post 55364757)
Exactly - but most people don't seem to realize that.

In before those people look up the definition of collusion.. :lol:

Fugu 10-28-2012 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kestrel (Post 55364757)
Exactly - but most people don't seem to realize that.


I think what many people actually realize is that 'as a group' they cannot behave as a cartel or otherwise discuss and exchange information which restrains salaries.

That doesn't mean an owner cannot craft his own budget and stick to it.

There are a fixed number of teams and roster spots in a league. It can't be that hard to apply basic business principles.

Master Shake 10-28-2012 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer (Post 55364711)
Half the owners are losing money.

If they tried to simply not offer big contracts, they'd get sued for collusion.
When they try creating a CBA to protect themselves, the players (whose minimum wage is half a million) refuse to sign it.

The owners should just shut this league down. I can't see why they don't.

No what they should do is fire every player, form a single entity ownership group and then set their own hiring standards and wage scales.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55364827)
I think what many people actually realize is that 'as a group' they cannot behave as a cartel or otherwise discuss and exchange information which restrains salaries.

That doesn't mean an owner cannot craft his own budget and stick to it.

There are a fixed number of teams and roster spots in a league. It can't be that hard to apply basic business principles.

And if alot of owners does it? Collusion. There is no way the owners win any court case by arguing that each owner came to their own budget and stayed with it.

Fugu 10-29-2012 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Shake (Post 55364863)
No what they should do is fire every player, form a single entity ownership group and then set their own hiring standards and wage scales.

How would they spread the players out?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Shake (Post 55364913)
And if alot of owners does it? Collusion. There is no way the owners win any court case by arguing that each owner came to their own budget and stayed with it.

No, it's only collusion if they meet in dark places and talk about what they plan on paying so that each guy holds the same line.

supahdupah 10-29-2012 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55364967)
How would they spread the players out?




No, it's only collusion if they meet in dark places and talk about what they plan on paying so that each guy holds the same line.

Is that your legal opinion?

Master Shake 10-29-2012 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55364967)
How would they spread the players out?




No, it's only collusion if they meet in dark places and talk about what they plan on paying so that each guy holds the same line.


Draft free agency. Contract would be with the league not a team.

There is a difference between reality and what should happen with court decisions.

I find it ironic that the players complain about the damage their own weapons do to themselves

Dado 10-29-2012 12:03 AM

Of course owners can't hold back salaries - that's the obvious outcome of the linkage they insist they need.

Fugu 10-29-2012 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Shake (Post 55365029)
Draft free agency. Contract would be with the league not a team.

There is a difference between reality and what should happen with court decisions.


So the Pens wouldn't necessarily have Crosby, Malkin, Fleury (and formerly, Staal)? It's probably guaranteed that under your system they might possibly have only one of them.

You'd support that?

Inkling 10-29-2012 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Shake (Post 55364913)
And if alot of owners does it? Collusion. There is no way the owners win any court case by arguing that each owner came to their own budget and stayed with it.

Complete rubbish, you need to read the article that was linked to. Owners living within their *own* budgets is not collusion. What do you think sets the salaries that are offered today? Is it collusion that Sydney Crosby isn't making $50 million dollars a year?

Krishna 10-29-2012 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55365093)
So the Pens wouldn't necessarily have Crosby, Malkin, Fleury (and formerly, Staal)? It's probably guaranteed that under your system they might possibly have only one of them.

You'd support that?

I do. :nod:

Master Shake 10-29-2012 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55365093)
So the Pens wouldn't necessarily have Crosby, Malkin, Fleury (and formerly, Staal)? It's probably guaranteed that under your system they might possibly have only one of them.

You'd support that?



Yes if that turned out to be but under my ideal plan it wouldnt happen anyways.

I support a hard cap, with full sharing between owners. I think the owners have a right to make profits. I think players are overpaid. I think ticket prices need to come way down. But that isnt realistic because neither side would ever agree to it.

Orrthebest 10-29-2012 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55364827)
I think what many people actually realize is that 'as a group' they cannot behave as a cartel or otherwise discuss and exchange information which restrains salaries.

That doesn't mean an owner cannot craft his own budget and stick to it.

There are a fixed number of teams and roster spots in a league. It can't be that hard to apply basic business principles.

Funny that when Mr. Jacobs did that in Boston, the fans labeled him cheap and started a website to try and force him to sell.

Barrie22 10-29-2012 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inkling (Post 55365095)
Complete rubbish, you need to read the article that was linked to. Owners living within their *own* budgets is not collusion. What do you think sets the salaries that are offered today? Is it collusion that Sydney Crosby isn't making $50 million dollars a year?

its this thing called the cba that is stopping crosby from making 50 million a year.

the cba tells the clubs what they can and cannot spend on a player. not teams making up there own budget.

it is collusion though if 28 teams, decide they aren't going to spend over a certain amount to keep salaries down.

No Fun Shogun 10-29-2012 12:30 AM

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. That'd be about akin to if a kid went around a neighborhood demanding a hundred dollars to mow peoples' lawns and then when no one took his offer he went and claimed that the neighborhood was colluding against him.

There's a difference between what baseball did (i.e. - actually meeting and having a gentleman's agreement regarding player salaries and in teams keeping rights to certain players) and what people say that the NHL should do (actually have fiscally responsible ownership not toss bloated contacts every which way and then complain that they're too deep in the red). Realistic expectation? No, probably not. But not the players' fault that the owners are too terrified of other owner's loose pockets to effectively control their own.

If anything, the NHL made a mistake in having the salary floor raise way too much which sets the standard for average players too high and ultimately raises the expectations for everyone else. But, again, that's still the owners' fault for crafting a **** system in the first place.

Fugu 10-29-2012 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orrthebest (Post 55365423)
Funny that when Mr. Jacobs did that in Boston, the fans labeled him cheap and started a website to try and force him to sell.


Fans are interesting beasts. When owners don't spend, they get mad and want a winner. When players that can get you to a championship expect to be paid better than the average guys, then they're greedy.

I think the problem is that some owners aren't in it for the usual business reasons. They'll do whatever they can to win. Then the players are supposed to say no to the armored trucks that come to their driveways.


(I don't get fans is what I'm trying to say. :))

Twilight Sparkle 10-29-2012 12:53 AM

The whole thing is just weird.

-Players aren't employed to make money because they really aren't. They're employed to bring fame and notoriety to the owners (at least to a non-trivial degree)
-The player Union's existence is allowing the salary cap and the downward pressure on salaries with lockouts.
-The owners voting for the lockout aren't doing it because they want to make money, they're doing so because they want to bring the cap down so they can win. Or they want both the possibility to win AND the money.

Weird stuff.

thinkwild 10-29-2012 01:01 AM

The owners are allowed to collude now to restrain salaries by having drafts, owning players rights, restricting free agency, capping the amount a player can make, a team can spend, and the league can spend overall. And the reason they are allowed to get away with such collusions that restrain players salaries is because the players union agreed to it.

Now thats a pretty big concession right off the bat. The PA doesnt have to agree to it. But they do, and it costs the players hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Now you would think when approaching these partners, asking for even more concessions even though league revenues and overall profits are up, even though some teams are losing money but still being sold for $100 mil capital gains, you might try an approach that has advanced beyond those of 1930's mob syndicates through their consiglieres.

Whydidijoin* 10-29-2012 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55364827)
That doesn't mean an owner cannot craft his own budget and stick to it.

Except then the teams they own cannot compete with all the good players deserting them, and they lose even more money in a league system where most teams need playoff revenues to make any kind of profit. Then the league does worse overall, and the league loses all parity the owners fought to create, something which the players agreed was important.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 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.