HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   All Players UFA's (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1282859)

echlfreak 11-13-2012 07:47 PM

All Players UFA's
 
If owners do not want to honor existing contracts...why should players have to???

Why doesn't the NHLPA propose that they will have a vote between their entire membership...all 750 players.

Any player who agrees to the NHL's proposal can accept the changes to their deal and move on...any player who does not accept the NHL's deal should equally be able to not honor his current contract and become a UFA???


Crosby could say to Lemieux if you don't want to honor my contract...ok

I will accept UFA status and look elsewhere


An employees signature on a contract should not mean any less than their employer...make it equal!!!

haseoke39 11-13-2012 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by echlfreak (Post 55747423)
If owners do not want to honor existing contracts...why should players have to???

Why doesn't the NHLPA propose that they will have a vote between their entire membership...all 750 players.

Any player who agrees to the NHL's proposal can accept the changes to their deal and move on...any player who does not accept the NHL's deal should equally be able to not honor his current contract and become a UFA???


Crosby could say to Lemieux if you don't want to honor my contract...ok

I will accept UFA status and look elsewhere


An employees signature on a contract should not mean any less than their employer...make it equal!!!

That would be great. I'm all on board with this. The union would be broken, the NHL could unilaterally impose any cap they wanted to, and when Crosby went out looking for more than 7.7 million, there'd no money left to pay him.

KingBogo 11-13-2012 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by echlfreak (Post 55747423)
If owners do not want to honor existing contracts...why should players have to???

Why doesn't the NHLPA propose that they will have a vote between their entire membership...all 750 players.
Any player who agrees to the NHL's proposal can accept the changes to their deal and move on...any player who does not accept the NHL's deal should equally be able to not honor his current contract and become a UFA???


Crosby could say to Lemieux if you don't want to honor my contract...ok

I will accept UFA status and look elsewhere


An employees signature on a contract should not mean any less than their employer...make it equal!!!

You would need to replace the bolded with something like "the NHLPA decertifies and players are free to sign or not sign with the NHL at contracts being offered".

A union can't have it both ways that's why they call it Collective Bargaining.

tarheelhockey 11-13-2012 08:10 PM

If they can get the owners to agree to it in the CBA, go for it. Because that's what collective bargaining means, y'know.

Good luck with that.

King Forsberg 11-13-2012 08:43 PM

That would be insane. HFBoards would implode with all the threads.

echlfreak 11-13-2012 09:11 PM

it would create a REAL fantasy draft...any player could go to any team


The Leafs might actually have a chance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

echlfreak 11-13-2012 09:15 PM

de-certifying the union allows the players to not only collect on UFA status but they can file a law suit for triple the wages!!!


Crosby could get three times his salary!!! Suck on that OWNERS!!!! Many of the practices that the owners are imposing on the players are against US labor law. It might not be a quick judgement for the players but they will win!!!

Name me one Pro Sports suit where the players have de-certified and lost??? NFL did it

MXD 11-13-2012 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haseoke39 (Post 55747767)
That would be great. I'm all on board with this. The union would be broken, the NHL could unilaterally impose any cap they wanted to, and when Crosby went out looking for more than 7.7 million, there'd no money left to pay him.

No Union, no real cap.
Crosby probably gets something like 17M in Toronto, Montreal or New York.

mouser 11-13-2012 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by echlfreak (Post 55749833)
de-certifying the union allows the players to not only collect on UFA status but they can file a law suit for triple the wages!!!


Crosby could get three times his salary!!! Suck on that OWNERS!!!! Many of the practices that the owners are imposing on the players are against US labor law. It might not be a quick judgement for the players but they will win!!!

Name me one Pro Sports suit where the players have de-certified and lost??? NFL did it

Name me one Pro Sports suit where the players have de-certified and won something in court?

King Woodballs 11-13-2012 09:48 PM

This is a great idea!

kdb209 11-13-2012 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by echlfreak (Post 55749833)
de-certifying the union allows the players to not only collect on UFA status but they can file a law suit for triple the wages!!!


Crosby could get three times his salary!!! Suck on that OWNERS!!!! Many of the practices that the owners are imposing on the players are against US labor law. It might not be a quick judgement for the players but they will win!!!

Name me one Pro Sports suit where the players have de-certified and lost??? NFL did it

No. Crosby would not get three times his salary.

If the union decertified, then a player(s) could sue under antitrust law for any violation of antitrust law which occurred after the union decertified. And note, not every restrictive action of the League/teams would necessarily be a violation of antitrust law - there would have to be a jury trial to determine if a restriction was reasonable, and if a violation was found damages would be awarded based on the difference in salary paid due to that restrictive action. Existing contracts would very likely still be in effect. Players under contract would have no grounds to sue - only free agent players (or unsigned draft choices) subject to those restrictions when they signed a new contract would realize damages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mouser (Post 55750415)
Name me one Pro Sports suit where the players have de-certified and won something in court?

The NFL players did receive damages in the McNeil v NFL Plan B free agency suit - as well as leverage in negotiating a new CBA.

echlfreak 11-13-2012 11:38 PM

The United States antitrust law is a body of law that prohibits anti-competitive behavior (monopolization) and unfair business practices. Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace.[1] These competition laws make illegal certain practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers or both, or generally to violate standards of ethical behavior. Government agencies known as competition regulators, along with private litigants, apply the antitrust and consumer protection laws in hopes of preventing market failure. The term antitrust was originally formulated to combat "corporate trusts," which were big businesses.[2] Other countries use the term "competition law". Many countries including most of the Western world have antitrust laws of some form; for example the European Union has provisions under the Treaty of Rome to maintain fair competition, as does Australia under its Competition and Consumer Act 2010

If the union de-certifys then all of the above comes into account...players can leave a team if another team gives them a better chance...

just like if you were working for IBM and Apple gave you a better pay grade you could quit your job with IBM and sign with Apple. 2 weeks notice and on to the bigger bucks. NHL players could do the same thing.

But, because they are making Millions of dollars ppl don't think they are entitled to the same rights as regular americans...$$$ does not make a difference...$$$ is money...and US rights are US rights

kdb209 11-14-2012 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by echlfreak (Post 55753805)
If the union de-certifys then all of the above comes into account...players can leave a team if another team gives them a better chance...

No. An employer/employee (team/player) may sign a fixed term employment contract - whether covered by a CBA or not.

In that case, the employee (player) could be prohibited from working for another employer for the term of that employment contract.

A court will not force specific performance - it can't force the employee from working for that employer - but it can issue an injunction to prevent him from working for another.

Quote:

just like if you were working for IBM and Apple gave you a better pay grade you could quit your job with IBM and sign with Apple. 2 weeks notice and on to the bigger bucks. NHL players could do the same thing.
Not if you were on a fixed term employment contract.

madhi19 11-14-2012 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MXD (Post 55749975)
No Union, no real cap.
Crosby probably gets something like 17M in Toronto, Montreal or New York.

Yeah that what peoples don't get when they b!tch about Crosby contract. No cap and he's making 20 millions a year minimum. The fourth liners on the other hand would be lucky to get two hundred thousand. And am fine with that nobody is paying to watch fourth lines play hockey. Crosby already sharing a lot of his money by the simple fact that in a cap system he and all the other superstars are not getting their true value. Edit: This could be part of the make whole vs adjust debate. You either find a way to respect existing contract or you give an out to players who feel they got conned this summer. I bet Bettman would not mind I have a feeling he was pissed off when owners started spending like drunken sailor during last Summer.

starling 11-14-2012 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by echlfreak (Post 55747423)
Any player who agrees to the NHL's proposal can accept the changes to their deal and move on...any player who does not accept the NHL's deal should equally be able to not honor his current contract and become a UFA???


Crosby could say to Lemieux if you don't want to honor my contract...ok

I will accept UFA status and look elsewhere

That would be awesome. Void the contract and go elsewhere. AHL, SEL, KHL - endless possiblities.

KevFu 11-14-2012 02:31 AM

MLB had this opportunity.

After the Supreme Court ruled the reserve clause unconstitutional, the MLBPA could have made every player in baseball a free agent every year. They agreed to the six-year reserve system THEN unrestricted free agency, because they knew that flooding the market wouldn't escalate salaries like limiting the flow of free agents.

There simply isn't a vast difference between the quality of players if everyone is available. There's tiers of players, but the reason guys like Suter and Parise broke the bank was because they were the best of a small number of players available.

With the supply of players at total supply, the demand the players are used to wouldn't be there. Would Parise get a max deal if Stamkos, Malkin, Ovechkin and the top 50 players in hockey are also available?

Every player would EXPECT a big pay day like free agents get now… but that desperate market would be there. There'd actually be less total cap space than there was in the summer because of the new CBA and a lower cap.

There would be middle-tier guys turning down offers and finally having to take paycuts because everyone ran out of cap room.

(If I were a GM, I'd target second/third tier guys and sign as many as I could while the other teams waste their cap space. I'd go for a deep roster rather than a star-studded one.

madhi19 11-14-2012 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevFu (Post 55756133)
MLB had this opportunity.

After the Supreme Court ruled the reserve clause unconstitutional, the MLBPA could have made every player in baseball a free agent every year. They agreed to the six-year reserve system THEN unrestricted free agency, because they knew that flooding the market wouldn't escalate salaries like limiting the flow of free agents.

There simply isn't a vast difference between the quality of players if everyone is available. There's tiers of players, but the reason guys like Suter and Parise broke the bank was because they were the best of a small number of players available.

With the supply of players at total supply, the demand the players are used to wouldn't be there. Would Parise get a max deal if Stamkos, Malkin, Ovechkin and the top 50 players in hockey are also available?

Every player would EXPECT a big pay day like free agents get now… but that desperate market would be there. There'd actually be less total cap space than there was in the summer because of the new CBA and a lower cap.

There would be middle-tier guys turning down offers and finally having to take paycuts because everyone ran out of cap room.

(If I were a GM, I'd target second/third tier guys and sign as many as I could while the other teams waste their cap space. I'd go for a deep roster rather than a star-studded one.

Not everybody is under contract at the moment anyway. So that won't affect every players out there and if the out clause is on a case by case basis I expect 1/4 of the players under contract to take the out and the rest will likely keep their current contract because the market won't be all that great anyway. No the guys who will get screwed will likely be those who don't have contract and will have to negotiate one in a market where almost all the cap space will be directed at snatching some really interesting UFA. Also If the PA and NHL negotiate a one time out clause I expect onwers will also want one to free up some cap space, am looking at you Geoff Molson! Also for the bad news I don't see a system like that taking place unless the season get cancelled and a deal is in place before next Summer.

Dado 11-14-2012 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haseoke39 (Post 55747767)
That would be great. I'm all on board with this. The union would be broken, the NHL could unilaterally impose any cap they wanted to, and when Crosby went out looking for more than 7.7 million, there'd no money left to pay him.

In that scenario, Crosby would be offered much more than the 7.7M he's currently signed for.

Doctor No 11-14-2012 10:49 AM

Those of you advocating this as a benefit to the players would probably benefit from reading up on Charlie Finley's stance in the 1970s baseball environment. KevFu touches on it above.

Here's a great place to start:
http://sportsprof.blogspot.com/2009/...uggestion.html

Mayor Bee 11-14-2012 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevFu (Post 55756133)
MLB had this opportunity.

After the Supreme Court ruled the reserve clause unconstitutional, the MLBPA could have made every player in baseball a free agent every year. They agreed to the six-year reserve system THEN unrestricted free agency, because they knew that flooding the market wouldn't escalate salaries like limiting the flow of free agents.

There simply isn't a vast difference between the quality of players if everyone is available. There's tiers of players, but the reason guys like Suter and Parise broke the bank was because they were the best of a small number of players available.

With the supply of players at total supply, the demand the players are used to wouldn't be there. Would Parise get a max deal if Stamkos, Malkin, Ovechkin and the top 50 players in hockey are also available?

Every player would EXPECT a big pay day like free agents get now… but that desperate market would be there. There'd actually be less total cap space than there was in the summer because of the new CBA and a lower cap.

There would be middle-tier guys turning down offers and finally having to take paycuts because everyone ran out of cap room.

(If I were a GM, I'd target second/third tier guys and sign as many as I could while the other teams waste their cap space. I'd go for a deep roster rather than a star-studded one.

The Supreme Court did quite the opposite, ruling the reserve clause to be perfectly legal and constitutional. That goes back to the Federal League case, and then was upheld in the Toolson case and in Flood v. Kuhn.

It was Peter Seitz who ruled (correctly) that the reserve clause was too vague to be clearly interpreted as "one year plus one year plus one year (in perpetuity)" rather than the "one year means one year". Seitz was the arbitrator for MLB/player grievances. And since one-year contracts were the norm, it technically would have meant that any player with an expiring contract could become a free agent in short order.

That's where the backdoor dealings came in. Mike Marshall (pitcher for the Dodgers) publicly threatened a lawsuit against the MLBPA and Marvin Miller if free agency were bargained away; this was ordered by Miller himself. It made Miller's desire to choke off the supply of free agents in a given year (to trigger bidding wars) seem like a sane middle ground, and it also allowed for substantially more concessions from MLB owners that weren't even on the table originally.

KingsFan7824 11-14-2012 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madhi19 (Post 55755355)
Crosby already sharing a lot of his money

It's not Crosby's money unless it's on the paycheck. If Crosby is making $8 million instead of $18 million, those extra $10 million aren't dollars that belong to Crosby.

kdb209 11-14-2012 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevFu (Post 55756133)
MLB had this opportunity.

After the Supreme Court ruled the reserve clause unconstitutional, the MLBPA could have made every player in baseball a free agent every year.

The Supreme Court never ruled the Reserve Clause unconstitutional - they wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, leaving in effect their flawed 1922 and 1952 decisions granting MLB its unique anti trust exemption. When Curt Flood chalenged the Reserve Clause before the Supremes in 1972 - he lost.

The Reserve Clause was overturned by an Arbiter (Peter Seitz) under the dispute resolution terms of Baseball's Basic Agreement (the MLB CBA) - ruling on a grievance brought by McNally & Messersmith in 1975. The Seitz decision did not make "every player in baseball a free agent every year". Seitz ruled that under the Basic Agreement and MLB's SPC, if a player's contract expired, the Reserve Clause allowed a team to extend it for only one year - if he played out that year w/o a new contract, then he could become a free agent.

Now your original point still holds - Marvin Miller recognized that this could ultimately lead to a glut of free agents and that scarcity drives up salary - so the first thing the MLBPA did was to negotiate a new set of free agency rules. Among the owners, only Charlie Finley realized this and pushed, unsuccessfully, for complete free agency at the end of every contract.

Shrimper 11-14-2012 01:46 PM

Players wouldn't be able to just drop out of their contracts like that, they'd have to pay them off with money they don't have. If it did go ahead the NHL would sue every player and any owner who accepts a player in those circumstances would likely be fined and see his team fined.

Fishhead 11-14-2012 01:56 PM

I'm still trying to figure out what owners said they would not honor existing contracts as written. Every contract stipulates that all values in that contract are subject to a CBA.

kdb209 11-14-2012 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdb209 (Post 55763899)
The Supreme Court never ruled the Reserve Clause unconstitutional - they wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, leaving in effect their flawed 1922 and 1952 decisions granting MLB its unique anti trust exemption. When Curt Flood chalenged the Reserve Clause before the Supremes in 1972 - he lost.

The Reserve Clause was overturned by an Arbiter (Peter Seitz) under the dispute resolution terms of Baseball's Basic Agreement (the MLB CBA) - ruling on a grievance brought by McNally & Messersmith in 1975. The Seitz decision did not make "every player in baseball a free agent every year". Seitz ruled that under the Basic Agreement and MLB's SPC, if a player's contract expired, the Reserve Clause allowed a team to extend it for only one year - if he played out that year w/o a new contract, then he could become a free agent.

Now your original point still holds - Marvin Miller recognized that this could ultimately lead to a glut of free agents and that scarcity drives up salary - so the first thing the MLBPA did was to negotiate a new set of free agency rules. Among the owners, only Charlie Finley realized this and pushed, unsuccessfully, for complete free agency at the end of every contract.

And to get a fuller appreciation of Marvin Miller - and his patience and ability to execute the long game:

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 49987529)
I think it was Tom Reich who said that he basically had this "eureka!" moment when he sat down and read the way it was worded. Everyone in the world said that the arbitration would go in favor of MLB, and Reich decided to look at the wording, and his reaction was something like, "This is it? Seriously? The players are going to win this."

Marvin Miller also was no dummy. The original test case was going to involve Mike Marshall, fresh off his NL Cy Young Award (the first for a reliever). He played without a contract, then was made an offer he couldn't refuse. So he dropped out, but Miller had taken a liking to him. So after McNally and Messersmith were granted free agency, Marshall publicly said (at Miller's prodding) that he had lawsuits prepared and ready to file if the MLBPA even thought about bargaining away any of this new freedom. Suddenly Miller's ferociously pro-union position looked like a moderate middle ground that the owners were happy to work around.

A really good short read on the "Demise of the Reserve Clause" - http://milkeespress.com/reserveclause.html . For a longer read, I strongly recommend John Helyar's "The Lords of the Realm" - a great book on the sports business history of baseball.

Miller was aware of the gray area concerning the wording of the Reserve Clause even before he became MLBPA head in 1966 - he just had to get a few ducks in a row first.

Quote:

A Route to Free Agency

Meanwhile, Marvin Miller was envisioning a different approach. The 48-year-old Miller had experience as an economist in the United Steelworkers of America when he became the first full-time executive director of the Players Association in 1966. Miller said he discovered the potential in Paragraph 10A even before he officially took office. “I did a double take the first time I saw it,” Miller said. “I couldn’t believe the whole reserve system rested on this.” Miller said he knew then that two elements were necessary for a challenge: a grievance system with an impartial arbitrator and a player who felt strongly about challenging Paragraph 10A to withstand the “brick bats” that would be thrown at him.6
Back then there was no grievance system - any disputes were settled informally and unilaterally by the Commissioner.

In the 1968 CBA he negotiated a formal grievance process - even if the Commissioner was still the arbiter.

In 1970 he got what he wanted an independent arbiter to hear grievances - actually a 3 man panel, one appointed by MLB, one by the PA, and one impartial agreed to by both sides.

The stage was set - but it took 5 years for Miller to finally find his test case.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:01 AM.

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.