HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

This is why bettman does not want a luxury tax

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2004, 12:15 PM
  #101
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
1) Break the union. Come fall they bring in replacement players and pay them what they like. They can make an offer to anyone from the NHLPA that they can come and play, earn a fair salary, and wait as the journeymen come back, which is the majority of the union. The ultra expensive players can stay out, or go play in Europe, but the game will go on without them.
How do they do this? The players aren't on strike. They are locked out. You can't have a lockout and use replacements.

Quote:
Fold the league and start over. Call it NHL2 or what wever you want, the league could cut their losses, pack it in and start all over. Draft players, rename franchises, the whole nine yards. At that point they can institute their own rules and players will be free to come back to work and earn a fair wage. There is no players association and the league could easily make itself a union free zone, or a right to work industry.
No they can't. Without a Union and a CBA any efforts by the owners to institute rules collectively is a violation of the anti-trust laws.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 12:44 PM
  #102
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
How do they do this? The players aren't on strike. They are locked out. You can't have a lockout and use replacements.
Sure they can. They have no agreement with the NHLPA. The can say they are back in business and will honor those contracts signed. They can throw the doors open and hold open tryouts for the remainder of the team. Anyone who thinks they have the jam to play for this team can apply. The teams just have to wait as the resolve of the union falls apart and the players come back.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
No they can't. Without a Union and a CBA any efforts by the owners to institute rules collectively is a violation of the anti-trust laws.
There are all sorts of businesses all over North America that refuse to deal with unions. If the NHL folded and they reformed as a new body they could easily say they refuse to hire union employees and claim themselves a right to work enterprise. Its been done in all sorts of states with other businesses so why not a professional sport? Why does a union have to be involved as long as the leage has a collective bargaining agreement in its constitution that outlines the rules of contracting and paying players. A union has outlived its usefulness when you have players making millions. It seems everyone recognizes this except those in the union and those that believe athletes deserve special treatment. I don't think anti-trust laws would have much effect if there bargaining agreement is part of the organization's constitution, especially if it outlined reveue sharing and making players a partner of the enterprise. Name one court that would strike that down as being in violation of anti-trust rules.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 12:50 PM
  #103
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Sure they can. They have no agreement with the NHLPA. The can say they are back in business and will honor those contracts signed. They can throw the doors open and hold open tryouts for the remainder of the team. Anyone who thinks they have the jam to play for this team can apply. The teams just have to wait as the resolve of the union falls apart and the players come back.
Fine by the NHLPA. They'll come back and play. What the owners can't do is impose a salary cap or make any agreements among themselves about what they will pay players.

Quote:
There are all sorts of businesses all over North America that refuse to deal with unions. If the NHL folded and they reformed as a new body they could easily say they refuse to hire union employees and claim themselves a right to work enterprise.
The NHL is not one business. It is 30 businesses. They can do this, but they can't have an entry draft, they can't have waiver rules, they can't have a standard contract and thery can't restrict the free movement of players.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 01:04 PM
  #104
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Why does a union have to be involved as long as the leage has a collective bargaining agreement in its constitution that outlines the rules of contracting and paying players. A union has outlived its usefulness when you have players making millions. It seems everyone recognizes this except those in the union and those that believe athletes deserve special treatment. I don't think anti-trust laws would have much effect if there bargaining agreement is part of the organization's constitution, especially if it outlined reveue sharing and making players a partner of the enterprise. Name one court that would strike that down as being in violation of anti-trust rules.
Do you know what bargaining means?

How do you have a collective bargaining agreement without a side to bargain with? A CBA is negotiated between ownership and a union. How do you do that without a union?

Just because you list things in your organization's constitution doesn't make it a CBA.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 02:19 PM
  #105
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Do you know what bargaining means?

How do you have a collective bargaining agreement without a side to bargain with? A CBA is negotiated between ownership and a union. How do you do that without a union?

Just because you list things in your organization's constitution doesn't make it a CBA.
What you fail to understand is that there is no union. There is no one to bargain with. If the NHL opens up as a new business, with 30 different franchises, they can put together what ever they want. As long as they meet labor laws and satisfy minimum wage, who cares? They will not be dealing with a union. They will be entering into an employment agreement with individuals (the way it use to be done) and pay what the market deems as a fair price. Now that market will be defined by the players themselves, essentially by who is willing to play where for what salary with the where being the NHL2 or Europe or the minor leagues.

Taking your stance I guess McDonalds should be sued out of existence or at least be put out of business for not honoring a union and bargaining with that union in good faith, right? While that is an extreme scenario it is true. Or maybe something more to your liking is IBM. They are not unionized and there are caps in place what they pay. If you don't like it, go elsewhere and find work. Oh, and if we decide to transfer you somewhere, you're going and will like it, or find another place to work. The NHL2 could take this very stance. Its our puck boys, you don't like it go build your own rinks and start your own league. How many players do you think are bright enough and resourceful enough to do so?

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 02:28 PM
  #106
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
What you fail to understand is that there is no union. There is no one to bargain with. If the NHL opens up as a new business, with 30 different franchises, they can put together what ever they want. As long as they meet labor laws and satisfy minimum wage, who cares? They will not be dealing with a union. They will be entering into an employment agreement with individuals (the way it use to be done) and pay what the market deems as a fair price. Now that market will be defined by the players themselves, essentially by who is willing to play where for what salary with the where being the NHL2 or Europe or the minor leagues.

Taking your stance I guess McDonalds should be sued out of existence or at least be put out of business for not honoring a union and bargaining with that union in good faith, right? While that is an extreme scenario it is true. Or maybe something more to your liking is IBM. They are not unionized and there are caps in place what they pay. If you don't like it, go elsewhere and find work. Oh, and if we decide to transfer you somewhere, you're going and will like it, or find another place to work. The NHL2 could take this very stance. Its our puck boys, you don't like it go build your own rinks and start your own league. How many players do you think are bright enough and resourceful enough to do so?
well this is all fine and dandy, but McDonalds doesnt draft anyone, nor restrict their employment for 13 years.

how will the NHL get around this with out the players negotiating away these rights through a CBA ?

hmm ?

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-08-2004, 02:38 PM
  #107
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The NHL is not one business. It is 30 businesses. They can do this, but they can't have an entry draft, they can't have waiver rules, they can't have a standard contract and thery can't restrict the free movement of players.

Tom
That's arguable. I see the NHL is one business, with 30 franchises, some of which have better markets than others. And yes they can have a standard contract and restrict movement all they want. There are all sorts of franchise operations that do this each and every day. The minor league situation would be a thorny issue, but that could be resolved with one way contracts with a standard pay schedule as well. As long as everything is outlined up front there is nothing that someone could whine about. If the player really want the owners to conduct business in a professional manner and stop shooting themselves in the head, this is the way to do it. The players would then get a taste of what the real world is like. If you don't like the line of work you are in, go find a job in another one. No one OWES you a living because you can skate well and score a lot of goals. You EARN that living. Its time the players started earning their living again.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 02:44 PM
  #108
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
well this is all fine and dandy, but McDonalds doesnt draft anyone, nor restrict their employment for 13 years.

how will the NHL get around this with out the players negotiating away these rights through a CBA ?

hmm ?

DR
There is no CBA in this model. Stop thinking like there is one. It would be just like the real world that people everywhere have to face. If you work for a franchise operation you have to ask for a transfer to the city you wish to work. If that can be accommodated it happens. If not you tough it out. If you really want to move there, you can do what most people do. Try and find another job. If you don't like it, go find another league to play in. No one is holding a gun to their head making them play hockey. No one is making them take millions of dollars for playing a child's game. The players have choices now. Well this would give them choices as well. Get paid a whopping bunch of money for playing hockey, or use your third rate high school education to get yourself a job at Wal-Mart. The choice is pretty easy.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 02:46 PM
  #109
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
That's arguable. I see the NHL is one business, with 30 franchises, some of which have better markets than others.
This is nonsense. There is not a court in the United States that would agree that the NHL is one business. The law on anti-trust is very clear. Either the players have a union and there is a CBA or the league is structured illegally.

The courts think the franchises are competing businesses.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 03:01 PM
  #110
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
This is nonsense. There is not a court in the United States that would agree that the NHL is one business. The law on anti-trust is very clear. Either the players have a union and there is a CBA or the league is structured illegally.

The courts think the franchises are competing businesses.

Tom
Not at present, but if the league restructured, they could do it quite easily. The point is, and this seems to be completely lost to you, is that the players would no longer have a union. They would essentially become employees working under a stardardized contract. No union, no CBA. At that, all the problems having Bob Goodenow and the NHLPA around go away.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 03:07 PM
  #111
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Not at present, but if the league restructured, they could do it quite easily.
And how easy would it be for the league to restructure?

They'd have to figure out a way to divide up how much ownership of the new business each team owner would get. Then they'd have to get this approved by regulators. What would their case be for that? That they're trying to get around antitrust legislation?

It's laughable to think that the NHL could treat its employees like McDonalds.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 03:28 PM
  #112
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
It's laughable to think that the NHL could treat its employees like McDonalds.
Why? Based on the quotes in the paper from the past few days I would think that many of the players are under-qualified to be employed at McDonalds. Their grip on reality makes me believe that they rode the short bus to school until their hockey skills took them to greater levels.


Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.