The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
If the NHLPA decertifies, then it means that the CBA does not apply anymore. League minimum salary is a CBA clause.
And if those players are earning more than the league minimum it doesn't matter. Otherwise they could be replaced by players who would play for the league minimum if those players were not worth their salary.
And if those players are earning more than the league minimum it doesn't matter. Otherwise they could be replaced by players who would play for the league minimum if those players were not worth their salary.
I don't think you've understood the concept. If there's no CBA, and the league minimum is a CBA caluse, then there's no league minimum. The absolute league minimum becomes the local hourly wage minimum legislation.
I don't think you've understood the concept. If there's no CBA, and the league minimum is a CBA caluse, then there's no league minimum. The absolute league minimum becomes the local hourly wage minimum legislation.
I understand the concept completely. It is you that seems to be having difficulty grasping the concept that the league minimum doesn't matter to those who are getting paid more than that, which is the majority of players.
I understand the concept completely. It is you that seems to be having difficulty grasping the concept that the league minimum doesn't matter to those who are getting paid more than that, which is the majority of players.
And when their contract expires and they are offered less than the previous minimum what then? To echo a previous point, this CBA did wonders for 4th liners and marginal players while curbing some of the earning potential of top stars. Thats totally fine by the owners, which is why I think most people agree that they'll keep the same system going but just with a split closer to 50/50. Fehr's de-linked concept is simply a non-starter
What would happen if the players dissolved the union now? Not to block/stop the lockout (like the NFL players did last year) but to go after damages for the balance of the lockout?
Would labor laws still apply going forward or would we be stepping on anti-trust grounds?
Can the Union decertify? And how would that effect negotiations with the league?
Yes, they could. The effect (once the process is complete) is that the lockout would be illegal, as would the salary cap, draft, entry-level system, guaranteed contracts, maximum salaries, minimum salaries...etc.
As for why they don't... well a wild-west scenario may seem good in the immediate, but at the end of the day, salaries are going to be tied to revenues whether formally or informally. The players obviously get a much larger piece of the pie, but if the league implodes as a result, that's a substantially smaller pie.
It's also a case, where the players don't need to get back playing right away. In basketball / football, there were a bunch of guys at risk of going bankrupt if their paycheques didn't continue. In football, there's really no other league to go to. With hockey, sure you're not making quite as much, but you're still earning a decent living, and getting to live in Europe. That's hope for a substantial part of the NHL, and a really cool place to try out for the rest.
one thing i wonder; if the decertification went through in say March, would the NHL be forced to have a season from March-June regardless of how silly it would be due to it being regular working season for the PA?
I understand the concept completely. It is you that seems to be having difficulty grasping the concept that the league minimum doesn't matter to those who are getting paid more than that, which is the majority of players.
What you don't understand is that almost no teams spend to the upper limit of the salary cap. this might suggest that they don't have enough money to do so.
If/when the CBA is removed, and the salary cap and the upper limit on single contracts are removed from the equation the price for top tier players will go up drastically. The price for the next level will go up as well, though not as much.
Teams don't magically have more money to spend on payroll (outside of a few who will stock up on as many upper tier players as they can.
So given teams have just spent more money on the high level talent, but don't have larger payroll budgets, what do you think will happen to the contract offers the bulk of the remaining players will get? Keep in mind they will have to negotiate all contract terms individually.
Do you magically believe that they will somehow be offered more money than teams have to spend, and/or that they will somehow be offered anything less than the smallest benefit packages the teams can manage?
Yes, they could. The effect (once the process is complete) is that the lockout would be illegal...
This isn't quite true, the courts would rule on the legality of the lockout, whether the league is justified in imposing it. it isn't an automatic rubber stamp hat it would be deemed illegal.
What you don't understand is that almost no teams spend to the upper limit of the salary cap. this might suggest that they don't have enough money to do so.
What are you babbling about? Last season 10 teams spent within $2M of the cap.
Quote:
If/when the CBA is removed, and the salary cap and the upper limit on single contracts are removed from the equation the price for top tier players will go up drastically. The price for the next level will go up as well, though not as much.
This will probably happen.
Quote:
Teams don't magically have more money to spend on payroll (outside of a few who will stock up on as many upper tier players as they can.
I'd say it is more than a few who will be able to spend more. The Original 6 teams, Philly, Vancouver, Pittsburgh could all spend more.
Quote:
So given teams have just spent more money on the high level talent, but don't have larger payroll budgets, what do you think will happen to the contract offers the bulk of the remaining players will get? Keep in mind they will have to negotiate all contract terms individually.
Teams will have larger payroll budgets. If teams wouldn't have larger payrolls without the cap there would be no need for the cap.
Quote:
Do you magically believe that they will somehow be offered more money than teams have to spend, and/or that they will somehow be offered anything less than the smallest benefit packages the teams can manage?
Competition for players who are better than mediocre will see them get far more than the smallest benefit packages. Any player who is making more than the league minimum or is not on a 2 way deal will have enough leverage for that. Otherwise why are they not being paid the minimum or on a 2 way contract?
