HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Decertification Pros and Cons

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2012, 07:40 PM
  #26
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,003
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laus Deo View Post
This looks like the only choice left to the players since the last offer was not acceptable and there is no other offer on the the table.

Really what is the point of waiting until next season and hoping for a more benevolent owner outlook? Not happening.

Seriously. What would decertification look like? I haven't really thought too much about it but as time goes on I can't think of any other way to save the season.

Pros for players
Current contracts would be honoured in full.
No more restricted years. Good for the better players.

Cons for players
Any new contracts would not have any minimum salary.
Pros for the players... really simple... no draft, no free agency rules, the ability to terminate your contract at any time, compensation up to what each individual owner is truly prepared to pay.

Cons for the players... the League will obviously try to tie it up in court, and will succeed for at least some time. If decertification was successful, there would be a substantially smaller league to play in.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 07:43 PM
  #27
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
I've read that the courts would dismiss the decertification as a negotiation tactic, it's only done to get leverage in negotiations and drags the negotiations into the court room which isn't really what decertification is meant for.
You're right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
No that's exactly what decertification is meant for.
...and you're wrong. De-certification will not be allowed if in the opinion of a judge it is being used as a tactic in the negotiation of a new CBA. Why do you think the NBAPA and NFLPA had thoughts of doing it and then came to the realization that it would get them nowhere?

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 07:58 PM
  #28
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
You're right.



...and you're wrong. De-certification will not be allowed if in the opinion of a judge it is being used as a tactic in the negotiation of a new CBA. Why do you think the NBAPA and NFLPA had thoughts of doing it and then came to the realization that it would get them nowhere?
Just so everyone is very clear on this, the NFLPA did in fact, decertify.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar...bor-talks-fail

''The union representing NFL players pushed away from the negotiating table and decertified Friday, an extreme measure that leaves the federal courts to determine the immediate future of the nation's most popular sports league."

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 08:07 PM
  #29
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,412
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Question. How do you think the fact that the union represents employees in both the US and Canada play into the situation?

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 09:18 PM
  #30
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
Just so everyone is very clear on this, the NFLPA did in fact, decertify.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar...bor-talks-fail

''The union representing NFL players pushed away from the negotiating table and decertified Friday, an extreme measure that leaves the federal courts to determine the immediate future of the nation's most popular sports league."
Although to basically zero immediate effect.

The NFL filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the NLRB - arguing that the decertification was a sham - although it was never argued, since the NFLPA recertified and signed the new CBA before the process got there.

The NFLPA sued to force the NFL to prevent the lockout on anti trust grounds - which was basically their whole purpose of decertifying. A lower court held for the players and granted an injunction, but was overruled by the Eighth Circuit - on the grounds that the Norris LaGuardia Act prohibited federal injunctions in cases arising out of labor disputes. Note that the Eighth Circuit did not rule on the merits of the anti trust charges, just that the courts had no jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction before a trial (which would be months or years off). After they were denied the bargaining leverage of the injunction, the NFLPA really had no Plan B - they quickly recertified and negotiated a deal.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 10:48 AM
  #31
mnwildfan79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Although to basically zero immediate effect.

The NFL filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the NLRB - arguing that the decertification was a sham - although it was never argued, since the NFLPA recertified and signed the new CBA before the process got there.

The NFLPA sued to force the NFL to prevent the lockout on anti trust grounds - which was basically their whole purpose of decertifying. A lower court held for the players and granted an injunction, but was overruled by the Eighth Circuit - on the grounds that the Norris LaGuardia Act prohibited federal injunctions in cases arising out of labor disputes. Note that the Eighth Circuit did not rule on the merits of the anti trust charges, just that the courts had no jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction before a trial (which would be months or years off). After they were denied the bargaining leverage of the injunction, the NFLPA really had no Plan B - they quickly recertified and negotiated a deal.
Do you have an opinion on how that legal battle would play out if the NHLPA were to decertify and takes the time to let it play out in the courts? The NFLPA played the short game with decertification and lost, but the NHLPA seems to be in a much more entrenched battle that may cost them a season + anyways. I'm just curious because if anyone could/would play this out I would think it would be Fehr. If he won it would be a disaster for the league, I would think if there was even a possibility of him winning it would give him plenty of leverage to crush the NHL in negotiations.

mnwildfan79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 11:07 AM
  #32
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildfan79 View Post
Do you have an opinion on how that legal battle would play out if the NHLPA were to decertify and takes the time to let it play out in the courts? The NFLPA played the short game with decertification and lost, but the NHLPA seems to be in a much more entrenched battle that may cost them a season + anyways. I'm just curious because if anyone could/would play this out I would think it would be Fehr. If he won it would be a disaster for the league, I would think if there was even a possibility of him winning it would give him plenty of leverage to crush the NHL in negotiations.
I was trolling the net, and found this... (Caution 80+ pages long)... It's a law professor that writes on challenging a pro league on antitrust grounds following a decertification:

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/iss...-4_Feldman.pdf

I also found this abstract on leagues decertifying (the full text can be downloaded- 45 pages)

http://works.bepress.com/nathaniel_grow/4/

Both texts were written after the 2011 NBA and NFL lockouts. Maybe the lawyers on this board could give us their opinion?

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 05:32 PM
  #33
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
Seemed to have some interesting points to me, perhaps amongst lawyer types its pretty old hat.


He seems to be highlighting a conflict between labour and anti-trust laws after a union decertifies because the league imposed its last offer after impasse.

On the one hand he says, impasse and imposition by the employer is an allowable part of labour law, and if the union was to decertify to try and negate that with anti trust remedies it is in effect negating the owners labour law rights. And furthermore, if this was just a ploy by the union to use anti trust in order to gain collective bargaining leverage, the owners are then in a no-win situation, losing to anti trust what they won in labour law.

On the other hand, denying the union the ability to choose to decertify, especially sports unions of fungible athletes who could probably do better under anti trust than labour law, would negate employee rights to choose representation or not, and given the power imbalance between employer and employee, that choice is rightly asymmetrical in the players favour.

But he seems to conclude by saying there really is no conflict, because once the union decertifies, labour law no longer applies and the employer shouldn’t need it as anti-trust provides satisfactory remedies. Sure the players gain an anti trust weapon but they lose many collectively bargained benefits, grievance procedures, and other labour law protections so the owners can hardly complain this leaves them hard done by.

He claims the leagues true argument is that anti trust law should not apply to sports for rule of reason competitive exemptions, and what they are really after he calls “the leagues decades-long quest for the Shangri-la of everlasting anti trust immunity“, and that it doesn’t fly. It does seem some difficult things to balance.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 11:15 PM
  #34
Furkmyster
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Although to basically zero immediate effect.

The NFL filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the NLRB - arguing that the decertification was a sham - although it was never argued, since the NFLPA recertified and signed the new CBA before the process got there.

The NFLPA sued to force the NFL to prevent the lockout on anti trust grounds - which was basically their whole purpose of decertifying. A lower court held for the players and granted an injunction, but was overruled by the Eighth Circuit - on the grounds that the Norris LaGuardia Act prohibited federal injunctions in cases arising out of labor disputes. Note that the Eighth Circuit did not rule on the merits of the anti trust charges, just that the courts had no jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction before a trial (which would be months or years off). After they were denied the bargaining leverage of the injunction, the NFLPA really had no Plan B - they quickly recertified and negotiated a deal.
The NFLPA recertified after the deal was finished, every team voted on the deal during training camp because of the truncated time table of not missing pre-season games. Going in front of the courts, resulted in both sides being forced to meet with a mediator in further negotiations, something the two current idiots, Bettman and Fehr, are not doing. If I remember correctly, the judge lit up both sides to go and negotiate and to not waste the courts time.

Furkmyster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 12:10 AM
  #35
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,866
vCash: 67
I think it's far worse than people are making it out to be.

First, unproven, but highly potentialed star players will get disgusting contracts and then turn out to be bums. Proven players, in turn, will want more money if contracts leak. And it will because of today's technology.

Contracts would have silly demands like what actors get. Star players would get their own coach and locker room. They'll get 5 star hotel rooms and G5 plane rides to games while regular guys are taking the bus.

Obviously the league size would reduce to maybe 15 teams. The Leafs, Montreal and NYR would win the stanley cup each year until the game becomes so predictable that nobody watches anymore.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 05:08 AM
  #36
rockinghorse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
I'm fearful that the cattle are being left with no choices. Or feel this is a viable choice?

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

rockinghorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 06:28 AM
  #37
Shwag33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
You know what would be awesome? If the NHLPA decertified; then Bill Gates or some billionaire buys out the entire NHL and cuts the players salary by 70%. With a central owner max salary, 3 million, take it or leave it.

Some would leave, but the majority would stay and play.

Shwag33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 06:52 AM
  #38
sina220*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildfan79 View Post
Why is it that people have no problem with the top players sharing their (potential) salary with the bottom half, but it seems the same people balk when the idea of a substantial revenue sharing program is discussed?

After all, the logic behind a CBA and salary cap is it's good for the league as a whole. Meanwhile a strong revenue sharing program would also be good for the league as we could end this whole mess right now if the owners were to step up to the plate and get it done.
Because the entire operating income (aka profit before taxes and a few smaller expenses) of the top 10 teams in revenue in 2010 was roughly 235 mil.

All of these people wanting anything near or over 200 mil in revenue sharing dont understand thats basically the entire profits of the top 10 teams.

sina220* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 08:18 AM
  #39
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,450
vCash: 500
I'm not a lawyer but based on my own views of the importance of a CBA in place, I feel that decertification hurts all owners and the large majority of players. I only see the star players in the league truly benefitting from decertification. If it's a card the PA is willing to play, then I don't see any reason to sit on it any longer when the clock is ticking and they continue to lose money.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 08:43 AM
  #40
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
He made far less than a free market would have given him.
Agree for the elite players like Crosby. However, he is the tip of the pyramid. I would bet for 80% of the players the economic situation looks worse. No guaranteed contracts for most players (at least half), no pension, not guaranteed grade 4 star travel, etc.

Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 08:47 AM
  #41
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
Pros for the players... really simple... no draft, no free agency rules, the ability to terminate your contract at any time, compensation up to what each individual owner is truly prepared to pay.

Cons for the players... the League will obviously try to tie it up in court, and will succeed for at least some time. If decertification was successful, there would be a substantially smaller league to play in.
Player contract would still be enforceable under contract law, unless there was an out clause included.

I would bet most players would be worse off. Obviously, the elite playerz would really cash in.

Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 04:21 PM
  #42
cam042686
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
Question. How do you think the fact that the union represents employees in both the US and Canada play into the situation?
Good question. Each province has it's own labor laws and the NLRA and such mean nothing in Canada. So the NHLPA may well decertify in the US and may not be able to in Canada.

Craig Wallace

cam042686 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:17 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.