HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBA Negotiations III: Why Can't We All Just...Get Along?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-17-2012, 11:56 AM
  #626
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,398
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
Leafs' owners are pigs. It's bad enough people who work at restaurants in the area of the arena are being hit very hard by the lockout but now they're keeping guys out of there? Way to look even more childish!
dont you know that only players are greedy, ******* pigs? the owners are upstanding human beings who are always right.
gotta love the ownership is never wrong and the players need to suck it up and deal with it mentality. especially on the main board

owners like Jeremy Jacobs and the like need to go on a deserted island where they can argue with themesleves and not look foolish in public.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:16 PM
  #627
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,748
vCash: 156
I'm not exactly pro-player. I think both sides have royally screwed the whole process. What astounds me, though, is the way people have turned this into a black-and-white issue and only pile scorn on the players instead of acknowledging the owners share a large share of the blame too. Dare to try and explain why the players have their stance without insulting them for it? Get yelled down. Try to explain Fehr and the powers-that-be in the PA probably care more about future players than most of the current crop? Get yelled down. Point out the owners aren't saints? Get yelled down. Try to have a balanced view of the lockout that takes both sides into account? FORBIDDEN. It's nuts.

I feel like I'm back in the Carter era, defending a player I don't even like that much against claims without basis in reality. Why is everyone focusing on one scapegoat when we can have two??

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:34 PM
  #628
Ryker
Registered User
 
Ryker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 2,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
Players sign up for the draft.
They do?

Ryker is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:43 PM
  #629
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,398
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I'm not exactly pro-player. I think both sides have royally screwed the whole process. What astounds me, though, is the way people have turned this into a black-and-white issue and only pile scorn on the players instead of acknowledging the owners share a large share of the blame too. Dare to try and explain why the players have their stance without insulting them for it? Get yelled down. Try to explain Fehr and the powers-that-be in the PA probably care more about future players than most of the current crop? Get yelled down. Point out the owners aren't saints? Get yelled down. Try to have a balanced view of the lockout that takes both sides into account? FORBIDDEN. It's nuts.
THIS.
this is eactly what I am taking about, only you put it much better then I could.
its either you get "yelled at" or your post is completely ignored unless you are up on your soapbox blinded by the kool-ade drunk by the pro-owner mentality.
Again, I am with you on this.
BOTH sides are at fault for this mess. BOTH sides are the reason why we most likely wont have a season. BOTH sides are going to have to give in to get a deal done. It shouldnt be just the players who should have to bend over for whatever Bettman and the hardline owners want.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 01:03 PM
  #630
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Try to explain Fehr and the powers-that-be in the PA probably care more about future players than most of the current crop?
I would like to hear this explanation. I can't promise I won't yell it down, though.

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 01:33 PM
  #631
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,508
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
It does mean something. Judges would understand that comment. Don't confuse recently being acquired with this Act with not being familiar with the legal system. The Judges, Lawyers, and everyone involved know the act stems from anti-trust / anti monopoly legislation and will be seen in that context. It's inescapable, even if it isn't logically proscribed in the Act 1 itself. I've read the Act. It's not confusing. It has implications for monopolies as well. For if the way of dodging Act 1 is by treating teams as a single entity under an umbrella company (the NHL) then a case can be made for the NHL being a monopoly, which would bring in Sherman Act 2.
Yes, judges would understand that comment. The act does stem from anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation (in fact...it IS anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation). But the Act is what the Act is. The court decisions are what they are. The legislative intent comes in to play when the law is ambiguous. Here it is not ambiguous. There are plenty of cases interpreting what the law is and how to apply it.

Quote:
Moreover, due to my job, I deal with two federal Acts each and every day and "being in violation" is much more grey then you seem to be letting on. Thus, courts or other review panels (PHS, APHIS, USDA, OSHA).
Not sure what you are getting at here, but a violation is a violation. As explained before, there are two exemptions that would be in play in this context (labor and MLB). Since there is no labor union involved anymore (hence, decertification) and this is not the MLB, they are not exempt. Yes it is a grey area in that the NHL could argue they are not restraining trade, but it would be an uphill battle to say the least (depending, of course, on what exactly is being plead).


Quote:
It's not the nonstarter you seem to think it is. Look at the NFL recently. The right lawyers could get it done.

"After allowing the case to proceed into the discovery stage, Judge Moran of the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the NFL clubs, ruling that the NFL acted as a single entity for purposes of trademark licensing and thus was exempt from Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that whether a sports league should be treated as a single entity is a matter to be decided “one league at a time” and “one facet of a league at a time.”

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/sport...single-entity/

"Although handicapping a decision in the high court can be perilous, Supreme Court scholars agree that Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are likely supporters of the NFL's position. Stephen Breyer could easily join the pro-business justices based on his opinion in an NFL case in 1996 in which he hammered the union."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=4336261

Remember when I implied that who was judging would be key?

Single Entity has also been admitted (during a case with the NBA) to be a legitimate possibility if teams are thought of as franchises that compete with each other, but are under the same individuated company (think McDonalds) with the commerce being "NBA basketball" but the ruling decided on supporting the Sherman Act instead.
Again, this argument has been refuted by the Supreme Court by every proponent of the defense in a sports context including the case that you quoted to from the Above the Law link (these quotes coming from the actual decision):

Quote:
"Because the inquiry is one of competitive reality, it is not determinative that two parties to an alleged § 1 violation are legally distinct entities. Nor, however, is it determinative that two legally distinct entities have organized themselves under a single umbrella or into a structured joint venture. The question is whether the agreement joins together “independent centers of decisionmaking.” Id., at 769, 104 S. Ct. 2731, 81 L. Ed. 2d 628. If it does, the entities are capable of conspiring under § 1, and the court must decide whether the restraint of trade is an unreasonable and therefore illegal one.

The NFL teams do not possess either the unitary decisionmaking quality or the single aggregation of economic power characteristic of independent action. Each of them is a substantial, independently owned, independently managed business, whose “general corporate actions are guided or determined” by “separate corporate consciousnesses,” and whose “objectives are” not “common.” Copperweld, 467 U.S., at 771, 104 S. Ct. 2731, 81 L. Ed. 2d 628. They compete with one another, not only on the playing field, but to attract fans, for gate receipts, and for contracts with managerial and playing personnel. See, e.g., Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231, 249, 116 S. Ct. 2116, 135 L. Ed. 2d 521."
That can be found at American Needle v. NFL, 130 S.Ct. 2201, 2212-2213 (2010). Now, there is plenty of other language I could pull out to show you that the NHL would not be able to claim the Single Entity defense, but the bold pretty much sums it up (followed by the reasoning of the SCOTUS of why that the NFL can't sustain this argument, which would be very similar, if not IDENTICAL to the NFL). So yes, it is the non-starter I think it is. Why? Because every time the SCOTUS confronts this issue, it rules this way.

Quote:
Players sign up for the draft. It's not the best example. A better example would be without consent (re: Sugar Monopolies controlling 98% of the market and blacklisting people).
Again, this shows that you don't understand how the Act works. Your assessment of the draft is correct, when there is a union. Without the union, it is a restraint of trade and a clear violation. It doesn't matter if the players sign up and agree with it, it is still a restraint of trade. Think about it. Let's say a group of restaurants agree to a similar scenario as a draft (i.e. worst restaurant gets the first pick of servers). Even if every server in the area signs up for the draft, if someone were to sue under Section 1, it would be a restraint of trade. Why, you ask? Because that is the law, regardless of who is agreeing to it. You cannot contract or conspire to restrain trade. Go read the American Needle case about how a violation is a violation, regardless of whether or not it is given a special name or agreed to or has been going on forever...

Quote:
An ongoing § 1 violation cannot evade § 1 scrutiny simply by giving the ongoing violation a name and label.
See American Needle at 2213. Again, nothing about monopolies or legislative intent. It is what it is.

Quote:
It's CBA related. I can space out my responses.
Ok.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 01:42 PM
  #632
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,748
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CootaRoo View Post
I would like to hear this explanation. I can't promise I won't yell it down, though.
The average NHL career is what...3 full seasons worth of games? The average player in the league now isn't going to be around for this whole CBA and won't make up salary lost. Very few players will be. This CBA will affect more people than the group that are currently in the NHLPA. I think it's become clear that this lockout is a continuation of the last one; the NHL is finishing what they started and trying to perfect the system. If they succeed then this CBA is likely going to be the long-term model. With that in mind, it would behoove Fehr and the other higher ups to try and get the best deal overall for future generations instead of just caving immediately to minimize salary loss for the guys currently under contract.

This lockout and loss of salary makes zero sense if you think they're doing all of this for the current players. If you consider that they're also looking down the road, it makes a lot more sense.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:12 PM
  #633
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
This lockout and loss of salary makes zero sense if you think they're doing all of this for the current players. If you consider that they're also looking down the road, it makes a lot more sense.
But they've already championed 'Make Whole' (or rather, using player venacular, 'honoring existing contracts*') as their prime sticking point and have attempted to negotiate instead stipulations that will negatively affect future generations to 'win' this clause that will have absolutely 0 bearing on them. The clause also really puts the screws on the next couple FA classes (assuming, perhaps naively, that the PA finally stops trying to present 'magic' numbers in their proposals that put them to upwards of 60% HRR share after the first layer of the onion is peeled off) which can't bode well for all of the kids about to hit RFA or UFA for the first time - are they still part of the union? Honestly, I forget sometimes since they don't have a voice.

These negotations have nothing to do with protecting 18 year old kids in the CHL, that is just a PA attempt to wash some of the dog **** of their hands from this whole ordeal. The NHL does the same thing with their empty words about protecting small market teams... if they were truly sincere about that they wouldn't have to be forced to 'negotiate' more revenue sharing.

You're right that they both share the blame in this process starting (though it is tough to overlook the fact that Fehr stonewalled the league for 1.5 years by refusing to negotiate while the league was ready to go), but where the disconnect comes in with the majority and you is that we recognize that the owners are (at face value) sticking to demands that will help the long term health of the league (the correlation between them making money and the league surviving shouldn't be viewed as 'greed'... that is asinine). The players are (at face value) sticking to demands that help the top 5% of their membership and will have us back in this same spot in 7 years (or 5, if the players have any say in it).

*With a healthy dose of ignorance on how CBAs work, of course

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:20 PM
  #634
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,748
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CootaRoo View Post
But they've already championed 'Make Whole' (or rather, using player venacular, 'honoring existing contracts*') as their prime sticking point and have attempted to negotiate instead stipulations that will negatively affect future generations to 'win' this clause that will have absolutely 0 bearing on them. The clause also really puts the screws on the next couple FA classes (assuming, perhaps naively, that the PA finally stops trying to present 'magic' numbers in their proposals that put them to upwards of 60% HRR share after the first layer of the onion is peeled off) which can't bode well for all of the kids about to hit RFA or UFA for the first time - are they still part of the union? Honestly, I forget sometimes since they don't have a voice.

These negotations have nothing to do with protecting 18 year old kids in the CHL, that is just a PA attempt to wash some of the dog **** of their hands from this whole ordeal. The NHL does the same thing with their empty words about protecting small market teams... if they were truly sincere about that they wouldn't have to be forced to 'negotiate' more revenue sharing.

You're right that they both share the blame in this process starting (though it is tough to overlook the fact that Fehr stonewalled the league for 1.5 years by refusing to negotiate while the league was ready to go), but where the disconnect comes in with the majority and you is that we recognize that the owners are (at face value) sticking to demands that will help the long term health of the league (the correlation between them making money and the league surviving shouldn't be viewed as 'greed'... that is asinine). The players are (at face value) sticking to demands that help the top 5% of their membership and will have us back in this same spot in 7 years (or 5, if the players have any say in it).

*With a healthy dose of ignorance on how CBAs work, of course
Just because Fehr and the higher ups are looking forward to the future on many sticking points (contract length, pensions, benefits, a bump in revenue sharing for the owners) doesn't mean they can't also fight for current contracts to be honored. The players who truly benefit from make whole tend to also be the players who will spend the most time under this new CBA, so they fall more into the "future" area than the average player. They aren't mutually exclusive positions, especially since the NHL's attempt to sign a load of bad-faith contracts this offseason shouldn't be considered acceptable. This fight seems to be about the guys with large or long contracts and the players to come. The current lower classes? Sorry, you guys are screwed.

Edit: You know, I'm not entirely sure we're disagreeing. I'm not condoning the PA or justifying their actions. I'm seeking to understand what the hell they're doing or what their plan is.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 12-17-2012 at 02:54 PM.
Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:58 PM
  #635
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Just because Fehr and the higher ups are looking forward to the future on many sticking points (contract length, pensions, benefits, a bump in revenue sharing for the owners) doesn't mean they can't also fight for current contracts to be honored.
Isn't that one of the reasons we are still without a deal? That the PA has such a plethora of 'sticking points'? So, it is pretty disinegenious to deify them for protecting future players when at face value it really is just a slice of them asking for the moon. They have all but admtited from the get-go that 'Make Whole' is their 'hill to die on', though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
The players who truly benefit from make whole tend to also be the players who will spend the most time under this new CBA, so they fall more into the "future" area than the average player.
And, by definition, a good portion of them won't even negotiate a new contract before the next CBA is inked... and if the players got their wish of a 5 year agreement then it would quickly become a majority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
They aren't mutually exclusive positions, especially since the NHL's attempt to sign a load of bad-faith contracts this offseason shouldn't be considered acceptable.
Players signed them in bad faith, too. Their agents knew a rollback was eminent and likely had some idea that long term deals were going to be going away - you don't think Tyler Seguin was anxious to get a deal done before the deadline? Speaking of agents... who were the only ones that got 100% of what they negotiated? Those are the guys whom should really be villified by both sides for their part in this mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
This fight seems to be about the guys with large or long contracts and the players to come. The current lower classes? Sorry, you guys are screwed.
The middle class is going to get screwed, too. The PA has not pushed hard for anything that helps anyone but the upper class (with the cherry on top being the steps they are taking now), but these guys are going to spend another month trying to figure out how to work some basic algebra on a napkin before they figure it out.

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:06 PM
  #636
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,748
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CootaRoo View Post
Isn't that one of the reasons we are still without a deal? That the PA has such a plethora of 'sticking points'? So, it is pretty disinegenious to deify them for protecting future players when at face value it really is just a slice of them asking for the moon. They have all but admtited from the get-go that 'Make Whole' is their 'hill to die on', though.
Where am I deifying players? Also, is the owners' own hill any less obnoxious?

Quote:
And, by definition, a good portion of them won't even negotiate a new contract before the next CBA is inked... and if the players got their wish of a 5 year agreement then it would quickly become a majority.



Players signed them in bad faith, too. Their agents knew a rollback was eminent and likely had some idea that long term deals were going to be going away - you don't think Tyler Seguin was anxious to get a deal done before the deadline? Speaking of agents... who were the only ones that got 100% of what they negotiated? Those are the guys whom should really be villified by both sides for their part in this mess.
How did the players sign them in bad faith? Did they not plan on honoring those contracts? Yes, agents suck. It's their job to get the player to think selfishly so they can make money from it.


Quote:
Don't kid yourself. The middle class is going to get screwed, too. The PA has not pushed hard for anything that helps anyone but the upper class (with the cherry on top being the steps they are taking now), but these guys are going to spend another month trying to figure out how to work some basic algebra on a napkin before they figure it out.
I never said the current middle class isn't getting screwed. I said the lower classes; I used the plural. The middle class is lower than the upper class, is it not?

Like I said in my edit which I probably added while you were typing that, I don't think we really disagree. I'm only trying to understand what the players are trying to accomplish and make sense of it. I know they suck, but I want to know why they're doing it and what they're truly trying to accomplish. I'm not trying to justify it or condone it, or support it. I'm exploring possibilities. I'm just trying to provide an explanation. I don't know why people are so wildly opposed to that.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:40 PM
  #637
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,774
vCash: 500
Random thought: My work has enough food in it due to the holidays that X Invictus's avatar hasn't conjured up the desire for a Cheesesteak.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:51 PM
  #638
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Where am I deifying players? Also, is the owners' own hill any less obnoxious?
No, but you have to admit it makes sense once the wrinkle of insurance was highlighted. Just as the player's makes obvious sense. I was only responding to the assertion that this was all merely some charitable endeavor for the future players when it clearly (to me, anyway) isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
How did the players sign them in bad faith? Did they not plan on honoring those contracts? Yes, agents suck. It's their job to get the player to think selfishly so they can make money from it.
Yeah, using the term bad faith was probably a mistake, but the point still stands that they knew just as we all did that long term, cap circumventing deals were on the way out and the rush to sign some before the deadline was just as much on the players/agents as it was the GMs/owners. And, in that same vein, I find it difficult to accuse the latter of 'bad faith' either, since the former was so willing to go to the table with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I never said the current middle class isn't getting screwed. I said the lower classes; I used the plural. The middle class is lower than the upper class, is it not?
Touche.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Like I said in my edit which I probably added while you were typing that, I don't think we really disagree.
It was. And probably not - at least to a certain extent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I'm only trying to understand what the players are trying to accomplish and make sense of it. I know they suck, but I want to know why they're doing it and what they're truly trying to accomplish. I'm not trying to justify it or condone it, or support it. I'm exploring possibilities. I'm just trying to provide an explanation.
My honest opinion? The players' end goal is getting Bettman fired. There really is no other logical explanation because everything they ask for hurts the future (PA membership and league health) and they already hurt the present past the point of break even by holding out as long as they have. Hockey players are nothing if not loyal to one another... for better or worse.

Fehr's end goal, on the other hand (because it is painfully obvious that it is NOT in-line with the players') is to use the NHL as another setup in his sports labor negotiations laboratory to attempt to set precedents and levy his findings into future aspirations of damaging a 3rd NA sports league (I bet he started salivating when he saw the NFLPA bend over for their most recent negotiation... wouldn't that be quite the jewel in his crown if he brought them down to their knees as well?) down the line. Fehr is nothing if not a selfish, unprofessional ***hole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I don't know why people are so wildly opposed to that.
I'm just killing some time at work discussing things. I'm glad there are dissonant voices out of the masses (as I often times find myself) to argue with... it'd be boring if this thread (and all others) was just full of posters high fiving each other about how right they all are.

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 04:14 PM
  #639
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,748
vCash: 156
I try to shy away from conspiracy stuff, but I can't ignore the possibility that Fehr was brought in to drive Bettman out. That's the counterpoint to the other "future player" scenario I put together; it all also makes sense if they're just trying to get the owners to fire Bettman out of disgust.

I don't think that's going to work. Bettman has been complete **** for labor relations, but he has done an excellent job growing the TV market for a niche sport and bringing in money to a lot of franchises. On the other hand, the PA has been through a lot of heads...so if the PA is gunning for Bettman's dismissal, it's probable the owners will just wait for the players to revolt and fire Fehr.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-17-2012, 04:19 PM
  #640
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 12,051
vCash: 500
so what do we figure.. about 1 week till the "drop dead" date now ???


GRRRR !!!!

the fact theres ZERO new news on talks on the NHL site tells me the whole story.. both sides have already secretly decided this season is done...

hey NHL thx for the memories, hahahaha grrrr...

Flyerfan4life is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 04:31 PM
  #641
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan4life View Post
the fact theres ZERO new news on talks on the NHL site tells me the whole story.. both sides have already secretly decided this season is done...
The NHL site has been systematically quiet on lockout related stuff throughout the entire process - all they've done is post 'articles' citing that they met when they did with 0 opinion, quotes, etc. (outside that one NHL proposal that they posted way back before the PA was even ready to truly negotiate) so I wouldn't read a tremendous amount into that.

For now, things are just being stalled while 700 players take 5 days to learn how to open an internet browser and click whatever button Fehr tells them to in their 'vote' for granting him the right to disolve the union (if he so chooses). After that... who knows? They'll either go back to talks or strap the gloves on right away for the legal battle - I'm not sure they even know which way they're going to go at the moment.

I still have a glimmer of hope that the season starts in late January, but that is because I have faith the players will wake up and go over Fehr's head before they lose the entire year. Fehr loses the ability to decertify via the player's vote on January 2nd and if he doesn't take the poison pill (which I'm not convined he will - it might be too anticlimactic to completely follow the NBA script for him) by then AND doesn't at least put an NHL offer to vote by then I think alot of players will see hope fading.

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 04:57 PM
  #642
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 12,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CootaRoo View Post
.

I still have a glimmer of hope that the season starts in late January, but that is because I have faith the players will wake up and go over Fehr's head before they lose the entire year. .
lets hope ur right and im wrong..

losing the ENTIRE season is some serious massive fail..

Flyerfan4life is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 05:34 PM
  #643
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,508
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
Random thought: My work has enough food in it due to the holidays that X Invictus's avatar hasn't conjured up the desire for a Cheesesteak.
Hey DFS, if you don't trust a person licensed to practice law talking about the subject, maybe TSN's legal analyst, who is saying the same thing I am saying, will give you some insight.

Quote:
It's unlawful for competitors to get together and fix the marketplace. If they do so, they open themselves up to antitrust lawsuits. This applies to the NHL, because the 30 team owners are competitors and they get together and place restrictions on the NHL marketplace. Things like a salary cap, free agency restrictions and rookie pay are all on their face antitrust violations. Another thing that is an antitrust violation is the lockout since it's the owners getting together and agreeing to lockout the players.

Here's the thing though. Since these restrictions are inside the protective bubble that is the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the NHL is protected and the players can't sue for these antitrust violations. So the CBA insulates the NHL from antitrust lawsuits.

That's where a disclaimer of interest comes in. It refers to the NHLPA terminating its right to represent the players, which effectively dissolves the Union. It's not a very formal process, and can be as quick as Donald Fehr sending a letter to the Commissioner's office declaring the NHLPA no longer represents the players as a bargaining agent. Before Fehr does that, he needs the support of the players.

And that leads to the important part - by disclaiming interest, the CBA rule protecting the NHL against antitrust lawsuits may no longer apply and players are now free to sue the NHL for antitrust violations. So a disclaimer of interest is like the pin that bursts the protective CBA bubble.

And the first thing the players would ask a court is to lift the lockout because it's not legal.
Sound familiar?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411804

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 06:09 PM
  #644
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,774
vCash: 500
Your last response wasn't a very good one, so I assume this is an attempt to bring me back in this.

I'll just agree to disagree (on what we actually disagree on here) rather than rehash exactly what I said above about lawyers, judges, how Acts really work, and the need for violations to have their time in court (or review panels-- such as the USDA, PHS, etc etc) to see if the current judges still deem them violations. Laws keep going under the lens.

The TSN article is a good explanation of the legality in question. We'll see if it goes to trial.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 06:45 PM
  #645
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,508
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
Your last response wasn't a very good one, so I assume this is an attempt to bring me back in this.
Wasn't a very good response? The SCOTUS stating the rule on how the "single entity theory" works in the context of a sports league is not a good response? Would you mind explaining that to me, maybe by responding to the last post? (this is an attempt to bring you back in, the previous response was just bolstering my other response)

Quote:
I'll just agree to disagree (on what we actually disagree on here) rather than rehash exactly what I said above about lawyers, judges, how Acts really work, and the need for violations to have their time in court (or review panels-- such as the USDA, PHS, etc etc) to see if the current judges still deem them violations. Laws keep going under the lens.
Ok well myself, being a licensed attorney, understands how all of those things work. For instance, no other panel needs to (or will) address the issue of the test for asserting the single entity theory as a defense. The Supreme Court has addressed it. There is a rule. All other courts in the country must follow that rule in making their decision.

Quote:
The TSN article is a good explanation of the legality in question. We'll see if it goes to trial.
The TSN article is pretty much the same thing I have been saying this entire time.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 07:14 PM
  #646
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
I'm not buying this... How hungry do you have to be to walk into your bosses restaurant inside of the Air Canada Centre (your bosses building) after you've been locked out? Lupul is a drama queen and clearly there to stir up ****... WTF did he think would happen... find a different restaurant.
http://www.realsports.ca/BarAndGrill...ursDirections/

Not inside the ACC. Next argument?

MsWoof is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 07:18 PM
  #647
Mkoll
Inkvisiittori
 
Mkoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Country: Finland
Posts: 800
vCash: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
How hungry do you have to be to walk into any restaurant owned by your bosses?

Mkoll is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 08:05 PM
  #648
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
Sorry, that I don't share your sentiment about the matter. In fact, if you'd like to write them a letter to voice your displeasure the address is:

Real Sports Bar & Grill
Maple Leaf Square
15 York Street
Toronto, Ontario

and it's literally right across the street from the ACC (and still owned by the team).

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 08:06 PM
  #649
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Bettman's getting way too much credit on this forum. There is such thing as evolution especially in this country since it started expanding at an insane rate before bettman even thought about taking a whiff at any of this. He's just taken what was already there and saturated the **** out of it. He's just a stubborn a'hole who is currently taking a major role in preventing me from watching my favorite thing in the world and that's the bottom line. btw anybody know a good lawyer who wastes time arguing with a bunch of schmucks on a hockey forum on the internet? on wait, nevermind. I'm good.

funghoul is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 08:13 PM
  #650
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Never read so much pointless bragging. albeit HUMBLE pointless bragging.

funghoul 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 06:55 PM.

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.