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.

What would a league without a union look like?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-24-2012, 08:53 PM
  #51
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 1,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
Almost immeadiately, players would get more money, but league parity would be destroyed.

Over time, the league would be divided into the "large market teams" (the "haves") with stacked teams and the "small market teams" (the "have nots") teams full of 3rd and fourth liners. Fans of the disenfranchised teams would realize how utterly hopeless it is, stop caring, and move on.

Eventually those teams would fold and the players would lose jobs.

So basically, in the long run: the players lose, the owners lose, and the fans lose.
Its basically what it is now. Teams like the Islanders, Oilers, Panthers, Jets, Bluejackets have no hope. Look at how bad the Oilers and Islanders are year in and year out. Besides that fluke run by the Oilers, they have been a sorry ass team and same with the Islanders.

ScottyBowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 08:55 PM
  #52
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,368
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
If there's no union, and all of the contracts are voided, the NHL will suspend operations until they put a union in place.

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 07:25 AM
  #53
CJV123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 465
vCash: 500
The truth is, modern-day unions are a boon to management. Management continues to employ shills to feign otherwise, and the masses eat this up. But unions provide stability and actually serve to reduce work stoppages.

CJV123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 08:34 AM
  #54
baldrick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Nope, that's exactly backwards. The league will relocate to anywhere with a pulse before allowing franchises to fold.

Having franchises dropping like flies is the single fastest way to get teams into QC and GTA2.
How long do you think those teams would survive? No way the small market teams could compete.

baldrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 10:04 AM
  #55
xkirax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 35
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasespace View Post
But there is no precedence in this case, only theory and projection. IF it goes to court then all leagues will finally have a precedence to go off of.

And it's not that hard from a legal standpoint to make the argument that if a union decertifies then all contracts to all union members are null and void. The union negotiated the CBA, the CBA set the terms for their contracts, there is no current CBA so the contracts cannot be enforced, if the union goes away then there cannot legally be a CBA so there for any contracts that adhere to a CBA wouldn't be legal. Ergo, all current contracts would be illegal and therefore removed.
its a lot more easier for the union to argue that each contract was negotiated between a player with his agent with 1 team and he got market value... plus unless there contract states the contract is voided incase of no union its hard to argue that it should be.

The NHL has a lot harder time in this case then the players do, but we don't know what will happen it all comes down to the judge. My whole problem with that guys post is he did not post a source names or anything and tried to say something that he has no evedidence to support. He claims to be a law student yet he wants to make such a shady claim that's just funny

xkirax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 10:44 AM
  #56
chasespace
Registered User
 
chasespace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williston, FL
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkirax View Post
its a lot more easier for the union to argue that each contract was negotiated between a player with his agent with 1 team and he got market value... plus unless there contract states the contract is voided incase of no union its hard to argue that it should be.

The NHL has a lot harder time in this case then the players do, but we don't know what will happen it all comes down to the judge. My whole problem with that guys post is he did not post a source names or anything and tried to say something that he has no evedidence to support. He claims to be a law student yet he wants to make such a shady claim that's just funny
The claim isn't shady as it's a prediction other law professionals have predicted, and there are others who have predicted differently. Neither are right or wrong until the situation actually goes to court and a judgement is handed down.

chasespace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 10:50 AM
  #57
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
If there's no union, and all of the contracts are voided, the NHL will suspend operations until they put a union in place.
The NHL doesn't legally have the power to do that. If the 30 teams were to act in collusion to try and dictate labour terms, you'd have one heck of anti-trust lawsuit filed by some very wealthy and powerful individuals.

It would be up to each individual team to decide they don't want to be in operation... and I suspect none of the 30 owners in the league are dumb enough to throw away the $4b in combined equity that the 30 teams have.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 11:21 AM
  #58
xkirax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 35
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasespace View Post
The claim isn't shady as it's a prediction other law professionals have predicted, and there are others who have predicted differently. Neither are right or wrong until the situation actually goes to court and a judgement is handed down.
Yes I understand that but he claimed 2 things that had no backing.. 1 he is a law student 2nd he talked to people from the nhl law firm and nhlpa law firms without stating any names... he Is trying 2 give more credit to his statement by stating both which is pretty shady claim 2 make.

xkirax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 11:32 AM
  #59
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasespace View Post
But there is no precedence in this case, only theory and projection. IF it goes to court then all leagues will finally have a precedence to go off of.

And it's not that hard from a legal standpoint to make the argument that if a union decertifies then all contracts to all union members are null and void. The union negotiated the CBA, the CBA set the terms for their contracts, there is no current CBA so the contracts cannot be enforced, if the union goes away then there cannot legally be a CBA so there for any contracts that adhere to a CBA wouldn't be legal. Ergo, all current contracts would be illegal and therefore removed.
There are numerous legal precendents in this case:

Brown v. Pro Football, Inc. is perhaps the most direct and notable. The court has held that labor law provides a non-statutory exemption from anti-trust laws.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 01:43 PM
  #60
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
There are numerous legal precendents in this case:

Brown v. Pro Football, Inc. is perhaps the most direct and notable. The court has held that labor law provides a non-statutory exemption from anti-trust laws.
Brown v. Pro Football has little to do with the current situation. It just extended the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption to cover terms imposed after an Impasse.

The timeline of NFL cases:

Mackey v NFL (1976): threw out the Rozelle rule, ruling it was not the product of bona fide armís-length collective bargaining. It set out the three prong test used to determine the extent of the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption.

1) the restraint on trade must primarily affect only the parties to the collective bargaining agreement;
2) the agreement must concern a mandatory subject of collective bargaining; and
3) the agreement must be the product of bona fide armís-length bargaining.

Powell v NFL (1989): held that the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption still holds after the expiration of a CBA, even after an Impasse was declared. It was after Powell that the NFLPA disclaimed and began the McNeil case.

McNiel v NFL (1992): Judge Doty rules that the NFL is no longer protected by the Non-Statutory Exemption and allows a jury trial. Jury awards damages.

Brown v Pro Football (1996): Upholds that the Non Statutory Exemption applies to terms imposed after an Impasse.

Of course, none of these precedents -except Judge Doty's trial court ruling are applicable if the NHLPA disclaims/decertifies.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 02:55 PM
  #61
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,250
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swarez99 View Post
Those three got there big salaries in a no cap, free'er market NHL. The same thing would happen to the stars or so players think are stars.

Crosby/Ovy/Stamkos would all make more. Montreal/Toronto would bid like crazy for any 18 year old super kid on the market.

The EPL, no union for players and they get 70% of revenue. Of coarse there are only 5 teams that matter.
A capless system works better for a relegation system like the EPL. There are over a hundred leagues (not teams, LEAGUES) in their pyramid system and struggling for promotion or against relegation makes every contest exciting for a fan of a local team. Not so well for a franchise system, where being a perennial loser just means the possibility of a declining fanbase and folding.

Turbofan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 02:59 PM
  #62
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,250
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
Its basically what it is now. Teams like the Islanders, Oilers, Panthers, Jets, Bluejackets have no hope. Look at how bad the Oilers and Islanders are year in and year out. Besides that fluke run by the Oilers, they have been a sorry ass team and same with the Islanders.
I disagree with that. There are some very promising young players on those teams.
Within the last 10 years, the Penguins and Blackhawks had teams with strings of sub-500 seasons, and seemed to be hopeless.

Turbofan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 06:54 PM
  #63
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Getting good young players is easy.

Keeping them, not so much. Highly likely (eg). Edmonton will start depleting before they get to benefit from all the charity picks.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 07:55 PM
  #64
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Brown v. Pro Football has little to do with the current situation. It just extended the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption to cover terms imposed after an Impasse.

The timeline of NFL cases:

Mackey v NFL (1976): threw out the Rozelle rule, ruling it was not the product of bona fide arm’s-length collective bargaining. It set out the three prong test used to determine the extent of the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption.

1) the restraint on trade must primarily affect only the parties to the collective bargaining agreement;
2) the agreement must concern a mandatory subject of collective bargaining; and
3) the agreement must be the product of bona fide arm’s-length bargaining.

Powell v NFL (1989): held that the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption still holds after the expiration of a CBA, even after an Impasse was declared. It was after Powell that the NFLPA disclaimed and began the McNeil case.

McNiel v NFL (1992): Judge Doty rules that the NFL is no longer protected by the Non-Statutory Exemption and allows a jury trial. Jury awards damages.

Brown v Pro Football (1996): Upholds that the Non Statutory Exemption applies to terms imposed after an Impasse.

Of course, none of these precedents -except Judge Doty's trial court ruling are applicable if the NHLPA disclaims/decertifies.

I agree with the first paragraph in bold. However, I find the Supreme Court's last paragraph in Brown leaves little wiggle room for the NHL... It's in 3 parts:

1- In some cases, the antitrust exemption doesn't apply.

"Our holding is not intended to insulate from antitrust review every joint imposition of terms by employers, for an agreement among employers could be sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances from the collective-bargaining process that a rule permitting antitrust intervention would not significantly interfere with that process."

2-The Supreme Court then suggests two cases where it wouldn't apply.

2.1- Decertification


"See, e. g., 50 F. 3d, at 1057 (suggesting that exemption lasts until collapse of the collective-bargaining relationship, as evidenced by decertification of the union);

2.2.- Impasse ++

"El Cerrito Mill & Lumber Co., 316 N. L. R. B., at 1006-1007 (suggesting that "extremely long" impasse, accompanied by "instability" or "defunctness" of multiemployer unit, might justify union withdrawal from group bargaining)."

3- The Labor Board's decision to accept a Dissolution will be crucial

"We need not decide in this case whether, or where, within these extreme outer boundaries to draw that line. Nor would it be appropriate for us to do so without the detailed views of the Board, to whose "specialized judgment" Congress "intended to leave" many of the "inevitable questions concerning multiemployer bargaining bound to arise in the future." Buffalo Linen, 353 U. S., at 96 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Jewel Tea, 381 U. S., at 710, n. 18."

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../231/case.html

Then there's the issue it affirms a Court of Appeal Judgment that included the following...


"In our view, the nonstatutory labor exemption requires employees involved in a labor dispute to choose whether to invoke the protections of the NLRA or the Sherman Act. If employees wish to seek the protections of the Sherman Act, they may forego unionization or even decertify their unions. We note that the NFL players took exactly this latter step after the Eighth Circuit's Powell decision. See Releasing Superstars, supra, at 883 (describing NFLPA decertification after Powell )... We do not mean to encourage this practice, but we believe that employees, like all other economic actors, must make choices. If they choose to avail themselves of the advantages of the collective bargaining process, their protections are as defined by the federal labor laws. "

http://openjurist.org/50/f3d/1041/br...3-7165-94-7071

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 08:17 PM
  #65
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Teams that deserve a quality roster will have one. Teams that don't won't. The disease of parity would be cured and hockey would be presented at the highest possible quality in markets that actually want to see it. Owners that choose to invest in quality and market that quality wisely would reap the rewards of profit. Those owners who fail to present quality will drown in their own incompetence.
I just love fans of big market teams, lol.

Red Wings?

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 09:03 PM
  #66
Respect Your Edler
Thank You 52
 
Respect Your Edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,221
vCash: 500
There would be no more draft or RFA status. It would probably be a lot like soccer.

Respect Your Edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 12:07 PM
  #67
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
I just love fans of big market teams, lol.
That would be most fans.

Big-market fans are what makes this league go.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 12:30 PM
  #68
skywarp75
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
Its basically what it is now. Teams like the Islanders, Oilers, Panthers, Jets, Bluejackets have no hope. Look at how bad the Oilers and Islanders are year in and year out. Besides that fluke run by the Oilers, they have been a sorry ass team and same with the Islanders.
thats a terrible analogy. those teams are bad due to terrible management and player development.

skywarp75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 12:32 PM
  #69
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by skywarp75 View Post
thats a terrible analogy. those teams are bad due to terrible management and player development.
When you have a league with this many teams, there will *always* be a whack of teams with long term "terrible management and player development".

Quality management doesn't grow on trees anymore than Sids and Ovies grow on trees. The bigger the league, the bigger the disparity between the well-run and poorly-run teams.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 12:32 PM
  #70
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
That would be most fans.

Big-market fans are what makes this league go.
Most teams sell-out every game. If the big market teams think they are what makes the league go they have my permission for the 4 big market teams to form a league of their own.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 12:33 PM
  #71
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Respect Your Edler View Post
There would be no more draft or RFA status. It would probably be a lot like soccer.
How many teams had a chance to win the premier league this year? 2? I don't think anyone wants that for the NHL.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 12:49 PM
  #72
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Most teams sell-out every game. If the big market teams think they are what makes the league go they have my permission for the 4 big market teams to form a league of their own.
What about the top 12?

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 12:55 PM
  #73
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
How many teams had a chance to win the premier league this year? 2? I don't think anyone wants that for the NHL.
The EPL and NHL don't fill the same role in their respective sports. The comparison you need to be making is between the Champion's League and the NHL.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 01:30 PM
  #74
Mr V
Registered User
 
Mr V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oka Noggin
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
What about the top 12?
So, you would lose 18 teams with ~ an average value of 150 million $.
You would also lose about 450 NHL players jobs.
You would also lose numerous minor league jobs.
I can't see too many people happy with that business model.

Mr V is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 01:42 PM
  #75
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I would love to see a 20 team league.

Add in 20 team B and C leagues, with promo/relegation, and it would be just about perfect.

Fan support and management competency should be the primary drivers in franchise viability, not a bean counter's sense of how the dots "should" be distributed across a map.

  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 12:43 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.