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.
My argument is that Bettman would never ever say something like that to the players. Why would he say that? It makes zero sense. It would only piss off the players, is that something Bettman wants to do at this point?
Also this has not been reported by anybody else, only by Brooks.
Brooks' hit rate during the CBA talks has been close to zero, last week he reported a rumor about realigment, that was squashed by other journos quickly.
Ya,the la kings where not forsale either..lol
The NY Post reported the Los Angeles Kings are for
sale, but NHL commissioner Gary Bettman calls that
"categorically untrue."
The NY Post reported the Los Angeles Kings are for
sale, but NHL commissioner Gary Bettman calls that
"categorically untrue."
Though Gary said the same thing for about the Coyotes for about two years before Moyes put them into bankruptcy and tried to sell the team to Balsillie.
No, that's not the question. Everything Bettman says is calculated.
So the question is why WOULD Bettman say something like that? What's the benefit of saying that? Pissing off players? What good does that do?
Because I'm sure it's true. Regardless of his title, he works for the owners, particularly the small market teams. There are several deals owners would LOVE to rid themselves of.
Just because it may be a dumb/stupid or perceived to be, doesn't mean he won't say it. He may be smart, no question but his “We recovered last time because we have the world’s greatest fans” suggests he has the odd lapse.
If this would go to court, how long would it take for the courts to do anything? I'm guessing it would be much longer than the players could afford to hold out. The owners know this and are calling their bluff.
If this would go to court, how long would it take for the courts to do anything? I'm guessing it would be much longer than the players could afford to hold out. The owners know this and are calling their bluff.
Yeah the players would lose a ton, no question. The owners are losing money also, albeit less money on the whole but some individual owners are losing MASSIVE amounts of money.
I think it's more the threat of the "Anti-Trust" that causes the real concern b/c very few owners could cover that cost if they players were to be successful.
I think it's more the threat of the "Anti-Trust" that causes the real concern b/c very few owners could cover that cost if they players were to be successful.
What cost? If NHL cancels the season the moment Fehr files for DOI (like Bettman has said NHL will do), PA will get zero money from the courts. The triple damages is for only games missed after the ruling, not for the games missed already. And if NHL cancels the season, players get nothing.
This I agree with. Nobody forced Leino for $4.4 or Kopecky for $4M.
Some of these contracts.
These were head scratching contracts when they were signed and they remain so now.
If the mediation talks fall apart, Fehr needs to do the DOI ASAP. It could be the only chance to save the season. Either it forces a deal (not counting on it), or the Courts could force them to play... Precedents in Appeal Courts in First Circuit, 7th Circuit and 9th Circuit is that a Federal Court can enjoin a lockout (unlike 8th Circuit in 2011 NFL Brady Case).
The NHL has teams in California and Arizona (9th Circuit) and could ask a Federal Court there to enjoin the lockout. Local 2750, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union v. Cole, 663 F.2d 983 (9th Circuit. 1981) is a solid precedent.
If the mediation talks fall apart, Fehr needs to do the DOI ASAP. It could be the only chance to save the season. Either it forces a deal (not counting on it), or the Courts could force them to play... Precedents in Appeal Courts in First Circuit, 7th Circuit and 9th Circuit is that a Federal Court can enjoin a lockout (unlike 8th Circuit in 2011 NFL Brady Case).
The NHL has teams in California and Arizona (9th Circuit) and could ask a Federal Court there to enjoin the lockout. Local 2750, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union v. Cole, 663 F.2d 983 (9th Circuit. 1981) is a solid precedent.
Are you kidding? The facts in Lumber & Sawmill are nothing like this. In that case, a CBA between the parties existed at the time, no negotiations were going on, and the company locked out its workers because of a safety concern without following any of the CBA-agreed upon procedure for managing a safety issue. That would be good precedent if it was 2010 and the owners locked out the players because they didn't like their ties.
Are you kidding? The facts in Lumber & Sawmill are nothing like this. In that case, a CBA between the parties existed at the time, no negotiations were going on, and the company locked out its workers because of a safety concern without following any of the CBA-agreed upon procedure for managing a safety issue. That would be good precedent if it was 2010 and the owners locked out the players because they didn't like their ties.
With all due respect, the question of law is the same...
1-"a CBA between the parties existed at the time, no negotiations were going on, and the company locked out its workers because of a safety concern without following any of the CBA-agreed upon procedure for managing a safety issue" = Case involving or growing out of a Labor Dispute -- Check
2-NHL Lockout 2012-13 = Case involving or growing out of a Labor Dispute -- Check.
Ratio: Anti-injunction provisions of section 4(a) of the Norris Laguardia Act don't apply to protect employers.
If the mediation talks fall apart, Fehr needs to do the DOI ASAP. It could be the only chance to save the season. Either it forces a deal (not counting on it), or the Courts could force them to play... Precedents in Appeal Courts in First Circuit, 7th Circuit and 9th Circuit is that a Federal Court can enjoin a lockout (unlike 8th Circuit in 2011 NFL Brady Case).
The NHL has teams in California and Arizona (9th Circuit) and could ask a Federal Court there to enjoin the lockout. Local 2750, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union v. Cole, 663 F.2d 983 (9th Circuit. 1981) is a solid precedent.
Or the league could dissolve itself into a trade association as well and each team could make an independent decision to shut things down this year or try to play against any other teams that wanted to keep playing. And the players would have to play with no pension, no insurance, no draft, etc. They would have no union protections at all.
The idea that the minute the DOI is filed the PA wins and/or gets all the leverage is ridiculous. Aside from the litigation already filed by the league, there are many options at its disposal to deal with the DOI.
If the mediation talks fall apart, Fehr needs to do the DOI ASAP. It could be the only chance to save the season. Either it forces a deal (not counting on it), or the Courts could force them to play... Precedents in Appeal Courts in First Circuit, 7th Circuit and 9th Circuit is that a Federal Court can enjoin a lockout (unlike 8th Circuit in 2011 NFL Brady Case).
The NHL has teams in California and Arizona (9th Circuit) and could ask a Federal Court there to enjoin the lockout. Local 2750, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union v. Cole, 663 F.2d 983 (9th Circuit. 1981) is a solid precedent.
NHL has already filed the case in NY, 2nd circuit which is owner-friendly (though I have to say that as an European, it boggles my mind how the courts can be so different in different cities)
Yeah the players would lose a ton, no question. The owners are losing money also, albeit less money on the whole but some individual owners are losing MASSIVE amounts of money.
I think it's more the threat of the "Anti-Trust" that causes the real concern b/c very few owners could cover that cost if they players were to be successful.
None of the owners are losing 'massive' amounts of money, save maybe one or two (and the Leafs are corporate owned, incredibly well financed and could afford not to play for years without any risk to the franchise). You forget that for most teams, payroll is over 50% of their revenue, and they're not paying any of that at the moment. Neither are they paying for the massive amount of operational costs involved with running a hockey team. The only thing they are covering are their fixed costs (much of which if financed by debt, the interest upon which is tax deductible) and those losses will also carryforward to be applied against future earnings, so their real losses after tax are pretty damn small in the grand scheme of things. And they can make it all back if they want in salary in the future, because there is still a big gap between the floor and the cap that affords them flexibility.
Most of the players on the other hand are throwing away a material percentage of their lifetime earnings that they will never recover. For nothing. I think the players should have hired a financial advisor to work alongside Donald Fehr.
This I agree with. Nobody forced Leino for $4.4 or Kopecky for $4M.
Some of these contracts.
These were head scratching contracts when they were signed and they remain so now.
Pegula came in on a high horse. His purpose was to spend money that off-season.
With all due respect, the question of law is the same...
1-"a CBA between the parties existed at the time, no negotiations were going on, and the company locked out its workers because of a safety concern without following any of the CBA-agreed upon procedure for managing a safety issue" = Case involving or growing out of a Labor Dispute -- Check
2-NHL Lockout 2012-13 = Case involving or growing out of a Labor Dispute -- Check.
Ratio: Anti-injunction provisions of section 4(a) of the Norris Laguardia Act don't apply to protect employers.
So what you're saying is that lockouts are always illegal in anything that could be characterized as a "labor dispute," and that "labor dispute" means anything ranging from negotiations with a union to just plain breaking your existing agreement with your people.
With all due respect, the question of law is the same...
1-"a CBA between the parties existed at the time, no negotiations were going on, and the company locked out its workers because of a safety concern without following any of the CBA-agreed upon procedure for managing a safety issue" = Case involving or growing out of a Labor Dispute -- Check
2-NHL Lockout 2012-13 = Case involving or growing out of a Labor Dispute -- Check.
Ratio: Anti-injunction provisions of section 4(a) of the Norris Laguardia Act don't apply to protect employers.
I'm sorry, wut? No CBA existed between the NHL and the PA when the owners locked the players out. The CBA had expired. And negotiations were going on. And the lockout had nothing to do with safety concerns, it has to do with the terms of a new CBA.
The two fact patterns you outline above aren't comparable at all.
Oh noes! Crosby is saying again that he's probably going to go play in Europe. And he means it this time. Really. He's serious. Don't test him. Because he'll do it.
Oh noes! Crosby is saying again that he's probably going to go play in Europe. And he means it this time. Really. He's serious. Don't test him. Because he'll do it.
I hope he stays over there. Enjoy the rest of your career, Mr. Crosby. Thanks for your time.
Please feel free to clarify how the game would be better without Crosby's participation.
Simple: I'm sick of all of these players. Sick and tired of players who are so antagonistic that to this day they're fighting for the right to throw away their own money. It's an insult to their fans that $500M is worth so little to them that they'd rather lose that money just to piss on their employers than play the damned game they profess to love. I came into this lockout hoping for a quick resolution and relatively neutral between the sides. After watching the players mindlessly pursue a strategy that had them losing hundreds of millions of dollars even if they win the negotiation from here on out, hurting local economies, and insulting the fans by telling them how much they just want to play while turning their nose up at the best revenue split in North American pro sports, I have no interest in watching these guys again. They've acted like pigs. So Mr. Crosby can help himself to a plane, along with Mr. Miller, Mr. Ovechkin, Mr. Stamkos, the lot of them. They're an insult.
I'll watch the NHL again if they bring in scabs who love the game - or are at least not spiteful enough to throw their own money away just for a chance to rob the fans and owners of the game. That's exactly what the players have done - thrown their own money away just for a chance to spite their bosses and the fans.
NHL has already filed the case in NY, 2nd circuit which is owner-friendly (though I have to say that as an European, it boggles my mind how the courts can be so different in different cities)
