HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Could owners clean up their own mess

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-19-2004, 12:28 PM
  #1
West
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 634
vCash: 500
Could owners clean up their own mess

Alot of people here have the opinion that the owners have gotten themselves into this mess and should get themselves out of it. I don't necessarily buy this but let's say that it's 100% true.

Could the owners get together and say that given x sources of income and y expenses that a franchise must break even or make a profit or else they come under league control and the league take's over until such time as the franchise is profitable again (meaning the league comes in and fire sales and plays big time hardball on contract until the numbers add up again).

Right now if the owners numbers are correct that would mean about 11 teams making their own decesions and the rest of the league controlled directly by the NHL. This would give them a huge advantage in salary negotiations. It would also mean major contract buy outs and more players sitting out seasons likely.

So the question is do you think that the NHLPA would agree to this and do they have any legal rights to stop something like this from happening if they don't like it?

Bonus question: As a fan would you be for something like this or against it?

Thanks

West is offline  
Old
02-19-2004, 01:17 PM
  #2
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by West
Alot of people here have the opinion that the owners have gotten themselves into this mess and should get themselves out of it. I don't necessarily buy this but let's say that it's 100% true.

Could the owners get together and say that given x sources of income and y expenses that a franchise must break even or make a profit or else they come under league control and the league take's over until such time as the franchise is profitable again (meaning the league comes in and fire sales and plays big time hardball on contract until the numbers add up again).

Right now if the owners numbers are correct that would mean about 11 teams making their own decesions and the rest of the league controlled directly by the NHL. This would give them a huge advantage in salary negotiations. It would also mean major contract buy outs and more players sitting out seasons likely.

So the question is do you think that the NHLPA would agree to this and do they have any legal rights to stop something like this from happening if they don't like it?

Bonus question: As a fan would you be for something like this or against it?

Thanks
Not a chance that this idea would ever get to the point of the PA having a look at it. If you're an owner and you've paid $50 million for your franchise would you sign a piece of paper saying that if the league didn't like the way you do business they can take the team from you? No way in hell.

I'm sure the owners have a few ideas that could fix a thing or two in the CBA, but the language of the current agreement states that any such decision that affects salaries in any way is subject to NHLPA approval. As such the only thing the owners could do among themselves with no pressure from the PA is revenue sharing which would be a band-aid at best with the news of the ABC/ESPN negotiations going so poorly. MY gut feeling is the hard stance with the hard cap is a negotiating ploy. Start at the furthest extreme and slowly close the gap. Start with a hard cap and maybe by the end some version of a soft cap or a luxury tax is where you wind up.

Your idea is an interesting theory but you're dealing with 28 men (the Oilers and Flames are owned by groups) who are fierce individualists and capitalists who will not give up thier teams for any reason beyond bankruptcy. Also you're trusting the NHL, not something I'm too crazy about. The NHLPA would never in a million years agree to this.

Malefic74 is offline  
Old
02-19-2004, 02:28 PM
  #3
craig1
Registered User
 
craig1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
When Baseball didn't have salaries escalating at a desired rate one summer, MLB players association sued.....and won on the basis of collusion. While I think owners should be able to set their values, there are too many Ultra-Liberal judges who get their thrills by screwing over businesses. The NHLPA would do the exact same thing......

craig1 is offline  
Old
02-19-2004, 02:31 PM
  #4
craig1
Registered User
 
craig1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
.....That's the beauty of the CBA expiring. The NHLPA can't cry collusion since there is no working agreement beyond Sept 15th. This gives the NHL the ability to put a cap (both literally and figuratively) on the geiser of losses and get the NHL in order without having a legal battle on its hand from the NHLPA.

craig1 is offline  
Old
02-19-2004, 02:53 PM
  #5
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
The owners could easily fix their problems without changing the CBA radically. Especially with so many contracts expiring after this season.

If every team that didn't make the playoffs shed their payroll to $25-30M, there would be $110M to $130M less in combined losses to those franchises.

And if you're not going to make the playoffs, why bother spending more money then that on payroll?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
02-19-2004, 03:05 PM
  #6
West
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefic74
Not a chance that this idea would ever get to the point of the PA having a look at it. If you're an owner and you've paid $50 million for your franchise would you sign a piece of paper saying that if the league didn't like the way you do business they can take the team from you? No way in hell.

I'm sure the owners have a few ideas that could fix a thing or two in the CBA, but the language of the current agreement states that any such decision that affects salaries in any way is subject to NHLPA approval. As such the only thing the owners could do among themselves with no pressure from the PA is revenue sharing which would be a band-aid at best with the news of the ABC/ESPN negotiations going so poorly. MY gut feeling is the hard stance with the hard cap is a negotiating ploy. Start at the furthest extreme and slowly close the gap. Start with a hard cap and maybe by the end some version of a soft cap or a luxury tax is where you wind up.

Your idea is an interesting theory but you're dealing with 28 men (the Oilers and Flames are owned by groups) who are fierce individualists and capitalists who will not give up thier teams for any reason beyond bankruptcy. Also you're trusting the NHL, not something I'm too crazy about. The NHLPA would never in a million years agree to this.
Your probably right but there are two very solid reasons they might do it if they could.
1) A long strike in the states could kill off alot of teams in nontraditional hockey markets and this could side step the whole CBA issue.
2) Anyone who has 50 million dollars to spend on anything has a pretty good idea what a monoply can do for your business. How much do you think players would be making right now if the NHL negotiated all salaries for all teams?
2b) Also you (or the league for you) get to play super hardball on players salaries and everyone else catches the blame.

Still this is likely way to radical for anyone my interest was could they and what people thought of it. The answer seems like not until the CBA expires and perhaps not even after.

West is offline  
Old
02-19-2004, 03:29 PM
  #7
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1
.....That's the beauty of the CBA expiring. The NHLPA can't cry collusion since there is no working agreement beyond Sept 15th. This gives the NHL the ability to put a cap (both literally and figuratively) on the geiser of losses and get the NHL in order without having a legal battle on its hand from the NHLPA.
That is not correct.

Even the NHL's own propaganda site recognizes that the agreement continues. The last thing the NHL needs is no CBA because then any number of league activities would be illegal.

"The United States Supreme Court has held that so long as there is a collective bargaining relationship between a league and its players union, the antitrust restrictions which would otherwise apply to agreements among clubs are no longer applicable. In other words, so long as there is a collective bargaining relationship between the NHL and the NHLPA, the Clubs and the League are permitted to jointly function as any single business would normally operate."

Here is an excerpt from the NHL CBA website on the effect of expiry of the CBA:

What happens when the contract expires? Can the NHL and the Clubs do whatever they want?
A labor contract, unlike other contracts with which you may be familiar, does not automatically disappear at its expiration date. Under federal labor law, the "status quo" must be maintained - the provisions of the agreement remain in effect - unless and until certain events occur, as described below. That means that the employer cannot change what its employees are paid, or how much they work, etc., just because the contract has expired. One important exception, however, is that a contract provision which prohibits strikes and lockouts during the term of the contract does not survive the expiration of the contract. After a collective bargaining agreement expires, employees are allowed to strike and an employer is allowed to impose a lockout.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
02-19-2004, 04:16 PM
  #8
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
No the owners and players need to do something for the good of the sport rather then the good of themselves.

People say "well if the owners dont offer the contracts the players cant sign them".

It only takes a handful of owners to throw everything out of whack. There are owners that will spend and spend without having to worry about losing money. They drive up salaries for everyone. What happens when a player, playing for a less wealthy team, goes to arbitration and is awarded a big contract based on market value not how much the team can afford? Sure you dont have to pay him but then you lose him. Then he can sign with a wealthy that will pay him.

People say "I dont want a cap cause then every team will be mediocre".

Would the quality of hockey really suffer? Would anything be worse then watching NHL hockey as it is played right now?

People say "With a cap teams would draft and develop players would have to let them go because they wouldnt fit under the cap".

Yeah as opposed to now when teams draft and develop players and have to trade them because they cant afford then.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
02-19-2004, 04:38 PM
  #9
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,931
vCash: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by West
Could the owners get together and say that given x sources of income and y expenses that a franchise must break even or make a profit or else they come under league control and the league take's over until such time as the franchise is profitable again (meaning the league comes in and fire sales and plays big time hardball on contract until the numbers add up again).
They can't do anything of the sort or they'll be guilty of collusion. Any judge would rightfully rule that such measures are a violation of anti-trust law and can only be exempted if they're the product of collective bargaining. This mess can't be cleaned up without a new CBA that ties revenues to expenses in a way that's agreeable to both sides. The owners do have the power to share revenues without a new CBA, but they can do nothing collectively to limit salaries.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
02-19-2004, 04:47 PM
  #10
craig1
Registered User
 
craig1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster
That is not correct.

Even the NHL's own propaganda site recognizes that the agreement continues. The last thing the NHL needs is no CBA because then any number of league activities would be illegal.

"The United States Supreme Court has held that so long as there is a collective bargaining relationship between a league and its players union, the antitrust restrictions which would otherwise apply to agreements among clubs are no longer applicable. In other words, so long as there is a collective bargaining relationship between the NHL and the NHLPA, the Clubs and the League are permitted to jointly function as any single business would normally operate."

Here is an excerpt from the NHL CBA website on the effect of expiry of the CBA:

What happens when the contract expires? Can the NHL and the Clubs do whatever they want?

A labor contract, unlike other contracts with which you may be familiar, does not automatically disappear at its expiration date. Under federal labor law, the "status quo" must be maintained - the provisions of the agreement remain in effect - unless and until certain events occur, as described below. That means that the employer cannot change what its employees are paid, or how much they work, etc., just because the contract has expired. One important exception, however, is that a contract provision which prohibits strikes and lockouts during the term of the contract does not survive the expiration of the contract. After a collective bargaining agreement expires, employees are allowed to strike and an employer is allowed to impose a lockout.

I think you mistook my statement.........With the CBA expiring, a lockout, then new CBA or new CBA negotiated before expiry will hopefully have things like salary cap, revenue sharing, etc........If all this is built in, the NHLPA cannot cry collusion like the MLB players association did since hopefully the new CBA can show why owners must offer lower salaries. I never stated that the contract would disappear. I stated that it's expiry has opened a window for the NHL to fix itself wheter it comes to a lockout or completed negotiations before Sept 15th, time will tell. But I highly doubt that the NHL will play any games until a new agreement is reached.

craig1 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 04:31 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.