HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Replacement Players???

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2004, 12:14 PM
  #1
LaLaLaprise
lalalaprise -twitter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Replacement Players???

How much longer do you think it will go before they use Replacement players?

There are lots of good hockey players out there. And they would probably play more entertaining hockey

Mistakes = Fun

LaLaLaprise is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 12:15 PM
  #2
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Italy
Posts: 23,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by La-La-Laprise
How much longer do you think it will go before they use Replacement players?

There are lots of good hockey players out there. And they would probably play more entertaining hockey

Mistakes = Fun
I don't know if the owners can go the replacement player route yet...we just have to wait and see if the NHLPA is a Union, which I believe holeheratedly it is...and If I was the owners I wouldn't even think twice about using replacement players at this point

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 01:47 PM
  #3
LaLaLaprise
lalalaprise -twitter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven_Nation_Army
I don't know if the owners can go the replacement player route yet...we just have to wait and see if the NHLPA is a Union, which I believe holeheratedly it is...and If I was the owners I wouldn't even think twice about using replacement players at this point
Why not? Screw the players.

Get guys who want to PLAY, for a lot less, more fans would turn out if they could get a ticket for 20 bucks instead of 120 bucks.

LaLaLaprise is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 01:50 PM
  #4
ehc73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ehc73
I'm not sure if it's legal in Canada. I know for sure in BC it's not allowed. By law, you can't bring in replacements if you already have workers there. Unless it's only in the case of a strike...

ehc73 is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 01:52 PM
  #5
Teeder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 9
vCash: 500
Where would the players come from? Aren't most minor league players under NHL contract?

Teeder is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:38 PM
  #6
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Italy
Posts: 23,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teeder
Where would the players come from? Aren't most minor league players under NHL contract?
that's just it, they're not considered NHL players...they're AHLers

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:54 PM
  #7
LaLaLaprise
lalalaprise -twitter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Since the owners locked out the players i dont think they can do it.

If the players walked out on strike, then i think it would be allowed.

LaLaLaprise is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 03:01 PM
  #8
Velouria
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 51
vCash: 500
it is illegal in Canuckville

Velouria is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 03:04 PM
  #9
x-bob
Registered User
 
x-bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by La-La-Laprise
How much longer do you think it will go before they use Replacement players?

There are lots of good hockey players out there. And they would probably play more entertaining hockey

Mistakes = Fun
If I remember well....they were saying on TSN that they have to wait a year

x-bob is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 03:07 PM
  #10
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Italy
Posts: 23,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-bob
If I remember well....they were saying on TSN that they have to wait a year
si senor...its called IMPASSE ... owners have to give 2, 3 or 4 more proposals and the players decline each time...then the owners can wait until next September 15, declare an impasse on the PA, then hand the Levitt report to Trevor Linden's hands and start the NHL over...shut it down and restart all over again


Last edited by Joe T Choker: 10-02-2004 at 03:11 PM.
Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 03:09 PM
  #11
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,905
vCash: 500
I'd love to see replacement players, take the NHLPA down a peg or two.

My loyalty is to the team, always has been. I've never cared who was wearing the uniform, because so many are gone in a few years, many get traded, etc. It's always been "who's wearing it now".

PecaFan is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 03:11 PM
  #12
Going Back to Cally
Sons of Pirates
 
Going Back to Cally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: St.Pete, Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 28,733
vCash: 286
Unless they droped the ticket prices down to low minor league prices it wouldn't work.

I doubt anybody would be willing to pay $30-60 to see a bunch of has-beens play.

Going Back to Cally is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 03:33 PM
  #13
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick
Unless they droped the ticket prices down to low minor league prices it wouldn't work.

I doubt anybody would be willing to pay $30-60 to see a bunch of has-beens play.
a bunch of hasbeens? i doubt that. the league would take a hit for awhile but it would still get the best young guys. The Capitals would still have Ovechkin, the Flames would still have Phaneuf. Pretty much anyone who hasnt joined the nhlpa yet would play just like nothing happened. Some nhlpa members would play. in 5 years the level of talent would be pretty much right where it is now.

txomisc is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 04:39 PM
  #14
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,139
vCash: 500
Preds fans will know what I mean when I say...

Captain Trevor Jobe?

:lol

Hell, I'd support it! Bring back Harry York and Glen Metropolit, too!

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 04:45 PM
  #15
Lionel Hutz
Registered User
 
Lionel Hutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Locking the Lounge??
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven_Nation_Army
si senor...its called IMPASSE ... owners have to give 2, 3 or 4 more proposals and the players decline each time...then the owners can wait until next September 15, declare an impasse on the PA, then hand the Levitt report to Trevor Linden's hands and start the NHL over...shut it down and restart all over again
There are some serious legal issues with respect to replacement workers in all provinces of Canada. Impasse is a solution, but that is really a seperate issue.

Lionel Hutz is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 05:07 PM
  #16
struckmatch
Registered User
 
struckmatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick
Unless they droped the ticket prices down to low minor league prices it wouldn't work.

I doubt anybody would be willing to pay $30-60 to see a bunch of has-beens play.
It would take about less than a week for the NHLPA to fold if the NHL implemented replacement players.

struckmatch is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 05:33 PM
  #17
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 43,969
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
Hell, I'd support it! Bring back Harry York and Glen Metropolit, too!
HEY! HEY! Keep your stinking paws off of Metro! He's Jokerit property. :mad:

Jussi is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 06:09 PM
  #18
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven_Nation_Army
that's just it, they're not considered NHL players...they're AHLers
This isn't true. A few guys have AHL contracts, but most players in the AHL have NHL contracts. They are locked out of an NHL job.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 10:41 AM
  #19
GabbyDugan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Hutz
There are some serious legal issues with respect to replacement workers in all provinces of Canada. Impasse is a solution, but that is really a seperate issue.
Replacement players or impasse? I would say impasse is far more likely.

This article outlines how an employer would go about implementing an impasse...seems pretty consistent with the NHL's strategy so far...

http://www.lawmemo.com/emp/articles/hardball.htm

GabbyDugan is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 11:01 AM
  #20
H/H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
An employer inserting a lockout and then hiring replacement workers? Uhm, I'd be extremely surprised if this isn't highly illegal in any high welfare country.

H/H is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 11:56 AM
  #21
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
I'd love to see replacement players, take the NHLPA down a peg or two.

My loyalty is to the team, always has been. I've never cared who was wearing the uniform, because so many are gone in a few years, many get traded, etc. It's always been "who's wearing it now".
that would be fantastic - signed the nfl -

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 01:48 PM
  #22
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,848
vCash: 500
The NFL and MLB(tried in spring training)used replacement players and it was an embarrassment for both leagues.When the NFL tried it in 1987,they were rightfully ridiculed.It puts the coaches in a very difficult position.The coaches hated coaching a bunch of scabs

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 01:59 PM
  #23
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GabbyDugan
Replacement players or impasse? I would say impasse is far more likely.

This article outlines how an employer would go about implementing an impasse...seems pretty consistent with the NHL's strategy so far...

http://www.lawmemo.com/emp/articles/hardball.htm
An interesting article. Geez, I started reading this stuff and now my brain hurts.
Man im becoming geeky. I like the page name - Hardball.


Quote:
Impasse, however, is only a temporary deadlock, and exists until a change in circumstances indicates that an agreement may be possible. Impasse may be broken through either a change in mind or the application of economic force (i.e., a strike). Implementation after impasse is viewed by the NLRB as a method of breaking impasse, and the parties remain obligated to attempt to negotiate an agreement in good faith. The implementation after impasse strategy is not intended to be used to act unilaterally and destroy the collective bargaining process
My little brain struggles with stuff? Any legal mumbo jumbo interpreters that can tell me if they are saying anything here?

Here was ian interesting line
Quote:
Implementation does not, however, guarantee an immediate strike. The union may delay striking until a busier time for the business so as to have a greater economic impact on the employer, which, in actuality, will transfer the control of the timing to the union.
Declare impasse
union decertifies but returns
pa and managament spend year in courts
players strike at end of regular season as they have played year without a contract
oh yay
maybe Gretzky builds an arena on his golf course and televises playoffs where players are playing for beer and gatorade boy and they televise on ppv


A related case on that site
Unilateral Implementation


Quote:
the National Labor Relations Board found that [the newspaper] committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally implementing a discretionary merit pay proposal, even though [the newspaper] had bargained to impasse over the proposal with the union.

When the 1986 agreement expired, [the newspaper] and the union each proposed a new wage system. From the outset, their proposals were diametrically opposed: [the newspaper] wanted to move to a system based entirely on its determination of merit; the union wanted to eliminate the merit system altogether.
The parties bargained in good faith, but ultimately deadlocked over wage terms for the new agreement. Following impasse, [the newspaper] asserted that it was implementing its final offer and began granting increases to employees without consulting the union.

The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against [the newspaper], alleging that implementing "merit" increases without the union's consent violated [the newspaper]'s duty to bargain with the union over wages.
The General Counsel argued that because [the newspaper] had a statutory obligation to bargain over "wages, hours, and terms of employment," granting individual raises without consulting the union violated the National Labor Relations Act. [the newspaper] maintained that it had satisfied that duty by bargaining to impasse over the discretionary pay proposal. Once it had exhausted the bargaining process by reaching impasse, [the newspaper] asserted, it was privileged to implement its "last, best, and final offer" over the union's objection.

the Board rejected [the newspaper]'s defense. In the Board's view, this case was less about impasse than statutory waiver: an employer who proposes unlimited management discretion over wages is really proposing that the union waive its statutory right to be consulted about wage changes. That is fine, the Board reasoned--if the union agrees. But impasse, by definition a lack of agreement, could not substitute for consent. Without a waiver, nothing relieved [the newspaper] of its obligation to bargain with the union before changing any employee's pay; unilaterally granting merit increases, therefore, was an unfair labor practice.
Out of context, not completely analogous, likely invalid precedent, ignores the appeal, and this qoute only a small snippet, but is it saying anything relevant? A waiver theory? Over my head.


There were some mixed signals in the articles. Here was one

Quote:
Of course, a union's tactics, no matter how troubling or even independently unlawful, are always designed to reach a collective bargaining agreement. An employer, on the other hand, may well wish to break the union. Neither the Board nor the Supreme Court has mentioned this asymmetrical factor, but it may have affected decisions.
Break the union? Surely not.

Here was another one
Quote:
the Board has denied the employer a particular economic tactic for the sake of preserving the stability of the collective bargaining process. The post-impasse rule itself regulates process through power. The Board has told us that its rationale for permitting an employer to unilaterally implement its final offer after impasse is that such an action breaks the impasse and therefore encourages future collective bargaining.4 The theory might well be thought somewhat strained, for it does not explain why the Board decided to handle impasse with this rule instead of another.

The Board could have adopted, for example, a rule requiring the status quo to remain in effect until either the union or the employer was willing to resume negotiations. Stagnancy might pressure both the employer and the union to bend. But the rule it did choose--allowing the employer to implement its final offer--moves the process forward by giving one party, the employer, economic lever- age. And in this case, where the employer has advanced no substantive criteria for its merit pay proposal, the Board has decided that the economic power it has granted would go too far. Rather than merely pressuring the union, implementa- tion might well irreparably undermine its ability to bargain.

But assessing the significance of impasse and the dynamics of collective bargaining is precisely the kind of judgment that should be left to the Board.

you read this stuff and you wonder if this thing is destined to be settled or time-wasted in the courts over arcane matters of waiver and the labour boards authority over the dynamics of collective bargaining? At the least, it seems to suggest implementation after impasse will be a strategy fraught with legal peril.


Quote:
petitioner was therefore entitled to insist on it to impasse. Petitioner claims, however, that by declaring its "implementation" after impasse illegal the Board has done indirectly what it could not do directly. If an employer cannot implement its proposal then the union has a permanent "veto," which, it is argued, is simply another way for the Board to treat an employer's insistence on the proposal as illegal. Petitioner's argument has a good deal of force, but it does not quite carry the day. As the Board's counsel pointed out, the two steps of bargaining to impasse and implementing after impasse are not practically equivalent and therefore can be judged according to different standards. If a party can force an impasse over a subject, its authority to do so gives it significant leverage over all other matters. That ability is not lost--at least not totally--by the Board's holding that the same proposal may not be unilaterally implemented after impasse.

It is important to recognize, however, that the Board's decision does not prevent an employer from implementing a merit pay proposal post-impasse--so long as the proposal defines "merit" with objective criteria.
Lawyers paradise.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 12:38 PM
  #24
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy
The NFL and MLB(tried in spring training)used replacement players and it was an embarrassment for both leagues.When the NFL tried it in 1987,they were rightfully ridiculed.It puts the coaches in a very difficult position.The coaches hated coaching a bunch of scabs
- my thoughts precisely -

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 02:25 PM
  #25
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Here was ian interesting line:

Implementation does not, however, guarantee an immediate strike. The union may delay striking until a busier time for the business so as to have a greater economic impact on the employer, which, in actuality, will transfer the control of the timing to the union.
This opens up another option for the players. The owners declare an impasse. The union does not strike. They return to work under the owner's system but they refuse to have anything to do with audit procedures while filing lawsuits against the league and the imposed agreement.

They play 100% of the regular season, cash 100% of their paycheques and walk off the job just before the playoffs start. If they want to be really perverse, they report back to work the following September. The owners can have their salary cap under that scenario, but they can't have a Stanley Cup Tournament.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin 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 06:20 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.