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.
Mirtle: NHLPA’s hard-liners hint at decertification after latest offer rejected
..... *Decertification comes into effect if they are still locked out in two weeks time.*
Wonder if the owners would get a little more reasonable, and urgent, if they had a deadline like this.
It might be better than letting them eat up your wages while waiting for Gary's real deadline.
Decertification basically means getting rid of a union. It happens when a majority of employees no longer support the Unionor don't want the union to represent them.
One thing the NHLPA has to keep in mind are the labor laws are different everywhere, therefore the rules for doing this could be different for different areas.
An example of rules in MB.
STRIKE OR LOCK OUT
You cannot apply during the first 6 months of a legal strike or lockout. Also, after 6
months of that strike or lockout, you cannot apply unless the Board agrees.
The Labour Board may impose a first collective agreement where the employer and
union cannot negotiate one. The Board may also impose a subsequent collective
agreement after a strike or lockout of 60 days or more.
Just saying, if the NHLPA wants to go down this road, it could be really messy for them to try.
Labor law enters into the equation, because the first order of business after decertifying is suing to have the lockout declared illegal. That's a matter of both antitrust and labor law and there's precedent from the NFL lockout. I believe the standard is that you can't simply decertify as a bargaining tool; you have to really "mean it." It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's the gist.
The NFLPA decertified and instantly sued the NFL, 5 months later, the lockout was still legal. Decertification is IMHO a valid tactic, but the time is well before the CBA expires so that the legal wrangling is out of the way.
Having said that, if the plan is to basically allow the season to be cancelled, then decertifing in the hopes of having a resolution by the start of the next season is possible.
Decertification basically means getting rid of a union. It happens when a majority of employees no longer support the Unionor don't want the union to represent them.
One thing the NHLPA has to keep in mind are the labor laws are different everywhere, therefore the rules for doing this could be different for different areas.
An example of rules in MB.
STRIKE OR LOCK OUT
You cannot apply during the first 6 months of a legal strike or lockout. Also, after 6
months of that strike or lockout, you cannot apply unless the Board agrees.
The Labour Board may impose a first collective agreement where the employer and
union cannot negotiate one. The Board may also impose a subsequent collective
agreement after a strike or lockout of 60 days or more.
Just saying, if the NHLPA wants to go down this road, it could be really messy for them to try.
But their tails wouldn't be between their legs, which seems like the only option they're being given at present. Not to mention that the losses of every player cave-in compounds with each CBA negotiation.
Soccer is not really comparable because there's a number of top-tier leagues worldwide. The stop down to second tier leagues is not as big. Thus, much more competition for top players. The NHL is the top league by a very wide margin. A few NHL teams would compete for top players, maybe a KHL team or two, but that's it.
I think this isn't as true as you'd think.
There is the potential to build a competitive league in Europe out of the top cities. If hockey is supposed to work in Sunrise, Florida, why not Bern, Switzerland (whose team has an attendance of almost 16,000)?
Yes, the NHL would likely still attract most of the top talent, but the step down wouldn't be as great, with real salary competition for good players.
The NFLPA decertified and instantly sued the NFL, 5 months later, the lockout was still legal. Decertification is IMHO a valid tactic, but the time is well before the CBA expires so that the legal wrangling is out of the way.
Having said that, if the plan is to basically allow the season to be cancelled, then decertifing in the hopes of having a resolution by the start of the next season is possible.
Sure ... decertifying punts the 2012-13 season away. But the union isn't going to play under the terms of Bettman's ultimatum anyway.
The reason more teams are losing money in 2012 than 2006 is that rich teams drive the overall revenue picture in the NHL,
The Rangers/Leafs etc are generating revenue much faster than other teams,
Their concentrated success, however, means that the cap and floor rise for ALL teams. Revenues/Salaries are growing too fast for smaller/poorer teams.
Nothing in this agreement changes that dynamic.
So 50/50 bails out water... but it doesn't repair the leak.
This is the issue exactly, franchise revenue disparity under a CBA tied to revenues.
Since the NHL seems unwilling to change the Cap System, then there appears to be only three potential solutions.
Relocation, contraction or a revenue sharing program that provides all franchises economic stability.
The NHL controls all three of these solutions, yet to date has only agreed to increase revenue sharing from $150M to $200M. This won't permanently address the root cause.
If anyone believes what the NHL is demanding fixes anything long term, then I respectfully suggest you are in for a rude awakening in 5 - 7 years.
Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 11-22-2012 at 11:32 AM.
It has also been suggested that future lockouts will be avoided when both sides have something to lose. The word exploitation probably shouldn't be used to describe a average salary for union members of 2 million+. Perhaps "protecting the owners" creates an environment that is beneficial to the players as a whole.
Why not? You're forgetting what happened when there were no player associations.
There is the potential to build a competitive league in Europe out of the top cities. If hockey is supposed to work in Sunrise, Florida, why not Bern, Switzerland (whose team has an attendance of almost 16,000)?
Yes, the NHL would likely still attract most of the top talent, but the step down wouldn't be as great, with real salary competition for good players.
Yes, it is as true as he thinks. The only way such a league in Europe would work is if you find a whole group of owners who want to lose pretty much all the money they put into it.
You can't just put a team somewhere and think that will work. Europe is big on tradition. The fans in Bern wouldn't run to see a new team that plays in some sort of European league, they already have their team.
Beyond that, ticket prices in Europe are much much lower than in the NHL, and there isn't much money to be expected out of tv-contracts or local sponsors either. The only teams that can "afford" to pay some of their players in the millions is the KHL, and most of them couldn't afford these salaries either if they actually tried to have a balanced budget.
1) 50-50 doesn't change the economics of the game.
There's a leak in the NHL. 50-50 just bails water out a little faster. But not fast enough. And nobody is trying to plug the leak.
2) Right now, there are teams that make money. And every team voted in favor of the lockout. The Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Red Wings, Flyers, Rangers etc... they are losing REAL profit. And they voted for the lockout.
This isn't about profits, IMO. This is about busting the union for 2 reasons. 1) Owners always love to bust unions for short and long term reasons 2) Franchises are easier to sell and will fetch a better price if buyers think the union is a push over.
It's really obscene to me that anyone would suggest that some of these crooks who own NHL franchises need "protection."
They would have to admit that the system they lost an entire system to gain is the one punching holes in the dinghy. That doesn't make them look very bright.
A calculator and adding weight to the revenue figures they were averaging would have indicated to even the most casual of observers that the cap range was going to steam roll over many teams.
Yet they persist with the same inflationary system of forced spending across the board.
Why not? You're forgetting what happened when there were no player associations.
That was a long time ago, and if the players can't let go of the idea that the owners are always out to screw them, we'll always have labour strife in this sport.
Face it: asking the PA to move from 7/27 UFA to 8/28 isn't "exploitation" in any sense of the word. The same is true of any item in the league's last proposal. If the players really want to continue in their self-destructive collective mindset, that's certainly their prerogative, but I suggest they first ask Ted Lindsay and other old-timers what "exploitation" really means. Might give them a good reality check.
2- It affected the settlement of the last two pro sport lockouts (NFL and NBA). David Stern, the NBA commissioner, called it a "nuclear winter" after the NBA Players decertified in 2011.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada
1. The players voted on decertification in a phone conference this week. Presumably, they would have decertified if they had voted yes. It's not a hypothetical, it's a reality.
2. The players would not be represented by the PA. In the NFL, the lawsuits were in the name of "Tom Brady and other players" and in the NBA they were in the name of "Carmelo Anthony and other players". No more union anymore, but a form of player association instead...
Uh, no. While you may call it "just semantics", the players DISCUSSED the issues (of the three options) and decided that decertification is not what they want to pursue right now, a VOTE is a regulated (secret ballot-like) mechanism of registering opinion/concensus.
So, no, the players have not VOTED to accept/reject decertification.
So what's different this time around? Simply one person: Donald Fehr.
The problem is, no one can get a read on this guy. He's got a poker face that would make Daniel Negreanu shudder. Owners, Gary Bettman, media types, fans, no one can figure Fehr out; no one has a clue where his exit strategy lies.
...
So for the sake of his 750 hockey players, please tell me he didn't come all this way without a plan B. ...
...
It’s safe to say no one would be more familiar with unfair labour practice claims than this guy. ...
...
Another option for Fehr -- a worst-case scenario for any hockey fan -- would be decertifying the NHLPA. But that’s a complex procedure that guarantees the players nothing, and guarantees not only no hockey for this season, but likely next as well.
...
The purpose of decertifying would be to eliminate Bettman's negotiating partner. Without a functioning PA, it’s the players’ hope that an owners’ lockout would be deemed illegal and instantly lifted. Dissolving the unions also dissolves the salary cap, linkage, escrow, salary arbitration, rookie cap, you name it. The owners could argue decertifying jeopardizes existing contracts.
And eliminate the draft.
A lot of reasons to avoid the decertification process.
What it does is gives massive power to the top players over the owners, and massive power to the owners over the replacement-level players on the bottom lines.
What bottom lines?
Teams can now dress as many players as they want, not a minimum. no need to pay 4th line guys to sit on the bench ......
... and, of course, the most important thing the owners get from the union is the ability to conspire to close the business for no reason to get negotiating leverage.
This is why I find the ruling by the court on the NFLPA's decertification a bit puzzling.
Teams are allowed to conspire as a negotiating ploy to gain leverage and impose terms on 'labor' but the latter aren't allowed to decertify? An illegal cartel gains legality if there's an union, but that union cannot disband? If they do disband, the cartel can continue to dictate terms per the court's ruling as if there were no laws about illegal cartels???
Epsilon, explain to me why the owners pay these mediocre guys money in today's market but won't in a decertified market?
Player rosters will shrink, and the competition for the lower placed guys who are only marginally better than the AHL players will drive prices down, supply and demand.
That was a long time ago, and if the players can't let go of the idea that the owners are always out to screw them, we'll always have labour strife in this sport.
Face it: asking the PA to move from 7/27 UFA to 8/28 isn't "exploitation" in any sense of the word. The same is true of any item in the league's last proposal. If the players really want to continue in their self-destructive collective mindset, that's certainly their prerogative, but I suggest they first ask Ted Lindsay and other old-timers what "exploitation" really means. Might give them a good reality check.
It doesn't matter how long ago it was, you're nieve if you think owners wouldn't screw the players if there was no union, or no other check and balance to restrict them from doing so? We're talking about non-guaranteed contracts, extremely limited (if at all) free agency, much lower salaries across the board, etc.
And I don't see why people are saying decertification is punting away the season when it helped expidite a settlement in the NFL and NBA lockouts. What's the difference between that and the NHL situation?
It doesn't matter how long ago it was, you're nieve if you think owners wouldn't screw the players if there was no union, or no other check and balance to restrict them from doing so? We're talking about non-guaranteed contracts, extremely limited (if at all) free agency, much lower salaries across the board, etc.
And I don't see why people are saying decertification is punting away the season when it helped expidite a settlement in the NFL and NBA lockouts. What's the difference between that and the NHL situation?
Player rosters will shrink, and the competition for the lower placed guys who are only marginally better than the AHL players will drive prices down, supply and demand.
Both decertification and a cap free system would be good for the superstars, bad for the rank and file; either would likely lead to the loss of a few teams and therefore fewer jobs for players.
i cant see why the players, except for the stars, would push for either scenario.
Definitely not in the NFL lockout. It's an empty tactic unless you're going to take it all the way to the wall. Which means months and months of court and if it comes to it, blowing off a unilateral CBA, which then could mean scabs in the future, which will cause you more money down the road repairing that damage.
If it's an empty tactic to scare people back to the table, whatever, maybe it'll work. If it's a serious use of it, well then it just got worse for the majority of the PA that aren't top earners.
The primary reason the Ted Lindsays of the world got screwed is that all the leagues said that even when your contract was up, you could only sign with your current team. Once the baseball players challenged the reserve clause and the arbitrator said that the reserve clause really wasn't part of the contract, the gig was up.
So a 21st century union-free environment would be completely different than the union-free environment of the 1950s and 1960s. Once his contract is complete with a team, the player will be a free agent. That alone is enough to deter abuse.
It doesn't matter how long ago it was, you're naive if you think owners wouldn't screw the players if there was no union, or no other check and balance to restrict them from doing so? We're talking about non-guaranteed contracts, extremely limited (if at all) free agency, much lower salaries across the board, etc.
You say the owners would screw the players, I say it would end up being supply & demand, with the only real protections being found in anti-trust law. Elite players, being in short supply & high demand, would see the most gold-plated contracts the owners could concoct. The rank-and-file, being in much larger supply, would get pretty hammered. No argument there.
So whose interests would decertification really serve? Not a Deryk Engelland or Scott Hannan. They'd get hosed without a union, probably scraping by on 1-year non-guaranteed deals for chump change from year to year. Meanwhile Sydney Crosby's pulling down $20M+ with the Leafs or Rangers or wherever he chose to play.
The NHLPA should be very careful what it might wish for. Decertification would work wonders for the elites. Everyone else would be thrown to the wolves.
But their tails wouldn't be between their legs, which seems like the only option they're being given at present. Not to mention that the losses of every player cave-in compounds with each CBA negotiation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26
It doesn't matter how long ago it was, you're nieve if you think owners wouldn't screw the players if there was no union, or no other check and balance to restrict them from doing so? We're talking about non-guaranteed contracts, extremely limited (if at all) free agency, much lower salaries across the board, etc.
And I don't see why people are saying decertification is punting away the season when it helped expidite a settlement in the NFL and NBA lockouts. What's the difference between that and the NHL situation?
NHL teams would have to deal with labour laws which differ depending on where you are. It likely would boost any non-NHL owned leagues for competition.
Non-guaranteed contracts wouldn't occur for everyone. If you negotiate 6 years at $6M per year for your contract and don't include an out-clause, you're entitled to $6M per year for 6 years. If they didn't put a term on the contract and just hired you for a $6M salary, then it would be non-guaranteed (but players with clout to negotiate $6M contracts would likely be able to insist on a term, even if only a 1 year term). There'd likely end up with a salary structure that looks a lot more like the pre-cap NHL, just with a lower level for bottom players and higher payment for highly touted young players.
Is there anything stopping a unionless league from creating a revenue sharing system?
No, but the Entry Draft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4
The primary reason the Ted Lindsays of the world got screwed is that all the leagues said that even when your contract was up, you could only sign with your current team. Once the baseball players challenged the reserve clause and the arbitrator said that the reserve clause really wasn't part of the contract, the gig was up.
So a 21st century union-free environment would be completely different than the union-free environment of the 1950s and 1960s. Once his contract is complete with a team, the player will be a free agent. That alone is enough to deter abuse.
True. There are no CBAs in Europe (hockey, soccer, whatever) and players there still don't have to deal with pre-NHLPA conditions.
