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.

Mirtle: NHLPA’s hard-liners hint at decertification after latest offer rejected

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-22-2012, 12:44 PM
  #126
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sina220 View Post
Except this isn't the 1930's where labor laws dont exist. Id guarantee every one of the owners in this league made their real money running a business or businesses that offered fair compensation to its employees and provided good healthcare and retirement choices. They're good businessmen, they understand the concept of competitive compensation.
Sure they do, which is why they say the owners would eat each other alive if there were no artificial salary restraints. Caps and free agency rules are all artificial salary restraints that control players' pay and mobility. The two are inextricably linked. If you control player movement, no one can openly compete for his service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
Having said that, I believe that one of the major sports unions WILL decertify long before their current CBA's expire. For the 3 capped leagues, it is clear that CBA negotiations are rigged in favour of the Owners as it is always mathematically correct for the players to take a lower % of revenue in order to not lose money via a lockout (this is what we are witnessing right now). A decertificiation long before CBA negotiations will be viewed more favourably by the courts (as it is wouldn't be attacked as a bargaining tactic), and would prevent the owners from locking out the players, having a salary cap, etc.
Just to add to that, the NHL has really gone for the jugular by not just demanding a reduction in share but going after the PA's sacred cows of contracting rights/player movement. It's a slow but marched way to take back what owners lost to the unions over the previous decades. Legally--- as long as there's a union.

Quote:
So for me, if Fehr (and he would be a guy to try it IMHO) wanted to explore the decertification tactic, then his best approach would have been to get a 5-6 year CBA which maximized the players share in this agreement before the season started, wait the required 3 years, then decertify the union.
It seems that the legal wrangling is over whether or not the union is decertifying as a negotiating tactic. Let's say player associations sign a CBA, but then at some point during the CBA, they disband. The only way anti-trust issues arise is if a player files a claim citing anti-trust.

What if no one filed? Any new contract however would have to be negotiated individually, and the owners couldn't talk to each other.

I guess I'm not clear on whether or not a union could decertify during an active CBA period.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 12:51 PM
  #127
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,854
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
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 ......
NHL Rules stipulate that you must dress at least 18 skaters and 2 goalies to play a game. IIRC Calgary got into issues a couple years back with injuries etc. and had to get emergency permission from the NHL to dress less than this for a game. And here is a link to New Jersey dressing less than 20.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/feed...hlpa-attention

While the union looks into the matter, the league allowed the team to be shorthanded under emergency circumstances. According to Clause 16.4 (b) of the collective bargaining agreement: "Except in case of emergency, there shall be no reduction of the required minimum playing rosters of the clubs, below eighteen (18) skaters and two (2) goaltenders."

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 12:55 PM
  #128
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,411
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
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???

What am I missing?
I think its safe to say the point of decertification for the NFLPA was to expediate a resolution of a CBA via the threat of or execution of antitrust litigation...

It was not be to actually operate as an unionless workforce.

I think the judge ruled that decertification was being used as a tactic, and not in line with the spirit of laws in place to protect the general workforce.


Similar thing with the NHLPA... decertification would be used as a negotiating tactic to take negotiations from the boardroom to the courtroom...
not for the desire to operate as a unionless workforce.

So I guess they would be rolling the dice on getting their antitrust suits accepted in court.

Also working against them... they've got to show the owners have been bargaining in bad faith refusing to (i forget the actual language now - but i'm sure many here can fill) move or towards the players in a fair attempt to resolve.

I'm afraid they would be hard pressed to show that has happened throughout this process when you consider "The Perception" of the owners 'moving' and players with 4 versions of the same proposal.. With things only seemingly changing NOW. Can they make a case based on 1 week of actual deadlock?

Also of note... the NHL has the same lawyers that the NFL used to defeat antitrust attempts.

It just doesn't seem like the productive or cost effective way to go if they wished to play this season.

But its been well established this lockout isn't about logic.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 01:07 PM
  #129
middletoe
Why am I me?
 
middletoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
I think its safe to say the point of decertification for the NFLPA was to expediate a resolution of a CBA via the threat of or execution of antitrust litigation...

It was not be to actually operate as an unionless workforce.

I think the judge ruled that decertification was being used as a tactic, and not in line with the spirit of laws in place to protect the general workforce.


Similar thing with the NHLPA... decertification would be used as a negotiating tactic to take negotiations from the boardroom to the courtroom...
not for the desire to operate as a unionless workforce.

So I guess they would be rolling the dice on getting their antitrust suits accepted in court.

Also working against them... they've got to show the owners have been bargaining in bad faith refusing to (i forget the actual language now - but i'm sure many here can fill) move or towards the players in a fair attempt to resolve.

I'm afraid they would be hard pressed to show that has happened throughout this process when you consider "The Perception" of the owners 'moving' and players with 4 versions of the same proposal.. With things only seemingly changing NOW.

Also of note... the NHL has the same lawyers that the NFL used to defeat antitrust attempts.

It just doesn't seem like the productive or cost effective way to go if they wished to play this season.

But its been well established this lockout isn't about logic.
Would the owners books be subject to being open in court in a situation like this. I mean this information would be crucial evidence wouldn't it?

middletoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 01:11 PM
  #130
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,411
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by middletoe View Post
Would the owners books be subject to being open in court in a situation like this. I mean this information would be crucial evidence wouldn't it?
But to answer your 1 st question - maybe. 2nd question - no, it wouldn't be any sort of gamechanger.

The players have the audited 'books'... plus an additional 76,000 pages of something or another. The lack of financial transparency has never been in question throughout this process..


2004 was a different story.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 01:21 PM
  #131
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
I think its safe to say the point of decertification for the NFLPA was to expediate a resolution of a CBA via the threat of or execution of antitrust litigation...

It was not be to actually operate as an unionless workforce.

I think the judge ruled that decertification was being used as a tactic, and not in line with the spirit of laws in place to protect the general workforce.


Similar thing with the NHLPA... decertification would be used as a negotiating tactic to take negotiations from the boardroom to the courtroom...
not for the desire to operate as a unionless workforce.

So I guess they would be rolling the dice on getting their antitrust suits accepted in court.
I don't agree. As the NBPA counsel suggested, the PA's may have outlived their utility to players. As such, while a very serious move, is the pro sports industry to a point where collective bargaining itself will go the way of the dodo bird?

I can see that being the case if the lockout is the strategy of choice for owners who basically just take 'stuff' away from players. The negotiating ploy (moving in the direction of players) isn't really a move in that direction if you go from CBA to CBA. It's just that they take less than their opening volley.



Quote:
Also working against them... they've got to show the owners have been bargaining in bad faith refusing to (i forget the actual language now - but i'm sure many here can fill) move or towards the players in a fair attempt to resolve.
To repeat my paragraph above:
I can see that being the case if the lockout is the strategy of choice for owners who basically just take 'stuff' away from players. The negotiating ploy (moving in the direction of players) isn't really a move in that direction if you go from CBA to CBA. It's just that they take less than their opening volley.

Is that really negotiating in good faith? Every single round of lockouts is about taking more away from the players. Only fools would continue to keep a PA around that serves the opposition's tactics and strategies far more effectively than their own.


Quote:
Also of note... the NHL has the same lawyers that the NFL used to defeat antitrust attempts.
Fehr may know better lawyers.

He certainly knows Proskauer Rose.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 01:35 PM
  #132
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,380
vCash: 500
Question for the lawyers. If the NHLPA decertifies and stays decertified could the NHL in turn restructure the league in the single entity format (a la MLS) to help fight the antitrust suit?

jkrdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 01:53 PM
  #133
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
From what I can tell, decertification beyond using it as a pressure tactic probably has an equal amount of disadvantages to the players as it does to the owners. If the players truly don't see themselves moving any further on their stance, then might as well decertify and see where that takes them. Seeing how decertification played out for the NFL and NBA, I don't know if the tactic provides AS much pressure on the league compared to if those leagues hadn't set the precendence for how courts usually rule on these matters but they aren't going to move from their position, they might as well do something now to save the season rather than do it later when a full season is lost.

By the way, if decertification happens, doesn't that mean that all the players have to come back to handle their claims individually?
If decertification does happen then you can bet that every single bad contract in the league gets dropped with those players receiving exactly 0 compensation.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 01:56 PM
  #134
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,411
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I don't agree. As the NBPA counsel suggested, the PA's may have outlived their utility to players. As such, while a very serious move, is the pro sports industry to a point where collective bargaining itself will go the way of the dodo bird?

I can see that being the case if the lockout is the strategy of choice for owners who basically just take 'stuff' away from players. The negotiating ploy (moving in the direction of players) isn't really a move in that direction if you go from CBA to CBA. It's just that they take less than their opening volley.


Is that really negotiating in good faith? Every single round of lockouts is about taking more away from the players. Only fools would continue to keep a PA around that serves the opposition's tactics and strategies far more effectively than their own.
Its completely ludicrous to me to fathom unions not existing in pro sports.

You are also hard pressed to make any case of lockouts are about taking stuff away from players when you look at the historical trends of players' lives in the NHL.

The only thing that's been 'taken away' is a % point # on a piece of paper and the loss of salary during the actual lockout to get it.

How have the lockouts actually manifested taking anything away from the players?
Certainly not in real earning dollars.. average salaries in every league keep going up every yr.
Benefits.
Pensions.
Working conditions <--
Support programs
Eduction programs
Training staff
Facilities

Everything in every category has improved for players in every CBA... except ratio of total revenue.

Owners are trying to work to reduce the players share. If you believe that is grounds enough to abolish unions when the total money actually paid out to players in the long term hasn't veered off its increasing trend... then.. well...



And don't get me wrong... I would totally be in favor unions disbanding in professional sports... I think that would be exciting to see a new landscape... To see which markets get burned and which ones don't... what salary structures would be... see how each organization restructured itself with no cost restrictions or minimal level cost requirements. See if there is an effect on career length. How many houses get used as signing bonuses. I would be immensely curious if it would be the be a rebirth of the league.. or the beginning of the end.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:08 PM
  #135
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4 View Post
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.
The arbitrator didn't rule that there was anything wrong with the reserve clause, just that, as written, it only applied for one year and not into perpetuity as the owners wanted. The MLB could re-work contracts so that there is a clear, perpetuating reserve clause, but obviously players would never have such a thing.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:09 PM
  #136
The Flin Flon Bomber
Registered User
 
The Flin Flon Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
Question for the lawyers. If the NHLPA decertifies and stays decertified could the NHL in turn restructure the league in the single entity format (a la MLS) to help fight the antitrust suit?
I'm a lawyer, but this isn't my area of expertise. If I recall correctly, the MLS did get sued over their structure and won, but it was a very narrow opinion and I'd be hard-pressed to think another court would let that structure fly with regards to the NHL. I'll dig up on the MLS case and see what it says.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_..._League_Soccer

Thats the wiki on the court case. I can't see how the NHL could use that as precedent.

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League would seem to support the players if they tried something like the MLS system.


Last edited by The Flin Flon Bomber: 11-22-2012 at 02:15 PM.
The Flin Flon Bomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:12 PM
  #137
tko78
Registered User
 
tko78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
Question for the lawyers. If the NHLPA decertifies and stays decertified could the NHL in turn restructure the league in the single entity format (a la MLS) to help fight the antitrust suit?
Well, there wouldn't be any legal road-block to the league dissolving and then re-forming under a new format, but there would be at least a couple of issues that would make it relatively impractical.

E.g., existing player contracts... contract law up here in Canada, which is very similar to that in the US, would normally require that the profit a player would have realized through an existing contract be paid out. Players would likely be entitled to their entire contract value instantly. I'm sure Roberto Luongo would be a relatively happy man.

E.g. 2, similar to the arguments against revenue sharing, dismantling the league would absolutely nullify the individual value of the teams as they currently exist. I don't see the Leafs through to the Penguins owners ever willingly dissolving their business interest in order to be a share-holder in a single entity.

E.g. 3, here in Canada, labour and employment laws are a little different as they are provincial matters, not federal matters (although there are also federal labour and employment laws, the former being for cross-jurisdictional industries like rail transport and the latter being for federal employees). So, you would have a mish-mash of employment standards to deal with (not really a huge problem) AND, more importantly, you would have labour laws that would theoretically allow a bargaining unit to be established at the local level. This would mean that the "Vancouver Canucks Players Association" could be formed, as well as another PA for every team from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The NHL thinks they have labour problems right now? Try opening up this can of worms...

tko78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:13 PM
  #138
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
What the players presented today was a system that the owners can succeed under, and indeed, do very well.

If the owners are still going to demand more and more and more, then the players absolutely should decertify. What's clear is that the owners, or at least the ones driving the bus, are not reasonable people. They are not interested in the sport of hockey, they do not care about the fans. You can't have an agreement with these people. You can't trust these people.

Let Bettman cancel the season. If that happens, or perhaps, given what happened today, when that happens, he'll leave the players with little choice.

And what does the day after decertification look like? Well, the league, in its current form, would not longer be viable.

The NHL would have two options: turn the league into a single corporation, doing away with individual franchises. Or folding anywhere from 10-15 teams.

The NHL isn't baseball, football, or basketball. There would be a lot of short term pain for the players if the league was blown up. But ultimately, they would see a lot more opportunities in Europe and in the AHL, which would likely receive a significant boost as it moves into markets which formerly had NHL hockey in them.
What are you talking about, the players would get killed. The CBA allows to them to have some protection, that X number of players get contracts. Without a union you would have something like one player making 25 million and the others could play for 10 thousand.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:18 PM
  #139
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
You are also hard pressed to make any case of lockouts are about taking stuff away from players when you look at the historical trends of players' lives in the NHL.

The only thing that's been 'taken away' is a % point # on a piece of paper and the loss of salary during the actual lockout to get it.

The pendulum has simply swung back to the side where owners can extract (or reclaim) anything they want from unions-- as long as unions actually capitulate, which to-date, they have.

And the only thing being taken away isn't salary, but contracting rights are the target now. If all future CBAs are simply about reclaiming what owners want, the unions serve little purpose to the players. They can get good lawyers to negotiate, plus the laws have changed since Curt Flood et al.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:20 PM
  #140
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
What are you talking about, the players would get killed. The CBA allows to them to have some protection, that X number of players get contracts. Without a union you would have something like one player making 25 million and the others could play for 10 thousand.

I disagree. There are 700-800 spots that need to be filled. The teams could not discuss who is willing to pay what to players; the wealthiest teams would simply target the players they consider to be the best and start throwing money at them. The agents would know if they have 15 offers that they could simply start asking for more and more money/terms until one of those teams said yes.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:20 PM
  #141
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
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???

What am I missing?
In the NFL case (Brady et al v NFL), the 8th Circuit did not rule on the underlying legality and potential anti-trust damages of the NFL maintaining a Lockout after the NFLPA decertified - it just ruled that the District Court erred, and was prohibited from issuing an injunction to lift the Lockout (under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, federal courts are prohibited from issuing injunctions in cases “involving or growing out of
a labor dispute”). The Players were still free to pursue a lengthy and expensive anti-trust litigation while the Lockout continued in force.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:21 PM
  #142
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,726
vCash: 500
...back to Ernie's post, the idea of one corporation running the whole thing would not be that bad. This was suggested in 2004. I think the best thing would be for one corporation to buy all the teams except Montreal, Toronto, Rangers, Boston, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia because nobody could afford buying them and the owners of these teams would not have proper value. So the NHL would be run by 8 powerful entities and leave these seven clubs more independant(because I think legendary clubs should be more important than the league).

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:25 PM
  #143
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
Question for the lawyers. If the NHLPA decertifies and stays decertified could the NHL in turn restructure the league in the single entity format (a la MLS) to help fight the antitrust suit?
Very unlikely. It would require collective action of the existing owners to accomplish that restructuring - and those actions themselves would very likely be in violation of Sec 1 of the Sherman Act.

MLS has that Single Entity exemption, because that's how MLS was originally organized. I don't think it's possible for an existing Multiple Entity league to restructure into a Single Entity one without violating US anti trust law.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:25 PM
  #144
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I disagree. There are 700-800 spots that need to be filled. The teams could not discuss who is willing to pay what to players; the wealthiest teams would simply target the players they consider to be the best and start throwing money at them. The agents would know if they have 15 offers that they could simply start asking for more and more money/terms until one of those teams said yes.
Well the fact that there would be no CBA, would not necesseraly mean that the league rules would be abolished. There would still be a NHL draft for example and players' rights would belong to teams.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:26 PM
  #145
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Very unlikely. It would require collective action of the existing owners to accomplish that restructuring - and those actions themselves would very likely be in violation of Sec 1 of the Sherman Act.

MLS has that Single Entity exemption, because that's how MLS was originally organized. I don't think it's possible for an existing Multiple Entity league to restructure into a Single Entity one without violating US anti trust law.
Well it almost happened in 2004, though.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:28 PM
  #146
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Well the fact that there would be no CBA, would not necesseraly mean that the league rules would be abolished. There would still be a NHL draft for example and players' right would belong to teams.

No, the draft may not necessarily survive. What compels a young player to only consider signing with the team that drafted him?

If the teams conspired to refrain from offering a contract to any player drafted by another team, they could be in violation of anti-trust laws.

In other words, the league could set up rules for some things, but they cannot together make up rules that prevent player mobility and restrain salaries.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:28 PM
  #147
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Well the fact that there would be no CBA, would not necesseraly mean that the league rules would be abolished. There would still be a NHL draft for example and players' rights would belong to teams.
Nope. Absent the Non Statutory Labor Exemption of a CBA, a draft would almost certainly be ruled an illegal group boycott.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:29 PM
  #148
tko78
Registered User
 
tko78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Well the fact that there would be no CBA, would not necesseraly mean that the league rules would be abolished. There would still be a NHL draft for example and players' rights would belong to teams.
No... there wouldn't be a draft or rights to players or anything of the sort. If the NHL tried to do that, it would mean the various teams were colluding with one another in order to rig an outcome, something that is forbidden.

The only thing that would matter is who was willing to pay whom how much. The right to contract would rest solely with the individual player.

tko78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:39 PM
  #149
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No, the draft may not necessarily survive. What compels a young player to only consider signing with the team that drafted him?

If the teams conspired to refrain from offering a contract to any player drafted by another team, they could be in violation of anti-trust laws.

In other words, the league could set up rules for some things, but they cannot together make up rules that prevent player mobility and restrain salaries.
Well if one corporation buys all the teams, then that org. would decide where the players go since teams would not exist per se, right. Players would sign contracts with the league, not with teams. Hell that coporation could very well just decide that the NHL is about 50 guys running after a puck and nobody could do anything.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:43 PM
  #150
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Well if one corporation buys all the teams, then that org. would decide where the players go since teams would not exist per se, right. Players would sign contracts with the league, not with teams. Hell that coporation could very well just decide that the NHL is about 50 guys running after a puck and nobody could do anything.
Pretty sure you can't own two teams let alone a whole bunch. It would be a conflict of interest.

OneSharpMarble is offline   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 12:54 PM.

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.