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.
NHLPA exec board asks players to empower PA dissolution; NHL files w/Fed court+NLRB
The PA members can choose to speak with one voice, should they like to, also.
-----------
I think the big thing here is that the PA isn't fully considering what the nuclear option could mean. Escalating the stakes could give the NHL an excuse to reply in kind with the threat of contraction. And let's be honest, it wouldn't be impractical for the league to drop 3-4 franchises.
Unless a $750m line of credit is considered practical, whose money are they going to use to buy those franchises from their current owners?
NHLPA Executive Board voted last night,to give players a vote to AUTHORIZE Exec Board to chose to proceed on Disclaimer of Interest #TSN
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
This is a very old/common labour negotiating tactic. You never ask the members of a union to vote on a specific action. You simply ask them to vote to authorize it. They tell their members 'this will give us more leverage, we won't actually do it'. However once advance authorization is given, it really doesn't matter if the players want to or not.
Agreed..
I didn't even think the membership even needed to vote if a Union wished to disclaim their membership. Decertification obviously does.. but i didn't think disclaiming did.
I didn't even think the membership even needed to vote if a Union wished to disclaim their membership. Decertification obviously does.. but i didn't think disclaiming did.
The NHL could react by filing some type of motion for declaratory judgment to scare the players from dissolving their union. That's what the NBA did...
One way or another, they should make efforts to sway the Players in voting no to the Disclaimer of Interest.
I'm just hoping for someone with more knowledge of this then me to explain it. If the NHLPA decides to decertify how does that open the NHL up to antitrust violations? The last CBA was negotiated and signed by the NHLPA as a group and they signed on the dotted line. Can they go after them for anything from the prior CBA? I just don't undertand what recourse the players have?
ah yes.. back to that TSN info article on the differences... thanks...
EDIT:
30% vote required for decertification... and then courts.
No votes actually required for disclaiming..
Quote:
While decertification is the players walking away from the Union, a disclaimer of interest is the Union walking away from the players. So a disclaimer of interest occurs when the Union terminates its right to represent the players. It's also a less formal process than decertification. It can be as quick as Donald Fehr sending a letter to the Commissioner's office declaring the NHLPA no longer represents the players as a bargaining agent. There's no vote, no petition and no decertification election.
I'm just hoping for someone with more knowledge of this then me to explain it. If the NHLPA decides to decertify how does that open the NHL up to antitrust violations? The last CBA was negotiated and signed by the NHLPA as a group and they signed on the dotted line. Can they go after them for anything from the prior CBA? I just don't undertand what recourse the players have?
No. And they can't go after them for anything relating to these labor negotiations. Just for damages that happen after they disclaim interest.
Now let's see the NHL owners do what the NBA owners did, say that if the union dissolves all current contracts negotiated as part of that union are null and void.
Would screw everyone, teams and players, but it would be hilarious to watch.
Unless a $750m line of credit is considered practical, whose money are they going to use to buy those franchises from their current owners?
Well starting with Phoenix (which they still own for the moment). They'd probably be looking at $250 to buy out a couple of the others (though that the whole process could be complicated/ugly, too).
My point is, going nuclear (decertification) opens up a whole can of worms (contraction, no guaranteed contracts, no minimum salary, etc) that would be very bad for all but the top tier of NHLPA members.
To me this seems about as hollow a threat as Katz moving the Oilers to Seattle.
If they really had the balls to do this they should have done it long ago. If I'm an owner i'm not worried in the least.
There's some nasty questions the players face by doing this that can backfire completely.
This is pandora's box and I don't see how this benefits the players as a collective at all unless it does manage to accomplish it's desired effect. Spook the owners into some final concessions before the deal is done. Could possibly accomplish that too, I don't claim to be in the minds of the owners.
They call the NHL using a playbook.. this is just the union's playbook.
The NHL's playbook is I'll hurt a little while you hurt a lot and we'll see who comes out on top.
The PA's playbook is ... god if I know what's gonna happen but someone's gonna get a hurt real bad. Maybe both!
Should this actually happen, on what basis can the players sue for antitrust violations when there are clearly no violations of any kind going on as the league is shut down? Couldn't the league successfully argue they have protected the players from antitrust issues by refusing to operate without a collective bargaining agreement?
It's a procedural matter since the Exec Committee is the governing authority of the PA. (They also present the head of the PA to membership for approval.)
Should this actually happen, on what basis can the players sue for antitrust violations when there are clearly no violations of any kind going on as the league is shut down? Couldn't the league successfully argue they have protected the players from antitrust issues by refusing to operate without a collective bargaining agreement?
If the courts were to recognize the dissolution of the union, they would order the NHL to end the lockout, which could be viewed as illegal per anti trust laws.
There are two sets of laws that would apply-- labor and antitrust. The former might favor the league depending on the circumstances, but these would not preclude the right of players to file antitrust claims.
Should this actually happen, on what basis can the players sue for antitrust violations when there are clearly no violations of any kind going on as the league is shut down? Couldn't the league successfully argue they have protected the players from antitrust issues by refusing to operate without a collective bargaining agreement?
If the union disclaims and the league lifts the lockout, the union has no grounds for an antitrust claims. If the union disclaims and the lockout remains in place, the players can sue for damages from the point that they disclaimed interest.
They vote to give them the authority to take said action without further consultation before making the decision.
You more commonly would see this action in the context of threatening to strike by a union. If negotiations aren't going anywhere, a union can ask for authorization to call a strike. They will tell their members that this authorization is just so they have a stronger hand in negotiations. However, if a deal still can't be reached, those in control of the process have the authority to initiate a strike regardless of if the members of the union would actually vote to strike at that point in time.
That's a good point. They must be pretty confident of the vote passing, or they wouldn't risk having one.
The easiest way to sell it is for them to say that it's just a tactic and that they aren't really going to use it or if they do, the union will re-certify eventually.
The timing to follow through on such a threat is all wrong on this though.
IF the players actually followed through - not just their "vote" - on this it would effectively kill any chance of a season being salvaged.
Without the pressure of trying to save a partial season the owners are more likely to call the PA's bluff and see the process through.
Once that happens all bets are off.
All that said, it's most likely that the leaked info today is just an attempted shot across the bow saying they have it in their arsenal as they wind through the final stages of coming to an agreement.
They truly can't be that stupid as to actually pull that card out at this stage of the game.
The timing to follow through on such a threat is all wrong on this though.
IF the players actually followed through - not just their "vote" - on this it would effectively kill any chance of a season being salvaged.
Without the pressure of trying to save a partial season the owners are more likely to call the PA's bluff and see the process through.
Once that happens all bets are off.
All that said, it's most likely that the leaked info today is just an attempted shot across the bow saying they have it in their arsenal as they wind through the final stages of coming to an agreement.
They truly can't be that stupid as to actually pull that card out at this stage of the game.
It's been obvious ever since the PA's first counter offer that the powers that be had no intention of getting back into the game. Every single step the PA has taken has been sidways or backwards; Fehr expected the NHL to lie down like MLB but Bettman is quite clearly better than him at this game: Bettman called his bluff and now the PA is scrambling to use all it's weapons even if, like you mentionned, it makes no sense.
