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.

NHLPA exec board asks players to empower PA dissolution; NHL files w/Fed court+NLRB

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2012, 03:00 PM
  #26
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26 View Post
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?

Crease is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:01 PM
  #27
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,722
vCash: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
I read this as they're asking the players to give them to power to file a DOI if they choose to do so, not that they're going to actually do it now.

https://twitter.com/aaronward_nhl/st...48571249287168


Quote:
Aaron Ward Aaron Ward Verified ‏@aaronward_nhl

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 View Post
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.

DL44 is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:05 PM
  #28
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,832
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
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 believe a disclaimer only takes 30% to pass.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:08 PM
  #29
Erik Estrada
Nik Scherbak
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,034
vCash: 500
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.

Erik Estrada is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:09 PM
  #30
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
A couple things here:
If the PA votes against it, the PA is in a world of hurt and would be fortunate to even get the NHL's last offer.

If the PA votes for it, the owners have a choice... make a couple concessions or risk who knows what.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:10 PM
  #31
leer2006
Registered User
 
leer2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
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?

leer2006 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:14 PM
  #32
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,722
vCash: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I believe a disclaimer only takes 30% to pass.
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.

DL44 is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:17 PM
  #33
Erik Estrada
Nik Scherbak
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leer2006 View Post
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.

Erik Estrada is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:19 PM
  #34
chasespace
Registered User
 
chasespace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williston, FL
Posts: 4,115
vCash: 500
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.

chasespace is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:20 PM
  #35
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
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.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=160 - the Unofficial HF Political board
thome_26 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:21 PM
  #36
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,476
vCash: 500
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!

Lacaar is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:21 PM
  #37
OrangeZebra
Unregistered User
 
OrangeZebra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 3,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
I read this as they're asking the players to give them to power to file a DOI if they choose to do so, not that they're going to actually do it now.

https://twitter.com/aaronward_nhl/st...48571249287168


Quote:
Aaron Ward Aaron Ward Verified ‏@aaronward_nhl

NHLPA Executive Board voted last night,to give players a vote to AUTHORIZE Exec Board to chose to proceed on Disclaimer of Interest #TSN
So they vote on the ability to vote?

OrangeZebra is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:22 PM
  #38
josadac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5
vCash: 500
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?

josadac is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:22 PM
  #39
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeZebra View Post
So they vote on the ability to vote?

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.)

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:25 PM
  #40
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,722
vCash: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
A couple things here:
If the PA votes against it, the PA is in a world of hurt and would be fortunate to even get the NHL's last offer.

If the PA votes for it, the owners have a choice... make a couple concessions or risk who knows what.
I fully expect the vote to authorize to pass...

But if the players actually vote NO on this, it would surely be the end of the lockout...

Essentially message would be 'Enough shenanigans! Just sign the deal now!!'-type statement by the players....

DL44 is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:25 PM
  #41
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by josadac View Post
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.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:29 PM
  #42
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
A couple things here:
If the PA votes against it, the PA is in a world of hurt and would be fortunate to even get the NHL's last offer.
That's a good point. They must be pretty confident of the vote passing, or they wouldn't risk having one.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:29 PM
  #43
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by josadac View Post
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.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:31 PM
  #44
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeZebra View Post
So they vote on the ability to vote?
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.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:31 PM
  #45
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:36 PM
  #46
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
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.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:40 PM
  #47
nanuuq
HFBoards Sponsor
 
nanuuq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Estonia
Posts: 4,291
vCash: 500
Thats it, I quit.
Bye NHL
Welcome IPL

__________________
Hrundi Bakshi (Peter Sellers) in the movie The PartyWisdom is the province of the aged, BUT the heart of a child is pure!!
nanuuq is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:45 PM
  #48
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
That's a good point. They must be pretty confident of the vote passing, or they wouldn't risk having one.
It's basically the executive board going to it's membership and telling them to vote yes or else bad stuff happens.

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:48 PM
  #49
Erik Estrada
Nik Scherbak
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,034
vCash: 500
James Mirtle ‏@mirtle
Like NBA last year, NHL could ask court to preemptively rule its lockout is legal and declare any attempt to dissolve a sham.

https://twitter.com/mirtle

Erik Estrada is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:50 PM
  #50
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
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.

Do Make Say Think 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 04:49 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.