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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2012, 08:54 PM
  #126
Bob b smith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,829
vCash: 500
Here are the similar legal procedures filed before the Disclaimer of Interest of the PAs by the NFL and NBA in the 2011 Lockouts:

1-NHL Class-action complaint in Federal Court (New York City)- --see NBA Complaint - August 2, 2011.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...?ts=1312391828

2-Unfair Labor Practice Charge vs NHLPA with NLRB -- see NFL Suit - Feb. 15, 2011.
http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?o...ents&Itemid=77

Bob b smith is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:21 PM
  #127
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Yep they're allowed to. And when they do, they get completely slammed by their fellow PA members.
So people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with them? Right...

colchar is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:25 PM
  #128
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
The NHL owners elected the gentlemen who set these rules. They can elect to change the rules if they want... they just had a board of governors meeting last week... obviously they don't see a need to.
It is actually difficult for them to change the rules because of how Bettman has them set up. Gary and the Executive Committee of 8-9 owners are responsible for bargaining and can accept or reject any offer without consulting the rest of the owners. But to remove Bettman, and possibly to alter the makeup of the Executive Committee, takes a vote of 3/4 of the ownership.

So no, it is not no easy to make changes.

colchar is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:26 PM
  #129
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny21 View Post
The NHL beat them to the punch by filing they're claim in New York. From NHLPA's pov, Fehr needed to file it first in California or union friendly state.

Do they not have to file in the state in which the league's head office is located?

colchar is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:27 PM
  #130
Nalens Oga
HeavenOrLasVegas
 
Nalens Oga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,846
vCash: 1963
How ironic is this. A league without a union would mean absolute chaos on the FA market and teams would literally be trying to buy cups on FA or previous RFA bidding so goodbye to the parity that Bettman insists on. I understand it won't go through but it's the thread.

We all know that this lockout is being fought for the protection of the "poorer clubs." Bettman's got himself a decent deal here, he needs to finalize the revenue split and stop going after the contracts so hard because if he keeps this going and even if the NHL win in the courtroom, the financial cost of this will be too high on those clubs this lockout is trying to save. I don't believe that cups were bought during the dead puck era, I simply think there was less competition and some of that competition's mgmt was incompetent but if this league turns into a league of FA's then goodbye to hockey in not just Florida or Nashville or Columbus but also places like NYI or Anaheim. This game of chicken has gone on for too long, time for Bettman to realize he's gotten himself a better deal than before and it's not worth the expenses and loss of future revenue.

Nalens Oga is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:43 PM
  #131
Bob b smith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,829
vCash: 500
Copy of NHL Class Action Lawsuit:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...nhlvsnhlpa.pdf

Bob b smith is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:46 PM
  #132
Pyromaniac3
Registered User
 
Pyromaniac3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,662
vCash: 500
NHL's Class Action Suit: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...nhlvsnhlpa.pdf

Read up number 43, 53 and 54. Looks like shutting down owners' tongue was a good idea.

Pyromaniac3 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:47 PM
  #133
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
I don't believe that cups were bought during the dead puck era, I simply think there was less competition and some of that competition's
The NHL was a 4 team league from 1995-2003.

Cups: Devils 3
Red Wings: 3
Avs: 2
Stars: 1

It doesn't even get much better when we compare playoff finishes either.

Red Wings were runner ups in 95, Stars were runner ups in 00, Devils in 01.

Avs lost conference finals in 97, 99, 00, and 02.

Stars lost in conference finals in 98

Wings lost in conference finals in 96, and dumped by Avs in 2nd round in 99 and 00.

Not surprisingly these were of the top spending teams. The NHL from 95-03 is one of the least competitive eras in all of sports and it had everything to do with payroll disparity.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:56 PM
  #134
NJDevs26
Moderator
No more status quo?!
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,223
vCash: 50
The Devils a top-spending team? The Devils were certainly in the top ten most years but their payroll was never anywhere near as high as the Rangers/Flyers/Leafs before the lockout, and those teams had next to no success in the decade pre-cap.

NJDevs26 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:06 PM
  #135
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
The Devils a top-spending team? The Devils were certainly in the top ten most years but their payroll was never anywhere near as high as the Rangers/Flyers/Leafs before the lockout, and those teams had next to no success in the decade pre-cap.
Flyers had tons of success immediately pre-cap. After the big 4, the Flyers probably had the most success of any team. Finals in 97, conference finals in 2000 and 2004 is pretty good. The era was dominated by the big 4 though that it seems weak. The only big spending team without any success immediately pre-cap was the Rangers. Even the Leafs were consistently contenders and had a pair of conference finals appearances in 99 and 02 to show for it. To try and suggest that money did not buy success pre-cap is basically being willfully ignorant. Only 4 teams won cups in the first 9 years between the lockouts. Unsurprisingly since the cap, those 4 teams have combined for just one cup and 3 finals appearances in the 7 seasons since the cap.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:14 PM
  #136
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 35,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fancy Pants View Post
In every other industry if a unionized workforce even made a hint of moving to decertify, the owners would ask "How can we help you along?"

But in NA sports leagues they fight it.

Why do the players even need a union anymore? This isn't the 50s where they are negotiating contracts themselves. Every player has their own personal agent.

I really hope now this doesn't get resolved. I want to see it get played out to the fullest.

Can you believe it? Owners fighting to keep a union. Crazy.

That should pretty much be the game ender right there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromaniac3 View Post
NHL's Class Action Suit: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...nhlvsnhlpa.pdf

Read up number 43, 53 and 54. Looks like shutting down owners' tongue was a good idea.
There's always that Devellano interview where he talks about unwritten rules and that the owners will show the cattle they call the shots, not the other way around.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:18 PM
  #137
canuckster19
Former CDC Mod
 
canuckster19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gothenburg Sweden
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
The NHL was a 4 team league from 1995-2003.

Cups: Devils 3
Red Wings: 3
Avs: 2
Stars: 1

It doesn't even get much better when we compare playoff finishes either.

Red Wings were runner ups in 95, Stars were runner ups in 00, Devils in 01.

Avs lost conference finals in 97, 99, 00, and 02.

Stars lost in conference finals in 98

Wings lost in conference finals in 96, and dumped by Avs in 2nd round in 99 and 00.

Not surprisingly these were of the top spending teams. The NHL from 95-03 is one of the least competitive eras in all of sports and it had everything to do with payroll disparity.
Yet that system allowed teams like the Avalanche and Devils to keep their mid 90s core well into the 00s. Those teams were big spenders yes but they weren't big UFA poachers either.


One thing I don't understand which I hope can be clarified for me, sorry if it already has been, what legal right does the NHL have in stopping the PA membership from doing this? Why do they get at say at all?


Last edited by canuckster19: 12-14-2012 at 10:23 PM.
canuckster19 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:26 PM
  #138
Sonny21
Registerd User
 
Sonny21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,710
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
Do they not have to file in the state in which the league's head office is located?
No, I don't think so but not 100% sure. It's just well known that New York is a pro management versus California, Anaheim, San Jose where it's pro union.

Most people saw this coming, but the question was who would strike first. So the second NHL got wind of the PA going for the vote, they filled.


Last edited by Sonny21: 12-14-2012 at 10:32 PM.
Sonny21 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:31 PM
  #139
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckster19 View Post
Yet that system allowed teams like the Avalanche and Devils to keep their mid 90s core well into the 00s. Those teams were big spenders yes but they weren't big UFA poachers either.


One thing I don't understand which I hope can be clarified for me, sorry if it already has been, what legal right does the NHL have in stopping the PA membership from doing this? Why do they get at say at all?
The NHL is saying that the the threat of DOI and/or Decert is a sham tactic that the PA is attempting in order to gain leverage in the CBA negotiations, and any resulting anti-trust suit should be pre-empted accordingly. If you read the actual Complaint, they have numerous quotes from the players to back up the claim. The players shot themselves in the foot with all those tweets and quotes in interviews. Fehr should have told them to keep it hush hush. That said, I await the PA's response to the claim. Should be another interesting read.

Xref is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:32 PM
  #140
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
Do they not have to file in the state in which the league's head office is located?
Nope. They could have the head office in Russia and file suit in New York if they do business there.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:35 PM
  #141
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
Do they not have to file in the state in which the league's head office is located?
I would suspect that that's why the NHL listed the home residents of the bargaining committee (for those that live/reside in NY). As an attempt to show that NY is the proper state that this should be debated in.

I'm not sure on how this works... but once someone files in 1 state, I don't think that venue can easily be changed.

__________________
I've been looking for trouble... but trouble hasn't been cooperating!
Riptide is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:36 PM
  #142
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 35,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckster19 View Post

One thing I don't understand which I hope can be clarified for me, sorry if it already has been, what legal right does the NHL have in stopping the PA membership from doing this? Why do they get at say at all?

No one can force the players to have a union if they really don't want to have one. The NHL is arguing that they really want to have a union, but are going through the Disclaimer of Interest steps as a charade to get leverage. Then again, if the NHL doesn't believe that they really would disband, what leverage does it give the PA?

What I believe the league is trying to do, preemptively, is prevent a court from ending the lockout on antitrust grounds, using labor laws that govern union-employer relationships. The courts that have ruled on this point upheld the NFL's right to have a lockout (per Labor laws). Note that in that ruling they left open to interpretation per antitrust law the resolution to the suits filed by individual players against the league for anti-competitive behavior towards the players.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:39 PM
  #143
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckster19 View Post
One thing I don't understand which I hope can be clarified for me, sorry if it already has been, what legal right does the NHL have in stopping the PA membership from doing this? Why do they get at say at all?
The PA can absolutely have the vote and absolutely call themselves "decertified," put up a big sign on their front lawns, tweet it to their followers, make their facebook status "we decertified today," whatever, but if the PA wants a court to then entertain the subsequent anti-trust suit, they have to have the court first agree that they're actually, legally decertified. And they can't be legally decertified if they're only pretending to decertify to get bargaining leverage, which is what a court would almost certainly find. So the NHL isn't trying to stop the vote, isn't trying to make the PA do anything. It's asking the court to essentially rule ahead of time that the decertification vote won't hold up in court if the players try to later bring an anti-trust suit on the presumption that they're no longer a union. And the reason is that, since day 1, high-school educated players have been spouting off saying that decertification is a bargaining tactic (that in addition to a million other things).

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:43 PM
  #144
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 35,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
The NHL is saying that the the threat of DOI and/or Decert is a sham tactic that the PA is attempting in order to gain leverage in the CBA negotiations, and any resulting anti-trust suit should be pre-empted accordingly. If you read the actual Complaint, they have numerous quotes from the players to back up the claim. The players shot themselves in the foot with all those tweets and quotes in interviews. Fehr should have told them to keep it hush hush. That said, I await the PA's response to the claim. Should be another interesting read.

On a percentage basis, it's still meaningless. The Disclaimer of Interest is the union leadership saying they no longer wish to represent the players. Decertification, on the other hand, would require 30% of the members to vote to decertify, and then an NLRB-sponsored vote would need a majority approval.

The NHL can cite a handful of players and their tweets, but IF there is a vote by a majority of members to pursue some action, I don't see how you can cite say 20-30 tweeters as somehow being representative of the the PA overall.

Naming the negotiating committee in the suit is interesting though. Did they show up and negotiate? Yes, indeed. As the IU professor above said, taking an extreme position isn't grounds to say the league did not negotiate in good faith, so how do say the same of the PA? Heck, they can show proposal after proposal after proposal that got a ten minute look, and declined. They can probably make a case that having a union no longer helps them and in fact, may hurt them collectively.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:45 PM
  #145
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No one can force the players to have a union if they really don't want to have one. The NHL is arguing that they really want to have a union, but are going through the Disclaimer of Interest steps as a charade to get leverage. Then again, if the NHL doesn't believe that they really would disband, what leverage does it give the PA?

What I believe the league is trying to do, preemptively, is prevent a court from ending the lockout on antitrust grounds, using labor laws that govern union-employer relationships. The courts that have ruled on this point upheld the NFL's right to have a lockout (per Labor laws). Note that in that ruling they left open to interpretation per antitrust law the resolution to the suits filed by individual players against the league for anti-competitive behavior towards the players.
One problem I see right off is that the league is trying to have a court say that their lockout is legal even if there is no PA (note: DOI does not make no PA), when the players have taken the first step towards what crippled the players' position in other sports.

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:47 PM
  #146
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
If players truly don't want to be in a union, they won't be, as no court in the land can force a union to keep existing beyond a limited timeframe with proscribed functionality.

If the players really are serious about this - and I have no idea if they are or aren't - decertification will happen.

 
Old
12-14-2012, 10:48 PM
  #147
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 15,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
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.
A court might ultimately find that the lockout is illegal and award damages - but that would likely only be after very lengthy litigation, a jury trial, and subsequent appeals.

It is unlikely that a court would issue an injunction to lift the lockout before then - see the 8th Circuit's ruling in Brady v NFL. The Norris LaGuardia act prohibits injunctions in cases arising out of labor disputes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Based on the NFL and NBA cases, I think the precedence is likely set that the courts will rule that the lockout is legal despite the PA disbanding. What seems to be up in the air is how effective an antitrust claim would be.
In the NFL case, the courts did not rule on the merits of whether the lockout was legal (and whether damages could/would be awarded in some later trial) - they just ruled that the federal courts were prohibited from issuing a preliminary injunction to lift it.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:49 PM
  #148
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 34,611
vCash: 50
I read through a bit of the document the NHL filed in the New York court.

I am no lawyer but I know there are quite a few posters who understand it rather well, can anyone entertain a scenario where the court would not, at the very least, agree that the disclaimer of interest would be disingenuous?

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:50 PM
  #149
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
A court might ultimately find that the lockout is illegal and award damages - but that would likely only be after very lengthy litigation, a jury trial, and subsequent appeals.

It is unlikely that a court would issue an injunction to lift the lockout before then - see the 8th Circuit's ruling in Brady v NFL. The Norris LaGuardia act prohibits injunctions in cases arising out of labor disputes.



In the NFL case, the courts did not rule on the merits of whether the lockout was legal (and whether damages could/would be awarded in some later trial) - they just ruled that the federal courts were prohibited from issuing a preliminary injunction to lift it.
IIRC, didn't the NFLPA use a DOI? If that is the case, then they are still a union in the middle of CBA negotiations (regardless of who is negotiating).

If they fully dissolve, then there is no labor dispute (because there is no union to negotiate).

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:50 PM
  #150
NJDevs26
Moderator
No more status quo?!
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,223
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckster19 View Post
Yet that system allowed teams like the Avalanche and Devils to keep their mid 90s core well into the 00s. Those teams were big spenders yes but they weren't big UFA poachers either.
And part of the reason the Avs' and Wings' payrolls were so high were the offer sheets they had to match for Sakic and Federov.

Obviously payroll had a lot more to do with success in a pre-cap system than it does now...I was just challenging the assertion it was the 'only' factor. Especially considering in the old system you could retain players until they were 31 without having to worry about UFA and now the UFA age is 27. That in itself makes a huge difference, whatever the system.

NJDevs26 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 06:33 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.