*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

[Sully2Cool]

[boxiebrown]

Is anyone else kind of interested to see what would happen if the NHL had to run with no CBA? I know it will probably never happen, but it would be fascinating to see a league play with no draft, no cap, no waivers, etc. That is how North American sports operated until the 60's, when players started to unionize. At this point, though, I think the CBAs might be hurting the players more than the owners, by artificially depressing salaries and limiting contract lengths. If i'm not mistaken, the EPL operates without a CBA, and it does just fine.

How big a contract do you think Connor McDavid would get right now, if there was no draft? 8 years, $30 million?

[canucksnihilist]

for frack sakes... all these spinning sheep and tea bagging is totally getting out of hand. the purists chiming in, wanna-be analysts! we just have to get better organized and we can sell this crap! oh wait, is that an add at the top of the page? lol!

all good. but entirely too tame, entirely too tame. gotta pick it up people! get a bit more creative and we can make the nucks more money - everyone click on the link at the top of the page!

[wshdrvvn]

Is anyone else kind of interested to see what would happen if the NHL had to run with no CBA?  I know it will probably never happen, but it would be fascinating to see a league play with no draft, no cap, no waivers, etc.  That is how North American sports operated until the 60's, when players started to unionize.  At this point, though, I think the CBAs might be hurting the players more than the owners, by artificially depressing salaries and limiting contract lengths.  If i'm not mistaken, the EPL operates without a CBA, and it does just fine.

How big a contract do you think Connor McDavid would get right now, if there was no draft?  8 years, $30 million?

[boxiebrown]

EPL is just more successful on the whole IMO. I'm willing to bet revenues for even the smallest markets over there destroys the small market teams in the NHL.

[gizmo2337]

So, the NHL files suit before there is even an NHLPA vote to "think" about authorizing disclaimer of interest?? And they claim unfair bargaining practice? Lol, the PA didn't do anything yet.

Guilty party acted first. Whoever smelled it dealt it Totally planned by NHL, and it smells. This won't work well for Gary imo

[jovocop55]

there are just so much hate between the 2 side that a deal will be hard to reach... they don't want to lose the battle against each other..

[oldnews]

So, the NHL files suit before there is even an NHLPA vote to "think" about authorizing disclaimer of interest?? And they claim unfair bargaining practice? Lol, the PA didn't do anything yet.

Guilty party acted first. Whoever smelled it dealt it Totally planned by NHL, and it smells. This won't work well for Gary imo

[Bodee]

Is anyone else kind of interested to see what would happen if the NHL had to run with no CBA? I know it will probably never happen, but it would be fascinating to see a league play with no draft, no cap, no waivers, etc. That is how North American sports operated until the 60's, when players started to unionize. At this point, though, I think the CBAs might be hurting the players more than the owners, by artificially depressing salaries and limiting contract lengths. If i'm not mistaken, the EPL operates without a CBA, and it does just fine.

How big a contract do you think Connor McDavid would get right now, if there was no draft? 8 years, $30 million?

[Boudrias]

Without a union there is no CBA. The players, as individuals, will file anti-trust lawsuits against the NHL claiming the lockout is illegal. At that point, if successful, the teams have to resume business (hockey) or fold. If this happens you'd have 30 individual businesses (the teams) competing against each other. They cannot collude and agree among themselves to limit salaries, hold out/lockout, etc. under US and Canadian anti-trust (anti-competition) laws.

This is where it gets a little murky for me. Do the individual players still have contracts? Or are they contingent on having a CBA? I believe, based on what I've read, that they in fact are still under contract to their teams. Why would the Labour Relations Board award the players 3X their contract if they no longer had contracts? So assuming they have contracts they must be paid.

Free agents still unsigned would not be constrained by the salary cap. However they would not be covered by the league minimum salary anymore either.

Any benefits from the League (medical, dental, death benefits, etc.) that are covered under the CBA would be gone.

So basically, anything the teams themselves offer in individual existing contracts would be honoured. Anything covered under the CBA would not.

This doesn't happen overnight. The NHL will fight this tooth and nail and drag it out as long as possible. This would be an unmitigated disaster for them. Believe it or not, the CBA helps the league at least if not more so than the players.

[Boudrias]

I concur. Obvious that the NHL was waiting for this progression, holding tight, waiting to fart the loudest.

And they succeeded in smelling this thing up to a whole new level.

The problem with the NHL claim that the PA is bargaining in bad faith is that it comes at a time when the NHL has stepped back, yet again playing the whole off the table game, and are not really negotiating...

So this step actually looks pretty dumb - and the premeditated appearance of it makes it look like they didn't re-evaluate in the current context in which they have made these claims. In other words, the PA's timing was fairly effective, and the NHL looks like they simply went with their hair-trigger response.

It looks like they are dead set on continuing to try to escalate the power gestures hoping to finally intimidate the players into acquiescence - at this point the strategy just looks arrogant, hard-headed, and doomed to self-destruction.

They're dealing with an adversary who won't be bullied, looks at the context, strategizes, and has played their cards fairly effectively. I think Bettman has a weak strategy, determined to underestimate the PA dramatically.

But the footage of him walking angrily down the street today was the highlight of the night...

[-Vintage Canuck-]

@cotsonika

NHL has given PA two options -- take it or leave it. If PA chooses to leave it, that means disclaimer. That makes it real, not a tactic.

[poetica]

NHL lawsuit is a pre-emptive strike

It wasn’t an entirely unexpected legal move, but it’s interesting nonetheless. Examining the lawsuit filed Friday by the NHL answers some of the questions raised during decertification speculation in recent weeks. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the lockout does not violate antitrust laws, but that’s just the beginning.

Perhaps most interesting is a request made by the NHL that says if the judgment rules that a disclaimer of interest or decertification by the NHLPA is ultimately found to be valid, then all standard player contracts signed under the previous CBA would be void and unenforceable.

“In the absence of a valid CBA or collective bargaining relationship, the provisions of the NHL SPCs will no longer have any force of effect,” the lawsuit reads.

So, basically, everybody becomes a free agent in that scenario. Sure, it might lead to two or three years of court fights but the idea is a wild one to consider.

“I’m pretty sure the Edmonton Oilers won’t like that scenario, or any team with good young players,” said one NHL source. “Steven Stamkos might get $20 million [a season] from the Toronto Maple Leafs.”

Yes, this is the start of the nuclear option.

The move is a pre-emptive strike that argues that any move toward decertification isn’t a permanent dissolving of the union but instead a tactic designed “only to misuse the antitrust laws in an effort to secure more favorable collective terms and conditions of employment and deny the NHL its right to engage in a lawful lockout."

On Friday, colleague Pierre LeBrun reported that the union’s executive board has been cleared to gauge its membership with a disclaimer of interest vote. The lawsuit says that vote is to be taken over the next four days.

Many players and union leadership have been careful in saying decertification is an option of last resort. Still, the lawsuit argues that “many Union members have publicly asserted that they intend to decertify the Union.”

Among the players the league singled out as mentioning decertification as a “strategy” were Ryan Miller, Brad Richards, Ray Whitney, Shawn Thornton, Cory Schneider, Matt Stajan, Dan “Clearly” [sic; should be Dan Cleary], Chris Campoli, Jonathan Toews, Troy Brouwer, Daniel Alfredsson, George Parros and Andrew Ladd.

The lawsuit cites everything from local radio and newspaper interviews to comments from player Twitter accounts. It’s clear that the NHL has been watching.

Other points of interest in the lawsuit:

-- According to the lawsuit, the NHL has produced more than 200,000 pages of NHL and team financial information to the NHLPA, “documents relating to officiating records and broadcast contracts, and other highly confidential and proprietary information of the League.”

-- In case you lost track, the lawsuit breaks down all the CBA offers made between both sides: “... the NHL made oral and/or written proposals on July 13, July 25, July 31, August 28, October 16 and November 8 and the NHLPA made oral and/or written proposals on August 14, August 23, August 28, September 12, October 18, November 7 and November 21."

-- What monopoly? The league argues that professional hockey leagues in Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and other European countries are “viable substitutes for the NHL, as evidenced by the fact that NHL players routinely elect to play in a European league instead of in the NHL.” The league points out that there are currently more than 100 NHL players in Europe and that 400 players played in Europe during the last lockout. “For this reason, the impact of the NHL lockout on the market for the services of professional hockey players is minimal.”

[Shift-4]

Perhaps most interesting is a request made by the NHL that says if the judgment rules that a disclaimer of interest or decertification by the NHLPA is ultimately found to be valid, then all standard player contracts signed under the previous CBA would be void and unenforceable.

Don't see how that will fly.

[elvis15]

Perhaps most interesting is a request made by the NHL that says if the judgment rules that a disclaimer of interest or decertification by the NHLPA is ultimately found to be valid, then all standard player contracts signed under the previous CBA would be void and unenforceable.

Don't see how that will fly.

[poetica]

Perhaps most interesting is a request made by the NHL that says if the judgment rules that a disclaimer of interest or decertification by the NHLPA is ultimately found to be valid, then all standard player contracts signed under the previous CBA would be void and unenforceable.

Don't see how that will fly.

[poetica]

Explaining the NHL's latest move

Lots more explaining it all a bit better, but it's not all one move, but rather separate moves contingent on other things happening (or not happening).

[surtur]

Me neither, especially being that those contracts were signed between a team and an individual player where both sides had representatives in on the process. But, honestly, we'll have to see what happens. The growing anti-union sentiment in both the US and Canada could very well come into play in any ruling.

I have to think the objective isn't an actual ruling here. Rather, I think this is very much a strong-arm tactic by the NHL to force the PA to abandon their "disclaimer of interest" option and just give in to the NHL's demands (which even their suit admits hasn't changed in over a month, despite their claims that they are "negotiating.") Otherwise, I just don't see what's to reasonably gain for the NHL. I mean, it would be spectacular for fans if the ruling went against the NHL and they were spanked and told no for the first time. It would not only end this lockout, but possibly prevent future ones.

However, if the ruling did rule the lockout was legal and all contracts are null and void, where would that leave the NHL? Where would that leave teams without the capital to spend in a free market where there is no salary cap, no individual salary limit, no protections for teams' rights to players, and no revenue sharing at all? Without a CBA the NHL will not be able to have a draft, free agency rules, salary cap, or anything else that in any way limits what teams can spend or where players can play without being guilty of violating anti-trust laws. Even if some of the players did come back under new contracts, how many would be lost? And how many do you think wouldn't be so pissed off they were demanding as much as they could possibly get? In a post-union NHL I would be shocked beyond belief to not see teams spending well over last season's salary cap just to ice a crap team because if it's the entire NHL against every player, you better believe it will be every player for himself. How many teams could survive in that climate for even a season or two?

[Shift-4]

and the game of chicken is fully in to the first period

[poetica]

it could possibly crush several of the lower earning/spending teams and either they get sold and relocated or the NHL drops down to 26 or so teams...would be awesome.

As for teams like NY, Toronto,Vancouver i think we would be just fine with paying top players top dollar and having a crazy dominant team.

could be the only chance a team like Toronto has of turning themselves into a winning team maybe they spend huge on 1 year or 2 year contracts get the best of the best and win a cup....