*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

[lorentjd]

So if we base things on the 94-95 lockout I think it's safe to assume that January 20th is the absolute drop dead date for having a season.

That season they managed to squeeze in 48 games and extended the season into May. They also only had inter-conference games. So if there is a season, it could be a positive thing for the Canucks, since their record against the West has been really good the past few seasons.

[poetica]

Has anyone notice the "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" counts over at tsn.ca? The readers are overwhelmingly against the players.

...

[DeNiro]

If the players vote to "dissolve" the union, then you can put this season in the bag right now.

[The Bookie]

Lockout Support Group

You have to admit, there was something darkly comic about last week's NHL lockout news. For the second time, the league and the union met with federal mediators in an attempt to bridge the (small!) gap that stubbornly remains between players and owners.

While no meaningful progress was made, the reports about how the mediation was structured made for some good visuals: The two sides were sequestered in separate rooms, with the mediators going back and forth and gauging their reactions to various hypothetical situations. I can't be the only one with a crystal-clear mental image of Gary Bettman, fingers in ears, shaking his head and screaming LA-LA-LA every time the mediator attempted to engage.

There were reportedly no talks this weekend, and both the NHL and the NHLPA are now looking to test out their legal options. The NHL launched a "preemptive legal strike" on Friday; in turn, the players' association has begun taking a vote on whether to authorize its leadership to proceed with a disclaimer of interest.

With everything running in place at the moment, I thought we'd turn to the mailbag to answer a few questions and allow you to air your sorrows and grievances in a safe space. Just remember: It's not your fault. It's not your fault. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92D15qtI_Gk.

What is hope?

Does happiness exist?

— Connor S.

I read the first line of this e-mail to the tune of this song. The "baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more" lyrics really are tailor-made for the NHL fan. Anyway, congratulations, Connor S., for authoring the third-most depressing lockout e-mail of the week!

So like, forget hockey in and of itself for a minute. I honestly think the worst part of this has been a lack of Doc Emrick! I haven't heard the words lifted, lofted, DRIIIIVEE, fired, waffleboarded, knifed, kicked, jai'alied, speared, skyhooked, blasted, and swaggered in far too long. I also (somehow) miss Pierre being creepy as hell behind the glass!!! This lockout has to end right now, OR Doc has to start narrating my personal life.

— Ryan G.

You forgot one of my personal favorites: HELTER SKELTER!, which describes this lockout pretty well. I love NCAA hockey, but you have to wonder how many of the people tuning in for games this year are starved NHL fans idly channel-flipping, suddenly catching Doc's voice — he's been calling college games along with Pierre, whom I secretly miss too! — and pausing, silent tears rolling down their cheeks, just to hear that familiar cadence once more. Maybe the solution is to get Doc and Pierre to narrate a weekly show of CBA news. I can imagine it now:

Doc: The union's solidarity PINBALLED around the boards … BIG DRIVE by Roman Hamrlik! OFF! THE! POST! And now the play has stopped, but the action … has not.

Pierre: [Muffled screaming about the family tree of Kevin Westgarth's assistant coach back in Ontario peewee hockey, Doc!]

Doc: Back at the ranch, the NHLPA JACKKNIFES a new CBA proposal into the zone. Ohhh, but THAT ONE WOULD. NOT. GO!

Pierre: [Muffled screaming about Bill Daly being a BIG BEEFY BOY, Doc!]

Can you explain to me why on earth would the players want a shorter CBA? So we can do this again in six years? No thanks. The owners seem to get more and more out of them every deal, so why wouldn't they want a ten year deal?

— James W.

After seemingly promising CBA talks dissolved last week, Bill Daly told the press that for the NHL, the following three issues were "the hill we will die on":

• A five-year term limit on player contracts (seven if you're re-signing your own player) with a 5 percent allowable variation between the highest- and lowest-paid years

• No amnesty buyouts allowed, and no cap on escrow

• A 10-year term on the CBA, with a mutual opt-out clause after eight years

(I'd want a little bit more of a glamorous death myself, but that's just me.)

But I thought the same thing as you: Shouldn't the players want a 10-year deal, so they're not right back in this situation a few years from now? I think the reason they're resisting is twofold: (1) As Donald Fehr explained, it's an "ethical or a philosophical" concern that "by the time you get to year five or year six, the majority of the players playing will never have voted on an agreement [or had] a say in their terms and conditions of employment," and (2) the NHL's 100-year anniversary is coming up in five years, and the league would likely not want to be embroiled in (yet another) labor dispute during a time of such marketing gold, which could conceivably give the players' association more leverage down the road. Yes, this is how cynical this lockout has made me become.

Which gets solved first: the fiscal cliff or the NHL lockout? The similarities are there, and all us normal folk are just along for the ride. Jon Stewart could even do a "Call the House Budget Committee" parody.

— Will J.

You're so right — just look at today's L.A. Times story about the fiscal cliff situation. It's almost eerie: If you changed just a few names and details, it would pretty much exactly describe the NHL's labor negotiations. ("… their third face-to-face session ended after nearly an hour with no sign of progress … publicly, the two sides appear to be drifting apart … a feisty moment … 'that's why we don't have an agreement' … the exchange was 'frank' … 'that's not on the table' … a majority, 56%, would blame both sides.")

But the fiscal cliff may be solved first. According to a White House spokesman, talks are already "'beyond' the 11th hour," while the NHL situation probably still has a week or two to go, I'm afraid, before it's confronted with any sort of drop-dead date. I love the idea of Jon Stewart getting into the Robyn parody video business (would he wear maternity yoga pants like Harrison Mooney was willing to do, though?), but it distracts from a chilling truth: If things get much worse on the NHL side, Mooney's next masterpiece might have to be done to the tune of "Dancing On My Own."

Is it too early to consider the Wild the darkhorse favorite in the Western Conference? I put the top line up against anyone in the NHL, Granlund looks like the frontrunner for rookie of the year, and Sut ---*trails off into silent weeping…*

— Sven in Duluth

This is the second-most depressing lockout e-mail I received. The weird thing for Wild fans is that not only are they being deprived of seeing their new-and-improved team hit the ice with big offseason free-agent acquisitions Zach Parise and Ryan Suter onboard, those very signings have made the team and its owner, Craig Leipold, easy scapegoats. (It's not necessarily undeserved — even Parise and Suter themselves have had strong words about teams signing players to big contracts this summer and then almost immediately crying poor — but Minnesota ain't the only team to have done so.) To hear taunting rival fans tell it, though, those two contracts might as well have been the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

While we're on the subject of Minnesota, though: If the NHL does come back, which I do think it will, how bonkers will the potential 48-game season be? I know we've been through one back in 1995 — when I used to post on hockey Usenet boards back in the dark ages, the big dis to the Devils was always "half a season, half a Cup!!!!!!!!" — but I think things would be even more nuts now that teams earn points for overtime losses, which compresses the standings.

Just look at the Wild last season: After 31 games, they were leading the Western Conference in points; their fall back down to earth sparked a pretty epic fight between the advanced-statistics crowd (who predicted a crash was inevitable) and the Wild faithful, who just preferred to believe. (On the flip side you have your Los Angeles Kings.) One of the basic tenets of advanced stats is the idea that there are certain things, like shot and save percentages, that over enough time will regress to an orderly mean. Take away that "enough time" part, though, and you've got sweet, sweet chaos.

On a scale of 1-10, how pissed are you there won't be a 24/7 for the Winter Classic?

— Ted C.

I … I don't even want to talk about it. I think the first episode would have been a few days ago, and oh god [runs away bawling] …

What's to stop 24 American and Canadian billionaires from forming a new professional league? If the union disbands/decertifies, wouldn't that open the door for the players to sign with this new league? There's money to be made here, right? I would think since this was an owner's imposed lockout, that the players have free reign to do what they want.

— Brian W.

There's a small part of me that's starting to root for exactly this nuclear option — it would be nothing if not entertaining. (During the NBA lockout Bill Simmons and Jay Kang kicked around a similar idea for basketball, and it's kinda sad that it never came to fruition.) There's no guarantee that an attempt by the union to decertify would be successful in court, but if it were, then yes — basically, everyone would instantly become a free agent. From there, you can go in all kinds of directions; after reading Tyler Dellow's ode to the European football system, for example, I'm left thinking about how much fun hockey would be if you added in relegation.

Hockey has a long history of "rebel leagues," most recently the World Hockey Association (where Wayne Gretzky got his start!), but there would be two major road blocks to trying something like it today: For one, you'd have to find places to play — it's unlikely that you'd just be able to barge into existing NHL arenas — and for another, it would be wildly expensive, as the league would have to compete not just with old NHL-level salaries but also the money that's thrown around in places like Russia. The Sporting News's Jesse Spector did some digging into what might be feasible and wrote a great piece on it. I also enjoyed this take on The Copper & Blue.

It's unclear whether the union will try to put the screws to the league with the threat ofdecertification (or a disclaimer of interest), but various reports on Friday made it seem like it remains an option. Let's (secretly, quietly, don't tell anyone) hope so.

Last year, Peter King had an NFL work-stoppage note about Roger Goodell being spotted having a few beers with Jeff Saturday after a day of negotiations. By the account, they seemed like two bros just having a good chat over some pints.

Is there any corresponding scenario you can imagine involving Gary Bettman and a current NHL player? I can't, but I'd love to see a prospective transcript of how that would go down. And, who would be the best player for just such a meeting — entertainment-wise? How about Ryan Whitney? Or, I think the visual of Bettman chilling with George Parros would be astonishing for someone who walked into a pub and ran into that.

— Jamie H.

It says a lot about the differing natures of the two lockouts that Goodell was spotted tossing a few brewskis back with a player mid-negotiations, whereas Gary Bettman and Sidney Crosby could barely even stand to make eye contact while passing one another on an escalator the other day. (That SID is BACK on the ESCALATOR!)

But now I can't stop thinking about which man-date with the commish would be the best to encounter. We may have to contract the great Down Goes Brown to write up an imagining of this whole thing. Both Whitney and Parros would be great: They're smart enough to cut through the bull, that's for sure. But there's also the physical absurdity of seeing Bettman clinking glasses with Scotty Hartnell and his small army of hemp-like necklaces, the quiet terror of Jonathan Toews glowering silently from across the table (Gary would look up and be all, "No, no, he's not mad, this is just how he always is"), or the hilarious potential of a pancake breakfast with Dustin Penner atBettman's favorite Seinfeldian diner. Wait, does Tim Thomas count as a current player??? I vote for Tim Thomas. Has anyone even heard from the guy lately?! I'm sure he's got thoughts on this whole thing, and I'm sure they're extremely erratically capitalized.

If you could only have one F-word riddled celebration would it be

after scoring the first goal in his first game back from concussion?

OR …

would it be

after the Stanley Cup parade?

I just really wanted an excuse to watch YouTube videos and remember that hockey used to exist

— CJ S.

:'(

No disrespect to Jonathan Quick, whom I like even more now after seeing him tweet about the New York Giants all fall (as well as asking whether it's kosher to use Just For Men on a mustache), but I gotta go with Sid here. I know the Penguins were playing the lowly Islanders in Crosby's comeback game, and facing a fourth-string goalie to boot. But after nearly a year of absolute uncertainty about his condition followed by a few weeks of frantic debate over whether he'd ever regain his old form, that goal (on his first shot!) was a legitimate goose bumps moment for pretty much anyone other than the most committed of the anti-Crosby brigade. (Other memorable F-bombs, by the way, include Dustin Brown post–Stanley Cup win and Henrik Lundqvist onstage at the NHL Awards.)

This NHL lockout is obviously devastating to thousands of people across the country. But will it hit any franchise/employees/fans harder than those here in Columbus? This city has pushed for an All-Star Game for years. Columbus finally got the hotel space in the Arena District, as the NHL mandated, to be able to host the event. Now, in all likelihood, Columbus will miss out on all of the revenue, publicity, and goodwill an All-Star Game can offer to a struggling franchise. And no team is more in need of that than the Blue Jackets. Is there anything we have to look forward to (besides Anisimov)?

— Eric B, Columbus, OH

I have nothing but love for Artem Anisimov, but when he is the shining light at the end of your tunnel, you know things are dire. In the past year alone, Columbus fans (and don't joke "What Columbus fans?" because I contend that it's a place that wants more than anything to lovelovelove hockey yet has been failed time and time again by its disaster of a franchise) have endured the Rick Nash Sweepstakes saga; lost the no. 1 overall pick in the lottery; watched Jeff Carter whine his way out of town and into a Stanley Cup parade; seen the team's first-round draft pick, Ryan Murray, sidelined for the season with a shoulder injury; and lost the All-Star Game to the sands of the NHL lockout. (And with the Olympics next year, it's likely there won't be another All-Star Game until 2014-15.) I'm sure I'll get e-mails from Blue Jackets fans rattling off about 15 other miserable things I left out.

We can all hope that the hiring of John Davidson helps turn things around, but for now? You'll just have to take solace in knowing that out of all the lockout-related rants and pleas and hopes and complaints that I found in my inbox, this one was the no. 1 most depressing. So … congratulations, Columbus? You will always have this.

[DarthMelvin]

I have, but I've also noticed how overwhelming ignorant the fans there are. Don't get me wrong, there's definitely a valid opinion siding more with the owners, it just seems that most people at TSN base their opinions on misinformation, outright lies and childish jealousy.

[hockeyking]

Lol wow...you have from day one been a fanboy for the players...your arguments are nothing but hate posts towards the NHL and your quoting of the NHL hating articals are many...to call a huge lot in favor of the NHL Ignorant goes to show that my point in you being on the players jock straps are proven. Especially when you say "Don't get me wrong" and "valid opinion" You don't want see the other side of the coin...even if it is shinier than the other lolYou refuse to see that the NHLPA have no chance in this CBA but to CAVE. Once this Union's disclaimer is followed through, lets see how many of the NHLPA Brothers look out for each other...because I know from listening to "Sportsnet" that the owners are going to be on a feeding frenzy cuttin each others grass to get those crysby's, Ovie's, and even the Kesler's out there...to sign else where...their contracts would be void...lol I wonder how Maholtra feels about that...or Kass...even lappys...I can understand your point but only if you actually admitted to me that you are a fanboy with no other intention but to side with the underdog...myself I side with the owners who provide the team. Not the greedy greasy players that are the head of the NHLPA who are nothing but Fehr's lapdogs...Where are you scabs at...

[-Vintage Canuck-]

Steve Fehr says NHLPA 'ready to meet' but no talks are scheduled with NHL:

The standoff continues for the NHL and NHL Players' Association.

Another day passed without communication between the sides, who have no plans to return to the bargaining table and appear to be digging in. Both say they are prepared to meet but neither seems willing to make the first move.

"We've always been willing and ready to bargain," NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr told The Canadian Press on Monday night. "It seems like the league has ... paused or cut the process off several times over the last few months. I don't know that we ever have.

"We're ready to meet whenever they're ready to meet."

According to Fehr, he and deputy commissioner Bill Daly last communicated with one another via email on Friday night. Daly indicated that there had been no miscommunication between the parties.

"They know where we are and we know where they are," he said. "We are still a long way apart. I'm sure if either one of us has a new idea for moving the process forward, we know how to get in touch."

Fehr was unwilling to discuss the possibility of the NHLPA filing for a "disclaimer of interest" -- "I'm not talking about private internal union matters," he said -- something that could happen as soon as the end of the week depending on how a vote of the membership goes.

Players began casting electronic ballots Sunday on whether they would give their executive board the authority to dissolve the union, which would allow them to challenge the legality of the lockout in court and file anti-trust lawsuits against the league. Two-thirds of union members must vote in favour by Thursday.

It comes just days after the NHL filed a class-action complaint which asked a federal court in New York to make a declaration on the legality of the lockout. In the 43-page complaint, the NHL argued that the NHLPA was only using the "disclaimer of interest" as a bargaining tactic designed to "extract more favourable terms and conditions of employment."

The league also filed an unfair labour practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board on Friday.

The NHL and NHLPA spent two days with a U.S. federal mediator last week in New Jersey but didn't report any progress. However, the union continues to believe the gap between the two sides isn't insurmountable.

"At times, we felt we were very close and had momentum towards a deal but something always seemed to happen to derail it," said Fehr. "Clearly we seemed to be making progress and were close the week of Dec. 4-6 in New York. As (executive director) Don (Fehr) has said, in some ways we're very, very close.

"It seems unfortunate that we get stuck in the mud and can't seem to move forward and finish it off."

The lockout is into its 14th week and has already resulted in the cancellation of 526 regular-season games through Dec. 30. It's only a matter of time before more games are wiped off the schedule.

Exactly when the sides will meet again remains up in the air.

"I guess we're just waiting for talks to resume," said Fehr. "Hopefully, it will happen very soon."

http://www.vancouversun.com/hockey/nhlnews/Steve+Fehr+says+NHLPA+ready+meet+talks+scheduled+with/7711659/story.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[The Bookie]

Anybody else want to go to Google and try searching for 'nhl' and tell me if you're seeing what I'm seeing? A big bubble above the search results that says '2012 Season Started Saturday December 15 and Ends On Saturday April 13'. That's a new one to me (wasn't there when I searched an hr or two ago).

edit - Tried reloading and it's gone now. Bizarre. I took a screenshot but I'm not sure how to upload a local pic here, never tried that b4.

[canuck_trevor16]

so now both side are suing each other over this lockout........this will not resolve anything just more problems

[-Vintage Canuck-]

edit - Tried reloading and it's gone now. Bizarre. I took a screenshot but I'm not sure how to upload a local pic here, never tried that b4.

[WHL rocks]

An excellent article, written by an actual lawyer.

http://www.sportsnet..._antitrust_law/

December 17, 2012, 8:22 pm

By Rob Becker, Sportsnet legal analyst

The NHL's decision to file a pre-emptive lawsuit against the NHL Players' Association appears to be based on a desire to show the union that its plan to file a "disclaimer of interest" in order to allow the players to file antitrust suits against the league will fail.

And I believe the union's plan will indeed fail because Judge Paul Engelmayer, the young but brilliant federal judge in New York City who has been assigned the case, will see right through the formality of the disclaimer of interest to the underlying substance of what it really is: just another negotiating tactic by a union whose death will have been greatly exaggerated.

And that will mean that the players' antitrust suits will continue to be barred, just as they have been while the union has been representing the players. It also means a settlement -- or at least a settlement that the union will be happy with -- is not just around the corner.

The governing law here lies on the borderline between U.S. labour and antitrust law. If the league and the union had not been negotiating with each other one-on-one over these past years -- if there had never been a union, or if it had been terminated some time ago -- then the players would be free to claim that the league's decision to lock them out was an illegal collusion of teams to avoid paying the players what they would get if there were free competition for their services. Or, a violation of the antitrust laws. But when the two sides are negotiating as units -- league vs. union -- there is an exception to the antitrust laws under labour law, one in which the players are barred from bringing antitrust suits. This exception was created in order to allow collective bargaining to occur, because without it, leagues would have to fear that any attempt to negotiate as one entity might be construed as a conspiracy in restraint of trade.

The issue here is when does the termination of a union put the parties back where they would have been if there hadn't been a union, so that the players are free to bring antitrust suits?

The players appear to believe that the answer is as soon as the union no longer represents the players.

And they seem to believe that if the union files a disclaimer of interest, which would mean it claims to no longer represent the players, the owners will have such a fear of antitrust suits that they will come to the bargaining table and make concessions.

But a review of the recent labour fights in the NFL and NBA shows that the players' confidence is misguided. In 2011, the NFL players went through the methodical process of actually decertifying the union, which means the players were essentially firing the union. Decertification lasts at least 45 days and is overseen by the National Labour Relations Board. It's not a quick fix.

At first, the NFL players' plan worked. They prevailed in the federal district court in Minnesota, which ruled they could bring antitrust suits and enjoined the NFL lockout. But the league appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court judge by a vote of 2-1 and essentially found that all the parties were still in the midst of the same labour dispute they were involved in when there was a union. And the appellate court stated ruled that under the Norris-La Guardia Act, federal courts are forbidden from enjoining lockouts in the middle of labour disputes. So the lockout continued. Yes, there eventually was a settlement, but in reaching that settlement, the NFL was bargaining from a position of strength.

In November 2011 the NBA Players' Association, locked in a dispute with the NBA, filed a disclaimer of interest and the players brought antitrust suits against the league. That same month, a settlement was reached. But there was no legal ruling by a court in that case.

The players appear to be betting that since, in these two situations, the termination of the union led to a settlement, it is reasonable to expect that terminating the union will once again lead to a settlement, because of the owners' fear of antitrust suits. But although union termination has been followed by settlement twice recently, it does not follow that union termination will be followed by settlement this time.

That's especially true here. In the NBA situation, there was no legal ruling, so we don't know whether the NBA owners settled because they feared antitrust suits. If we compare this situation to what happened in the NFL, it becomes clear that the NHL owners have reason to be confident of victory.

That's because the players have gone about this process in such a transparent way. What the NHL players are doing (as I'm writing this) is two steps closer to an obvious charade than what the NFL players did in 2011. First of all, since a disclaimer of interest is a quick process, it will be easier for Judge Engelmayer to conclude that it doesn't represent a real breakup between the union and the players. But second, the players are actually in the process of voting to have the union disclaim interest. Disclaimers of interest normally happen when a union has grown disenchanted with its membership and essentially fires the members and says we refuse to represent you anymore -- kind of like a contentious divorce. But when the players actually vote to have the union disclaim interest, which is like asking someone to fire you, it's pretty obvious that they aren't disenchanted with their union at all. And just to make the sham clear, it was the NHLPA's executive board that voted to authorize the players to vote to authorize the union to disclaim interest in further representing the players.

All of which makes it even more likely that Judge Engelmayer, who graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, will conclude that this is indeed what the Norris-La Guardia Act refers to as a "case involving or growing out of a labour dispute" and thus that he is forbidden to issue an injunction to end the lockout.

So I doubt the players' strategy will lead to a quick end to the lockout in their favor. But ironically what might happen is that Judge Engelmayer, who, unlike mediators, has the power to threaten the parties with consequences if they do not act reasonably, may take the players and their lawyers into a conference room and say, "are you kidding me? I may have only been a judge since last year, but I wasn't born yesterday. I know that you guys still look to the union to guide and lead you in this labour dispute. And that's exactly why it's the same labor dispute it's always been. So if you think that when you guys file antitrust suits in my court I'm gonna enjoin the lockout, guess again!"

If that happens, the players will be bargaining from a weaker position than they were in early December, and the only settlement that will result will be one in which they move closer to accepting the owners' terms.

I think that's exactly why the NHL filed its lawsuit on Friday -- they know that by doing so, they are moving the players closer to the realization that the antitrust cudgel they have been holding over the league is made of feathers.

That might save the season, but not the way the players want.

[gizmo2337]

Memo to Players: If you just would have taken a 50-50 split on revenues, this would be over. Yeah, you'd have lost 12% of your salaries. But, now, you're going to lose at least 12% (very likely much more).

[gizmo2337]

Lol wow...you have from day one been a fanboy for the players...your arguments are nothing but hate posts towards the NHL and your quoting of the NHL hating articals are many...to call a huge lot in favor of the NHL Ignorant goes to show that my point in you being on the players jock straps are proven.

[poetica]

-Its fangirl or lady fan

[poetica]

NHL fears Fehr itself

This was Dec. 6, when Canceler-in-Chief Gary Bettman and deputy Bill (The Hill) Daly delivered their Angry Men standup routine at a press conference after a group of players had the temerity not to sign on the dotted line even after a handful of owners all but directed them to do so.

Bettman was asked about the possibility the NHLPA might decertify. After suggesting the players were more likely to file a disclaimer of interest, he analyzed the union’s potential legal maneuver as follows:

“We don’t view it in the same way in terms of its impact as apparently the union may,” is what the discredited face of the NHL said.

Well, OK, but then what was the NHL doing rushing to U.S. District Court on Friday afternoon to file a class action complaint against the union in order to prevent the PA from disclaiming and/or decertifying?

Disclaiming and decertifying are neither maneuvers nor tenets PA executive director Don Fehr embraces easily. This true believer in the power of collective bargaining has been loath to go down this route even while the rank-and-file has coalesced behind the process over the last month.

And yet here is the No Hope League, in court rather than on ice, filing actions to prevent the PA from undertaking an action of its own that the league is on record as believing would have negligible impact, anyway.

Reading the NHL’s complaint is a hoot. Honestly, it is. Before this — and the last couple of weeks — who would have believed the league’s hierarchy that includes Proskauer Rose power counsel Bob (The Buster) Batterman were such cut-ups?

Stop and think for a moment. Here is the league that just over a week ago was doing everything in its power to keep Don Fehr out of the bargaining process, and is now going to court to ensure he continues to represent the players in the bargaining process.

For weeks now, the NHL has sent its messengers to deliver the message the NHLPA is not truly united behind Fehr and union leadership; that the players, left to their own decision-making process, would rush to accept whatever the league at the time had on the table.

Or, in another word, “Vote!”

Yet there in Paragraph 54 of the complaint is the NHL citing numerous examples of players articulating support for Fehr and the PA leadership which the league posits, “... do not suggest that the NHL players are unhappy with their Union representation [or] wish to oust current NHLPA leadership...”

Don Fehr. League can’t live with him, now the league can’t live without him.

Paragraph 102 is a good one. For months the NHL has been telling anyone who would listen that up to 18 of its franchises lose money, with many of those franchises in need of life support. For months the league has been instructing us not to confuse revenue with profits.

Fair enough.

But then these are the league’s own words right there in Paragraph 102: “The system of common employment rules [the CBA] instituted in 2005 improved the financial stability of the entire NHL, including most of its clubs...”

Most of its clubs?

Really?

Hmm.

What to make of the thought process behind Paragraph 62?

The combination of restrictions proposed by the NHL leading into and throughout the lockout is designed to limit the impact of free agency and funnel players toward teams they might not consider given a full plate of options.

Yet there is the NHL in Paragraph 62 suggesting every player in the league become a free agent if the NHLPA were permitted to disclaim or decertify.

“[Existing] contracts ...[would be] void and unenforcable by law,” in the league’s own words.

Goodbye Columbus!

And wouldn’t it just be grand if, under universal free agency, not a single player would choose to sign with Jeremy Jacobs’ Bruins?

But if searching for a side-splitter, one only need to turn to Paragraph 22, which contains a collection of words destined to live forever in the history of comedy.

For this is what the league declares to U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York in Paragraph 22 of its class action complaint for declaratory relief:

“The NHL is engaged in, among other things, the public exhibition of professional hockey games...”

Hahahahahahahahaha.

(Deep breath)

Hahahahahahahahaha.

[poetica]

Dissolution of NHLPA would result in chaos

There may be a handful -- a small handful -- of National Hockey League owners who would not soil themselves in fear of what would happen if all existing player contracts were voided by the dissolution of the NHL Players Association.

But what glorious chaos it would be.

It won’t happen, of course, because the two sides in the ongoing labour war would never give the media a gift so sensational.

Still, think of the stories: A frantic orgy of free-agent madness, rich teams stockpiling talent with no salary caps, mid-market teams scrambling to keep some semblance of what they have, deep-pocketed competitive failures seeing a chance to hit a sudden home run, a few other franchises utterly driven out of business ... the competition and carnage would be more interesting than a lot of NHL playoff series.

The league would definitely lose some teams, which admittedly makes it worth fantasizing about.

But when Dan Cleary tells the Detroit media that this week’s NHL players’ vote to disassociate (temporarily, no doubt) from their union should pass “overwhelmingly ... if its not 99.8%, I’d be disappointed,” you can be sure of one thing, and one thing only.

It’s a steaming pile of horsebleep.

You couldn’t get 99.8% of NHL players to agree that there are seven days in a week. You certainly couldn’t get the required two-thirds majority of players to agree to a “disclaimer of interest” if they ever, for one minute, seriously thought the NHL was going to risk a judge’s declaration that every player contract in the league would be null and void.

So it’s a ruse, a ploy, a bargaining tactic meant to apply leverage to talks that are going nowhere, just as the NHL’s class-action/bad faith bargaining suit filed last week is a ploy, meant to pre-empt the union’s ploy -- pretty much a continuation of the last 27 ploys, only now they’ll be presenting their respective cases to an actual court, rather than merely emoting in the court of public opinion.

Even legal experts have no idea whether handing the whole mess to a battalion of lawyers to sort out before a judge or two -- the owners filed suit in New York; the players could yet countersue in a California court (or somewhere else) -- might end the lockout sooner than if the two sides just continued to flip the bird at one another and wait for the mid-January drop-dead date to force their respective hands.

Personally, I’d love to see what would happen if the players filed their suit in Canada, where the blood pressure is as high as the temperature is low. But that would never happen because odds are a Canadian judge would be a hockey fan, and -- in the context of this leverage war between the mercenary mini-corporations and the soulless maxi-corporations -- neither side is about to put its fate in the hands of someone who actually likes the game more than the money.

That’s where Gary Bettman and his Proskauer Rose lockout strategists got it right. They’re going to argue in Manhattan before a judge who’s a fan of the New York Yankees, the fattest of the fat-ass corporate giants in professional sports.

Honestly, the term “disclaimer of interest” should have been reserved for the fans in half of the NHL’s markets. That’s right. We’re guessing as many as 15 of the 30 cities have utterly tuned out, and the teams will have a helluva time trying to fill those buildings when the game returns.

Not here, though. In the Great White North, we accept these periodic betrayals and try to pass the time between games as best we can ... even if it’s nine months between.

Someone wrote that these court filings could signal the end of the innocence for hockey. That’s pretty funny.

Anyone who has more than a few tattered threads of innocence left has been hiding under a rock since before Peter Pocklington traded Wayne Gretzky, and Eric Lindros rejected Quebec, and Bob Goodenow arrived on his mission to make the owners pay for the sins of Alan Eagleson and didn’t care how many franchises he drove to the brink in the process.

All that’s happening now is a further erosion of those myths we once clung to as if they were absolute truths: that hockey players really are the best, the humblest, the most accommodating, the most human, of pro athletes. So much different from baseball and basketball players. So passionate, so unselfish ...

And that owners are really guardians of a public trust -- not so much businessmen as hockey fans who want the same things the fan does, but just happen to have the money to make them happen. Good people who “give back” to the community.

We know more about that now than we ever wanted to know. We know that most owners are themselves charity seekers from the public purse, strip-miners of their local markets, pyramid schemers who have gotten rich selling dreams to suckers in places never meant for hockey and now complain that the game’s economics don’t make sense.

We know that players, through their agents, have conspired with the very owners they now profess to despise, to subvert the salary structure to the point where the league feels it has to close every loophole, triple-lock the vault, build an idiot-proof collective bargaining agreement that gives the owners every advantage ... knowing that over time, the idiots will muck it up again, anyway.

If it were only Bettman and Jeremy Jacobs and the league office and its scorched-earth legal strategy on one side, and the Brothers Fehr and their hard-done-by comrades in the union on the other, it would be a victimless crime.

Two villains, and no good guy. They deserve each other.

But there’s a whole sub-stratum suffering here: Single-mom ushers, concession workers, ticket sellers and popcorn hawkers, “non-essential” team front office employees, bar-and-grill operators, waiters and parking attendants ... and real charities, not just the few you hear about, that NHL hockey legitimately supports.

I wonder if the two sides view most of them as parasites, living off the avails of the owners’ investment and the players’ sweat? Or perhaps as collateral damage. Sad, of course, but inevitable.

All wars have victims. The big picture, the mini-corporations and the maxi-corporations seem to be saying, is way more important than the little people it hurts.

These are the heroes whose pockets you will be lining, 10 minutes after they settle.

Bah, humbug.

[gizmo2337]

I think the vote for disclaimer of interest will pass. The NHLPA board will then use it, but not before some further negotiating attempt. NHL biggest fear is that it could be permanent and not a bluff. NHL willing to dance, but the owners lose cost certainty. Both the last two last lockout were about cost certainty and control on the owners side. This would throw cost certainty out the window for the owners.

==

On the seventh day of the lockout, Bettman gave a plea

Seven northern teams a shimmering.

Six erratic owners, five yeeeeear contraaaaaact limit! Four expansion teams, three labor stoppages, two seasons lost, and a deal to force the players overseas.

On the eighth day of the lockout, Bettman gave a plea

Eight hardliners owners voting.

Seven northern teams a shimmering, Six erratic owners, five yeeeeear contraaaaaact limit! Four expansion teams, three labor stoppages, two seasons lost, and a deal to force the players overseas.

[Scoobydooby]

Lp.

So what you guys think? Decertification looming?

[The Bookie]

^^ the oddity that turned up on Google earlier.. three months of searching for lockout articles daily, never seen anything like that.

[DarthMelvin]

Lp.

So what you guys think? Decertification looming?