|
Post by icecoldian on Jan 31, 2005 2:34:59 GMT -5
Now, i am not 100% if this idea is both legal and possible, but i think the NHL/Owners should "slap the players in the face"... now that sounds very immature, but i dont mean actualyl physicaly slap them.
After the season is finished, and the lock out is still on, and the players are still on the golf course, preparing there multi-million dollar homes and fancy leather sofa's for another year of sitting, the NHL should give them a slap in the face with allowing scabs come in, and throw down a 28Million dollar cap insted of a 31 or 32 million cap like they origionaly offered. All the young guns and rookies, and who ever else can scab, and get paid a good amount for playing.
The NHL players would be like... "well, i suppose we should have gone for the first offer, now i am sitting on my fancy leather sofa un-employed. And even if i do try and get my job back, they will only pay me less than the offer the offerd me."
Then, the players can use Goodenow as the scape goat, and the union will be destroyed because of it. No more NHLPA to worry about locking out again...
Is this some-what possible???
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on Jan 31, 2005 2:38:00 GMT -5
Thats a good question, the thing is the NHL and the NHLPA is not your everyday labour dispute, so does it get treated this way? When workers are locked out, they dont go and find work at other factories, they try and hammer out a deal... I really dont understand how the NHLPA is a union, its more like a mafia... and after these comments I guess I better watch out, they're probably after me now.
|
|
|
Post by dreamcatcher on Jan 31, 2005 14:39:37 GMT -5
You'll notice, of late, that the NHL WANTS to negotiate, and is giving the appearance to fans and the media, that they are trying to solve this, in closed door meetings..provided that it involves cost certainty, which is fine. They've removed both Goodenow and Bettman from these negotiations, and been careful to include council for both sides to help mediate some sort of resolution.
If I was a betting man, I'd say we'll see replacement players next year, and the NHL will slap down a hard cap and make changes to arbitration. How they will solve the problem of cities, states or provinces that do not allow scab players such as Quebec, I am not quite sure yet. But, from a fans perspective, the NHL has definetly given the impression that they are negotiating in good faith, and thus, as a collective management/ownership, can unillaterally implement the LAST conditions of employment, which in this case will likely be a salary cap of $32 million U.S.
Just my opinion, but next year? You'll see scab players, a capped league, and players crossing the line.
I maintain that the goal is to break the union.
|
|
|
Post by icecoldian on Jan 31, 2005 14:56:00 GMT -5
You'll notice, of late, that the NHL WANTS to negotiate, and is giving the appearance to fans and the media, that they are trying to solve this, in closed door meetings..provided that it involves cost certainty, which is fine. They've removed both Goodenow and Bettman from these negotiations, and been careful to include council for both sides to help mediate some sort of resolution. If I was a betting man, I'd say we'll see replacement players next year, and the NHL will slap down a hard cap and make changes to arbitration. How they will solve the problem of cities, states or provinces that do not allow scab players such as Quebec, I am not quite sure yet. But, from a fans perspective, the NHL has definetly given the impression that they are negotiating in good faith, and thus, as a collective management/ownership, can unillaterally implement the LAST conditions of employment, which in this case will likely be a salary cap of $32 million U.S. Just my opinion, but next year? You'll see scab players, a capped league, and players crossing the line. I maintain that the goal is to break the union. Very impressive, i was hoping you would reply to this... I just think it would be amazing if the NHL threw down a 28 or 29 Million salary cap, as a real "ha ha" at the NHLPA. Now i didn't know that soem states/provinces didn't allow for scabs... That is interesting, if that is the case, maybe almost all the players on that team would cross the line considering that the NHL is going to resume, and hire scabs everywhere it can... Even though i am really not on the Bettman train, i would still love to see him point and laugh at goodenow and the PA saying "should have taken the 32 mil cap" when there is a 28 or 29 mil cap on the league. Even a cap that low wouldn't save some teams in the NHL, and would allow for a HUGE profit margin in Winnipeg, and ticket prices lowered.
|
|
|
Post by RemyShanx on Jan 31, 2005 15:51:44 GMT -5
I hope to see it happen. Possibly a "perverbial" kick in the nuts will help them get back to reality. Not that a slap wouldn't do it, but the NHL contains quite a few stubborn *****.
That "music" clip says it best, eh Ian?
We gotta get that uploaded somewhere...
|
|
|
Post by jamiebez on Jan 31, 2005 17:10:00 GMT -5
I think this is a great idea.... but it won't happen From www.sportslawnews.com/archive/jargon/LJImpasse.htmThe legitimacy of an impasse was a key issue during the period following the 1994 baseball strike. After months of negotiating, the owners decided to declare an impasse, break off negotiations and then take the risky move of imposing terms on the players (which included a salary cap, restricted free agency and no arbitration). Unfair Labor Practice charges were filed and a federal judge in New York granted the players union's motion for an injunction to prevent the imposition of the new terms. The court concluded that an impasse was not reached and the baseball owners had no right to stop the process and impose their terms.MLB made the mistake of bargaining with the players on a luxury tax for months, then got frustrated and "slapped" them with a cap so to speak. The players "slapped" them back in court and won. If they want to avoid the same mistake, each offer you see from the owners from now on will be slightly more favorable to the players. They'll move forwards, not backwards, but the goal remains the same: break the union.
|
|
|
Post by PitbulI on Feb 1, 2005 14:55:37 GMT -5
I don't want to see the scab thing happen but will watch it because they'll play good.
The reason I say this is because the NHLPA will start trying to get vengeful and who knows what the mafia, er I mean NHLPA will do.
For some reason I think this latest CBA proposal is showing the NHL will give the players, revenue sharing and luxury tax and if the league owners make more money, Everyone benefits. including the players.
|
|
|
Post by Yar on Feb 1, 2005 20:13:15 GMT -5
You'll notice, of late, that the NHL WANTS to negotiate, and is giving the appearance to fans and the media, that they are trying to solve this, in closed door meetings..provided that it involves cost certainty, which is fine. They've removed both Goodenow and Bettman from these negotiations, and been careful to include council for both sides to help mediate some sort of resolution. If I was a betting man, I'd say we'll see replacement players next year, and the NHL will slap down a hard cap and make changes to arbitration. How they will solve the problem of cities, states or provinces that do not allow scab players such as Quebec, I am not quite sure yet. But, from a fans perspective, the NHL has definetly given the impression that they are negotiating in good faith, and thus, as a collective management/ownership, can unillaterally implement the LAST conditions of employment, which in this case will likely be a salary cap of $32 million U.S. Just my opinion, but next year? You'll see scab players, a capped league, and players crossing the line. I maintain that the goal is to break the union. i really hope your prediction is right. that would be perfect to have a salary cap that low. having a team in winnipeg would be a gold mine ;D. there will definitly a lot of players that will cross the line and play. you'll see the same players that are playing in europe with the locked out nhlers taking the nhlers jobs. talk about poetic justice . i wonder how they will get around the anti-scab laws in bc and quebec??
|
|
|
Post by jamiebez on Feb 2, 2005 11:13:51 GMT -5
i wonder how they will get around the anti-scab laws in bc and quebec?? Quebec is no problem. A union has to be certified by the province for it to fall under ant-scab laws, and the NHLPA is not! As for Vancouver - let them play in Winnipeg for year! ;D
|
|
|
Post by wreckage on Feb 5, 2005 12:53:00 GMT -5
If an impasse were to be declared the most recent offer would be the one put into place while the entire process were entered through courts. And if the owners were to lose the battle in court, which could take years to complete, then the players would be awarded any lost salary from the time the impasse was declared. And teams would be forced to fork over cash to players such as Pronger, who have declared that they will never play in a cap oriented NHL, his full salary for the duration even though he made no attempt at coming back and playing during the court proceedings. Sure the league may have made some cash during that time, but the amount that they would potentially lose if they lost the courts decision is not worth the gamble. That is why I personally believe we won't see an impasse for the next season.
|
|
|
Post by Yar on Feb 5, 2005 19:47:09 GMT -5
Quebec is no problem. A union has to be certified by the province for it to fall under ant-scab laws, and the NHLPA is not! As for Vancouver - let them play in Winnipeg for year! ;D only if they wear jets jersey ;D
|
|
|
Post by dreamcatcher on Feb 8, 2005 16:56:52 GMT -5
..then it would be very important, to make sure that the league meets the minimum standards set forth by a court of law, during the 1994 Baseball strike, and any and all conditions that would make a declared impasse by the NHL favorable to them, in a court of law. At this point, it would be in the interests of the NHLPA, to table another offer, a little closer to the NHL'S SIDE, since should this inevitably end up in court, all factors from start to finish, no matter how small, will play a part in a courts decision....
|
|
|
Post by jetblood on Feb 13, 2005 16:48:19 GMT -5
It's not a question of wether it is possible It's whats gonna happen. Honestly if i was an owner i would make the cap 25 -35 million for next year. That will really fix the players then. (just picture the look on Jeremy Ronicks face lol)
|
|