Jump to content

Lockout


ForumGhost

Recommended Posts

Commandant is the lawyer here? I am guessing there is no such animal as binding mediation. If there was, this would represent a win for the players because to gain a central position one would have to employ give and take. All I've seen from the NHL is TAKE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commandant is the lawyer here? I am guessing there is no such animal as binding mediation. If there was, this would represent a win for the players because to gain a central position one would have to employ give and take. All I've seen from the NHL is TAKE.

There is Binding ARBITRATION... where there is an Arbitrator who makes a final decision. This isn't arbitration, and the chances of this going to arbitration are essentially 0.

This is MEDIATION. The difference between a Mediator and Arbitrator is this.

A Mediator plays the role of "nice guy" who works to try and find common ground and encourage and push both sides to settle, but has no real power to force them to settle.

The Arbitrator plays the role of judge, making a verdict and settlement if the two sides can't do it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx Commandant/ Exactly where I was going/ This is meaningless gobblygook/ This is a feel good,we have tried everything last step. Lets get to binding arbitration before they throw everything away. They probably couldn't agree on the mediators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx Commandant/ Exactly where I was going/ This is meaningless gobblygook/ This is a feel good,we have tried everything last step. Lets get to binding arbitration before they throw everything away. They probably couldn't agree on the mediators.

Binding arbitration rarely happens in any industry that is "non-essential" such as this one.

Its usually only used when you absolutely can't afford a work stoppage for the good of society... Doctors, Nurses, Police, Fire Fighters, that sort of thing.

Neither Bettman nor Fehr want to put the power in the hands of a third party.

Thats why decertification is such an intriguing process... because it does put the power in the hands of a third party (a judge) and as such encourages a settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx Commandant/ I guess that is what I am driving at/ To make any process binding one would have to give up control.Thats why there is zero chance of binding arbitration, and just slightly above zero chances that mediation will work. Just after I wrote the original comment, I listened to Prime Time Sports, and the guest, who's name alludes me, stated that in his recollection he could not remember mediation ever working , It is interesting that you think decertification is a more likely step. I am not sure what extra authority a judge may carry in decertification other than ordering them back to the table.Maybe you could clarify what extra power a judge might have. Surely he couldn't order them to take a deal they didn't accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx Commandant/ I guess that is what I am driving at/ To make any process binding one would have to give up control.Thats why there is zero chance of binding arbitration, and just slightly above zero chances that mediation will work. Just after I wrote the original comment, I listened to Prime Time Sports, and the guest, who's name alludes me, stated that in his recollection he could not remember mediation ever working , It is interesting that you think decertification is a more likely step. I am not sure what extra authority a judge may carry in decertification other than ordering them back to the table.Maybe you could clarify what extra power a judge might have. Surely he couldn't order them to take a deal they didn't accept.

Decertification means no union.

Means anti-trust law is in play

Means the judge could order things like a Salary Cap, the NHL draft, trading players, restricted free agency, etc.... are all illegal.

Any damages he orders would be tripled under US law.

However he could also order things like non-guaranteed contracts, no insurance and get rid of other player's rights that have been collectively bargained for as well.

Think of the anti-trust suit like this. You are Donald Fehr, you have a nuclear bomb and you have a rocket. However the rocket only fires 50% of the time. By going through decertification we arm the nuke, but we aren't sure if the rocket is gonna fire and blow up the owners, or if the rocket will fail, and the nuke will blow us up.

However its a long and costly process and with such big unknowns, and such big risk, usually once its started, it sees both sides settle either right away, or after a few minor court motions, but long before we get close to a trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL has proposed an owners-players meeting (no Bettman, Daly, and the Fehr's) that the PA is said to be thinking about. It was noted on That's Hockey (TSN) last night that Geoff Molson has been aggressively trying to get into the meetings before (he's not on the negotiating committee) and that he would quite likely be a part of any players-owners only discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The player - owner mediation is a bad idea for the players. It's like a game of hockey vs the owners to decide the CBA. This proposal is in favor of the owners, a bunch of business men that have made lives of brokering deals. Bettman proposed this because Fehr is kicking his ass and making him look worse than he already did. Bettman feels the pressure because it doesn't look like the players will dissolve the union and be pushed over like last lockout. He has to go through Fehr to get the deal he promised the owners, and Fehr won't be bullied.

If I could say one thing to the players, it would be to avoid this mediation. Make sure you have a Fehr brother in the room with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL has proposed an owners-players meeting (no Bettman, Daly, and the Fehr's) that the PA is said to be thinking about. It was noted on That's Hockey (TSN) last night that Geoff Molson has been aggressively trying to get into the meetings before (he's not on the negotiating committee) and that he would quite likely be a part of any players-owners only discussion.

From what I hear, Molson is a part of several teams (LA, New York, Philly, Winnipeg, possibly Detroit and Dallas) who do not support the lockout and have been looking into options to end it. The problem is that the NHL can continue this without the support of the teams not on the negotiating committee and what's funny about said committee is that the eighth team on it is Phoenix: owned by the NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL has proposed an owners-players meeting (no Bettman, Daly, and the Fehr's) that the PA is said to be thinking about. It was noted on That's Hockey (TSN) last night that Geoff Molson has been aggressively trying to get into the meetings before (he's not on the negotiating committee) and that he would quite likely be a part of any players-owners only discussion.

The owners have the smarts, they are billionaires. Is there two players that have enough acumen to battle the owners straight up? I doubt it. They have spent more time learning hockey. Advantage owners- if this takes place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners have the smarts, they are billionaires. Is there two players that have enough acumen to battle the owners straight up? I doubt it. They have spent more time learning hockey. Advantage owners- if this takes place.

Chris Campoli has been one of the most important pieces for the NHLPA during the lockout. He's the one educating the Fehrs on different hockey topics. I think the owners want to sit down with him so one can tell him to start pushing the Fehr's to accept a deal and he'll actually get signed by someone next year :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The player - owner mediation is a bad idea for the players. It's like a game of hockey vs the owners to decide the CBA. This proposal is in favor of the owners, a bunch of business men that have made lives of brokering deals. Bettman proposed this because Fehr is kicking his ass and making him look worse than he already did. Bettman feels the pressure because it doesn't look like the players will dissolve the union and be pushed over like last lockout. He has to go through Fehr to get the deal he promised the owners, and Fehr won't be bullied.

If I could say one thing to the players, it would be to avoid this mediation. Make sure you have a Fehr brother in the room with you.

Doesn't mean that the PA will not have guys like Damphousse, Chelios etc at the table to guide them with these negociations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the players/owners meeting is being set up for Tuesday; there will be six players and owners present. The NHL has disclosed that the owners present will be: Jacobs, Edwards, Burkle, Chipman, Vinik, & Tanenbaum. No word yet on what players will attend.

Bill Daly will be there, and I assume Steve Fehr will be selected to attend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the players/owners meeting is being set up for Tuesday; there will be six players and owners present. The NHL has disclosed that the owners present will be: Jacobs, Edwards, Burkle, Chipman, Vinik, & Tanenbaum. No word yet on what players will attend.

Bill Daly will be there, and I assume Steve Fehr will be selected to attend.

Jacobs.... ugh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody knows where Toronto is in this but they were one of the big teams who stepped up in 1994/1995 to end that lockout.

If Burkle is with Lemieux in Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh has been one of the teams wanting the lockout to end sooner rather than later.

Those Winnipeg/NHL rumours make me wonder if Chipman was invited to make sure it looks like they are on the same page.

No idea about Vinik in Tampa but I doubt the lockout helps them much.

No representation from Philly, Montreal, New York or LA tells me there is a real split in the owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody knows where Toronto is in this but they were one of the big teams who stepped up in 1994/1995 to end that lockout.

If Burkle is with Lemieux in Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh has been one of the teams wanting the lockout to end sooner rather than later.

Those Winnipeg/NHL rumours make me wonder if Chipman was invited to make sure it looks like they are on the same page.

No idea about Vinik in Tampa but I doubt the lockout helps them much.

No representation from Philly, Montreal, New York or LA tells me there is a real split in the owners.

Toronto is certainly on the side of wanting this to end, especially now that the controlling interest is Rogers/Bell.

Burkle has been heavily rumored wanting this to end.

Chipman, we know where he stands, but I worry about the Jacobs/Chipman dynamic as you say.

No idea on Vinik either.

All that said, I think this meeting accomplishes nothing on its own. The real litmus test this week is the December 5th NHL BOG meeting and what these guys report to the other owners.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if all three owners who we know want this to end, are the three biggest hardliners in the room... One last try to break the players before going to the BoG on December 5th and coming up with something December 15th or so that gets the season started Jan1st.

I HOPE anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We got a season in 1995 with a lockout ending on January 11 and a season starting January 20. The 2004-2005 lockout killed the season on February 16.

There's still a lot of time knowing the season would start pretty quickly. The NBA lockout ended on December 8 and began play on December 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the league is overestimating fans coming back if they lose another season. Last time around, the league was bleeding money and fans understood that and were behind the owners. This time, I think a lot more fans are either behind the players, or at the very least, are not behind the owners. The players didn't help their cause by hiring a guy whom fans knew would lead to labor unrest, but I still think they've got more support than the owners this time around. Last time, the owners crushed the players and now they want to crush them again, rather than be reasonable. Their current problems are self-inflicted. I for one, plan on boycotting spending money on the league for the duration of the next CBA if they lose a whole season. The only exception will be tickets to two games to complete my quest of seeing every team live. Even if they do resolve this in the coming weeks, I will still be reducing my spending on the league. The only way we, as fans, can show our disapproval is by hurting the owners in their pocketbooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...