6 replies to this topic

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

(As a side note, I have not read the lengthy NHL lock-out thread so if is being discussed somewhere else, would appreciate if a dope could move or merge.)

We started this discussion during the NFL Lockout. Here is one thread: http://sonsofsamhorn...-have-football/. Both the players association in the NBA and the NFL decertified in the hopes of enjoining the lockout or removing the respective league's antitrust exemption and opening them up to treble damages.

In the NBA, the CBA followed shortly after decertification. In the NFL, if I remember correctly, the 8C did not issue the stay saying that at the point of the ruling, the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibited injunctions during federal labor disputes. The CBA followed shortly thereafter, so this litigation never went further.

(Here is a short recap: http://www.sportsnet..._antitrust_law/).

Last Friday, the NHL filed a class action lawsuit in federal district court in New York as well as an unfair labor complaint with the NLRB. Today, the NHLPA approved the execution of a disclaimer of interest by January 2. This is a bit different than decertification, but the difference won't make itself known for a while (if ever).

The one other wild card is wondering how Candadian law will play into this.

I really lost interest in hockey several labor disputes ago. However, the reason I am starting this thread (or making this post, as applicable) is that what I hear about the labor dispute leads me to believe that both the NHLPA and the NHL is willing to take this as far as possible. If so, the ruling will be monumental.

Personally, I hope they reach an agreement. From my perspective, the uncertainty is good for sports in general and keeps both sides in check.

[bowiac]

I'm not sure I agree. The uncertainty is part of what leads to these disputes, as both sides could plausibly think they'll prevail in court. Uncertainty is what's causing the NHL to miss games now, cause neither side is really sure who has the upper hand in a legal dispute, and it's what caused the NBA to miss games, and almost caused the NFL to miss games.

If we knew for sure that the players would win, then I suspect the owners would have caved already. If we knew they'd lose, then vice versa.

[PedroSpecialK]

The uncertainty is a result of two sides being so driven by ego and small victories that they are willing to forsake decades of multi-billion dollar collective revenues just so their side is 'right'.

Truly at the point of not caring which, 4 months ago, I myself would not have believed.

[Turrable]

A redditor claims to have screencapped this before it got taken down



edit- didn't realize we have two threads going, mods feel free to move this if I'm in the wrong one

Edited by Turrable, 21 December 2012 - 11:57 PM.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I'm not sure I agree. The uncertainty is part of what leads to these disputes, as both sides could plausibly think they'll prevail in court. Uncertainty is what's causing the NHL to miss games now, cause neither side is really sure who has the upper hand in a legal dispute, and it's what caused the NBA to miss games, and almost caused the NFL to miss games.

If we knew for sure that the players would win, then I suspect the owners would have caved already. If we knew they'd lose, then vice versa.

Yeah, but if the courts eventually rule that there is no antitrust exemption without a union, that could mean that the players can ask for virtually anything and the only response the owners have is to get out of the game. Maybe the owners will get out of the game, and the player will be the owners.

And can you imagine the NFL if the owners are exempt from antitrust litigation even without a union?

Should be a fascinating set of legal battles.

BTW, here is a pretty good summary of where we are, courtesy of the NFLPA and NBA players association: http://www.hockeybuz...p?post_id=47643

[axx]

Yeah, but if the courts eventually rule that there is no antitrust exemption without a union

I just can't imagine professional sports being feasible without the game theory that an antitrust exemption gives (or one given via a union). I'd love to see the NHL try though.

[jk333]

The uncertainty is a result of two sides being so driven by ego and small victories that they are willing to forsake decades of multi-billion dollar collective revenues just so their side is 'right'.

That's the conclusion that this article draws -
http://hockeyprospec...?articleid=1415
That they made a mistake by ending this in litigation and that it will cost them far more than they can gain. He expects it to hurt both sides and the brand. His first paragraphs talk about what we all knew, how this was inevitable.

The inevitability of litigation
In my estimation, both sides made a mistake in the CBA by having no set procedure for good faith mediation of irreconcilable differences. In light of Bettman's tendency toward a scorched earth negotiation strategy, it was a mistake in crafting the last CBA not to have certainty as to the litigation path if negotiations on the next CBA were to fail entirely.
A vote to authorize the NHLPA Executive Committee to determine whether to have the NHLPA file a Disclaimer of Interest was an all but certain outcome once Bettman and Fehr lined up against each other and each refused to be the first to budge. Before the days turned into weeks and weeks turned into months, the NHLPA should have empowered its executive committee with the ability to disclaim its interest as a union. The NHLPA had limited leverage and ability to reach a voluntary settlement. The union merely had the ability to reject offers, to submit offers, and ultimately to decline to sign an agreement. In general, there is strength in numbers for labor disputes, but for a Bettman-led NHL, the goal all along was to first lock out the players and then drive a harsh bargain. The players needed to have moved more quickly to a decision which would have forced the NHL to choose either the path of reasonable compromise and negotiation or litigation.