Derek21 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 (edited) http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1819930 Friday, June 11, 2004 ESPN.com news services TORONTO -- With the Stanley Cup finals now securely in the rear-view mirror, the question still remains: Will NHL games be played next season? NHL Players' Association head Bob Goodenow says the answer very easily could be no. Edited June 11, 2004 by Derek21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Can a company just say "good, you're all fired" and hire completely new, non-unionized staff? IMO, every single player that sits out come October should not be allowed back into the NHL. They have to play in Europe for the rest of their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Ugh...if the owners can sit it out, why can't they sit back when deciding on how much to pay a player? Can't they just decide unofficially not to pay players over a certain amount? I guess there are always jackasses that won't follow the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 The owners set the scale of salaries for the players and that is the marketplace. It has always been that way for the past 75 years or so and that is the way we are going to go forward with it." Bob Goodenow Doesn't he realize if there is no season, nobody's going anywhere? It also says the WHA will have a $15mil cap, but that's okay with the players. Bettman has to stop acting like a 2 year old, and realize compromise is the name of the game now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Can a company just say "good, you're all fired" and hire completely new, non-unionized staff? Nope, that's called union busting, and I believe it's illegal. If it wasn't there would be no useful unions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 There are people that do cross picket lines, scabs they are called and they are hated. What player would cross the line anyway? Unions have been broken. A company will usually begin be phasing out union jobs and replacing them with part time help and then when all the union people are gone they can hire non union help. Where there is a will, there is a way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Ugh...if the owners can sit it out, why can't they sit back when deciding on how much to pay a player? Can't they just decide unofficially not to pay players over a certain amount? I guess there are always jackasses that won't follow the rules. Thats collusion and is illegal. Thats why you need a CBA that says teams can't spend over X amount because then its agreed upon and fair. -Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Okay. If I own a bookstore. I hire 20 people to work in the bookstore. They vote to start a union. They demand to be paid $3,000 an hour. They go on strike. My only legal option is to declare bankruptcy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Okay. If I own a bookstore. I hire 20 people to work in the bookstore. They vote to start a union. They demand to be paid $3,000 an hour. They go on strike. My only legal option is to declare bankruptcy? As far as I know know you can fire whomever the heck you like, I never thought Union busting was illegal. The problem is when everyone skilled enough to work for you is in that union and you need them to work for you. Is the key here if the players are striking versus the owners locking them out? I can see why it might be illegal if the owners wouldn't let the players play and then hired new players. -Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 No Don, you can hire people to work in your store. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Okay. If I own a bookstore. I hire 20 people to work in the bookstore. They vote to start a union. They demand to be paid $3,000 an hour. They go on strike. My only legal option is to declare bankruptcy? If they demand $3000/hr and you don't pay, they will go on strike. At that point you can hire people to do their work, but it won't stop them from standing outside your door and harrasing customers to the point where they stop coming there to shop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Okay. If I own a bookstore. I hire 20 people to work in the bookstore. They vote to start a union. They demand to be paid $3,000 an hour. They go on strike. My only legal option is to declare bankruptcy? As far as I know know you can fire whomever the heck you like, I never thought Union busting was illegal. The problem is when everyone skilled enough to work for you is in that union and you need them to work for you. Is the key here if the players are striking versus the owners locking them out? I can see why it might be illegal if the owners wouldn't let the players play and then hired new players. -Scott Umm I don't think you can just outright fire anyone you want. It's not easy to fire a union worker. If you fire union workers for no particular reason then they will file a grievance (sp?) and possibly sue you. It also depends on what is in the contract too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Bettman has to stop acting like a 2 year old, and realize compromise is the name of the game now. Bettman compromised too much in 1994. Selig has compromised too much the last couple of times he and Don Fehr butted heads. It's the union's turn to compromise. On the "fire 'em all and start fresh" tangent: Baseball was ready to go with replacement players in '94, weren't they? And didn't the NFL use replacements when their union went on strike back in the '80s? Then again, those situations were all strikes, this might end up being a lockout. Well, maybe that's the answer; the owners shouldn't impose a lockout, they should wait for the players to strike so they can use replacements. Then again, why would the players strike this time around? They have to know they can't get any better than they've got it now, right? Ah, geez, never mind, I've confused myself and probably invalidated my entire point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadvlfan Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Ugh...if the owners can sit it out, why can't they sit back when deciding on how much to pay a player? Can't they just decide unofficially not to pay players over a certain amount? I guess there are always jackasses that won't follow the rules. That would be collusion, like price fixing, an anti trust thing. Maybe a "scale" would work for example. Only 2 player 4 mil/above 6 players 2mil/above and so on. Folks, this doesnt look good. Vince Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Ugh...if the owners can sit it out, why can't they sit back when deciding on how much to pay a player? Can't they just decide unofficially not to pay players over a certain amount? I guess there are always jackasses that won't follow the rules. That would be collusion, like price fixing, an anti trust thing. Maybe a "scale" would work for example. Only 2 player 4 mil/above 6 players 2mil/above and so on. Folks, this doesnt look good. Vince Ahhh nobody has to know! They can all just say that they are being fiscally responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 This should be titled same old same old news -- if this is depressing then you are one lucky bastard ... or need to re-evaluate your priorities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Can a company just say "good, you're all fired" and hire completely new, non-unionized staff? IMO, every single player that sits out come October should not be allowed back into the NHL. They have to play in Europe for the rest of their lives. The players would love nothing more than to come back under the same rules though Officially it's the owners that would lock out the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Initially, the WHA said that if a player signs a contract, he would have to play the entire season with his WHA club. But on Wednesday, a WHA official said the league will likely change the bylaw to stipulate two players per team would have the option of returning to the NHL if labor problems are resolved during the season. Is this not the biggest P**sy move since safety netting? The WHA has the chance of a lifetime to lock in established stars for an entire season, and perhaps beyond. Now, instead, they're setting themselves up for disaster mid-season as any and all NHL stars who sign on with the league bolt and never look back. Seriously, who do you think Brendan Shanahan wants to play for: The Detroit Red Wings or the Jacksonville Ice Gators (or whatever they'll be)? <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 congratulations to the WHA for now officially replacing the IHL now can they go steal the Turner Cup from Orlando too ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezzer Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 The owners set the scale of salaries for the players and that is the marketplace. Is he saying that markets can't come down? Once the owners set the marketplace, they can't make corrections if they were wrong originally? And if he's saying that the owners have the right and the responsibility to set the marketplace, then why doesn't he just shut up and let them do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Man Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Let's get back to the position, They must negotiate and that means the Owners through Bettman can't sit there and say that's it take it or leave. I care less if the end for the NHL is about to happen. A new league will start and we wilkl be back watching hockey again. The owners created this problem they agreed to pay the players now with the cooked books there isn't any profit shame on them. Players won't work with them to solve the problem unless they the owners get real. Players will make money elsewhere. The Owners wiil be left holding the bag of sticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Ugh...if the owners can sit it out, why can't they sit back when deciding on how much to pay a player? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.