Optimism (NHL)

I heard something on Tony Kornheiser re: the potential impending football labor dispute that was confusing. It seemed as if the football PA was threatening to decertify the union and thus make all players free agents. Wha--? Does that mean in football a contract is between the owner and the union, not the player? (Of course, I've never understood whether there really are contracts in football -- it seems like nothing is guaranteed to the player.)

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
Last week's meetings were rumored to mostly be about the definition of revenues. Personally I am surprised that the PA ultimately agreed to the 54% benchmark considering that was the original place set by the league in the beginning. the PA wanted somewhere in the low 60's and I figured they would settle between 56-58. [/Q]
No one's agreed to anything yet except a general framework. The article said the league was still offering 54% (1 year later, same offer) and that was clearly a point they weren't happy about.

The contract may be between player and owner, but many (most?) of the terms are specified by the collective bargaining agreement. I'll speculate and say that if the union is decertified the CB no longer holds and maybe this invalidates existing contracts? Certainly the NFL has lots of clauses in the CB about how contracts may be terminated (e.g. cutting a player pre-season if he isn't willing to renegotiate). If the CB is no longer in place and those clauses govern much of the operation of the contract I don't see how the contract could be enforceable without the CB (from a logical standpoint, not necessarily legally).

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

I heard something on Tony Kornheiser re: the potential impending football labor dispute that was confusing. It seemed as if the football PA was threatening to decertify the union and thus make all players free agents. Wha--? Does that mean in football a contract is between the owner and the union, not the player? (Of course, I've never understood whether there really are contracts in football -- it seems like nothing is guaranteed to the player.)[/q]Football contracts are all individual and salaries are individually determined, though the CBA sets a lot of parameters. I didn't hear the show, and haven't been reading up on football's latest negotiations, so I'm not sure why decertification would lead to mass free agency. Perhaps a combination of (a) the rules establishing free agency are a part of the CBA and (b) football doesn't have multi-year contracts. Even when a player "signs a four year deal," it is actually a series of four one-year deals. Typically the team can avoid the later years with a minimal buyout and immediate absorption of the salary cap hit. Multiyear deals are mostly a way of deferring and distributing the impact of large signing bonuses.

The more likely reason for decertification is that as a result of some prior (inane) judicial rulings, decertification of the union is a necessary first step if the players want to bring an antitrust suit.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:I don't see how the contract could be enforceable without the CB (from a logical standpoint, not necessarily legally).[/q]Because this is an issue that is likely to have come up before, I would assume that the individual contracts speak to this one way or the other with a survival or non-survival clause. Somthing like "In the even the CBA expires during the term of this contract, the terms at the time of signing remain binding."

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

ugarte Wrote:
Last week's meetings were rumored to mostly be about the definition of revenues. Personally I am surprised that the PA ultimately agreed to the 54% benchmark considering that was the original place set by the league in the beginning. the PA wanted somewhere in the low 60's and I figured they would settle between 56-58. [/Q]
No one's agreed to anything yet except a general framework. The article said the league was still offering 54% (1 year later, same offer) and that was clearly a point they weren't happy about.[/q]

The league has had the upper hand from the start. The players association can't afford to prop up the players for another year. The NHL knew that the players would eventually need to play in the NHL again. If you look at the final deal (a cap tied to revenues), it could probably have been reached a year ago had the players agreed. Goodenow won't really get anything besides a reduction of the FA age.