I lifted this from the main board (taken from the oilers board).
Is there any validity to this post? It's way beyond my knowledge of the NHL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
If you are referring to the voiding of contracts...it is specifically stated in the SPC that every player signed.
Yes it is specifically stated that without a CBA it has no value, and any successor CBA will change the terms of the SPC andvalue of the contract.
About 4 months ago i hinted at all of this being a possible end game but no one believed me. the conversation came from teams continuing to sign players and some fans thinking the players were right in their sense of entitlement to what they signed. My point was that not signing players would look like collusion... and that the SPC clearly states those contracts are of a certain share value for the PA revenue portion. That is all they are share size of the PA portion. They arent entitled to any specific cash value.
Remember when everyone was asking if Bettman and the league would throw out the Dipietro contract because it was the first that went beyond the CBA? Bettmans response was that it was a proper contract so it was allowed but would be held to the terms of any future successor CBA and that in signing the contract the player was agreeing to that in exchange for the security of a guarantee of employment in the NHL.
Its been known for a long time. I suspect the reason why Bob Mac and others havent talked about it much is becuase they dont need to and also i dont think the professionals want to kick Bettmans plan.
I have also been very clear since before the lockout that the league has looked into centralizing contracts. Supporting other leagues - transfer funds for NHL players, transfer deals... has greatly helped the NHLs position to centralize their contracts and run as one entity which happens to have different regional branches. Its a unique position to the NHL that they clearly have competition at home and abroad for player services and it would be the NHLs position that it is the BRANDING and ENTERTAINMENT packaging, combined with BUSINESS DECISIONS that seperates it from the competitors and not some idea of market control. The players have happily proven this. Coke doesnt have a monopoly and make more than most countries just because Pepsi sucks. Coke advertises and packages and has its own product which out earns others and can use its market influence to make relationships and ask those partners to not sell cmpeting products. completely legal. Try getting a Coke at KFC. The NHL is the best league but not because it is a monopoly...its because they are the COKE of their industry. Guilty of nothing. Companies are free to try to compete and do.
In the early spring of 2004- as word got out Bettman was going to formally file for legal right to allow replacement players- the League got an offer for the purchase of the league. Under the 300M dollar purchase the league would be re-organized to be centrally controlled and contracted. the franchises or branches would still be individually owned but the league headquarters would do all contracts and negotiations and determine who plays where. There would be an end to the draft (something that has always made it impossible to centralize the business) and RFA/UFA.
Bettman, as was his duty, informed the BOG and owners of the offer but advised them against it. Everything the league and frnachises had been short term and long term building towards would be erased or in jeopardy. Also Bettman had a very strong belief that fans, who already blamed him for missed goals, off sides, and hole in nets.. pretty much making him out to be in control of the games, would start calling games as fixed by him and head office officials. For the good of the game and the franchises the cost certainty of centralizing wasnot very attractive. Also the NHL did not have as many world wide competitors. Now the situations have changed.
Did the NHL want this? I said 4 months ago that this is something Bettman and the NHL never wanted but if it comes to it they will get cost certainty in a big way. the nhl will control all contracts because it will legally be the business with franchises as only branches of the main NHL arm. Franchise values qwill skyrocket.
The NHL will make unilateral business decisions regarding labor costs, allignment, expansion, exhibition, relocation and a host of other topics. No union to have to deal with.
But the NHL as we know it would no longer exist.
IVE TALKED ABOUT THIS SINCE AUGUST. The league is definitely not surprised or worried. They gave their best offer as well. Dont expect the NHL to feel pushed in a corner...they have been prepared all along (not all summer ...ALL ALONG...the SPC made in 05 shows how prepared they are)
Is there any validity to this post? It's way beyond my knowledge of the NHL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
If you are referring to the voiding of contracts...it is specifically stated in the SPC that every player signed.
Yes it is specifically stated that without a CBA it has no value, and any successor CBA will change the terms of the SPC andvalue of the contract.
About 4 months ago i hinted at all of this being a possible end game but no one believed me. the conversation came from teams continuing to sign players and some fans thinking the players were right in their sense of entitlement to what they signed. My point was that not signing players would look like collusion... and that the SPC clearly states those contracts are of a certain share value for the PA revenue portion. That is all they are share size of the PA portion. They arent entitled to any specific cash value.
Remember when everyone was asking if Bettman and the league would throw out the Dipietro contract because it was the first that went beyond the CBA? Bettmans response was that it was a proper contract so it was allowed but would be held to the terms of any future successor CBA and that in signing the contract the player was agreeing to that in exchange for the security of a guarantee of employment in the NHL.
Its been known for a long time. I suspect the reason why Bob Mac and others havent talked about it much is becuase they dont need to and also i dont think the professionals want to kick Bettmans plan.
I have also been very clear since before the lockout that the league has looked into centralizing contracts. Supporting other leagues - transfer funds for NHL players, transfer deals... has greatly helped the NHLs position to centralize their contracts and run as one entity which happens to have different regional branches. Its a unique position to the NHL that they clearly have competition at home and abroad for player services and it would be the NHLs position that it is the BRANDING and ENTERTAINMENT packaging, combined with BUSINESS DECISIONS that seperates it from the competitors and not some idea of market control. The players have happily proven this. Coke doesnt have a monopoly and make more than most countries just because Pepsi sucks. Coke advertises and packages and has its own product which out earns others and can use its market influence to make relationships and ask those partners to not sell cmpeting products. completely legal. Try getting a Coke at KFC. The NHL is the best league but not because it is a monopoly...its because they are the COKE of their industry. Guilty of nothing. Companies are free to try to compete and do.
In the early spring of 2004- as word got out Bettman was going to formally file for legal right to allow replacement players- the League got an offer for the purchase of the league. Under the 300M dollar purchase the league would be re-organized to be centrally controlled and contracted. the franchises or branches would still be individually owned but the league headquarters would do all contracts and negotiations and determine who plays where. There would be an end to the draft (something that has always made it impossible to centralize the business) and RFA/UFA.
Bettman, as was his duty, informed the BOG and owners of the offer but advised them against it. Everything the league and frnachises had been short term and long term building towards would be erased or in jeopardy. Also Bettman had a very strong belief that fans, who already blamed him for missed goals, off sides, and hole in nets.. pretty much making him out to be in control of the games, would start calling games as fixed by him and head office officials. For the good of the game and the franchises the cost certainty of centralizing wasnot very attractive. Also the NHL did not have as many world wide competitors. Now the situations have changed.
Did the NHL want this? I said 4 months ago that this is something Bettman and the NHL never wanted but if it comes to it they will get cost certainty in a big way. the nhl will control all contracts because it will legally be the business with franchises as only branches of the main NHL arm. Franchise values qwill skyrocket.
The NHL will make unilateral business decisions regarding labor costs, allignment, expansion, exhibition, relocation and a host of other topics. No union to have to deal with.
But the NHL as we know it would no longer exist.
IVE TALKED ABOUT THIS SINCE AUGUST. The league is definitely not surprised or worried. They gave their best offer as well. Dont expect the NHL to feel pushed in a corner...they have been prepared all along (not all summer ...ALL ALONG...the SPC made in 05 shows how prepared they are)
