Could the players revolt? (MOD: if no NHL participation in Pyeongchang)

[sandysan]

If the players agree that no one would play a NHl game during the Olympics, there's absolitely nothing the NHL could do about that.
That being said, I absoluely think that NHL players should pay for their insurance when they play in the Olympics.

holding the players who breach their guaranteed contracts is " nothing" ? That's akin to saying that if the players decided they really didnt like the cap and they were not going to play until it was abolished they could go on strike, and the owners would sit back and wait till they cave, again.

And if it DOES go to the PA, my guess is that the majority of players who have no chance of representing their home countries would not want to stop their season so that the upper ended talent could go play somewhere else.

NHL participation generates a HUGE amount of revenue for the IOC, you think that the players should be forced to pay for the priviledge of having what amounts to the the ioc finding a guy to drive the zamboni?

The NHL isnt asking for a cut of the gate (yet) they are asking for things to be at worst revenue neutral and that is STILL too much of a concession for the IOC. So they will get to see team " who" vs team " he still plays?" competing for gold. A guaranteed way to draw fans it to have competitions where none if the fans could pick any of the participants out of a lineup.

 

[mouser]

Everyone forgets that Olympic participation is collectively bargained so if they really really want to. They'll just go.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here? Olympic participation is subject to collective bargaining. At the moment there is no collectively bargained agreement to release players for the next Olympics.

 

[Xokkeu]

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here? Olympic participation is subject to collective bargaining. At the moment there is no collectively bargained agreement to release players for the next Olympics.

It's not the NHLs choice alone. It's between the PA and league.

 

[JackSlater]

And if it DOES go to the PA, my guess is that the majority of players who have no chance of representing their home countries would not want to stop their season so that the upper ended talent could go play somewhere else.

The majority of the members of the NHLPA have wanted NHL participation, which obviously includes plenty of players with no hope of playing in the Olympics. If the players didn't want to go, the NHL would have dropped out of the Olympics long ago.

 

[mouser]

It's not the NHLs choice alone. It's between the PA and league.

It requires both the PA and league to agree to go to the Olympics. If one side or the other is unwilling to agree to Olympic participation then that means they don't go.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

Case closed on Ovechkin, Leonsis is backing him.

http://www.si.com/nhl/2016/10/07/ted-leonsis-washington-capitals-washington-wizards-esports

 

[Siberian]

NHL will go. They won't allow KHL to showcase their players on the world scene.

 

[sandysan]

The majority of the members of the NHLPA have wanted NHL participation, which obviously includes plenty of players with no hope of playing in the Olympics. If the players didn't want to go, the NHL would have dropped out of the Olympics long ago.

This is in response to the notion that the players, especially those who would not be going, would risk their guaranteed contracts over what would be a wildcat strike " we won't play during the olymmpics".

Yes the players would like to play but so long as they are under contract what they want it moot. Th owners don't release the players, it's lump it or breach.

 

[sandysan]

NHL will go. They won't allow KHL to showcase their players on the world scene.

Yeah the nhl is petrified of the khl's popularity.

If the ioc won't pay insurance, the nhll ain't going no matter what the KHL does.

 

[JackSlater]

This is in response to the notion that the players, especially those who would not be going, would risk their guaranteed contracts over what would be a wildcat strike " we won't play during the olymmpics".

Yes the players would like to play but so long as they are under contract what they want it moot. Th owners don't release the players, it's lump it or breach.

It's not that simple, as the NHL and the NHLPA have to agree on the matter. If the league was the sole decision maker this wouldn't even be a discussion. As for players just breaching their contracts, we've already had plenty of Olympic tournaments with no NHLers, and none of them breached their contracts to go play.

 

[Xokkeu]

It's not that simple, as the NHL and the NHLPA have to agree on the matter. If the league was the sole decision maker this wouldn't even be a discussion. As for players just breaching their contracts, we've already had plenty of Olympic tournaments with no NHLers, and none of them breached their contracts to go play.

We didn't have the current geopolitical system with Russia that we have now. That said no Canadians or Americans are going and I'd be shocked if a Western European went.

 

[JackSlater]

We didn't have the current geopolitical system with Russia that we have now. That said no Canadians or Americans are going and I'd be shocked if a Western European went.

Yes it is a little different now. I wouldn't be surprised if a Russian or two went. The KHL gives a viable out for them. The rest... no chance.

 

[xxxx]

If someone thinks that if 20 or 40 players decided to screw the agreement between NHL and NHLPA and play in Korea nevertheless, and the NHL couldn't/wouldn't do a thing about it, they are painfully wrong. But such a situation would never even happen in the first place. You just respect an agreement you just made, it's obvious. You can't act like a child and think that Bettman will just wave his hands and say, "oh well, that's fine, have some fun out there". It's no surprise to me that people who are not "sport-professionals" don't understand what that means, but this is what it means. You act like a professional. I get that some people probably view the NHL and Bettman as the bad guys, some sort of evil that oppresses players who cannot escape from such evil creatures (that pays them millions of dollars and basically makes the whole league alive by having and paying managers, coaches, arenas, planes, travelling, food, doctors, and just letting them having all-around comfrot, etc.), but they should reconsider that perspective a bit.

 

[sandysan]

It's not that simple, as the NHL and the NHLPA have to agree on the matter. If the league was the sole decision maker this wouldn't even be a discussion. As for players just breaching their contracts, we've already had plenty of Olympic tournaments with no NHLers, and none of them breached their contracts to go play.

It IS that simple. If the players are under contract ( they are) and the team is playing ( set by the owners) the players are expected to honor their contracts and play. If they don't they are breaching. I'm not sure how it could be any more simple. If the owners decided to NOT stop the season ( and this is to the best of my knowledge not collectively bargained) then the players, even if they want to go have but two choices: lump it or breach and put their guaranteed contracts in play.

Could some players risk it? Sure. Will many? Highly unlikely. Will there be a wildcat strike to force the leagues hand? Nope.

 

[Yakushev72]

holding the players who breach their guaranteed contracts is " nothing" ? That's akin to saying that if the players decided they really didnt like the cap and they were not going to play until it was abolished they could go on strike, and the owners would sit back and wait till they cave, again.

And if it DOES go to the PA, my guess is that the majority of players who have no chance of representing their home countries would not want to stop their season so that the upper ended talent could go play somewhere else.

NHL participation generates a HUGE amount of revenue for the IOC, you think that the players should be forced to pay for the priviledge of having what amounts to the the ioc finding a guy to drive the zamboni?

The NHL isnt asking for a cut of the gate (yet) they are asking for things to be at worst revenue neutral and that is STILL too much of a concession for the IOC. So they will get to see team " who" vs team " he still plays?" competing for gold. A guaranteed way to draw fans it to have competitions where none if the fans could pick any of the participants out of a lineup.

I think you are overstating the leverage that the NHL has. Outside of Canada, TV viewing audiences don't give a damn whether NHL players are there or not. If they were interested in NHL players, and throughout the vast majority of the world they are not, they could just watch the NHL instead.

Some of the most memorable Olympic performances by America were during the years before the NHL got there. There would still be Olympic hockey without the NHL, and TV networks would promote it intensively with or without NHL players. In a way, it might be more interesting to see a different configuration. Especially for Europe, it might create some suspense about who gets the Gold Medal!

 

[holyprime]

They don't have to revolt if their teams agree to the abscence, like with OV. I'm sure most teams in a more or less secure playoff spot won't have an issue, unless they'd lose too many players. Also, can't hurt to maybe have a star player start the next contract negotiation with: "Appreciated letting me go the the Olympics".

And i'm sure those on a tank mission won't miss their better players for a while as well

 

[mouser]

They don't have to revolt if their teams agree to the abscence, like with OV. I'm sure most teams in a more or less secure playoff spot won't have an issue, unless they'd lose too many players. Also, can't hurt to maybe have a star player start the next contract negotiation with: "Appreciated letting me go the the Olympics".

And i'm sure those on a tank mission won't miss their better players for a while as well

Unknown. The NHL probably has the ability to forbid or punish any teams for releasing players to the Olympics if it chooses to do so.

Whether the league might actually do that or not I won't predict.

 

[snipes]

I think you are overstating the leverage that the NHL has. Outside of Canada, TV viewing audiences don't give a damn whether NHL players are there or not. If they were interested in NHL players, and throughout the vast majority of the world they are not, they could just watch the NHL instead.

Some of the most memorable Olympic performances by America were during the years before the NHL got there. There would still be Olympic hockey without the NHL, and TV networks would promote it intensively with or without NHL players. In a way, it might be more interesting to see a different configuration. Especially for Europe, it might create some suspense about who gets the Gold Medal!

Does this remind any Canadians of another time in history?

 

[holyprime]

Unknown. The NHL probably has the ability to forbid or punish any teams for releasing players to the Olympics if it chooses to do so.

Not directed at you personally, just wondering what kind of punishment they could hand out legally for, lets say the Caps with OV?

Here in europe it's just a normal working contract with all legal implications, like an absence has to be granted if for reasonable reasons in either personal (very sick relative etc) or professional life (Olympics affects the value of an athlete). Now i understand the NHL has it's CBA and the players have a special status with their contracts. I just can't wrap my head around that the PA had a lockout over money just recently, but didn't adress more important matters like these possible punishments for a granted leave of abscence.

 

[Rob]

Keep the NHL going. Just have AHL call ups replace the NHL players who choose to go.

 

[mouser]

Not directed at you personally, just wondering what kind of punishment they could hand out legally for, lets say the Caps with OV?

Here in europe it's just a normal working contract with all legal implications, like an absence has to be granted if for reasonable reasons in either personal (very sick relative etc) or professional life (Olympics affects the value of an athlete). Now i understand the NHL has it's CBA and the players have a special status with their contracts. I just can't wrap my head around that the PA had a lockout over money just recently, but didn't adress more important matters like these possible punishments for a granted leave of abscence.

It's difficult to guess how much the NHL could punish a team. The punishment options would be based on the NHL Constitution and By-Laws rather then the CBA--so long as the punishment didn't tread into areas covered by the CBA.

Assuming the NHL BoG (Board of Governors) voted to not go to the Olympics or allow teams to release players for the Olympics the available punishment would at minimum be a $1M fine to the team and forfeit of a 1st round draft pick IMO.

The Olympics were a point of contention in the last CBA negotiation. And the NHL/PA agreed on a deal to let the players go to Sochi. The agreement was limited to Sochi (2014) though and didn't include PyeongChang (2018).

 

[holyprime]

Assuming the NHL BoG (Board of Governors) voted to not go to the Olympics or allow teams to release players for the Olympics the available punishment would at minimum be a $1M fine to the team and forfeit of a 1st round draft pick IMO.

Oh, that is harsher than i expected, especially the pick. I mean, i don't think they would do this, but it would be quite some leverage against the teams.

Well let's hope the PA learns its lesson and we won't have this drama from 2022 onwards.

 

[Seanaconda]

If a team let's their player go I don't see why they would be punished. They are allowed to let players miss time for family matters / having kids and stuff. They could even just put them as a healthy scratch so it would only be a problem if they had 3 or so guys go not being able to replace them on the lineup

 

[MXD]

If a team let's their player go I don't see why they would be punished. They are allowed to let players miss time for family matters / having kids and stuff. They could even just put them as a healthy scratch so it would only be a problem if they had 3 or so guys go not being able to replace them on the lineup

Most teams will have more than three players named on their OG teams.

 

[Seanaconda]

Most teams will have more than three players named on their OG teams.

True but I was thinking more like in the ovechkin situation were one guy wants to go they won't punish the team. If everyone selected went they would probably have to stop the season till it was over