Aaron Ward passed along a couple tweets, which while unfortunately written in near text-speak (hey, 140 characters can be tough), gets the point across:


Well, that’s not the easiest to parse, but basically, the players will have a vote at some point that will give the executive board the authority to decertify (or “disclaim”) if they so see it fit. From where I’m sitting it just shows the NHL that the union is serious about doing this if a deal isn’t reached soon, so it works as a little semi-threat. Who knows if they’ll go through with it or not, but they’re working on putting themselves in the position to if they see fit.

Comments (14)

  1. Bettman beat them to the punch, apparently filing in US federal court and the NLRB arguing that any decertification is a bad faith ploy.

    You know what might be fun? Have Gary and Don and all the other lawyers lace ‘em up and decide a few of these issues on the ice! And then we should have an ‘Airing of Grievances’. Festivus for the rest of us

  2. I agreee with you Stubsny, did you see the pic here at this website “wow93 dot com” with Garys head pasted on top of the weasel?

  3. where do \i return all my NHL merchandise ie. hats, jerseys, cards, banners etc., this product is flawed and I don’t want it anymore. Where do I return it?

  4. The NHL and Bettman are being far too “cute” or perhaps desperate in their trying to restrict or corral the NHLPA and their options and strategies…

    *Won’t negotiate with Fehr in the room.
    *Won’t allow counterproposals to their “ultimatums” (ultimata?)
    *Won’t meet unless players accede to their talking points.
    *Won’t accept mediators (though, they reversed themselves on this, and other points, and their reversals have made them look even more unprofessional, foolish and impulsive.)
    *Won’t accept arbitration.
    *Won’t allow a Disclaimer of Interest, or decertification.

    If there’s ONE damned thing I’ve learned in the business world (and I’ve been working since I was 15) – It’s that one NEVER negotiates from a position of what one WON’T do or allow.

    Inasmuch as the popular business and legal cultures have latched onto Sun Tzu’s “Art Of War” as a glib blueprint for cut-throat, slash-and-burn business philosophies, over the past quarter-century, the fact remains that business is NOT war.

    Let that sink in: Business is NOT war. Eradicating a perceived enemy is not the business of business – The business of business is the fostering of a financially-stable continuity that assures profitability and a long-term prosperity. For all involved.

    Any business that preemptively applies a “scorched earth” approach in any of its’ dealings is a business that foolhardily limits its’ options — And, as a result, suffers its’ own restrictive policies as its’ greatest liabilities.

    As a rapidly-lapsing fan, it has become apparent to me that Bettman’s (and the owners’) intent to “WIN THE 2012 CBA” readily eclipses and contradicts all their disingenuous sound-bites about (settling this nonsense, and) getting back to the business of Hockey.

    The NHL’s commitment to earning MY entertainment dollar has become highly-suspect, unentertaining and tiresome. They can smugly rejoice (if, and) when they’ve gotten their “win” – I just won’t be around to clap them on their collective backs and open my wallet to them.

    • This is exactly right. While Bettman is fighting Fehr over the fans money the fans are busy spending it elsewhere. They fail to sccept the fact that they are losing the fan base they worked so long to attract. The Northern fan base will always be there, Gary us right about that, but the fringe fans are not going to come back so they are not fighting for more if he same pie any more, they arre fighting over a smaller pie and each side is gonna want a bigger piece which can’t possibly happen. Sooner or later they both have to accept the reality that they both lost this process aus opposed to a lockout free scenario where they both would have won and most likely ended up with the same deal on paper.

      • Exact-a-fucking-mundo.

        The owners were the first to announce: “There will be NOT ONE MORE game of Hockey played, once the current CBA expires.”

        New CBA or NO Hockey! And, of course, no damned revenue, either. Duh.

        That premature bit of bluster profoundly diminished the number of realistic options that would have ensured a steady stream of real-cash money….Maybe, Gary could have recommended keeping the NHL “in business” while hacking away at that pesky CBA.

        Nope. Padlocked the arenas.

        Such uninventive, obstinate, bovine, self-destructive mismanagement.

        The NHL leadership completely discounted the possibility of CONTINUING to conduct the business of Hockey while allowing a “disputed” amount of capital to accumulate in an escrow account – Negotiating and perhaps seeking arbitration as to HOW exactly the two sides were going to divide this (ever-fattening) kitty.

        Successful business-leadership’s first responsibility is continuity: “Be open for business, at the same time, every day.”

        Everything begins there.

        With 3 (THREE!) lockouts — LOCKOUTS! Not strikes or walkouts. Lockouts. — during his current twenty-year tenure, one has to wonder about Gary Bettman’s inability to open the goddamned store on time, every fucking day.

        Very poor business-leadership. Abysmal.

        • Many businesses will continue business without a collective bargaining agreement and just use the terms of the last one while they work out the next.

          Sports teams cannot risk that because of one event

          This event dethroned baseball as the US national past-time, allowing football to pass it, and everything from the NBA to formula one racing to outpace its growth drastically.

          And before you try to say that involved different people in a different sport, please note the present NHLPA has the same executive director and the same legal counsel that dealt baseball the gutshot it never quite recovered from.

    • *Won’t allow counterproposals to their “ultimatums” (ultimata?)”

      Well, about that, they’ve stopped wanting counterproposals (remember when they were frustrated that the union hadn’t proposed anything?) because every time they get one, Fehr has conjured some new problem that didn’t exist the day prior out of thin air, instead of working within the framework of the last CBA.

      Some examples: actuals linked to estimates instead of estimates linked to estimates, caps on escrow, mid-point exceptions, guaranteed raises, modifications to the pension plan, exclude 13% of salaries from cap calculation

      Pretty much all this stuff was a non-issue, until he showed up on lockout day 28, 46, 62 or whatever and said “oh, by the way THING I NEVER MENTIONED BEFORE NOW is something I need.”

      They want his input out of the process because they think he’s introducing false stumbling blocks to obstruct a deal not get a better one.

      From the NHL’s perspective, the deal is “remember the last CBA? the next one’s that, but we want the value of line item 3344522 to be 6% lower, and line item 663442 should be changed to 5.

  5. The latest NHL misstep is a doozy:

    “The NHL requests a declaration that, if the NHLPA’s decertification or disclaimer were not deemed invalid by the NLRB, and the collective bargaining relationship between the parties were not otherwise to continue, all existing contracts between NHL players and NHL teams (known as Standard Player’s Contracts or “SPCs”) would be void and unenforceable”.

    That means that teams no longer have rights to anyone on their rosters, so long as they have a contract signed under the auspices of the most recent (expired) CBA, as negotiated by the (soon to be defunct)) NHLPA.

    Does the NHL REALLY want to endure the greater bidding-war and chaos that would ensue if every player in the NHL (as well as those in the CHL, NCAA, AHL, ECHL, etc) suddenly ALL became free-agents?

    By extension, such a legal move promises to release every, single drafted player, as well – An agreement contingent to the last CBA and the NHLPA’s adherence to it, if the NHLPA’s role (and its’ dissolution) implies the league’s abrupt “non-recognition” of all pacts and covenants arrived-at during the players’ association’s participation.

    Really? Wanna burn down the house THAT badly?

    Insane. Simply insane.

    • Oh…I neglected to further extrapolate that every player currently rehabbing from injury (Savard, Pronger, Kesler, etc) receive no more money — Sorry, guys. That contract was signed under the former CBA and while a member of the NHLPA…

      It also causes all ELC’s to disappear, as well as any bonus money being paid to the likes of Parise, Suter, Myers, et al, AND encompasses all buy-out payments remaining to whatever players still remain on certain teams’ caps. Sorry, guys: Old CBA, signed under the players’ union…Not paying.

      Bettman and Company not only want to padlock the doors, they also want to disconnect the phone and not pay any of their outstanding obligations to their creditors. Slick move, fellas.

      The NHL is headed straight to hell, on a greased rail; even.

    • I don’t think you’re understanding what that clause says. What it says is, in the event disclaimer is not ruled a sham, contracts are void because the SPC (which is what every player signed) has its own clause saying it exists under and because of a collective bargaining agreement.

      This measure prevents not only anti-trust lawsuits, but any payment obligations the league has. There will be no “bidding war” because the next step is either to suspend business operations until a collective bargaining agreement with a certified union exists or to reorganize into a single entity, like soccer is. Once either of those things are accomplished, the SPC becomes valid again. Absent the threat of treble damages.

      • No. I don’t “misunderstand” — You yourself state: “contracts are void because the SPC (which is what every player signed) has its own clause saying it exists under and because of a collective bargaining agreement.”

        That the SPC has a “void” clause is redundant – All player-movement, acquisition and drafting “exists under and because” (your words) of the same collective bargaining agreement.

        One set of agreements (SPC’s) invalidated under (prior) collective bargaining, by legal inference, translates to the invalidation of all dealings arrived-at under the same collective bargaining agreement.

        Can’t say: “We’re not honoring standard player contracts under the prior agreement because there no longer exists a collective-bargaining structure, but we’ll all hang onto the players we drafted, under the same (non)agreement.”

        Can’t pick and choose which parts of the CBA you’re going to adhere to or ignore – If you’re going to invalidate the CBA as it applies to one of its’ functions, you’re invalidating the CBA as it applies to ALL things it pertains to.

        • Like I said, you’re not understanding this stuff. Nobody said anything about picking and choosing.

          What the league wants a court to FORMALLY DECLARE is that SPCs exist only under a CBA between the NHL and the NHLPA. That such a declaration is redundant is irrelevant–getting it protects the league against being sued both to end the lockout and for damages.

          But the moment such an agreement between those two entities are in place, the reason those documents are invalid disappears and they’re valid again.

          Also, nobody said anything about hanging onto rights while declaring contracts void. If the union is successful in its disclaimer (which it isn’t likely to be thanks to Ryan Miller’s big mouth), the NHL just suspends business operations. With the formal declaration from the courts that SPCs aren’t valid BECAUSE there’s no union to engage in collective bargaining with, not SINCE the time the union dissolved, the players cannot seek to regain the money in those contracts as creditors during this suspension period.

          A business in a state of suspension does not engage in bidding wars because it can’t. And once a collective bargaining agreement is signed, the mechanism that invalidates the contracts no longer exists, so there’s no bidding war then, either.

  6. If i were the judge, id look over the NHL lawsuit….then Id throw it out on the basis that THEY have not been bargaining in good faith, thus setting the precedent that they better end this lockout now or lose their shirts in court.

    How awesome would it be for a judge to look over the NHL lawsuit and then side with the players? Thatd move the owners “best offer” pretty fast I bet!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *