NHL owners ponder starting new league.

[CC97]

Could this be the end of the National Hockey League?

I imagine team trademarks would come with the owners to the new league... overall something like this would be good for the game, but I don't know, it would feel weird.

[Shmee]

well if they are going to do it.........THEN DO IT!!!!!!!!!!

I want my NHL!

No, what you're craving is the XHL.

And yes, players will be allowed to wear whatever they want on the backs of their sweaters.

[habsfannova]

CARBO HATE ME 21?

Anyway, it is a great idea. It could also be contraction in disguise (ie, Nashville didn't want to go along, etc.)

[Magus]

if i lose my thrashers, i will be royally pissed.

or the owners could team up with local politicians.. i mean organized crime and pound the players union in to submission. Im sure Senator.. i mean Tony Soprano could use some skulls to bust.

[jkrdevil]

1 question isn't the point of the lockout to try to force the players into accepting the owners terms in the cba? Isn't starting a new league the same thing.

Also, I'm not sure this would work. Again I understand what the owners would try to accomplish however there would be many legal issues. Remember just because there is no NHL doesn't mean there is no NHLPA. If a new league is started the NHLPA would file lawsuit after lawsuit against the new league (which would delay the start of the new league by a few years if not end it all together). This would be just a way to sidestep CBA negotiations and I'm not sure if that is legal or not, maybe Yhollander can answer that question? But I'm sure that would be the main NHLPA suit. If the NHLPA wins, it's case we are right back to here just a few later, and if it loses we have a new league but may not have the players (They players would be in no worse situation thatn they are if there is a lockout). The players might start their own new league (I'm not sure if the owners start a new league the current contracts would become void or not) and that league would be more succesful because they have the players. But even if the owners plans work out that would leave us without hockey for maybe 3 years, and if we go 3 years without hockey then that may kill the sport.

I don't think the new league idea would work out. I feel the best way to resolve this is by getting a soft cap now and go for the hard cap in the next CBA.

[Shmee]

I think you're off track a little, JKR. The players can start a new league all they want, but there's a major snag. Most of the people who WANT to be major league hockey owners are ALREADY in the NHL. That means that if the NHLPA tried to start a league where their economic situation would be better than it currently is, they'd have a hell of a difficult time. If the owners, who have more money than anyone else would be willing to pay a hockey team, want to start a league, they'll be able to attract some big names to their league.

It's tough to be a group of grown men, about 500 strong, walking around asking other grown men to give you about $1.3 million each.

It's much easier to be a group of grown mean, about 50 strong, walking around saying to other grown men "we'd like to give you about $900,000 each.

[habsfannova]

I think you're off track a little, JKR. The players can start a new league all they want, but there's a major snag. Most of the people who WANT to be major league hockey owners are ALREADY in the NHL. That means that if the NHLPA tried to start a league where their economic situation would be better than it currently is, they'd have a hell of a difficult time. If the owners, who have more money than anyone else would be willing to pay a hockey team, want to start a league, they'll be able to attract some big names to their league.

It's tough to be a group of grown men, about 500 strong, walking around asking other grown men to give you about $1.3 million each.

It's much easier to be a group of grown mean, about 50 strong, walking around saying to other grown men "we'd like to give you about $900,000 each.

That is most definatly it.

Look at the WHA: They couldn't get anything going with a guaranteed 15mil limit. There are about 7 owners in the NHL willing to sell their teams. The NHL owners are about the only people willing to pay NHL'ers what they want.

[jkrdevil]

I think you're off track a little, JKR. The players can start a new league all they want, but there's a major snag. Most of the people who WANT to be major league hockey owners are ALREADY in the NHL. That means that if the NHLPA tried to start a league where their economic situation would be better than it currently is, they'd have a hell of a difficult time. If the owners, who have more money than anyone else would be willing to pay a hockey team, want to start a league, they'll be able to attract some big names to their league.

It's tough to be a group of grown men, about 500 strong, walking around asking other grown men to give you about $1.3 million each.

It's much easier to be a group of grown mean, about 50 strong, walking around saying to other grown men "we'd like to give you about $900,000 each.

True which is why they probably won't due that. The article had mentioned that the NHLPA was thinking of starting their own league.

However I don't think a new league started by the NHL owners would work because the players union would file a lawsuit against them for side stepping the CBA negotiations. That would take a year or so and thus leave us without hockey for a few years. I think that not having major league level hockey for a few years would kill the sport.

[CJR]

I was just reading on the Hockey Attitude boards that someone heard on the radio that it was specifically 8 team owners talking about forming a new league, not the entire NHL. Specifically, the eight teams were Calgary, Tampa Bay, Edmonton, Nashville, Carolina, Florida, Pittsburgh and Buffalo.

Personally, I think this is great. If there are teams that don't like what the NHL has become then they can leave.

[Shmee]

However I don't think a new league started by the NHL owners would work because the players union would file a lawsuit against them for side stepping the CBA negotiations. That would take a year or so and thus leave us without hockey for a few years. I think that not having major league level hockey for a few years would kill the sport.

Owners wouldn't be sidestepping the NHL. They;d basically just be disbanding a non-profit fellowship that has pre-existing bylaws and forming a new company with different internal rules. Players couldn't sure the owners for sidestepping CBA negotiations, because the CBA wouldn't apply to the new league. At any time, one party of an expired agreement can say "I don't want to renew this agreement" and be on with themselves. If the NHL ceases to exist, so do its bylaws and so does its position as a partner of the NHLPA.

[wheateater]

--- The Stanley Cup is not the property of the NHL per se - or at least I don't think so. It is technically a challenge cup, which could theoretically be transferred at will from the NHL to any other league. The closest thing it has to a true "owner" I suspect would be the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Actually, I think the Cup is the NHL's. Though it was originally called the "Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup," the NHL assumed control of Stanley Cup competition after 1926, according to NHL.com's list of champs and runners-up.

In that case, the owners then have even more power in their corner.

[jkrdevil]

However I don't think a new league started by the NHL owners would work because the players union would file a lawsuit against them for side stepping the CBA negotiations. That would take a year or so and thus leave us without hockey for a few years. I think that not having major league level hockey for a few years would kill the sport.

Owners wouldn't be sidestepping the NHL. They;d basically just be disbanding a non-profit fellowship that has pre-existing bylaws and forming a new company with different internal rules. Players couldn't sure the owners for sidestepping CBA negotiations, because the CBA wouldn't apply to the new league. At any time, one party of an expired agreement can say "I don't want to renew this agreement" and be on with themselves. If the NHL ceases to exist, so do its bylaws and so does its position as a partner of the NHLPA.

That may be true, but the players association would still file a lawsuit against the owners and that would delay the start of a new league by a few years. Leaving us without hockey for a few years.

It doesn't matter who would win the lawsuits, there will definatly be lawsuits filed by the NHLPA. Those would delay at best the start of the new league (if the owner go that route). And like I said if there are a few years were there is not major league level hockey then the sport might die and thus the new league would be in worse shape than the current NHL.

[Notch Novelty]

File a lawsuit? I highly doubt that. The owners can do whatever they want. They don't have to own an team in the NHL so they pick up and start over in an new hockey league, nothing wrong with that. New league hasn't nothing to do with the NHLPA. Players will play where the money is. They want to get paid and stay in the US. So they would go to the new league.

Hockey Attitudes Boards is great place to get your rumors from since half of the info on those boards is untrue.

[JQK]

It's not really a new league. If you read the article, it'll be a restructured, reborn NHL.

It's not a bad idea, and i would like to see it happen.

[CaolinaJoe]

No different than when a union try's to move into a company or specific department. To avoid the union a company can simply eliminate that department and subcontract it out to another company, let them handle any headaches and liability.

My company for example at onetime owned ther own delivery trucks. When the teamsters realized we had 300 stores in about 25 states they wanted to unionize the drivers. Being privately owned, our owner sold all his trucks, let the drivers go, and hired independent haulers at each location. No union problems then.

Same basic premise. Shut down the 30 individually owned companys, reorganize, rename the mother corporation, and start hiring. No union problems or lawsuits. The owners are the ones with the rights to all the trademarks and copyrights, records, trophies, and history.

Only thing I'm not sure of is the merchandising money from the current leagues. If the players would still have a stake in that or not. Is that covered by the CBA(which won't exist in a few weeks), their contracts, or with the merchandisers.

The only lawsuits that would occur, would be individual players trying to get settlements from existing contracts from the defunct NHL. Court battles for years there.

[habsfannova]

No different than when a union try's to move into a company or specific department.  To avoid the union a company can simply eliminate that department and subcontract it out to another company, let them handle any headaches and liability.

My company for example at onetime owned ther own delivery trucks.  When the teamsters realized we had 300 stores in about 25 states they wanted to unionize the drivers.  Being privately owned, our owner sold all his trucks, let the drivers go, and hired independent haulers at each location.  No union problems then.

Same basic premise.  Shut down the 30 individually owned companys, reorganize, rename the mother corporation, and start hiring.  No union problems or lawsuits.  The owners are the ones with the rights to all the trademarks and copyrights, records, trophies, and history. 

Only thing I'm not sure of is the merchandising money from the current leagues.  If the players would still have a stake in that or not.  Is that covered by the CBA(which won't exist in a few weeks), their contracts, or with the merchandisers.

The only lawsuits that would occur, would be individual players trying to get settlements from existing contracts from the defunct NHL.  Court battles for years there.

I would think, just to allow ease of entry with the players, they'd just give them the same merchendise percentage.

One interesting thing with this is that replacement workers are illegal in the province of Ontario...wonder how that would work out?

[CaolinaJoe]

One interesting thing with this is that replacement workers are illegal in the province of Ontario...wonder how that would work out?

Technically they wouldn't be 'replacement' players. It's an entirely new entity. They'd only be replacements if it was still the NHL. That's one of the ways the plan avoids lawsuits.

Or, the owners can each sign an individual agent to supply players for him. Like an employment agency. The owner only pays the agent a bulk sum. Then the agent is the players boss and responsible for all there benefits and insurance.

I might give Bettman a call, I think I could make this happen

[Mac the Knife]

However I don't think a new league started by the NHL owners would work because the players union would file a lawsuit against them for side stepping the CBA negotiations. That would take a year or so and thus leave us without hockey for a few years. I think that not having major league level hockey for a few years would kill the sport.

Nah. A judge would throw such a suit out I would think. The NHL and whatever new league would be created would be two different entities. There being no agreement between the NHLPA and the new league in place, there'd be no grounds to file suit against the new league as an entity.

The NHLPA could theoretically file suit against the various teams that comprised the NHL, but that wouldn't prevent the new league from starting up with a 2004-05 season, with whatever players they could get their hands on.

[habsfannova]

One interesting thing with this is that replacement workers are illegal in the province of Ontario...wonder how that would work out?

Technically they wouldn't be 'replacement' players. It's an entirely new entity. They'd only be replacements if it was still the NHL. That's one of the ways the plan avoids lawsuits.

Or, the owners can each sign an individual agent to supply players for him. Like an employment agency. The owner only pays the agent a bulk sum. Then the agent is the players boss and responsible for all there benefits and insurance.

I might give Bettman a call, I think I could make this happen

Well, I didn't mean in that sense, I meant in the sense that it would probably force the decision.

[rmered]

Forgive me, I'm a foreigner, and not up with the day to day reporting of this dispute.

However, doesn't it seem the easiest way to reduce payments to players is for the owners to not offer the players big money to change teams?

Eg a few yeras ago, Ottawa had some bloke stand out, not because he wasn't contracted, he was, but he wanted a bigger contract for the next season.

Some tool offered him big money to go play for his team and he was traded. I think it might have been the Islanders.

The management of the Islanders caused that, as much as the player who asked for more money.

If someone signs a contract to play, then doesn't he should be made to not only pay back any sign on bonus, but to also pay back money spent on promoting him as a marketable 'product'.

And if owners seriously want to keep costs down, don't go outbidding each other on people who can't commit to honouring the contract they're already on.

As stated, there aren't enough people willing to blow the sort of money an NHL team costs, so the current owners are in a pretty good position, provided they don't stab each other in the back and outbid each other at the next opportunity.