NHL CBA Talk

Filing a Disclaimer of Interest accomplishes the same thing and is a much quicker route, but I'm not sure what's up with the timing and why Fehr can't do it now.

shabbs wrote:Noticed an interesting comment in BooBoo's article today:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/11/29/nhl-players-cut-out-the-mediator-no-further-cba-talks-planned

"Reports indicate Fehr can no longer decertify because of the timing. It could mean the NHLPA files a Disclaimer of Interest."

What timing is he referring to?

It takes several months to go through the decertification process. If they do that, the season is toast. And it's not Fehr who decertifies, it's the players who must vote and submit the papers.

A disclaimer of interest is much faster and essentially the same thing although if this gets to court the judge might make a distinction.

I interpreted BooBoo's comments as it was no longer possible for them to decertify, which is flat out wrong. They can decertify at any time.

Yeah, it will take time and decertifying now won't save the season but the act of filing for decertification may be enough to push them closer, who knows. Disclaiming Interest allows them to re-form the Union pretty quickly if a deal is reached.

This is beyond redonk though, just cancel the season, it's toast.

Eric Macramalla: NHLPA decertification can take 45 days - while not as quick as disclaimer of interest arguably less vulnerable to sham argument in court

https://twitter.com/EricOnSportsLaw/status/274529090223108097

Also: So while we are late don't rule out decertification in favour of disclaimer of interest

https://twitter.com/EricOnSportsLaw/status/274529278668992514

SO, If the NHLPA wants to be taken seriously, chances are they'll go the decertification route.

Watch the NHLPA file for decertification on Dec. 5th - the day of the NHL BOG meeting. I could see Fehr doing that as an "In your face NHL!" move.

Sigh...

Decertification would be taken more seriously but it would take 45 days and pretty much guarantee the season is toast.

Eric Macramalla ‏@EricOnSportsLaw
If threat of decertification/disclaimer real NHL could (and likely should) move first in court to have lockout declared legal - preemptive

The NHL already made a filing during the NFL lockout as an interested 3rd party calling decertification during negotiatons a sham and negotiating tactic.

As Macramella writes, the NHL can and will file a preemptive suit deeming the lockout legal, they've already prepared for this. This is why Daly isn't worried, especially since the NHL will file it in a court more favorable to the league than the union.

It's just gonna prolong this then... if the NHL is not afraid and the NHLPA is hell bent on going the distance... this will be the start of a very long process.

shabbs wrote:It's just gonna prolong this then... if the NHL is not afraid and the NHLPA is hell bent on going the distance... this will be the start of a very long process.

The NHL has prepared for this, Bettman spent years preparing for the last lockout, I am sure they have a plan if/when the NHLPA decertifies.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/29/nhl-players-cut-out-the-mediator-no-further-cba-talks-planned

"The players tried coming back to the owners with a new proposal that separated both sides by $182 million. Instead of making a counter proposal, the NHL rejected the players overture within two hours," said a union source.

"Then, the players asked for mediation, hoping it would lead to a fresh approach in negotiations. It lasted two days before the NHL stopped that process. The union now has become nothing more than a tool used by the NHL to continuously violate antitrust laws. As such, decertification of the NHLPA will render the lockout and all resulting actions by the NHL illegal, subjecting the owners to payment of massive economic damages. It's time to take this fight to federal court."

Well if that's their line of thinking, then we won't be seeing hockey for a long time.

Bettman has proposed him and Fehr step aside and let some owners negotiate directly with some players. Sounds good.

tim1_2 wrote:Bettman has proposed him and Fehr step aside and let some owners negotiate directly with some players. Sounds good.

I doubt that will accomplish anything or that the PA even agrees to it.

I think it's just an attempt to break the union as I'm sure some players would love to go 1 on 1 with the owners and others think this is a bad idea.

Can't see Fehr agreeing to Gary's idea of the players negotiating directly with the owners. I'm curious as to why Gary even suggested that.

shabbs wrote:Can't see Fehr agreeing to Gary's idea of the players negotiating directly with the owners. I'm curious as to why Gary even suggested that.

Just a tactic to cause friction with the union. I am sure there's a raging debate going on whether meeting the owners is a good idea or not.

Hoags wrote:

shabbs wrote:Can't see Fehr agreeing to Gary's idea of the players negotiating directly with the owners. I'm curious as to why Gary even suggested that.

Just a tactic to cause friction with the union. I am sure there's a raging debate going on whether meeting the owners is a good idea or not.

I'm sure the players would love to get in there and sound off at the owners, but I don't think that would accomplish anything.

How funny would it be if they do agree to this and they end up hammering out a CBA? HA HA!

shabbs wrote:Can't see Fehr agreeing to Gary's idea of the players negotiating directly with the owners. I'm curious as to why Gary even suggested that.

Fehr has no choice but to ask the players if they want to meet separately with the owners. Fehr won't make this call, the players will. And after all the flak from players about how the sides must continue to meet, they damn well better accept the invitation.

tim1_2 wrote:

shabbs wrote:Can't see Fehr agreeing to Gary's idea of the players negotiating directly with the owners. I'm curious as to why Gary even suggested that.

Fehr has no choice but to ask the players if they want to meet separately with the owners. Fehr won't make this call, the players will. And after all the flak from players about how the sides must continue to meet, they damn well better accept the invitation.

I'm sure he'll prep them. It won't be a negotiating session, so no decisions would come out but more of a "let's talk and hear your concerns and talk about the issues".

I would hope they have a ref in there... it could get heated.

shabbs wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

shabbs wrote:Can't see Fehr agreeing to Gary's idea of the players negotiating directly with the owners. I'm curious as to why Gary even suggested that.

Fehr has no choice but to ask the players if they want to meet separately with the owners. Fehr won't make this call, the players will. And after all the flak from players about how the sides must continue to meet, they damn well better accept the invitation.

I'm sure he'll prep them. It won't be a negotiating session, so no decisions would come out but more of a "let's talk and hear your concerns and talk about the issues".

I would hope they have a ref in there... it could get heated.

Who knows? It could result in them coming away further apart than they've ever been...but I think it's a good idea at this point. Kinda a last ditch effort to save the season.

The "hail mary" pass before the season is done...

May as well try anything at this point...

Mediators gave up after only 2 days. Jeezus Diddle.

You shouldn't diddle Hay-Zeus.