|
CBA Goes Nuclear: NHLPA to Decertify? |
|
|
|
|
|
Remember the other day when I said the NHLPA has no "Plan B"? Well, they still don't. All this talk about decertification is more of nuclear holocaust option than a "Plan B". If you think the NHL CBA negotiations have been ugly so far, you ain't seen nothing yet.
I've read about 100 different news stories on the "decertification" option over the last 24, so I feel the need to blog my opinion. You know me...I write in a way a seven year old can understand. So here's my attempt to explain the decertification situation and why it would really, really suck.
Right now the NHL and NHLPA are trying to negotiate a new CBA. While players have contracts with teams, the CBA spells out all sorts of important details, such as insurance for players. Without a CBA being in place to govern the rules of the league (well, at least those specific to player and their employment) games cannot take place.
The NHL wants to make some drastic changes with the new CBA because they feel the players get too much. It's not just about money: It's also about signing bonuses, free agency, arbitration, etc. The NHLPA and the players are okay with the league eventually moving to a 50/50 split of revenues, but they aren't interested in losing other rights from the old CBA. Last time around, the players gave up 24% of their income, they agreed to a salary cap (players hate those) and they lost millions while the lockout took place. In short, they feel like they got hammered last time around, and have vowed not to let that happen again.
Who's right and who's wrong now is debatable. The players have a point when they say their current contracts with teams should be honored "as is". Owners, like the guy in Minnie, spent almost $200 million on Parise and Suter during the summer, so why should he be let off the hook for such ridiculous signings? The GM's and teams have done it to themselves if the league is in financial hot water, and the players have no sympathy. I understand why.
Where ownership is coming from is half the teams in the league are losing money, and something needs to change so the NHL is a place where all teams are profitable. They have a point when they indicate NHL players are treated very well, and that if both sides work together to make an amicable deal now, revenues would keep growing and the players would recover anything lost financially in a few seasons.
The lockout is going unresolved because neither side is willing to budge. We're now at the point where the league says they've made their best offer, and future offers will be smaller. Why? Because the longer the lockout goes, the more immediate revenue is lost, and the more long-term revenue options disappear. Television deal and advertising revenue are two areas where the NHL could take a huge hit in the future thanks to this lockout, especially if it goes longer than an entire season.
The players were counting on profitable teams and their owners to pressure the other owners into a solution. This hasn't worked, and because of it, the NHLPA is running out of options. Threatening to decertify the union helped to expedite CBA deals for players in the NBA and NFL, so it might make sense to try it in the NHLPA's case.
I said "might". You need to read the fine print here.
Should the PA decide to decertify, there will be no union. You can't negotiate a new CBA without a union being there to represent players. What will eventually happen if the NHLPA decertifies are anti-trust lawsuits from players that would ensure there would be no NHL hockey for at least the next two years. The entire mess would be tied up in litigation.
With no CBA, the salary cap would be gone...hey, player contracts could all be gone too, eventually. It would be the wild, wild west. That's why the NFL and NBA moved so fast to sort out a CBA deal once the threat was made: Do you think Daryl Katz wants to lose Hall, Eberle, Nugent-Hopkins, Schultz, Klefbom and Yakupov? Absolutely not. But if there's no union and no CBA, eventually contracts would be void, and players, once hockey starts up again, could go wherever they want. It would be anarchy. We've seen what owners do to each other during free agency periods. Can you imagine if all the players were UFA's at the same time? Players would go back to receiving 75% of all revenues, because the GM's have less self control than a meth addict.
Most certainly, most teams do not have the financial ability to survive several years of this, so a number of teams would fold. The entire NHL could actually die a horrible death if the union decertifies. It's that bad, folks. I'm not trying to be melodramatic here. The situation is truly this serious.
So this sounds like the perfect solution for the players, right? Decertifying is the perfect threat. Think again. Like I said, you need to read the fine print.
- What player wants to go two seasons without an NHL salary in an effort to win an arm wrestle? I mean, sure, this worked for the NFL and NBL, but those two leagues have way more money than the NHL does. The NHL might be able to make a better case in anti-trust litigation, as they could argue the lockout has occurred to save several failing franchises. You never know how things are going to go in a court room. What happens if the players lose in court, which could happen?
- I'm not convinced all the players want their teams to be blown up, either. If you're Hall, Eberle, Nuge, Yakupov, Klefbom and Schultz, I think you'd be pretty happy to be on the same team, regardless where it is located. There are several teams currently who has put together tremendous rosters, and the players all want to win.
- And aside from the concept that blowing up the league might not make all players happy, keep in mind a prolonged lockout and the months of league battles that would follow would certainly kill teams; meaning, less jobs for players. Florida would be gone. Phoenix, gone. Maybe Tampa Bay, gone. Dallas? Bye bye. St. Louis, Columbus...I can make a pretty long list of teams. And do you think the owners of the teams not in financial trouble want to stick around to fight a court battle? Some, maybe. Some might just decide to sell their team for a bag of walnuts. We could go from there being 740 NHL player jobs to something closer to 400.
So this is the gamble: If the NHLPA decides to decertify, they need the owners to be scared enough at the thought to offer a quick CBA solution. If the NHL doesn't blink, the NHLPA and Donald Fehr might be beyond screwed. Decertification is a billion dollar game of chicken being played at 300mph on a one-lane road.
To be honest with you, I'm not sure which option to cheer for. When the NHLPA offered a five-year deal the other day, I threw up in my mouth a little. I don't really care who wins the CBA debate at this point; all I am cheering for is a CBA that is 20 seasons or longer in length so we never need to go through this again.
Edmonton Oilers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»