Jammer and Santiclaws, thanks for the links. The Friedman article was excellent.
Combination Lock
Keyed Lock
Electronic Keypad Lock With Code
Armed Guard
Jammer and Santiclaws, thanks for the links. The Friedman article was excellent.
Can someone explain a little about what decertification would mean to both sides? I know what it means literally, but what are the expected effects?
In a word, a cluster****. No union = no collective bargaining. It would almost certainly bring about the end of any hope for the season. Lots of anti-trust litigation. Theoretically, the end of the draft. Owners claiming that the existing player contracts are now void. Etc., etc., etc.
at the draft party a couple of years ago, and under a considerable haze, i heard Birdman yell out the following (about 4 or 5 times, i think) - "don't marry yourselves to players!" he went on to reiterate that idea more than once on the boards, and i believe it to be absolutely sage.
---gescom
Or, it could push the owners into making real concessions in an effort to save the season, like it did in the case of the NFL and NBA...
NHLPA decertification: Disbanding union helped end NBA lockout; what about NHL? | Puck Daddy - Yahoo! Sports
A lot of what ifs. If the owners cave like in the NFL and NBA, then not much. It's becomes just a temporary disbanding of the union strange as that sounds. AFAIK no owners in any sports have decided to fight the union if they decertify, even though they have better than even chances of winning. That's because a legal fight, if fought till the end, would take years of litigation, so no there would be no hockey for quite awhile. It's illegal to have a lockout if there is no union so the players would fight for their salaries to be made good. Owners would claim the decertification is just a temporary sham to gain leverage and the courts could agree, disallowing and pay or damages. There would be no draft or pension funds, no safety controls...just a blank slate to play under. The owners would claim existing contracts are null and void since they are based on a CBA. It's assumed that if it drags on, 10-15 franchises would have to fold, so those players would only get peanuts on the dollar even if the courts agreed with them, and then they'd be out of work. And no cba so no rules. A team could have any number of players and an owner could pay and simply bench sit the current roster while playing youngsters. Or, with no cap at all, the 6 teams that make all the money could scoop up all the best players while leaving the scraps for the other 10 or so teams that survive. So, a huge mess, for years and years if the owners decide to fight. And the losing side could face triple damages plus court costs. So, if the owners cave early we'll see barely a ripple. If they fight it's the end of the NHL, as least as we have known it.
Isn't it just time for professional sports leagues to start operating as single business entities?
Per the nhlpa the players involved are:
PLAYERS AND OWNERS MEET IN NYCCraig Adams
David Backes
Michael Cammalleri
Sidney Crosby
B.J. Crombeen
Mathieu Darche
Shane Doan
Ron Hainsey
Shawn Horcoff
Jamal Mayers
Manny Malhotra
Andy McDonald
Ryan Miller
George Parros
Brad Richards
Martin St. Louis
Jonathan Toews
Kevin Westgarth.
Not overly surprised at the list I must say.