The NHLPA has rejected the plan to have the NHL realign. The Board of Governors approved the realignment, but it did not seek the NHLPA approval before coming out with the new conference scheme. This is very bad news. The two sides are about to start a legal battle while sports fans and investors may quickly reject the League because of the fatigue from the fights between the NBA and NFL and their respective players' associations.
Okay, so this does a lot of things. First, it means I'll be wearing my Predators shirt to the Nashville game because there will be more opportunities next season to see the Jets as they will remain in the Eastern Conference. I'll wear my Jets shirt to a future game.
Second, it means that the NHL apparently does need NHLPA approval. I covered this at length before.
It seemed at the time of the realignment announcement a month ago that this was possible, but not likely. The Player's Association did not directly say it would veto the move at the time, but reminded the NHL it could. The NHL said they didn't need approval. I guess the NHL was wrong.
During my previous look at this, I examined the Collective Bargaining Agreement and saw arguments for both sides.
This is what I said then back on December 5, 2011:
Bettman said the NHLPA has expressed concerns about the new plan and that he will discuss it with union chief Donald Fehr before implementing it. Bettman said the change doesn’t need union approval, a stance the NHLPA contests.
“Realignment requires an agreement between the league and the NHLPA,” union spokesman Jonathan Weatherdon said. “‘We look forward to continuing our discussions with the league regarding this matter.”
Hmmm. A showdown between the NHLPA and the NHL? Maybe. Who's right?
Let's look to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The NHL is probably looking towards Article 16, League Schedule.
16.3 Length of Season. Without the NHLPA's advance written consent, the Regular Season will be scheduled over a period of not less than 184 days. Each Club will play at least one (1) NHL Game during the first three (3) days of the Regular Season and at least one (1) NHL Game during the last three (3) days of the Regular Season. Prior to finalizing the Regular Season schedule, the League shall provide the NHLPA with a draft schedule. The NHLPA shall be given an opportunity to comment on the schedule. This opportunity for the NHLPA to comment shall be provided at a point when the NHL has the ability to adjust the schedule based on the NHLPA's comments and shall include a meeting at the NHL's offices with the Vice President, Scheduling, Research & Operations (or his equivalent) responsible for assembling the schedule and a League attorney. The League will give good faith consideration to specific scheduling requests made by the NHLPA and will provide an explanation if any of the NHLPA's requests will not be accommodated; however, the final decision making authority shall remain with the League.
The League is going to be keeping all of those requirements (notification, a meeting, 184 days, blah blah blah) and will probably quote the last line saying that the final decision making authority shall remain with the League.
The NHLPA will probably look towards Article 22, the Competition Committee.
22.1 The NHL and NHLPA will establish a Player/Club Competition Committee (the "Competition Committee") for the purpose of examining and making recommendations associated with issues affecting the game and the way the game is played. The issues to be considered by the Competition Committee will include: (1) the development, change, and enforcement of Playing Rules; (2) Player equipment regulations and standards; (3) Player dressing room and in-arena facility standards; (4) the scheduling of games played outside a team's home arena and facility standards relating to said games (e.g., "outdoor" games, neutral site games, etc.); and (5) issues relating to schedule, compression and start times for games. By mutual agreement the NHL and NHLPA can expand the issues to be considered by the Competition Committee.
The biggest argument to be made here relate to the scheduleing of games under part (5) and "examining and making recommendations associated with issues affecting the game".
It seems the CBA actually kinda contradicts itself upon these findings. On one hand, the Competition Committee (a group having NHLPA and NHL representatives) is suppose to discuss the schedule while the actual scheduling part of the agreement says the NHL has final say and only need listen to requests from the NHLPA. I am by no means an expert on the CBA and there maybe an article or sub-article that directly addresses this, but I didn't immediately find it. I could be very wrong here.
But, I think the NHLPA is right and realignment needs their consent. A reshuffling of the entire layout of the teams and the shakeup of the playoff format seems to be an issue that affects the game and how it is played. The schedule part in Article 16 seems to be talking about individual schedule changes here and there or "petty changes" to the overall season schedule, not a monumental shift in the entire structure of the scheduling based on realignment.
This could get juicy, but I would imagine two things keep it tame and without public fireworks. First of all, I don't think the NHLPA will greatly protest to this realignment plan anyway, so no need to pull the veto card just to prove they can. Also, I don't think the NHL will intentionally do anything to really tick off the NHLPA since the lockout just happened a few seasons ago. And seeing the NBA and NFL recent struggles will probably lead to much more open discussion than would be needed between the two parties, regardless of who's technically right. The NHL (or any sports league) can't handle the PR nightmare that would happen if there were lockout talks. Fans would give up so much quicker on a pro-sports league now compared to other times because of the NBA and NFL stoppages.
To be fair: Bettman didn't say he was going forward no matter what the players say or anything like that, just that they don't really need the NHLPA's permission. The NHLPA also said they would continue the talks and didn't say they were thinking of fighting the realignment tooth-and-nail. In fact, there appears to be an open dialouge already going on that's benefiting both parties. But there is some areas where the two are not seeing eye to eye. Bettman said so. This may be why we have the teams and conferences have been announced, but the playoff format is not ready yet. That may be the place of disagreement between the two parties. I don't know this to be true, but it's a theory.
Looks like I was right about the NHLPA being right according to the CBA. Maybe not for the reason I cited, but the NHLPA still thinks they are right nonetheless. But looks like I was wrong about the lack of public fireworks. That open dialouge I assumed would happen? Probably didn't. It also looks like there is going to be a tooth-and-nail fight.
This comes tonight from the NHL:
"It is unfortunate that the NHLPA has unreasonably refused to approve a Plan that an overwhelming majority of our Clubs voted to support, and that has received such widespread support from our fans and other members of the hockey community, including Players," said NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly. "We have now spent the better part of four weeks attempting to satisfy the NHLPA’s purported concerns with the Plan with no success. Because we have already been forced to delay, and as a result are already late in beginning the process of preparing next season’s schedule, we have no choice but to abandon our intention to implement the Realignment Plan and modified Playoff Format for next season."
"We believe the Union acted unreasonably in violation of the League’s rights. We intend to evaluate all of our available legal options and to pursue adequate remedies, as appropriate."
There are the fireworks I wasn't planning on. "Unreasonable refused." "Overwhelming majority / Widespread support." "Violation of League's rights." "Legal options." Those are strong words. Especially for a Friday night.
It did get juicy. It looks like they intentionally ticked off the NHLPA with this statement if nothing else. But I hope this blows over quickly. I still think the League, like any major sports league, really can't afford the backlash from fans and investors if lockout talks surface. The NFL and NBA shortened-seasons have strained the market a lot.
We knew, even when the realignment was announced, that the two were not seeing eye to eye. But it really didn't seem to be that big of a deal. Just a disagreement on the proper procedure. After the realignment announcement, nobody really talked about the possibility it would fail. It seemed to surprise everyone this fell through.
NHLPA Executive Director Don Fehr issued a statement Friday night:
“As realignment affects players’ terms and conditions of employment, the CBA requires the league to obtain the NHLPA’s consent before implementation,” Fehr said. “Over the last month, we have had several discussions with the league and extensive dialogue with players, most recently on an executive board conference call on Jan. 1. Two substantial player concerns emerged: whether the new structure would result in increased and more onerous travel; and the disparity in chances of making the playoffs between the smaller and larger divisions.
“In order to evaluate the effect on travel of the proposed new structure, we requested a draft or sample 2012-13 schedule, showing travel per team. We were advised it was not possible for the league to do that. We also suggested reaching an agreement on scheduling conditions to somewhat alleviate player travel concerns … but the league did not want to enter into such a dialogue.”
Those are very legit concerns and I find myself siding with the NHLPA. It's not that the NHLPA said the new realignment was bad, but there was a possibly it could be a disaster with the travel schedule alone. The NHL couldn't prove it wouldn't be bad on players regarding travel. I haven't given a lot of thought on the loopsided playoff format, so no comment.
It looks like the NHL screwed up here, not the NHLPA. The players association job is to watch out for the players, and they didn't feel they were given enough information to make an informed decision. Therefore, they felt they didn't have any choice but to say no. Again, it's not that the alignment was going to be bad, but there should have been more investigating to make sure it would be as good in reality as it was on paper when it was announced.
"Daddy, can I have this?"
"Why do you need it?"
"Everyone else likes it. It will be cool. I need it. And I need it now."
"Tell me why you need it."
"Because."
"No young man. You tell me why you need it and we can discuss it. Maybe you can have it, but we need to talk about it."
"You don't want me to have anything."
"Mister, I'm not saying no. But I'm not saying yes. You need to tell me more information here. I might even agree with you.
"Just let me have it. I don't have time to explain it."
"Then the answer is no."
"I hate you! You never let me do anything!"
"Don't make me put you in timeout."
"[grumble grumble]"
I will be busy most of the weekend, so I probably won't be talking about this much until the beginning of the week. But this is bad news for the League. Make no mistake about it. A legal battle between a league and its players' association is just not what people want to tolerate right now.
Link to video
I was getting so sick of the recent string of bad things in the NHL too. Then this comes out. Someone tossed me a stronger shovel when I already thought I was down!
