The players have voted overwhelmingly - 706-22 - to give the NHLPA the power of dissolution by way of a disclaimer of interest. Weve come to a bit of a crossroads. The NHLPA must now decide what it wants to do next. There are options, but with each option comes risk. Whats the NHLPAs first option? Dissolve and sue. The NHLPA could file a disclaimer of interest and dissolve the union. Once dissolved, the players could file an antitrust lawsuit requesting a court to declare the lockout unlawful, while also seeking compensation for lost wages. Since antitrust law provides for something called treble damages, which means triple damages, the players could get billions of dollars in compensation if this ever went to trial. Heres the math – the combined salaries of about 700 players (which is about a billion dollars) multiplied by 3. Thats a lot of money - and its precisely that threat of antitrust litigation together with potentially catastrophic monetary damages that gains the players leverage in CBA talks. Would the players ask a court to immediately lift the lockout? First things first. There is an important distinction that needs to be made. The players can ask the court right off the bat to have the lockout lifted pending resolution of the matter at trial years from now. So the players would be arguing that its an emergency that the lockout should be lifted right away, and given that its an emergency they cant wait for a court to rule on the legality of the lockout at trial in a few years. So getting the lockout lifted temporarily within a month after filing the lawsuit is emergency relief. That should be distinguished from a court ultimately finding that the lockout is unlawful at trial years from now – whether the lockout is or isnt still in place. So theres emergency relief in the form of getting the lockout lifted right away, and there is ultimate relief years from now at trial. Two different things. Now to answer your question in typical lawyer fashion – the players may or may not ask for the lockout to be lifted ASAP. Weve seen both scenarios play out recently. During the NFL lockout in 2011, the NFLPA asked the court for that emergency request to lift the lockout. In response, the lower court lifted the lockout, thereby re-opening the NFL for business. However, the NFL appealed the case, and the Appeals Court put the lockout back in place ruling that a judge in these circumstances didnt have the power to lift a lockout. That same court, though, was not saying that the lockout was legal. They were just saying at this really early stage of the court action they didnt have the authority to lift the lockout on an emergency basis. So that means it was still possible the court at trial could rule the lockout was ultimately unlawful, in which case the NFL could have owed the players billions of dollars in lost wages. The NBA players took a different position in their own lawsuit during the 2011 lockout. Sensitive to the NFL Appeals Court decision keeping the lockout in place, the players decided not to ask the court to temporarily lift the lockout on an emergency basis. Instead, they asked the court to declare the lockout illegal much later at trial, while also seeking billions of dollars in lost wages. So why didnt the NBA players ask to have the lockout lifted on an emergency basis? Given the NFL decision, there was a risk that the court would have said that it couldnt lift the lockout on an emergency basis, thereby leaving it in place indefinitely. For the NBA players, that would have meant losing leverage. So what are you saying? The NHL players may not ask a court to temporarily lift the lockout on an emergency basis, and instead just ask for billions of dollars should the lockout be found illegal at trial. However, its still possible they could make the request for emergency relief. Wait. You keep talking about trial. Would this ever get to trial? No with a sprinkle of unlikely. To get this case to trial would take years. That just doesnt make a whole lot of sense for the NHL or its players. The league wants to get this settled in the short term and doesnt want to be embroiled in a court battle for years. How does the NHL lawsuit in New York factor in? The NHL has already filed a lawsuit in the state of New York, which historically is more sympathetic to owners than players. By being the first to file a lawsuit, it now becomes more difficult for the players to file a lawsuit about the same stuff in another state. Seeing this second lawsuit, a judge may say something like this: "Hey theres already a lawsuit about this somewhere else, and it was filed there first, so get out of my court". So thats why the NHL filed first – to secure home ice advantage and make it tougher for the players to file their own lawsuit in a more player friendly court – like one in California. So option 1 is to dissolve then sue. Whats option 2? The NHLPA could elect not to dissolve itself. Fehr & Company could hope that the mere threat of dissolving the union with a view to initiating antitrust litigation is enough to extract leverage in these negotiations. Which option is best? Nothing applies pressure like a lawsuit. So from the standpoint of the players, Option 1 will be looked at very carefully. The bottom line, though, is the NHLPA needs to figure out what is best to get a deal done – and much of that will depend on how close the sides are to cutting a deal. Eric, in your last article I told you I hated lawyers. Just to let you know, nothing has changed on that front. I understand. My mom hasnt talked to me since I was called to the Bar. Something about majoring in Snakeism. Is there a drop dead deadline for the NHLPA to dissolve itself? No. Youve been hearing a lot that the NHLPA must dissolve by January 2. Thats true – well sort of. The player vote that just passed authorizes the NHLPA to dissolve by January 2. However, if the NHLPA doesnt dissolve by then, it isnt barred from doing so at a later date. As well, the players could also vote to decertify the NHLPA, which is the players voting to no longer have the Union represent them (a disclaimer is the opposite – the union walking away from the players). NHL players, like all employees, have a protected right to choose whether to have a union represent them. Employees not only have a basic right to bargain collectively through a union, they also have a corresponding right not to. The right to choose not to have a union and not to engage in collective bargaining exists before as well as after a collective bargaining relationship forms. This is fundamental to labor law. The NHL is arguing that a disclaimer is just a sham designed to gain the players leverage. Does that hold water? A disclaimer of interest must be in good faith. A unions mere statement that its no longer representing the players may not be enough to discharge that good faith obligation. You need to look at the surrounding circumstances, including the conduct of the parties after dissolution, to determine if the union has really stopped representing the players. As was said in a case back in 1958 (which incidentally is when Elvis Presley was inducted into the U.S. Army), a disclaimer of interest is conducted in bad faith when its "obviously employed only as a measure of momentary expedience, or strategy in bargaining." Thats what the NHL is arguing – the only reason the NHLPA would dissolve itself would be to gain leverage, and once they get what they want, they will just re-assemble the union. There is no real intention on the part of the NHLPA to abandon its players. On top of that, the NHL will argue that NHLPA executives will still be directing things behind the scenes. This is a reasonable argument, and expect it to get some traction. Of late, we have seen the NFLPA and NBPA employ this disclaimer strategy, only to re-assemble later. A judge may not be happy with what is emerging as a new industry tactic in sport labor disputes and rule accordingly. Eric, you have ended a few of your sentences with prepositions – are you embarrassed? No, not really. I may, however, feel bad after. If the NHLPA is dissolved, can Donald Fehr still negotiate on behalf of the players? The idea behind the disclaimer is that the NHLPA is saying its no longer representing the players. So Fehr cant on the one hand say the NHLPA is out of the picture, and on the other hand lead negotiations. If he did, the NHLs sham argument would be that much easier to make. So if the players sue, expect outside lawyers to take over negotiations. Thats what happened in the NBA lawsuit. How does this settle and get hockey back on the ice? While CBA talks have spilled from the boardroom into the courtroom, lawsuits and judges wont get this settled. A deal will get done with the sides continuing to negotiate with a view to finding common areas of compromise. There is of course one thing that will drive settlement – a deadline. Pressure will mount on both sides as we near the NHLs deadline to cancel the season. The hope for hockey fans is that the sides dont collapse under the pressure and the season is lost like it was in 2005. Given that there remain areas of compromise, this case has a profile for settlement. So it would be a surprise if we dont see NHL hockey this season. However, and as Im sure you would agree, these talks have been filled with surprises. Eric Macramalla is TSNs Legal Analyst and can be heard each week on TSN Radio 1050. You can follow him on Twitter @EricOnSportslaw. Wholesale nfl jerseys free shipping .S. Cellular Field. That may be easier said than done, however, as the Jays havent broke the brooms out in Chicago since Sept. 4-6, 1989, at old Comiskey Park. And Toronto will be going up against righty Jake Peavy, who this season has resembled the pitcher who was an NL Cy Young Award winner for San Diego in 2007. cheap jerseys china . 1 Lleyton Hewitt knocked out Juan Monaco of Argentina 6-3, 6-4 in the opening round of the Valencia Open on Monday, ending a 10-match losing run against top-10 opponents. http://www.wholesalenflch... . Mathews was injured on his first carry of the preseason in the first quarter and did not return to the game. He is expected to have surgery Friday morning and coach Norv Turner said hell be out four to six weeks. [url=http://www.wholesalenflcheapjerseysfromchina.biz/]wholesale jerseys paypal . After eight exhibition games and 72 regular season games, the three-week playoff round begins on Sunday and ends with the Grey Cup on November 25. wholesale jerseys free shipping . Wait, what? Joe Mauer, about to be dealt by his hometown team? The report on the networks website late Tuesday, attributed to an unidentified "major league source," was enough to raise eyebrows around the sport.BALTIMORE -- The Baltimore Orioles agreed to one-year contracts Friday with catcher Matt Wieters, slugger Chris Davis and left-handed pitchers Brian Matusz and Troy Patton. The moves enabled the sides to avoid arbitration. Wieters, who received $500,000 in 2012, earned a raise to $5.5 million. He made the AL All-Star team last season and finished with a .249 batting average while setting career highs with 23 homers, 83 RBIs and 144 games played. Davis led the Orioles with 33 home runs and 85 RBIs while playing the outfield, first base and designated hitter. His salary jumped from $488,000 to $3.3 million. Matusz contributed in the bullpenn during the 2012 playoffs.dddddddddddd In 18 relief appearances during the regular season, the 25-year-old was 1-0 with a 1.35 ERA. He will receive $1.6 million in 2013 after making $1.45 million a year ago. Patton was 1-0 with a 2.43 ERA in 54 games with Baltimore. His salary will jump to $815,000 from $483,500. The Orioles also exchanged arbitration figures with All-Star closer Jim Johnson and right-handers Jason Hammel and Darren ODay. Johnson requested $7.1 million while Baltimore countered at $5.7 million. Hammel asked for $8.25 million and was offered $5.7 million. ODay proposed $3.2 million and was offered $1.8 million. ' ' '