Over the last few weeks, I've been corresponding with James Mirtle, one of the NHL reporter for the Canadian national newspaper the Globe and Mail, regarding the legal issues surrounding the NHL lockout. Mirtle recently compiled this on-going discussion into a column analyzing the current legal status of the NHL labor dispute. Here's an excerpt from the piece:
No. 2: Why would dissolving the union give the NHLPA any negotiating leverage if it’s widely held that the litigation they’re about to embark down is unlikely to ever reach its conclusion? Isn't this just another stalemate on top of an existing one?
Grow: “It's a really interesting question (and merits a longer answer than I originally anticipated). Disclaiming interest almost certainly would have given the players significantly more leverage had it been done back in October. If they had dissolved the union at that time, there would still have been plenty of time for a court to issue a preliminary ruling on the legality of the lockout before the entire season was endangered. And had the court actually gone so far as to enjoin the lockout, it obviously would have been a huge win for the players.
“Now, though, there most likely isn't enough time left to get a preliminary ruling before the league cancels the season (although it would be interesting to see what the league would do if a court enjoined the continuation of the lockout in, say, late-February).You can read the entire piece here. Meanwhile, for more regarding the NHL lockout, check out Sports Law Blog's prior commentary on the dispute.
0 comments:
Post a Comment