|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 27, 2005 12:12:08 GMT -5
If teams do not extend qualifying offers to players before July 1st than it looks like player's agents will push to have their client become free agents. Teams totally redifining themselves via a UFA frenzy would certainly raise fan interest. Come watch your new team with player so and so... New CBA, new Rules and new rosters? why not. www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Sports/2005/04/27/1014878-sun.html |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2005 12:49:12 GMT -5
...Hmmm, no CBA: no entry draft = UFas, RFAs = UFAs, previous draftees who must be signed by June 1 = UFAs, NHLers who's contracts expire July 1 = UFA.
It's a free market, baby....
Roll 'em. I expect that the cheque is in the mail. I also expect this is just one of the many deadlines that has the Nabob of Negotiation jitterbugging to meet as often as possible with the NHLPA to ink that darn elusive CBA. Entertaining for the fans, quite possibly, until they discover that their hometown favourites are all gone. It will definitely be a test of the owners' resolve. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 27, 2005 14:24:42 GMT -5
Hmmm . . . if everyone is a free agent . . . and if there is some form of salary cap/linkage/whatever top salaries will be a lot lower than the 24% offered. Unless someone wants to pay Jagr his $11M and have an ECHL team around him.
Pittsburg: the bar has been set.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Apr 28, 2005 8:24:57 GMT -5
NO CBA MEANS NO RULES?In spite of the NHL lockout, there has been a lot of talk lately about players becoming unrestricted free agents. Prospective draftee Sidney Crosby, maybe he could become an unrestricted free agent. Unsigned draftees Jeff Carter and Mike Richards, maybe they could become unrestricted free agents. So, too, maybe could Jason Spezza, Rick Nash, Joe Thornton, Jarome Iginla and Dany Heatley. Maybe. A lot of scenarios are being painted here and as player agent J.P. Barry of Calgary suggests, we are now in "uncharted waters." The basic premise for all this free-agent frenzy speculation is no CBA means no rules, which at the very least translates into great uncertainty. Anything's possible, right? Well, I'm no lawyer. But my instincts tell me all this free agency talk is probably the product of us all having a little too much time on our hands. Think about it. For argument's sake, let's declare the Philadelphia Flyers' unsigned draftee duo of Carter and Richards as unrestricted free agents. They can sign with any team in any league in the world. Well, maybe not. The NHL is in the midst of a lockout. Individual NHL clubs are not permitted to conduct business as usual. NHL teams cannot sign players right now. If they did, they can't register the contract with the league. Could a renegade team break ranks and sign Carter or Richards, mount a legal challenge against the NHL? It's possible, I suppose, but if that happens, we've got a much bigger story than the fate of Carter and Richards. A renegade act of that magnitude during the lockout might well spell the end of the lockout. I'm not holding my breath on that one. The truth is the fate of all these players, from Crosby to Carter to Richards to any of the restricted free agents to any player who had a contract this season, will be determined as part of the CBA negotiations. For lack of a better term, it's called transition. It will be a significant element of the negotiations above and beyond the NHL and Players' Association agreeing on a new economic system. Maybe these issues, what will happen with the Crosbys, Carters and Richards' of the world, will give the NHLPA more leverage than they otherwise would have in the negotiations, but at the end of the day, it would be shocking if any of those players get to pick and choose what NHL club they'd like to play for. The new CBA will spell it all out. Mind you, it's kind of a moot point right now. The two sides aren't even negotiating this week. They'll get back to the table next week with two days scheduled in each of the next three weeks, including some negotiating sessions likely to take place in Austria during the world championship. www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 28, 2005 8:53:15 GMT -5
NO CBA MEANS NO RULES?...The truth is the fate of all these players, from Crosby to Carter to Richards to any of the restricted free agents to any player who had a contract this season, will be determined as part of the CBA negotiations. For lack of a better term, it's called transition. It will be a significant element of the negotiations above and beyond the NHL and Players' Association agreeing on a new economic system. Maybe these issues, what will happen with the Crosbys, Carters and Richards' of the world, will give the NHLPA more leverage than they otherwise would have in the negotiations, but at the end of the day, it would be shocking if any of those players get to pick and choose what NHL club they'd like to play for. The new CBA will spell it all out. www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp Shocking? Precedent setting, perhaps, but certainly not shocking. Slavery was abolished quite a time ago in both Canada and the United States. At least I thought it had been. Is a man not free to work wherever he chooses if he is not under a legally binding contract to anyone? Can a company that is not even in business deny a man the right to seek gainful employment with one that is? That doesn't sound quite right to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 28, 2005 11:07:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 28, 2005 11:31:12 GMT -5
"The status of all players, vis-a-vis NHL club rights, will be determined in collective bargaining," Daly wrote in an e-mail to the Sun. "Those who are suggesting otherwise -- namely, that certain players have now, or will have in the future a particular status -- are misinformed." "Player status issues, such as retention rights and free agency, are all subjects to be collectively bargained," union spokesman Jon Weatherdon said in a statement. Both sides seem pretty much on the same page that free agency will be something settled in the CBA. ...oh well. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 28, 2005 11:32:32 GMT -5
I've been thinking (amazing, I know): a better question might be
Will new NHL mean new commissioner?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 28, 2005 11:34:15 GMT -5
Will new NHL mean new commissioner? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 28, 2005 14:57:21 GMT -5
 slave • noun 1 historical a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. 2 a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something: a slave to fashion. - www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/slave?view=uk
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 28, 2005 18:37:24 GMT -5
*Several agents told the Sun yesterday if there's no collective bargaining agreement in place by July 1 -- the date players whose contracts expire must receive the required qualifying offers -- then they are prepared to take legal action to get their clients declared unrestricted free agents. * This is a moronic statement. What else does one expect from the rag called the Sun. And what a bunch of bull...........from NHLPA central. How are the agents going to force NHL clubs to sign their clients as free agents? Poke them in the eye with a stick? Hold a gun to their heads? NO TEAM CAN SIGN A PLAYER without a CBA. The NHL teams will NOT sign ANY mercenaries unless they have a CBA in place. Even if they declare an impasse, they will present a NEW CBA that all teams will abide from. There is only ONE way the union can do this. They would have to dissolve the NHLPA and then all the mercenaries will be free agents. The NHL can just offer a CBA to whomever wants to sign with the NHL. Individual mercenaries can try to take the NHL to court and try to declare the NHL CBA is restricting their right to earn a living. The NHL will argue that mercenaries have been playing in Europe and can play for other leagues to EARN A LIVING. THAT is why the NHL was smiling ear to ear when mercenaries took off for Europe. The mercenaries have NO GOD GIVEN RIGHT nor any legal right to DEMAND that the league sign them to make multi-millions just because that is what they and their dog demands. IN FACT, because the NHL offers the MOST amount of money from any other league, they will argue that their CBA terms are by far the fairest and most lucrative. What are the mercenaries going to argue in court? It does not give them the fat contract THEY DEMAND. One more time....as far as the US is concerned. The NHL can declare an impasse. ANY company can declare an impasse in a union negotiation if it feels that the other side has not negotiated in good faith or they reached a stalemate. The NHL does NOT need to declare an impasses to use replacement players. The NHL does NOT have to go to the NLRB to get permission to use replacement players. If the NHL declares an impasse, the UNION and ONLY the UNION can take the NHL to the NLRB and must PROVE to the NLRB that the NHL was bargaining in bad faith. The NLRB would then rule IF the NHL is bargaining in bad faith AND THEN force the NHL BACK to the table. (Fat chance.:  IF he NHLPA loses the ruling then they will have THREE options. 1...abide by the NEW CBA. 2...go on strike. 3....dissolve itself. So what.....all three options are USELESS to the NHLPA. 1.....the NHL gets what it wants. 2.....the NHL can STILL use replacement players while they are bargaining with the NHLPA. 3... IF the NHLPA dissolves itself then the individual mercenaries can take the NHL to court and TRY to prove that the NHL imposed CBA restricts their right to earn a living. If the union dissolves itself, ALL those fat long term contracts are butt paper. Dem the facts........ |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 28, 2005 19:31:52 GMT -5
*Several agents told the Sun yesterday if there's no collective bargaining agreement in place by July 1 -- the date players whose contracts expire must receive the required qualifying offers -- then they are prepared to take legal action to get their clients declared unrestricted free agents. * This is a moronic statement. What else does one expect from the rag called the Sun. And what a bunch of bull...........from NHLPA central. It is only a moronic statement if there there is no legal backing to it. What sources do you have that indicate this course of action is not likely and not legal? Even the SUN, notorious for its business partisanship, shines on the workers some days. As before they will rely on the proven ego attraction of winning a Stanley Cup, or the vain hope of achieving that goal. That plus whatever leverage can be gained from competing bids from other leagues around the world. Correct. No NHL team can. As this "off-season" has demonstrated to North-American centric fans of the game They will not declare an impasse, the potential losses are too great. We have seen an indication of this with the Nabob's recent retreat on replacement players. Not at all. What they need is for the Nabob to miss the appropriate deadlines that would have been covered under an effective CBA. Decertiification is the ultimate trump card. However the need to play it is far off in the distance. If impasse is declared by the NHL, the NLRB can (as it has done in the past) rule that the league operate under the terms of the old CBA until a new one is agreed upon. Likely a step which we'll never see. What bearing does introducing a man's right to earn a living plying his trade have on the situation? Everyone is entitled to that freedom, unless one is living under a fascist régime. Of course not. But they do have the right to tender their services and accept the offer of the highest bidder, if they so desire. Sure, but they would have a hell of time proving that against the NHLPA, since the latter party has made most of the substantive offers in negotiations. Obviously, since the NHL has backed off on the use of replacement players it has also backed off on the declaration of impasse. Why not? Sources? Again, sources? The NHL, as the Nabob himself stated, will not use replacement players. There has been too much opposition from withinn the owners' cabal, and it is, as commentators from other sports who have lived the process have said, NOT A GOOD THING FOR ANYONE INVOLVED. We willl not see replacement players. Guaranteed. If the NHLPA is granted full union status in BC and Québec, as they are presently seeking, there will be no scHabs or pseudo Canuckleheads. The chance is guaranteed. As mentioned before the NLRB can rule that the conditions of the previous CBA hold sway until a new one is reached. There is no automatic free pass for the NHL. If the NHL loses the consequences are much more drastic. Back pay to all players who lost a year's work due to the lockout, just for starters. It appears by recent mumblings from NHL HQ that the potential penalties are holding many rash actions in check. It will never come to that. If it does, it means that there no longer is an NHL. No, that's just your opinion.  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 28, 2005 19:50:51 GMT -5
All it would take would be one team who is so ticked off at the NHL (*cough Toronto cough*) to sign say, oh, I don't know, Sydney Crosby, to a personal services contract, and whoo-boy, THEN it would get real fun.
I always thought the NHLPA was goofing by not pushing expanded free agency in return for its concessions on salaries. The NFL has unrestricted free agency for most of its players after (I think) 3 or 4 years, baseball after 6, basketball after 3. In the NHL, its after 13. They should have demanded UFA after 26, which would still give teams control over players for 8 years, longer than any other league.
Actually, with salary caps, there is no need for the RFA rules to be as strict as they are. The NHLPA should push to have the draft pick compensation rules removed, so that every RFA can receive an offer from another team, while his "home" team retains the right to match.
As NHLPA, here is what I would demand, in return for a linked salary cap:
* UFA at 26, with a one player per team "franchise player" designation.
* No draft pick compensation for RFAs, though original team retains right to match.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 28, 2005 20:20:24 GMT -5
All it would take would be one team who is so ticked off at the NHL (*cough Toronto cough*) to sign say, oh, I don't know, Sydney Crosby, to a personal services contract, and whoo-boy, THEN it would get real fun. I always thought the NHLPA was goofing by not pushing expanded free agency in return for its concessions on salaries. The NFL has unrestricted free agency for most of its players after (I think) 3 or 4 years, baseball after 6, basketball after 3. In the NHL, its after 13. They should have demanded UFA after 26, which would still give teams control over players for 8 years, longer than any other league. Actually, with salary caps, there is no need for the RFA rules to be as strict as they are. The NHLPA should push to have the draft pick compensation rules removed, so that every RFA can receive an offer from another team, while his "home" team retains the right to match. As NHLPA, here is what I would demand, in return for a linked salary cap: * UFA at 26, with a one player per team "franchise player" designation. * No draft pick compensation for RFAs, though original team retains right to match. , must I also agree with you today? The humiliation is too blissful to endure. If needed, I shall be flogging myself to nirvana in the sauna/sweat lodge.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 29, 2005 6:28:42 GMT -5
No, that's just your opinion. They are from a LABOUR lawyers mouth. In fact he is a friend of mine and he confirmed HIS opinion from a labour lawyer friend of his who practices in the US. Legal opinions from two professionals. Yes, I swim with the sharks............  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 29, 2005 6:36:50 GMT -5
They are from a LABOUR lawyers mouth. In fact he is a friend of mine and he confirmed HIS opinion from a labour lawyer friend of his who practices in the US. Two expert opinions. Yes, I swim with the sharks............ The way the post was written it seemed as if you were stating your opinion. No matter, we'll just have to see how the situation plays out. BTW, here is the opinion of William Gould, chairman of the NLRB from 1994-1998 and currently an emeritus law professor at Stanford University who specializes in labour and sports law, on the possible scenarios. He corroborates some of what your friend and his friend surmised, and he elaborates on other surrounding issues. ANALYSIS: JOHN F. MOLINARO
The rocky road to impasse
CBC Sports Online | Mar. 7, 2005
The road to impasse isn't straight or easy, according to labour experts.
With no end in sight to the current hockey lockout, the prevailing belief is that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman will eventually declare an impasse and implement a new economic system that includes a salary cap.
But while this appears to be a quick fix, Bettman and NHL owners should take caution: the road to impasse is potentially long and treacherous, laden with bulky roadblocks and tricky land mines.
And the biggest roadblock is the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, an independent federal agency that would first have to rule on the lawfulness of the NHL's actions before it could circumvent the collective bargaining process and unilaterally implement a salary-cap system. - the entire article |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 29, 2005 7:56:03 GMT -5
*Several agents told the Sun yesterday if there's no collective bargaining agreement in place by July 1 -- the date players whose contracts expire must receive the required qualifying offers -- then they are prepared to take legal action to get their clients declared unrestricted free agents. * This is a moronic statement. What else does one expect from the rag called the Sun. And what a bunch of bull...........from NHLPA central. How are the agents going to force NHL clubs to sign their clients as free agents? Poke them in the eye with a stick? Hold a gun to their heads? NO TEAM CAN SIGN A PLAYER without a CBA. The NHL teams will NOT sign ANY mercenaries unless they have a CBA in place. Even if they declare an impasse, they will present a NEW CBA that all teams will abide from. There is only ONE way the union can do this. They would have to dissolve the NHLPA and then all the mercenaries will be free agents. The NHL can just offer a CBA to whomever wants to sign with the NHL. Individual mercenaries can try to take the NHL to court and try to declare the NHL CBA is restricting their right to earn a living. The NHL will argue that mercenaries have been playing in Europe and can play for other leagues to EARN A LIVING. THAT is why the NHL was smiling ear to ear when mercenaries took off for Europe. The mercenaries have NO GOD GIVEN RIGHT nor any legal right to DEMAND that the league sign them to make multi-millions just because that is what they and their dog demands. IN FACT, because the NHL offers the MOST amount of money from any other league, they will argue that their CBA terms are by far the fairest and most lucrative. What are the mercenaries going to argue in court? It does not give them the fat contract THEY DEMAND. One more time....as far as the US is concerned. The NHL can declare an impasse. ANY company can declare an impasse in a union negotiation if it feels that the other side has not negotiated in good faith or they reached a stalemate. The NHL does NOT need to declare an impasses to use replacement players. The NHL does NOT have to go to the NLRB to get permission to use replacement players. If the NHL declares an impasse, the UNION and ONLY the UNION can take the NHL to the NLRB and must PROVE to the NLRB that the NHL was bargaining in bad faith. The NLRB would then rule IF the NHL is bargaining in bad faith AND THEN force the NHL BACK to the table. (Fat chance.: IF he NHLPA loses the ruling then they will have THREE options. 1...abide by the NEW CBA. 2...go on strike. 3....dissolve itself. So what.....all three options are USELESS to the NHLPA. 1.....the NHL gets what it wants. 2.....the NHL can STILL use replacement players while they are bargaining with the NHLPA. 3... IF the NHLPA dissolves itself then the individual mercenaries can take the NHL to court and TRY to prove that the NHL imposed CBA restricts their right to earn a living. If the union dissolves itself, ALL those fat long term contracts are butt paper. Dem the facts........ Good post Cranky. If the road to Impasse was so rocky, Bob wouldn't have to go out of his way to obtain Union certification in Quebec and BC. He does this because he knows Impasse and replacement players will be the only option to the owners after he stalls the negotiations for a few more weeks. The NHL had the momentum and the legal backing required to crush the Union early in April and send Gollum Goodenow back to the cave from where he should have never came out of, but, unfortunately, some wuss owners got the cold feet and lacked the testicular fortitude to do what's right for hockey. The same owners I'd bet, that pressured Bettman to sign the 1994 CBA that send everyone in the current mess. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 29, 2005 8:33:29 GMT -5
Good post Cranky. If the road to Impasse was so rocky, Bob wouldn't have to go out of his way to obtain Union certification in Quebec and BC. He does this because he knows Impasse and replacement players will be the only option to the owners after he stalls the negotiations for a few more weeks. Read the article I quoted from and linked to at the top of this page. William Gould, former NLRB chairman, certainly doesn't paint the impasse route as a walk in the park. He should know. As for Goodenow covering his bases: nothing any smart person wouldn't do. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 29, 2005 9:15:01 GMT -5
slave • noun 1 historical a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. 2 a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something: a slave to fashion. - www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/slave?view=uk I knew the definition, thank you. Last time I checked, I didn't see anyone one forcing the poor mercenaries to play in the NHL. The Europe is wide open to them as are other leagues (CSL, ECHL, etc...). |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 29, 2005 10:25:07 GMT -5
The way the post was written it seemed as if you were stating your opinion. No matter, we'll just have to see how the situation plays out. BTW, here is the opinion of William Gould, chairman of the NLRB from 1994-1998 and currently an emeritus law professor at Stanford University who specializes in labour and sports law, on the possible scenarios. He corroborates some of what your friend and his friend surmised, and he elaborates on other surrounding issues. ANALYSIS: JOHN F. MOLINARO
The rocky road to impasse
CBC Sports Online | Mar. 7, 2005
The road to impasse isn't straight or easy, according to labour experts.
With no end in sight to the current hockey lockout, the prevailing belief is that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman will eventually declare an impasse and implement a new economic system that includes a salary cap.
But while this appears to be a quick fix, Bettman and NHL owners should take caution: the road to impasse is potentially long and treacherous, laden with bulky roadblocks and tricky land mines.
And the biggest roadblock is the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, an independent federal agency that would first have to rule on the lawfulness of the NHL's actions before it could circumvent the collective bargaining process and unilaterally implement a salary-cap system. - the entire articleThe person whom I had lunch with has worked with car companies and has some landmark cases under his belt. In the world of sharks, he's a Great White.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 29, 2005 10:33:36 GMT -5
Good post Cranky. If the road to Impasse was so rocky, Bob wouldn't have to go out of his way to obtain Union certification in Quebec and BC. He does this because he knows Impasse and replacement players will be the only option to the owners after he stalls the negotiations for a few more weeks. The NHL had the momentum and the legal backing required to crush the Union early in April and send Gollum Goodenow back to the cave from where he should have never came out of, but, unfortunately, some wuss owners got the cold feet and lacked the testicular fortitude to do what's right for hockey. The same owners I'd bet, that pressured Bettman to sign the 1994 CBA that send everyone in the current mess. HabsRus has to raise the FACTS bar from the internet mythologies floating elsewhere. Unless there is some NEW information/facts, my old information was that the union was not even considered a bonafied union in Quebec, but rather an association. If so, then there is nothing to stop the Hab's from using replacement mercenaries. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 29, 2005 10:48:44 GMT -5
I knew the definition, thank you. Last time I checked, I didn't see anyone one forcing the poor mercenaries to play in the NHL. The Europe is wide open to them as are other leagues (CSL, ECHL, etc...). Slavery restricted free agency. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 29, 2005 10:50:17 GMT -5
The person whom I had lunch with has worked with car companies and has some landmark cases under his belt. In the world of sharks, he's a Great White. But has he dealt with Bettman and Goodenow? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 29, 2005 10:54:53 GMT -5
HabsRus has to raise the FACTS bar from the internet mythologies floating elsewhere. We all do our bit. Facts are the foundation of opinion. And HabsRus posters are opinionated, so clarification is a must in the arsenal. The NHLPA has applied for certified union status in BC and Québec. If accepted, no scHabs and no pseudo Canuckleheads. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 29, 2005 11:34:29 GMT -5
The NHLPA has applied for certified union status in BC and Québec. If accepted, no scHabs and no pseudo Canuckleheads. The NHL will obviously fight it. In fact, the NHL would argue that the NHLPA is a collective already and that the sole intent of applying for certification was to RESTRICT THE RIGHTS and PREJUDICE THE NEGOTIATIONS with the NHL. After all, the union was perfectly happy to negotiate for DECADES as they were, why the change now? Quebec Labour Relations Commission and BC Labour Relation Boards are not stupid. Good luck to the union but they will have a tough time gettting certification. Even if they do, the NHL will tie it up in court long enough that the NHLPA will not be able to stop the Hab's/Canuck's. What's the matter with the mercenaries and their dogs? Why aren't people bending to their will and give them what they DEMAND?? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 29, 2005 12:03:15 GMT -5
The NHL will obviously fight it. In fact, the NHL would argue that the NHLPA is a collective already and that the sole intent of applying for certification was to RESTRICT THE RIGHTS and PREJUDICE THE NEGOTIATIONS with the NHL. The NHLPA is an association. They are applying for union status in BC and Québec. I don't think intent matters at all. The issue will be whether the NHLPA meets the legal requirements to be designated a union. The NHL's "rights" will be redefined. Whether the NHLPA is a union or not has no bearing on the content of the CBA., it only affects the NHL's use of replacement players in BC and Québec. Two separate items. Things change. Who knew that Bettman would be such a little schmuck, eh? We'll see. If there are questions around their meeting the necessary requirements, then yes, the odds don't look good. Otherwise... Perhaps. Scuttlebutt has it that a number of owners didn't even bother handing in the "Replacement Workbooks" that the Nabob handed out to their GMs. Rather than use replacements, a franchise can simply choose to suspend operations. Imagine no scHabs, no Canuckleheads, and no Make Believes. I'll predict no replacements, period. Nothing's wrong. It appears that a round of negotiations is scheduled for next week. The upstanding and righteous NHL owners will have yet another opportunity to bargain in good faith toward a new CBA. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 29, 2005 12:42:34 GMT -5
Boob Goodenow to judge:
"Your honor. The NHL has forced our poor union members into a position where they were required to live on just $1.6 million dollars a year while toiling up to four hours a day for eight to nine months a year. Now that the owners are losing money they want our members to play, oops, I mean work for a fraction of what the owners are earning in their reduced revenue. Some workers will only receive $300,000."
Gary Bettman: "Your honor. There are 50,000 players who are begging to try out for the jobs that the NHLPA members refuse to do at these labor rates and we are forced to import immigrant laborers from eastern bloc countries to do the job."
Not a dry eye in the house.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 29, 2005 12:47:28 GMT -5
Boob Goodenow: "I call my first witness, Don Cherry."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 29, 2005 16:06:16 GMT -5
Like I said before, the Sun is nothing more then a two bit rag that thrives on controversy. It should stick to semi-naked woman and employing Al Strachan as the resident think tank. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/04/28/1016742.html~~~~~~~~~~~~ NHL VP rips players union Daly: CBA will determine contract fates By BRUCE GARRIOCH -- Ottawa Sun NHL VP Bill Daly lashed out at the NHLPA Players' Association over a Sun report yesterday, saying that a new collective bargaining agreement -- not the courts -- will determine the status of players. Asked to react to the Sun story that a number of agents are prepared to go to court to get their clients declared unrestricted free agents if there's no CBA in place by July 1, Daly told the Sun their status remains undecided. And he indicated any agent who believes players taken in the 2003 draft that have not signed by June 1 will go back in the draft -- or NHLers who need qualifying offers by July 1 will become free agents -- is "misinformed." "The status of all players, vis-a-vis NHL club rights, will be determined in collective bargaining," Daly wrote in an e-mail to the Sun. "Those who are suggesting otherwise -- namely, that certain players have now, or will have in the future a particular status -- are misinformed." Later, in an interview with Sportsnet, Daly was even more upset: "It's a very uninformed and misguided premise which totally ignores and misconstrues the nature, purpose and laws of collective bargaining and the status of the multi-employer bargaining unit in collective bargaining." Then, Daly added: "It's union-directed rhetoric which is so baseless it's almost laughable." Still, sources say this is a hot-button issue because the NHL isn't sure where it would stand legally if there's no CBA in place and the agents decide to go to court to get their clients declared unrestricted free agents. If the agents were successful in court, the Senators' Marian Hossa, Martin Havlat and Jason Spezza, along with Boston's Joe Thornton, Rick Nash of Columbus and Atlanta's Dany Heatley would be among a group of high-profile unrestricted free agents. On the draft front, the most nervous GM is the Flyers' Bob Clarke, who would lose the rights to OHL superstars Mike Richards and Jeff Carter if the agents succeeded. Ironically, one of the main reasons the pair had not been signed was because teams were told that they would be able to sign draft picks at a lower rate if they waited for a new CBA. The NHLPA, meanwhile, is keeping its nose out of the argument over what happens to those affected if the lockout drags on. "Player status issues, such as retention rights and free agency, are all subjects to be collectively bargained," union spokesman Jon Weatherdon said in a statement.~~~~~~~~~~~ The LAST statement says it all by the NHLPA's own Jon Weatherdon. They are NEGOTIATING players status within a CBA. Period. End of story. If agents are dreaming that have some "special rights" or give themselves some "special rights" to negotiate with the NHL nothing but idiots. ALL parties are BOUND by the CBA. That is the LAW. Otherwise why bother to even negotiate a CBA? Morons.... |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 29, 2005 16:32:28 GMT -5
Still, sources say this is a hot-button issue because the NHL isn't sure where it would stand legally if there's no CBA in place and the agents decide to go to court to get their clients declared unrestricted free agents.
If the agents were successful in court, the Senators' Marian Hossa, Martin Havlat and Jason Spezza, along with Boston's Joe Thornton, Rick Nash of Columbus and Atlanta's Dany Heatley would be among a group of high-profile unrestricted free agents.
On the draft front, the most nervous GM is the Flyers' Bob Clarke, who would lose the rights to OHL superstars Mike Richards and Jeff Carter if the agents succeeded.
Ironically, one of the main reasons the pair had not been signed was because teams were told that they would be able to sign draft picks at a lower rate if they waited for a new CBA.
The NHLPA, meanwhile, is keeping its nose out of the argument over what happens to those affected if the lockout drags on. Agents. The fact of the matter is that there presently is no CBA. There hasn't been one since September 15, 2004. That's why there was no hockey season and why the entry draft was canceled. How can anyone be bound by a non-existent agreement? Where's the sense or logic to that? Curious that Daly should get so exercised. Could be that the heat to get a deal done has been cranked [sic] up under Daly and Bettman by their bosses. It will be very interesting to see what transpires as these deadlines relating to players' contractual statuses come and go. |
|
