|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 3, 2005 10:46:53 GMT -5
They are NOT UFA's just because they say so. They do not have to "create" a new clause. When the CBA is signed, this clause can be brought forward to the new CBA. The respective NHL teams can THEN legally offer qualifying contracts and there goes the wishfully thinking. I don't understand why you are hoping to see a Everest from this ant hill. Both the NHL and the NHLPA have stated it can't happen and only the hyenas are yelping! Okay, maybe I do understand. Frustration, anger, disillusionment, withdrawal symptoms from a favorite past time.................jilted by another date?  I’m not sure the NHLPA agrees with your analysis, as per Doc’s link, they seem to think its all negotiable. And they have labor lawyers too… I still don’t understand how you can say that the rules of the old CBA are still in effect, but that those very same rules don’t apply to players becoming free agents. Who is picking and choosing the clauses they want to carry forward now? Are they in effect, or not? You say players can’t just become UFAs because they say so, that they have to respect the old CBA, but then you say that the old CBA rules don’t apply to players becoming UFAs. Huh? The only way that clause can be brought forward is if the players agree to it being brought forward. And that still doesn’t address the issue of whether some of these guys are UFA’s or not. The old CBA said a restricted free agent had to receive a qualifying offer from his team within a certain period of time after his contract expired, or he becomes a UFA. If that clause is “brought forward” there are a whole bunch of players who have not received an offer within the required time period, and by definition of that clause, are now UFAs. Unless they put in a “new” clause saying “except for players whose contracts expired during the lockout.” As for why I keep bringing it up – I think its important to know that the two sides are still a LONG ways off from getting a deal done, and there are still a LOT of things on the table. Those who think Goodenow and the union have already been crushed have to realize that there are still lots of ways to get the players what they want. People thought the union was crushed in 94 too. How many people will think its an owner victory if they get their cap and linkage, but if two-thirds of the league becomes unrestricted free agents every year in the process? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 3, 2005 11:50:06 GMT -5
I’m not sure the NHLPA agrees with your analysis, as per Doc’s link, they seem to think its all negotiable. I pointed that out earlier, but managed to be expertly filibustered out of that pov. Bitter tasting medicine, too.  Well, then they're just not playing fair, are they? If I had the time and energy I'd make it seem as if the deal was even much farther away, and that there were even more, nay, insurmountable, items left on the table. Bob may not be one's uncle, but he ain't no fool. Some people are just blaming him for spoiling their fun. Gary, what can we say about Gary? |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on May 3, 2005 11:58:48 GMT -5
I pointed that out earlier, but managed to be expertly filibustered out of that pov. Bitter tasting medicine, too. Well, then they're just not playing fair, are they? If I had the time and energy I'd make it seem as if the deal was even much farther away, and that there were even more, nay, insurmountable, items left on the table. Bob may not be one's uncle, but he ain't no fool. Some people are just blaming him for spoiling their fun. Gary, what can we say about Gary? Look for Goodenow to meet his comeuppance when the US Congress gets around to hockey on its steroid agenda. He will lose his arrogance posthaste. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 3, 2005 12:11:34 GMT -5
Look for Goodenow to meet his comeuppance when the US Congress gets around to hockey on its steroid agenda. He will lose his arrogance posthaste. I don't see that he's got anything to worry about. * McKenzie: Drug policy in place in NHL
TSN.ca Staff
3/22/2005
Contrary to widespread belief, the National Hockey League does have a performance enhancing drug policy that includes random testing and sanctions. It just doesn't have a new collective bargaining agreement to put the drug policy into play.
The truth is the NHL and NHL Players' Association last spring negotiated and settled on the framework for random testing for steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs with specified sanctions. And the new drug policy, with penalties, was actually put into effect for the World Cup of Hockey last fall. NHL players were randomly tested prior to and during that tournament and if any had tested positive for performance-enhancing substances, they would have faced sanctions, including suspension from that event.
That's the way it's supposed to work when the NHL resumes play, but, obviously, the lockout has put everything in the NHL on hold, including this new policy. One would like to think that whatever the NHL and NHLPA agreed to for the World Cup would weather this labour storm and be included in any new CBA, and that is the intention of both sides, but it remains to be seen. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 3, 2005 17:20:51 GMT -5
More CBA talk? No wonder I'm cranky!
I’m not sure the NHLPA agrees with your analysis, as per Doc’s link, they seem to think its all negotiable.
Who is "they"? The agents? The NHLPA? BC, your moving this discusssion all over the place. The thread and Doc's link of the Sun article IMPLIED that some agents "claim" that the have a UFA loophole. That was the focus of the discussion.
Back to your statement........
Where exactly does the NHLPA disagree with my analysis pertaining to the agents claim? Where exactly did anybody from the NHLPA say that they are free agents and the CBA or the laws governing them does not apply? It's the AGENTS who are creating all this furor by their little hyena tricks. If you read the Sun article, it quotes AGENTS, not the NHLPA or NHL.
Read this closly.........by the agent.
"If no agreement is reached in the next month, this retention rights issue will likely be a very major topic in the negotiations."
Does it say that they ARE free agents? Nope, he says that it could become a major "topic" in negotiations. Who is negotiating? The agents? NO! The agents are just trying to be a thorn in the side!
What did the NHLPA say? Did you read the link that I provided on the same subject?
"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.
Did the UNIONS own man say that the agents had a case? NO! Did he say that they are free agents? NO! Did he even REMOTELY hint that the agents had a case? NO! If the agents were anywhere NEAR right, the NHLPA would be all over it like a hungry monkey on a banana.
The entire STUPID ARTICLE by the Sun starts by a "could be" and "might be" and adds "may be" for good measure. Nothing more then sensational journalism to sell 10 more papers. I guess that we are so desperate for hockey discussions that we land up with 64 replies to sensational journalism.
I still don’t understand how you can say that the rules of the old CBA are still in effect, but that those very same rules don’t apply to players becoming free agents. Who is picking and choosing the clauses they want to carry forward now? Are they in effect, or not? You say players can’t just become UFAs because they say so, that they have to respect the old CBA, but then you say that the old CBA rules don’t apply to players becoming UFAs. Huh?
Okay......one more time.
You work in a unionized factory and your CBA is up. Does the owner of the factory just drop everybodies wages to minimum wage and declare all the the benefits are over? He CAN'T because the LAW states that the terms and conditions of the old CBA still applies until a new CBA. Imagine the chaos that could/would be created every time a CBA had expired. Dats why dem created dem laws partner!
As for the UFA thingy......
The terms of the CBA was that a player becomes a UFA IF and only IF the team willingly did NOT submit a qualifying offer. Since the work stoppage does not allow the team to submit a qualifying offer, how can the team fulfill their part of the collective agreement? They CAN'T. Did the union disagree with the NHL? NO! But they are enjoying the annoyance the hyenas created.
As for the clauses....
BOTH parties must agree to bring forward any clauses that are part of the old CBA. After all, they have to sign the damn CBA. As a side note, normaly, neither collective wants to completely scrap the old CBA and start from scratch. Otherwise deals would take decades to accomplish and everything fought for and gained would have to be refought for ad nauseum.
As for the long way off......
Why the hell do you think that I change from HabsAddict to Mr. CRANKY? They ARE a long way off......but they can be as close as next week IF they want to.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 3, 2005 18:25:43 GMT -5
Now that's what I call quite cranky!
We'll just have to see about those agents, though...
Is Pat Brisson just creating a frisson for the papparazzi, by strongly suggesting that young "Bing-Bang" Crosby will bypass the drafty NHL and go Continental?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheCaper on May 3, 2005 18:32:36 GMT -5
Last summer, a number of Habs reached UFA status. Gainey expressed interest in only one of those. As of today, our UFA list is basically - Alex Kovalev.
If July 1st rolls around, and we have no agreement, it is highly plausible that Evil Bob will say:
“Based upon the agreements we made when we negotiated our last CBA, we believe that the following players have now reached UFA status:”<br>
Jose Theodore
Andre Markov, Mike Komisarek, Francis Bouillon
Saku Koivu, Mike Ribeiro, Michael Ryder, Jan Bulis
Jason Ward, Thomas Plekanec, Marcel Hossa, Mark Flood
JF Jr. and Pat Quinn would love a mess like this. But what can George Gillett do about it? He can’t take Evil Bob to court. He can continue supporting the lockout, but that won’t change Evil Bob’s mind. What exactly can the owners do about it?
Accept it?
Make concessions to avoid it?
Declare impasse and implement their own CBA?
Continue the lockout until 2010?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 3, 2005 20:50:35 GMT -5
Now that's what I call quite cranky! We'll just have to see about those agents, though... Is Pat Brisson just creating a frisson for the papparazzi, by strongly suggesting that young "Bing-Bang" Crosby will bypass the drafty NHL and go Continental? He may just do that...... ...however...... ....if the NHL holds a draft, he will still be drafted by the evil slave meisters. On de oder han......isn't there a time limit or conditions that will allow him to NOT to sign with the master not of his own choosing?.......me old.......me forget. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 3, 2005 20:58:42 GMT -5
Last summer, a number of Habs reached UFA status. Gainey expressed interest in only one of those. As of today, our UFA list is basically - Alex Kovalev. If July 1st rolls around, and we have no agreement, it is highly plausible that Evil Bob will say: “Based upon the agreements we made when we negotiated our last CBA, we believe that the following players have now reached UFA status:”<br> Jose Theodore Andre Markov, Mike Komisarek, Francis Bouillon Saku Koivu, Mike Ribeiro, Michael Ryder, Jan Bulis Jason Ward, Thomas Plekanec, Marcel Hossa, Mark Flood JF Jr. and Pat Quinn would love a mess like this. But what can George Gillett do about it? He can’t take Evil Bob to court. He can continue supporting the lockout, but that won’t change Evil Bob’s mind. What exactly can the owners do about it? Accept it? Make concessions to avoid it? Declare impasse and implement their own CBA? Continue the lockout until 2010? Evil Bob does not have the voice of God..........he squaks like every other earthling and he can not rewrite the labor laws....never mind! OKAY..............I GIVE UP! YES, YES, everybody can do what they want. It's the WWF of negotiations! KAPOW! SLAM! BOING! CRUNCH!..........and the best man takes home the Belt of Power! |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 3, 2005 21:04:26 GMT -5
The Über-Crank! |
|
|
|
Post by TheCaper on May 3, 2005 22:21:36 GMT -5
Evil Bob does not have the voice of God..........he squaks like every other earthling and he can not rewrite the labor laws....never mind! OKAY..............I GIVE UP! YES, YES, everybody can do what they want. It's the WWF of negotiations! KAPOW! SLAM! BOING! CRUNCH!..........and the best man takes home the Belt of Power! But Evil Bob isn’t like every other earthling. For one, he’s frickn evil, and for another, he has a voice at the bargaining table. So it’s July 2 and they’re all slugging back a few around some conference table in Toronto. Next topic: How should we word the transition language in the new CBA? The NHL presents a draft document of what they think the transition language should say. Evil Bob counters with his own version. Now you just know that Evil Bob is going to throw a wrench into the mix and take the stance that all these players should be UFAs under the new agreement. I dunno, does Evil Bob have to re-write labor laws to take such a bargaining stance? It doesn’t seem to me that it’s clear-cut bad faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 3, 2005 22:45:15 GMT -5
But Evil Bob isn’t like every other earthling. For one, he’s frickn evil, and for another, he has a voice at the bargaining table. So it’s July 2 and they’re all slugging back a few around some conference table in Toronto. Next topic: How should we word the transition language in the new CBA? The NHL presents a draft document of what they think the transition language should say. Evil Bob counters with his own version. Now you just know that Evil Bob is going to throw a wrench into the mix and take the stance that all these players should be UFAs under the new agreement. I dunno, does Evil Bob have to re-write labor laws to take such a bargaining stance? It doesn’t seem to me that it’s clear-cut bad faith. It's a negotiation between TWO parties (collectives). Evil Bob can take any stance he wants. He can declare that all his players are transvestites and demand the next CBA must have an allowance for sex change operations. If the NHL collective agrees to those terms in the new CBA, so be it. If not, Domi has to put on his red lipstick and his low cut, strapless hot pink dress and beg for said monies up and down Young Street. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 4, 2005 9:21:08 GMT -5
Who is "they"? The agents? The NHLPA? BC, your moving this discusssion all over the place. The thread and Doc's link of the Sun article IMPLIED that some agents "claim" that the have a UFA loophole. That was the focus of the discussion.
Come on now, you know better than that. If some agents think they have a loophole, is the NHLPA going to sit back and say, “naw, that wouldn’t be nice to those poor NHL owners – lets not explore and exploit that option.” Whats good for the agents is good for the NHLPA, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Evil Bob was using these agents as his picket force in these battles. “Hey, why don’t you let slip that you think your player should be an UFA – then we’ll bring it up at the next negotiations…”
Back to your statement........
Where exactly does the NHLPA disagree with my analysis pertaining to the agents claim? Where exactly did anybody from the NHLPA say that they are free agents and the CBA or the laws governing them does not apply? It's the AGENTS who are creating all this furor by their little hyena tricks. If you read the Sun article, it quotes AGENTS, not the NHLPA or NHL.
Read this closly.........by the agent.
"If no agreement is reached in the next month, this retention rights issue will likely be a very major topic in the negotiations."
Does it say that they ARE free agents? Nope, he says that it could become a major "topic" in negotiations. Who is negotiating? The agents? NO! The agents are just trying to be a thorn in the side!
What did the NHLPA say? Did you read the link that I provided on the same subject?
"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.
Did the UNIONS own man say that the agents had a case? NO! Did he say that they are free agents? NO! Did he even REMOTELY hint that the agents had a case? NO! If the agents were anywhere NEAR right, the NHLPA would be all over it like a hungry monkey on a banana.
They didn’t say they were wrong, either. All they said was that they were going to bring this up at the negotiating table. As leverage, no doubt. “If you don’t want these guys to be UFAs, you had better offer us something in return.” And once again you are assuming that agents and the NHLPA are two separate entities. How many times have we heard a player say “I don’t know much about the contract negotiations, I let my agent handle this?” Personally, I am not surprised that individual players know nothing about the CBA discussion. But I’d bet big money their agents do. The players will vote, think, and say pretty much anything their agents tell them to. Once the CBA is signed, who do you think the first call a player makes will be to? It’ll be to his agent, and the first question he’ll ask is “how does this affect me?”
Agents are the NHLPA.
The entire STUPID ARTICLE by the Sun starts by a "could be" and "might be" and adds "may be" for good measure. Nothing more then sensational journalism to sell 10 more papers. I guess that we are so desperate for hockey discussions that we land up with 64 replies to sensational journalism.
The whole CBA discussion is “could be, might be, may be.” Nothing new there.
Okay......one more time.
You work in a unionized factory and your CBA is up. Does the owner of the factory just drop everybodies wages to minimum wage and declare all the the benefits are over? He CAN'T because the LAW states that the terms and conditions of the old CBA still applies until a new CBA. Imagine the chaos that could/would be created every time a CBA had expired. Dats why dem created dem laws partner!
As for the UFA thingy......
The terms of the CBA was that a player becomes a UFA IF and only IF the team willingly did NOT submit a qualifying offer. Since the work stoppage does not allow the team to submit a qualifying offer, how can the team fulfill their part of the collective agreement? They CAN'T. Did the union disagree with the NHL? NO! But they are enjoying the annoyance the hyenas created.
There is no “willingly” clause in the CBA. Either you make the offer, or you don’t. Since they didn’t, these guys become UFAs. The work stoppage does not allow a player to willingly step on the ice and collect a paycheck, now does it? His contract isn’t put on hold, to be restarted once the CBA is signed. If his contract says three years, and the lockout lasts three years, his contract is over, even though he never got a dime from it. Even if he quits the union, he still can’t get paid until the owners decide to end the lockout and bring in replacement players. “Willingness” has nothing to do with it.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the law says the terms of the CBA are in place, just not all the terms.
As for the clauses....
BOTH parties must agree to bring forward any clauses that are part of the old CBA. After all, they have to sign the damn CBA. As a side note, normaly, neither collective wants to completely scrap the old CBA and start from scratch. Otherwise deals would take decades to accomplish and everything fought for and gained would have to be refought for ad nauseum.
As for the long way off......
Why the hell do you think that I change from HabsAddict to Mr. CRANKY? They ARE a long way off......but they can be as close as next week IF they want to.
If they had wanted to, they could have ended this lockout 8 months ago. I agree that “normally” neither side wants to scrap the entire CBA and start from scratch. But these are not normal times, and yes, everything that has been fought for and gained looks like it will have to be refought for and regained. Hence the “retention rights are to be negotiated” comments from BOTH the agents AND the NHLPA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 4, 2005 9:51:42 GMT -5
There is no “willingly” clause in the CBA. Either you make the offer, or you don’t. Since they didn’t, these guys become UFAs. The work stoppage does not allow a player to willingly step on the ice and collect a paycheck, now does it? His contract isn’t put on hold, to be restarted once the CBA is signed. If his contract says three years, and the lockout lasts three years, his contract is over, even though he never got a dime from it. Even if he quits the union, he still can’t get paid until the owners decide to end the lockout and bring in replacement players. “Willingness” has nothing to do with it.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the law says the terms of the CBA are in place, just not all the terms. ~~ You are confusing terms and conditions of the collective agreement with a normal contract. As I said several times, terms and conditions of a collective agreement do NOT disappear, they are still in effect until a new collective agreement is in place. That's the LAW. Once again, collective agreements DO NOT BEHAVE like normal contracts. They are defined and subject to a whole lot of different (labor) LAWS. Any terms and conditions (within the law) of a existing (still in effect) collective agreement can be RENEGOTIATED but they can NOT be arbitrarily redefined or terms SELECTIVLY APPLIED by either collective. (Daly's cry of "illigal" and he's right.) Any term or conditions of a collective agreement can be renegotiated during or at the end of the term of a collective agreement and has to agreed on by both parties. (Thus the generic statement by the NHLPA and their hope that the uninformed public will take it to mean more then it does.  ) “willingly” has a slightly different meaning/definition then the way you use it here. If the NHL or the NHLPA could not fulfill a term of the collective agreements because of another action impeding it (lockout/strike), then the party is in NOT in breach of the collective agreements. Example: A team must pay the player his 6 million a year as per the normal contract. The team could not pay the player BECAUSE there is a lockout/strike. The team has NOT "willingly" or deliberately breached the normal contract or the collective agreement. Yes, the NHLPA and their hyenas is trying to make hay with whatever grass clippings it has. This is an internet/media hailstorm. If there ANY seriousness to it, the NHLPA or the NHL would have taken it to the NLRB so fast they would have left vapour trails. Anywho......isn't it SAD that we are discussing the minutia of a collective agreement rather then torching our nuts over the latest machination of our beloved team? Sad indeed... 
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 4, 2005 10:19:02 GMT -5
Thanks, BC, for bucking up my slightly faltering faith in Evil Bob.
*
NHL = No Hockey League
CBA = Cannot Be Agreed
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 4, 2005 11:06:21 GMT -5
New rosters?
I've never been as bland about my heros, les glorieux, as I am today.
Sure I admire Koivu's courage, Ryders work ethic, Ribeiros determination and Begins drive, but they don't hold the adulation I lavished on former Montreal teams.
The Keg is not the Forum, a playoff appearance every two years is not five cups in a row, overstuffed millionaires are not local boys on a float on St. Catherine St.
I don't feel bad if any of the players are traded for Nash, Thornton or or anyone who would make the team better.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 4, 2005 15:16:28 GMT -5
Well now, I was just surfing around, as I am wont to do from time to time, when my beady little eyes spotted this:
The NHL does not have a continuation clause in their collective agreement. It has expired. There is no collective agreement in place between the NHL & NHLPA...
I cannot vouch for the veracity of the above, but for argument's sake let us assume it to be true.
If there indeed was no continuation clause negotiated into the previous CBA, then it's wide open spaces—until player rights are renegotiated, signed, sealed, and delivered in the form of a new CBA.
This would explain the NHL's recent sense of urgency around getting a deal done ASAP, Jeremy Jacobs' and Bill Daly's aneuristic outbursts, and Evil Bob's calm paper shuffling.
Now, does anyone know for a fact whether or not there was a continuation clause included in the old CBA?
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 25, 2005 18:12:32 GMT -5
...Throughout negotiations with the union, the league, through vice president Bill Daly, has maintained that those draftees and veterans whose contracts expire June 30 would have their standing determined by a new collective bargaining agreement whenever one is reached. The Wild front office is following that direction.
But the International Management Group, whose agents represent a who's who of NHL stars, including Sergei Fedorov, Joe Thornton and Mats Sundin, is battling to win binding unrestricted free agency for those players regardless of whether a new deal is struck.
The agency last week sent a letter to the league stating its intention to challenge any grandfathering of retention rights in court in the coming weeks to forge unprecedented freedoms for hundreds of players.
J.P. Barry, a Calgary-based agent and co-managing director of IMG Hockey, said the league picked the fight by using the lockout to drain a year of service time from unpaid players while allowing teams to retain their rights as if their 2004-05 contracts were honored.
"Those things are inconsistent, and we want to look further into it to see what action would be appropriate," Barry said Friday. "We're on totally uncharted ground."
IMG has retained as lead attorney James A. Quinn, a senior partner in the influential New York antitrust law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges.
Quinn was on the legal team that represented former New York Jets running back Freeman McNeil, who successfully sued the NFL in 1992 for free agency in U.S. district court in Minneapolis. That landmark case ushered in the era of unrestricted free agency in the NFL.
A similar lawsuit against the NHL likely would be filed in the United States because the North American league is headquartered in Manhattan.
"The thrust simply is that in order for clubs to retain their draft picks or the contractual rights of some of their players, they're going to have to make offers to them or they're going to be free agents," Quinn said.
If a judge agrees with IMG's arguments, these freedom fighters would join a crowded and complicated job market, especially if the lockout drags through the summer.
Consider that about 250 NHL veterans went unsigned before the lockout began. What's more, only 280 players in a league with 700 roster spots are under contract for 2005-06. (The Wild have 10 players signed for 2005-06.) NHL teams are forbidden from negotiating with players during the lockout. Any maverick owner who tries to poach a newly minted free agent from a colleague at this pivotal point in the bargaining process might as well toss a grenade under the conference table.- www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/11721256.htm
|
|
|
|
Post by arctic on May 25, 2005 19:47:23 GMT -5
Those poor deluded players and agents. What if they get what they wish for? Imagine. Everyone would be a free agent and then the fun would begin. All those overpaid klutzes with freshly voided contracts would be sent out in the North Atlantic on ice floes, never to be seen again in NHL territory. All those good players with fat contracts would have to start all over again at a lower salary level than their last contracts called for. So what would it mean for the teams? A feeding frenzy on the cheap. The Canadiens could actually sign a couple of affordable superstars. Go for it, you morons on hockey blades!
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 25, 2005 20:35:00 GMT -5
Seems to me there are 2 possible scenarios:
1- You consider that the year that just past is a valid contract year: In which case, unsigned players become free agents as per the terms of the collective agreement that, in absence of a new one, remains in effect as per Cranky.
2- You consider that the year that just past is not a valid contract year because players did not play (the Yashin precedent): In that case, contracts are carried over for an extra year.
Can't have it both ways. I think it's gonna be #2 with the 24% cut applied.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 25, 2005 21:13:56 GMT -5
Seems to me there are 2 possible scenarios: 1- You consider that the year that just past is a valid contract year: In which case, unsigned players become free agents. 2- You consider that the year that just past is not a valid contract year because players did not play (the Yashin precedent): In that case, contracts are carried over for an extra year. Can't have it both ways. I think it's gonna be #2 with the 24% cut applied. Though #1 would be really interesting... Option #2 won't work. The NHL wiped out the 2004-05 contracts by locking out the players and then cancelling the season. The players did not deny their services by striking. The reason the players did not play was because of actions taken by the NHL, not by them. The NHL in effect cancelled the contracts. Indeed, they can't have it both ways. And they won't. There are labour laws that won't allow that sort of hokey-pokey. Even if the NHL could pull off such a sleight of hand, do the Habs want to pay José Théodore the $6M he was owed for the 2004-05 season, in the 2005-06 season? Under a new CBA? And a salary cap? I think not. IMO, the following scenario still seems the most likely: 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. Of course, a new CBA signed between now and July 1 would likely alter things. Anyone care to make book on that happening? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 26, 2005 1:21:15 GMT -5
This is Alice in Wonderland stuff...... Do you know what this is all about? The hyenas lost a year worth of 5% organ collection. A lockout or a strike are seen as LEGAL actions and seen as the same vis-a-vis the labour regulations/laws that cover collective agreements. In other words, the players can't just pick up their pajamas and say goodbye just because there was a lockout. Neither can the owners fire everybody because there was a strike. In the article we see "NHL teams are forbidden from negotiating with players during the lockout."To repeat the often repeated fact, the NHL teams could NOT offer a contract to the players while negotiating a collective agreement as a multi-employer bargaining collective. It's ILLIGAL! In fact, next time I'm in church, I will stand up with beer in hand and yell out "the NHL is a multi-employer bargaining collective that is bargaining with an employee collective and until such time that a collective agreement is reached, no team can offer a contract." Will the preacher bless me? Will they buy me drinks for that morsel of knowledge? Will they haul me away in a straight jacket? Alice in NHLPA land.... "The thrust simply is that in order for clubs to retain their draft picks or the contractual rights of some of their players, they're going to have to make offers to them or they're going to be free agents," Quinn said.
"But we can't offer them a contract because it's against the labour laws governing CBA's" said Alice.
"Yes we know that but where is the contract" said the Rabbit.
"But how can a contract be legal if it's done illegally" said Alice.
"The contracts, the contracts, show us the contracts" said the Rabbit.The NHLPA and the NHL maintain that the status will be determined by the new collective bargaining agreement. This is NORMAL state of affairs. Heck, it's downright stupid to say anything but that. After all, what the hell are they doing if not negotiating? Scratching each others b*tt? Duhh...don't answer that! So the hyenas want to challenge that in the vain hope of gaining trillions for their mercenaries. How are they going to do that if the players union negotiates that into the CBA? After all, if the players sign on the doted line, they can't go back and change something arbitrarily. She don't work that way. The NHLPA would love to see ALL their members free to negotiate as much as possible from the stupid little owners. However, the NHL will not just throw out the draft and all the retention rights just because it suits the NHLPA and their hyenas. The NHL will change all the rules too. In fact, why bother having a CBA at all and not declare an impasse? Why bother with fixed contracts? If you do not perform, cya! The entire thing collapses to a "free market" free for all. If that's the case, why bother with the union? Why even bother with declaring an impasse? The owners simply open their doors for training camp and off we go. In fact, they can create their own CBA and shove it in front of any player who wants sign. The entire public thong pulling contest is just so much posturing. Or should I say posing? On the one cheek, you have the NHL who would likes structure and stability including fixing salaries to revenues. On the other cheek, the NHLPA would love to have no retention rights, no draft, no cap, no restriction of any kind on their players AND bind the owners to everything possible, including their organs. On the third cheek, we have the hyenas who went without their 5% organ collection for a year. Dammit, all those cheeks deserve a swift kick!. In the end, the owners wont be able to convert the mercenaries to slave labour and the mercenaries wont be able to fleece the owners. What they will BOTH be able to do......is fleece the stupid fans.  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 26, 2005 3:57:30 GMT -5
Seems to me there are 2 possible scenarios: 1- You consider that the year that just past is a valid contract year: In which case, unsigned players become free agents as per the terms of the collective agreement that, in absence of a new one, remains in effect as per Cranky. 2- You consider that the year that just past is not a valid contract year because players did not play (the Yashin precedent): In that case, contracts are carried over for an extra year. Can't have it both ways. I think it's gonna be #2 with the 24% cut applied. As the Titanic sinks; 1. Arrange the deck chairs in three lines facing port -or- 2. Arrange the deck chairs in two lines facing starboard. The new CBA will take care of the details. Bargain for money, restrictions, links to profits, early free agency, rookie caps, draft restrictions. A little give here and some take there. Get err done! Each clause that favors the players will be countered by a lowering of the cap, and restrictions that favor the owners will result in their giving back some money. I am optimistic that eventually Goodenows grandson and Bettmans grandson will hammer out a deal. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 26, 2005 7:58:32 GMT -5
A lockout or a strike are seen as LEGAL actions and seen as the same vis-a-vis the labour regulations/laws that cover collective agreements. In other words, the players can't just pick up their pajamas and say goodbye just because there was a lockout. Neither can the owners fire everybody because there was a strike. It sounds as if you are confusing two different types of contracts: 1- an open-ended contract of indefinite length, like someone working for your company would have. If I work for you, I haven't signed on for a couple of years, I have signed on for life (however long my life with the company turns out to be). But I am free to leave at any time, lockout or strike notwithstanding, union be damned—and you can (within certain parameters and under certain conditions) dismiss me at any time. and 2 - a finite contract of fixed length, like NHL players have. If a player works for an NHL team, he has signed for a specific duration, not for an indefinite period, not for life. If he has signed from the 2000-01 season to the end of the 2004-05 season, his contract obviously expires after the 2004-05 season. What happens then is determined by the terms of the CBA. If there is no CBA... J.P. Barry, a Calgary-based agent and co-managing director of IMG Hockey, said the league picked the fight by using the lockout to drain a year of service time from unpaid players while allowing teams to retain their rights as if their 2004-05 contracts were honored.
"Those things are inconsistent, and we want to look further into it to see what action would be appropriate," Barry said Friday. "We're on totally uncharted ground."See you in court. |
|
|
|
Post by arctic on May 26, 2005 9:21:32 GMT -5
Would the Moderators please hit the pause button long enough to reply to my point?
If there's a free-for-all with all contracts voided and all players free agents, it wouldn't be paradise for them. The owners now have the benefit of hindsight. They can plainly see they way overpaid in the past. They have already been clobbered by the disappearing TV deals. Would you expect them pay salaries averaging $1.8 million? I wouldn't. Even without a cap, no player--I repeat, NO PLAYER--should be confident of of being able to sign a deal for $5 million. Even Jaromir Jagr would be lucky to get it. Bobby Holik would be lucky to get $3.5 million. Patrice Brisebois would be lucky to get $1 million. And so it goes. Total free agency would a catastrophe for Bob Goodenow, the NHLPA, and the agents.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 26, 2005 9:30:56 GMT -5
Barring a fixed pay scale, players' services will continue to be bid for by the owners—there are/will be more players on the market, but there also will be more teams bidding because more teams will have more roster positions open. All it takes is one high-roller to set the karmic wheel in motion. Same as it ever was.
Play for less? Most likely, but not so little as to send anyone to the soup line. IMO, the players' short-term "greed" has been vastly overplayed in this dispute. Else the media would have been full of sound-bites and ink calling for Evil Bob's head. It just ain't so. 100% consenus? There never is. But it's awfully quiet out there. The only sound to hear is the nattering of the Nabob—Mr Deadline himself—and for good reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by arctic on May 26, 2005 9:52:49 GMT -5
A cap isn't necessary if owners and general managers realize it's possible to have a contending team without flinging the balance between profits and losses to the winds. Lou Lamoriello was able to work it out but even he must have felt some pressure. I understand he made at least a token effort to keep Bobby Holik.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 26, 2005 12:04:43 GMT -5
Would the Moderators please hit the pause button long enough to reply to my point? If there's a free-for-all with all contracts voided and all players free agents, it wouldn't be paradise for them. The owners now have the benefit of hindsight. They can plainly see they way overpaid in the past. They have already been clobbered by the disappearing TV deals. Would you expect them pay salaries averaging $1.8 million? I wouldn't. Even without a cap, no player--I repeat, NO PLAYER--should be confident of of being able to sign a deal for $5 million. Even Jaromir Jagr would be lucky to get it. Bobby Holik would be lucky to get $3.5 million. Patrice Brisebois would be lucky to get $1 million. And so it goes. Total free agency would a catastrophe for Bob Goodenow, the NHLPA, and the agents. Lets assume a $40 million cap, just for fun. Who here wouldn’t give Jarome Iginla $7 million of that? Koivu and Zednik for Iginla? Or, how about Chris Pronger? Would you trade Patrice Brisebois ($4.5 million) and Craig Rivet ($3.5 million) for Pronger? How much would you bid to get 20 year old Rick Nash, ultra-power forward in the making, already with a 40 goal season under his belt, on an expansion team with no supporting cast, in this the watered-down-defense first NHL? The stars are going to get their money. Don’t you worry about them. The guys who are going to get hammered are the middle-class and lower-class citizens of the NHL. Just like real life. A cap isn't necessary if owners and general managers realize it's possible to have a contending team without flinging the balance between profits and losses to the winds. Lou Lamoriello was able to work it out but even he must have felt some pressure. I understand he made at least a token effort to keep Bobby Holik. They could have realized that 5-10 years ago. Apparently they aren't quite bright enough, and need an idiot-proof system to save them from themselves... |
|
|
|
Post by arctic on May 26, 2005 12:30:19 GMT -5
Barring a fixed pay scale, players' services will continue to be bid for by the owners—there are/will be more players on the market, but there also will be more teams bidding because more teams will have more roster positions open. All it takes is one high-roller to set the karmic wheel in motion. Same as it ever was. Play for less? Most likely, but not so little as to send anyone to the soup line. IMO, the players' short-term "greed" has been vastly overplayed in this dispute. Else the media would have been full of sound-bites and ink calling for Evil Bob's head. It just ain't so. 100% consenus? There never is. But it's awfully quiet out there. The only sound to hear is the nattering of the Nabob—Mr Deadline himself—and for good reasons. With salaries at the level of the recently expired CBA, finishing as high as qualifying for the conference finals might not be enough to assure a profit for many teams. I think eventually pebbles if not boulders would stop the karmic wheel. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 26, 2005 12:45:47 GMT -5
They could have realized that 5-10 years ago. Apparently they aren't quite bright enough, and need an idiot-proof system to save them from themselves... I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that some idiot will figure that the system doesn't apply to him, and that other idiots will follow him... |
|
Well, then they're just not playing fair, are they?
)
