View Single Post
Old
08-31-2008, 12:12 PM
  #7
hillbillypriest
Registered User
 
hillbillypriest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: there there
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
For those who are wondering what the brouhaha is about - the new CBA retained all of the "defected player" terms of the old CBA, but there was a separate letter agreement which suspended those terms once a satisfactory IIHF transfer agreement was signed. The CBA and Letter Agreement are silent on what happens if that satisfactory PTA lapses.

Based on the wording of the Letter Agreement, I bet that the league loses on this one - and the "defected player" terms are not reinstated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
For those who are wondering what the brouhaha is about - the new CBA retained all of the "defected player" terms of the old CBA, but there was a separate letter agreement which suspended those terms once a satisfactory IIHF transfer agreement was signed. The CBA and Letter Agreement are silent on what happens if that satisfactory PTA lapses.

Based on the wording of the Letter Agreement, I bet that the league loses on this one - and the "defected player" terms are not reinstated.
Hi Kdb,

Thanks for providing the letter agreement.

My first reaction to this issue was to assume that the continuation of a transfer agreement would be necessary to avoid a reversion to the treatment of defected players as written in the CBA. However, it appears from my reading of the letter agreement you provided that the condition precedent for suspension of the defected player is simply that a satisfactory agreement be negotiated - once - and that having accomplished this milestone, the defected CBA provisions remain suspended even if the satisfactory agreement lapses. Is this a reasonable description of why you think the NHL should lose on this issue?

hillbillypriest is offline   Reply With Quote