View Single Post
03-24-2005, 10:42 AM
fan mao rong
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: port royal , pa
Posts: 968
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MojoJojo
Thats only assuming that current contracts will expire during the lockout. Legally, this is by no means clear. The current labor situation is a lockout, not a strike, which is an important distintction when it comes to this issue. If a player was promised a certain amount of money to play for a season, is ready and willing to play, but the owner prevents him from playing and does not pay him as promised, how can the owner claim the terms of the contract have been honored? There may be a provision for this in the new CBA, but that will have to be negotiatied like everything else, because I dont see such a move surviving the volley of court cases that will undoubtedly follow.

IF that is the case, then obviously it is happy news for the Flyers that we may not be stuck with the rest of Tony Amonte, Jeremy Roenick, John Leclair, and Brian Burke's salaries.
More of the pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo prevalent on here. Yes, it is true it's up for negotiation at some point. The Union can desire that the years on the contracts be honored, they can demand that. They can also demand back pay for the time locked out. That's does not mean they will get either. A lock out is legal. Contracts are dated and normally once that date is past it is expired. The Union can dispute this and demand otherwise, but the league must agree for it to take effect. I predict the league goes to non-NHLPA replacements this upcoming season and the contracts continue to expire, maybe , if the Union continues it's stance, until all the contracts expire. They will have been forced into nothing, so where is their standing to sue? The NLRB can not stop a business from using replacements (see the road to impasse section on the CBC website for more information).

fan mao rong is offline