View Single Post
Old
01-24-2011, 03:24 PM
  #24
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 16,208
vCash: 500
One interesting point I'll C&P here from the main board Nabby thread - for those here not slogging through the ~2500 posts there - which might affect the applicability of the Yashin precedent to toll Nabby's contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Actually the rule about tolling is not (directly) in the CBA.

The CBA is silent on the matter of enforcing specific performance of an SPC.

In the 2000 Yashin decision, arbiter Lawrence Holden ruled that since the CBA did not cover the case, the disposition reverted to rulings made by the League during the Zeigler/Stein era which were then implicitly included in the CBA as part of the League Rules.

The wildcard here is any bargaining history during the '05 CBA negotiations. The subject of specific performance came up during the 1995 CBA negotiations - but the sides agreed to maintain the status quo. If the subject was broached again in the current CBA negotiations, even if no change was codified in the CBA, it is possible that might change the disposition in a future arbitration. If Nabby's SPC were tolled the NHLPA would surely grieve and there would be another arbitration hearing - Holden's Yashin decision would not be a binding precedent but would likely hold significant weight with the arbiter.

For those of you with too much time on your hands - I found a copy of a paper with the full text of the Yashin decision. The old link I had for it was dead - but thank you Internet Archive Wayback Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/200510260...tsinSports.pdf
In a thread on the Vancouver board Wettie made an observation which could affect the applicability of the tolling rules from the Yashin decision.

The current CBA does cover specific performance - but only for players on ELS deals, not in the general case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBA Article 9.1(d)(iii)
(iii) In the event a Player ceases to render his playing services called
for under his SPC (except as a result of injury, illness or disability)
during such period that he is in the Entry Level System, then
during such non-playing period, the Player's number of years in the
Entry Level System shall be extended for a period equal to the
remaining unfulfilled portion of his SPC.
Depending upon the bargaining history in the last CBA negotiation, an arbiter could decide that the NHL/NHLPA chose to exclude that remedy from non-ELS players - in which case tolling Nabby's SPC might not be upheld.
edit:

[Emily Litella]
Nevermind ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
That same language is in the previous 1995 CBA that was in effect when the Yashin arbitration took place.
Yup. I missed it with my quick skim when I was vetting other Wettie quotes because in the old CBA it was conjoined with a Defected Player clause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old CBA Article 9.1(c)(iii)
(iii) In the event a player becomes a defected player (as described in Section
10.2(b)(i)(A)) or, having signed a Player Contract, ceases to render his playing
services called for thereunder (except as a result of injury or illness), in each case
during such period that he is in the Entry Level System, then during such defected
or non-playing period, as the case may be, the player's number of years in the
Entry Level System shall be extended for a period equal to the remaining
unfulfilled portion of his Player Contract.
So it looks like we're back at Yashin Square One - modulo any negotiations on that point in 2005.
[/Emily Litella]


Last edited by kdb209: 01-24-2011 at 06:05 PM.
kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote