NHL proposal amounts to declaration of war
View Single Post
07-14-2012, 12:04 PM
dun worry he's cool
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Originally Posted by
For you contract/capologist gurus...
If the prospects play in the AHL like Butch, Burns, O'Sullivan did in the 04-05 lockout, how does that affect their entry level deals/UFA status? Does Houston or any AHL team have to sign guys to AHL deals then? Or is this all irrelevant because the AHL would not begin either??
Clearly I paid a lot of attention to the NHL/AHL relationship in the current CBA.
Whether or not years on deals expire is something that would be determined in the new CBA. That is to say, we don't know yet because that's one of the many "to be decided" factors. If there were a full year lockout (still no reason anyone would even think that a possibility) either result could ensue. As for the last lockout, 1 year expired on all deals except for ELCs that were in their first year (I'm pretty sure that was the cutoff...).
As for the AHL, there will be a season there. They're governed by their own CBA which is wholly independent from the NHL's CBA. As for contracts to be signed, players would need to seek new contracts with AHL teams. There may be stipulations about how or if this works in the AHL CBA (I've never read it, but it's possible to have non-compete clauses and the like built in) but I couldn't tell you what they are.
Very important facts that no one ever seems to want to mention:
In no CBA is agreed to by September 15 (the day the current CBA expires, yes there still is a current CBA) nothing actually happens. Under the relevant labor laws, if a CBA expires and is not replaced
both employers and employees are required to operate under the terms of the expired CBA until it is replaced
. Literally what that means is that play will continue under the existing rules until either the owners lock players out or the players go on strike. Donald Fehr has pledged that the players are willing to start the season, if genuine (and not just a horrible media ploy) the owners and players are likely to agree to a no-stoppage clause and play this season under the expired CBA (as has happened multiple times in league history, albeit once without the no-stoppage clause which bit the owners).
If the owners lock players out (potentially could be a good short-term plan as revenues from October through December are markedly lower than revenues for the rest of the season) it starts costing them money in January. If they're confident they can secure a favorable deal in that timeframe (that seems like a big no considering the factors involved) they might be willing to lockout players until December/January. I'd put this at a relatively low probability of occurring unless the players refuse to agree to a no-strike clause on the season.
If the players were to strike, they would be unable to seek replacement employment, so they'd be unable to play in the AHL, Europe, wherever. Because of that, and the seasonal nature of player compensation, it's unlikely the players would strike prior to April. However, Fehr is most notable for engineering a player strike between the final game of the season and the playoffs in baseball. That's the point where the players may have the most negotiating room. Considering the structure of the league's deal with NBC, I'm not so certain the players would have that leverage there in this case.
Ultimately the question of "who's at fault" is better asked "who does not agree to a no-stoppage clause?"
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by squidz*