View Single Post
10-27-2012, 09:14 PM
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
haseoke39's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 11,047
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
You're erring again. Whether this dispute gets resolved or not Weber gets his $13M.
Yeah, to echo other posters, if it's a signing bonus. But that's just you being tricky. I would've presumed that was paid already, anyways.

Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Well, no it's not "as good as if it didn't exist". The conditions under which the contracts could become enforceable again are not all under the unilateral control of the NHL. Portraying the situation as you're trying to do distorts the facts to create an incorrect simplification.

The most simple examples of contracts becoming enforceable being if one of the provinces ruled favorably for the players in their labor complaints. Or the more dramatic outcome if the PA were able to successfully decertify.
Well, you're right, this theoretically could get more tricky if a court decided they were going to bypass everything, call the league in violation of anti-trust or something like that. There's some uncertainty there. But put it this way: I don't know of a case where a union tried to get contracts that were signed, salary subject to an expired agreement, were found enforceable absent any agreement that mimicked the same terms. Every player's salary for the past six years has been subject to terms involving escrow and linkage to HRR. The salary of these deals was meant to be variable. I would be very surprised to see a court step in and declare that the SPC is legally enforceable just for the face value of the salary without any agreement in place that replaced the other terms of the contract. I think the legal argument would be terribly hard to make.

And this is the least likely outcome anyways. I was just trying to defend a simple way of understanding the situation that is basically accurate for purposes of what we're talking about here. Players want their contracts "honored," but for all reasonably foreseeable intents and purposes (i.e., not a court coming in with an unprecedented antitrust ruling or something), their contracts can't be honored without a CBA (or some separate agreement by the owners) that fills out their terms. I mean, crucify me, but we're all basically saying the same thing here, and I think it's a fair way to put it that the contracts aren't enforceable without a CBA, i.e., have functionally disappeared.

haseoke39 is offline