View Single Post
11-06-2012, 05:17 PM
vadim sharifijanov
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,887
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
I don't like this analogy either. Underage interns: downright illegal, unlike anything Lindros did. Corner office & parking spot: Lindros didn't take away anything from anyone.

On the ice, yes. On the negotiation table, no. Why would you go through what unfavourable circumstances forced everyone else to go through if the same circumstances do not apply to you?

This seems to have to do with labour law and not with the structure of the NHL. Think about it: if the players are on strike their contracts remain valid even though the league is not in operation.

The NHL is not a single entity with divisions=franchises, it's a "Unincorporated Association" consisting of "Member Clubs". See NHL Constitution, page 1.

The teams are independent "Clubs"=companies. Each Member Club "holds a franchise from the League" (NHL Constitution, page 2), hence the term "franchises".

NHL Constitution:

EDIT: Another source: "The NHL is an unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty member clubs..." ( Deputy Commissioner William Daly). Link: (Page 2, under "Structure and Organization of the National Hockey League").
A joint venture, not a company.
it was an analogy, not a legal argument.

as for the other analogy, obviously it's the nature of being a professional athlete that unless you have a NTC (and sometimes even if you do), you can be moved at any time. still, four players' lives were uprooted for lindros. not the biggest deal for a super young guy like ricci, or a tweener like huffman; maybe a bigger deal for a guy like duchesne, who'd just gotten there the year before but no one likes to move every year. but to a guy like hextall, firmly entrenched on that team, been there his whole career, and whom philly probably wouldn't have given up if quebec hadn't demanded a goalie back (being that they had traded wregget that same year and rolled with soderstrom, roussel, and beauregard in eric's first year).

guys in the NHL are pros, and they don't let grudges hold over on the ice, but for example, it's my understanding that the detroit guys never forgave hasek for pulling what he pulled on cujo. what i mean is, there's reasonable (young guy getting called up, replaces someone in the lineup; that's sports, you take that in stride; similarly, GM trades for you at the deadline, someone goes the other way; out of your control) and then there's unnecessary (elite player holds out for seemingly no good reason, forces blockbuster trade; guys, some with families, move).

as for the illegal underage interns thing, i think you're taking the analogy too literally. let's say they're 18 year old interns. legal but frowned upon, possibly even against corporate policy (due to the power dynamic and the threat of a sexual harassment lawsuit). but if you are the lindros of your company, guys will look the other way because you're too valuable. seems like just because your stature puts you above the law, doesn't make taking that opportunity okay, right?

not sure what you mean in the strike comment.

re: the harvey/lindsay comment that big phil responded to: the key difference is one was for the benefit of all of the league's players. fundamentally unselfish move; both guys jeopardized their careers and almost certainly hampered their legacies (due to years not played with dynasty teams), for a greater good. lindros: 100% completely selfish. not for a second did he think of anyone but himself. the people of quebec lost their team, which almost certainly would not have happened if he'd stayed. but not his problem, right? he doesn't owe them anything.

but that's enough of this from my end. while i respect your opinion, i think we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement on what a free labour market can and should provide for. you are free to have the last word if you wish.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote