Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
11-25-2012, 02:41 PM
The Gal Pals
Join Date: Oct 2006
Originally Posted by
Unless I'm mistaken the current contracts all have the CBA as their basis, without it the contracts are void.
Examples of this basis can be seen with respect to: (and most likely a lot more.)
- No trade clauses.
- No movement clauses.
Players are completely in denial if they think decertification insures them any kind of payment whatsoever. All it can help with is putting an end to the lockout.
Not under Labour law as I understand it. Since those were signed with the use of union as intermediary, they would be void.
The endgame in decertification is to file an anti-trust suit and suing for damages for locking out the players and failing to respect their contracts. But there's really no point in decertification if once they decertify the player's contract are null and void. How can you sue for damages if the contracts are null and void? But that's one of the legal arguments that the NHL will make if the union decertifies. For the NHL, the contracts will be null and void for the exact reasons you are stating. The NHLPA will argue otherwise. I just don't think that in reality the courts would buy that argument since the contracts are term contracts that are set to expire after certain amounts of time (the term differs for each player).
The Gal Pals
View Public Profile
The Gal Pals's albums
Find More Posts by The Gal Pals