View Single Post
11-30-2012, 11:35 AM
Registered User
_Del_'s Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 3,754
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
It's not that the contracts are meaningless. It's that they're currently unenforceable while the labor dispute is ongoing. The moment a new CBA is signed (or the union gains recognition of successfully decertifying and ending the labor dispute) they become enforceable again.
If I give you an unenforceable check for a million dollars, how meaningful is the check? The contract is meaningful only with the existence of a CBA which acknowledges them. Without such a CBA the contract is meaningless. That is why the league can legally lock the players out. They could not lockout the players out (a de facto voiding of their contractual obligation) if there were a CBA which enforced them. The players would simply sue to force compliance. Similarly, if the players decertify abandoning the PA and any future CBA rights, all existing contracts remain meaningless pieces of paper. The contracts were signed under the terms of the previous CBA and only have value in that context (or under a new CBA which affirms them).
The contracts will become meaningful again under the new CBA only if the new CBA guarantees that (and I have no doubt that it will, as I said earlier).

The decertified players could sue and ask the courts to uphold the 2005 SPC's. Precedence is that the courts have ruled that pro-sport contracts are intrinsically linked to the CBA.

A new CBA doesn't need to do anything special to acknowledge the contracts.
Article 11.1 of the previous (2005) CBA specifically acknowledges existing contracts for this very reason. They are termed 1995 SPCs (contracts signed under the 1995 CBA).

In fact I'm pretty certain the last CBA said nothing about the 2004-2005 year burning off the contracts--it was the default behavior of the contract, no need to codify it in the CBA. Only need to codify the exceptions where things were changed, like the 24% rollback.
Correct. The 2005 CBA affirmed the 1995 SPCs. They had to modify the exceptions/terms of those existing SPC's explicitly to affect the salary rollback.
Which is why I said if the league/players wanted to retain that contract year instead of burning it, they would have to specifically write that accrued contract year into the new CBA. It would not happen automatically when(technically if) they acknowledge existing contracts.

Oh, how I would much rather be talking about hockey than legalese...

Last edited by _Del_: 11-30-2012 at 11:45 AM.
_Del_ is offline   Reply With Quote