View Single Post
Old
12-11-2012, 02:48 PM
  #593
Deebo
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMenace View Post
How can anything supersede something that doesn't exist? If the previous CBA is null and void, how can some parts apply but others not?
I'd wager that that the SPC states that if the active CBA between the NHL and NHLPA contradicts anything in the contract, what is in the CBA stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMenace View Post
Then why are NHL contracts referred to as "guaranteed?" The escrow fund and owners not having to pay out contracts signed under the previous CBA (yet still have the players rights retained) isn't the same thing...
You can't cut players without buying them out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMenace View Post
That's still not a guarantee of any sort, and the owners saying "Yeah, we'll pay (x)% of what we told you we'd pay you previously because we're not happy with the contracts that were handed out (even though we approved them)..." is a ****** way to do business in my opinion.
The PA agreed to the above stipulation in the CBA, they knew about it or at least their agents should have told them, complaining about it now is part of theatrics that have been going on during the negotiations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMenace View Post
I'll agree with that bolded part, but the contracts signed prior to this summer/season that were front-loaded with heavy signing bonuses weren't forced upon any team. As has been argued here before, if you can't afford the promised amount of the contract, don't sign someone to it.
The signing bonuses were paid out.

If the PA didn't want SPCs that could have been changed by future CBA negotiations, they shouldn't have agreed to that during the last round of CBA negotiations.

Deebo is offline