View Single Post
01-16-2013, 12:06 PM
Registered Loser
MortUWary's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 1,196
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Not seeing it.

The players could argue that the team is in breach of their contract by not allowing them to play, the team can then concede breach and suggest a remedy that the player walk awy from the remaining terms.

If the players has a problem with the direction the team is going, they have their rights to walk away from the situation.

The players and the PA would have a legit grievance if the team told them to stay home and then wouldn't let them out of their contracts if that was the choice the players made.

If the player is harmed, they have remedies available to them.

Forcing the team to play them at any level is not one of them.

This early buyout is more of a courtesy than anything. These guys are getting bought out no matter what, why embarrass the players by making them wait?
It has nothing to do with potential greivances.
The NHLPA's grievance was on the grounds that keeping a player "at home" has a direct negative impact on future earnings in the form of their next contracts. This has nothing to do with courtesy, but enabling hockey players to play hockey instead of being paid to NOT play and likely erode/diminish their skills while sitting out (feel free to insert a snarky comment here about Gomez and Redden's already diminished skills, LOL).

MortUWary is offline   Reply With Quote