The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
11.4 Signing Deadline for Group 2 Free Agent. An SPC for a Group 2 Free Agent
will be rejected and will be null and void ab initio (i.e., the Player's Free Agency and
contractual status shall revert to the status he held prior to signing his SPC), if it is not
signed and filed with Central Registry by 5:00 p.m. New York time on December 1 in the
then current NHL Season.
Although, if Weber filed a grievance, it might be up to an arbiter whether that holds in the case of an Offer Sheet SPC.
Also, if signed after a lockout, it could also depend on what any new CBA (and it's transition rules) state.
An interesting case is what happens if Weber signs before a Lockout (and pockets his first $13M) and the Lockout extends past next July 1, when his next $13M signing bonus would be due - it's uncertain if/when that bonus would be paid (although again, that could ultimately be subject to whatever the NHL/NHLPA agree to in the next CBA).
Although, if Weber filed a grievance, it might be up to an arbiter whether that holds in the case of an Offer Sheet SPC.
Also, if signed after a lockout, it could also depend on what any new CBA (and it's transition rules) state.
An interesting case is what happens if Weber signs before a Lockout (and pockets his first $13M) and the Lockout extends past next July 1, when his next $13M signing bonus would be due - it's uncertain if/when that bonus would be paid (although again, that could ultimately be subject to whatever the NHL/NHLPA agree to in the next CBA).
Thanks.
My best guess is that no one is paid a single penny during the lockout. I can't see Bettman allowing that under any condition. Upon the completion/acceptance of a new CBA, he'd probably get his bonus on the first day of business (figuratively).
My best guess is that no one is paid a single penny during the lockout. I can't see Bettman allowing that under any condition. Upon the completion/acceptance of a new CBA, he'd probably get his bonus on the first day of business (figuratively).
I would guess that if Weber signed after 9/15 (but before 12/1 to avoid that deadline issue), he could file a grievance to force the Preds to sign and pay the bonus and the League to register the contract.
This is different from the case of the League ordering teams to not sign any new contracts during the Lockout.
The terms of the old CBA (including the dispute resolution procedures) would still be considered to be in force - and the League would not have a valid reason under the CBA to reject the SPC nor the Preds to refuse to pay.
Of course, the NHL could potentially delay this indefinitely on procedural grounds if there is no one currently assigned the position of Impartial Arbitrator (I don't believe there is) or they just dismiss him before the Sept 1 deadline to do so for the upcoming season.
Are you forgetting that he signed this deal to begin with?
That's a silly question. The point now is his demand for a NTC. My opinion, as long as it is allowed for in the current CBA ( the one that the contract falls under), you give him a NTC with the stipulation that it is only valid during a team-opted trade negotiation. I understand this could still be problematic for NSH if Shea's play declines, but that's a reality every team faces with any player who has a NTC.
That's a silly question. The point now is his demand for a NTC. My opinion, as long as it is allowed for in the current CBA ( the one that the contract falls under), you give him a NTC with the stipulation that it is only valid during a team-opted trade negotiation. I understand this could still be problematic for NSH if Shea's play declines, but that's a reality every team faces with any player who has a NTC.
Why exactly would the team give that type of control to a player who forced their hand by signing an offer sheet? If he wanted a NTC, then he should have negotiated one in his contract rather than sign an offer sheet that included the possibility of not having a NTC/NMC.
That's a silly question. The point now is his demand for a NTC. My opinion, as long as it is allowed for in the current CBA ( the one that the contract falls under), you give him a NTC with the stipulation that it is only valid during a team-opted trade negotiation. I understand this could still be problematic for NSH if Shea's play declines, but that's a reality every team faces with any player who has a NTC.
Why give him any control at all? Even if it's not likely to happen, creating any opportunity for Weber to nix a deal that's in the best interests of Nashville is an unnecessary shooting of yourself in the face.
Weber did what was in his best interests in signing the offer-sheet. Now it's Nashville's turn by laughing all the way to every trade deadline with a franchise player who lacks a NTC/NMC. All's fair.
If Weber doesn't like it, give back the money and retire.
I agree and believe all good faith in regards to Nashville giving this guy more went out the window the minute he signed an offer sheet. If he wanted a NTC, he should have negotiated with Nashville, not Philly.
As has been mentioned before, if Weber doesn't sign his deal with Nashville that would likely render him as a contracted player who is AWOL. Would this allow Nashville to claw back some of his bonus?
As has been mentioned before, if Weber doesn't sign his deal with Nashville that would likely render him as a contracted player who is AWOL. Would this allow Nashville to claw back some of his bonus?
AFIK, NSH hasn't paid him anything yet because he still hasn't signed the contract. There's no bonus money to claw back, because they haven't paid any out.
AFIK, NSH hasn't paid him anything yet because he still hasn't signed the contract. There's no bonus money to claw back, because they haven't paid any out.
could they not retroactively claw the bonus money back if he does not report? I would imagine if he holds out he would be putting some of his bonus at risk. There's no way Weber can hold out and not have some sort of punitive action taken.
Anyone care to give a view of how the term "formalize" a SPC means in NA (whatever law is applicable(?)).
In Sweden I think you would have alot of room to argue that an agreement actually was in place, it would come down to if the terms in the offer sheet was complete enough, and I would guess that they would be. IE, you basically conclude that formalize indicates that there is an agreement already but that the parties want to put it in writing. Hence an agreement based on the offer sheet would be deemed valid, as long as it was not so incomplete that it couldn't be put in force.
But this is definitely an area in which Swedish (/German) law could differ alot from Anglosaxian Law.
The Flyers offer sheet does have a NTC/NMC in it. It's just a term that does not need to be matched according to the CBA.
So he signed and offer sheet with a NMC, but now isn't gauranteed one because Nashville matched - it's not a term that has to be matched.
I just don't get this - the team has now invested potentially $110 million into their franchise player, and are now being stingy on a NTC/NMC?
If they knew (which I'm sure they know more than we did) that he did or wanted out, why match? To save face?
If they knew he wanted to stay for the length of the contract, why the big deal of adding it now? He wants to stay and they want to keep him, correct?
I don't understand hardball now. It's just moronic.
Either you knew he was ok with staying and you match, or you know he's not ok with staying and let him go.
The issue of, does he want to stay or ask to be waived in the future is of no consequence - if you add the NTC, and he requests a trade, then tell him at that point itself that you won't trade him unless you can get the best possible deal, or he stays then.
Pissing off your franchise player who you should know whether he wants to stay or not at this point serves no purpose.
The player signed an offer sheet with a different team. Why would the Predators take on the risk where Webber could demand a trade (in a years time) to say less than hand-full of teams ala Nash/Heatley/Smyth/Lindros* and lover the chances for the Preds to get the best potential offer?
Anyone care to give a view of how the term "formalize" a SPC means in NA (whatever law is applicable(?)).
In Sweden I think you would have alot of room to argue that an agreement actually was in place, it would come down to if the terms in the offer sheet was complete enough, and I would guess that they would be. IE, you basically conclude that formalize indicates that there is an agreement already but that the parties want to put it in writing. Hence an agreement based on the offer sheet would be deemed valid, as long as it was not so incomplete that it couldn't be put in force.
But this is definitely an area in which Swedish (/German) law could differ alot from Anglosaxian Law.
Formalize means exactly that, the main items are set and you just need to have the final form (whatever has to go into making an SPC and 'SPC') presented for signing. Another way of saying it is that the content is set, but no you have to put it into the correct form.
It does not mean that any key items are up for reinterpretation or negotiation.
To me, it sounds like Weber's side screwed up, believing that anything they had in the offer sheet with Philly would automatically be protected and carry over.
Formalize means exactly that, the main items are set and you just need to have the final form (whatever has to go into making an SPC and 'SPC') presented for signing. Another way of saying it is that the content is set, but no you have to put it into the correct form.
It does not mean that any key items are up for reinterpretation or negotiation.
To me, it sounds like Weber's side screwed up, believing that anything they had in the offer sheet with Philly would automatically be protected and carry over.
Weber's team has been planning for this day for almost two years. I'm pretty sure they've considered every possibility. They obviously believe they have sufficient leverage to get an NTC included.
To Weber, this is about controlling his own destiny as early as the summer 2013. I believe he is prepared to hold out to get his way.
Weber's team has been planning for this day for almost two years. I'm pretty sure they've considered every possibility. They obviously believe they have sufficient leverage to get an NTC included.
To Weber, this is about controlling his own destiny as early as the summer 2013. I believe he is prepared to hold out to get his way.
There is nothing to plan for, Jawanda. He signed a binding contract, and furthermore, the CBA dictates what form that contract must take, formally.
I know why Weber wants an NTC. I'm just saying that he can't have it based on what he signed and the CBA--- unless Nashville decides to include it. Why they would choose to include it would be beyond me.
I know why Weber wants an NTC. I'm just saying that he can't have it based on what he signed and the CBA--- unless Nashville decides to include it. Why they would choose to include it would be beyond me.
I'm a little unclear on something - I thought NHL/CBA policy was for no re-negotiating of contracts - is Nashville even allowed to add a NTC to the deal Weber signed?
Weber's team has been planning for this day for almost two years. I'm pretty sure they've considered every possibility. They obviously believe they have sufficient leverage to get an NTC included.
To Weber, this is about controlling his own destiny as early as the summer 2013. I believe he is prepared to hold out to get his way.
Weber would be extremely unwise to hold out. He would not be considered an RFA holding out, he would be considered Yashin holding out.
That's a silly question. The point now is his demand for a NTC. My opinion, as long as it is allowed for in the current CBA ( the one that the contract falls under), you give him a NTC with the stipulation that it is only valid during a team-opted trade negotiation. I understand this could still be problematic for NSH if Shea's play declines, but that's a reality every team faces with any player who has a NTC.
What exactly is a "team-opted trade negotiation"?
This idea seems to be brought up every so often, but it seems it's never actually thought through. Even if the CBA provided some form of way for a player to officially demand a trade (and thus void a NM/TC) players simply wouldn't use it. They'd just get around it by unofficially requesting a trade.
The reason why teams "give in" to players demanding a trade now isn't because the player will actually stop trying to play. If that's the case the team would just suspend the player until he fell into line. The reason they give in is because of the drama it creates in the locker room and the issues it raises there. Those wouldn't magically disappear if a player didn't officially request a trade.
__________________
2013 NHL suspensions tracker - Here
2013 Maple Leafs Regular Season Prediction Contest Winner - Phion Keneuf
2013 Maple Leafs Playoff Prediction Contest Winner - Mess
There is nothing to plan for, Jawanda. He signed a binding contract, and furthermore, the CBA dictates what form that contract must take, formally.
I know why Weber wants an NTC. I'm just saying that he can't have it based on what he signed and the CBA--- unless Nashville decides to include it. Why they would choose to include it would be beyond me.
I would seem as though there is nothing to plan for, I agree. But since NSH still requires Weber's signature on an SPC, there is, as small as it may be, room for negotiation. And though the inclusion of these items may be at the Preds' discretion, the fact that this situation involves the best d-man in the league (arguably), even the smallest formality is an opportunity for Weber to get his way.
And these agents (despite their public perception as being dumb) have a huge lever: a superstar's strong desire IMO.
I would seem as though there is nothing to plan for, I agree. But since NSH still requires Weber's signature on an SPC, there is, as small as it may be, room for negotiation. And though the inclusion of these items may be at the Preds' discretion, the fact that this situation involves the best d-man in the league (arguably), even the smallest formality is an opportunity for Weber to get his way.
And these agents (despite their public perception as being dumb) have a huge lever: a superstar's strong desire IMO.
Weber's only leverage is to stage an illegal hold-out a la Yashin. The chances of that are quite remote.
I don't know what Weber's doing here. That's the trade-off with signing one of these. You cement your exact dollar amount and lose control of all other variables, including whether or not you play on the team who's offer sheet it was that you signed. His agent -should- have explained this to him.
I'm a little unclear on something - I thought NHL/CBA policy was for no re-negotiating of contracts - is Nashville even allowed to add a NTC to the deal Weber signed?
See post #63 by danish, it's fairly clear. The offer sheet that Nashville matched only contains term, signing bonus and salary ("the Principal Terms"). The Preds and Weber can agree on additional terms such as a no-trade clause when they formalize the SPC. It doesn't fall under the "no renegotiation" rule because the offer sheet isn't actually a SPC.
