HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Bob Gainey speaks: 2005 Draft.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2004, 12:27 PM
  #51
Kickabrat
WHAT - ME WORRY?
 
Kickabrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What stops the New York Rangers from signing Sidney Crosby on July 1st, 2005? Nothing in the CBA stops them if section 8 is out the window. If the answer is "the teams have agreed among themselves not to sign these players" Crosby probably does have grounds. If the CBA does not stop them from doing it, antitrust law will insist that they do.

Tom
Can we at least agree that the CBA expired September 15, 2004?

What is stopping teams from signing Crosby today? Why do they have to wait until July 1? (Crosby used for example only)

Why isn't Crosby's agent going to court right now to argue that since there is no CBA,and hence no rules, his client is a free agent able to sign with any team including NHL teams? Why do you presume this can only take place in July? There is no CBA, no rules, if you think you are right in you assesmment of the situation, then explain why no one is suing right now, when, according to you, teams would be falling all over themselves to sign these hot shot prospects?

Kickabrat is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 12:30 PM
  #52
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
One defense the NHL could present in court is that all 30 teams independently decided the Sidney Crosby was a player who was not worth signing. That's surely what they would say if I launched a lawsuit and it would be a very easy case to win. That is an impossible case to present when the player is Sidney Crosby. He could flop - anybody could flop - but there is not a single team who would not draft him and sign him if they had the first pick in the draft and the draft happened.
But that is just an opinion. It may be valid but at the end of the day wouldn't it boil down to a judge impossing his/her opinion on 30 independant entities about how they should or should evaluate and invest millions into their talent?

Without a CBA then it's a totally free market right? Well how can a judge make a free market decision for someone else?

Clearly I am not legal literate but from a common sense standpoint I just can't wrap my head around it.

In the case of Tim Raines he was already a professional player, Crosby is just a Jr hockey player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
If the Leafs broke ranks? That's the point. A rank is illegal. What legal action can the league take? A team broke the rules everybody knows are illegal?
HEre is a question, not sure if you can answer it but...

Is the NHL within it's rights to legally suspend hockey operations during the CBA negotiations? IF so then doesn't drafting or signing a prospect part of the hockey operations? Wouldn't that prevent Crosby from seeking legal action?

copperandblue is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 01:56 PM
  #53
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
But why can no player be signed right now?

The owners can make a case that they're waiting to see what the result of the CBA is before they start making contract decisions but how can they agree amongst themselves that no one will be signing anyone? If that doesn't sound like collusion what does?

The old CBA is expired. Nothing in it means anything anymore unless it is imposed upon the league.

How can 30 businesses that compete extremely hard against each other not make an offer to the prospect who can legitimately prove he should be one of the most sought after commodities in the league? He can point to his stats and awards in the Quebec league. He can point to his selection to the World Junior team and his stats with that team. And if that wasn't enough he could bring in expert witnesses who would testify that he might be the most talented 17 year old player since Mario. Why would these competing businesses not want to hire him?
I would think that no players can be signed because all contracts would need to conform to whatever is specified in the new CBA. If you read the section on player contracts, there are a lot of specifics on what the contracts can include.

Also, if you read the recently expired CBA, when it was signed, it was made retroactive to the expiration date of the previous CBA, and made provisions to honor all contracts signed under the previous CBA.

Do you think that if Toronto (or any other team...) were to sign Crosby without a new CBA in place, the 29 other teams are going to put an exception in to allow Toronto to keep him? That is not collusion. They are negotiating a CBA. THey have every right to sit down among themselves and decide what they think the CBA should contain. How else would the NHL decide what the leagues position would be without sitting down and discussing things like this?

I really don't see how Crosby or anyone else can sue. He is not being denied employment in the NHL, because in the absence of a CBA agreed to by both the NHL and NHLPA, there are no games being played by anyone. He is however free to sign with any other league in the world.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 02:38 PM
  #54
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickabrat
Why isn't Crosby's agent going to court right now to argue that since there is no CBA,and hence no rules, his client is a free agent able to sign with any team including NHL teams? Why do you presume this can only take place in July? There is no CBA, no rules, if you think you are right in you assesmment of the situation, then explain why no one is suing right now, when, according to you, teams would be falling all over themselves to sign these hot shot prospects?
The CBA expired but it doesn't make any difference. An expired CBA does not give the players access to antitrust law. Players have to choose between having a union and collectively bargaining or having access to antitrust law. If there is a procedure that has been collectively bargained, that converts an illegal activity under antitrust law into a legal one. The draft is a an example of an action that is illegal under antitrust law, but allowed because the union agreed to it.

Crosby would lose if he sued now. Labour law trumps antitrust law as long as there is an ongoing relationship between the league and the union. Until July there is a negotiated procedure in place and it does not disappear simply because the CBA has expired. The NHLPA negotiated Crosby's rights away and he does not get them back just because the CBA expires. The case law is clear on this matter although to be honest I don't remember which case established it. (Mackey? Wood? Haywood? There have been several key cases establishing the law since Messersmith.)

After July, there is no negotiated procedure if the NHL does not hold the draft the CBA says they have to hold.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 02:43 PM
  #55
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Why is July the cutoff date?

If the league and players are still in negotiation, wouldn't it be the same situation we have now?

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 03:10 PM
  #56
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
But that is just an opinion. It may be valid but at the end of the day wouldn't it boil down to a judge impossing his/her opinion on 30 independant entities about how they should or should evaluate and invest millions into their talent?
You are looking at this problem the wrong way. All Crosby has to do is call Glen Sather to the stand and ask him why the Rangers did not offer the contract. If he says, "It is because Crosby is not good enough" this position holds. He won't. Crosby can call all 30 NHL General Managers. They won't lie under oath, will they?

They will admit that Sidney Crosby is a very desirable hockey property.

The legal issue - and the only good NHL defense - will be "Antitrust law doesn't apply because the CBA still does apply." I'm not sure how that argument can be sustained but I'm not a lawyer. Maybe it can. If the courts rule the CBA is still in force even though the NHL breaches that part of the contract, the NHL will win the suit and Crosby has to wait until the NHL settles and there is a new draft procedure.

If the courts rule that antitrust law does apply simply because the CBA no longer has an agreed upon procedure for deciding Crosby's fate, predicting an NHL loss is a safe bet. Sports leagues have always won when the courts rule labour law and the CBA applies. They have always lost when the courts decide antitrust law should apply.

Try to find an argument to keep the issue within the realm of labour law. I'm not saying that you can't, but I am saying that's the only way the NHL can win. If there is no draft held, how does the CBA prevent New York from signing Crosby? How does the CBA prevent Toronto, Detroit, Philly and New York from snapping up the 20 best prospects in the 2005 draft class?

Quote:
Is the NHL within it's rights to legally suspend hockey operations during the CBA negotiations? IF so then doesn't drafting or signing a prospect part of the hockey operations? Wouldn't that prevent Crosby from seeking legal action?
As above. This is trying to win the case under antitrust legislation. The NHL has not suspended hockey operations. None of the GMs have been laid off. And I think that is still beside the point. They can't avoid antitrust legislation by agreeing to anything. The violation is in the agreement. That's the anti-competitive behaviour.

Nothing can prevent Crosby from seeking legal action. If there is no draft, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by filing suit. The NHL has a ton to lose and nothing to gain. That is the real point. The NHL does not want to fight this suit. That's pressure in the CBA negotiations. The NHL can only avoid the fight over Sidney Crosby et al if 1) They cut a deal, or 2) There is at least part of a season and they have a draft.

Tom


Last edited by Tom_Benjamin: 11-11-2004 at 03:25 PM.
Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 03:11 PM
  #57
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Why is July the cutoff date?
Because the CBA specifically says the NHL will hold a draft in June.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 03:17 PM
  #58
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Because the CBA specifically says the NHL will hold a draft in June.

Tom
But didn't you just say that an expired CBA does not give players access to anti-trust law? I don't see what the entry draft has that is any different from say, the July 1st opening of free agency (which I am assuming also won't happen).

Wouldn't any NHL player without a contract, especially a UFA one, be entitled to sue as well?

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 03:23 PM
  #59
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
But didn't you just say that an expired CBA does not give players access to anti-trust law? I don't see what the entry draft has that is any different from say, the July 1st opening of free agency (which I am assuming also won't happen).

Wouldn't any NHL player without a contract, especially a UFA one, be entitled to sue as well?
Why won't the July 1st opening of free agency happen? It certainly will. Markus Naslund will become a UFA next July 1st whether they play a season or not. Jarome Iginla will not. Why? Because the rules in place in the old CBA still apply.

The difference is that the entry draft and all the rules negotiated around it fall apart when no draft is held. The rules in place in the old CBA do not apply. They can't apply because there was no draft.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 03:52 PM
  #60
Kickabrat
WHAT - ME WORRY?
 
Kickabrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The difference is that the entry draft and all the rules negotiated around it fall apart when no draft is held. The rules in place in the old CBA do not apply. They can't apply because there was no draft.

Tom
Why on earth would the holding of the draft be the determinant reason that CBA falls apart when the rules are already non-existant? If the CBA expired on September 15, then how can it still be in force? The palyers can't sign because the NHL and the PA are technically still in negotiations. The negotiations could last another 3 years and the players could still not sign new NHL contracts. Who cares if a player is declared a FA if there are no games being played? A FA to go where, not the NHL, and how can a player be declared a free agent if the term is defined in the CBA which is no longer in force? A new CBA would resolve this by having rules to govern what to do with contracts in the intervening period of the old and new CBA.

The league could declare an impasse, and go through the whole deal and if it is concurred that there is an impasse by the NLRB immediately impose its own rules. Rules that would cover the draft and everything else connected with it, as well as resolving all the issues around old contracts, etc. The players would then have to decide if they want to go with the new rules and become scabs or continue to hold out while the league uses replacement players. How does this violate anti-trust laws in the U.S.?

Kickabrat is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 04:03 PM
  #61
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
You are looking at this problem the wrong way. All Crosby has to do is call Glen Sather to the stand and ask him why the Rangers did not offer the contract. If he says, "It is because Crosby is not good enough" this position holds. He won't. Crosby can call all 30 NHL General Managers. They won't lie under oath, will they?

They will admit that Sidney Crosby is a very desirable hockey property.
Can't Sather (or any other GM) simply say that there is no interest in Sidney Crosby because there is no place to employ him?

There is no roster for the Rangers to place him on, no games to play him in and no oponents to play him against so how can an employee - an unusable employee be forced upon a company?

How can Sydney file for restraint of trade (or whatever applies here) when even if he was to sign a contract he wouldn't be playing?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Nothing can prevent Crosby from seeking legal action. If there is no draft, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by filing suit. The NHL has a ton to lose and nothing to gain. That is the real point. The NHL does not want to fight this suit. That's pressure in the CBA negotiations. The NHL can only avoid the fight over Sidney Crosby et al if 1) They cut a deal, or 2) There is at least part of a season and they have a draft.
I disagree he has nothing to lose.

If he wins he effectively breaks the union.

Win or lose he creates a backroom political nightmare between himself and the NHL and likely the same with the PA.

I can't say that I understand this any better and I would still bet my last dollar that even if the season is cancelled we won't actually see any of this play out.

But I guess time will tell.

If he does try this, win or lose I would not want to be Sidney Crosby....

copperandblue is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 04:17 PM
  #62
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Can't Sather (or any other GM) simply say that there is no interest in Sidney Crosby because there is no place to employ him?
Q: Do you expect the NHL to be shut down forever, Mr. Sather?

Q: I'm looking at the CBA, Mr. Sather. Is there anything in it that prevents you from throwing money at my client?

Q: So why don't you try to sign Mr. Crosby in anticipation of the games resuming at some point? When the games resume wouldn't you like him on your team?

Quote:
How can Sydney file for restraint of trade (or whatever applies here) when even if he was to sign a contract he wouldn't be playing?
Whether the games are being played is not relevant to the courts. Crosby is not suing for the right to play in the NHL. He is suing for the right to negotiate with any NHL team for when play resumes.

Quote:
I disagree he has nothing to lose.

If he wins he effectively breaks the union.
How so? If I'm Bob Goodenow, I'd pay his legal expenses out of my own pocket if I had to. The Union will cheer him on. If the Union wanted they could let the NHL off the hook simply by agreeing to a change in the draft rules.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 05:07 PM
  #63
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
But Crosby isn't restricted to the NHL. He is free to sign in Europe, and I would also assume he is free to sign in the AHL.

No one is telling him he can't play hockey for a living. He isn't restricted solely to playing for the NHL.

He can make the choice to go sign in Europe, or with the Trailor Park Gap Teeth...


Last edited by dawgbone: 11-11-2004 at 05:56 PM.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 05:13 PM
  #64
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
But Crosby isn't restricted to the NHL. He is free to sign in Europe,
I guess that lets NHL owners illegally collude. Not.

Quote:
and I would also assume he is free to sign in the NHL.
With who? That's the question he wants answered on July 1st. The NHL will have to explain why he isn't free to sign with anybody he wants to sign with.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 05:27 PM
  #65
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 15,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
With who? That's the question he wants answered on July 1st. The NHL will have to explain why he isn't free to sign with anybody he wants to sign with.
Really? Has Crosby come out and said this anywhere?

I thought we were just talking about a hypothetical, but it seems to be turning into something more than that in this thread.

If Crosby really was all about cashing in and screwing the NHL over, why didn't he sign with the WHA? That guy in Hamilton was willing to pay him around 2.5 million bucks, whether a single game was played in the WHA or not...

Digger12 is online now  
Old
11-11-2004, 05:47 PM
  #66
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Q: Do you expect the NHL to be shut down forever, Mr. Sather?
No, I expect the league to resume at some point, ONCE WE HAVE A NEW CBA.

Quote:
Q: I'm looking at the CBA, Mr. Sather. Is there anything in it that prevents you from throwing money at my client?
Nothing within the CBA, however common sense would suggest that I should wait until I know the cost of an item before I buy it, especially with possibility that the new CBA would invalidate my purchase.

Quote:
Q: So why don't you try to sign Mr. Crosby in anticipation of the games resuming at some point? When the games resume wouldn't you like him on your team?
Because his worth has yet to be determined and I'm unsure of if my team will be able to hold onto his rights under a new CBA.

Simply repeat for all 30 GM's...

No businessman can be FORCED to spend until market value/accesability to product is determined.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 05:59 PM
  #67
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I guess that lets NHL owners illegally collude. Not.
They aren't preventing him from plying his trade, which is what they can say.

Quote:
With who? That's the question he wants answered on July 1st. The NHL will have to explain why he isn't free to sign with anybody he wants to sign with.

Tom
I had meant the AHL, but put NHL.

He is free to sign with anyone he wants to sign with... as long as they in return want to sign him.

And like I said, couldn't any UFA right now put up the same argument?

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 06:04 PM
  #68
Kickabrat
WHAT - ME WORRY?
 
Kickabrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Really? Has Crosby come out and said this anywhere?

I thought we were just talking about a hypothetical, but it seems to be turning into something more than that in this thread.

If Crosby really was all about cashing in and screwing the NHL over, why didn't he sign with the WHA? That guy in Hamilton was willing to pay him around 2.5 million bucks, whether a single game was played in the WHA or not...
We are just using Crosby as an example, use Brule if it makes you feel better. However, it would probably make the point much more clearer if we were using Joe Smith, draft eligible player who has no hope in hell of playing in the NHL.

Why does Joe Smith not have the same rights as a Crosby (oops Brule)? No judge would rule in favor of one player and not the other. The law applies equally to everyone.

And still, the question has not been clearly answered. Why July? It makes no sense that only certain parts of an agreement live on but others don't. The CBA is dead. Its as dead as a doorknob. The terms and conditions no longer apply as of Sept 15. Any new CBA (negotiated or otherwise) will have language in it to cover all these issues even if it only says the CBA is retroactively effective to Sept 15, or the old CBA is in force until the new one is signed, or whatever they negotiate or otherwise impose. Until then no one has any rights or priviliges unless they were injured prior to Sept 15 and remain so.

The only thing the NHL and players have to do is bargain in good faith. Period. Until they finish negotiating or until a regulatory body rules otherwise, no one can sign contracts. I just cannot fathom anyone suing the NHL and winning, when the NHL is in the middle of negotiating a labor contract. How can anti trust laws be applicable if the parties are still negotiating? The draft is part of those negotiations. Someone please explain why anti-trust laws all of a sudden apply in July but not now?

Kickabrat is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 06:44 PM
  #69
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickabrat
Why on earth would the holding of the draft be the determinant reason that CBA falls apart when the rules are already non-existant? If the CBA expired on September 15, then how can it still be in force?
I thought you said that you had done some reading on the subject and you weren't just pulling an opinion out of your ass. It isn't that tough to understand. The courts have had to reconcile contradictions between antitrust law and labour law for a long time.

In one of the disputes - football or basketball, I can't remember - a player sued. His position was "The CBA has expired. Therefore labour law does not count and under antitrust legislation, I am a free agent without restrictions I suffered under the old, expired CBA." The league fought that, of course and they won.

The courts said, "A new CBA is being negotiated which includes those restrictions. Until either the union decertifies or there is a new CBA the restrictions negotiated under the old CBA apply and there is no antitrust violation."

The difference in this case is "the restrictions in the old CBA apply" part. If there is no draft, there are no restrictions in the old CBA to apply. What then?

The league will argue the draft provisions under the old CBA continues to apply even though the agreement was breached. If they lose that argument, antitrust law applies and they can't win an antitrust argument.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 07:02 PM
  #70
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,989
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
You are looking at this problem the wrong way. All Crosby has to do is call Glen Sather to the stand and ask him why the Rangers did not offer the contract. If he says, "It is because Crosby is not good enough" this position holds. He won't. Crosby can call all 30 NHL General Managers. They won't lie under oath, will they?

They will admit that Sidney Crosby is a very desirable hockey property.

The legal issue - and the only good NHL defense - will be "Antitrust law doesn't apply because the CBA still does apply." I'm not sure how that argument can be sustained but I'm not a lawyer. Maybe it can. If the courts rule the CBA is still in force even though the NHL breaches that part of the contract, the NHL will win the suit and Crosby has to wait until the NHL settles and there is a new draft procedure.

If the courts rule that antitrust law does apply simply because the CBA no longer has an agreed upon procedure for deciding Crosby's fate, predicting an NHL loss is a safe bet. Sports leagues have always won when the courts rule labour law and the CBA applies. They have always lost when the courts decide antitrust law should apply.
The CBA explicits states Crosby is not eligble in section 8.9 because
a) he's too young to be a UFA
b) he's still eligble for future drafts.

So Crosby is going to have to go against the old CBA as well as the NHL. A more than plausible defense for the 30 GMs. And a wall they'll put up before Crosby can even get to the point of challenging any clubs for not signing him.

Quote:

Try to find an argument to keep the issue within the realm of labour law. I'm not saying that you can't, but I am saying that's the only way the NHL can win. If there is no draft held, how does the CBA prevent New York from signing Crosby? How does the CBA prevent Toronto, Detroit, Philly and New York from snapping up the 20 best prospects in the 2005 draft class?

This holds true if they NHL teams are hiring replacements, if they aren't then its irrelevant how good a player Crosby is or isn't.



Quote:
As above. This is trying to win the case under antitrust legislation. The NHL has not suspended hockey operations. None of the GMs have been laid off. And I think that is still beside the point. They can't avoid antitrust legislation by agreeing to anything. The violation is in the agreement. That's the anti-competitive behaviour.
Crosby hasn't got a hope of pulling that off if the NHL is not signing replacement players. It'd be laughed out of court.

GMS: "We aren't signing any players at ALL until this is sorted. There is no point since we aren't playing any games."

Crosby's Lawyers: "But Judge, Crosby is so cute and shiny he should be not included in the word ALL. He's so special they should make an exception."

GMs: We said no one is being signed.

Crosby's Lawyers: Judge, look into those big brown eyes and deny him his dream of playing an NHL game.

Judge: But they aren't actually playing any games are they, so he can't possibly fullfil his dream.

Crosby: Waahh sob sob sob

Crosby's Lawyers: Oh look you've made him cry now.

Judge: I'm so sorry. If announce he's won will he stop crying?

Crosby's Lawyers: yes.

Judge: Crosby wins!

Quote:
Nothing can prevent Crosby from seeking legal action. If there is no draft, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by filing suit. The NHL has a ton to lose and nothing to gain.
He has a lot to lose, he could become known as a trouble maker and tarnish his image.

On the other hand, the NHL will try to backdate any new CBA to force Crosby back into the draft/rookie cap and the NHLPA will agree with them if it gets a CBA deal done.

Crosby will likely then be known as a trouble maker and end up where he would have started anyway without all the fuss.


Quote:
That is the real point. The NHL does not want to fight this suit. That's pressure in the CBA negotiations. The NHL can only avoid the fight over Sidney Crosby et al if 1) They cut a deal, or 2) There is at least part of a season and they have a draft.

Tom



8.5. Order of Selection. The League may determine the rules governing the order of selection among Clubs in the Entry Draft, provided that such rules (i) shall not in any manner affect or enlarge in any respect the selecting Club's rights (including, without limitation, rights of retention) in respect of such player, and (ii) are not inconsistent or contrary in any other respect to any provision of this Agreement. Following discussion with the NHLPA, the League adopted the procedures set out in Exhibit 4 as a modification to the rules governing order of selection in Entry Drafts conducted prior to 1995. In the event that the League proposes a material change to those prior rules regarding order of selection, as intended to be modified by Exhibit 4, the League shall notify the NHLPA no later than March 1 in the year of the Entry Draft during which such changes are proposed to take effect, and shall afford the NHLPA a reasonable period of time prior to the implementation thereof for the purpose of conferring regarding any such changes.


Why do they need a season to have a draft? It appears they can use whatever way of organising the draft order they like, provided they tell the NHLPA before March 1.

The GMs could gather round the table and have a belly button fluff competition if they want, largest fluff goes first.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 07:20 PM
  #71
dunwoody_joe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: atlanta
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
What the hell do I know, but here goes anyway.

Crosby sues for the right to be declared a free agent because he knows that he is a hot ticket and as a free agent will be able to negotiate a far superior deal than he could as the #1 choice in a draft--plus he can go where he desires. Certainly worth a try!

His attorney could argue that the CBA is/was expired when he should have been drafted into the league. No CBA, no draft, player is 18 so therefore free agent. He is not a member of the NHLPA nor the property of any NHL club--he should be free to negotiate his best deal, maybe not right now but whenever.

The NHL clubs will be horrified because that might mean all the draft eligibles could jump through the loophole too. However, no clubs could sign him until a new CBA is reached (whenever) since that dictates contracts and the terms of signing FAs.

The NHLPA would also be horrified because if all the draft eligibles become UFAs then the NHLPA lose a major bargaining chip (everybody knows that they will restrain trade on the youngsters for the benefit of the older guys. Rookie caps, RFA status, etc).

The only issue here is if there is no draft (because the CBA is expired) can a draft eligible guy be adjudicated a free agent. It could be a boon for a handful of top guys.

What do you'all think?

Ps: I have a counter response from the league and NHLPA for later!

dunwoody_joe is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 07:23 PM
  #72
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I thought you said that you had done some reading on the subject and you weren't just pulling an opinion out of your ass. It isn't that tough to understand. The courts have had to reconcile contradictions between antitrust law and labour law for a long time.

In one of the disputes - football or basketball, I can't remember - a player sued. His position was "The CBA has expired. Therefore labour law does not count and under antitrust legislation, I am a free agent without restrictions I suffered under the old, expired CBA." The league fought that, of course and they won.

The courts said, "A new CBA is being negotiated which includes those restrictions. Until either the union decertifies or there is a new CBA the restrictions negotiated under the old CBA apply and there is no antitrust violation."

The difference in this case is "the restrictions in the old CBA apply" part. If there is no draft, there are no restrictions in the old CBA to apply. What then?

The league will argue the draft provisions under the old CBA continues to apply even though the agreement was breached. If they lose that argument, antitrust law applies and they can't win an antitrust argument.

Tom

Some very interesting reading...

23} Recently, in National Basketball Association v. Williams86, the owners won a declaratory judgment stating that various player restraints (e.g., the college draft and the right of first refusal contract provision) found in the old CBA may be imposed by the owners even after impasse since they are subject to the nonstatutory labor exemption.87 The court held that multi-employer bargaining was legal, relying primarily on NLRB v. Truck Driving Local Union No. 449.88 Additionally, the court stated that the owners, acting jointly, could also unilaterally impose the old CBA terms on the players after negotiations broke down.89 To find otherwise, the court reasoned, would put employers in an impossible position. The court felt it must rule this way because the owners have an obligation under labor law to maintain the status quo in good faith negotiations, but they are placed in a difficult position if, to comply with the labor law, they must impose terms that violate the antitrust laws.90

http://www.legalbrief.com/formwalt.html

There is a lot more case history in this link specific to sports and CBA...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 07:23 PM
  #73
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
This is a good discussion. I don't know much about this but I'm obviously interested if they will have a draft or not. This should be stickied for the 20 poeple a week who ask if theres going to be a draft.

NYRangers is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 08:08 PM
  #74
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,989
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers
This is a good discussion. I don't know much about this but I'm obviously interested if they will have a draft or not. This should be stickied for the 20 poeple a week who ask if theres going to be a draft.

Based on what has been happening here I'd say there may be a draft. Bits of the old CBA can be used to have one. The NHL is free to determine the order as it chooses, so long as they aren't rigging it, as per the old CBA (section 8.5).

They could also argue section 8.9 to stop Crosby from joining.

But lets assume he did challenge and win

But WHY WOULD THE NHL WANT TO STOP CROSBY FROM JOINING? That is a huge coup for the NHL/teams. They've signed a star. They got someone to cross over and get ready to play. Replacement players are going to be bland, Crosby would be a huge plus in the PR war. He'd sign the standard replacement player contract that cuts out when a CBA is formed (Anti-trust can't argue with that). Instead of several 100K bonus + a per game fee that terminates if there is a CBA agreement he might get $2m bonus + a game fee. Of course the NHL would pay that, imagine the PR boon in TO. CBA is formed, he's cut. So when they are finished exploiting him as a PR puppet because they have and signed a new CBA they'll force him back into the draft so everyone is happy.

Crosby crossing the p icket line would be a major blow to the NHLPA. You'd have think the NHLPA want to play it safe and keep him out of it.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 08:17 PM
  #75
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Based on what has been happening here I'd say there may be a draft. Bits of the old CBA can be used to have one. The NHL is free to determine the order as it chooses, so long as they aren't rigging it, as per the old CBA (section 8.5).
I think the NHL will argue this if it came to it. I don't think there case can be very good though, or they would have the draft and avoid the problems. The big problem is here:

8.1. General. Commencing with the 1995 Entry Draft and with respect to the Entry Draft to be held each League Year thereafter, the provisions of this Article 8 shall apply. Each Entry Draft will be held in June (or July in the case of the 1995 Entry Draft), on a date which shall be determined by the Commissioner.

The provisions of section 8 apply to the entry draft. If there is no draft in June, the provisions don't apply to anything.

Quote:
Crosby crossing the p icket line would be a major blow to the NHLPA. You'd have think the NHLPA want to play it safe and keep him out of it.
Who says Crosby would cross?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.