Your post seemed to insinuate that the CBA would be considered an ex post facto law and the subsequent post of another mentioned the constitutionality of ex post facto laws. I was simply clarifying that the CBA would not be violating the Ex Post Facto Clause because the CBA is not a law. Wanted to make sure everyone was up to date on their constitutional law. Haha.
No sorry for the confusion.
Quote:
I doubt it. Maybe some middle-of-the-road players and some scrubs, but I doubt Yakupov or any other young guys bail to Europe.
I cannot wait for a counter proposal to see this clause get removed, or at least modified in some way to not affected current contracts - as well as other things. I just hate dwelling on something that might not be an issue in a few days or weeks.
I had a dream this morning that the lockout abruptly ended and I was reading it on TSN.
Having said this..I think it's a pipe dream that an end to the lockout will be sudden but I wish. I'm now officially having more pronounced feelings of hockey withdrawal.
An ex post facto law is a law. This is a collective bargaining agreement. While it may not be smart or "fair" to punish the teams for contracts made before the rule change, it is not an "ex post facto law" and it is completely legal.
As DrinkFightFlyers said, ex post fact only relates to criminal law, not civil.
EDIT: Also, the Constitution is a rulebook for the Government, not two parties bargaining.
David Pagnotta @TheFourthPeriod
Of the 4 proposals being presented to the NHL by the NHLPA, all include a gradual step towards 50/50 split. Year 1 starts around 54/46.
__________________
"I Came Here To Bury Caesar, Not Praise Him" - Roy Halladay
Nothing seems reasonable to me beyond a 50/50 split.
If, and only if, it started at 54% and moved down to 50% and looked as if it were going to stay there for the future CBAs, would I as a hypothetical owner agree to it.
Raising years on ELCs and RFA age seems like another way to invisibly take future money for players. Players have a point-- if they are coming down in terms of cash-- they shouldn't also lose years in terms of getting paychecks they earned on their own merits -- having nothing to do with any business model the owners can claim responsibility for -- but merits they earned within that system.
It's one thing to go 50/50 with the owners on the total business revenue which both the owners and players create, but getting paid by reaching a talent level within that system, fighting to get to the UFA years, is much more player generated. It's almost a reward.
Losing salary and the "reward" of UFA years being longer. I would be remiss as a player to do both.
