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.
KHL teams want to keep Ovechkin, Kovalchuk rather than return 'em to NHL?
Good luck convincing the teams to let them out of their contracts.
This should be fun. Russia can't do ****. These contracts were signed in the US under US labor law. They'll be crushed. The IIHF suspending them from international play will be brilliant as well.
how is it possible that player (employee) can not terminate contact with NHL club if he wants? Labour law is to protect interests of employees not employers, at least here.
Good luck convincing the teams to let them out of their contracts.
This should be fun. Russia can't do ****. These contracts were signed in the US under US labor law. They'll be crushed. The IIHF suspending them from international play will be brilliant as well.
I don't think the IIHF has any reason to suspend them.
The NHL is not affiliated with the IIHF. The KHL is. There is no transfer agreement between the leagues, just a simple MOU which would be terminated instantly if the KHL could get Ovechkin or a similar player to stay.
Somehow I doubt the IIHF would interfere actually.
Wow, people are really freaking out over this. Let's look at this logically:
1) Duh. Kovalchuk and Ovechkin are 2 of the best players in the world. Of course the owners want them to stay.
2) How did this turn to "They don't care", "they won't come back", etc, etc. These are the owner's quotes, it has nothing to do with the players. For all we know, all of the Russian players have absolutely no intention of staying there and can't wait to come back.
That's basically HF for ya. Overreact, overstate, make things up and freak out. There also seems to be this completely irrational, and downright ridiculous, belief that all Russian players only care about themselves and how much money they make and nothing else. It gets really old and annoying really fast.
Several weeks ago Ovi made some comments that he may stay in Russia if the league cut his pay.
Shows how much I've been paying attention . That's different then. Although he could just be posturing to get a deal done. Either way, unless a player makes a statement like that, we shouldn't assume things.
how is it possible that player (employee) can not terminate contact with NHL club if he wants? Labour law is to protect interests of employees not employers, at least here.
Contracts can be terminated, but not just on a whim. Why shouldn't both employers and employees be protected by contracts? I mean, they both agreed to the contract, right? They should both be bound by it.
And why should The IIHF help the NHL? The IIHF should work for it's members. Not an outside league.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikke
I don't think the IIHF has any reason to suspend them.
The NHL is not affiliated with the IIHF. The KHL is. There is no transfer agreement between the leagues, just a simple MOU which would be terminated instantly if the KHL could get Ovechkin or a similar player to stay.
Somehow I doubt the IIHF would interfere actually.
Since Russia is part of the IIHF they most certainly would interfere, just as they would if another country was involved.
Contracts can be terminated, but not just on a whim. Why shouldn't both employers and employees be protected by contracts? I mean, they both agreed to the contract, right? They should both be bound by it.
Well that's what the players are arguing, that they should both be bound to it. And in this case, "it" is escrow clawbacks based on 57%.
Of course, if a new cba is agreed to where they their escrow is based on less, then that is what the cba says they have to live with. But the players arent agreeing to that.
What if: a new cba came in with 5 year contract limits and a max variance of 5%. If they grandfathered all the existing contracts like Ovechkin and Kovalchuks, would that give low revenue teams like Washington and NJ who are clamouring for radical cba changes an unfair competitive advantage because they still get to benefit from the long contracts while other teams dont have that luxury?
Maybe they should agree to no grandfathering as well. All contracts that violate the new rules are voided and those players become ufa's. At least it would generate some buzz to start a new season with.
I understand there are transfer agreements and the law isn't on the side of the players. However, if this drags out for another year or so... at what point do the owners basically forfeit their right to retain the player's services?
If one of us had a contract with an employer, including a non-compete clause... and the employer basically said "you can't come to work for an indefinite period... we won't be paying you until we decide to go back into business." Doesn't that put the employee in a real bind? Shouldn't he be able to seek alternative employment given the circumstances? If so, wouldn't having to say to other employers, "I will work for you, but at any time, with minimal notice, I may have to leave and return to my old employer," hurt his alternative employment chances/offers? If the lockout is ongoing for a couple years, and inflation goes up 20% in that time... while the new CBA requires a substantial reduction of all existing contracts... why should the player have to abide by that? Didn't he sign the contract with the implicit understanding that the seasons would be consecutive?
It seems to me like an employer option for "whenever we decide to actually continue business"... whether in a couple months or a couple years. Again, I understand the contract is worded such that the player must abide by CBA, but it just seems wrong to me that employer has such power and can basically leave player in limbo.
It is what it is. A contract is signed. There's no room for "wrong" or "right." If there is no NHL they're free to work wherever. But if an NHL is in place, they're obligated to play in the NHL.
Keep in mind that the player can bargain for an increase in contracts. That would be just as fair. It won't happen but that's what the CBA clause in their contract allows for. If the players didn't like it they didn't have to sign in the NHL. Its really that simple. It certainly wasn't a secret.
I don't think the IIHF has any reason to suspend them.
The NHL is not affiliated with the IIHF. The KHL is. There is no transfer agreement between the leagues, just a simple MOU which would be terminated instantly if the KHL could get Ovechkin or a similar player to stay.
Somehow I doubt the IIHF would interfere actually.
you don't see why the iihf would interfere?
so lets say that the khl takes just ovechkin and kovalchuck nobody else, the rest of the nhl players stay in the nhl.
good luck selling hockey tickets for any game outside of russian tickets at the next olympics. because canada won't be sending there best players, the americans won't be sending there best players, the czechs won't be sending there best players, the sweds won't be sending there best players, even germany would become even worse then they are because they have no nhl players to boost the team up.
it is pretty silly to think the iihf wouldn't step in to stop this knowing the back lash that the nhl would do to them.
even if the nhl says in the new cba that they are willing to stop play for those 2 weeks for the olympics, they will scratch that so fast and the olympic hockey tournament will becoming nothing more then the spengler cup.
Well that's what the players are arguing, that they should both be bound to it. And in this case, "it" is escrow clawbacks based on 57%.
Of course, if a new cba is agreed to where they their escrow is based on less, then that is what the cba says they have to live with. But the players arent agreeing to that.
What if: a new cba came in with 5 year contract limits and a max variance of 5%. If they grandfathered all the existing contracts like Ovechkin and Kovalchuks, would that give low revenue teams like Washington and NJ who are clamouring for radical cba changes an unfair competitive advantage because they still get to benefit from the long contracts while other teams dont have that luxury?
Maybe they should agree to no grandfathering as well. All contracts that violate the new rules are voided and those players become ufa's. At least it would generate some buzz to start a new season with.
Which completely screws over a team like Nashville who was forced to match a 14 year long offer sheet or lose their best skater and one of the top defensemen in the world. If your idea is going to work at all, and it really isn't likely, then it would have to exclude matched offer sheets and players who were signed and then traded. At least that's how I see it.
Which completely screws over a team like Nashville who was forced to match a 14 year long offer sheet or lose their best skater and one of the top defensemen in the world.
So you would like to protect Nashvilles interests by fighting for their ability to not rip up that unaffordable long term contract and re-bid on Weber in an open market place and give him a new affordable contract of the max salary for 5 years? You want to keep that long term contract because it will give Nashville a cap space advantage going forward?
And at the same time, you are arguing to eliminate those types of deals because they discriminate against teams like Nashville?
So you would like to protect Nashvilles interests by fighting for their ability to not rip up that unaffordable long term contract and re-bid on Weber in an open market place and give him a new affordable contract of the max salary for 5 years? You want to keep that long term contract because it will give Nashville a cap space advantage going forward?
And at the same time, you are arguing to eliminate those types of deals because they discriminate against teams like Nashville?
I'm not arguing anything of the sort. I was merely replying to your idea, which I already said likely wouldn't even work at all. You were saying all contracts over this hypothetical 5 year cap should be nullified, and the players should be UFAs. That would screw some teams over when they weren't the teams who actually negotiated the terms of the deals. It won't work. It's not a good idea.
so lets say that the khl takes just ovechkin and kovalchuck nobody else, the rest of the nhl players stay in the nhl.
good luck selling hockey tickets for any game outside of russian tickets at the next olympics. because canada won't be sending there best players, the americans won't be sending there best players, the czechs won't be sending there best players, the sweds won't be sending there best players, even germany would become even worse then they are because they have no nhl players to boost the team up.
it is pretty silly to think the iihf wouldn't step in to stop this knowing the back lash that the nhl would do to them.
even if the nhl says in the new cba that they are willing to stop play for those 2 weeks for the olympics, they will scratch that so fast and the olympic hockey tournament will becoming nothing more then the spengler cup.
So it's ok for the owners to unilaterally change the rules of the CBA?
I'm not arguing anything of the sort. I was merely replying to your idea, which I already said likely wouldn't even work at all. You were saying all contracts over this hypothetical 5 year cap should be nullified, and the players should be UFAs. That would screw some teams over when they weren't the teams who actually negotiated the terms of the deals. It won't work. It's not a good idea.
Arent those contracts albatrosses killing small revenue teams? This would be a chance to get out of those long term killer deals making life tough on low revenue teams and renegotiate them in the new, much fairer environment at a level that is now affordable.
Plus, it would create some excitement like all the rule changes and stuff did last time as all these ufa's go up for grabs just before the season starts - what do fans love more than that?
Weber, being an offersheet contract, wouldnt be exposed lets say. How could that then not be something you would want if you really felt those contracts were small market killers worth shutting the league down for in order to eliminate?
If prominent Russian players decide to stay in the KHL, there will be little the NHL can do to bring them back.
There is no binding transfer agreement. The sides have a handshake agreement to not poach each others' players under contract. If the KHL thinks they have the upper hand, the agreement will not last.
If Russian players refuse to return, their NHL teams could cancel their contracts. Or force the players to honor them (and make up for the lost years) should they ever return to the NHL. In all likelihood, neither one of these threats is likely to benefit the NHL teams.
What would the IIHF's position be? I doubt they'd want to pick a fight with Russia, given that the Olympics are just around the corner. It also probably benefits the IIHF to weaken the NHL's influence over international hockey.
Ovechkin and Kovalchuk would have obvious reasons to stay in the KHL - neither has exactly had a good run in the NHL the last couple of seasons, and both have been subject to a lot of criticism. Malkin less so, though given that he's already won everything that the NHL can offer, might want to continue his career in his home country. His contract also expires in 2014. He could use the threat to try to get the Penguins to commit to a Crosby type deal next summer.
. That's different then. Although he could just be posturing to get a deal done. Either way, unless a player makes a statement like that, we shouldn't assume things.
