HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hossa, Heatley, Spezza and Nash......Oh my

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-28-2005, 06:38 PM
  #126
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
The team is not obigated to offer Aki anything .. If they don't offer him a contract he becomes and UFA .. So how is that any different then starting as one ??

Your $1.2 is a pipe dream and NO offer means ZERO money for AKI .. Your lame duck example only holds true if ALL RFA need to recieve a MANDITORY offer as per the CBA limits .. That is the farthest thing from being true though.

If the Leafs go out and sign another UFA themselves then they can afford to let Aki walk particualrly in a Hard Cap world where they can't just offer qualifying offers wildly as the player could accept and put the team over the Hard Cap figure, or use up funds that need to address other areas or spent in other areas.

Aki is not reguired to accept the 85% offer and only certain players have arbitration rights so what are his options now sit out and get nothing (instead of taking the paycut) or even risk losing an Arbitration case and getting less ..and the team is not required to do anything else as a RFA by the CBA rules .. So they let Aki sit until he accepts it ..

If the Leafs would offer Aki 85% of his last Salary as a RFA, why would they not also offer that to him as a UFA if they want him on their team ??
&
How does that hurt AKI as a UFA ??..He takes the Leafs offer and his agent shops him around the league and if he does not get a better offer from anyone he then accepts the Leafs offer otherwise if he does get a better one and takes it then UFA proved to be better then RFA for Aki ..

There is no single RFA option that is more favourable to AKI then UFA ??
If Aki is made into a UFA he doesn't have that $1.2 million qualifying offer to shop around. He has to shop himself around and chances are he won't get that much on the open market in a capped situation.

Anyway, get back to me when the NHLPA makes an all out effort to have RFA's declared UFA's.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
04-28-2005, 06:55 PM
  #127
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Messenger,

I was talking about a negotiated CBA, but then again you knew that and still decided to go into your hilarious routine.

A court ruling that goes against a negotiated CBA isn't worth the paper it is written on. Pretty basic statement. If any of you have proof or precedent to suggest otherwise, kindly present it.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-28-2005, 07:09 PM
  #128
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
If Aki is made into a UFA he doesn't have that $1.2 million qualifying offer to shop around. He has to shop himself around and chances are he won't get that much on the open market in a capped situation..
Sounds like you realized how silly your point was with AKI ..

Who said he has the $1.2 to shop around .. You keep quoting the same nonsense ..

He shops around nothing if he gets no offer from the Leafs and the point was that as an UFA he goes to the highest bidder even if that is league minimum and RFA status guarantees him ABSOLUTELY nothing if he is not wanted or is not worth the money ..

I told my CAT and he understands this stuff better then you..


Last edited by Mess: 04-29-2005 at 03:17 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
04-28-2005, 07:19 PM
  #129
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Sounds like you realized how silly your point was with AKI ..

Who said he has the $1.2 to shop around .. You keep quoting the same nonsense ..

He shops around nothing if he gets no offer from the Leafs and the point was that as an UFA he goes to the highest bidder even if that is league minimum and RFA status guarantees him ABSOLUTELY nothing if he is not wanted or is not worth the money ..

I told my CAT understands this stuff better then you..
The point stands and you have, as usual, little ability to understand that I was using Berg's situation as an EXAMPLE. Ask him or any other RFA making in the millions if he would like to at least have the opportunity for the $X million qualifying offer, whether they want their team to decide to give it to him or not or throw that away that chance and become a UFA instead.

The NHLPA understands what I wrote because they have nothing in any of their proposals to have RFA's status changed to UFA's because they know what works in their favour even though you don't.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
04-28-2005, 07:40 PM
  #130
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
The point stands and you have, as usual, little ability to understand that I was using Berg's situation as an EXAMPLE. Ask him or any other RFA making in the millions if he would like to at least have the opportunity for the $X million qualifying offer, whether they want their team to decide to give it to him or not or throw that away that chance and become a UFA instead.

The NHLPA understands what I wrote because they have nothing in any of their proposals to have RFA's status changed to UFA's because they know what works in their favour even though you don't.
Walk away Arbitration cases by teams make RFA into UFA .. See Dimitri Khristich as an example.. See Brian Berard .. The player got a Qualifying offer and took his team to court ..and when the judge rules in his favor the Team walks away because there are no guarantees to the player..

RFA is ALWAYS FAVOURABLE to the OWNER and not the player because there is no guarantee to anything for the player .. but the owner uses RFA status to protect his invest by holding a player rights hostage preventing him from getting a better deal ..

Why did Joe Sakic, Sergei Federov receive better offers from other teams as RFA only to have their own teams match, to avoid losing them when they offered lower Qualifying offers themselves.

If a RFA is lost to another team .. The losing team gets draft picks as compensation .. How is that a benefit to the player or his new team ??

Why is the UFA age set to 31 and the Owners do not want it lowered but the players do ... The Lower the UFA age limit drops the more it cuts into the RFA range .. Strange !!!!!!!!!!!

Why do players think that is favourable to them ??

Why is it a concession to the NHL to offer a lower UFA in hopes of gaining FAVOUR in other areas of the CBA ..and why does the NHLPA negotiate to get it lowered in the CBA talks ??

You are completely lost on this subject ..

The Irony is that the same Aki Berg that you think is so secure by his RFA status is the very first Dman released unless he takes a paycut well below the qualifying offer IMO. The Leafs are already going to promote Carlo at a much more Cap friendly number.. (McCabe, Kaberle, Klee, & Carlo) make 4 and Leetch will try to be retained at a lower amount and/or replaced perhaps by a UFA .. and Pilar is a RFA and makes near league minimum at 400k. ..

So you think a 6th dman at best on the Leafs is going to make the league average near 1.2 mil .. Ya right he is ..


Last edited by Mess: 04-28-2005 at 07:58 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
04-28-2005, 08:45 PM
  #131
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
The Irony is that the same Aki Berg that you think is so secure by his RFA status is the very first Dman released unless he takes a paycut well below the qualifying offer IMO.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...php3?pid=22583

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
04-28-2005, 09:25 PM
  #132
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
You are offering Clarke Wilm into evidence ??

Now I usually get your subtle hints but I may need a second hint here ..

Mess is offline  
Old
04-28-2005, 09:48 PM
  #133
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Now I usually get your subtle hints but I may need a second hint here ..
Why, are you dump or something?

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
04-28-2005, 10:03 PM
  #134
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
I was talking about a negotiated CBA, but then again you knew that and still decided to go into your hilarious routine.

A court ruling that goes against a negotiated CBA isn't worth the paper it is written on. Pretty basic statement.


Still funny the second time.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
04-28-2005, 10:57 PM
  #135
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
[font=Verdana][font=Arial][font=Verdana][font=Arial][font=Verdana][size=2][font=Arial][size=2][font=Verdana]Walk away Arbitration cases by teams make RFA into UFA .. See Dimitri Khristich as an example.. See Brian Berard .. The player got a Qualifying offer and took his team to court ..and when the judge rules in his favor the Team walks away because there are no guarantees to the player..

RFA is ALWAYS FAVOURABLE to the OWNER and not the player because there is no guarantee to anything for the player .. but the owner uses RFA status to protect his invest by holding a player rights hostage preventing him from getting a better deal ..

Why did Joe Sakic, Sergei Federov receive better offers from other teams as RFA only to have their own teams match, to avoid losing them when they offered lower Qualifying offers themselves.
Only you could write that the RFA system was totally in favour of the owners and then cite two examples of players who used the leverage provided by that status to get multi-million contracts.

What part of "I was using Aki Berg as an example" confused you?

Wake me when the NHLPA tries to get all RFA's to UFA status.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 02:37 AM
  #136
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
Only you could write that the RFA system was totally in favour of the owners and then cite two examples of players who used the leverage provided by that status to get multi-million contracts.

What part of "I was using Aki Berg as an example" confused you?

Wake me when the NHLPA tries to get all RFA's to UFA status.
You're hopeless ..

Do you even know what RFA stands for, because you're displaying no evidence that you do. Using Aki Berg as your example, however is real poor idea and doesn't fit or make any sense on the subject being discussed.??.


Then I read your last line "Wake me" .. and I thought that certainly couldn't hurt you as Sleep posting is never a good idea as evidence of the stuff you are posting lately.

" I love sleep. My life has the tendency to fall apart when I'm awake, you know ?" ..... Ernest Hemingway

...sums up your posting contribution best IMO


Last edited by Mess: 04-29-2005 at 02:57 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 07:19 AM
  #137
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
You are offering Clarke Wilm into evidence ??

Now I usually get your subtle hints but I may need a second hint here ..
Being a RFA doesn't guarantee anything to the player.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 07:29 AM
  #138
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army


Still funny the second time.
Feel free to demonstrate why!

I've yet to see anyone present evidence that CBA labour law has been superseded by anti-trust law.

The NHL's position is clear. This is a matter to be decided upon by the CBA.

The NHLPA's position is clear. This is a matter to be decided upon by the CBA.

If you have even a shred of evidence to provide, now is the time.

Any ruling on free agent status that runs contrary to the CBA won't be worth the paper it is written on.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 08:00 AM
  #139
mydnyte
Registered User
 
mydnyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Feel free to demonstrate why!

I've yet to see anyone present evidence that CBA labour law has been superseded by anti-trust law.

The NHL's position is clear. This is a matter to be decided upon by the CBA.

The NHLPA's position is clear. This is a matter to be decided upon by the CBA.

If you have even a shred of evidence to provide, now is the time.

Any ruling on free agent status that runs contrary to the CBA won't be worth the paper it is written on.
You have got to be kidding me?? ...You just can't be serious ...did your mother drop you alot as a child??

mydnyte is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 08:34 AM
  #140
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydnyte
You have got to be kidding me?? ...You just can't be serious ...did your mother drop you alot as a child??
Still waiting for any evidence.....you know that funny little thing adults do when discussing an issue instead of just hurling insults.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 08:47 AM
  #141
mydnyte
Registered User
 
mydnyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,324
vCash: 500
Okay, here's one case where the NHLPA sued a 20 year old player because he wanted to play as an overager in the OHL and thus be granted Free Agent status after the season, and the NHLPA tried to deny him that right because he had been drafted by the Dallas Stars. http://www.nera.com/image/6002.pdf

...in the end, the OHL won on appeal, and the player was free to play where he wanted.

I'll add more as I find them ...there is one in particular that i'm trying to find with a more 'known' player.

/edit for more info
Here's a full writeup on the potential impase explaining how if it comes to it the courts will decide everything.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba...s/impasse.html


Last edited by mydnyte: 04-29-2005 at 09:11 AM.
mydnyte is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 09:18 AM
  #142
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Feel free to demonstrate why!
Are you saying that if a union and an employer negotiate a CBA where women are not allowed opportunities for advancement that there is nothing the courts could do?

How about a CBA that says any worker injured on the job is fired immediately without compensation?

How about a CBA that treats employees differently strictly based on their age.

What about one that says employees must funnel a certain amount of each pay cheque to help fund Iran's nuclear weapon progam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The NHL's position is clear. This is a matter to be decided upon by the CBA.

The NHLPA's position is clear. This is a matter to be decided upon by the CBA.
These postions are not clear at all. I already pointed this out to you, but you ignored it.

How could the NHL and NHLPA possibly be on the same page on this when Bill Daly is accusing the union of manufacturing it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
If you have even a shred of evidence to provide, now is the time.
I readily admit that I don't have stacks and stacks of case law at my disposal right now. But I don't really see you providing any evidence to support your claim either so I don't know what right you have demanding it from me.

But your claim that a CBA overrules anything decided in a court of law is so outlandish I shouldn't need to provide any evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Any ruling on free agent status that runs contrary to the CBA won't be worth the paper it is written on.
First of all that isn't what you originally said. Just to remind you, your original statement was, "A court ruling that goes against a negotiated CBA isn't worth the paper it is written on. Pretty basic statement."

Secondly, for you to make such a general and blanket statement like that is completely unfounded. I'm no laywer, but I do know enough about law to know that it isn't as black and white as you're trying to pretend it is.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 09:21 AM
  #143
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydnyte
Okay, here's one case where the NHLPA sued a 20 year old player because he wanted to play as an overager in the OHL and thus be granted Free Agent status after the season, and the NHLPA tried to deny him that right because he had been drafted by the Dallas Stars. http://www.nera.com/image/6002.pdf

...in the end, the OHL won on appeal, and the player was free to play where he wanted.

I'll add more as I find them ...there is one in particular that i'm trying to find with a more 'known' player.
Intersting read.

The results relate to the NHLPA's ability to block a player from competing in a league for which they are not the bargaining unit. Therefore, I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion.

If you have some more relevant evidence, I'd like to take a look at it.

Quote:
/edit for more info
Here's a full writeup on the potential impase explaining how if it comes to it the courts will decide everything.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba...s/impasse.html
Perhaps I was being unclear.

My claim is not relavtive to an imposed CBA, but to one negotiated by both parties.

I'm sure the courts would have a huge role in the process should impasse be declared.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 09:31 AM
  #144
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
You're hopeless ..

Do you even know what RFA stands for, because you're displaying no evidence that you do. Using Aki Berg as your example, however is real poor idea and doesn't fit or make any sense on the subject being discussed.??.


Then I read your last line "Wake me" .. and I thought that certainly couldn't hurt you as Sleep posting is never a good idea as evidence of the stuff you are posting lately.

" I love sleep. My life has the tendency to fall apart when I'm awake, you know ?" ..... Ernest Hemingway

...sums up your posting contribution best IMO
You know, I'd feel a lot worse if you agreed with me. The lists of subjects that you are out to lunch on is getting quite extensive but I really admire you for taking idiotic premises and having the courage to fight for them right to the end.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 09:31 AM
  #145
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Not exactly the same, but one particular court ruling that was precedent setting may have some interesting tidbits about the current situation.

KEVIN COLLINS & a. v. CITY OF MANCHESTER
MARC M. LACHANCE & a. v. CITY OF MANCHESTER

Argued: March 7, 2002

(Key Notes)
see Appeal of Milton School Dist., 137 N.H. 240......after CBA lacking automatic renewal clause has expired and while employer and union are negotiating new CBA, status quo doctrine requires that employment terms and conditions remain the same

...Had the defendant granted step increases to the plaintiffs after the 1991-1994 CBA expired, it arguably would have committed an unfair labor practice either because it would have unilaterally changed a term or condition of employment in violation of the status quo,...


Another:

In the case of Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers, 189 SCRA 179 (1991), this Court reiterated the rule that although a CBA has expired, it continues to have legal effects as between the parties until a new CBA has been entered into. It is the duty of both parties to the CBA to keep the status quo, and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day freedom period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties

So, when June 1st roles around....

Another note :

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recently held that grievances brought by employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) may be taken to court. The decision is Mudge v. United States, 308 F.3d. 1220 (Fed. Cir., October 17, 2002). In Mudge, the Federal Circuit overruled a line of prior Federal Circuit decisions precluding employees who are members of a bargaining unit from filing suits in court following the outcome of the processing of their grievances through administrative procedures.

Dar is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 10:12 AM
  #146
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Are you saying that if a union and an employer negotiate a CBA where women are not allowed opportunities for advancement that there is nothing the courts could do?

How about a CBA that says any worker injured on the job is fired immediately without compensation?

How about a CBA that treats employees differently strictly based on their age.

What about one that says employees must funnel a certain amount of each pay cheque to help fund Iran's nuclear weapon progam?
Shape shifting alien could kill all the judges and take their place. They could then issue rulings forcing NHLPA members to work in salt mines between the games.

Sorry, I thought everyone knew we were discussing plausible scenarios involving anti-trust law/labour law and individaul/collective rights in sports leagues as defined under CBA's.



Quote:
These postions are not clear at all. I already pointed this out to you, but you ignored it.

How could the NHL and NHLPA possibly be on the same page on this when Bill Daly is accusing the union of manufacturing it?
Daly accused the PA of trying to manufactue leverage. Both parties have clearly stated that these issues will be decided upon by the terms of the CBA.

from my post #87
Quote:
NHL VP Bill Daly lashed out at the NHLPA Players' Association over a Sun report yesterday, saying that a new collective bargaining agreement -- not the courts -- will determine the status of players.

"Player status issues, such as retention rights and free agency, are all subjects to be collectively bargained," union spokesman Jon Weatherdon said in a statement.



Quote:
I readily admit that I don't have stacks and stacks of case law at my disposal right now. But I don't really see you providing any evidence to support your claim either so I don't know what right you have demanding it from me.

But your claim that a CBA overrules anything decided in a court of law is so outlandish I shouldn't need to provide any evidence.
My claim is backed up by the last 20+ years of court ruling where the courts have consistently held that league and PA's can infringe upon individual anti-trust rights. The Maurice Clarett ruling is just the latest in a long series of rulings upholding this principle.



Quote:
First of all that isn't what you originally said. Just to remind you, your original statement was, "A court ruling that goes against a negotiated CBA isn't worth the paper it is written on. Pretty basic statement."

Secondly, for you to make such a general and blanket statement like that is completely unfounded. I'm no laywer, but I do know enough about law to know that it isn't as black and white as you're trying to pretend it is.
The case law, as it relates to players rights is clear. PA's and leagues negotiated CBA's supersedes anti-trust violations.

I could have been more clear in my original statement, but I thought it was fairly obvious my claim was made in the context of the issues under discussion.


Last edited by SENSible1*: 04-29-2005 at 10:33 AM.
SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 10:42 AM
  #147
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
You know, I'd feel a lot worse if you agreed with me. The lists of subjects that you are out to lunch on is getting quite extensive but I really admire you for taking idiotic premises and having the courage to fight for them right to the end.
The funny part is how disillusioned you are ..

If you took a moment to stop and think (precisely your problem mind you) .. You will notice that you often come across as disagreeing with the whole board and posting the opposite of what the majority are saying and posting .. A role not so very different then the very likeable character Sluggo did before you, as he was always right as well.

They say laughter is the best medicine so you certainly are doing your part to provide a little levity for our entertainment here.

If you believe we live in a democracy and that majority rules then why are you always out on an island with your ideas and concepts of things .. Further when people ask you to explain your position to help us understand your thought process, you refuse to answer the question directly and turn to the less then witty "Wake Me Up" type retorts when there is no rope left to hang yourself ..

If you feel my opinions are wrong on a wide range of subjects, then the conclusion you must be drawing (if you are drawing anything) is that a large portion of Leaf fans here are also wrong at the same time .. So if you want to lump me in with my friends here in the majority and paint us all as wrong then fine with me..

No man is an Island unto himself, except in your case because you are all alone and if you look closely you will see water all around you , while you're quickly sinking ..

Pssst .. Don't waste you time on me . your buddy Thunderstruck (who I am sure has to have been Lightning struck as well) needs your support in this thread I see, as he to thinks he's right while everyone else is wrong and he could use your Anti-Leaf ever loving support, as I see he has entered "Shape shifting aliens" into evidence to support his claims, and that seems right up your science fiction alley ..


Last edited by Mess: 04-29-2005 at 11:25 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 11:28 AM
  #148
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
-=[Or Alyn McCauley being just a throw in the Owen Nolan trade and now ..

SJ fans believe McCauley >>>>>> Nolan

Freddy Modin was crap, but now that he is a 30 goal scorer on a Stanley Cup team well that's different.

or saying Chris Higgins is a HF Top 50 prospect and no matter how well Kyle Wellwood out performs him that doesn't matter ..
Here's a good addition: Sundin was called overpaid recently in a discussion I was having on the Business board (ironically by a fan of the team paying Alexei Yashin 90 million dollars for 10 years!) .... But make him a Ranger and now he is the "Clutch" Mats Sundin.

http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php...82&postcount=3

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 11:35 AM
  #149
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
Being a RFA doesn't guarantee anything to the player.
Dang it, sorry I missed that.

I got so wrapped up explaining that RFA status is not such a favourable position and the words RESTRICTIVE in itself implies less rights then UNRESTRICTIVE by its nature alone..

Sometimes I swear I am as Dump as Messnager in these matters ..

Mess is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 12:04 PM
  #150
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Shape shifting alien could kill all the judges and take their place. They could then issue rulings forcing NHLPA members to work in salt mines between the games.

Sorry, I thought everyone knew we were discussing plausible scenarios involving anti-trust law/labour law and individaul/collective rights in sports leagues as defined under CBA's.
You don't think that discrimination based on age or gender is a plausible scenario?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Daly accused the PA of trying to manufactue leverage. Both parties have clearly stated that these issues will be decided upon by the terms of the CBA.
Please do not tailor Daly's quote to suit your argument.

Daly's actual quote was, "It's union-directed rhetoric which is so baseless it's almost laughable."

To me that implies that he believes the union is responsible for manufacturing the scenario. This would therefore imply that either the NHL or the NHLPA is not being trueful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
My claim is backed up by the last 20+ years of court ruling where the courts have consistently held that league and PA's can infringe upon individual anti-trust rights. The Maurice Clarett ruling is just the latest in a long series of rulings upholding this principle.
First of all, you've been asking everyone else to provide evidence for you (which they have) and all you can provide is some vague statement refering to 20+ years of court rulings.

If you think the Maurice Clarett case is a direct precedent to what's happening the NHL, you're mistaken.

Besides, here's what I've found regarding the Clarett case.

Quote:
NEW YORK (Feb. 5, 2004) -- A federal judge opened the door for Ohio State sensation Maurice Clarett and teen-age football stars to turn pro, declaring an NFL rule barring their eligibility violates antitrust law and "must be sacked".

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin said legal issues are so clearly in Clarett's favor a trial is unnecessary. The NFL said it will appeal, and it will probably try to block the ruling before the 2004 NFL Draft, to be held April 24-25.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7065049

Or

Quote:
The district court properly ruled that, “because the Rule violates the antitrust laws, it cannot preclude Clarett’s eligibility for the 2004 NFL draft” and specifically ordered that Clarett is eligible to participate in the draft to be held next month.
http://www.sskrplaw.com/nfl/clarett031204.pdf

I realize that the ruling was later appealed and Clarett was not eligible for the draft. But this does prove that your assertation that a court ruling, "isn't worth the paper it's written on" is clearly wrong.

The NFL would certainly disagree with you because they had to fight pretty hard against that "worthless piece of paper".

Quote:
The case law, as it relates to players rights is clear. PA's and leagues negotiated CBA's supersedes anti-trust violations.
You'd be hard pressed to find any case law that relates directly to what the NHL will be facing. Lawyers make their living off finding loopholes and challenging things like this.

For example if a court determines that current RFA's should be deemed UFAs, then a player like Rick Nash would be in the same category as Joe Nieuwendyk.

Would the CBA then be able to say that Nash's rights have to return to Columbus while Nieuwendyk's do not have to remain to Toronto? You honestly think there couldn't be a case built against this?

Quote:
I could have been more clear in my original statement, but I thought it was fairly obvious my claim was made in the context of the issues under discussion.
If you want to get your point across, don't throw out blanket statements like "Any court ruling isn't worth the paper it's written on".

It was an incorrect and misleading statement and really it hinders your argument more than it helps.


Last edited by Leaf Army: 04-29-2005 at 12:10 PM.
Leaf Army 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 04:50 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.