HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-29-2005, 12:24 PM
  #151
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
You don't think that discrimination based on age or gender is a plausible scenario?

Age discimination is already firmly entreched in terms of when an athlete can first enter the NHL.

Gender discrimination is not an issue. If women ever get good enough to play, they will be welcomed.

Quote:
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.
Both sources clearly stated that this would be decided by the collective agreement. Daly's quote is simply his statement that he believes the PA is attempting to generate leverage where none exists.

Quote:
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.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7065049

Or


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".
So Clarett won the right to be drafted in his draft year. The earlier rulings weren't worth the paper they were written on, as predicted. Except of course to the lawyers who made money wasting their clients money.

Quote:
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?
Of course a negotiated CBA would be able to place whatever restriction the parties agreed to on Nash and Joe N. They both signed standard player contracts, part of which outlines the PA's right, now and in the future to bargain on their behalf.

If the NHL and PA want to raise/lower or change the criteria for any group of players they currently (or in the future) represent, they are well within the bounds of their rights to do so.

Quote:
If you want to get your point across, don't throw out blanket statements like "Any court ruling is worth the paper it's written on".

It was an incorrect and misleading statement and really it hinders your argument more than it helps.
Any ruling on the individual rights of the players whose contracts expired or the unsigned draft picks won't be worth the paper it is written on if it contradicts a negotiated CBA.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 12:38 PM
  #152
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 57,695
vCash: 500
I always see the recent Maurice Clarett case as the exact opposite then it is intend to be used in this discussion ..

In this case an individual (Clarett) wanted special rules created for him to circumvent a valid CBA in place.. A request made Player to League for his best interests, in order to treat his situation as unique regarding draft eligible players.

In the 2003 draft class example the CBA is being circumvented to create special rules for them with currently an expired CBA is in place.... A request made by League against Player(s) best interests, to treat this particular draft year uniquely from all the rest ..


Clarett was not discriminated against or harmed, and the courts decided not to force the NFL to change its rules to accommodate him, however the 2003 entry draft would need special rules in this situation. In this battle of NHL verses NHLPA, which these players are NO PART OF (yet) , they are being handled differently because of it .. This is what makes this unchartered Territory for everyone ..

Maurice Clarett ..."Treat me Differently "

2003 Players ... " Treat us the same ".




Sidney Crosby could have attempted the same case as Clarett last year, and used the looming lockout and work stoppage to further increase his case, that his draft year might be interrupted and as such should be drafted the year earlier just in case, because he feels he is ready to take a crack at the NHL now.

.


Last edited by Mess: 04-29-2005 at 01:12 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 12:46 PM
  #153
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Age discimination is already firmly entreched in terms of when an athlete can first enter the NHL.

Gender discrimination is not an issue. If women ever get good enough to play, they will be welcomed.
There are other industries in which CBA's are used other than hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Both sources clearly stated that this would be decided by the collective agreement. Daly's quote is simply his statement that he believes the PA is attempting to generate leverage where none exists.
So are you saying that JP Barry and the other agents have no plan of following up on the legal action that they're threatening?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
So Clarett won the right to be drafted in his draft year. The earlier rulings weren't worth the paper they were written on, as predicted.
The earlier rulings were certainly worth something considering that Clarett very nearly was drafted the year he was fighting for. It took a last minute appeal to prevent it. So yes those previous rulings were actually worth a lot. Besides, the Clarett case isn't even that relevant to this discussion in the first place.

Besides you seem to be arguing with me as though I'm saying the agents have an iron clad case. I do not believe that at all. Like you, my bet is that when the lockout is over the RFAs rights will remain with their orginal team.

However, I don't like how some people think that it's impossible for these RFAs to be deemed UFA's- because it's not. And specifically with you, I don't like how you imply that these agents don't have any case at all and that any court ruling would be meaningless because that's not true either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Of course a negotiated CBA would be able to place whatever restriction the parties agreed to on Nash and Joe N. They both signed standard player contracts, part of which outlines the PA's right, now and in the future to bargain on their behalf.

If the NHL and PA want to raise/lower or change the criteria for any group of players they currently (or in the future) represent, they are well within the bounds of their rights to do so.
True. But this doesn't contradict what I said before. I've bolded a key part of what you wrote.

If a court rules Nash (for example) to be a UFA, he would be in the same group as Joe Nieuwendyk. Both would be UFA's.

So like I asked before, since Nash and Nieuwendyk would be in the same group (both UFAs) could a CBA then say Nash's rights have to return to Columbus while Nieuwendyk's do not have to return to Toronto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Any ruling on the individual rights of the players whose contracts expired or the unsigned draft picks won't be worth the paper it is written on if it contradicts a negotiated CBA.
Would that still hold true if the status of the player is already decided by the courts before a CBA is even in place?

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 01:14 PM
  #154
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 54,534
vCash: 500
Didn't some agent threaten to sue if his player wasn't allowed into the draft when he was only 18, and at the time you had to be 19 to enter?

This was around 1980.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 01:30 PM
  #155
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 57,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
Didn't some agent threaten to sue if his player wasn't allowed into the draft when he was only 18, and at the time you had to be 19 to enter?

This was around 1980.
Yup and he was a pretty good hockey player in his own right..

Perhaps he was only attempting back then to create leverage for the NHLPA during this lockout though .

How did Bill Daly respond back then .. ??

Mess is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 01:40 PM
  #156
mydnyte
Registered User
 
mydnyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Italy
Posts: 9,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
Didn't some agent threaten to sue if his player wasn't allowed into the draft when he was only 18, and at the time you had to be 19 to enter?

This was around 1980.
there was also the basketball player (name slips my mind) who wanted to goto the DBA right out of high school when HS players were not eligible and went to court and won a ruling and opened the door for all the HS players being drafted now.

mydnyte is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 01:46 PM
  #157
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
There are other industries in which CBA's are used other than hockey.
Really???

We are discussing them in the context of sports leagues.

Quote:
So are you saying that JP Barry and the other agents have no plan of following up on the legal action that they're threatening?
They may choose to. For now they are just trying to give Bobby leverage in the coming negotiations.

Quote:
The earlier rulings were certainly worth something considering that Clarett very nearly was drafted the year he was fighting for. It took a last minute appeal to prevent it. So yes those previous rulings were actually worth a lot.
This isn't horseshoes or handgrenades. Close counts for buptkus.

Quote:
Besides, the Clarett case isn't even that relevant to this discussion in the first place.
The Clarett case speaks directly to the league and PA being able to set CBA terms which hurt individual rights.

Quote:
Besides you seem to be arguing with me as though I'm saying the agents have an iron clad case. I do not believe that at all. Like you, my bet is that when the lockout is over the RFAs rights will remain with their orginal team.
The agents case is unlikely to be upheld. More importantly, the result of a negotiated CBA would render any favourable decision worthless.

Quote:
However, I don't like how some people think that it's impossible for these RFAs to be deemed UFA's- because it's not. And specifically with you, I don't like how you imply that these agents don't have any case at all and that any court ruling would be meaningless because that's not true either.

Until earlier in this post I don't believe I had even commented on the merits of their case.

Your personal like or dislike of the inevitability of the CBA being paramount over a court ruling is meaningless.

Quote:
True. But this doesn't contradict what I said before. I've bolded a key part of what you wrote.

If a court rules Nash (for example) to be a UFA, he would be in the same group as Joe Nieuwendyk. Both would be UFA's.

So like I asked before, since Nash and Nieuwendyk would be in the same group (both UFAs) could a CBA then say Nash's rights have to return to Columbus while Nieuwendyk's do not have to return to Toronto.
The court could rule Nash a UFA, but if the CBA states he is still property of the Blue Jackets that is who will hold his rights. Not only could this scenario occur, it is far and away the most likely one to take place.

The CBA could state that the age of free agency has been raised to 40 and the player is bound to the last team with whom they had a contract. Individual players sign over individual rights to the PA to negotiate in the best interests of ALL their clients, even though individuals may be disadvantaged by their decisions. That is the crucial point which is missed by all the people floating these scenarios.

Once the PA signs on the dotted line, its members are bound by its terms, court decisions on free agent status are rendered meaningless.



Quote:
Would that still hold true if the status of the player is already decided by the courts before a CBA is even in place?
Yes is certainly would overule the court decision.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 02:06 PM
  #158
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Really???

We are discussing them in the context of sports leagues.
Not really. What we're talking about could be applied to any industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
They may choose to. For now they are just trying to give Bobby leverage in the coming negotiations.
But you're trying to say NHLPA doesn't back this. Which is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
This isn't horseshoes or handgrenades. Close counts for buptkus.

The Clarett case speaks directly to the league and PA being able to set CBA terms which hurt individual rights.
See the Messenger's post on this matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The agents case is unlikely to be upheld. More importantly, the result of a negotiated CBA would render any favourable decision worthless.
A decision made in a court of law is never "worthless". Ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The court could rule Nash a UFA, but if the CBA states he is still property of the Blue Jackets that is who will hold his rights. Not only could this scenario occur, it is far and away the most likely one to take place.
This still doesn't respond to my comparison Nieuwendyk and Nash. How could a CBA pick and choose which UFA's go back to their original teams and which don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The CBA could state that the age of free agency has been raised to 40 and the player is bound to the last team with whom they had a contract. Individual players sign over individual rights to the PA to negotiate in the best interests of ALL their clients, even though individuals may be disadvantaged by their decisions. That is the crucial point which is missed by all the people floating these scenarios.
I don't dispute this. Except maybe your first sentence only because we've lost a whole contract year so that issue could be a little fuzzy for some players- but that's another topic altogether.

What I'm saying is they might have to treat all UFA's the same wouldn't they. Sure they could raise the age to 40- but they'd have to do it for all UFAs. They could drop the UFA age to 22- but they'd have to it for all UFAs.

So if Nash is determined to be a UFA, he might have to be treated the same as all other UFAs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Once the PA signs on the dotted line, its members are bound by its terms, court decisions on free agent status are rendered meaningless.
Once again, court decisions are never meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Yes is certainly would overule the court decision.
Correction. It MIGHT overule the court decision.

You need to stop talking with such certainty. Don't pretend you know for sure what's going to happen. It's silly for you to do so.

I'm able to look at both sides of this situation. I'm just asking you to do the same.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 02:18 PM
  #159
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Yes is certainly would overule the court decision.
State and Provincial Law supercedes any CBA.
See Rhode Island Alliance of Social Services Employees, 747 A.2d at 469

If the courts have no jurisdiction and cannot challenge stipulations included in a collective bargaining agreement, then why are there so many cases spread abundantly throughout the net documenting cases where people have challenged an arbitrators decision through court?

CBA's agreed upon by both the union and employers give the arbitrator the authority to render decisions which may not be challenged. However many of these cases find themselves being appealled through the Supreme, State or Superior courts. Why would that happen if they have no jurisdiction over the decision of someone who has the final say according to a CBA?

Dar is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 02:21 PM
  #160
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 54,534
vCash: 500
If you're bored, some light reading:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...e&no=966866opa

"It is true that Brisentine, unlike the plaintiff in Alexander, did not first submit any contract-based claims to arbitration. However, as the Alexander Court noted, "the actual submission of [the] grievance to arbitration ... does not alter the situation." 415 U.S. at 52 , 94 S.Ct. at 1021; see also id. at 52, 94 S.Ct. at 1022 ("[Statutory and contractual rights] have legally independent origins and are equally available to the aggrieved party."); Varner v. National Super Markets, Inc., 94 F.3d 1209, 1213 (8th Cir.1996) ("[T]he United States Supreme Court has held that the pursuit of a claim through grievance and binding arbitration under a [collective bargaining agreement] does not preclude a civil suit under Title VII, and we believe that the same reasoning applies to a plaintiff who has chosen not to participate in the grievance procedure.") (citations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 946, 136 L.Ed.2d 835 (1997). For all of those reasons, the first distinction the Supreme Court drew between Alexander and Gilmer places the present case on the Alexander side of the line.
"

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 03:28 PM
  #161
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 57,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
If you're bored, some light reading:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=966866opa

"It is true that Brisentine, unlike the plaintiff in Alexander, did not first submit any contract-based claims to arbitration. However, as the Alexander Court noted, "the actual submission of [the] grievance to arbitration ... does not alter the situation." 415 U.S. at 52 , 94 S.Ct. at 1021; see also id. at 52, 94 S.Ct. at 1022 ("[Statutory and contractual rights] have legally independent origins and are equally available to the aggrieved party."); Varner v. National Super Markets, Inc., 94 F.3d 1209, 1213 (8th Cir.1996) ("[T]he United States Supreme Court has held that the pursuit of a claim through grievance and binding arbitration under a [collective bargaining agreement] does not preclude a civil suit under Title VII, and we believe that the same reasoning applies to a plaintiff who has chosen not to participate in the grievance procedure.") (citations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 946, 136 L.Ed.2d 835 (1997). For all of those reasons, the first distinction the Supreme Court drew between Alexander and Gilmer places the present case on the Alexander side of the line.
"
Its almost beyond comprehension that actual facts are required to disprove this nonsensical dysfunctional theory

Mess is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 03:45 PM
  #162
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
If you're bored, some light reading:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...e&no=966866opa

"It is true that Brisentine, unlike the plaintiff in Alexander, did not first submit any contract-based claims to arbitration. However, as the Alexander Court noted, "the actual submission of [the] grievance to arbitration ... does not alter the situation." 415 U.S. at 52 , 94 S.Ct. at 1021; see also id. at 52, 94 S.Ct. at 1022 ("[Statutory and contractual rights] have legally independent origins and are equally available to the aggrieved party."); Varner v. National Super Markets, Inc., 94 F.3d 1209, 1213 (8th Cir.1996) ("[T]he United States Supreme Court has held that the pursuit of a claim through grievance and binding arbitration under a [collective bargaining agreement] does not preclude a civil suit under Title VII, and we believe that the same reasoning applies to a plaintiff who has chosen not to participate in the grievance procedure.") (citations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 946, 136 L.Ed.2d 835 (1997). For all of those reasons, the first distinction the Supreme Court drew between Alexander and Gilmer places the present case on the Alexander side of the line.
"
Title VI refers to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. If that was the case with these players and the NHL CBA then there is no way that the court could say that the CBA holds precedence.

However, it has nothing to do with Barry and his clients' situation.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 03:54 PM
  #163
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 54,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
Title VI refers to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. If that was the case with these players and the NHL CBA then there is no way that the court could say that the CBA holds precedence.
So the CBA does not supersede laws.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 04:05 PM
  #164
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
So the CBA does not supersede laws.
Of course not, none of them can.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 04:54 PM
  #165
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
In the context of anti-trust law and individual rights in pro-sports leagues, the courts have consistently held that a negotiated CBA supersedes the anti-trust law.

If you have some evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm still waiting.

Quote:
This still doesn't respond to my comparison Nieuwendyk and Nash. How could a CBA pick and choose which UFA's go back to their original teams and which don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The CBA could state that the age of free agency has been raised to 40 and the player is bound to the last team with whom they had a contract. Individual players sign over individual rights to the PA to negotiate in the best interests of ALL their clients, even though individuals may be disadvantaged by their decisions. That is the crucial point which is missed by all the people floating these scenarios.

I don't dispute this. Except maybe your first sentence only because we've lost a whole contract year so that issue could be a little fuzzy for some players- but that's another topic altogether.

What I'm saying is they might have to treat all UFA's the same wouldn't they. Sure they could raise the age to 40- but they'd have to do it for all UFAs. They could drop the UFA age to 22- but they'd have to it for all UFAs.

So if Nash is determined to be a UFA, he might have to be treated the same as all other UFAs.
What don't you understand?

Sports CBA's, including the most recent one between the NHL and its PA, have differentiated between groups of players based on age and years of service. To suggest that the NHL and PA wouldn't be able to "return" Nash to the Blue Jackets because of some meaningless court decision flies in the face of reason.

The distinctions are arbitrarily agreed upon by the NHL and PA. If they want to change the definition for each group, they are well within their established rights.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 04:58 PM
  #166
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
So the CBA does not supersede laws.
Laws from different areas often come into conflict.

When they do one has to examine the current trends to see which one takes precedent.

In the context of the conflict between labour and anti-trust law in pro-sports, labour law has held sway.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 05:17 PM
  #167
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 54,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Laws from different areas often come into conflict.

When they do one has to examine the current trends to see which one takes precedent.

In the context of the conflict between labour and anti-trust law in pro-sports, labour law has held sway.
Agreed.

In those cases was the application of the law held to a consistent and equal basis?

Again, anything can be argued in the courts, and the NHL backed off a policy of only drafting players 20 or older about 25 years ago, under the threat of a court case.

I see a problem for the NHL when they want to apply a different set of standards for the express purpose of benefitting themselves, and doing it in a manner that will penalize only certain groups.

In reading up on this it becomes apparent the NHLPA can sign into a CBA for the players, but unless the players individually sign this agreement they have rights that cannot be negotiated away.

I don't expect the unsigned draft class of 2003 to be set free, but I believe there is a good argument to be made to apply the passage of time equally to all members affected by the lock-out. Either you freeze time or you don't freeze time.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 05:31 PM
  #168
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,432
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to futurcorerock
What do all these players have in common?

They will NOT suit up for the leafs until they are UFA's.

futurcorerock is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 08:00 PM
  #169
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 54,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by futurcorerock
What do all these players have in common?

They will NOT suit up for the leafs until they are UFA's.
That might be the next time the NHL plays.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
04-30-2005, 12:11 AM
  #170
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
What don't you understand?

Sports CBA's, including the most recent one between the NHL and its PA, have differentiated between groups of players based on age and years of service. To suggest that the NHL and PA wouldn't be able to "return" Nash to the Blue Jackets because of some meaningless court decision flies in the face of reason.

The distinctions are arbitrarily agreed upon by the NHL and PA. If they want to change the definition for each group, they are well within their established rights.
How about you reply to my specific examples rather than just repeating all the same stuff you've been saying the whole time.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
04-30-2005, 09:22 AM
  #171
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
Agreed.

In those cases was the application of the law held to a consistent and equal basis?

Again, anything can be argued in the courts, and the NHL backed off a policy of only drafting players 20 or older about 25 years ago, under the threat of a court case.

I see a problem for the NHL when they want to apply a different set of standards for the express purpose of benefitting themselves, and doing it in a manner that will penalize only certain groups.

In reading up on this it becomes apparent the NHLPA can sign into a CBA for the players, but unless the players individually sign this agreement they have rights that cannot be negotiated away.

I don't expect the unsigned draft class of 2003 to be set free, but I believe there is a good argument to be made to apply the passage of time equally to all members affected by the lock-out. Either you freeze time or you don't freeze time.
Good post.

I expect the class of 2003 rights to be held onto by the teams, but the teams will be forced to sign them under the entry level system used in the old CBA.

I also expect the contract to tick off a year because it benefits the group as a whole. Sure Roberts and Nieuwndyk would like to get their money, but do you think Havlat/Nash want another year served before they gets arbitration rights?

Do you think Mogilny and all the other injured players want to have to pay back the money they made this year?

Leaf Army,

The distinctions are arbitrarily agreed upon by the NHL and PA. If they want to change the definition for each group, they are well within their established rights. Do I really need to go back over the past CBA's to show that the PA and NHL have the right to change the definition or will you just accept something we both know to be true?

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-30-2005, 10:35 AM
  #172
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 57,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Good post.

I expect the class of 2003 rights to be held onto by the teams, but the teams will be forced to sign them under the entry level system used in the old CBA.

I also expect the contract to tick off a year because it benefits the group as a whole. Sure Roberts and Nieuwndyk would like to get their money, but do you think Havlat/Nash want another year served before they gets arbitration rights?

Do you think Mogilny and all the other injured players want to have to pay back the money they made this year?
Most of the early NHL offers including NO SALARY ARBITRATION

and in the FINAL OFFER to the players before the Season was cancelled include this in their proposal

Quote:

SALARY ARBITRATION

-- Entirely mutual (Players and Clubs have identical rights to request arbitration).

-- All Group 2 Players (RFA) are eligible for Salary Arbitration. (Salary Arbitration is available with respect to all Players who have completed four (4) years in the Entry Level System and are not yet eligible for Unrestricted Free Agency.)

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlproposal020205.html




So your year ticking off holds no water at all and does not give them anything extra that they wouldn't have either way !!!

But the lockout prevents timely Qualifying offers (topic of discussion of the article)and the OLD CBA states that if they do no received them, then player becomes and Group V - UFA ..

What would benefit Havlat/Nash more financially ??..... Having their case heard by an Arbitrator or have 30 teams including their own bidding against each other to determine their market value ??.

So you should be able to see the advantage to the players if they could win this is court, and why the NHLPA with the best interest of its players in mind would be very hesitant to give this up in CBA talks in the first place, much like the 24% rollback offer was an attempt to avoid a Hard Cap.

If Goodenow could say to the NHL Owners ... What would you rather have Hard Cap or Havlat/Nash and other RFA to become UFA ..

What would the Owners pick ??.. Your Sens with all their Core Players in the RFA category would have to abandon the Hard Cap Stance to prevent the loss of the players.. unless they truly believe they are Autoworkers and replaceable and want Cost Certainty to make the team profitable .

You keep arguing it will be in the CBA .. but ask yourself why would Goodenow agree to it on behalf of the NHLPA??

Mess is offline  
Old
04-30-2005, 12:47 PM
  #173
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The distinctions are arbitrarily agreed upon by the NHL and PA. If they want to change the definition for each group, they are well within their established rights. Do I really need to go back over the past CBA's to show that the PA and NHL have the right to change the definition or will you just accept something we both know to be true?
This still does not address my specific point.

You keep talking about "groups" of players. If a court were to rule Rick Nash to be a UFA, he would be in the same "group" as Joe Nieuwendyk (both UFAs). So how can a CBA treat one unrestricted free agent differently from another?

I don't neccessarily disagree with your idea of how things will turn out. Things could end up going down exactly how you've described it. However what you need to understand is that there is a chance that it won't.

The proof is there. Many teams went to the effort and expense to sign their top prospects before the CBA expired. According to your theory, they didn't need to because it is impossible for them to lose these players.

Well there are many very intelligent men across hockey who disagreed with your assessment and decided to sign those prospects anyway. They understood that this situation is unpredictable and that there NO certainties.

That's what you need to accept as well.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 03:39 PM
  #174
darrylsittler27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,890
vCash: 500
The leafs want chaos

This all works out well for the leafs.They are a big market team and they get their cupboards swept for them.By the time the nhl plays again any vet leafs will not have much time left on their contracts anyway.The leafs needed to rebuild,they didnt win the cup,they didnt even come close.MANY TEAMS will simply walk away from large contract demands.Nash may command 5 million on the market,will nashville bite even?Then we could offer them nolan as compensation lol.The rich will get richer and the poor will start again.

darrylsittler27 is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 05:49 PM
  #175
bingo_vodun
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Most of the early NHL offers including NO SALARY ARBITRATION

and in the FINAL OFFER to the players before the Season was cancelled include this in their proposal

[/size]



So your year ticking off holds no water at all and does not give them anything extra that they wouldn't have either way !!!

But the lockout prevents timely Qualifying offers (topic of discussion of the article)and the OLD CBA states that if they do no received them, then player becomes and Group V - UFA ..

What would benefit Havlat/Nash more financially ??..... Having their case heard by an Arbitrator or have 30 teams including their own bidding against each other to determine their market value ??.

So you should be able to see the advantage to the players if they could win this is court, and why the NHLPA with the best interest of its players in mind would be very hesitant to give this up in CBA talks in the first place, much like the 24% rollback offer was an attempt to avoid a Hard Cap.

If Goodenow could say to the NHL Owners ... What would you rather have Hard Cap or Havlat/Nash and other RFA to become UFA ..

What would the Owners pick ??.. Your Sens with all their Core Players in the RFA category would have to abandon the Hard Cap Stance to prevent the loss of the players.. unless they truly believe they are Autoworkers and replaceable and want Cost Certainty to make the team profitable .

You keep arguing it will be in the CBA .. but ask yourself why would Goodenow agree to it on behalf of the NHLPA??
messenger both of ours, you see your is also a reality, it is also accepted by me, so in tunr I understand your reality, as well as my own.

1 + 1 = 2. meaning there are two answers to every question, what = 2. it only takes the understanding of both to understand the one, in turn what is real.

bingo_vodun 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 07:23 PM.

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.