HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Melnyk officially files grievance against Heatley (Update - Settled - Post #125)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-03-2009, 05:44 PM
  #51
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
On what grounds?
Heatley nixed a deal, after saying it was okay to talk to EDM, before july first that would have saved Melnyk 4 mil.

I'd say it's a 50/50 shot either way

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 05:57 PM
  #52
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovercraft View Post
Heatley nixed a deal, after saying it was okay to talk to EDM, before july first that would have saved Melnyk 4 mil.

I'd say it's a 50/50 shot either way
I would be very surprised if Melnyk won the grieveance before an impartial arbiter - Heatley just exercised the rights he had under his SPC.

IIRC, the initial talks of grievances (and Daly's positive comments) occurred while talks with Edmonton were still ongoing - and the original basis for the grievance was that Heatley delayed approving the deal so that Ottawa got stiffed for the bonus. If Heatley had delayed and then OKed the deal just after July 1, then I could maybe see some grounds for a grievance.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 06:00 PM
  #53
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovercraft View Post
Heatley nixed a deal, after saying it was okay to talk to EDM, before july first that would have saved Melnyk 4 mil.

I'd say it's a 50/50 shot either way
Not the way I see it. Melnyk is invoking the "faint hope clause". There are no viable legal ground for the claim that I can see.

Greg Wyshinski (Puck Daddy) puts it thusly (and I agree):
Quote:
It doesn't matter if Barry and McAlpine gave the Senators permission to speak to the Oilers or the Orlando Rollergators; Ottawa gave Heatley the right to exercise a veto and gave him a bonus to collect as long as he was a Senator -- both of which he did. In fact, the bonus the Senators promised him actually harmed their ability to trade him.

In the battle of dumb versus selfish, the winner is selfish.

Barring any bombshells lingering off the record, this would appear to be a slam-dunk case for NHLPA lawyers.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...urn=nhl,199914

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 06:02 PM
  #54
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
I'm guessing that he asked to be traded, there was a trade to be made before the $4 million had to be paid, and Heatley refused it.
But how does that constitute grounds for repayment of the bonus at law?

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 06:05 PM
  #55
snaggle toof
Registered User
 
snaggle toof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovercraft View Post
Heatley nixed a deal, after saying it was okay to talk to EDM, before july first that would have saved Melnyk 4 mil.

I'd say it's a 50/50 shot either way
Are there any links or any stories that say the Heatley camp gave permission to the Sens to deal with the Oilers? I have heard it reported both ways, but in a recent interview Heatley said Edmonton was never on the list of acceptable teams.

snaggle toof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 06:16 PM
  #56
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by snaggle toof View Post
Are there any links or any stories that say the Heatley camp gave permission to the Sens to deal with the Oilers? I have heard it reported both ways, but in a recent interview Heatley said Edmonton was never on the list of acceptable teams.
its in the OP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrioch
Melnyk contends in the paperwork filed at the NHL’s New York headquarters, that Heatley’s camp — including agents J.P. Barry and Stacey McAlpine — gave the Senators permission to speak with the Oilers and the two-time, 50-goal scorer should have accepted the deal to Edmonton.


It’s believed Melnyk not only claims the decision by Heatley to kill the deal cost him $4 million, it also hurt the club’s ability to sell season tickets because of the uncertainty in the Senators camp.
the last part is interesting, because i think it suggests that melnyk blames the heatley camp for leaking the trade request.

__________________
RIP Kev.
danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 06:21 PM
  #57
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
But how does that constitute grounds for repayment of the bonus at law?
Let me visit my local law library and get back to you with the proper motion.

In the meantime I will guess that their case would be based around malicious intent.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 06:22 PM
  #58
gonegonegone*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Diego
Country: United States
Posts: 3,338
vCash: 500
To the Sens fans who think there is even a shot, on what grounds? The only thing I hear from you guys is "wahh he could have left before 7/1."

Hurt feelings, meet cold hard contractual law.

I wasn't aware that the signing bonus was contingent on anything other than Heater being a Sen, which he was. Even if Heater gave permission, and later said 'eh no thanks to Edmonton', that is 1000% in his rights to do, thanks to mr. NTC.

Do players whine and sue when they get traded? "Mr. GM told me he would keep me!!! What do you mean is it in the contract? Does that matter?" Because that's pretty much what it sounds like out of Ottawa.

gonegonegone* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 06:34 PM
  #59
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,931
vCash: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Not the way I see it. Melnyk is invoking the "faint hope clause". There are no viable legal ground for the claim that I can see.

Greg Wyshinski (Puck Daddy) puts it thusly (and I agree):

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...urn=nhl,199914
Does the arbitrator have any discretion to penalize parties who file frivolous grievances? The NHLPA ought to be able to recover legal expenses. This is just plain harassment by a sore loser who couldn't win by playing by the rules.

Buffaloed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 06:34 PM
  #60
snaggle toof
Registered User
 
snaggle toof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
its in the OP



the last part is interesting, because i think it suggests that melnyk blames the heatley camp for leaking the trade request.

I meant something a little more concrete than "sources say" which you left out of your quote for what ever reason. I have googled a few articles that date back to when Heatley submited the teams he would accept a trade to, and not one of them has the Oilers listed as an acceptable trade.

Any ways I think the puckdaddy article above hits the nail on the head, it does not matter if Edmonton was on the list, there was no legal reason that Heatley had to accept the trade prior to the July 1st date, the only party bound by that date was the owner of Heatleys contract, which at the time was Ottawa


Last edited by snaggle toof: 11-03-2009 at 06:40 PM.
snaggle toof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 06:50 PM
  #61
Highbrow
Alfie, Alfie, Alfie!
 
Highbrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by snaggle toof View Post
I agree with this, why would it effect Heatley? The players association is going to fight it, not Heatley and his private lawyers. Plus at the end of the day Heatley will be paid the amount he is owed and I doubt if it matters to him who signs the check.
That raises an interesting point, is there any way that Melnyk won't have to pay the 4$ mill but someone else/another organization will?

Highbrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 06:55 PM
  #62
Highbrow
Alfie, Alfie, Alfie!
 
Highbrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by endy View Post
To the Sens fans who think there is even a shot, on what grounds? The only thing I hear from you guys is "wahh he could have left before 7/1."

Hurt feelings, meet cold hard contractual law.

I wasn't aware that the signing bonus was contingent on anything other than Heater being a Sen, which he was. Even if Heater gave permission, and later said 'eh no thanks to Edmonton', that is 1000% in his rights to do, thanks to mr. NTC.

Do players whine and sue when they get traded? "Mr. GM told me he would keep me!!! What do you mean is it in the contract? Does that matter?" Because that's pretty much what it sounds like out of Ottawa.
By your overgeneralized explanation of Sens fans' current opinion on the matter, you've also rationalized why Melnyk would be filing such grievances despite whether or not he'll win.

Highbrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 08:10 PM
  #63
Alfredsson11
Registered User
 
Alfredsson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,940
vCash: 500
How is this going to be a distraction towards Heatley?

He gets his 4 mil either way.

I didn't like what Dany did to Eugene and Sens this summer but I like him as a player.

If it is true that the Heatley camp gave Ottawa permission to talk to Edmonton then I think Melynk has some support to back his claim.

Mod: deleted.


Last edited by Fugu: 11-04-2009 at 05:29 AM. Reason: OT
Alfredsson11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 08:10 PM
  #64
Alfredsson11
Registered User
 
Alfredsson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
its in the OP



the last part is interesting, because i think it suggests that melnyk blames the heatley camp for leaking the trade request.
Well we all know that they did it.

Alfredsson11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 08:19 PM
  #65
dre2112
Registered User
 
dre2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: US and A
Country: United States
Posts: 2,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfredsson11 View Post
Well we all know that they did it.
No we don't. Got some proof because all the reports I read indicate that Heatley tried to keep quiet but someone on th Senators side leaked it.

And set your emotions aside, because that's what the judge will do in this case, and at the end of the day the judge is going to rule in favor of the contract. Heatley was well within his rights as outlined per the contract.

And to be honest, if Melnyk is going around filing lawsuits to cause stress and grievance to people, then he could be sued himself. I believe this is called vexatious litigation and can be deemed an abuse of the judicial system.

dre2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 08:22 PM
  #66
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Don't NHL player contracts have a "conduct unbecoming" type clause? If Ottawa ownership is this upset and intended to fight all the way, seems they would have had a bigger hammer by suspending him and not paying the $4M in the first place.

Turn the process around and make Heatley do the grievance-ing.

  Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 08:34 PM
  #67
SilverSeven
Registered User
 
SilverSeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed View Post
Does the arbitrator have any discretion to penalize parties who file frivolous grievances? The NHLPA ought to be able to recover legal expenses. This is just plain harassment by a sore loser who couldn't win by playing by the rules.
It cant be all that frivolous. Bill Daly said in the summer that Melnyk would have a case. Your last sentence is ridiculous. It makes no sense. There is no loser here. Melnyk didnt try to play outside of the rules.

SilverSeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 08:37 PM
  #68
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,252
vCash: 500
Mod note - let's keep this discussion centered on the *business* aspect of grievance, NTCs, and the facts about Heatley's contract. Not on the personalities/qualities of the folks involved, nor the fans of any team.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 08:39 PM
  #69
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
I guess the NHL could make a rule for players who demand a trade with a NTC

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 09:00 PM
  #70
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovercraft View Post
I guess the NHL could make a rule for players who demand a trade with a NTC
Requires modification to the CBA.

I would not be at all surprised to see NTCs/NMCs/requesting a trade part of the discussion/negotiation for the next one.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 09:10 PM
  #71
MatthewT
Registered User
 
MatthewT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Don't NHL player contracts have a "conduct unbecoming" type clause? If Ottawa ownership is this upset and intended to fight all the way, seems they would have had a bigger hammer by suspending him and not paying the $4M in the first place.

Turn the process around and make Heatley do the grievance-ing.
How could they suspend him? Based on what? He showed up to camp, said all along he would play if no deal was reached. I could be wrong, but I don't think you could just suspend him because he asked to be traded.

MatthewT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 09:23 PM
  #72
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,311
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovercraft View Post
I guess the NHL could make a rule for players who demand a trade with a NTC
There's no need. All NTC/NMC's can be made conditional if you write it into the contract. Theoretically, they can make a league-wide rule but it wouldn't or shouldn't be all that important from an owner's front. Just write it into the silly contract and make it standard for all NTC's you hand out. If player requests a trade, he must do so in writing and list a negotiated number of teams he'd be willing to accept a trade to and it is done. The issue could've also been avoided had they not handed out a roster bonus. There's really no need for those in contracts anymore.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 11:20 PM
  #73
EvilPirateZamboni
Taco Loco!!!
 
EvilPirateZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 267
vCash: 845
I don't get it. The only way this makes sense is if the Sharks didn't know about the $4 Million. Either the Sens pay the $4 Million or they get less in the trade. In either situation the "cost" of the trade would be the same.


Last edited by EvilPirateZamboni: 11-03-2009 at 11:30 PM.
EvilPirateZamboni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 11:36 PM
  #74
brtriad
Registered User
 
brtriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Loop
Country: United States
Posts: 13,004
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to brtriad
I don't see what case the Senators have. Heatley has a NMC clause in his contract as did he have a bonus due to him by July 1. Just because he refused a trade to Edmonton (which was a contractual right of his) doesn't mean his right to that bonus on July 1st went away. Heatley clearly holds all of the contractual leverage in this case, and that is why he ultimately end up choosing (basically) San Jose as his new home. This case is pretty open and shut barring any facts that haven't come to light.

brtriad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2009, 11:53 PM
  #75
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
Let me visit my local law library and get back to you with the proper motion.

In the meantime I will guess that their case would be based around malicious intent.
This is contract law.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:38 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.