Arbitration question

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by txomisc, Aug 11, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    I have a question reguarding a scenario. Is it possible? Prohibited by the CBA? Basically, once the arbitrator makes his ruling, is that the only contract the player and the team can come to an agreement on?

    Player A wants a contract of three years, six mllion dollars but cant find an agreement with the team. Which is offering 3 years 1.5 million He decides to go to arbitration in attempt to ensure a contract in time for a season. The arbitrator rules that the team must make a one year offer of 1.8 million or the player becomes UFA. The team calls the player up and says "We think this ruling is fair and would really like to get you signed, would you agree to a 3 year 5.6 (yes i know 1.8 * 3 isnt 5.6)" Player A thinks his is a fine idea and the two have themselves an agreement.
     
  2. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Yes, arbitration contracts can be re-negotiated - well not renegotiated (since that is not allowed according to the CBA FAQ), but an extention on any mutually satisfactory terms could be negotiated (assuming it was a 1 yr contract - extentions can only be negotiated in the last year of a contract).

    However, IIRC, it was stated in one of these arbitration threads that there was some deadline (Dec 1, Jan 1 ?) that was the earliest that an extention could be signed.
     
  3. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    Thanks for the reply. I couldnt find anything in the CBA faq that said you couldnt negotiate off an arbitration ruling, perhaps you could direct me to it?
     
  4. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    I think kdp is referring to the restriction on renegotiating contracts in general. I think you have it spot on, kdp.
     
  5. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    Thanks. This is a small portion of the old cba reguarding arbitration: "The terms of the award of the Arbitrator shall not be modified in any respect
    except where the parties subsequently agree."

    I am unclear as to what it actually means? To me, it seems to say that the terms cant be modified unless both parties agree. I guess the use of the word subsequently is the key board. Subsequent to what? The arbitrators ruling? The actual signing of the arbitration ruling?
     
  6. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    Yes, that provision was referring to the fact that the parties can always sign a contract to override the arbitration decision later on. A guy gets awarded a mil, he and the club can feel free to sign a multi year deal for whatever after the arbitrator has ruled. It means "subsequent to the arbitrator's decision having been rendered"
     
  7. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    So they really arent binding, at all? The only thing is if you dont make the offer the player becomes UFA?
     
  8. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    No, they ARE binding. I am not sure where you get the idea that it is not. The concept of something being "binding" is only relevant and applicable when one side would rather not do it. If one of the parties does not want to adhere to something, they must if it is binding. That is the point here. Assuming the club and player do not mutually agree to do something else, the arbitration award is binding.

    For that matter, however, arb awards have always been subject to the clubs' limited walk-away rights under the old CBA.

    Incidentally, I want to correct an aspect of my earlier post. The right of the team/player to negotiate a contract different from the arb award can only happen after Jan 1.
     
  9. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    Ok that makes sense. I guess i was confused as to whether or not binding meant they were not free to come to another agreement.
     
  10. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    Yep. "Binding" should not be read as "immutable".
     
  11. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    Thanks again. Where did you get the Jan 1 date?
     
  12. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    So one more question so its absolutely clear. Once the arbitrator makes his ruling, the team and the player cannot make any agreement other than what the arbitrator has ruled until January 1st?
     
  13. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    That is my understanding. THe Jan 1 date comes from the CBA FAQ regarding contract extensions.
     
  14. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    Huh, I wonder what the reasoning behind that is. I mean it wouldn't seem wise to disallow a contract signing at any time (other than extensions) as long as the two parties where willing. Any idea why they'd place this limit? To me, in theory, it seems like going to arbitration could be a possible way to find the market value of a player and then lock him up with that value for multiple years right then and there.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"