Article 11 of the CBA

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Nash, Dec 20, 2004.

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

    Nash Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Everyone knows that the players are looking out for themselves and trying to exploit the system to get the most money they can. Would anyone do any less given the opportunity? Goodenow and the NHLPA have disseminated information through there website that, if done by the owners, would be seen as collusion.

    Owners have different takes on success. Some want to win at any cost ... others want to see a profit first and foremost. They are sabotaging each other under the current system and everyone can see that it needs to be fixed.

    Where does the commissioner come between these different interests and what responsibility should he shoulder for the current state of the game? The CBA that was established in 1995 was considered sound at the time. There have been many articles written lately about how certain contracts fundamentally changed the pay structure in the league, including Thornton/Samsonov, Sakic, Kariya, Lindros, etc. Considering that Article 11 of the CBA states that no contract is valid without the approval of the commissioner or his designee, I have to ask, has Gary Bettman ever used this article to protect the integrity of the CBA?

    Obviously, he cannot say no to idiot owners who want to pay Bobby Holik $9 million a season, but what about contracts that circumvent the CBA, such as Thornton/Samsonov? Their rookie contracts set a precident that was resposible for potentially doubling every first round players' contract. How about Kariya's contract where he was given a certain amount over two years (I believe it was $14 million), but took a significantly smaller portion in the first year. Considering that anyone could see that the Ducks would have to qualify him based on the last year of his contract, this shouldn't be allowed. What about when the Hurricanes tried to front load a bonus laden contract to sign Sergei Federov away from Detroit where one of the bonuses was if his team made the Conference finals, he would get $12 million. The Hurricanes had no chance to make the Conference final and allowing a bonus clause like that was pretty shady. These are just a few examples off the top of my head.

    ______________________________________________________________

    The game itself has also suffered under his watch. I strongly believe that expansion and looser interpretation of interference/hooking/holding infractions that allowed those new teams to compete are the main reasons why the NHL is a stale product. Other issues, such as goaltender equipment and rule changes, have made an impact, but none come close to how obstruction has changed the game. Some experts say that defensive systems implemented since the Devils won the cup in 1995 using the trap are to blame, but those systems only work when obstruction is allowed.
     
  2. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    On the Fedorov deal, the Red Wings (acting with Bettman) did challenge the leaglity of it. They set up an arbitration hearing to decide of it was legal or not, and the arbitrator decided it was.
     
  3. Dave is a killer

    Dave is a killer Dave's a Mess

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    26,469
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Mount Juliet
    Home Page:
    :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"