Brooks: Contracts may not be expiring

Status
Not open for further replies.

ColoradoHockeyFan

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
9,368
0
Denver area
http://www.nypost.com/sports/43143.htm

With cap, linkage and revenue-sharing issues dominating the enduring dialog between the league and the union, the fate of 2004-05 player contracts has flown under the radar. But there will come a day when the disposition of those commitments becomes a critical matter in reaching a new CBA. And when it arrives, the NHLPA will have the precedent established by Yashin arbitrator Lawrence Holden on its side.
Additionally, the Senators argued: "The SPC [Standard Player's Contract] . . . speaks of years of service . . . that there is no fixed expiration date but, rather, that the SPC in question speaks in terms of the number of seasons . . ."
The league would argue that a lockout differs from a holdout. But there is no case law to serve as precedent regarding the disposition of contracts for a pro sports season canceled by league dictate. Indeed, the only precedent is on the NHLPA's side should the union elect to file a grievance arguing that all 2004-05 NHL contracts should slide until the end of the lockout.
And then of course there's this noteworthy line from Brooks himself:

Hahahaha.
 

OlTimeHockey

Registered User
Dec 5, 2003
16,483
0
home
If the NHL were the sole reason why an agreement was not reached (as Larry Brooks probably thinks in his pink butterfly, LSD trip world), then that would be the only concievable instance where players were due their lapsed contract years. But hey.....Larry (hahahaha.), the NHLPA didn't get this settled either....i.e.: they failed to do their part, or, in other words, share fault for the lost season.

The players, via the agency which they are part of, are not due anything because they were unable to agree on terms in good faith, just like the owners. So Yashin lost a year. The PA was just as negligent as the NHL on this one in not providing for a CBA which the two parties could operate. Thus the contracts should not be guaranteed because niether side was at fault; BOTH were, and to penalize one side exclusively despite the faults of the other side does not work in law (unless it's divorce court, with the archaic juris prudence and all).

Sorry, Larry...try again. (my VERY pro-PA friend agrees strongly with me. Maybe Larry should lay off the pipe and join the reality scene. Or play in traffic.....in Manhattan.......with icy roads)
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
OlTimeHockey said:
If the NHL were the sole reason why an agreement was not reached (as Larry Brooks probably thinks in his pink butterfly, LSD trip world), then that would be the only concievable instance where players were due their lapsed contract years. But hey.....Larry (hahahaha.), the NHLPA didn't get this settled either....i.e.: they failed to do their part, or, in other words, share fault for the lost season.

The players, via the agency which they are part of, are not due anything because they were unable to agree on terms in good faith, just like the owners. So Yashin lost a year. The PA was just as negligent as the NHL on this one in not providing for a CBA which the two parties could operate. Thus the contracts should not be guaranteed because niether side was at fault; BOTH were, and to penalize one side exclusively despite the faults of the other side does not work in law (unless it's divorce court, with the archaic juris prudence and all).

Sorry, Larry...try again. (my VERY pro-PA friend agrees strongly with me. Maybe Larry should lay off the pipe and join the reality scene. Or play in traffic.....in Manhattan.......with icy roads)
dood - you're getting all ramped up - a joy on a hockey less sunday night -
 

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
Brooks is an idiot. If a contract was signed with the language 'based on X seasons' then if a guy was hurt a year he would have to return to the team even if they years went by. Kind of confusing how I said it, but Brooks is an idiot either way.
 

tinyzombies

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
16,826
2,338
Montreal, QC, Canada
Brooks is an eediot.

SPCs are tied to the CBA. No CBA, no SPCs. The SPCs are on the table along with everything else. When the new CBA is finally signed off on, they will have dealt with this issue.

He's playing cutesy with something some lawyer told him most likely, but it's obvious that lawyer knows nothing about the NHL.

Apples and oranges.
 

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,408
16,372
South Rectangle
raketheleaves said:
Brooks is an eediot.

SPCs are tied to the CBA. No CBA, no SPCs. The SPCs are on the table along with everything else. When the new CBA is finally signed off on, they will have dealt with this issue.

He's playing cutesy with something some lawyer told him most likely, but it's obvious that lawyer knows nothing about the NHL.

Apples and oranges.
Why would Brooks be in the company of a lawyer lately? :sarcasm:
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Epsilon said:
Like him or not Brooks makes a valid point here.

No he doesn't. As usual, he is completely clueless.

The PA will deal with the issue collectively through the new CBA. It is in their interest to have each member move one year along the road to UFA status. They won't sacrifice the benefit to the group for a few individuals.

Once again Larryboy flails around hoping someone will fall for his poorly thought out theory and sadly finds willing victims.
 

Mighty Duck

Registered User
Jul 6, 2003
334
0
Visit site
OlTimeHockey said:
If the NHL were the sole reason why an agreement was not reached (as Larry Brooks probably thinks in his pink butterfly, LSD trip world), then that would be the only concievable instance where players were due their lapsed contract years. But hey.....Larry (hahahaha.), the NHLPA didn't get this settled either....i.e.: they failed to do their part, or, in other words, share fault for the lost season.

The players, via the agency which they are part of, are not due anything because they were unable to agree on terms in good faith, just like the owners. So Yashin lost a year. The PA was just as negligent as the NHL on this one in not providing for a CBA which the two parties could operate. Thus the contracts should not be guaranteed because niether side was at fault; BOTH were, and to penalize one side exclusively despite the faults of the other side does not work in law (unless it's divorce court, with the archaic juris prudence and all).

Sorry, Larry...try again. (my VERY pro-PA friend agrees strongly with me. Maybe Larry should lay off the pipe and join the reality scene. Or play in traffic.....in Manhattan.......with icy roads)

But the courts will look at it this way: The Law is the Law

The fact is:
1) The NHL locked the players out.
2) There is no CBA, so presently, the courts will follow the Law.
3) Defaulting on an signed contract, no rights for said player. The players did not strike, or with hold service.

You may not like Larry's so called LSD world, but my bet is there will not be a CBA agreement until July 2nd, which would put most of the remaining players in a UFA status, if not all of them. Just another bargaining chip for the PA, as I would suggest Bettman and his buddy Jacobs will get taken to the cleaners again. Jacobs better back track quickly, as the only players signing for his team will be replacements.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
This outstanding explanation was posted by cleduc on the Leafs forum.


The standard players contract, which all players must have, is legally tied to their CBA (the players may have addendums to their deals but all of the standard contract wording is in their deals). Within that CBA, the right to lockout or to strike is documented. When the player signed the contract, he agreed with the terms and conditions of the CBA under which the deal was signed. When he joined the NHLPA, he gave the NHLPA the rights to negotiate a CBA on his behalf. When the NHLPA signed that CBA, the NHLPA effectively signed for him and therefore, he has agreed to the terms and conditions of that CBA.

Anyone can sue anybody for anything. So the player can go ahead and file a suit over his contract (he'd likely have to sue his union). But that will very likely be the end of it.

He gave the owners the right to lock him out and not pay him when he signed his deal under the CBA. If the NHLPA agrees in negotiations to allow his deal to terminate or to modify his old contract along with many other players, he is stuck. Because he gave the NHLPA the negotiation rights to do so on his behalf when he joined their union.

Pretty much puts this non-issue to rest.
 

Mighty Duck

Registered User
Jul 6, 2003
334
0
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
This outstanding explanation was posted by cleduc on the Leafs forum.




Pretty much puts this non-issue to rest.

Oh really, in your mind only. The last time I checked, there has not been a CBA since last September. Unless the PA agrees to teams retaining player rights, this issue is not at rest, but very much alive. If I recall, this was a bargaining chip the NFL had back in it's lock out days as a player becomes an UFA after contract expires. Read the law, anti-trust laws in the USA, Competition Act in Canada.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Mighty Duck said:
Oh really, in your mind only. The last time I checked, there has not been a CBA since last September. Unless the PA agrees to teams retaining player rights, this issue is not at rest, but very much alive. If I recall, this was a bargaining chip the NFL had back in it's lock out days as a player becomes an UFA after contract expires. Read the law, anti-trust laws in the USA, Competition Act in Canada.

How many contracts have been signed since the last CBA expired?

How many of the contracts in question were signed under the previous CBA, with its lockout provisions?

Non issue.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Thunderstruck said:
How many contracts have been signed since the last CBA expired?

How many of the contracts in question were signed under the previous CBA, with its lockout provisions?

Non issue.


Point to the lockout provisions for unsigned draft picks .. Show me those clauses/provisions in NON EXISTENT contracts who rights were obtained in the last CBA now expired?

How about RFA like say Dany Heatley and Ilya Kovalchuk .. Their team chose not to sign them going into a new CBA . Where is there opportunity to get that lockout provision included in a contract not offered by the OWNER in the old CBA expired. ??

Yet in this case Legal binding contracts are expiring as a result of the CBA expiring but that is a non issue ..

A CBA is a collective bargaining agreement between Owners and Players mutually agreed upon by both sides ...

However in this case whatever benefits the Owners most is in place .. be it player rights or avoiding paying guaranteed binding contracts everything always favours the Owners without exception ..

STRANGE NO??
 

SENSible1*

Guest
The Messenger said:
STRANGE NO??

Not strange at all, when it is in the PA's interests as well as the NHL's to have a year tick off the clock.

Keep dreaming up/repeating the same misguided tripe. It won't change anything.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Thunderstruck said:
How many contracts have been signed since the last CBA expired?

How many of the contracts in question were signed under the previous CBA, with its lockout provisions?

Non issue.
I thought the last CBA had a no-lockout provision, not a lockout provision.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,390
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Mighty Duck said:
Oh really, in your mind only. The last time I checked, there has not been a CBA since last September. Unless the PA agrees to teams retaining player rights, this issue is not at rest, but very much alive. If I recall, this was a bargaining chip the NFL had back in it's lock out days as a player becomes an UFA after contract expires. Read the law, anti-trust laws in the USA, Competition Act in Canada.

Just a quick question. If Brooks is correct, then why was there the HUGE uproar when SJ signed Owen Nolan to his "Lock-Out Proof" contract? Nolan's contract specified that if there was time missed due to a labor stopage, time was added to the back-end of the contract.

Just from a common sense stand-point - if that had to be specifically included, doesn't it make sense that it was not included in everyone elses contract?
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Beukeboom Fan said:
Just a quick question. If Brooks is correct, then why was there the HUGE uproar when SJ signed Owen Nolan to his "Lock-Out Proof" contract? Nolan's contract specified that if there was time missed due to a labor stopage, time was added to the back-end of the contract.

Just from a common sense stand-point - if that had to be specifically included, doesn't it make sense that it was not included in everyone elses contract?

You used two words that completely destroys anything the NHLPA and their psycho-phants like to toss out (and you know who you are), Common Sense. Even when the evidence to support the contrary view to what the PA has to promote is presented, it is ignored and the Gospel according to Goodenow is recited with reverence. Guys like Brooks just continue to murder the players' position and make them even less sympathetic. I hope he continues his great work. Not only is he funny, but he's turning an entire generation of "stars" into parriahs. Ain't freedom of speech a wonderful thing!

:biglaugh:
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
The Iconoclast said:
You used two words that completely destroys anything the NHLPA and their psycho-phants like to toss out (and you know who you are), Common Sense.

It's "sycophant". And reading your posts, it's one word you should know how to spell by now.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Beukeboom Fan said:
Just a quick question. If Brooks is correct, then why was there the HUGE uproar when SJ signed Owen Nolan to his "Lock-Out Proof" contract? Nolan's contract specified that if there was time missed due to a labor stopage, time was added to the back-end of the contract.

Just from a common sense stand-point - if that had to be specifically included, doesn't it make sense that it was not included in everyone elses contract?
It might be a good example of "the exception proves the rule." The problem is that the owners filed a grievance claiming the clause was invalid. This may hurt their case. The other thing that would hurt their case is that they enforced the terms of two-way contracts for players who didn't need to clear waivers under the old CBA. That would stop them from arguing that the lockout invalidated players contracts for the year.

It could be an interesting case, but more likely it will just be addressed in the new CBA.
 

FrozenPond

Registered User
Feb 7, 2005
63
0
Weary said:
I thought the last CBA had a no-lockout provision, not a lockout provision.
You appear to be right Weary. Article 7: No Strike, No Discrimination and Other Undertakings. Sounds like the opposite of what Thunderstruck claims. I guess that’s why the league had to wait for the CBA to expire before locking out their players. I also glanced through the Standard Player's Contract. I see no language in there related to strikes or lockouts.

Maybe Thunderstruck can provide us with some better links?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->