Brooks: Contracts may not be expiring

[Morbo]

I think he was just trying to be punny.

That's fine, it still had to be said.

There's nothing funnier than reading the brainwashed pro-Bettman lemmings call other people sycophants.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Finally, Gary Bettman says he voted against replacements after voting for it. Worked for John Kerry.

 

[FrozenPond]

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?

Most felt, and still feel, that the CBA will be resolved in an amicable way. The issue of 04-05 contracts will be addressed in the CBA. It’s unlikely that 04-05 contracts will be honored. Nolan is covered regardless.

I think Brooks' scenario only comes into play if the CBA cannot be resolved in friendly fashion. If it gets really ugly, the PA might go to court to get the NHL to honor 04-05 contracts. If that happens, it sounds like they might at least have a case.

 

[Sammy*]

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??

Then all you NHLPA geniuses should enlighten the unwashed as to why there was such a hoopla about the Owen Nolan contract where if there was a provision if there was a lockout that his contract would be extended for the period there was a lockout (I believe to a maximum of 2 years).
No reason to have such a provision according to that donkey Brooks.

edit. I should have read Beuks post before this

 

[Sammy*]

That's fine, it still had to be said.

There's nothing funnier than reading the brainwashed pro-Bettman lemmings call other people sycophants.

Good one

 

[CGG]

Then all you NHLPA geniuses should enlighten the unwashed as to why there was such a hoopla about the Owen Nolan contract where if there was a provision if there was a lockout that his contract would be extended for the period there was a lockout (I believe to a maximum of 2 years).
No reason to have such a provision according to that donkey Brooks.

edit. I should have read Beuks post before this

It's most likely that a year gets chopped off everyone's contract due to the lockout, but that will be bargained for and spelled out in the new CBA. I can't really see anyone objecting to that too much.

The Nolan deal triggered an option if the 04-05 season was less than 40 games. If they played the 28-game season, no one would be arguing what happens to all the contracts and Nolan would still get a one-year extension, at a ridiculous price.

 

[Jarqui]

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?

Yes, they had to wait until the term of the agreement ended. there's a little more on the spirit of it in clause 3.1.

From the standard players contract contained in the most recent NHL CBA:
18. The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by the Constitution and By-Laws of the League and by any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA, and by all of the terms and provisions thereof, copies of which shall be open and available for inspection by Club, its directors and officers, and the Player, at the main office of the League, the main office of the Club and the main office of the NHLPA. This Contract is entered into subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this Contract inconsistent with such Collective Bargaining Agreement are superseded by the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

So the player accepted that he could be locked out when he signed his standard players contract because the CBA is referenced in his standard players contract and that CBA "governs" the standard players contract and defined when the lockout could take place, etc.

Brooks is pulling everybody's chain here. He's an idiot.

This is a CBA negotiation issue not a legal one at this point in time. The two parties will negotiate contract expiry as a transition issue just like they negotiated all the transition issues in '94 and just like every union/owner negotiates transition issues going from one CBA to the next.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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

I guess you didn't get the joke, psycho-phant.

That's fine, it still had to be said.

There's nothing funnier than reading the brainwashed pro-Bettman lemmings call other people sycophants.

Pretty funny, coming from a guy whose nose is firmly planted in Bob Goodenow's anal sphinchter and is blindly following him over the cliff. Don't forget to wear your parachute, or are you hoping that Bob's corpse is going to break your fall?

 

[Mighty Duck]

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.

When you debate, pull the bag off your head, and unplug yourself from the owners tail.

 

[kdb209]

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.

No need to read any anti-trust laws. It's pretty clear that any restraints on trade in the absence of a CBA would be illegal - but things will not be absent a CBA. Either a CBA will be negotiated or imposed via impasse (unlikely). There will be terms in the new CBA dealing with all these issues - retaining player rights, unsigned draftees, etc, just like there are at the end of any CBA in any sport. This situation isn't really any different.

The PA could try to use this as a bargaining chip, but it will be a complete non-started as far as the league is concerned, and besides do you think the PA really wants a flood of UFAs on the market? Have you ever heard the PA push for increased UFAs (at the cost of RFAs and arbitration) - no. A flood of UFAs would actually depress player salaries. Cue tape of the ghost of Charley Finley cackling in the background.

 

[SENSible1*]

When you debate, pull the bag off your head, and unplug yourself from the owners tail.

You are imagining a debate where none exists.

This is a non issue in terms of CBA leverage, as it is in both parties interests to have a year tick off.

Of course a player may choose to sue at anytime, as is their right. However, the result are entirely predictable.

 

[Mighty Duck]

Yes, they had to wait until the term of the agreement ended. there's a little more on the spirit of it in clause 3.1.

From the standard players contract contained in the most recent NHL CBA:
18. The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by the Constitution and By-Laws of the League and by any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA, and by all of the terms and provisions thereof, copies of which shall be open and available for inspection by Club, its directors and officers, and the Player, at the main office of the League, the main office of the Club and the main office of the NHLPA. This Contract is entered into subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this Contract inconsistent with such Collective Bargaining Agreement are superseded by the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

So the player accepted that he could be locked out when he signed his standard players contract because the CBA is referenced in his standard players contract and that CBA "governs" the standard players contract and defined when the lockout could take place, etc.

Brooks is pulling everybody's chain here. He's an idiot.

This is a CBA negotiation issue not a legal one at this point in time. The two parties will negotiate contract expiry as a transition issue just like they negotiated all the transition issues in '94 and just like every union/owner negotiates transition issues going from one CBA to the next.

If in fact, you think some rules still apply, then the July 1st deadline would still be in effect. Can't have it both ways. Maybe the players have asked Bob to delay things and not sign a CBA until after the deadline. But, I think, no CBA, no contract, no rights equals UFA. Simple English for all you sycophants or is it psycho-phants. Oh, this is getting to complicated.

 

[tinyzombies]

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.

The law is the law, so they'll look at the wording of the CBA to determine the parameters of the SPCs, not an unrelated arbitration case.

 

[FrozenPond]

Yes, they had to wait until the term of the agreement ended. there's a little more on the spirit of it in clause 3.1.

From the standard players contract contained in the most recent NHL CBA:
18. The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by the Constitution and By-Laws of the League and by any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA, and by all of the terms and provisions thereof, copies of which shall be open and available for inspection by Club, its directors and officers, and the Player, at the main office of the League, the main office of the Club and the main office of the NHLPA. This Contract is entered into subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this Contract inconsistent with such Collective Bargaining Agreement are superseded by the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

So the player accepted that he could be locked out when he signed his standard players contract because the CBA is referenced in his standard players contract and that CBA "governs" the standard players contract and defined when the lockout could take place, etc.

Brooks is pulling everybody's chain here. He's an idiot.

This is a CBA negotiation issue not a legal one at this point in time. The two parties will negotiate contract expiry as a transition issue just like they negotiated all the transition issues in '94 and just like every union/owner negotiates transition issues going from one CBA to the next.

Thanks. So it sounds like there is no chance of this issue going to court, and it will be resolved at the bargaining table. There’s also a high probability that they’ll just forget about the 04-05 contracts and move on. But the PA might say, “ok, we’ll accept the 54% linkage, but only if you honor the 04-05 contractsâ€, and the owners might agree.

What if the owners declare impasse and the players strike? There would be no agreed upon contract transition language in the CBA. Can the players then go to court, or do they wait for a final resolution to the dispute?

 

[Timmy]

Thanks. So it sounds like there is no chance of this issue going to court, and it will be resolved at the bargaining table. There’s also a high probability that they’ll just forget about the 04-05 contracts and move on. But the PA might say, “ok, we’ll accept the 54% linkage, but only if you honor the 04-05 contractsâ€, and the owners might agree.

What if the owners declare impasse and the players strike? There would be no agreed upon contract transition language in the CBA. Can the players then go to court, or do they wait for a final resolution to the dispute?

The NHLPA membership isn't going to necessarily negotiate the honouring of 04-05 contracts if it squeezes those members without a contract. For instance, if one player on a team with, say a 35m cap keeps his 10m contract, those members without contracts will be negotiating with a team that has far less signing power than if that 10m contract were to have expired.

In a 'normal' union, the good of five members outweighs the good of one in this instance.

 

[kdb209]

If in fact, you think some rules still apply, then the July 1st deadline would still be in effect. Can't have it both ways. Maybe the players have asked Bob to delay things and not sign a CBA until after the deadline. But, I think, no CBA, no contract, no rights equals UFA. Simple English for all you sycophants or is it psycho-phants. Oh, this is getting to complicated.

The problem with your logic is no CBA, no new contract signings. And the new CBA will address all these issues and the players will be forced to retroactively agree to them when they sign their SPC. Just like draftees who are not members of the union and not at all governed by the CBA - as soon ad they sign a contract, they become members covered by the CBA and retrocatively agree to all the terms. That's why draftees can't sue (or at least win) over the draft.

If a UFA falls in the forest and no one can sign him, does he make a sound.

 

[FrozenPond]

The NHLPA membership isn't going to necessarily negotiate the honouring of 04-05 contracts if it squeezes those members without a contract. For instance, if one player on a team with, say a 35m cap keeps his 10m contract, those members without contracts will be negotiating with a team that has far less signing power than if that 10m contract were to have expired.

In a 'normal' union, the good of five members outweighs the good of one in this instance.

I was thinking that in order to properly honor the 04-05 contracts, the owners would have to phase in the cap. That’s the price they’d pay to get the long term 54% linkage.

 

[bleedgreen]

brooks has been using this arguement for months, this is just his new way of putting it. he originally called it "rollover contracts" - thinking that the owners should have the contracts locked out this year count for next year, and that it was a reasonable bone to throw the players in negotiations. it wouldve been a usefull negotiation ploy at the time - since there was part of the season left then. he is merely approaching it from a different angle now that the season is lost. this is standard brooks, cling to the same idea over and over, just rephrase it and pass it off as a new story. he doesnt have much else to write about right now.

 

[shveik]

This is a CBA negotiation issue not a legal one at this point in time. The two parties will negotiate contract expiry as a transition issue just like they negotiated all the transition issues in '94 and just like every union/owner negotiates transition issues going from one CBA to the next.

IMO this is the right way to look at this situation.

Brooks is pulling everybody's chain here. He's an idiot.

How is that? He is saying that this issue hasn't been addressed so far. He is right. It is a valid issue, that needs to be ironed out through negotiations. He is also right that if this issue is not negotiated, there is a good case (and a precedent) to ask courts for enforcement of the 04/05 contracts.

 

[Weary]

The problem with your logic is no CBA, no new contract signings. And the new CBA will address all these issues and the players will be forced to retroactively agree to them when they sign their SPC. Just like draftees who are not members of the union and not at all governed by the CBA - as soon ad they sign a contract, they become members covered by the CBA and retrocatively agree to all the terms. That's why draftees can't sue (or at least win) over the draft.

Why no new contract signings during a lockout? I don't know what would prevent teams from signing their draftees -- other than the desire to get them signed under the lower entry-level contracts that will likely be in the new CBA. The NHL obviously believes the terms of the CBA must still be honored. Otherwise, they never would've assigned players to the AHL in the manner they did. I think the only thing preventing them from offering those contracts is their own belief the union will let them keep the rights to those players under a new CBA.

 

[Hasbro]

In a 'normal' union, the good of five members outweighs the good of one in this instance.

And Star Trek.

 

[Sammy*]

How is that? He is saying that this issue hasn't been addressed so far. He is right. It is a valid issue, that needs to be ironed out through negotiations. He is also right that if this issue is not negotiated, there is a good case (and a precedent) to ask courts for enforcement of the 04/05 contracts.

True enogh it has to be negotated as part as a new CBA. Who knows, those guys could still be getting there contracts extended, it could be negotiated as part of a new CBA. As much chance of that being in a new CBA as the players agreeing that their contracts all get a 75% rollback.
After all , its possible, its all part of negotiations, right?

 

[OlTimeHockey]

And Star Trek.

Spoooooo-oooock.....

 

[kdb209]

Why no new contract signings during a lockout? I don't know what would prevent teams from signing their draftees -- other than the desire to get them signed under the lower entry-level contracts that will likely be in the new CBA. The NHL obviously believes the terms of the CBA must still be honored. Otherwise, they never would've assigned players to the AHL in the manner they did. I think the only thing preventing them from offering those contracts is their own belief the union will let them keep the rights to those players under a new CBA.

The league has come out and said that there will be no new signings without a CBA. Signings require a SPC as the basis for a contract and that is part of the CBA. All contracts must be approved by the league, so GB could block any signings anyway.

There is also no need to sign players until the path to next season is clear - and why sign players until the new economic environment is more fully defined in a CBA. Until you know when a season will be, what players are signed/unsigned, what are any salary cap or luxury tax limits, what the ELS system looks like, what does arbitration and RFA system look like, and have some estimates for revenue to base a budget on, why would a GM want to go out and rush into signing a player.

So until there is a new CBA (negotiated or imposed) or plans for non-impasse replacements, there is no need to sign players.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

How is that? He is saying that this issue hasn't been addressed so far. He is right. It is a valid issue, that needs to be ironed out through negotiations. He is also right that if this issue is not negotiated, there is a good case (and a precedent) to ask courts for enforcement of the 04/05 contracts.

He has no idea if the issue has been addressed or not -- at least, by those who need to address it.

Our GM has said that it's part of the negotiation process and the status of 04-05 contracts will be decided via these negotiations. You can bet it's been addressed by the folks at the table. Whether it's been addressed by the media is another -- and irrelevant -- issue.

I haven't contributed to this thread before because when I mentioned elsewhere in the HF forums that Mr. Feaster had told me the status of 04-05 contracts would be decided via the current negotiations, I was told by other posters in no uncertain terms he (Feaster) didn't know what he was talking about. I figured then (and still do) that as a GM he knows a great deal more about what he's talking about than any of us do, so if he says that's how the contracts will be decided, I'm comfortable taking his word for it.