IMG Fires First Salvo...

[Jumptheshark]

gee

I bring up this topic about a month ago and people laughed at me.....

July 1st is the next big date and bad point in time the nhl crosses

 

[mooseOAK*]

They can "shop themselves around" until their hearts are content, but with no teams able to make them offers or sign them to contracts it is completely pointless.

Not to mention that the most that they could make on any team is the rookie maximum, which won't have all the performance bonus loopholes this time.

 

[Hockeymomma]

Your missing the point - IMG is seeking a UFA declaration that cannot be superseded by the CBA negotiations - they would be free to sign with whoever they wanted after the new CBA is inked. Here is the Dowbiggan story with more detail. The lawyer they hired Quinn is the same one who successfully went to court against the NFL and had Freeman MacNeil declared a UFA in 1992 ushering in a new era of NFL Free Agency.

 

[SENSible1*]

Your missing the point - IMG is seeking a UFA declaration that cannot be superseded by the CBA negotiations .

They'll have as much luck as looking for the loch ness monster.

No such declaration exists.

The courts have consistently upheld that individual rights were secondary to the rights of unions to baragain collectively.

The fact that the village idiot Downbiggin supports this theory should tip you off as to its merits.

 

[kdb209]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Married to Hockey
Your missing the point - IMG is seeking a UFA declaration that cannot be superseded by the CBA negotiations .

They'll have as much luck as looking for the loch ness monster.

No such declaration exists.

The courts have consistently upheld that individual rights were secondary to the rights of unions to baragain collectively.

The fact that the village idiot Downbiggin supports this theory should tip you off as to its merits.

You beat me to the punch.

And as to the implied parallel to the NFL and Plan B FA:

The lawyer they hired Quinn is the same one who successfully went to court against the NFL and had Freeman MacNeil declared a UFA in 1992 ushering in a new era of NFL Free Agency.

Plan B Free Agency was not the product of collective bargaining - it was unilaterally imposed by the NFL, and it wasn't challenged until after the NFLPA decertified. Hardly a parallel to the current NHL situation.

 

[ryz]

They'll have as much luck as looking for the loch ness monster.

No such declaration exists.

The courts have consistently upheld that individual rights were secondary to the rights of unions to baragain collectively.

The fact that the village idiot Downbiggin supports this theory should tip you off as to its merits.

I'll THIRD that!!

 

[gary69]

They can "shop themselves around" until their hearts are content, but with no teams able to make them offers or sign them to contracts it is completely pointless.

The new CBA will have language to cover their situtation and any court ruling on their status will be worthless.

If IMG takes this to court, I would think that NHL cannot 100% guarantee that there will ever be a new CBA negotiated with NHLPA that will cover this situation.
I doubt that somebody from NHLPA would come to the court to guarantee this together with NHL. Even if they did, that still leaves the question of timeframe, would NHL&NHLPA also guarantee a specific time for the new CBA, the courts can't just decide to leave these guys to limbo who knows for how many years.

I would again think, that it's much more likely for courts to decide on the issue based on the current situation and rules, not based on some hypothetical future CBA.

If and when this hypothetical new CBA however comes into the existence and takes care of the issue and somebody then still wants to re-open the case and take it to courts, it can be dealt again under new circumstances.

 

[SENSible1*]

If IMG takes this to court, I would think that NHL cannot 100% guarantee that there will ever be a new CBA negotiated with NHLPA that will cover this situation.
I doubt that somebody from NHLPA would come to the court to guarantee this together with NHL. Even if they did, that still leaves the question of timeframe, would NHL&NHLPA also guarantee a specific time for the new CBA, the courts can't just decide to leave these guys to limbo who knows for how many years.

I would again think, that it's much more likely for courts to decide on the issue based on the current situation and rules, not based on some hypothetical future CBA.

If and when this hypothetical new CBA however comes into the existence and takes care of the issue and somebody then still wants to re-open the case and take it to courts, it can be dealt again under new circumstances.

If the deal isn't reached and the players sued and won a court ruling granting free agent status it would be overridden once a CBA was negotiated.

Since no team in the NHL can sign them, the ruling is worthless.

 

[Mess]

Not to mention that the most that they could make on any team is the rookie maximum, which won't have all the performance bonus loopholes this time.

Not if you consider the possibilty is $$$ and not Freedom driven ..

The player agents goals might be not to fight for UFA but to have a court decide that they should be signed to their first contract under the terms of the old CBA to avoid any possible damages being awarded by an new clause in the CBA.

Money is the route of all evil not freedom ..

 

[gary69]

If the deal isn't reached and the players sued and won a court ruling granting free agent status it would be overridden once a CBA was negotiated.

Since no team in the NHL can sign them, the ruling is worthless.

It probably is worthless, but if somehow the new CBA doesn't override the ruling, then it might not be worthless. Such ruling however would very likely have some effect on the negotiations between NHL and PA.

The point I was trying to make was that I doubt the ruling can be based on hypotetical future CBA.

 

[Mess]

It probably is worthless, but if somehow the new CBA doesn't override the ruling, then it might not be worthless. Such ruling however would very likely have some effect on the negotiations between NHL and PA.

The point I was trying to make was that I doubt the ruling can be based on hypotetical future CBA.

Your point is valid if the players file for UFA now with no CBA in place ..

Only two rulings that are possible by the court really if UFA is the goal;

a) The court rules that the player is obligated to abide by the CBA of the league in the future.

b) The court rules in favour and grants him UFA status.


If they win and are ruled UFA officially by a court

Why would it even be included in future CBA??

The NHLPA would simply say you lost that issue already and the player won his freedom.

So what happens even if they do write in a special clause into the CBA.

Then the player has to go to court a second time to win his freedom that he has already been awarded ..

That doesn't fly in the face of common sense..

 

[CarlRacki]

Bruce Dowbiggen reported this item here in Calgary in the Herald a couple of weeks ago. However, I can hardly believe that this news item ever saw the light of day.

IMG can't win this as a legal issue. They'd perhaps have a case if the NHLPA were not negotiating with the NHL CBA as a labour dispute. However, that's not the case here, so it will all come down to what the NHL and NHLPA agree to live with in their final CBA language. Can't see the rank and file NHLPA members sticking their necks out on this, particularly if they've offered a roll-back as part of the package and have to live with a cap that a higher rookie salary has to fit under.

Just can't see it happening. Must have been a slow news day today.

HBP

Hooray for someone who gets it.

 

[thinkwild]

Ok, i gotta admit, im still fuzzy in this concept of "taking them to court". Can someone clarify this? If the players were to make a case for say unsigned draftees to become UFA's, this is not a case that would be heard in civil court would it? This would be a case heard by an arbitrator based on the previous CBA. Wouldn't it?

So they could have transition rules that said all unsigned draftees have a 30 day window to sign with their old club, but those players would now have now been declared UFA's and thus no longer unsigned draftees?

Anyway, this has nothing to do with individual vs collective rights. This is an arbitration case within the guidelines of the collective agreement applicable.

Or thats what i thought. Every time i hear the idea of winning in the courts, it sounds like some antitrust or civil case that's being referred to.

 

[CarlRacki]

Ok, i gotta admit, im still fuzzy in this concept of "taking them to court". Can someone clarify this? If the players were to make a case for say unsigned draftees to become UFA's, this is not a case that would be heard in civil court would it? This would be a case heard by an arbitrator based on the previous CBA. Wouldn't it?

So they could have transition rules that said all unsigned draftees have a 30 day window to sign with their old club, but those players would now have now been declared UFA's and thus no longer unsigned draftees?

Anyway, this has nothing to do with individual vs collective rights. This is an arbitration case within the guidelines of the collective agreement applicable.

Or thats what i thought. Every time i hear the idea of winning in the courts, it sounds like some antitrust or civil case that's being referred to.

It would be a civil case, likely filed as a complaint seeking declaratory judgement. It could be settled by a judge or jury using applicable labor laws.
However, it's my understanding - and others here seem to have said the same - that a collective bargaining agreement almost always supersedes in these types of cases. So if the NHLPA and NHL enter into a deal that addresses these players, IMG really has no case unless it wants to argue that these players are not bound by their own union's agreement.

 

[thinkwild]

THe only way it makes sense for me that IMG could argue they are free agents, is because they are bound by the unions agreement. The agreement says, if they arent given an offer in time, they become ufa's. There is no civil case i can think of here. Only a cba arbitration case. What law gives them the right to be free agents if they arent signed within 2 years?

 

[CarlRacki]

THe only way it makes sense for me that IMG could argue they are free agents, is because they are bound by the unions agreement. The agreement says, if they arent given an offer in time, they become ufa's. There is no civil case i can think of here. Only a cba arbitration case. What law gives them the right to be free agents if they arent signed within 2 years?

I'd imagine IMG will argue that because these players were drafted under the terms of the old CBA, the league must abide by those terms when dealing with them.

 

[PecaFan]

I'd imagine IMG will argue that because these players were drafted under the terms of the old CBA, the league must abide by those terms when dealing with them.

Which is a useless argument. CBA's change all the time, and all employees status changes based on them. When the new CBA says you get a raise, you get a raise. When it says you become a free agent at 31 instead of 32, you become a free agent.

When it says your rights are still held by the team that drafted you...

 

[Jumptheshark]

time to brush up on our 'Curtis Flood law'

 

[dawgbone]

time to brush up on our 'Curtis Flood law'

Which simply says that the courts won't intervene on an agreed upon CBA...

 

[Mess]

Check out Bobby Clarke's position on this ..

He doesn't stand behind the CBA .. He says that he is offering the max that the CBA will allow ..

Philadelphia Flyers general manager Bob Clarke called it "a potential nightmare for a lot of clubs."

Agent Mark Guy said it could be "a real logjam" and "probably won't look like anything that has happened before."

Two of the most prominent names among the unsigned 2003 draftees are unlikely to reenter: forwards Jeff Carter and Mike Richards.

Both players were selected by the Flyers in the first round, Carter was picked 11th, Richards 24th. Both players are two-time members of Canada's world junior team. In Grand Forks, N.D., in January, Carter made the tournament's first all-star team and Richards captained the squad to the gold medal.

After their junior teams were eliminated in the Ontario Hockey League playoffs last month, Carter and Richards signed American Hockey League contracts and joined the Philadelphia Phantoms, the Flyers' affiliate. The Phantoms advanced to the conference finals with Carter as their leading postseason scorer. The consensus among scouts is that Carter and Richards both could have stepped into the NHL if arenas hadn't gone dark last fall.

Clarke says there's no way he'll allow his organization's two best prospects to fall back into the draft.

"They're both high priorities for us," Clarke said. "I think that they want to play for us and we definitely want them. They're going to get the cap – whatever the next [collective agreement] allows for – and there won't be that many details to iron out."

But Clarke says things will not be so clear-cut for other organizations and their 2003 draftees.

"Whenever we [get] back to business, every GM is going to have a lot of paper on his desk and a lot of contracts to do – veterans and juniors," he says. "How many of [the 2003 draftees] can get signed really depends on how much time the teams have and how much the GMs have to work with.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=2062921&num=2

 

[Flyguy_1ca]

How do you figure he doesn't stand behind the CBA?? He simply said he'd give Carter and Richards the max allowed. Do you blame him? He wants them under lock and key...who wouldn't?

 

[Mess]

How do you figure he doesn't stand behind the CBA?? He simply said he'd give Carter and Richards the max allowed. Do you blame him? He wants them under lock and key...who wouldn't?

Signing a contract is the players option not the team ..

This line makes it clearer ""How many of [the 2003 draftees] can get signed really depends on how much time the teams have " ..

But Clarke says things will not be so clear-cut for other organizations and their 2003 draftees.

So the best the GMs can have is some time extension .. Nothing in the CBA that binds them to the team ..

Clarke is offering the max .. I read that as .. Why go back into the draft if the Flyers are willing to give you the most money you are going to get from anyone ..

and Clarke starts off with "Philadelphia Flyers general manager Bob Clarke called it "a potential nightmare for a lot of clubs."

 

[Flyguy_1ca]

I still don't really see where Clarke says he's against the CBA. He says that there is a lot of things to do with little time to do them. That's just fact...not really a statement saying he's against the current negotiations. The fact is these negotiations are needed and important...though they will cause GM's/Teams with little time to do a lot of things. Blame Goodenow, he has been the one dragging his feet whenever possible.

 

[me2]

Clarke is offering the max .. I read that as .. Why go back into the draft if the Flyers are willing to give you the most money you are going to get from anyone ..

"whatever the next [collective agreement] allows for"

how much clearer do you want?

 

[kdb209]

time to brush up on our 'Curtis Flood law'

Time for you to brush up on non statutory labor exemptions, Clarett v NFL, and Wood v NBA - Curt Flood has nothing to do with this situation. Neither does Spencer Haywood if anyone cared to bring him up.

Curt flood challenged MLB's Reserve Clause which was unilaterally imposed by the owners (and was not the product of a CBA negotiation), and BTW, Flood lost at the Supreme Court because of Baseball's historic anti-trust exemption. Free Agency came to MLB 5 years later with Messersmith and McNally, who won not in the courts, but before an arbiter under the dispute resolution mechanisms defined in the MLB CBA.

The situation here, assuming the NHL and PA agree to some set of transition terms in the new CBA, is that a negotiated CBA is largely immune to challenge under anti trust law. So if the league and the PA negotiate an agreement that says draftee rights (or RFA QO rights) are maintained for some window of time, they are, and any court challenge would be very unlikely to prevail.