Is this year's draft a pressure point to the NHLPA?

[sveiglar]

Do you really think the NHLPA wouldn't throw Crosby and 10 other rookies under the bus if it meant getting the CBA done? Goodenow would lock the brakes and skid over them if he had to.

An graphic mental image, but agreed nonetheless.

 

[alecfromtherock]

I hate that argument .. If Carter took the NHL to court in June and was declared a UFA by defeating the NHL in court to be ruled a UFA .. The NHL can put a clause into a CBA that occurs after that fact it makes no Sense .. You can't change History ..


So when does it end for the NHLPA .. Cap, Linkage, Rollback, and all the other systems all in favour of the NHL .. Sure one more screwing over for the NHLPA in this case couldn't hurt .. I guess

Players that are not members of the PA will have a hard time making a legal case for being declared UFA’s when they have not even stepped on the ice of the NHL.

Leagues are in place to dictate, to set up rules and regulations and see the game runs as smoothly as possible. Courts will not circumvent a league by forcing something upon them(it would set a very dangerous precedent and open a Pandora’s Box of legalities)

Unless substantial evidence is present that the NHL has done something illegal all of the cases will be thrown out faster then Goodenow can say $$$.

Question:

If it somehow manages to reach the courts and the player loses the case will they be permitted to play in the NHL afterwards?

Red Tape in courts are infamous for dragging out cases and by the time a verdict is reached the Stanley Cup could already been awarded.

A draft date is not set in stone as many of you have pointed out and can be held any time after a CBA is reached(in theory the draft could still go on in July with the contracts to be signed once there is a CBA)

 

[vanlady]

Players that are not members of the PA will have a hard time making a legal case for being declared UFA’s when they have not even stepped on the ice of the NHL.

Leagues are in place to dictate, to set up rules and regulations and see the game runs as smoothly as possible. Courts will not circumvent a league by forcing something upon them(it would set a very dangerous precedent and open a Pandora’s Box of legalities)

Unless substantial evidence is present that the NHL has done something illegal all of the cases will be thrown out faster then Goodenow can say $$$.

Question:

If it somehow manages to reach the courts and the player loses the case will they be permitted to play in the NHL afterwards?

Red Tape in courts are infamous for dragging out cases and by the time a verdict is reached the Stanley Cup could already been awarded.

A draft date is not set in stone as many of you have pointed out and can be held any time after a CBA is reached(in theory the draft could still go on in July with the contracts to be signed once there is a CBA)

You would be mistaken, there is already Supreme Court precendent in this area. Haywood is the Supreme Court precendent. Clarett began to overrule Haywood but only got to District court, thus Haywood still stands as the precendent.

Yes all players would be able to play in the NHL, they would only be given UFA status and could then not be subject to the draft.

As for the courts, these cases can be fast tracted and injunctions applied quickly.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Players that are not members of the PA will have a hard time making a legal case for being declared UFA’s when they have not even stepped on the ice of the NHL.

Leagues are in place to dictate, to set up rules and regulations and see the game runs as smoothly as possible. Courts will not circumvent a league by forcing something upon them(it would set a very dangerous precedent and open a Pandora’s Box of legalities)

Unless substantial evidence is present that the NHL has done something illegal all of the cases will be thrown out faster then Goodenow can say $$$.

Question:

If it somehow manages to reach the courts and the player loses the case will they be permitted to play in the NHL afterwards?

Red Tape in courts are infamous for dragging out cases and by the time a verdict is reached the Stanley Cup could already been awarded.

A draft date is not set in stone as many of you have pointed out and can be held any time after a CBA is reached(in theory the draft could still go on in July with the contracts to be signed once there is a CBA)

Every player without a contract will be a free agent if there is no CBA regardless of whether or not they have played in the NHL. They will have no problem in making a legal case. As one sports law expert noted when pro sports faces off against antitrust law, antitrust law invariabley wins since pro sports is predicated upon anticompetive practises that are illegal absent union agreement.

Leagues can only... "dictate, to set up rules and regulations and see the game runs as smoothly as possible" if they have a CBA to provide a shield aganst antitrust law. The courts will not interfere generally with the league as long as there is a CBA in place. No CBA - no protection from antitrust law. That means no draft, nop entry level salary cap (what is Sidney Crosby worth on the open market?), no reserve clause, no compensation for signing another player not under contract, etc.

Sometimes the courts will interfere even if there is CBA in certain cases if the rules are not equitable.
http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/history/SpencerHaywoodcase.htm

Sportslaw Jargon: Antitrust Exemptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust laws prohibit agreements by two or more that "restrain trade in interstate commerce." Labor unions, by their nature, may engage in such activities when they present demands for better wages, hours and working conditions. When act as representatives of a group of employees and serve as agents for them. So when an agreement between the union and management is concluded, the working must abide under the conditions agreed to.

To prevent unions from antitrust liability, a "labor exemption" was created under the Clayton Act of 1914. It has two components. The so-called "statutory" labor exemption allows unions to enter into agreements which may create a monopolistic practice regarding the working conditions of the employees it represents.

The "Non-Statutory Labor Exemption" -- the more applicable concept in sports law -- is a judicially-derived expansion of the labor exemption that protects union activity from antitrust scrutiny. It has been the crux of nearly all antitrust actions in professional sports (with the exception of baseball, which had an blanket exemption from antitrust laws until late in 1998).

The non-statutory labor exemption is based on the policy that favors collective bargaining and gives it preference over the antitrust laws. Basically, any union-management agreement that was a product of good faith negotiation will receive protection from the antitrust laws. That means that the provisions of the agreement cannot be attacked as collusive or anti-competitive. Say that a salary cap is agreed to by a union and management. In pure antitrust terms, a cap can be a violation of the antitrust law. But since the cap was part of the collective bargaining agreement negotiatedin good faith and agreed-to by the union and management, the cap cannot attacked in court as a violation of antitrust.

The statutory and non-statutory exemptions were intended to help unions from the threat of antitrust suits. But in sports, the tables have been turned. In the past, the exemptions have been used by management to enforce agreements that were "forced" on a weaker union (yes, there have been weak unions in sports!). The NFL players union learned this the hard way, when, after a series of cases in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was ruled that the exemption applied throughout the negotiation process, even after a labor contract expired. This interpretation of the non-statutory exemption was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997.

During the recent NBA lockout, there was talk of decertifying the union by certain agents representing star players. Without a union, any imposition of a salary cap could likely violate antitrust laws -- and their top players could then have no constraints in negotiating even higher salaries.

http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/jargon/LJAntiexemption.html