NHLPA to require replacement players to repay lockout pay

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by mudcrutch79, Dec 28, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    Link is here. Without doing any research whatsoever (Christmas, and I don't feel like looking it up), I'm inclined to suspect that this is an illegal contract, and unenforceable. Anyone who's less apathetic (and knowledgeable) care to comment?
     
  2. Pepper

    Pepper Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,543
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Definetly sounds illegal.

    Just another day at Goodenow's office I guess.
     
  3. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    I'm sure you're not just someone with an agenda chiming in on this Pepper. Tell me, why do you think that this would be an illegal contract?
     
  4. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    I don't think it's illegal, but I could be wrong. More importantly though, the stipend the players are recieving is $10,000 one month, possibbly another $10,000 some month in the future, but the remaining months are at $5,000. So, after 1 year, a player that decides to be a replacement player would have to repay ~$70,000. For most players making $400,000+, this should not be too big of a hurdle, and if the owners wanted, they could offer to pay this themselves for any player that wants to play as a replacement player.
     
  5. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    16,975
    Likes Received:
    1,012
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    For a union that is completely "together" and "one" sure seems an odd thing to have to put in place. Just how many players would be replacement players? I'm guessing a pretty large percentage given the lack of other career opportunities.
     
  6. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    Where is your law degree from?

    How many people in Goodenow's office have been convicted of illegal offences? I bet there are none. It's not like he's hiring former NHL owners to work for him.
     
  7. Polydorus

    Polydorus Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    The most likely replacement players are the ones least likely to be able to pay the money back. So it might provide an incentive not to cross the picket line. If the owners pay the union back that amount would be taxable income to the player.
     
  8. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    I'm thinking it might be a violation of the Competition Act if the PA ever tried to enforce it. I'm also wondering if it might not be enforceable as there was no consideration for the promise? It seems to me to be open to attack on a number of different grounds.
     
  9. Sanderson

    Sanderson Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Messages:
    5,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    Home Page:
    I think the article has got something wrong.

    As long as there is a lockout there won't be an NHL-game. If replacement players would play, the lockout would be over. The players could strike, but they wouldn't be locked out if the league forces a new CBA on the NHLPA (in case of an impasse).

    If this would count for the time of a strike as well, then it might be illegal.
     
  10. fan mao rong

    fan mao rong Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    port royal , pa
    Home Page:
    I say if the League implements the Union would still be locked out, ergo to them the replacements would be playing during the lockout.
     
  11. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    Nothing illegal about the contract.
     
  12. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Well, unless you can provide some clever reasoning, its hard to see the grounds being the competition act. And I would think 5-10k a month is pretty hefty consideration. The players are paying themselves this money so they can stand collectively against the bully extortionists that use fuzzy words. If someone thinks they will be a replacement player, they dont have to accept it. OR can hope that their 20 day tryout contract the replacements will get will cover it.

    Seems perfectly natural, logical, and legal to me. Unless you are worried the players might have some leverage against the owners slimey tactics, I cant see why you would find this untoward or illegal.
     
  13. Buffaloed

    Buffaloed webmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27,362
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Location:
    Buffalo
    I'd imagine the owners would either add it to the signing bonus, or include an indemnity clause to reimburse the player for such costs if they were upheld in the courts. It's not going to deter players from breaking ranks with the NHLPA. The NHLPA issuing this threat is a strong signal they're having problems with members remaining loyal. I think the union is as good as broken. The owners have already won, and it's just a matter of them deciding the margin of victory.
     
  14. Sinurgy

    Sinurgy Rebuilding

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,903
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    I'm not sure "incentive" is the right word to use in this case.
     
  15. Accord

    Accord Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    South Florida
    Well, at least we know which side you're on...
     
  16. Accord

    Accord Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    South Florida
    Well, at least we know which side you're on...
     
  17. Sammy*

    Sammy* Guest

    I think you should, not surprsingly, brush off your dictionary and law degree. What exactly has the NHL owners done that could be considered "extortion" or "slimey tactics"?
    Maybe something like the requiring the type of contract the players have to sign to get strike pay or the refusal to pay Ray the $$ that are due to him?
     
    Last edited by moderator : Dec 30, 2004
  18. loudi94

    loudi94 Master of my Domain

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,413
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Occupation:
    Child Tamer
    Location:
    Alberta
    2 questions:

    1. Why would any player sign such a contract unless it was under duress from peers or the PA itself?

    2. If the NHL starts up again it would stand to reason that the lockout is over, so could they argue that point in court?

    It's really hard to speculate on the legalities of this contract without seeing it.
     
  19. Bicycle Repairman

    Bicycle Repairman Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,688
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Strike pay isn't part of a Standard Players Contract.

    The NHLPA has a Strike Fund, from which monies are drawn from. It's strictly a Contingency Fund in the event of a labour dispute for related expenses. Legal fees, travel and hotel costs, for example, are more than likely covered by it.

    Issuance of Strike Pay is not automatic, as it is contingent upon sufficient funds. As such, it is not a player income insurance plan. The NHLPA executive (duly elected by their peers) has the authority to set the parameters. Start dates, end dates, amounts, and who qualifies for stipends are all decided upon by the executive with input, of course, from the general membership and legal counsel.

    Rob Ray had the option at any point in his career to drop his union membership, as it is not a requirement to play in the NHL. He chose to remain a member. And by remaining a member as long as he did, no doubt he had an understanding of the NHLPA's structure and bylaws.

    As a NHLPA member, Ray also had the option of running for a union executive position with a campaign platform of "Strike Pay for Scabs," but something tells me he wouldn't have been successful.

    Ray effectively abdicated his membership by stating and then refusing to retract his intent to cross a picket line. Even though there are no replacement games as of yet, there is still an ongoing lockout. Thus, the picket line exists.

    The NHLPA doesn't "owe" Rob Ray a thin dime of lockout pay.
     
  20. loudi94

    loudi94 Master of my Domain

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,413
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Occupation:
    Child Tamer
    Location:
    Alberta

    If Ray was still paying his dues, he's most likely got a good case. Are there any other similar cases of players being denied their pay.
     
  21. Sammy*

    Sammy* Guest

    You too know little or nothing about the law. Ray did not, willingly or otherwise, abdicate his membership. If the Union wanted to boot him out, there are procedures for doing so. They have not dine so.
    The whole question is whether he has retired or not.
    Frankly, why you even post this drivel clothed as fact I have no idea, cause your post did not respond to anything in my post.
     
  22. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Whats the situation with Van Allen, Quintal, Reichel, Renberg, Leschyshyn, Poapst, Carkner, Todd Simpson. Not every player met the guidelines to qualify to receive the money
     
  23. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    This is an honest question: do you have some sort of pathological problem that requires you to be Bob Goodenow's buttboy, to steal a phrase from Tucker Carlson?

    The quality of discussion about lockout and union related issues has gone in the toilet here over the past couple of months, and you've been the main man with your foot in the dumper, holding it down.

    Ray "effectively abdicated his membership?" What does this even mean? It's meaningless. Did Ray tear up his union card? No, not as far as any of us know. You're allowed to make statements against the union, or question the direction of the organization. If the rules of the NHLPA don't allow the PA to determine that players have retired for the purpose of lockout pay, and don't allow the Executive to exercise discretion in deciding who gets lockout pay and who doesn't, then they're going to have to pay him. They can amend the rules now, but they'll still be on the hook for the previous payments.

    Rob Ray can Photoship pictures of Bob Goodenow in bed with a dead boy if he likes-his views and statements are irrelevant, unless the union has something built into it's rules that makes that occurrence reason to kill strike pay, or some other form of discretion.
     
  24. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    I thought the quality of BRs post was quite high. Of all the people to accuse of bringing the quality of discussion down, your obsession with this one poster is awfully curious as you appear quite intelligent. Why did you find that eloquent explanation so inflammatory that a personal attack was warranted. Its becoming obsessive.

    Ray effectively abdicated his membership when he said he wasnt likely to ever play again. He has a known antagonsitic history with Goodenow, and his motives seem pretty clear to me.

    Bettman can fire a person for leaking a document. Unions can force people to pay membership and still deny them union representation if they go against union wishes. Maybe you dont like it, but this idea that Ray is "owed" this strike fund, when you and I both know he is retired on his bassboat he was given for retiring. He is making a nuisance technicality case in order to hamper the people who have voted to use their strike pay for a collective unified purpose..

    He says Goodenow promised that even guys like Rayzor would be covered by the strike fund. Fair enough, maybe he has grievance rights within union guidelines. But then he crossed the unions position and said he wouldnt support them but would become a scab. Then said he was kidding he would never play again. Insisting he should receive strike pay after that seems ridiculous on its face. Only a Bettman would try to make such a case. It seems clear he has abdicated his membership for the purpose of receiving strike pay, and it seems clear any union would take the same position. Just as Bettman would if one of his GMs came out and said he intends to break any cap.
     
    Last edited by moderator David A. Rainer: Dec 31, 2004
  25. David A. Rainer

    David A. Rainer Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2002
    Messages:
    7,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Pro. Gameshow Contestant
    Location:
    Huntington Beach
    Home Page:
    Is the agreement legal? Yes
    Does the NHLPA have the right to draft their own internal rules (Bylaws) as they see fit? Yes
    Is there consideration for the agreement? Yes, making the stipend a conditional (remember, courts will rarely look at the efficacy of the consideration, merely that there is some sort of consideration or forebearance is sufficient).
    Is consideration even required? No, the members can vote to end the stipend so they can also vote to place a condition on the stipend (but there is some question over whether this was voted on, if not, you would have to look at the powers granted the union management)
    Why would a player agree to it? Trying to keep the union solid (creating a disincentive to cross)
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2004
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"