Russia and Germany oppose NHL offer

[Muscle Bob]

It's not just about the money, but replacing a couple key players just before the season begins isn't easy.

Exactly. That's what I was talking about in Malkin situation.. But what I've heard in an answer ? "Its all about money !". Probably now Europeans will understand that it is about respecting contracts.

Jussi
Hi
What do you think now ? Do you still on NHL side ?

Everybody
Now, do you see NHL plan ? When they forced Europeans to sign agreement 2 years ago, they saw that Europeans have weak position ("something is better than nothing" (C)). Since that moment they will be offering you less and less money, because you will agree to any sum. Come one ! This is NHL. Their aim is to get the best players from Europe for nothing. Nothing personal, it is business (C)

I'm wondering what is with European laws ? What type of contracts your players sign ? You don't have 2 week notice, so what's the problem ?

 

[Fugu]

I think people are going off in the wrong direction about existing contracts. Even in the case of Malkin, US courts would look at whether or not a valid contract existed, absent a transfer agreement that defines how these matters are treated. Factors like a deal signed at 3 AM without the presence of an agent might serve to invalidate it.

Thus a player who has a signed contract in most European countries is probably considered off limits even when a transfer agreement isn't in place. Prevailing law is the next stop. Now... with transfer agreement in place, all signatories agree to the rules within the agreement, so if that says a guy under a European contract wants to go to an NHL team and said team is willing to pay the fee, then there's no point in discussing it further.

 

[Fugu]

The problem is that there isn't enough money to go around! When you have wealthier NHL teams subsidizing their weaker brethren, how much money do people think the NHL has to throw around at development programs?

Did you people notice that in the US (probably Canada too) the NFL, NBA and the MLB -to a lesser extent - don't have to support development at all? Why? It's called college sports. The NFL and NBA just pick off the cream without having to invest a single dime. These programs are self-funding & self-renewing, earning sizable profits. The super elite players, like Lebron James or Kobe Bryant never had to go the college route at all. They were picked up right from high school.

It is understood that hockey is a more expensive sport and development is more costly, yet soccer (football) doesn't have this excuse but does have a payment system in place to compensate teams who lose players. So how did this system evolve? The US model has development costs funded by all the feeder leagues for professional sports. They are responsible for their own funding and perpetuation. In Europe, the soccer transfer system evolved probably mostly because there's a ton of money available and everyone wanted a piece of that pie.

The NHL is caught between these two mentalities, but what is being overlooked is that there really isn't as much money in hockey as people want to believe.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I don't think the european teams are worried about the future Malkins, this is more about the established players, who might crack the 3rd/4th line in the NHL but are 1st liners in Europe. The Malkins will leave no matter what the European teams do (for now), but they probably want some security with the veteran players who means alot to their team but to the NHL don't mean much at all.

Of course they also want to get payed for developing the talents that signs with NHL teams, but i don't think that is the problem here.

 

[Fugu]

I don't think the european teams are worried about the future Malkins, this is more about the established players, who might crack the 3rd/4th line in the NHL but are 1st liners in Europe. The Malkins will leave no matter what the European teams do (for now), but they probably want some security with the veteran players who means alot to their team but to the NHL don't mean much at all.

Of course they also want to get payed for developing the talents that signs with NHL teams, but i don't think that is the problem here.

If the concern is that Europe will be depleted of its talent, then no amount of money from the NHL will fix that. If talent levels are low or scarce, how does more NHL money fix that? This argument seems to imply that talent is limited, and that the desire is to stop it from moving from Europe to North America. Money then doesn't fix this problem, does it?

 

[Art Vandelay]

If the concern is that Europe will be depleted of its talent, then no amount of money from the NHL will fix that. If talent levels are low or scarce, how does more NHL money fix that? This argument seems to imply that talent is limited, and that the desire is to stop it from moving from Europe to North America. Money then doesn't fix this problem, does it?

My understanding of the 1st post is that the main issue is the amount of players. If the NHL must pay more for the players then NHL teams will think twice about signing a players whom in their eyes are a depth player.

The money isn't there to support the european clubs, it's to dicourage NHL team to sign away players.

 

[Wisent]

If the concern is that Europe will be depleted of its talent, then no amount of money from the NHL will fix that. If talent levels are low or scarce, how does more NHL money fix that? This argument seems to imply that talent is limited, and that the desire is to stop it from moving from Europe to North America. Money then doesn't fix this problem, does it?

You are right, it doesn`t but it makes it harder for NHL clubs to take these players. With this offered contract it is very easy to take them. For Germany it is probably not about the money but about filling the gap the players leave behind.

 

[Chimpradamus]

SEL has also showed a concern for this contract, they don't like it at all.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/sport/story/0,2789,975803,00.html

$15 million distributed on all leagues isn't much money at all for each team. But, the biggest concern is NHL clubs can poach as many players as they want at any time of the season, if I understand it right. That's absolutely ridicilous. Europe isn't some AHL farm league. If this goes through, NHL can theoretically take a whole team away just before the playoffs.

This could be absolutely devastating. In SEL for example, teams can be relegated from the top league, which is a big setback economically and sportswise as well. Just imagine a club fighting for its existance having their star Czech player taken away just at the worst moment, for no compensation at all except the peanut money they received before.

But, it doesn't matter anyway, since NHL will poach players regardless of the contract. I still remember when Phoenix (I think) could take away Orszagh from Luleå in january last year, while still under contract. The contract between NHL and Europe clearly says players can't be taken after november, (or something) but the contract could clearly be breached when the "right" part breached it.

These contracts have always been worthless (for Europe), but one could hope they would go from worthless to less worthless instead of in the direction of more worthless.

 

[Wisent]

SEL has also showed a concern for this contract, they don't like it at all.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/sport/story/0,2789,975803,00.html

$15 million distributed on all leagues isn't much money at all for each team. But, the biggest concern is NHL clubs can poach as many players as they want at any time of the season, if I understand it right. That's absolutely ridicilous. Europe isn't some AHL farm league. If this goes through, NHL can theoretically take a whole team away just before the playoffs.

This could be absolutely devastating. In SEL for example, teams can be relegated from the top league, which is a big setback economically and sportswise as well. Just imagine a club fighting for its existance having their star Czech player taken away just at the worst moment, for no compensation at all except the peanut money they received before.

But, it doesn't matter anyway, since NHL will poach players regardless of the contract. I still remember when Phoenix (I think) could take away Orszagh from Luleå in january last year, while still under contract. The contract between NHL and Europe clearly says players can't be taken after november, (or something) but the contract could clearly be breached when the "right" part breached it.

These contracts have always been worthless (for Europe), but one could hope they would go from worthless to less worthless instead of in the direction of more worthless.

Or when Thomas was taken from Jokerit one day before the season started to supposedly stay in the minors.

 

[Jussi]

Or when Thomas was taken from Jokerit one day before the season started to supposedly stay in the minors.

There was no intention to just play him in the minors. In such case Tim wouldn't have signed with the Bruins.

 

[Wisent]

There was no intention to just play him in the minors. In such case Tim wouldn't have signed with the Bruins.

Really? I could have sworn I read something like that at that time. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

[Blind Gardien]

So what is this, then? Some kind of strong-arm opening negotiation ploy that the NHL hopes will ultimately scare teams into basically re-accepting something similar to the existing deal? Because surely, if they really are removing the limits as has been suggested, they *know* that European leagues aren't going to accept that. Surely?