Blinkage, Linkage & Stinkage (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XVII
- Thread starter ColePens
- Start date
- Status
LOL. With all their spare time they should be taking some after hockey job training courses like Microsoft excel or such, diversify their skills. After all they may have to (collective gasp) work after hockey's done with them. Besides with some basic excel training they could figure out how much money they're losing right now.
Players need to realize their current contract is over. Get past that.
Negotiate your best deal moving forward. If you are concerned with "honoring" contracts then sign a longer CBA this time.
Negotiate your best deal moving forward. If you are concerned with "honoring" contracts then sign a longer CBA this time.
Their current contracts are not over. A same contract can be subject to 3 CBAs and a Player contract doesn't cease to exist at the end of a CBA. Certain clauses in a new CBA might supersede or affect some clauses of the contract.
What that Adler article tells us is:
1-Once agreed by the players, the Player Contracts already signed will be subject to the new CBA. (everyone knows this)
2-The players should be grateful for the Make Whole provision offered from the League.
Is there a donation fund set up where we could help the hockey players and their families? Bettman is so misunderstood. I sure am going to miss seeing the Leafs play, if we had a season, inevitably the Canadiens were going to win the Stanley cup.
Maybe there is one where you could help the owners, they're the ones crying poor. Just send a cheque in care of Bettman for the Coyotes, I'm sure he'd cash it.
haseoke39
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,938
- 2,491
Semantics. If there's no CBA, the contract goes away. So you can describe it one way or the other more or less accurately.
It's not semantics. It's erroneous to say that. The contract doesn't go away... Whether you're the owners, the players, the NHL, you don't dispute this. Everyone agrees. It's very basic and has important implications.
haseoke39
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,938
- 2,491
The contract goes away if there's no CBA. That's not erroneous. If no CBA gets decided upon, the players don't have a valid contract they can go enforce. Otherwise, hell, the players would be well advised just to insist no CBA got signed and get full value. But that's not how the SPC works.
1-The contract doesn't go away if there's no CBA. (NHL and owners don't dispute this)
2. The players still have a contract even if there's no CBA (NHL and owners don't dispute this), the Players can't use the Courts to get their salary provisions enforced.
So if it were possible for the league to resume play with replacement players, existing players could show up and state they're there to continue playing. Do the owners have to honour the contracts?
I believe if they came back with replacement players the league would have imposed rules. Basically they would write the agreement and the players who accepted them could come back. It would be less than 50/50 if it got to that.
haseoke39
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,938
- 2,491
If a court won't recognize the contract, then the contract doesn't legally exist.
The Courts will absolutely recognize the contract. They'll just say the salary provisions are non-enforceable because of the labor dispute... The contract will become enforceable again if a CBA is signed or if the parties agree to play without a CBA...A contract doesn't disappear and then magically reappear again.
WingedWheel1987
Registered User
I am guessing that if they don't have an agreement by mid December the season will be cancelled.
mouser
Business of Hockey
A court will recognize the player contracts still exist. During the lockout neither the NHL or PA can enforce the terms of the contract though. The distinction matters.
haseoke39
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,938
- 2,491
Okay. So this is semantics again. It doesn't disappear and then reappear, you say. Instead, it becomes non-enforceable, and then enforceable again under the right conditions. Hooray. Same difference.
haseoke39
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,938
- 2,491
Right. It exists but its unenforceable (with no certainty it will ever be enforceable again). Which is as good as if it didn't exist. This is why I'm saying it's basically semantics whether you say the contract disappears or not. This isn't a contract law class, there's no need to stand on ceremony and use the magic words. You can use the ones that convey the facts to your audience.
Could the owners in some way just throw the players out?
Like just cancel all contracts and release the players?
Starting fresh so to speak.
Like just cancel all contracts and release the players?
Starting fresh so to speak.
Go and tell Shea Weber it doesn't matter if he still has a contract or not. $ 13 Millions this season or $ 0. Semantics. Same difference.
haseoke39
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,938
- 2,491
Shea Weber doesn't have a contract until an agreement is in place that validates his contract. Unless this dispute gets resolved, yes, his $13M turns into $0. That's absolutely true. I don't understand why this is so troubling for you. It's not like we disagree on substance.
You're erring again. Whether this dispute gets resolved or not Weber gets his $13M.
Apoplectic Habs Fan
Registered User
- Aug 17, 2002
- 29,214
- 17,657
if the NHL shuts down tomorrow, does Weber get his 13 million? unless we are talking his signing bonus, i dont think he does
I'd say no because soon as the owners try to start playing (without a CBA) the players with contracts say.....We're here!!
Edit to add: If you claim they have no contract without a CBA, then I guess they're all UFA's
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Hawks!
Yeah...the $13 mill is a signing bonus. IIRC, he gets a salary of $1mill each of the first 4 yrs and a signing bonus of $13mill each of the first 4 yrs.
maybe someone else can confirm.
- Status
