Tom_Benjamin said:
Anybody can sue, but Crosby is special because the thought of him winning terrifies the NHL. If you sued, the NHL could care less. They don't care whether the courts made you an unrestricted free agent.
I'm sure Alexandre Daigle, Rick Nash, Bouwmeister, and others thought they were special too. The thought of Crosby suing the NHL over his draft rights does not terrify the NHL it would make them laugh. You still have not said under what legal grounds Crosby could sue and what would be the damages he would sue for. Crosby may be a special hockey player but under the law he has no more rights than Brule and the other class of 2005. Do you actually think the courts would sit there and say "Oh my god this is Crosby we must bend the law to accomodate him, but only for him, nobody else is in the same position as him"? Do you think the courts operate like Seinfeld's soup nazi?
Tom_Benjamin said:
If there is a valid draft in place when Crosby is first eligible to be signed, there probably is no problem. If that draft is not in place, or if after the fact the NLRB declares there was no impasse, Crosby has a case.
What are you babbling about. If the NLRB declares there is no impasse they order them back to the negotiatiing table.
Tom_Benjamin said:
So what? This isn't relevant. The NHL is not the employer.
Re-read that section again this time with sarcasm.
Tom_Benjamin said:
Suppose the NHL declares impasse and implements a CBA complete with a draft that is held immediately. Crosby is drafted by the team that wins some kind of lottery.
The NHLPA files and wins an unfair labour practice suit. The NLRB throws out the imposed CBA and with it, the draft. They restore the old CBA with a draft that is invalid because there was no season to determine draft order.
The NLRB can determine that the owners bargained in bad faith, in which case they are indeed screwed. But that would be an extreme case and extremely hard to prove. On the other hand they could also impose the last offer from the owners as the new CBA. No one knows what they could rule and they are totally unpredictable. Let's just say the NHL would not go this route unless they were damned sure they had a better than 50/50 chance of winning.
Tom_Benjamin said:
Crosby would ask the courts to declare him to be an unrestricted free agent.
Tom
Now I know you have no clue about what you're saying. How can the court declare a free agent a free agent? Crosby has the right to sign with any team he wants. If he wants to play in the NHL however he has to play by their rules (no matter if they are imposed or are under a CBA). If they say his rights belong to Timbucktoo and he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to play in the NHL, he can go to the AHL, ECHL, Euro, RSL, etc. etc. etc. The NHL is under no obligation to give a job to anyone...Crosby included. Your argument makes no sense. EVEN IF they declare he is a free agent, he can't make any more money than allowed under the CBA (old or new) or imposed system. In either case, wathever team he plays for he gets the same money. What damages has he incured. If he has no damages, what grounds is is he suing on?
The court does not interpret a CBA, it goes to arbitration for resolution. If the NHL imposes its settlement and the NHLPA sues, the court will decide if the NHL had the right to do proceed in that matter. If the court determines the NHL had no legal right to impose a settlement (which I highly doubt would be the case) the court does not impose the old CBA they just say the NHL had no right to impose a settlement and the settlement becomes null and the NHL tries another tactic. If there are any damages to be awarded it would go the NHLPA. Crosby would have no part in this lawsuit.