Brooks: Contracts may not be expiring

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by ColoradoHockeyFan, Apr 24, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. ColoradoHockeyFan

    ColoradoHockeyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Denver area
    http://www.nypost.com/sports/43143.htm

    And then of course there's this noteworthy line from Brooks himself:

     
  2. OlTimeHockey

    OlTimeHockey Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    16,483
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Occupation:
    stick figure porn
    Location:
    home
    If the NHL were the sole reason why an agreement was not reached (as Larry Brooks probably thinks in his pink butterfly, LSD trip world), then that would be the only concievable instance where players were due their lapsed contract years. But hey.....Larry (hahahaha.), the NHLPA didn't get this settled either....i.e.: they failed to do their part, or, in other words, share fault for the lost season.

    The players, via the agency which they are part of, are not due anything because they were unable to agree on terms in good faith, just like the owners. So Yashin lost a year. The PA was just as negligent as the NHL on this one in not providing for a CBA which the two parties could operate. Thus the contracts should not be guaranteed because niether side was at fault; BOTH were, and to penalize one side exclusively despite the faults of the other side does not work in law (unless it's divorce court, with the archaic juris prudence and all).

    Sorry, Larry...try again. (my VERY pro-PA friend agrees strongly with me. Maybe Larry should lay off the pipe and join the reality scene. Or play in traffic.....in Manhattan.......with icy roads)
     
  3. mr gib

    mr gib Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,853
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    rock and roller
    Location:
    vancouver
    Home Page:
    dood - you're getting all ramped up - a joy on a hockey less sunday night -
     
  4. NYRangers

    NYRangers Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,850
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Brooks is an idiot. If a contract was signed with the language 'based on X seasons' then if a guy was hurt a year he would have to return to the team even if they years went by. Kind of confusing how I said it, but Brooks is an idiot either way.
     
  5. OlTimeHockey

    OlTimeHockey Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    16,483
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Occupation:
    stick figure porn
    Location:
    home
    "Every village needs an idiot"

    -Mike Milbury
     
  6. sunb

    sunb Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Yale University
    Brooks is ludicrous.
     
  7. Epsilon

    Epsilon #basta

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    74,170
    Likes Received:
    35,151
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    South Cackalacky
    Like him or not Brooks makes a valid point here.
     
  8. tinyzombies

    tinyzombies Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    13,132
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Calif. via Montreal
    Brooks is an eediot.

    SPCs are tied to the CBA. No CBA, no SPCs. The SPCs are on the table along with everything else. When the new CBA is finally signed off on, they will have dealt with this issue.

    He's playing cutesy with something some lawyer told him most likely, but it's obvious that lawyer knows nothing about the NHL.

    Apples and oranges.
     
  9. Hasbro

    Hasbro Can He Skate?! Sponsor

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    42,420
    Likes Received:
    2,915
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Drone
    Location:
    South Rectangle
    Why would Brooks be in the company of a lawyer lately? :sarcasm:
     
  10. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    No he doesn't. As usual, he is completely clueless.

    The PA will deal with the issue collectively through the new CBA. It is in their interest to have each member move one year along the road to UFA status. They won't sacrifice the benefit to the group for a few individuals.

    Once again Larryboy flails around hoping someone will fall for his poorly thought out theory and sadly finds willing victims.
     
  11. Mighty Duck

    Mighty Duck Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2003
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
  12. Mighty Duck

    Mighty Duck Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2003
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    But the courts will look at it this way: The Law is the Law

    The fact is:
    1) The NHL locked the players out.
    2) There is no CBA, so presently, the courts will follow the Law.
    3) Defaulting on an signed contract, no rights for said player. The players did not strike, or with hold service.

    You may not like Larry's so called LSD world, but my bet is there will not be a CBA agreement until July 2nd, which would put most of the remaining players in a UFA status, if not all of them. Just another bargaining chip for the PA, as I would suggest Bettman and his buddy Jacobs will get taken to the cleaners again. Jacobs better back track quickly, as the only players signing for his team will be replacements.
     
  13. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    This outstanding explanation was posted by cleduc on the Leafs forum.


    Pretty much puts this non-issue to rest.
     
  14. Mighty Duck

    Mighty Duck Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2003
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Oh really, in your mind only. The last time I checked, there has not been a CBA since last September. Unless the PA agrees to teams retaining player rights, this issue is not at rest, but very much alive. If I recall, this was a bargaining chip the NFL had back in it's lock out days as a player becomes an UFA after contract expires. Read the law, anti-trust laws in the USA, Competition Act in Canada.
     
  15. ColoradoHockeyFan

    ColoradoHockeyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Denver area
  16. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    How many contracts have been signed since the last CBA expired?

    How many of the contracts in question were signed under the previous CBA, with its lockout provisions?

    Non issue.
     
  17. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,518
    Likes Received:
    949
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:

    Point to the lockout provisions for unsigned draft picks .. Show me those clauses/provisions in NON EXISTENT contracts who rights were obtained in the last CBA now expired?

    How about RFA like say Dany Heatley and Ilya Kovalchuk .. Their team chose not to sign them going into a new CBA . Where is there opportunity to get that lockout provision included in a contract not offered by the OWNER in the old CBA expired. ??

    Yet in this case Legal binding contracts are expiring as a result of the CBA expiring but that is a non issue ..

    A CBA is a collective bargaining agreement between Owners and Players mutually agreed upon by both sides ...

    However in this case whatever benefits the Owners most is in place .. be it player rights or avoiding paying guaranteed binding contracts everything always favours the Owners without exception ..

    STRANGE NO??
     
  18. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Not strange at all, when it is in the PA's interests as well as the NHL's to have a year tick off the clock.

    Keep dreaming up/repeating the same misguided tripe. It won't change anything.
     
  19. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought the last CBA had a no-lockout provision, not a lockout provision.
     
  20. Beukeboom Fan

    Beukeboom Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Home Page:
    Just a quick question. If Brooks is correct, then why was there the HUGE uproar when SJ signed Owen Nolan to his "Lock-Out Proof" contract? Nolan's contract specified that if there was time missed due to a labor stopage, time was added to the back-end of the contract.

    Just from a common sense stand-point - if that had to be specifically included, doesn't it make sense that it was not included in everyone elses contract?
     
  21. You used two words that completely destroys anything the NHLPA and their psycho-phants like to toss out (and you know who you are), Common Sense. Even when the evidence to support the contrary view to what the PA has to promote is presented, it is ignored and the Gospel according to Goodenow is recited with reverence. Guys like Brooks just continue to murder the players' position and make them even less sympathetic. I hope he continues his great work. Not only is he funny, but he's turning an entire generation of "stars" into parriahs. Ain't freedom of speech a wonderful thing!

    :biglaugh:
     
  22. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    23,185
    Likes Received:
    807
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Toronto
    It's "sycophant". And reading your posts, it's one word you should know how to spell by now.
     
  23. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It might be a good example of "the exception proves the rule." The problem is that the owners filed a grievance claiming the clause was invalid. This may hurt their case. The other thing that would hurt their case is that they enforced the terms of two-way contracts for players who didn't need to clear waivers under the old CBA. That would stop them from arguing that the lockout invalidated players contracts for the year.

    It could be an interesting case, but more likely it will just be addressed in the new CBA.
     
  24. FrozenPond

    FrozenPond Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You appear to be right Weary. Article 7: No Strike, No Discrimination and Other Undertakings. Sounds like the opposite of what Thunderstruck claims. I guess that’s why the league had to wait for the CBA to expire before locking out their players. I also glanced through the Standard Player's Contract. I see no language in there related to strikes or lockouts.

    Maybe Thunderstruck can provide us with some better links?
     
  25. preddevil

    preddevil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think he was just trying to be punny.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"