preddevil said:I think he was just trying to be punny.
That's fine, it still had to be said.
There's nothing funnier than reading the brainwashed pro-Bettman lemmings call other people sycophants.
preddevil said:I think he was just trying to be punny.
Finally, Gary Bettman says he voted against replacements after voting for it. Worked for John Kerry.
Most felt, and still feel, that the CBA will be resolved in an amicable way. The issue of 04-05 contracts will be addressed in the CBA. It’s unlikely that 04-05 contracts will be honored. Nolan is covered regardless.Beukeboom Fan said: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?
Then all you NHLPA geniuses should enlighten the unwashed as to why there was such a hoopla about the Owen Nolan contract where if there was a provision if there was a lockout that his contract would be extended for the period there was a lockout (I believe to a maximum of 2 years).The Messenger said: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??
PepNCheese said:That's fine, it still had to be said.
There's nothing funnier than reading the brainwashed pro-Bettman lemmings call other people sycophants.
Sammy said:Then all you NHLPA geniuses should enlighten the unwashed as to why there was such a hoopla about the Owen Nolan contract where if there was a provision if there was a lockout that his contract would be extended for the period there was a lockout (I believe to a maximum of 2 years).
No reason to have such a provision according to that donkey Brooks.
edit. I should have read Beuks post before this
FrozenPond said: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?
PepNCheese said:It's "sycophant". And reading your posts, it's one word you should know how to spell by now.
PepNCheese said:That's fine, it still had to be said.
There's nothing funnier than reading the brainwashed pro-Bettman lemmings call other people sycophants.
Thunderstruck said: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.
Mighty Duck said: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.
Mighty Duck said:When you debate, pull the bag off your head, and unplug yourself from the owners tail.
cleduc said:Yes, they had to wait until the term of the agreement ended. there's a little more on the spirit of it in clause 3.1.
From the standard players contract contained in the most recent NHL CBA:
18. The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by the Constitution and By-Laws of the League and by any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA, and by all of the terms and provisions thereof, copies of which shall be open and available for inspection by Club, its directors and officers, and the Player, at the main office of the League, the main office of the Club and the main office of the NHLPA. This Contract is entered into subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this Contract inconsistent with such Collective Bargaining Agreement are superseded by the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
So the player accepted that he could be locked out when he signed his standard players contract because the CBA is referenced in his standard players contract and that CBA "governs" the standard players contract and defined when the lockout could take place, etc.
Brooks is pulling everybody's chain here. He's an idiot.
This is a CBA negotiation issue not a legal one at this point in time. The two parties will negotiate contract expiry as a transition issue just like they negotiated all the transition issues in '94 and just like every union/owner negotiates transition issues going from one CBA to the next.
Mighty Duck said: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.
Thanks. So it sounds like there is no chance of this issue going to court, and it will be resolved at the bargaining table. There’s also a high probability that they’ll just forget about the 04-05 contracts and move on. But the PA might say, “ok, we’ll accept the 54% linkage, but only if you honor the 04-05 contractsâ€, and the owners might agree.cleduc said:Yes, they had to wait until the term of the agreement ended. there's a little more on the spirit of it in clause 3.1.
From the standard players contract contained in the most recent NHL CBA:
18. The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by the Constitution and By-Laws of the League and by any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA, and by all of the terms and provisions thereof, copies of which shall be open and available for inspection by Club, its directors and officers, and the Player, at the main office of the League, the main office of the Club and the main office of the NHLPA. This Contract is entered into subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this Contract inconsistent with such Collective Bargaining Agreement are superseded by the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
So the player accepted that he could be locked out when he signed his standard players contract because the CBA is referenced in his standard players contract and that CBA "governs" the standard players contract and defined when the lockout could take place, etc.
Brooks is pulling everybody's chain here. He's an idiot.
This is a CBA negotiation issue not a legal one at this point in time. The two parties will negotiate contract expiry as a transition issue just like they negotiated all the transition issues in '94 and just like every union/owner negotiates transition issues going from one CBA to the next.
FrozenPond said:Thanks. So it sounds like there is no chance of this issue going to court, and it will be resolved at the bargaining table. There’s also a high probability that they’ll just forget about the 04-05 contracts and move on. But the PA might say, “ok, we’ll accept the 54% linkage, but only if you honor the 04-05 contractsâ€, and the owners might agree.
What if the owners declare impasse and the players strike? There would be no agreed upon contract transition language in the CBA. Can the players then go to court, or do they wait for a final resolution to the dispute?
Mighty Duck said:If in fact, you think some rules still apply, then the July 1st deadline would still be in effect. Can't have it both ways. Maybe the players have asked Bob to delay things and not sign a CBA until after the deadline. But, I think, no CBA, no contract, no rights equals UFA. Simple English for all you sycophants or is it psycho-phants. Oh, this is getting to complicated.
I was thinking that in order to properly honor the 04-05 contracts, the owners would have to phase in the cap. That’s the price they’d pay to get the long term 54% linkage.Timmy said:The NHLPA membership isn't going to necessarily negotiate the honouring of 04-05 contracts if it squeezes those members without a contract. For instance, if one player on a team with, say a 35m cap keeps his 10m contract, those members without contracts will be negotiating with a team that has far less signing power than if that 10m contract were to have expired.
In a 'normal' union, the good of five members outweighs the good of one in this instance.
cleduc said:This is a CBA negotiation issue not a legal one at this point in time. The two parties will negotiate contract expiry as a transition issue just like they negotiated all the transition issues in '94 and just like every union/owner negotiates transition issues going from one CBA to the next.
Brooks is pulling everybody's chain here. He's an idiot.
Why no new contract signings during a lockout? I don't know what would prevent teams from signing their draftees -- other than the desire to get them signed under the lower entry-level contracts that will likely be in the new CBA. The NHL obviously believes the terms of the CBA must still be honored. Otherwise, they never would've assigned players to the AHL in the manner they did. I think the only thing preventing them from offering those contracts is their own belief the union will let them keep the rights to those players under a new CBA.kdb209 said:The problem with your logic is no CBA, no new contract signings. And the new CBA will address all these issues and the players will be forced to retroactively agree to them when they sign their SPC. Just like draftees who are not members of the union and not at all governed by the CBA - as soon ad they sign a contract, they become members covered by the CBA and retrocatively agree to all the terms. That's why draftees can't sue (or at least win) over the draft.
And Star Trek.Timmy said:In a 'normal' union, the good of five members outweighs the good of one in this instance.
True enogh it has to be negotated as part as a new CBA. Who knows, those guys could still be getting there contracts extended, it could be negotiated as part of a new CBA. As much chance of that being in a new CBA as the players agreeing that their contracts all get a 75% rollback.shveik said:How is that? He is saying that this issue hasn't been addressed so far. He is right. It is a valid issue, that needs to be ironed out through negotiations. He is also right that if this issue is not negotiated, there is a good case (and a precedent) to ask courts for enforcement of the 04/05 contracts.
Weary said:Why no new contract signings during a lockout? I don't know what would prevent teams from signing their draftees -- other than the desire to get them signed under the lower entry-level contracts that will likely be in the new CBA. The NHL obviously believes the terms of the CBA must still be honored. Otherwise, they never would've assigned players to the AHL in the manner they did. I think the only thing preventing them from offering those contracts is their own belief the union will let them keep the rights to those players under a new CBA.
shveik said:How is that? He is saying that this issue hasn't been addressed so far. He is right. It is a valid issue, that needs to be ironed out through negotiations. He is also right that if this issue is not negotiated, there is a good case (and a precedent) to ask courts for enforcement of the 04/05 contracts.