Confirmed with Link: Corey Perry on waivers for purpose of contract termination (mod warning: no direct speculation at this time)

[TLEH]

And all your "moving parts" are irrelevant, as I've been trying to tell you for like 2 days now, because Perry has to agree to the NHLPA filing a grievance on his behalf. Perry HAS TO HAVE A DESIRE TO PURSUE IT.

Both Mike Richards and Evander Kane dodged actual criminal liability and got theirs terminated. They both won their cases.

 

[piteus]

FWIW Friedman's take is the NHLPA likely can't do things without the support of Perry:

32 Thoughts: So many questions, not enough answers around Corey Perry

View attachment 775676

That's not the same situation. Berglund quit. When you refuse to play, you can't demand to be paid (we don't live in Europe). Even then the NHLPA offered to file a grievance. LOL.

Perry was supposedly the first (at least in recent memory) to have his contract terminated for misbehavior. With or without, the Hawks will set a precedent that guaranteed contracts can be terminated for misbehavior.

 

[Hawkaholic]

You still haven't answered my question. How many guaranteed NHL contracts have been terminated for MISBEHAVIOR ... not for an illegality? And that will be the sticking point for NHLPA.

How many NHLers inappropriately do something unwanted to a team employee while wasted at an event?

 

[Otto]

^^ Well said. ^^

99% of the time, bosses / employees who are A-Holes at work, are A-Holes at home. They don't just turn it off. On the other hand, on the surface, he does seem to have a happy home life.

If I was him, I'd take a buy out and go on with my life/career.

I ran Perry's golf tournament in London for 5 years. You'd think if there was going to be any incidents it would be there among his former junior teammates. Never experienced anything close to what's being discussed here. And that was well before he was married.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Both Mike Richards and Evander Kane dodged actual criminal liability and got theirs terminated. They both won their cases.

Right, but if Perry doesn't want to pursue it, because he doesn't want any more embarrassment to him or his family, then he won't, and the NHLPA can offer it until they're blue in the face, but won't move forward unless he actually has a desire to pursue it. It's a simple concept. I'm not sure why someone is having such a hard time grasping it, honestly.

 

[piteus]

Both Mike Richards and Evander Kane dodged actual criminal liability and got theirs terminated. They both won their cases.

ChiHawks10 is only speaking from Perry's perspective ... which is fine, but he's not looking at the big picture ramification for the NHLPA and its players if they don't at least challenge the Hawks for terminating a guaranteed contract for misbehavior. It doesn't have to be on Perry's behalf. It could be under the CBA.

If I'm the NHLPA, I'm petrified it opens the floodgates for any NHL team to terminate contracts for misbehavior. That's not good for the players. They are going to have to specifically define "misbehavior" in the CBA which I read is vague.

Perhaps the CBA allows each NHL teams to set the standard for "misbehavior." IF that's the case, the NHLPA are a bunch of idiots and deserve what they have coming.

How many NHLers inappropriately do something unwanted to a team employee while wasted at an event?

We're talking about NHL players. There a lot of Neanderthals on the roster.

 

[ChiHawks10]

ChiHawks10 is only speaking from Perry's perspective ... which is fine, but he's not looking at the big picture ramification for the NHLPA and its players if they don't at least challenge the Hawks for terminating a guaranteed contract for misbehavior. It doesn't have to be on Perry's behalf. It could be under the CBA.

If I'm the NHLPA, I'm petrified it opens the floodgates for any NHL team to terminate contracts for misbehavior. That's not good for the players. They are going to have to specifically define "misbehavior" in the CBA which I read is vague.

Perhaps the CBA allows each NHL teams to set the standard for "misbehavior." IF that's the case, the NHLPA are a bunch of idiots and deserve what they have coming.

Yes... it does. Without a grievance, there is no grievance to file...

Do lawyers just create lawsuits based upon their desire to create a lawsuit? No. There has to be a complainant. Even massive class-action lawsuits have a singular person or group's name attached. You can't just do something on "no one's behalf". Especially when it comes to legalities and contracts...

How often do police or attorneys press charges on someone for committing a crime like... say an assault in a fight, without the person pressing charges? Not often. If two guys get in a fight, and they punch each other, and the person who is determined to be the "victim" or defending himself, says "I don't want to press charges." then the police are not going to pursue charges.


Like... how do I have to explain this to someone who has been around this world for probably 50 or 60+ years?

 

[piteus]

Right, but if Perry doesn't want to pursue it, because he doesn't want any more embarrassment to him or his family, then he won't, and the NHLPA can offer it until they're blue in the face, but won't move forward unless he actually has a desire to pursue it. It's a simple concept. I'm not sure why someone is having such a hard time grasping it, honestly.

Again, the NHLPA can file a grievance against the Hawks for violating the CBA. They don't have to file a grievance on behalf Corey Perry. Will it help to have Perry as a witness? Absolutely.

If the NHL is anything like the NBA or NFL, it will be held behind closed doors in front of an arbiter. That's the advantages of a CBA.

I don't have a problem with what the Hawks did. However, from a union standpoint, it has to be alarming that a guaranteed contract was terminated for the first time for misbehavior in recent memory. Other teams can and will use the Hawk/Perry situation to do the same ... which causes major problems for the NHLPA.

 

[TLEH]

Actually didn’t mean to reply to him. Just post the info. NHLPA can care all they want. If the player doesn’t it’s not getting grieved

 

[TLEH]

It’s essentially mutually terminating the contract without accepting culpability publicly. I mean he did apologize, but after termination. Also Berglund situation is a good point. Player wanted out so NHLPA didn’t do anything.

 

[piteus]

Yes... it does. Without a grievance, there is no grievance to file...

Do lawyers just create lawsuits based upon their desire to create a lawsuit? No. There has to be a complainant. Even massive class-action lawsuits have a singular person or group's name attached. You can't just do something on "no one's behalf". Especially when it comes to legalities and contracts...

How often do police or attorneys press charges on someone for committing a crime like... say an assault in a fight, without the person pressing charges? Not often. If two guys get in a fight, and they punch each other, and the person who is determined to be the "victim" or defending himself, says "I don't want to press charges." then the police are not going to pursue charges.


Like... how do I have to explain this to someone who has been around this world for probably 50 or 60+ years?

1. This is not in a court of law. This would be in front of the arbiter arguing the fine points of the CBA.

2. Prosecutors have brought charges and tried cases without victim cooperation. It happens is rape cases if the physical evidence is insurmountable. It makes it harder, but it will be dont.

Regardless, the NHLPA doesn't have to fight for Perry's behalf. They can file a grievance that the Hawks violated the CBA. From that standpoint, it would a CBA fight ... not a specific for Corey Perry.

That's what I've been saying. The fight is about the CBA ... not about Corey Perry. In the big picture, the Hawks don't care about eating $3mn+ of Perry's contract. Perry's also made a ton of money to fight for every single cent. However, for the NHLPA, this could set a terrible precedent going forward. The NHLPA could have more at stake.

I get your Corey Perry take. I'm just taking the view of the NHLPA. This is something that could have massive ramifications going forward for their players.

 

[TLEH]

1. This is not in a court of law. This would be in front of the arbiter arguing the fine points of the CBA.

2. Prosecutors have brought charges and tried cases without victim cooperation. It happens is rape cases if the physical evidence is insurmountable. It makes it harder, but it will be dont.

Regardless, the NHLPA doesn't have to fight for Perry's behalf. They can file a grievance that the Hawks violated the CBA. From that standpoint, it would a CBA fight ... not a specific for Corey Perry.

That's what I've been saying. The fight is about the CBA ... not about Corey Perry. In the big picture, the Hawks don't care about eating $3mn+ of Perry's contract. Perry's also made a ton of money to fight for every single cent. However, for the NHLPA, this could set a terrible precedent going forward. The NHLPA could have more at stake.

I get your Corey Perry take. I'm just taking the view of the NHLPA. This is something that could have massive ramifications going forward for their players.

Why didn’t they file the same after Berglund

 

[jaysoneil]

I believe Perry isn't going to grieve the situation because he's genuinely ashamed and sorry for his actions. It's a moral thing.

It'd look quite silly to come out with that apology then turn around and try to squeeze money from the people you just apologized to.

He's accepting and owning the L.

 

[TLEH]

I don’t know Perry but you don’t get a great reputation over 19 years by being a f*** regardless of how he plays on the ice. He messed up. Own it (like he has), and make changes (he says he is) and learn.

 

[piteus]

It’s essentially mutually terminating the contract without accepting culpability publicly. I mean he did apologize, but after termination. Also Berglund situation is a good point. Player wanted out so NHLPA didn’t do anything.

Berglund quit. You can't ask an NHL team to honor a contract for working unless you live in Europe. LOL.

The NHLPA can't file a grievance on behalf Corey Perry. However, they can file a grievance against the Hawks for violating the CBA.

You do make one good point. IF Corey publicly rescinds his contract absolving the Hawks of all contractual responsibility ... then you are correct. it's a non story. However, the Hawks made a formal statement that Perry's guarantee was terminated for workplace misbehavior. The Hawks were pretty clear.

 

[ORRFForever]

I ran Perry's golf tournament in London for 5 years. You'd think if there was going to be any incidents it would be there among his former junior teammates. Never experienced anything close to what's being discussed here. And that was well before he was married.

Fair enough. Good to hear.

 

[piteus]

I don’t know Perry but you don’t get a great reputation over 19 years by being a f*** regardless of how he plays on the ice. He messed up. Own it (like he has), and make changes (he says he is) and learn.

I support the Hawks decision. Hell, I'd respect Perry if he owns his mistake and absolves the Hawks of their contractual obligations.

My point was never about the Hawks or Perry doing the right thing. My point was always that the Hawks formally stated that Perry's contract was terminated for misbehavior and the potential implications for the NHLPA, guaranteed NHL contracts, and the CBA because of it.

I guarantee every NHL owner hopes the Hawks set this precedent.

 

[ChiHawks10]

1. This is not in a court of law. This would be in front of the arbiter arguing the fine points of the CBA.

2. Prosecutors have brought charges and tried cases without victim cooperation. It happens is rape cases if the physical evidence is insurmountable. It makes it harder, but it will be dont.

Regardless, the NHLPA doesn't have to fight for Perry's behalf. They can file a grievance that the Hawks violated the CBA. From that standpoint, it would a CBA fight ... not a specific for Corey Perry.

That's what I've been saying. The fight is about the CBA ... not about Corey Perry. In the big picture, the Hawks don't care about eating $3mn+ of Perry's contract. Perry's also made a ton of money to fight for every single cent. However, for the NHLPA, this could set a terrible precedent going forward. The NHLPA could have more at stake.

I get your Corey Perry take. I'm just taking the view of the NHLPA. This is something that could have massive ramifications going forward for their players.

1. The point still stands.

2. It's extremely rare. Like... EXTREMELY rare.

To the rest...

I don't think you understand the CBA and the SPCs like you seem to think you do.

The CBA is a mutually agreed upon set of rules that THE PLAYERS, THE NHL, and THE NHL TEAMS, all agree on. It's the governing policy of rules set forth between these three entities. Those three entities enter into that agreement. This is the agreement that sets forth the RIGHTS of each of those three entities, and what they can/can't do. Like you can't sign a guy to a contract over 7 years, unless he's already a member of your organization, and the maximum in that case is 8 years. That's the kind of stuff the CBA/MOU handle.

The SPCs are standard player contracts that are written up and signed between the NHL organization they're playing for, and the players, themselves, not the NHLPA.

Like you can literally go read the CBA and get all this info. The CBA does not dictate a team's ability to terminate a contract. All it outlines is the NHL commissioner's ability to discipline for off-ice conduct. The personal conduct of players outside of that language in the CBA is handled between the player, and the organization he signs an SPC with, and is included in his SPC. The CBA doesn't even mention any form of player conduct, outside of what the commissioner can impose based upon off-ice conduct of players, because that is not relevant to what the CBA is actually for...

 

[piteus]

Why didn’t they file the same after Berglund

Because he quit on his own accord. The team didn't make a formal announcement that his guarantee was terminated for misbehavior. Even then the NHLPA made a ludicrous offer to file a grievance for Berglund for not wanting to work. Now imagine what the NHLPA is feeling when a NHL team terminates a guaranteed contract for misbehavior for the first time in recent memory.

What do you think other NHL teams will try to do going forward? That is the issue for the NHLPA. That is why a bigger CBA issue than Corey Perry.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Because he quit on his own accord. The team didn't make a formal announcement that his guarantee was terminated for misbehavior. Even then the NHLPA made a ludicrous offer to file a grievance for Berglund for not wanting to work. Now imagine what the NHLPA is feeling when a NHL team terminates a guaranteed contract for misbehavior for the first time in recent memory.

What do you think other NHL teams will try to do going forward? That is the issue for the NHLPA. That is why a bigger CBA issue than Corey Perry.

What you don't seem to understand(because you've never even looked at the CBA and that's very obvious), is that personal conduct of players is not something outlined in the CBA. It is SOLELY outlined in the standard player contracts that players enter into an agreement with their organization. It has nothing to do with the CBA. The only thing the NHLPA can do is see if the Hawks violated the terms of Perry's SPC, as there is nothing in the CBA that they would have violated. If the Hawks didn't, then that is the end of it.

You need to educate yourself.

Collective Bargaining Agreement

The CBA between the NHLPA and the NHL sets out the terms and conditions of employment for all professional hockey players playing in the NHL, as well as the res

www.nhlpa.com

The MOU is what actually outlines benefits of players and such and rules regarding salary, insurance, etc.

And the MOU also does not contain anything with regards to player conduct. Again... that's all part of an SPC, which is between the club, and the player, and has zero bearing on the CBA.

 

[piteus]

1. The point still stands.

2. It's extremely rare. Like... EXTREMELY rare.

To the rest...

I don't think you understand the CBA and the SPCs like you seem to think you do.

The CBA is a mutually agreed upon set of rules that THE PLAYERS, THE NHL, and THE NHL TEAMS, all agree on. It's the governing policy of rules set forth between these three entities. Those three entities enter into that agreement. This is the agreement that sets forth the RIGHTS of each of those three entities, and what they can/can't do. Like you can't sign a guy to a contract over 7 years, unless he's already a member of your organization, and the maximum in that case is 8 years. That's the kind of stuff the CBA handles.

The SPCs are standard player contracts that are written up and signed between the NHL organization they're playing for, and the players, themselves, not the NHLPA. Everything in that SPC is guided by the agreed upon rules set forth within the CBA.

Like you can literally go read the CBA and get all this info. The CBA does not dictate a team's ability to terminate a contract. All it outlines is the NHL commissioner's ability to discipline for off-ice conduct. The personal conduct of players outside of that language in the CBA is handled between the player, and the organization he signs an SPC with, and is included in his SPC. The CBA doesn't even mention player conduct... because that is not relevant to what the CBA is actually for...

That is my point. The language for conduct in the CBA is vague including termination of guarantees. That's why no team has terminated a guaranteed contract for misbehavior in recent memory. This is a precedent setting move by the Blackhawks. That is why, from a NHLPA standpoint, it's so alarming.

Remember when the NFLPA gave Goodell the final decision on player punishment/NFL grievance matters through the CBA? Hell, Goodell still gets to appoint the arbiter. including himself, in any NFL grievance. That was Brian Flores contention in his filing to move his grievance from Goodell to a court of law. Point being, IF the NHLPA gave all the power to NHL teams to define misconduct to terminate a guaranteed contracts ... they are idiots like the NFLPA. I suspect it's not that way considering Perry looks like the first to have his contract terminated for misbehavior beyond a legal issue. Of course, you could be right and the NHL teams have all the power to define misconduct.

 

[ChiHawks10]

That is my point. The language for conduct in the CBA is vague including termination of guarantees. That's why no team has terminated a guaranteed contract for misbehavior in recent memory. This is a precedent setting move by the Blackhawks. That is why, from a NHLPA standpoint, it's so alarming.

Remember when the NFLPA gave Goodell the final decision on player punishment/NFL grievance matters through the CBA? Hell, Goodell still gets to appoint the arbiter. including himself, in any NFL grievance. That was Brian Flores contention in his filing to move his grievance from Goodell to a court of law. Point being, IF the NHLPA gave all the power to NHL teams to define misconduct to terminate a guaranteed contracts ... they are idiots like the NFLPA. I suspect it's not that way considering Perry looks like the first to have his contract terminated for misbehavior beyond a legal issue. Of course, you could be right and the NHL teams have all the power to define misconduct.

I AM right. Because I've actually looked at, read, and researched the CBA and MOU, and it's obvious you haven't. You're just throwing shit at a wall and hoping it'll stick.

There really is no language for personal conduct in the CBA or MOU, outside of the commissioner's ability to enforce supplemental discipline for both on-ice, and off-ice player conduct. The commissioner actually has the ability to terminate an SPC if he deems something egregious enough. He also has the ability to suspend players for definite, or indefinite periods.

Player conduct is handled in SPCs between the club and the player. Like... the CBA and the MOU are not designed to do what you think they are.

 

[piteus]

What you don't seem to understand(because you've never even looked at the CBA and that's very obvious), is that personal conduct of players is not something outlined in the CBA. It is SOLELY outlined in the standard player contracts that players enter into an agreement with their organization. It has nothing to do with the CBA. The only thing the NHLPA can do is see if the Hawks violated the terms of Perry's SPC, as there is nothing in the CBA that they would have violated. If the Hawks didn't, then that is the end of it.

You need to educate yourself.

Collective Bargaining Agreement

The CBA between the NHLPA and the NHL sets out the terms and conditions of employment for all professional hockey players playing in the NHL, as well as the res

www.nhlpa.com

The MOU is what actually outlines benefits of players and such and rules regarding salary, insurance, etc.

And the MOU also does not contain anything with regards to player conduct. Again... that's all part of an SPC, which is between the club, and the player, and has zero bearing on the CBA.

A MOU is not necessarily legally binding.

SPC stands for Standard Player's Contract. It is quite simply an acronym for any valid NHL player contract. It is a standardized contract that acts as the sole form of contract for all player signings compliant with the latest NHL CBA.

Again, the SPC must be compliant with the latest NHL CBA. The CBA has vague wording on misconduct. The Hawks could be completely in the right ... but I suspect the NHLPA will have an issue through the CBA through their interpretation. They always do.

 

[ChiHawks10]

A MOU is not necessarily legally binding.

SPC stands for Standard Player's Contract. It is quite simply an acronym for any valid NHL player contract. It is a standardized contract that acts as the sole form of contract for all player signings compliant with the latest NHL CBA.

Again, the SPC must be compliant with the latest NHL CBA. The CBA has vague wording on misconduct. The Hawks could be completely in the right ... but I suspect the NHLPA will have an issue through the CBA through their interpretation. They always do.

You couldn't be more way off on all of this. Like... it's blatantly obvious that you have absolutely zero understanding of the CBA, the MOU, and SPCs.

Read my last post. Or better yet, GO READ THE CBA AND MOU, because it's painfully obvious that you haven't ever looked at them.

And why would you define an SPC as if I don't know what it is?

I've used both the term SPC and standard player contract numerous times throughout this shitshow with you. I mean... this is absolutely embarrassing for you at this point.

 

[piteus]

I AM right. Because I've actually looked at, read, and researched the CBA and MOU, and it's obvious you haven't. You're just throwing shit at a wall and hoping it'll stick.

There really is no language for personal conduct in the CBA or MOU, outside of the commissioner's ability to enforce supplemental discipline for both on-ice, and off-ice player conduct. The commissioner actually has the ability to terminate an SPC if he deems something egregious enough. He also has the ability to suspend players for definite, or indefinite periods.

Player conduct is handled in SPCs between the club and the player. Like... the CBA and the MOU are not designed to do what you think they are.

I never said you were wrong. I CLEARLY stated the HAWKS could be in the right. However, you still don't understand how the NHLPA will operate.

SPC stands for Standard Player's Contract. It is quite simply an acronym for any valid NHL player contract. It is a standardized contract that acts as the sole form of contract for all player signings compliant with the latest NHL CBA. Again, all player signing must be compliant with the latest NHL CBA.

This is where the NHLPA will have the contention. Does the current CBA allow NHL teams to define misconduct for termination of a guaranteed contract? If so, the NHLPA are idiots. The Hawks just opened Pandora's Box. Can you imagine the ramifications to future contracts? And that is why the NHLPA will fight it just to get more clarity.