Injury Report: Dustin Byfuglien (Warning in OP)

[lomiller1]

This is true, but then the hockey club would not be required to pay either. If Buff (or his agent) are going to see any money from this, then you’d think it would come from insurance and not the Jets.

One would think, but again it’s not a given since it would be settled though a separate process. It’s entirely possible the same facts could be presented to different court/arbitrator and have them reach different conclusions. It’s also possible the insurance company could argue Jets are responsible because they didn’t ague the case against him strongly enough so they were basically volunteering to give him money he wasn’t entitled to so they should be the ones on the hook for paying.

 

[lomiller1]

I am not hung up on the words LOA and Suspension. The Jets are.

Of course the Jets care about the distinction. If they give him a LOA without suspending him they have to pay him his full salary and count it against the cap.

 

[lomiller1]

Procedural is not a sufficiently descriptive word. The change from LOA to Suspension was a business decision and has legal and

I understand the business of it. What I don't like is the Jets using a micro short LOA as a press / PR opportunity about how important Byfuglien is as a member of the Jets family, knowing that they were going to suspend him shortly thereafter.

Again, you are drawing a distention where none exists. At no point did the Jets say they would pay him indefinitely while he decided if eh wanted to retire or not. The Jets were telling the public and Buff himself that he could take all the unpaid time he wanted to make a decision. Suspending him was simply the procedural process that allowed that to happen, nothing more nothing less.

 

[mouser]

Again, you are drawing a distention where none exists. At no point did the Jets say they would pay him indefinitely while he decided if eh wanted to retire or not. The Jets were telling the public and Buff himself that he could take all the unpaid time he wanted to make a decision. Suspending him was simply the procedural process that allowed that to happen, nothing more nothing less.

A suspension wasn't mandatory. As I said in an earlier post, if the team had given him a leave of absence to miss training camp he wouldn't have been paid during the absence. It's not ideal for the cap to do it that way though.

 

[tbcwpg]

A suspension wasn't mandatory. As I said in an earlier post, if the team had given him a leave of absence to miss training camp he wouldn't have been paid during the absence. It's not ideal for the cap to do it that way though.

I feel that with the Connor and Laine contracts still unfinished, the suspension was the best way to handle the situation for the cap. I don't think the Jets were as worried about paying him.

 

[Hobby Bull]

Just throwing this out there. Hockey players, especially professional hockey players, have an unhealthy relationship with pain. I'm sure any veteran would have an essay response to the history of injuries revolving around any single body part. They have to live in a state of denial about how they're caring for their body, simply to survive in their careers. At some point, they just may face reality, and try to take care of themselves. That's a very complicated process. I'm not saying that's what's happening with Buff, but I do know that in any career that involves a physical toll, a lot of injuries simply don't go away, and we humans have to make complex choices.

 

[Stumbledore]

Again, you are drawing a distention where none exists.

"“That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.

 

[RRenegade]

The question that I would like to see answered is, does the NHLPA need the player's consent before filing a grievance.

I have not heard anywhere that Buff (or his agent) is/are pushing for or asking for the grievance to be filed.

The NHLPA may just be acting in the player's assumed best interest.​

 

[cbcwpg]

The question that I would like to see answered is, does the NHLPA need the player's consent before filing a grievance.

I have not heard anywhere that Buff (or his agent) is/are pushing for or asking for the grievance to be filed.

The NHLPA may just be acting in the player's assumed best interest.​

Was wondering this myself...

If you look at the twitter messages, it says...



So, one would assume the NHLPA is doing this because Buff wants them to, but who knows... could the NHLPA do this regardless of the players wishes?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

If he's on a Leave of Absence, his cap hit counts, if he's suspended, it doesn't. Procedural. You're attaching a deeper meaning to the "suspension" than there is.

The fact that this has come up in response to the suspension is also pretty standard - if the idea is to still get his money by saying he should've gone on LTIR, then they have to go through this process to get it. I don't think that he got his back up because he was "suspended" and is retaliating because he's got hurt feelings.

If he's on an LOA his cap hit doesn't count and if it occurs during training camp, his salary becomes pro-rated over these days as opposed to simply the regular season which affects his overall cap hit.

Was addressed in post #345.

An interesting tidbit I stumbled across while researching a different issue in the CBA: Article 15.13(d)(i) states:

15.13(d) In the event a Club grants a Player permission to be absent from Training Camp, the following rules shall apply:

(i) A Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp will not be subject to suspension by the Club but will also not be entitled to receive Paragraph 1 NHL Salary while away from the Club;

The rest of the language in section 15 seems to confirm that suspension is only done when the player was not granted permission by the club to be absent. This would suggest that while Winnipeg is reported to have given tacit approval for Buff to be absent, permission was not formally given under the CBA prescribed rules.

Normally a season consists of 186 days and the daily cap hit is a players salary divided by that number.

In Byfuglien's case his missing training camp extended all the days he missed camp into his daily cap hit. That's 19 days so the number becomes 205 rather than 186.

Had he had his suspension lifted on the 1st day of the regular season, his cap hit was roughly $6.9 million and not his usual $7.6.

As it stands we are 50 days into the NHL season. Were Buff to suddenly be unsuspended today his cap hit is presently just over $5 million

EDIT: I did a little research on my own and found each day of camp cost a player 1/275th of his salary and not 1/205th. Ends up as $525,090 which is $175,000 less than the system I had previously been advised was correct.

 

[mouser]

If he's on an LOA his cap hit doesn't count and if it occurs during training camp, his salary becomes pro-rated over these days as opposed to simply the regular season which affects his overall cap hit.

Was addressed in post #345.



Normally a season consists of 186 days and the daily cap hit is a players salary divided by that number.

In Byfuglien's case his missing training camp extended all the days he missed camp into his daily cap hit. That's 19 days so the number becomes 205 rather than 186.

Had he had his suspension lifted on the 1st day of the regular season, his cap hit was roughly $6.9 million and not his usual $7.6.

As it stands we are 50 days into the NHL season. Were Buff to suddenly be unsuspended today his cap hit is presently just over $5 million

Being suspended during training camp doesn’t change the AAV calculation for missed time. It still goes by the 186 days of the regular season.

Note: there are fines for each missed day though.

 

[mouser]

The question that I would like to see answered is, does the NHLPA need the player's consent before filing a grievance.

I have not heard anywhere that Buff (or his agent) is/are pushing for or asking for the grievance to be filed.

The NHLPA may just be acting in the player's assumed best interest.​

The PA does not need player consent to file a grievance.

Though it could be difficult to win a grievance if the player isn’t cooperating with the PA.

 

[Snot Rocket]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was all just careful procedural maneuvering by the NHL, NHLPA and the TNSE.
One would assume the NHL & NHLPA were made aware of the situation upon suspension.
Now they need to tap dance around to make sure no precedent is set.
The outside surgery is the spanner in the works.

Speculation Time:
I wonder if he was going to retire due to nagging injury, then after he had a consultation outside of TSNE was told there is a chance they could make that foot/ankle "better". He has the surgical procedure, feels better already then decides that "Hey, I do want to keep playing."
Now there is an issue...he wants to report TSNE but there is all kinds of red tape as he had outside surgery etc.
TSNE and the family as mentioned are still OK.

TSNE and the family as mentioned are still OK.

TSNE was T
F

Family and TSNE seem to be ok.

About the only way I can make sense of what little information we are given.
Occam's razor.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Haven't found it yet, but did find this:

"Players must ask permission to be absent 5 days in advance and the club must give their decision on whether he will be excused 48 hours later.

If no, they have to warn him that his pay will be docked. The player can then move forward and get himself suspended or he can change his mind about not showing up. This holds true regardless of whether it happens before or after camp starts.

Teams can't suspend a player until he actually refuses to perform his contractual obligations.

For every day of camp a player misses, his salary is lowered for cap-calculation purposes by 1/275th. He won't be paid while he's suspended and that suspension can reasonably extend beyond his willing return to the club (for disciplinary purposes), but the team gets an ever-so-slight cap benefit from having such a guy causing them trouble.

A player who has permission to be absent won't be paid for his absence, but he can't be suspended beyond it and won't see his salary reduced by that 1/275th calculation for cap hit purposes."

taken from this:

Getting to Know the CBA Episode 9: Training Camp

I'm going to go looking for the entire CBA for further clarification.

 

[mouser]

Haven't found it yet, but did find this:

"Players must ask permission to be absent 5 days in advance and the club must give their decision on whether he will be excused 48 hours later.

If no, they have to warn him that his pay will be docked. The player can then move forward and get himself suspended or he can change his mind about not showing up. This holds true regardless of whether it happens before or after camp starts.

Teams can't suspend a player until he actually refuses to perform his contractual obligations.

For every day of camp a player misses, his salary is lowered for cap-calculation purposes by 1/275th. He won't be paid while he's suspended and that suspension can reasonably extend beyond his willing return to the club (for disciplinary purposes), but the team gets an ever-so-slight cap benefit from having such a guy causing them trouble.

A player who has permission to be absent won't be paid for his absence, but he can't be suspended beyond it and won't see his salary reduced by that 1/275th calculation for cap hit purposes."

Okay, I was misunderstanding what you said about adding 19 days of training camp to the 186 days of the regular season to calculate the cap AAV with 205 days.

The cap and salary are reduced by 1/275 per day missed without permission from training camp. For Buff that number might be 20 or 12 (the day the suspension was officially announced), so 4-7%.

Should probably add the caveat that the grievance could change the final accounting.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Okay, I was misunderstanding what you said about adding 19 days of training camp to the 186 days of the regular season to calculate the cap AAV with 205 days.

The cap and salary are reduced by 1/275 per day missed without permission from training camp. For Buff that number might be 20 or 12 (the day the suspension was officially announced), so 4-7%.

Should probably add the caveat that the grievance could change the final accounting.

No you weren't misunderstanding. That was what I meant as I had read it earlier elsewhere, but rather than go searching for someones else's post from the past 3 weeks I thought it better to look for the actual rules as stated by the CBA. Here's the literal document from page 96 of the CBA. My thoughts on each article are bolded.

15.13 Absence from Training Camp.

(a) For each day a Player does not report during Training Camp without his Club's permission, his pay shall be reduced by 1/275th of his annual Paragraph 1 NHL Salary specified in his SPC without limitation of any other contract rights it may have.

So clearly a player can lose his salary during camp. The Jets training camp began September 13th and the regular season began October 1st. 19 days passed. Byfuglien may forfeit roughly 7% (19/275th's) of his salary, which would amount to $525,090.

(b) The following rules shall operate should a Player wish to seek permission to be absent from Training Camp:

1. (i) A Player who wishes to be absent from Training Camp must notify his Club of such intention in writing at least five (5) days prior to the start of Training Camp; The Jets by all accounts had no idea of Byfuglien's intent to not participate in training camp on September 13th, an indication Byfuglien did not seek permission 5 days in advance of camp beginning as is required.
2. (ii) Once a Player has indicated his intention in writing to be absent from Training Camp, within forty-eight (48) hours the Club must inform the Player in writing (with a copy to the NHL and NHLPA) whether it will grant the Player permission to be absent; Byfuglien appears to have requested a LOA first thing in the morning on Friday, September 13th and was granted his LOA the same day by 10:00am. Given how quickly the Jets granted his LOA it's possible he requested his LOA 5 days earlier and the team stayed silent on the topic. Although the organization has stated on many levels all the way up to Chipman that they had no advance warning, we can't say with certainty this is true and the organization is simply staying tight lipped. They also said "nothing sinister" was in the works and at this point things seem VERY SINISTER
3. (iii) If the Club intends to deny the Player permission to be absent from Training Camp, it must warn the Player in writing. The warning shall include: (x) a calculation, pursuant to Section 15.13(a), of the Player's potential Paragraph 1 NHL Salary reduction for each Training Camp day missed; and (y) an opportunity for the Player to "cure" by recanting his intention to be absent from Training Camp within forty-eight (48) hours. If a Player wishes to cure by recanting his intention to be absent from Training Camp, he must inform the Club in writing within forty-eight (48) hours of receiving the Club's written warning and denial of permission to be absent from Training Camp. The Club may not suspend the Player until his cure period has lapsed; provided, however, that it is the intention of the parties that to the extent the Club follows the procedures set forth herein, and the Player is nevertheless absent on the first day of Training Camp, the Club will be within its rights to suspend the Player for non- performance of his SPC; Jets suspend Byfuglien Saturday, September 21st, 8 days after his LOA was originally granted. Were the Jets to have wanted to suspend him they would have had to give him the opportunity to return via a "cure period" so this had to have been no later than September 19th. Curiously Bob MacKenzie went national with the news Byfuglien was contemplating retirement the day prior on the 18th with the cure period likely already underway. In addition, Maurice met with Byfuglien 24 hours prior to his suspension, during what would certainly have been during the cure period.
4. (iv) If a Player reports to Training Camp, and subsequently decides to leave Training Camp, he must provide the Club with a written request for permission for such absence within five (5) days of his departure. (Failure to provide such notice will result in the absence being treated as an absence "without permission.") In the event the Player provides such written request for permission to be absent from Training Camp, the Club will have forty-eight (48) hours to either grant or deny permission to the Player to be absent in writing. If the Club denies its permission, it must also provide the Player: (x) a calculation, per Section 15.13(a), of the Player's potential Paragraph 1 NHL Salary reduction for each Training Camp day missed; and (y) an opportunity for the Player to "cure" by recanting his intention to miss Training Camp within forty-eight (48) hours. If a Player wishes to cure by returning to Training Camp, he must inform the Club in writing within forty-eight (48) hours of receiving the Club's written denial of permission to be absent from Training Camp. (Nothing in this Section 15.13(b)(iv) will preclude the Club from suspending the Player for non-performance of his SPC upon his departure from Training Camp and during the pendency of this process, whether or not permission is ultimately granted for the Player's absence.); and Byfuglien most certainly reported to camp on the 13th and if this was indeed the time he originally submitted intent, then he had until the 18th to submit his request in writing. The team would then have 48 hours to grant or deny this request. Once again this falls on the same day McKenzie breaks his story and it breaks exactly 5 days, literally within the hour of the 5 days threshold (Buffs LOA was at 10:03am on the 13th, McKenzie's store breaks at 9:43am on the 18th). The Jets had 48 hours to either grant or deny his LOA and it's very clear they said "no" sometime on the 19th giving Byfuglien 48 hours to decide what to do. He meets with Maurice on the 20th, nothing is resolved and Byfuglien is suspended on the 21st. In my opinion this is the most likely scenario with which this unfolded.
5. (v) If a Player reports to Training Camp, and subsequently provides the Club with a written request for permission to be absent from Training Camp, but remains at Training Camp pending the Club's response, the Club has forty-eight (48) hours to either grant or deny permission to be absent from Training Camp in writing. If the Club denies permission, it must also provide the Player a calculation, per Section 15.13(a), of the Player's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary reduction for each Training Camp day missed. Provided the Player remains at Training Camp and is performing pursuant to his contractual obligations, the Club may not suspend the Player while he is awaiting the Club's response. Byfuglien did not remain in camp, he never even took a physical as he had already been granted what appears to be a temporary LOA. This item of the CBA likely had no bearing.

(c) In the event a Club denies a Player permission to be absent from Training Camp and the Player is absent nevertheless, the following rules shall apply:

1. (i) A Player who has not received permission to be absent from Training Camp will be subject to suspension for non-performance of his SPC and will not be entitled to receive Paragraph 1 NHL Salary during his time away from the Club; Byfuglien is clearly suspended. As such he gets no salary unless of course an arbitrator decides the suspension wasn't valid.
2. (ii) If a Player who has not received permission to be absent from Training Camp returns to the Club, his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary payments will resume once the Club has deemed the Player fit and ready to play. The parties agree that they are maintaining the status quo, as each party understands it, with respect to the ability of a Club to delay the resumption of the Player's pay until the Player is deemed by the Club to be fit and ready to play; Byfuglien has not yet returned to play. Until such time he does, the Jets may be off the hook for his salary. What is interesting is how the injury may end up working into this whole equation, in all likelihood the reason an LOA was requested in the first place and the crux of this entire matter.
3. (iii) If a Player who has not received permission to be absent from Training Camp returns to the Club, his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary will be automatically reduced 1/275 for each day the Player failed to report to Training Camp (per Section 15.13(a)); Byfuglien was suspended 8 days into camp. It's possible he is eligible to be paid for this 8 days. Going back to my initial statement within this CBA document, this would have him forfeit roughly 4% (11/275th's) of his salary, which would amount to $267,545 coming off his $7.6 million salary before any suspension even begins
4. (iv) If a Player who has not received permission to be absent from Training Camp returns to the Club, his Averaged Amount will count against the Club's Averaged Club Salary commencing from the date he is placed on the Club's Active Roster, except that for the League Year, such Averaged Amount shall be reduced by the same percentage that the Player's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary is reduced in accordance with Section 15.13(a);.................(Illustration: Without Club permission, a Player misses the entire 2013- 14 Training Camp, which is 20 days, and returns to the Club's Active Roster for the first time at the halfway point of the Regular Season. The Averaged Amount of the Player's SPC is $1 million. The Averaged Amount of such SPC for that League Year only will be reduced to $927,273 (a reduction of 20/275). If the Player remains on the Club's Active Roster through the remainder of the Regular Season, the Club's Averaged Club Salary will be charged $463,636 on account of such Player for 2013-14.) This math appears to follow what I've thus far laid out.
5. (v) If a Player who has not received permission to be absent from Training Camp returns to the Club, he shall be subject to a disciplinary suspension of reasonable length. The parties agree that they are maintaining the status quo, as each understands it, with respect to the ability of a Club to impose a disciplinary suspension of reasonable length. So even once Byfuglien is set to return, the Jets can impose a further disciplinary suspension.

(d) In the event a Club grants a Player permission to be absent from Training Camp, the following rules shall apply:

1. (i) A Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp will not be subject to suspension by the Club but will also not be entitled to receive Paragraph 1 NHL Salary while away from the Club;Interesting wording as the team did appear to originally grant Byfuglien a LOA. It doesn't stand to reason however that a player can be granted an LOA stretching into infinity. At some point he must return. One would assume every LOA comes with conditions and a time frame. We have no idea what this understanding was, but the very wording of this latest CBA section "(d) 1. (i)" taken on it's own without considering the rest of the document would indicate the Jets were unable to suspend Byfuglien once his LOA was granted. I would doubt this the case considering all the time frames in my earlier points within "(b)" appear to all be linked and follow a clear and concise timeline for each event to have occurred within the framework of this document.
2. (ii) A Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp, and thereafter is absent for one or more days of Training Camp, may not have his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary reduced under Section 15.13(a); So again, taken on its own this suggests the Jets cannot reduce Byfugliens salary for days missed, or at the very least not the 8 days prior to his suspension
3. (iii) If a Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp returns to the Club, his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary payments will resume immediately upon his return to the Club (provided he is otherwise eligible to receive Paragraph 1 NHL Salary payments); A player who was away with permission gets paid. Pretty clear point
4. (iv) The Averaged Amount of a Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp will not count against his Club's Averaged Club Salary unless and until the Player returns to the Club and his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary payments resume. Upon return and his resumption of salary payments, the Club's Averaged Club Salary shall be charged with the Averaged Amount of the Player as if he were on the Club's Active Roster from the commencement of the Regular Season; ......................................................................(Illustration: With Club permission, a Player misses the entire 2013-14 Training Camp, which is 20 days, and returns to the Club's Active Roster at the halfway point of the Regular Season. The Averaged Amount of the Player's SPC is $1 million. There will be no reduction in the Averaged Amount of such SPC for that League Year as in Section 15.13(c)(iv) above. When the Player is placed on the Club's Active Roster at the halfway point of the Season, the Club's Actual Club Salary will be charged with $500,000 on that day. If the Player remains on the Club's Active Roster through the remainder of the Regular Season, the Club's Averaged Club Salary will be charged an additional $500,000 on account of such Player so that for 2013-14, the Club's Averaged Club Salary will be charged $1 million on account of such Player.

Anyone else have any takeaway from this document? Mine are all bolded above as it applies to Byfuglien.

 

[cheswick]

(d) In the event a Club grants a Player permission to be absent from Training Camp, the following rules shall apply:

1. (i) A Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp will not be subject to suspension by the Club but will also not be entitled to receive Paragraph 1 NHL Salary while away from the Club;Interesting wording as the team did appear to originally grant Byfuglien a LOA. It doesn't stand to reason however that a player can be granted an LOA stretching into infinity. At some point he must return. One would assume every LOA comes with conditions and a time frame. We have no idea what this understanding was, but the very wording of this latest CBA section "(d) 1. (i)" taken on it's own without considering the rest of the document would indicate the Jets were unable to suspend Byfuglien once his LOA was granted. I would doubt this the case considering all the time frames in my earlier points within "(b)" appear to all be linked and follow a clear and concise timeline for each event to have occurred within the framework of this document.
2. (ii) A Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp, and thereafter is absent for one or more days of Training Camp, may not have his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary reduced under Section 15.13(a); So again, taken on its own this suggests the Jets cannot reduce Byfugliens salary for days missed, or at the very least not the 8 days prior to his suspension

I'm a bit confused on (d) 1 & 2. A player who has received permission to be away can't be suspended but also won't get paid. But then 2 says a player who has received permission won't have his salary reduced (by the 1/275th calculation). So what is 1 talking about when it says they're not entitled to their salary

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Thankfully, this discussion has become more substantive recently. Thank you to the key contributors who are carefully deconstructing this.

There can be many nuances to the situation as evidenced by the above text. On the surface, 15.13 (d) 1 i on its own could could enable a grievance depending on the details around the Jets granting of the LOA to Buf. This is just a simple example and in no way am I saying this is the basis of the grievance, just perhaps one simple example/ scenario. And would obviously depend on the details surrounding the granted LOA. These are complex legal agreements which form the basis of fairness in complex legal arguments when disputes arise. Once both sides are heard, the truth is usually in the middle. It just always struck me as odd and self serving for the Jets that they publically granted an LOA and then suspended him just a few days later. I always thought to myself, unless that was agreed upfront how does that fly? And Collective Bargaining Agreements are generally designed to protect both parties from one side making self serving decisions at the expense of the other.

 

[tbcwpg]

Thankfully, this discussion has become more substantive recently. Thank you to the key contributors who are carefully deconstructing this.

There are many nuances to the situation as evidenced by the above text. On the surface, 15.13 (d) 1 i on its own could could enable a grievance depending on the details around the Jets granting of the LOA to Buf. This is just a simple example and in no way am I saying this is the basis of the grievance, just perhaps one simple example/ scenario. And would obviously depend on the details surrounding the granted LOA. These are complex legal agreements which form the basis of fairness in complex legal arguments when disputes arise. Once both sides are heard, the truth is usually in the middle. It just always struck me as odd and self serving for the Jets that they publically granted an LOA and then suspended him just a few days later. I always thought to myself, unless that was agreed upfront how does that fly? And Collective Bargaining Agreements are generally designed to protect both parties from one side making self serving decisions at the expense of the other.

Obviously the situation is a bit more complicated than a lot of us originally thought. I believed you were saying something happened between the Jets and Buff between announcing the LOA and his being suspended, and I still believe that's not the case. Apologies if that's not what you meant.

 

[Jets 31]

As a guy who's been working in a Union workplace my entire working career , a Union will NEVER miss a chance to file a grievance . Different situation absolutely but just saying .

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

I'm a bit confused on (d) 1 & 2. A player who has received permission to be away can't be suspended but also won't get paid. But then 2 says a player who has received permission won't have his salary reduced (by the 1/275th calculation). So what is 1 talking about when it says they're not entitled to their salary

I'm confused about this as well in fact before I edited my post (d) (1) formed the base of my point and that the Jets would be unable to suspend Buff after granting him a LOA.

Taken on its own (d) 1 would imply that non player granted a leave of absence can't ever be suspended. This flies in the face of what actually occurred (Buff was suspended by an NHL team who surely know the rules) and it would be ridiculous to think a leave of absence doesn't come with some degree of term and conditions. Logic would dictate a player once granted a LOA can't be gone indefinitely.

After reading the document in length I think (b) (iv) is what will apply here.

As for (d) 2, If a leave of absence is not granted the 1/275 equation applies to every day of camp missed and this affects their daily cap hit. NHL players aren't paid for attending training camp. Their salaries begin being totalled the day the NHL season begins. Every day a player is in the NHL the collect a daily salary unique to their contract which is paid in 13 regular season installments beginning in mid October.

Players who missed some/all of camp without a LOA granted will have the 1/275th rule apply affecting their cheques for the entire season. Those who have have been granted a LOA will not get paid until they return BUT when they do will begin receiving their full original salary beginning from the day they returned to active status.

So missing half a pay period would entitle a player to half his money without the penalty of 1/275 applying.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Thankfully, this discussion has become more substantive recently. Thank you to the key contributors who are carefully deconstructing this.

There can be many nuances to the situation as evidenced by the above text. On the surface, 15.13 (d) 1 i on its own could could enable a grievance depending on the details around the Jets granting of the LOA to Buf. This is just a simple example and in no way am I saying this is the basis of the grievance, just perhaps one simple example/ scenario. And would obviously depend on the details surrounding the granted LOA. These are complex legal agreements which form the basis of fairness in complex legal arguments when disputes arise. Once both sides are heard, the truth is usually in the middle. It just always struck me as odd and self serving for the Jets that they publically granted an LOA and then suspended him just a few days later. I always thought to myself, unless that was agreed upfront how does that fly? And Collective Bargaining Agreements are generally designed to protect both parties from one side making self serving decisions at the expense of the other.

This is why (b) (4) makes much more sense as the timeline perfectly coincides with what occurred in the media releases.

Buff came to camp, asked for a LOA and was informed this had to be done in writing within 5 days. This all begins first thing in the morning at camp and is released to the media by 10am.

5 days ends and takes us to the 18th. The act of Buff's writing is leaked to the media and Bob MacKenzie addresses the topic that very morning exactly 5 days to the hour (within 24 minutes to be precise) of when this all began on Friday the 13th.

The club now has 48 hours to respond and likely do so immediately causing the "cure period" to begin on the 19th giving Byfuglien until the 21st to "cure". He appeals to Maurice on the 20th who attempts to mediate

Nothing comes of it. The cure period is already 24 hours in and ends on the 21st with Buff suspended.

Thanks to rotoworld for their work capturing the NHL's daily transactions, making this easy to describe visually.

https://www.rotoworld.com/hockey/nhl/player/23671/dustin-byfuglien/news

 

[Rheged]

Based on that timeline though no real official LOA would ever have been granted right. Despite what was reported to the media that would mean that the team just waited the maximum allowed time before denying his request for leave and putting him under suspension.

The way the times line up here looks very compelling but the fact that we haven't heard anything from the player / agent denying the events as they've been portrayed by the media so far has me less convinced.

 

[nobody imp0rtant]

No you weren't misunderstanding. That was what I meant as I had read it earlier elsewhere, but rather than go searching for someones else's post from the past 3 weeks I thought it better to look for the actual rules as stated by the CBA. Here's the literal document from page 96 of the CBA. My thoughts on each article are bolded.

15.13 Absence from Training Camp.

(a) For each day a Player does not report during Training Camp without his Club's permission, his pay shall be reduced by 1/275th of his annual Paragraph 1 NHL Salary specified in his SPC without limitation of any other contract rights it may have.

So clearly a player can lose his salary during camp. The Jets training camp began September 13th and the regular season began October 1st. 19 days passed. Byfuglien may forfeit roughly 7% (19/275th's) of his salary, which would amount to $525,090.

(b) The following rules shall operate should a Player wish to seek permission to be absent from Training Camp:

1. (i) A Player who wishes to be absent from Training Camp must notify his Club of such intention in writing at least five (5) days prior to the start of Training Camp; The Jets by all accounts had no idea of Byfuglien's intent to not participate in training camp on September 13th, an indication Byfuglien did not seek permission 5 days in advance of camp beginning as is required.
2. (ii) Once a Player has indicated his intention in writing to be absent from Training Camp, within forty-eight (48) hours the Club must inform the Player in writing (with a copy to the NHL and NHLPA) whether it will grant the Player permission to be absent; Byfuglien appears to have requested a LOA first thing in the morning on Friday, September 13th and was granted his LOA the same day by 10:00am. Given how quickly the Jets granted his LOA it's possible he requested his LOA 5 days earlier and the team stayed silent on the topic. Although the organization has stated on many levels all the way up to Chipman that they had no advance warning, we can't say with certainty this is true and the organization is simply staying tight lipped. They also said "nothing sinister" was in the works and at this point things seem VERY SINISTER
3. (iii) If the Club intends to deny the Player permission to be absent from Training Camp, it must warn the Player in writing. The warning shall include: (x) a calculation, pursuant to Section 15.13(a), of the Player's potential Paragraph 1 NHL Salary reduction for each Training Camp day missed; and (y) an opportunity for the Player to "cure" by recanting his intention to be absent from Training Camp within forty-eight (48) hours. If a Player wishes to cure by recanting his intention to be absent from Training Camp, he must inform the Club in writing within forty-eight (48) hours of receiving the Club's written warning and denial of permission to be absent from Training Camp. The Club may not suspend the Player until his cure period has lapsed; provided, however, that it is the intention of the parties that to the extent the Club follows the procedures set forth herein, and the Player is nevertheless absent on the first day of Training Camp, the Club will be within its rights to suspend the Player for non- performance of his SPC; Jets suspend Byfuglien Saturday, September 21st, 8 days after his LOA was originally granted. Were the Jets to have wanted to suspend him they would have had to give him the opportunity to return via a "cure period" so this had to have been no later than September 19th. Curiously Bob MacKenzie went national with the news Byfuglien was contemplating retirement the day prior on the 18th with the cure period likely already underway. In addition, Maurice met with Byfuglien 24 hours prior to his suspension, during what would certainly have been during the cure period.
4. (iv) If a Player reports to Training Camp, and subsequently decides to leave Training Camp, he must provide the Club with a written request for permission for such absence within five (5) days of his departure. (Failure to provide such notice will result in the absence being treated as an absence "without permission.") In the event the Player provides such written request for permission to be absent from Training Camp, the Club will have forty-eight (48) hours to either grant or deny permission to the Player to be absent in writing. If the Club denies its permission, it must also provide the Player: (x) a calculation, per Section 15.13(a), of the Player's potential Paragraph 1 NHL Salary reduction for each Training Camp day missed; and (y) an opportunity for the Player to "cure" by recanting his intention to miss Training Camp within forty-eight (48) hours. If a Player wishes to cure by returning to Training Camp, he must inform the Club in writing within forty-eight (48) hours of receiving the Club's written denial of permission to be absent from Training Camp. (Nothing in this Section 15.13(b)(iv) will preclude the Club from suspending the Player for non-performance of his SPC upon his departure from Training Camp and during the pendency of this process, whether or not permission is ultimately granted for the Player's absence.); and Byfuglien most certainly reported to camp on the 13th and if this was indeed the time he originally submitted intent, then he had until the 18th to submit his request in writing. The team would then have 48 hours to grant or deny this request. Once again this falls on the same day McKenzie breaks his story and it breaks exactly 5 days, literally within the hour of the 5 days threshold (Buffs LOA was at 10:03am on the 13th, McKenzie's store breaks at 9:43am on the 18th). The Jets had 48 hours to either grant or deny his LOA and it's very clear they said "no" sometime on the 19th giving Byfuglien 48 hours to decide what to do. He meets with Maurice on the 20th, nothing is resolved and Byfuglien is suspended on the 21st. In my opinion this is the most likely scenario with which this unfolded.
5. (v) If a Player reports to Training Camp, and subsequently provides the Club with a written request for permission to be absent from Training Camp, but remains at Training Camp pending the Club's response, the Club has forty-eight (48) hours to either grant or deny permission to be absent from Training Camp in writing. If the Club denies permission, it must also provide the Player a calculation, per Section 15.13(a), of the Player's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary reduction for each Training Camp day missed. Provided the Player remains at Training Camp and is performing pursuant to his contractual obligations, the Club may not suspend the Player while he is awaiting the Club's response. Byfuglien did not remain in camp, he never even took a physical as he had already been granted what appears to be a temporary LOA. This item of the CBA likely had no bearing.

(c) In the event a Club denies a Player permission to be absent from Training Camp and the Player is absent nevertheless, the following rules shall apply:

1. (i) A Player who has not received permission to be absent from Training Camp will be subject to suspension for non-performance of his SPC and will not be entitled to receive Paragraph 1 NHL Salary during his time away from the Club; Byfuglien is clearly suspended. As such he gets no salary unless of course an arbitrator decides the suspension wasn't valid.
2. (ii) If a Player who has not received permission to be absent from Training Camp returns to the Club, his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary payments will resume once the Club has deemed the Player fit and ready to play. The parties agree that they are maintaining the status quo, as each party understands it, with respect to the ability of a Club to delay the resumption of the Player's pay until the Player is deemed by the Club to be fit and ready to play; Byfuglien has not yet returned to play. Until such time he does, the Jets may be off the hook for his salary. What is interesting is how the injury may end up working into this whole equation, in all likelihood the reason an LOA was requested in the first place and the crux of this entire matter.
3. (iii) If a Player who has not received permission to be absent from Training Camp returns to the Club, his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary will be automatically reduced 1/275 for each day the Player failed to report to Training Camp (per Section 15.13(a)); Byfuglien was suspended 8 days into camp. It's possible he is eligible to be paid for this 8 days. Going back to my initial statement within this CBA document, this would have him forfeit roughly 4% (11/275th's) of his salary, which would amount to $267,545 coming off his $7.6 million salary before any suspension even begins
4. (iv) If a Player who has not received permission to be absent from Training Camp returns to the Club, his Averaged Amount will count against the Club's Averaged Club Salary commencing from the date he is placed on the Club's Active Roster, except that for the League Year, such Averaged Amount shall be reduced by the same percentage that the Player's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary is reduced in accordance with Section 15.13(a);.................(Illustration: Without Club permission, a Player misses the entire 2013- 14 Training Camp, which is 20 days, and returns to the Club's Active Roster for the first time at the halfway point of the Regular Season. The Averaged Amount of the Player's SPC is $1 million. The Averaged Amount of such SPC for that League Year only will be reduced to $927,273 (a reduction of 20/275). If the Player remains on the Club's Active Roster through the remainder of the Regular Season, the Club's Averaged Club Salary will be charged $463,636 on account of such Player for 2013-14.) This math appears to follow what I've thus far laid out.
5. (v) If a Player who has not received permission to be absent from Training Camp returns to the Club, he shall be subject to a disciplinary suspension of reasonable length. The parties agree that they are maintaining the status quo, as each understands it, with respect to the ability of a Club to impose a disciplinary suspension of reasonable length. So even once Byfuglien is set to return, the Jets can impose a further disciplinary suspension.

(d) In the event a Club grants a Player permission to be absent from Training Camp, the following rules shall apply:

1. (i) A Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp will not be subject to suspension by the Club but will also not be entitled to receive Paragraph 1 NHL Salary while away from the Club;Interesting wording as the team did appear to originally grant Byfuglien a LOA. It doesn't stand to reason however that a player can be granted an LOA stretching into infinity. At some point he must return. One would assume every LOA comes with conditions and a time frame. We have no idea what this understanding was, but the very wording of this latest CBA section "(d) 1. (i)" taken on it's own without considering the rest of the document would indicate the Jets were unable to suspend Byfuglien once his LOA was granted. I would doubt this the case considering all the time frames in my earlier points within "(b)" appear to all be linked and follow a clear and concise timeline for each event to have occurred within the framework of this document.
2. (ii) A Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp, and thereafter is absent for one or more days of Training Camp, may not have his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary reduced under Section 15.13(a); So again, taken on its own this suggests the Jets cannot reduce Byfugliens salary for days missed, or at the very least not the 8 days prior to his suspension
3. (iii) If a Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp returns to the Club, his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary payments will resume immediately upon his return to the Club (provided he is otherwise eligible to receive Paragraph 1 NHL Salary payments); A player who was away with permission gets paid. Pretty clear point
4. (iv) The Averaged Amount of a Player who has received permission to be absent from Training Camp will not count against his Club's Averaged Club Salary unless and until the Player returns to the Club and his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary payments resume. Upon return and his resumption of salary payments, the Club's Averaged Club Salary shall be charged with the Averaged Amount of the Player as if he were on the Club's Active Roster from the commencement of the Regular Season; ......................................................................(Illustration: With Club permission, a Player misses the entire 2013-14 Training Camp, which is 20 days, and returns to the Club's Active Roster at the halfway point of the Regular Season. The Averaged Amount of the Player's SPC is $1 million. There will be no reduction in the Averaged Amount of such SPC for that League Year as in Section 15.13(c)(iv) above. When the Player is placed on the Club's Active Roster at the halfway point of the Season, the Club's Actual Club Salary will be charged with $500,000 on that day. If the Player remains on the Club's Active Roster through the remainder of the Regular Season, the Club's Averaged Club Salary will be charged an additional $500,000 on account of such Player so that for 2013-14, the Club's Averaged Club Salary will be charged $1 million on account of such Player.

Anyone else have any takeaway from this document? Mine are all bolded above as it applies to Byfuglien.

I have to respect the amount of work you put into that post. Unfortunately, it was far too long and I didn't read it.

Just kidding, I read it.

Stuff like this just makes my head spin. I couldn't even guess what the appropriate course of action by the team at any given stage should have been. However, I'm not paid to run an NHL club, Chevy and others are. So, if it turns out that the NHLPA ends up winning this grievance on a technicality because somewhere along the way the team misinterpreted or misapplied the rule book and it ends up costing the team millions of dollars in salary, then I think someone needs to lose their job.

 

[Bob E]

Was wondering this myself...

If you look at the twitter messages, it says...



So, one would assume the NHLPA is doing this because Buff wants them to, but who knows... could the NHLPA do this regardless of the players wishes?

May not be that cut and dry.

LeBrun says grievance filed on behalf of Buff, and as noted, it’s very likely (say 100% likely) the NHLPA would file a grievance to protect not only this player but any player in the future in the same situation.

if LeBrun had said, at the bequest of the player, then that answers that question of who’s calling the shots on this. I still think the NHLPA is directing this process and Buff is along for the ride. But that’s just my opinion.