IMG Fires First Salvo...

[Schlep Rock]

I don't think any GM wants to take on the notoriety (read blacklisting) by signing away young talent from other teams. This is why RFA offersheets have been few and far between.

I'm sorry but this is just the silliest statement in this thread.

RFA offersheets have been few and far between because FIVE (5) 1st round draft picks is a boat load to give up for a player and for a player thats actually worth it, the original team will match (see Sakic & Fedorov).

Everyone is friends on the golf courses but when they're negotiating, it's every man for himself.

Don't be fooled in thinking a GM signing a recently declared free agent will have him black listed because it simply won't. There will be much less patience on the behalf of fans to win... "You moaned and said you can't win with the old market and now you're worse with the new market!" This will result in GM's and coaches being on short leashes all across the NHL.

IF the players are all declared free agents, teams will sign them, don't be ridiculous and think that a GM will be scared that the other GM's will replace his golf balls with ones that explode on contact.

 

[Schlep Rock]

Fair enough if that is what he is getting at ..

Certified by the NHLPA to represent NHL players where the NHLPA sets all the rules for their employment and terms they work under is splitting hairs on technicalities as to the wording of work for ..

NO uncertified agent under the old cba could negotiate an NHL contract, leaving only the player to represent himself as the only other option to get a standard players contract ..

NHLPA certifies the agents but that's about it.

The NHL had previously agreed to the NHLPA as the party in charge of certification but the NHL could simply push for their own certification (they won't) but by no means are agents feeling obligated to follow Goodenow right now. He's distancing himself from the issue right now and as has been reported almost everywhere, once it's done... he's gone. The agents will play a big role in who the new NHLPA Executive Director is and IMG is simply exerting their force based on market share in this situation and breaking the ranks and doing what they want to do showing they will not be controlled. More than likely the NHL will go back to the 'PA' and say, "get your folks in line because *this* is the last thing we should be worrying about right now."

 

[Mess]

I don't know why the NHLPA would support this move, it affects a certain number of teams in a bad way but not the NHL.

The goal is to split the owners group and get them to support a more favourable NHLPA CBA .. This is a bargaining chip for the NHLPA that they hope to trade for something else in the NEW CBA in their favour..

Also the NHL is a group of 30 teams .. so if teams are effected is not the NHL effected ..maybe not financially because that is something the new CBA can control via entry level contracts but chaos favors the NHLPA with this .

The NHL actually planned for this .. The rumour going around is the UFA drops to 30 in the first year (basically blocking the flooding of the market) will all these prospects joining in the fray and then lowering UFA to 28 possibly in future years when the first set of dust settles ..

 

[Schlep Rock]

Can't make teams sign you if they aren't interested. How or why the teams aren't interested is going to be tricky to prove (a memo might not even be necessary). Losing unsigned draftees and RFAs is something no GM/team wants to have happen so I don't see too many of them facilitating that concept. Especially if they want to have cordial dealings with the other 29 teams in the future.

Seriously... if a player is declared a free agent either be the courts or an agreement between the NHL/NHLPA, a team is going to sign him.

How many times have GM's and agents clashed in the media only to be sharing drinks a few weeks later? Business is business and cordial vs. non-cordial because of a team outbidding another team is something that would happen in elementary school.

If a player is declared a free agent, it's a general ruling. Who says he can't sign with the team that drafted him? Now the GM's actually have to work and *gasp* negotiate a contract with the player and his rep(s) and hopefully they present the best opportunity/deal. If a GM isn't going to talk to another GM because he outbid him for a player, he's an idiot and should be fired immediately.

 

[NYR469]

Being a free agent doesn't mean you get to decide for which team and for what figure you are going to play hockey.

Palffy's a free agent and he can't declare he's going to play for Chicago at $7M/yr. Pulford has to offer him that. If Pulford doesn't offer him that, Ziggy can wish and hope all he wants but he's not going to play for the Hawks.

A court ruling that these players are to be free agents means absolutely nothing if the GMs of the other teams don't sign them to contracts.

you are joking right?? you think that if jeff carter was declared a UFA gms wouldn't be falling over themselves to sign him and they would all just let philly resign him?? and if they did do that it would collusion and the league would have a major lawsuit against them.

your point makes no sense...as a ufa palffy can't tell the blackhawks to pay him $7 mil but he can sign anywhere he wants and for the most $$ anyone will give him

 

[Schlep Rock]

I guess my point is this. The league, and the teams, don't want this to happen because it will potentially hurt a lot of the teams' futures. Sure it hits some more than others, but I don't see any GMs going out there and signing prime prospects away from other teams just because technically they can with little to no official repercussions.

Official being the key word in that last sentence.

If the courts rule to declare them all free agents the league and teams need to shut up and deal with it. The league can't get everything in this disaster!

Mike O'Connell went out and outbid everybody for Marty Lapointe's services years ago including stealing him from Detroit. You think Ken Holland won't speak to O'C now? Seriously, get real.

If you can't present a good opportunity for your former prospect and couple that opportunity with a competitive contract, tough.

 

[NYR469]

I guess my point is this. The league, and the teams, don't want this to happen because it will potentially hurt a lot of the teams' futures. Sure it hits some more than others, but I don't see any GMs going out there and signing prime prospects away from other teams just because technically they can with little to no official repercussions.

Official being the key word in that last sentence.

but that is called collusion...this 'unified front' the owners are showing is bogus and they are just playing nice because they all benefit from a cap. as soon as the cba is in place it'll be every man for themselves and teams will be all over these kids

 

[Schlep Rock]

you are joking right?? you think that if jeff carter was declared a UFA gms wouldn't be falling over themselves to sign him and they would all just let philly resign him??

Come on... of course they wouldn't sign him! They want to make sure they get picked first for kick ball! The kid who always got the class in trouble was always picked last so they want to be good little boys.




just kidding... see my posts above.

This isn't elementary school, this is business and if the individual GM's weren't doing what was in their teams best interests they're idiots. The Boston Bruins are the competition of the Flyers. Don't expect Mike O'Connell to not make an offer to Jeff Carter because he doesn't want Bobby to be mad at him!

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Just send out a nice memo to all GMs that players whose rights were held under the old CBA would be honored even if technically those rights vanished due to this lockout. Sure Carter, Fehr, whoever might be UFAs but good luck to them signing anywhere but Philly and Washington if no other teams talk to them.

I don't think any GM wants to take on the notoriety (read blacklisting) by signing away young talent from other teams. This is why RFA offersheets have been few and far between.

Sounds like Collusion to me.

And come on, the big reason why no one gets involved with RFAs is because of the big penalty (as high as 5 #1 draft picks)

 

[Mess]

If the courts rule to declare them all free agents the league and teams need to shut up and deal with it. The league can't get everything in this disaster!

Mike O'Connell went out and outbid everybody for Marty Lapointe's services years ago including stealing him from Detroit. You think Ken Holland won't speak to O'C now? Seriously, get real.

If you can't present a good opportunity for your former prospect and couple that opportunity with a competitive contract, tough.

One could argue that the big market teams that are now forced to cut talent and fit under a cap need cheap talent far more then before .. In the win now mode a UFA was attactive before now if they are off limits as a result of cap room then GM's will turn their attention to the other end prospects ..

The new CBA gives incentives to teams that still have big contracts under the old CBA in effect to go after the exact Carters and Fehr to fill an NHL roster and fit under a cap and remain competitive.

 

[hillbillypriest]

Bruce Dowbiggen reported this item here in Calgary in the Herald a couple of weeks ago. However, I can hardly believe that this news item ever saw the light of day.

IMG can't win this as a legal issue. They'd perhaps have a case if the NHLPA were not negotiating with the NHL CBA as a labour dispute. However, that's not the case here, so it will all come down to what the NHL and NHLPA agree to live with in their final CBA language. Can't see the rank and file NHLPA members sticking their necks out on this, particularly if they've offered a roll-back as part of the package and have to live with a cap that a higher rookie salary has to fit under.

Just can't see it happening. Must have been a slow news day today.

HBP

 

[mooseOAK*]

The goal is to split the owners group and get them to support a more favourable NHLPA CBA .. This is a bargaining chip for the NHLPA that they hope to trade for something else in the NEW CBA in their favour..

Also the NHL is a group of 30 teams .. so if teams are effected is not the NHL effected ..maybe not financially because that is something the new CBA can control via entry level contracts but chaos favors the NHLPA with this .

The NHL actually planned for this .. The rumour going around is the UFA drops to 30 in the first year (basically blocking the flooding of the market) will all these prospects joining in the fray and then lowering UFA to 28 possibly in future years when the first set of dust settles ..

Everyone knew that a lockout was coming and it could be a long one so I don't see the NHL as a group making a bad long term deal that would affect all the teams for a number of years over a bunch of prospects now, no matter how much a few owners whined. So, I don't think that this gives the NHLPA leverage.

 

[DaveMatthew]

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

Personally I doubt this will affect anything. But just like "minor" surgery, its something you don't want to go through.

Great. Flood the market with players. Better yet, make guys like Thornton and Kovalchuk free-agents too. This will only bring down salaries.

 

[Mess]

Everyone knew that a lockout was coming and it could be a long one so I don't see the NHL as a group making a bad long term deal that would affect all the teams for a number of years over a bunch of prospects now, no matter how much a few owners whined. So, I don't think that this gives the NHLPA leverage.

I can agree that profitability should remain the focus of the NHL side, but the trade off may just having to live with the results of some owners losing prospects as a result ..

The NHL should just let this go then, not let it affect them and bargain on ..

Heck it could even work the other way around the NHL could offer it as a concession to the NHLPA to get them to sign the CBA .. They could write a clause into the new CBA that sets them free in fact rather then try to restrain them ..

Always two sides to every issue..

If the NHL GM's thought that these where so important then they should have signed them like some GM's did and problen would have been solved .. Small market teams Calgary, Anaheim and Florida did sign their 2003 draft picks..

 

[kdb209]

Ok, so what happens if they declare themselves free agents, and the new CBA is signed declaring rights are retained by their old teams?

If the new CBA says their rights are maintained, they are maintained. As soon as they sign a contract they agree to play under the terms of the current CBA, and if the transition rules of the CBA say unsigned draftee and RFA rights are maintained for some time, they are. Any draftee or RFA would have to challenge the CBA in court and would very likely lose. Terms of a negotiated CBA are largely immune to challenge under anti-trust and other labor law.

 

[Mess]

If the new CBA says their rights are maintained, they are maintained. As soon as they sign a contract they agree to play under the terms of the current CBA, and if the transition rules of the CBA say unsigned draftee and RFA rights are maintained for some time, they are. Any draftee or RFA would have to challenge the CBA in court and would very likely lose. Terms of a negotiated CBA are largely immune to challenge under anti-trust and other labor law.

Only flaw standing in the way of your plan is the NHLPA and Goodenow .. and in case you haven't notice he is not agreeing on a lot of things presently ..

I guarantee you IMG and Goodenow have spoken on this issue many times already ..

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

If the new CBA says their rights are maintained, they are maintained. As soon as they sign a contract they agree to play under the terms of the current CBA, and if the transition rules of the CBA say unsigned draftee and RFA rights are maintained for some time, they are. Any draftee or RFA would have to challenge the CBA in court and would very likely lose. Terms of a negotiated CBA are largely immune to challenge under anti-trust and other labor law.

This will probably have to be negotiated.
Now, a lot of veterans may be interested in not having the lockout count as time served in their current contracts.
The PA might want to bargain this.
If lockout time counts as a year on Yashin's contract, well then it also counts as a year going by when it comes to unsigned draft picks and RFAs, etc.

 

[norrisnick]

And you expect a bunch of GMs to make their own business interests hell as well? Every team has important RFAs and unsigned prospects. It is not in their own best interests to make this a war. Especially in these extreme circumstances. Sure Holland may be able to get his hands on a guy like Carter, Kovalchuk, or whoever, but he also has RFAs and unsigned prospects of his own to worry about in Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Kronwall, Howard, etc...

It isn't as if these guys would be immune from the same tactics being used against them. This isn't some petty idea about golf. It is GMs likely trying to watch their own backs rather than sticking their necks out for a loophole.

 

[signalIInoise]

Can't make teams sign you if they aren't interested. How or why the teams aren't interested is going to be tricky to prove (a memo might not even be necessary). Losing unsigned draftees and RFAs is something no GM/team wants to have happen so I don't see too many of them facilitating that concept. Especially if they want to have cordial dealings with the other 29 teams in the future.

You're assuming that cordial dealings mean squat to these people.

Imagine the NHL fights IMG on this. Say IMG wins, and rights expire as scheduled. Say a UFA Joe Thornton or Jarome Iginla couldn't find work on the open market in the NHL. Can you imagine an easier restraint of trade case to prove?

If the NHL fights IMG, they've already conceded that these players work is sought after, and has value on an open market. One does not defend land that has no value. By paying them in the $7M/year range, they''ve proven that their value is high. The only prayer they'd have of defending the UFA blackballing you propose is that enough players DO sign elsewhere without monster paycuts. If paycuts for highly-sought top talent stretch far beyond the 24%, some doubt is potentially raised that collusion might be present.

In all honesty, the safest and best thing the NHL can do is make sure that the CBA is settled before the IMG case goes to court.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Doesn't affect NJ at all. Parise, Vrana and Khomutov are signed and Zajac is a college kid.

 

[hillbillypriest]

Only flaw standing in the way of your plan is the NHLPA and Goodenow .. and in case you haven't notice he is not agreeing on a lot of things presently ..

I guarantee you IMG and Goodenow have spoken on this issue many times already ..

I guarantee that Goodenow and IMG have or either not spoken about this, or if they have they have spoken as a courtesy from IMG. I guarantee that Goodenow will not back IMG up, because if he did he would be contradicting his position that labor laws apply to his negotiations with the nhl. US sports labour is now clear that either anti-trust laws or labor laws apply to the relationship between players and owners, not a bit of both.

 

[kdb209]

a memo is absolutely worthless if IMG takes the league to court and a judge rules that the players are free agents. this isn't something that the league would ever decide to do on their own, but if a court say they are free agents then the league can't do anything about it. i mean they could appeal it but they can't turn around and say 'hey we sent a memo' and ignore the court ruling

But the league can do something about it - include the transition rules in a negotiated CBA with the PA.

IMG (and any affected draftee and RFA) would have to challenge the CBA in court, a challenge they are not likely to win - just ask Maurice Clarett. Numerous court cases (Clarett v NFL, Wood v NBA) have upheld the non statutory exemption of negotiated CBA terms to anti-trust challenge.

So a court could declare them all UFAs in the absence of a new CBA, but the court cannot dictate the terms of a negotiated labor deal, so if the CBA says their rights revert to their old teams, they revert.

 

[Mess]

And you expect a bunch of GMs to make their own business interests hell as well? Every team has important RFAs and unsigned prospects. It is not in their own best interests to make this a war. Especially in these extreme circumstances. Sure Holland may be able to get his hands on a guy like Carter, Kovalchuk, or whoever, but he also has RFAs and unsigned prospects of his own to worry about in Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Kronwall, Howard, etc...

It isn't as if these guys would be immune from the same tactics being used against them. This isn't some petty idea about golf. It is GMs likely trying to watch their own backs rather than sticking their necks out for a loophole.

You believe their is any love lost between Philly and Toronto .. They are arc rivals in the playoffs and don't you believe that Toronto would rather have Carter on their side rather then play against him ??

Remeber the Lindros fiasco .. Eric wanted to go to Toronto , Toronto wanted Eric .. Clarke said anywhere but Toronto ..

Now Carter hits the UFA market and you believe Toronto has forgiven or forgotten that situation .. Payback is a Biatch ..

They might do it just for spite, however Carter skills probably make it more then that anyway.

 

[Weary]

(emphasis mine)
If the new CBA says their rights are maintained, they are maintained. As soon as they sign a contract they agree to play under the terms of the current CBA, and if the transition rules of the CBA say unsigned draftee and RFA rights are maintained for some time, they are. Any draftee or RFA would have to challenge the CBA in court and would very likely lose. Terms of a negotiated CBA are largely immune to challenge under anti-trust and other labor law.

This is the point I think IMG will argue. In order to be covered by the current CBA, and join the NHLPA, the player must sign a contract. In order to enter a contract, the player must receive an offer. The current CBA requires a bona fide offer to be tendered by June 1. By not tendering an offer, the club is preventing the player from joining the union. Any employer actions which inhibit workers from getting union membership are generally frowned upon by the NLRB. That could be where IMG is going with this.

 

[Mess]

But the league can do something about it - include the transition rules in a negotiated CBA with the PA.

IMG (and any affected draftee and RFA) would have to challenge the CBA in court, a challenge they are not likely to win - just ask Maurice Clarett. Numerous court cases (Clarett v NFL, Wood v NBA) have upheld the non statutory exemption of negotiated CBA terms to anti-trust challenge.

So a court could declare them all UFAs in the absence of a new CBA, but the court cannot dictate the terms of a negotiated labor deal, so if the CBA says their rights revert to their old teams, they revert.

No offense to you intended but IMG has hired Jim Quinn considered one of the best anti-trust lawyers in the USA and his expertise is in CBA challenges as he has been involved for the PA in NFL, NBA and MLB .. SO he is no rookie here ..

You are taking on the TOP GUN here .. If the case would be so easily disputed as you make out then I doubt that they would be bring on this challenge ..

Quinn will test the CBA and special clauses and player contract restrictions on many levels .. If IMG is willing to pay Quinn and fight this is court, that clearly tells me that considering the costs alone that they feel they have a better then average case here ..

Sorry but if I had to bet money mine would be on Quinn and IMG here ..

Personally I believe the flaw in your logic falls in the standard players contract .. I fully support that things caried forward from an old CBA to new is covered in transition rules, however that means that current existing contracts would be subject to this only, because if you like they are in transition from old to new CBA, and since they are guaranteed the expiry of a CBA does not void the player contract..

Future signed player contracts are not subject to transition rules just the base new CBA .. Reason being the 24% rollback will appear in transition rules as well and all players with valid contracts or RFA will have their salaries lowered by that amount because their contracts say so. So if they vote in a new CBA they are aware of this ... However when a team signs a UFA in the future to a valid players contract say Palffy under the new CBA his contract is not subject to the 24% rollback ..

Thus the theory that transition rules are not applicable to new contracts just old established ones ..Since you can't pick and chose what rules to apply to a contract and which not to. When you sign a contract it links you to the current CBA only, you are agreeing as a player to play under those terms ,thus the no signing of players while the CBA is expired.

If Carter is ruled a UFA then he is no different the Palffy in this point being made here . .