IMG Fires First Salvo...

Status
Not open for further replies.

dunwoody_joe

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
1,581
0
atlanta
Visit site
Weary said:
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.

This seems to be the logic point to support IMG's position. It makes sense to me!

The next logical extension is if the draft is cancelled...
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Weary said:
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.

I would think that once the majority of players vote to agree to the new CBA, the terms and conditions of that CBA would dictate the status of players that were not offered contracts due to the labor dispute. The players, by voting for the CBA will be agreeing to be governed by the CBA. Court case closed, won't matter if IMG disagrees or not...


EDIT: Do you really think that the NHL will not insist on including clauses to maintain their rights to the players just because the NHLPA did not want to come to an agreement on a CBA before those deadlines passed?
 
Last edited:

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
djhn579 said:
I would think that once the majority of players vote agree to the new CBA, the terms and conditions of that CBA would dictate the status of players that were not offered contracts due to the labor dispute. The players, by voting for the CBA will be agreeing to be governed by the CBA. Court case closed, won't matter if IMG disagrees or not...
So how do you justify a player not getting a vote because he had no opportunity to sign a contract? Isn't the NHL, by telling teams they wil retain all rights, ensuring that the unsigned 2003 draftees do not get a vote?
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Weary said:
Originally Posted by kdb209
(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.
But, it doesn't matter what the current (expired) CBA says. The league will not be approving any new contracts until there is a new CBA. When a player (or draftee) then signs a new contract, he will be agreeing to the terms of the new negotiated CBA, including any transition terms for draftees and RFAs. If (and I'll leave it an if for messenger's sake) the new negotiated CBA says teams retain their rights to draftees and RFAs, then the players will be agreeing to that as well.

There is nothing wrong with a company refusing to hire a worker during a lockout - it is in no way inhibiting a worker from getting union representation. Current unsigned RFAs and UFAs are already union members and draftees do not qualify for PA membership until they are hired (signed). It's not like an auto-worker wannabe can sue GM for not hiring them during a strike (or lockout). A worker (player) has no right to work for a company (team) until that company (team) decides to hire them and under a lockout the company (team) has no such obligation. As long as that refusal to hire does not run afoul of anti-trust law (and refusal to hire during a lockout does not - it is governed by labor law and the NLRA, not anti trust law) the worker (player) has no grounds to sue.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Weary said:
So how do you justify a player not getting a vote because he had no opportunity to sign a contract? Isn't the NHL, by telling teams they wil retain all rights, ensuring that the unsigned 2003 draftees do not get a vote?

A labor lawyer could tell you a lot better than I could, but I do remember reading somewhere that the courts will insist on the status quo remain during a labor dispute. I'm taking that to mean that no new players are being offered contracts and no players are being taken off the NHLPA member list, even though some of them may not have played in over two years due to the labor dispute.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Weary said:
Originally Posted by djhn579
I would think that once the majority of players vote agree to the new CBA, the terms and conditions of that CBA would dictate the status of players that were not offered contracts due to the labor dispute. The players, by voting for the CBA will be agreeing to be governed by the CBA. Court case closed, won't matter if IMG disagrees or not...
So how do you justify a player not getting a vote because he had no opportunity to sign a contract? Isn't the NHL, by telling teams they wil retain all rights, ensuring that the unsigned 2003 draftees do not get a vote?
How does that differ from any previous draftee who did not get to vote on a CBA but was still forced to be covered by it's terms. All those 1995 draftees (and any unsigned 93 or 94 ones) who got subject to the ELS, did they get a vote - no. A CBA is negotiated by current workers, but affects all current and future workers during life of the agreement, even those who never got to vote on it.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
kdb209 said:
But, it doesn't matter what the current (expired) CBA says.
Yes, it does. Until a new CBA is agreed to, the NHL is bound by the terms of the previous one.

The league will not be approving any new contracts until there is a new CBA.
Which is a Bettman decision. There is nothing stopping them from approving contracts.

When a player (or draftee) then signs a new contract, he will be agreeing to the terms of the new negotiated CBA, including any transition terms for draftees and RFAs.
But do you think a judge will think that it's OK for a player to be bound by the new CBA when the team ignored the binding previous CBA to insure that player would have no input into the successor CBA?

There is nothing wrong with a company refusing to hire a worker during a lockout - it is in no way inhibiting a worker from getting union representation. Current unsigned RFAs and UFAs are already union members and draftees do not qualify for PA membership until they are hired (signed).
This is the key point. The teams, still bound by the current CBA, are required to make contract offers by tomorrow or relinquish the rights to the player. The teams are planning on doing neither thereby contravening the existing CBA and denying those players their only route to union membership. That could be a problem.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
kdb209 said:
How does that differ from any previous draftee who did not get to vote on a CBA but was still forced to be covered by it's terms. All those 1995 draftees (and any unsigned 93 or 94 ones) who got subject to the ELS, did they get a vote - no. A CBA is negotiated by current workers, but affects all current and future workers during life of the agreement, even those who never got to vote on it.
I'm not arguing that a CBA dictates terms for future workers. It would be impossible to reach a reasonable agreement otherwise. But I don't think the NHL can prevent 'future workers' from becoming 'current workers' unless they do it within the framework of the last negotiated agreement. But the NHL is unilaterally teling teams they won't lose the rights to players while simultaneously preventing those players from becoming union members. Under the existing CBA, if a team wants to retain a player rights after June 1, they must make an offer which also makes the player union eligible.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
The Messenger said:
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 ..
And the league has their own high priced legal talent and much deeper pockets.

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 ..
But there is a big difference between fighting this in court and posturing in public for bargaining leverage, which is all that IMG is doing right now. Let's see if they ever take this into court - especially after a new CBA is agreed to.
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, becasue 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.

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

Sure, you can pick and choose what rules apply to a contract and which not to - as long as those rules are agreed to by the league and the PA (the player's/draftee's legal bargaining agent). Just look at the ELS rules - they apply to some contracts, not to others. Look at RFA restrictions - they apply to some players, not to others.

But Carter is different than Palffy. Even if Carter were a UFA, he could be subjected to different rules under the CBA than Ziggy - the ELS limits. There is no legal reason why they could not be treated differently in other respects, as long as all players in the same class (unsigned 2003 draftees) were treated the same.

The bottom line is that the court challenge does not come down to any specific term or transition rule of the CBA, but to the basic question of what law applies, and the courts have held that under the umbrella of a negotiated CBA, labor law and the NLRA take precedence over anti trust law.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
kdb209 said:
Sure, you can pick and choose what rules apply to a contract and which not to - as long as those rules are agreed to by the league and the PA (the player's/draftee's legal bargaining agent). Just look at the ELS rules - they apply to some contracts, not to others. Look at RFA restrictions - they apply to some players, not to others.

But Carter is different than Palffy. Even if Carter were a UFA, he could be subjected to different rules under the CBA than Ziggy - the ELS limits. There is no legal reason why they could not be treated differently in other respects, as long as all players in the same class (unsigned 2003 draftees) were treated the same.

The bottom line is that the court challenge does not come down to any specific term or transition rule of the CBA, but to the basic question of what law applies, and the courts have held that under the umbrella of a negotiated CBA, labor law and the NLRA take precedence over anti trust law.
But the mistake you are making is that there are age and nationality and other things that determine what rules to apply to you ..

The base CBA says if you are 18-20 years old then you are subject to that rule .. That is not picking and chosing like the point I am making. Carter would subject to ELS limits because based on the age chart in the CBA and first contract.. If you like Palffy is subject to the same cba rules that apply to him, since he is not 18-20 then you look further down the age chart .. but eventually Carter will grow into the same Palffy category as he ages .. He needs no special rules ..

All player contracts are date driven as are items in the CBA .. Contracts are expiring come July 1 as a result of the lockout .. Unless the NHL agrees to extend them then tehy expire and player rights are no differnet . .

Would you agree that all standard player contracts are exactly the same boiler plate layout with only player name , Salary and length filled basically the difference..

So then if that then any player contract signed new CBA is not subject to 24% rollback which appears in transition rules ..Correct .??.

If Carter and Palffy players contracts are the same then how do you attach special rules to Carter and this special clauses .. Like I said the general CBA is date and age driven and as such then the items control them ..

Take a INCOME Tax table when you do your income tax ..Everyone can use the same table you just have to look in the proper colums that apply to you and your earnings ..
 
Last edited:

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
The Messenger said:
Originally Posted by kdb209

Sure, you can pick and choose what rules apply to a contract and which not to - as long as those rules are agreed to by the league and the PA (the player's/draftee's legal bargaining agent). Just look at the ELS rules - they apply to some contracts, not to others. Look at RFA restrictions - they apply to some players, not to others.

But Carter is different than Palffy. Even if Carter were a UFA, he could be subjected to different rules under the CBA than Ziggy - the ELS limits. There is no legal reason why they could not be treated differently in other respects, as long as all players in the same class (unsigned 2003 draftees) were treated the same.

The bottom line is that the court challenge does not come down to any specific term or transition rule of the CBA, but to the basic question of what law applies, and the courts have held that under the umbrella of a negotiated CBA, labor law and the NLRA take precedence over anti trust law.
But the mistake you are making is that there are age and nationality and other things that determine what rules to apply to you ..

The base CBA say if you are 18-20 then you are subject to that rule .. That is not picking and chosing like the point I am making the Carter would subject to ELS limits based on age and first contract.. If you like Palffy is subject to cba rules that apply to him .. but eventually Carter will grow into the same Palffy category as he ages .. He needs no special rules ..

All player contracts are date driven as are items in the CBA .. Contracts are expiring come July 1 as a result of the lockout .. Unless the NHL agrees to extend them then expire and player rights are no differnet . .

But age and nationality are arbitrary distinctions - the only reason they are relevant is that the previous CBA had negotiated terms that said that players who fell into those categories are treated differently. If the new CBA defines it's own set of criteria of how different classes of players are treated (including unsigned draftees and unqualified pending RFAs) and the bargaining unit representing those players votes to approve those terms, those players will be subject to those terms whether they like them or not. A CBA is not always in the best interest of any given player (or class of players), but it's goal is to be what's in the best interest of the PA's membership as a whole - and the PA is expressing it's position of it's membership as a whole by approving a CBA with some set of transition terms.

And as I said before. The bottom line is that the court challenge does not come down to any specific term or transition rule of the CBA, but to the basic question of what law applies, and the courts have held that under the umbrella of a negotiated CBA, labor law and the NLRA take precedence over anti trust law.
 

NewGuy

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
1,702
0
Weary said:
I'm not arguing that a CBA dictates terms for future workers. It would be impossible to reach a reasonable agreement otherwise. But I don't think the NHL can prevent 'future workers' from becoming 'current workers' unless they do it within the framework of the last negotiated agreement. But the NHL is unilaterally teling teams they won't lose the rights to players while simultaneously preventing those players from becoming union members. Under the existing CBA, if a team wants to retain a player rights after June 1, they must make an offer which also makes the player union eligible.
Are union eligible players allowed to vote? From what I understand they are not a part of the NHLPA until they play in an NHL game. It would follow that they cannot have a vote until the NHL starts playing games again.

Would anyone try to argue that the NHL is inhibiting players from obtaining union membership because the NHL isn't playing any games? I doubt it.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
NewGuy said:
Are union eligible players allowed to vote? From what I understand they are not a part of the NHLPA until they play in an NHL game. It would follow that they cannot have a vote until the NHL starts playing games again.
I think they can join the union as soon as they sign a contract. If not, then having the CBA-defined reassignment clause in those contracts is probably an anti-trust violation since the NHLPA is only supposed to represent NHL players.

Would anyone try to argue that the NHL is inhibiting players from obtaining union membership because the NHL isn't playing any games? I doubt it.
I agree. If it did require one game of NHL experience to join the union, I don't think that argument would be made.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
kdb209 said:
The bottom line is that the court challenge does not come down to any specific term or transition rule of the CBA, but to the basic question of what law applies, and the courts have held that under the umbrella of a negotiated CBA, labor law and the NLRA take precedence over anti trust law.
I have read the old CBA front to back which I am sure you have as well ..

There is nothing in there that I can find that stipulates what happens in case of a prolonged work stoppage .. If there was then the NHL would have and Ironclad position ..

If such a rule existed then I would bet IMG would have not case to challenge a CBA , however the NHL will attempt to create a special clause after the fact in a new CBA and that will open itself to challenge ..

Its almost like using 20/20 hindsight now to correct a former problem in the past now. Usually rules are made going forward not intended to change history ..
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
The Messenger said:
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 ..

Yeah, and the NHL has Shep Goldfein (who has fought all the key sports anti-trust cases) and the entire considerable might of Skadden Arps at their disposal. Not to mention that Bill Daly himself is an ex anti-trust lawyer. I call tell you that Skadden is enormously expensive - probably more so than Quinn. I guess by your criteria, since the NHL is willing to pay more to fight this they have the better case.
 

Hunter74

Registered User
Sep 21, 2004
1,045
15
This is such a joke. So what happens if IMG takes the NHL to court on this. What will happen to all the drafted players? Will they be stuck in limbo in no mans land? Not allowed to sign an NHL contract b/c this thing is gonna ahve to go to the courts or are they gonna be allowed to be FA untill they are told there going back to the team that originally drafted them or vis versa?

I think this is all b.s and highly doubt that it has the NHL lawyer group worked up or even the GMs.

But I would love to get a shot at Richards.
 

NewGuy

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
1,702
0
Weary said:
I think they can join the union as soon as they sign a contract. If not, then having the CBA-defined reassignment clause in those contracts is probably an anti-trust violation since the NHLPA is only supposed to represent NHL players.
I can't find anything to support the fact that players must play one game to join the NHLPA other than the NHLPA website which only lists players on a team's active roster as of the end of 2003/04. However, I still don't think that newly signed players can vote because NHL teams usually have ~50 players signed but I have never heard NHLPA membership estimated at ~1500 players.

If newly signed players could join the union and vote, what would prevent the NHL from signing players (at the league minimum) under terms of the expired CBA to try and "poison" the union. Can the union deny membership to prospective employees? (I would assume so.)
 

Master Shake*

Guest
norrisnick said:
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.


Called collusion and the league would get sued into oblivion for trying anything like that.
 

alecfromtherock

Registered User
Feb 2, 2004
507
0
Q1: When can IMG and its players have a court date if they are serious of going down this legal route?
Q2: If IMG loses its case what are the reproductions to the agency and the players whom they represent?
Q3: The season starts and a ‘Carter’ is fighting the NHL in court, would they be permitted to play in the NHL while suing the league?

Until a player comes out and says that they want to fight the NHL for UFA this is just agent posturing meant to stir up the pot.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
alecfromtherock said:
Q1: When can IMG and its players have a court date if they are serious of going down this legal route?
Q2: If IMG loses its case what are the reproductions to the agency and the players whom they represent?
Q3: The season starts and a ‘Carter’ is fighting the NHL in court, would they be permitted to play in the NHL while suing the league?

Until a player comes out and says that they want to fight the NHL for UFA this is just agent posturing meant to stir up the pot.

Skipped over in this discussion is the fact that Carter and Richards aren't even IMG clients and have expressed or demonstrated no desire to challenge the Flyers hold on their rights.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
Skipped over in this discussion is the fact that Carter and Richards aren't even IMG clients and have expressed or demonstrated no desire to challenge the Flyers hold on their rights.

While that may be true, if they are granted UFA status due to this law suit, then there's no doubt they wouldn't shop themselves around. At the very least, it gains them leverage.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
WC Handy said:
While that may be true, if they are granted UFA status due to this law suit, then there's no doubt they wouldn't shop themselves around. At the very least, it gains them leverage.

They can "shop themselves around" until their hearts are content, but with no teams able to make them offers or sign them to contracts it is completely pointless.

The new CBA will have language to cover their situtation and any court ruling on their status will be worthless.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
They can "shop themselves around" until their hearts are content, but with no teams able to make them offers or sign them to contracts it is completely pointless.

The new CBA will have language to cover their situtation and any court ruling on their status will be worthless.

Conventional wisdom says you're right. But, conventional wisdom also suggests that the US government doesn't have the power to institute rules into professional sports leagues.
 

chara

Registered User
Mar 31, 2004
894
0
Thunderstruck said:
They can "shop themselves around" until their hearts are content, but with no teams able to make them offers or sign them to contracts it is completely pointless.

The new CBA will have language to cover their situtation and any court ruling on their status will be worthless.


Exactly.

The owners are pretty sick and tired of agents milking them. There will be language added into the next CBA to handle this and other exceptions like restricted free agents who are not qualified by July 1st, etc, etc...

This 'threat' from IMG has no merit and is purely a publicity stunt to raise their profile to prospective new clients. Period.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
norrisnick said:
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.

:biglaugh:

You have a rosey picture of the NHL marketplace and it's anything but. It's everyone for themselves, plain and simple. Give up this ridiculous argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->