Impact of missing QO deadline

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,869
Sin City
Case in point: Nashville
RealKyper 5:58am via Twitter for BlackBerry® Big #NHL news as some question #Predators missing qualifying offers on RFA's O'Reilly, Spaling, Halischuk and Kostitsyn. Stay tuned...

RealKyper 10:37am via Twitter for BlackBerry® #NHLPA continues internal investigation throughout the day regarding #Predators potentially missing Q.O deadline on their respective RFA's


RealKyper 10:42am via Twitter for BlackBerry®
Its up to #NHLPA to file grievance with #NHL against #Predators if they believe theirs sufficient evidence to support a case for the players


RealKyper 10:46am via Twitter for BlackBerry® The #NHLPA isn't expected to make any decisions today regarding their investigation.
 

Mwd711

Registered User
Jan 20, 2006
624
0
That's ugly. You would think teams would be more careful especially after the Blackhawks did it a couple of seasons ago. How do you make that mistake and how do you wait so long til the deadline to make the QO's? What is their to be gained by waiting til the last minute to make an offer or is this a case of just some bad bookkeeping.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,869
Sin City
fearthefin: According to @TSNBobMcKenzie the NHL stated that the Predators QO's were legal and the players "will be Restricted Free Agents as of July 1"
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,285
12,586
South Mountain
With the Blackhawks I don't believe there was ever a definitive decision whether or not they goofed on the QO's. The players were re-signed so no grievance ever went to the CBA arbitrator on whether they should have been UFA's or not.
 

Jumptheshark

Rebooting myself
Oct 12, 2003
99,857
13,840
Somewhere on Uranus
With the Blackhawks I don't believe there was ever a definitive decision whether or not they goofed on the QO's. The players were re-signed so no grievance ever went to the CBA arbitrator on whether they should have been UFA's or not.


blackhawks are my number 2 team and according to by blackhawk buddies it was clear cut that Talon missed the deadline in all cases and he had to over pay earlier
 

Hawkscap

Registered User
Jan 22, 2007
2,614
29
With the Blackhawks I don't believe there was ever a definitive decision whether or not they goofed on the QO's. The players were re-signed so no grievance ever went to the CBA arbitrator on whether they should have been UFA's or not.

True but that goof came back and haunted them last summer.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,869
Sin City
TSNBobMcKenzie 8:40pm via Twitter for BlackBerry® NHLPA files official grievance over what it believes was improper filing of qualifying offers by NSH to 7 restricted free agents.


TSNBobMcKenzie 8:43pm via Twitter for BlackBerry® NHLPA contends S Kostitsyn, Halischuk, Spaling, Cal O'Reilly and three players in minors did not receive QOs in timely fashion.


TSNBobMcKenzie 8:53pm via Twitter for BlackBerry® 7 NSH players would only become UFAs if independent arbitrator George Nicholau ruled in PA's favor. PA will request expedited hearing.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Ken Campbell from The Hockey News:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articl...y-lose-three-to-unrestricted-free-agency.html

The dispute over the seven qualifying offers in question centers around the word “tendered.†Players entering restricted free agency must be tendered qualifying offers in order for the team to retain its negotiating rights with the player. Players making less than $600,000 per season must receive a 10 percent raise on their qualifying offer, those making more than $600,000 and less than $1 million must receive a five percent raise and those making more than $1 million must be offered at least their current salary.

The collective bargaining agreement states qualifying offers must be “tendered†to players by 5 p.m., New York time on June 25 or the first Monday after the entry draft. The deadline day this year fell on June 27.

According to several sources, the Predators prepared the qualifying offers and sent them off to the players by Federal Express at 4 p.m., on deadline day. The only problem is the players did not receive them until the next day. The Predators did not fax the qualifying offers to either the players’ agents or the NHL Players’ Association.

In any event, the NHLPA insists that since none of the players, their agents or the NHLPA actually received the qualifying offers by the deadline means they were not tendered on time. The league and the Predators, on the other hand, contend that sending the offers out on deadline day meets the CBA requirements. The league contends it has been deemed acceptable in the past for teams to send out their qualifying offers on the day of the deadline. The NHLPA counters that, while that might be true, it has also been standard practice for both the agents and the players’ association to be faxed copies of the qualifying offers before the deadline.

One thing is for sure: the situation will prompt a clarification in the CBA so both sides know exactly what the procedure will be in the future.

Arbitrator George Nicolau is expected to hear the case and the NHLPA has asked for the hearing to be expedited. It’s not known yet when Nicolau will be able to hear the case and make a ruling, but expect it to come down in the next few days.

And Wettie chimes in on the Other: NHL investigating Nashville Preds concerning QO's - NHLPA files grievance thread.

The latest information I have seen is that the Predators are claiming to have prepared the QO's and placed them in the hands of a courier service prior to 5pm New York Time on June 27, 2011. They apparently have acknowledged that they did not fax the notice of QO's to the player agents or the NHL on or before the deadline.

What seems to be at issue is whether or not the time deadline applies to the transmission or the actual delivery and receipt of the QO's by the player. There may also be an issue at to whether this requirement has been modified by past practises.

Here is what the CBA provides in respect of time limits and note this applies ONLY to the player - there are no specific time limits in respect of notifying agents or the NHL league office:

In order to receive a Right of First Refusal or Draft Choice Compensation (at the Prior Club's option) with respect to a Restricted Free Agent, the Prior Club of a Restricted Free Agent must tender to the Player, no later than 5:00 p.m. New York Time on the later of June 25 or the first Monday after the Entry Draft...

In this case the first Monday after the Entry Draft applies so 5:00 pm New York Time on June 27, 2011 is the applicable deadline.

If the facts are as set out above then the issue becomes what does "tender" mean.

If I am counsel for the Preds and/or the NHL I would argue that "tender" in these circumstances means the act of placing the proper form of notice and QO in the hands of the courier service for overnight delivery before 5:00 pm New York Time to the player at his supplied or last known off-season address.

I would argue that if that section meant actual delivery and receipt of the notice and QO by the player by June 27, 2011 it would have specifically used that language.

If I am counsel for the players and/or the NHLPA I would point out that "tender" in a contractual sense normally means delivery and receipt by the player.

There is also the issue of what is called "waiver and acceptance" - under this doctrine a past practise accepted by both parties that may not technically comply with the written provisions, may create in effect an amendment to the CBA. The issue here will be the content of the past practise.

The NHL will likely contend that in the past placing the QO's in the hands of the courier service prior to the deadline has been sufficient.

The NHLPA will arguing that the Preds did not follow this past practise which included a concurrent fax of the QO's to the agents and NHL. So since none of the players, their agents or the NHLPA actually received the qualifying offers by the deadline means they were not tendered on time. The NHLPA will likely argue that what the past practise involved was what is often known as "constructive notice", i.e. by supplying the notice and QO to the player agent in accordance with the written deadline, the player while not having actual notice had notice by way of his agent.

That seems to be the issues before the Arbitrator.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->