Legal question

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kid Canada

Registered User
Dec 9, 2004
121
0
Just wondering here. Just throwing it out there.

What if the league was to accept a harder luxery tax at around 40 million, then one at 45 million which is eve harder. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the NHLPA does offer something like this sometime down the road.

All 30 owners then get together and sign a contract stating that they wont spend more than 45 million. If they do spend more, then they get the boot, just like that NFL owner who was forced to move the team because he wouldnt build a new stadium (believe it was LA). Any new owner that comes into the NHL, before buying a team, he must sign this contract stating he wont spend more than 45 million. Basically have an owners cap.

Now I'm assuming the NHLPA would throw 'conspiracy' all over them, if they were to find out.

Is this a far fetched scenario, is it even possible. Or is it illegal basically. Some lawyer, please help me out.
 

Lionel Hutz

Registered User
Apr 13, 2004
13,355
33
Locking the Lounge??
Kid Canada said:
Just wondering here. Just throwing it out there.

What if the league was to accept a harder luxery tax at around 40 million, then one at 45 million which is eve harder. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the NHLPA does offer something like this sometime down the road.

All 30 owners then get together and sign a contract stating that they wont spend more than 45 million. If they do spend more, then they get the boot, just like that NFL owner who was forced to move the team because he wouldnt build a new stadium (believe it was LA). Any new owner that comes into the NHL, before buying a team, he must sign this contract stating he wont spend more than 45 million. Basically have an owners cap.

Now I'm assuming the NHLPA would throw 'conspiracy' all over them, if they were to find out.

Is this a far fetched scenario, is it even possible. Or is it illegal basically. Some lawyer, please help me out.

The contract you are suggesting the owners sign is illegal.
 

Kid Canada

Registered User
Dec 9, 2004
121
0
mudcrutch79 said:
Illegal contracts are unenforceable. It would be useless, and would open them up to massive damages in a collusion suit. Bad times.

That's what I was thinking, but was un-sure if it was illegal or not. Thanks anyways.
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
Kid Canada said:
If they do spend more, then they get the boot, just like that NFL owner who was forced to move the team because he wouldnt build a new stadium (believe it was LA).
Al Davis wasn't forced to move, and did want to build a new stadium. In fact Davis scheduled games in Oakland without league approval, and the Raiders claimed the league blocked them from moving to Oakland. Davis tried to get a new stadium in LA, claims the NFL interfered, and the deal fell through, so he packed up and moved to Oakland.
 

Lionel Hutz

Registered User
Apr 13, 2004
13,355
33
Locking the Lounge??
mudcrutch79 said:
Illegal contracts are unenforceable. It would be useless, and would open them up to massive damages in a collusion suit. Bad times.

yes, for example, if you sign a contractwith a prostitute, the courts will not say, well, prostitution is illegal, but they do have a contract....
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Almost all franchise organizations have something called a "fiscal responsibility" clause in there franchise agreements. These clauses allow the franchisor to monitor the fiscal health of all the franchisees and penalize them if they do not abide by the clause restricitions. Walmart, Canadian Tire and McDonalds are all examples of this, so are Major League Baseball and the NBA, this is one of the ways the Expos got moved to Washington. The NHL from my understanding has the same clause, this is NOT collusion. The league just needs to get the guts to use it.
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
vanlady said:
Almost all franchise organizations have something called a "fiscal responsibility" clause in there franchise agreements. These clauses allow the franchisor to monitor the fiscal health of all the franchisees and penalize them if they do not abide by the clause restricitions. Walmart, Canadian Tire and McDonalds are all examples of this, so are Major League Baseball and the NBA, this is one of the ways the Expos got moved to Washington. The NHL from my understanding has the same clause, this is NOT collusion. The league just needs to get the guts to use it.

Vanlady are you a lawyer? This place has been plagued lately by people without legal backgrounds making statements about legal issues with nothing to back it up. If you can back it up, back it up...if not, you're better off not tossing opinion into these things-it just makes it harder to discuss what's really going on.

I know for a FACT that you're wrong about some "clause" being why the Expos got moved to Washington. MLB has a clause requiring teams to maintain a certain debt/equity ratio, but the Expos situation had nothing to do with that clause.
 

Lionel Hutz

Registered User
Apr 13, 2004
13,355
33
Locking the Lounge??
vanlady said:
Almost all franchise organizations have something called a "fiscal responsibility" clause in there franchise agreements. These clauses allow the franchisor to monitor the fiscal health of all the franchisees and penalize them if they do not abide by the clause restricitions. Walmart, Canadian Tire and McDonalds are all examples of this, so are Major League Baseball and the NBA, this is one of the ways the Expos got moved to Washington. The NHL from my understanding has the same clause, this is NOT collusion. The league just needs to get the guts to use it.

They (NHL teams) are seperate business entities, when they communicate for the purpose of regulating an industry, it is collusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->