Malkin '100%' coming over next year. RSL club threatens legal action

[Kirk Muller*]

Regarding the issue involving Ovechkin and the one with Malkin are totally different. Ovechkin had an out to play in the NHL when a new season started and Malkin does not. When the Dynamo tried to sue both the caps and Ovechkin, it was thrown out because he had no contractual obligation with that team.

The Arbitration Committee of the Russian Hockey League ruled that Dynamo held the rights to Ovechkin for 05-06 because they matched the monetary terms of the Avangard contract and did not have to match the out clause (http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/was060131.html). In the view of Russian hockey law, his situation was no different from Malkin's current one.

Now if Malkin tries to leave his current team, he will have legal troubles that could take years to resolve or at least until he is no longer the property of the pens. According to the NHL, they believe in the sanctity of a contract and therefore will not allow a team to sign a player with a valid contract already enforce. If they no contract is safe, because of their own actions and what a mess that would be. Just admit it is more than possible that Malkin may never be allowed to play here and if he were it will cost a fortune to get him here.

There is a clear precedent to the contrary with Ovechkin. Russian hockey authorities determined that he belonged to Dynamo for 05-06 with no out-clause. He took a plane to Washington and the rest is history. Dynamo got no compensation for him. They sued unsuccesfully. How is Malkin's situation different ?

 

[Kirk Muller*]

Alright, let's make a simple bet.

If Malkin is with the Penguins by October 1, 2006, you will never post here again.

If Malkin is not with the Penguins by October 1, 2006, I will never post here again.

Deal?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Alright, let's make a simple bet.

If Malkin is with the Penguins by October 1, 2006, you will never post here again.

If Malkin is not with the Penguins by October 1, 2006, I will never post here again.

Deal?

Noooooo . . . anything but that. I am enjoying Superfly's comments more than I have any since Route66.

 

[Timmy]

Noooooo . . . anything but that. I am enjoying Superfly's comments more than I have any since Route66.

Agreed.

He's like a Russian hockeytown.

 

[Haute Couture]

this can only be due to your being blinded by misguided nationalistic fervour. .

I never said you had no right to talk about stuff just because you're a fanatical nationalist. I said I find it comical, that's all. The implication is that maybe, one day, you're going to grow up a little and realise that the world does not revolve around your definition of Russian national interests. But until that day, I'll be stuck arguing with someone who thinks that because Metallurg was nice to Malkin, that gives them the right to decide where he should be allowed to live and play.

I just don't like to be personified in these types of conversations, that's all, with all the assumptions that border on insults. If there's anything that indicates that I should grow up - maybe this is it, taking personally some irrelevant posts on a stupid message board.

And why should it revolve around me anyway? The world revolves around what it wants to revolve around. I just find it typically understandable as to what Metallurg is trying to do. I know that system very well. Kinda was born there. It's not the best system, but that's what works there for now. Some of my views are indeed typically Russian, laugh all you want. A breath of fresh air in the midst of "NHL-is-the-end-of-all" euphoric exclusivity that these boards are collectively immersed in. Russian clubs spend money, develop players, make plans, have fans to please, have hockey to popularize in the nation which only has 7% of the entire adult population leading an active lifestyle. And all I get in the end is "Malkin is a free man," and I'm a "nationalist youth" whose patriotism is laughable because I don't live in the country anymore.

Let Malkin do what he wants to do. It really isn't about Evgeni anymore.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

They're completely different games and if you asked an NHL team to play 82 games on an Olympic sheet of ice, you'd kill 85% of the leagues defencemen. You can't play the same game on that ice as you do in the NHL.

The NHL has quite a few of the best players in the world. They also have Derian Hatcher and call him a star.

At this point it is all academic but I think that, given those factor, it is not nearly as easy an answer as NHL=85% of the best players in the world so NHL rules all.

Yes, it is that easy.

For every Derian Hatcher, you have a Nicklas Lidstrom, a Sergei Gonchar and a Scott Niedermayer. Ain't no Pavel Rosa or Jiri Dopita going to outskate them.

NHL players are more fit, more hardworking and faster, better skaters than the average Swedish league player. That's why they're in the NHL. They have a better set of skills and will beat the average Swedish leaguer on any surface.

Sure some guys like Hatcher will become obsolete, but the fact is that NHLers are better skaters than the average Swedish leaguer.

The reason why people like Zine and Slitty can't back up their nonsense about there being tons of players better than NHLers in Europe is because there isn't. The people they would come up with would be guys who proved to be failures in the NHL (Dopita, Rosa, Bulis) or guys that weren't even drafted by NHL teams. There are a few exceptions like Jonsson and Sushinski, who showed they could perform in the NHL but decided to play in their home country, but that's it.

 

[jekoh]

Ovechkin. Russian hockey authorities determined that he belonged to Dynamo for 05-06 with no out-clause. He took a plane to Washington

He was already in Washington

 

[jekoh]

The people they would come up with would be guys who proved to be failures in the NHL (Dopita, Rosa, Bulis) or guys that weren't even drafted by NHL teams. There are a few exceptions like Jonsson and Sushinski, who showed they could perform in the NHL but decided to play in their home country, but that's it.

Dopita outscored Sushinski in the NHL.

And how is Bulis a failure ?

 

[Kirk Muller*]

I just don't like to be personified in these types of conversations, that's all, with all the assumptions that border on insults. If there's anything that indicates that I should grow up - maybe this is it, taking personally some irrelevant posts on a stupid message board.

And why should it revolve around me anyway? The world revolves around what it wants to revolve around. I just find it typically understandable as to what Metallurg is trying to do. I know that system very well. Kinda was born there. It's not the best system, but that's what works there for now. Some of my views are indeed typically Russian, laugh all you want. A breath of fresh air in the midst of "NHL-is-the-end-of-all" euphoric exclusivity that these boards are collectively immersed in. Russian clubs spend money, develop players, make plans, have fans to please, have hockey to popularize in the nation which only has 7% of the entire adult population leading an active lifestyle. And all I get in the end is "Malkin is a free man," and I'm a "nationalist youth" whose patriotism is laughable because I don't live in the country anymore.

Let Malkin do what he wants to do. It really isn't about Evgeni anymore.

You know, I'm just getting under your skin with this nationalistc youth stuff. But for the most part, it's true. Here again, you adopt the characteristics of the nationalistic expatriate by playing the whiny victim, as if the whole world is against you, and claiming that your presence here is "a breath of fresh air".

Our only point of disagreement is on whether Metallurg inherently has the right to decide Malkin's life. You think so, I think you are severely wrong.

We agree that Metallurg should be compensated for Malkin breaking his contract. We agree that Russian clubs are the most important factor in the development of young stars like Ovechkin and Malkin. We agree that it is completely understandable and acceptable for Metallurg to try to extract the most compensation for Malkin. We agree that Russian clubs should receive money from NHL teams when players leave.

So yes, let Malkin do what he wants. Unfortunately, I'm the one who thinks that. You're the one who thinks he is beholden to what Metallurg wants him to do. And if that means playing for them forever as thanks for having developed him, so be it. I'm on Malkin's side. I want him to have the freedom to decide his life. You're his enemy, who wants to take away his freedom and decide his life.

But even then, you're not even consistent with yourself. Ovechkin did sign a contract with Omsk Avangard. Russian arbitrators determined that Moscow Dynamo did match it, and that Ovechkin did owe a year of hockey to the club (because they only needed to match the financial compensation, not the out-clause as well). So why is it ok for Ovechkin to not only leave without compensation, but also to breach his contractual obligations?

 

[Haute Couture]

You know, I'm just getting under your skin with this nationalistc youth stuff. But for the most part, it's true. Here again, you adopt the characteristics of the nationalistic expatriate by playing the whiny victim, as if the whole world is against you, and claiming that your presence here is "a breath of fresh air".

If decency is not your cup of coffee, then let's finish the conversation.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

Dopita outscored Sushinski in the NHL.

And how is Bulis a failure ?

Europeans were crowing that Dopita would show North America how hockey was played and that he would easily dominate. He didn't. In that sense, he was a failure.

Bulis is a failure in the sense that he offensively dominated the Czech league, in front or equal to guys like Hejduk and Elias, while only producing modest numbers in the NHL. People like Zine use players like Bulis as 'proof' that there are many players outside the NHL who would easily beat NHLers. Yet, the examples he gives are players like Bulis, who have proven that they are marginal NHL players.

 

[HandshakeLine]

He was already in Washington

Which kinda proves a point, in that it doesn't really matter who decides what if Malkin leaves the country.

I don't want to return to days where players have to defect to play here, but that's probably what the NHL will threaten to do if Russia doesn't want to play ball. Why would the Pens or any NHL team want to negotiate fees if they could just spirit Malkin out of the country? That's what happened before the transfer agreement and could unfortunately happen again if Russia tries to play too hardball.

This isn't to say I'm not sympathetic to the Russian clubs, but they've really got to realize that sabre-rattling isn't going to do anything but bite them in the arse.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Europeans were crowing that Dopita would show North America how hockey was played and that he would easily dominate. He didn't. In that sense, he was a failure.

Bulis is a failure in the sense that he offensively dominated the Czech league, in front or equal to guys like Hejduk and Elias, while only producing modest numbers in the NHL. People like Zine use players like Bulis as 'proof' that there are many players outside the NHL who would easily beat NHLers. Yet, the examples he gives are players like Bulis, who have proven that they are marginal NHL players.

Let us not forget Alexei Morozov, who can dominate the RSL and barely cracks an NHL lineup.

I'm not sure that this means he's not a good player or that the RSL is weaker than the NHL though-- it just means some players cannot adapt to different styles of play. It happens in the NHL too-- take a look at the players who could not compete with the new rules, but were decent before the lockout.

 

[Haute Couture]

This isn't to say I'm not sympathetic to the Russian clubs, but they've really got to realize that sabre-rattling isn't going to do anything but bite them in the arse.

Things are just not clear at this point. Yes, thanks to Russian law, in part, but I would like to know, in legal terms, if Russian contracts are to be legitimate or not. That's why going to the American courts would help clarify. I would like to read the opinion, as well, if it'd ever be popularized.

I really don't know much about Ovechkin and his "contract." Ironic to see people trusting the Russian legal system and Russian clubs to prove a point . Malkin clearly has years on his contract left, which he doesn't deny. This makes the situation clearer. And I like clarity, since this is where we can finally agree upon what Russia as a country has to do to stop shooting itself in the foot, and what the NHL has to do to make it fair to the clubs, as well.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

If decency is not your cup of coffee, then let's finish the conversation.

I said it Saprykin, I'm deliberately trying to get under your skin with that stuff, to see how you react. Obviously, you don't like it. I think you're actually not that bad. Your fanaticism is not that bad compared to say, Dr Chimera. I encounter a lot of these types in Montréal, and I've yet to see how to deal with them rationally. You're a bit of a test subject for me.

But seriously, how do you defend your inconsistency ?

Ovechkin was developed by Dynamo. Russian authorities determined that he had a valid contract to play for them.

Malkin was developed by Metallurg. He has a valid contract to play for them.

In one case, you want the guy's future to be decided by the club. In the other, you think it's perfectly ok for him to walk away and for his club to get no compensation. What gives ?

If you want to apply your opinion of Ovechkin's situation to Malkin's, then that's great, we'll be in agreement over everything. If you want to maintain your position that Ovechkin can do what he wants but Malkin can't, then I'll have no choice but to view you as an incoherent nationalistic zealot.

 

[Haute Couture]

Let us not forget Alexei Morozov, who can dominate the RSL and barely cracks an NHL lineup.

I'm not sure that this means he's not a good player or that the RSL is weaker than the NHL though-- it just means some players cannot adapt to different styles of play. It happens in the NHL too-- take a look at the players who could not compete with the new rules, but were decent before the lockout.

Morozov will crack one, definitely. He had 50 points for the Pens the other season.


There is a good number of players like Kovalenko, Sushinski, Morozov, who prove they can be decent players in the NHL - but not more than that, and so they choose to stay in Europe. I think Dopita played well, on occasion, in the NHL, but you gotta admit he wasn't that young when he got here. If he came here at 25, I think he'd be able to improve enough to become a decent 60-70 point producer. He definitely has the NHL tools.

Which brings me to my point - many European players don't have the tools to play in the NHL on small ice rinks. So they opt for Europe, which can pay them even more than what they would accumulatively make in the NHL. As we have seen from the Olympics, oftentimes the difference between the NHLers and Europeans is muddled. The Czechs won the gold in Nagano with half of their players being from Europe, and they weren't training on one CSKA-like team the entire year prior to the tournament, either. However, the ice-surface probably proved to be the reason. On small rinks, the NHL-ers who tend to be more physical, take the cake.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

Things are just not clear at this point. Yes, thanks to Russian law, in part, but I would like to know, in legal terms, if Russian contracts are to be legitimate or not. That's why going to the American courts would help clarify. I would like to read the opinion, as well, if it'd ever be popularized.

I really don't know much about Ovechkin and his "contract." Ironic to see people trusting the Russian legal system and Russian clubs to prove a point . Malkin clearly has years on his contract left, which he doesn't deny. This makes the situation clearer. And I like clarity, since this is where we can finally agree upon what Russia as a country has to do to stop shooting itself in the foot, and what the NHL has to do to make it fair to the clubs, as well.

I think that a US court would recognise Malkin's contract.

"Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards states that "an agreement in writing" must exist between the parties if their contract can be arbitrated. An "agreement in writing" shall include an "arbitral clause" or agreement, signed by the parties or "contained in an exchange of letters." "

The dismissal of Dynamo's case was on the basis that there was no signed agreement between Dynamo and Ovechkin. Basically, the court did not recognise Dynamo's "matching" of the Osmk contract as a signed agreement.

In Malkin's case, there is little doubt that he signed a contract saying that he would play 06-07 for Metallurg. I would fully expect there to be some kind of arbitral compensation for Malkin breaking the contract.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Things are just not clear at this point. Yes, thanks to Russian law, in part, but I would like to know, in legal terms, if Russian contracts are to be legitimate or not. That's why going to the American courts would help clarify. I would like to read the opinion, as well, if it'd ever be popularized.

I really don't know much about Ovechkin and his "contract." Ironic to see people trusting the Russian legal system and Russian clubs to prove a point . Malkin clearly has years on his contract left, which he doesn't deny. This makes the situation clearer. And I like clarity, since this is where we can finally agree upon what Russia as a country has to do to stop shooting itself in the foot, and what the NHL has to do to make it fair to the clubs, as well.

The general legal opinion has been that, if Malkin voluntarily leaves the country, and there is no transfer agreement, Russian clubs cannot force the NHL to void his contract with Pittsburgh. They might be able to get damages, but that's far from certain in our labor law. There's also some doubt that the US would recognize both a foreign contract in the US and especially a contract signed before Malkin would have been considered an adult under US law. But generally, foreign contracts aren't really considered under US juristiction so, unless Metallurg has some brilliant American lawyers, I don't see them winning that battle. Jaded could tell you more.

This is why many of us have been saying that it's in Russia's best interest to do a transfer agreement, not to individually negotiate with teams. It's also why the NHL is far different than soccer, with regards to contracts, so it's kind of ridiculous for Metallurg to try to equate the two.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I think that a US court would recognise Malkin's contract.

"Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards states that "an agreement in writing" must exist between the parties if their contract can be arbitrated. An "agreement in writing" shall include an "arbitral clause" or agreement, signed by the parties or "contained in an exchange of letters." "

The dismissal of Dynamo's case was on the basis that there was no signed agreement between Dynamo and Ovechkin. Basically, the court did not recognise Dynamo's "matching" of the Osmk contract as a signed agreement.

In Malkin's case, there is little doubt that he signed a contract saying that he would play 06-07 for Metallurg. I would fully expect there to be some kind of arbitral compensation for Malkin breaking the contract.

Like I said below, that's not entirely clear, especially considering that Malkin was, according to US law, a minor when he signed the contract.

Either way, what the courts could NOT do is force Malkin to play in the RSL after he was already in Pittsburgh. They might have to pay damages, but I would think they'd probably be cheaper still than the $25 million that Metallurg implied they wanted.

Besides, the courts have already ruled that Semin, while having a valid contract, could not be compelled to come back to the US to honor it.

Edit: I am not a lawyer though, so this is all speculation, based upon reading some law and relying on the opinions of those that are lawyers. Caveat Emptor.

 

[Haute Couture]

I said it Saprykin, I'm deliberately trying to get under your skin with that stuff, to see how you react. Obviously, you don't like it. I think you're actually not that bad. Your fanaticism is not that bad compared to say, Dr Chimera. I encounter a lot of these types in Montréal, and I've yet to see how to deal with them rationally. You're a bit of a test subject for me.

Doc is a specimen that you just have to study. But I wouldn't call him fanatical... I wonder what happened to him.. Did you scare him off the boards?

Look, I just don't trust the situation with Ovechkin. I can see a lot of Russian clubs getting desperate and going for circumventive tactics to keep their players at home. I give Velichkin and Metallurg the benefit of the doubt because they sound reasonable to me in the interviews - but he can end being a **** for all I know. The Dinamo officials, however, are the ones who carried their team into bankruptcy this year.

But Russian GMs have a tough situation to follow, it's hard to deny that. They retain their best players for a year or two, and then they see them leave. And many players take Russia as a second choice where they condition themselves for the NHL and then leave again. Velichkin has got Malkin, Chistov, and Kaigorodov all likely leaving his club, with Malkin and Kaigorodov being the home-kids his team developed. I mean, you find it understandable as to what he's trying to do, I find it understandable, he himself finds it understandable, almost everyone who posted something in this topic finds it understandable, and Malkin finds it understandable. What's the problem?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Q: With Evgeni Malkin stating he definitely wants to play in the NHL next season and his current club in Russia threatening to sue the Penguins into buying out his contract, how bound are any NHL team to courts or demands from other countries? If the Penguins are successfully sued in Russia and Malkin comes over, do they have to pay?

Ian Krest, Springfield, Va.


MOLINARI: International law is high on the long list of subjects of which the moderator of this forum has little or no knowledge, so it would be futile to speculate about how things might play out in the wake of any legal action taken by Malkin's Super League team, Metallurg Magnitogorsk.

But Igor Kuperman, who worked for several NHL teams before returning to his homeland to take a job with the Russian hockey federation, offered an interesting take on the situation facing players there in an interview with NHL.com late in the regular season.

"Under Russian labor law, there are no special contractual provisions for hockey players," he said.

"Hockey players are the same as factory workers in that they can write a letter of resignation to their employer and are free to seek employment elsewhere. It's not like restricted free agency in the NHL."

What's more, if the Russian federation eventually signs off on the transfer agreement worked out last year between the NHL and the International Ice Hockey Federation, it's hard to see how any Super League team could believe it has the authority to demand additional money from a particular NHL club for the rights to a player. Standardizing such transactions is the whole purpose of the transfer agreement, from the NHL's perspective.

To that end, a team executive said that the league coordinates all payments to European clubs that lose players to the NHL. That means that, if/when the Russians accept the transfer agreement, the Penguins will not make a direct payment to Magnitogorsk for Malkin. Rather, the league will take the $200,000 fee from a pool to which all 30 clubs contribute a set amount each year and forward it to Malkin's club in Russia.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06125/687777-125.stm

 

[Haute Couture]

The dismissal of Dynamo's case was on the basis that there was no signed agreement between Dynamo and Ovechkin. Basically, the court did not recognise Dynamo's "matching" of the Osmk contract as a signed agreement.

In Malkin's case, there is little doubt that he signed a contract saying that he would play 06-07 for Metallurg. I would fully expect there to be some kind of arbitral compensation for Malkin breaking the contract.

You just pointed out the difference in their situations right there.

 

[The Old Master]

Q: With Evgeni Malkin stating he definitely wants to play in the NHL next season and his current club in Russia threatening to sue the Penguins into buying out his contract, how bound are any NHL team to courts or demands from other countries? If the Penguins are successfully sued in Russia and Malkin comes over, do they have to pay?

Ian Krest, Springfield, Va.


MOLINARI: International law is high on the long list of subjects of which the moderator of this forum has little or no knowledge, so it would be futile to speculate about how things might play out in the wake of any legal action taken by Malkin's Super League team, Metallurg Magnitogorsk.

But Igor Kuperman, who worked for several NHL teams before returning to his homeland to take a job with the Russian hockey federation, offered an interesting take on the situation facing players there in an interview with NHL.com late in the regular season.

"Under Russian labor law, there are no special contractual provisions for hockey players," he said.

"Hockey players are the same as factory workers in that they can write a letter of resignation to their employer and are free to seek employment elsewhere. It's not like restricted free agency in the NHL."

What's more, if the Russian federation eventually signs off on the transfer agreement worked out last year between the NHL and the International Ice Hockey Federation, it's hard to see how any Super League team could believe it has the authority to demand additional money from a particular NHL club for the rights to a player. Standardizing such transactions is the whole purpose of the transfer agreement, from the NHL's perspective.

To that end, a team executive said that the league coordinates all payments to European clubs that lose players to the NHL. That means that, if/when the Russians accept the transfer agreement, the Penguins will not make a direct payment to Magnitogorsk for Malkin. Rather, the league will take the $200,000 fee from a pool to which all 30 clubs contribute a set amount each year and forward it to Malkin's club in Russia.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06125/687777-125.stm

all i can say is,...AWESOME

 

[HandshakeLine]

But Russian GMs have a tough situation to follow, it's hard to deny that. They retain their best players for a year or two, and then they see them leave. And many players take Russia as a second choice where they condition themselves for the NHL and then leave again. Velichkin has got Malkin, Chistov, and Kaigorodov all likely leaving his club, with Malkin and Kaigorodov being the home-kids his team developed. I mean, you find it understandable as to what he's trying to do, I find it understandable, he himself finds it understandable, almost everyone who posted something in this topic finds it understandable, and Malkin finds it understandable. What's the problem?

I think, as the RSL approaches the NHL in terms of fans and revenue, you'll begin to see more players opt to stay at home than before. But, you can't blame the NHL for offering a better existance (to some) than the RSL. If the RSL can improve its on-ice product to the level of NHL, then we might finally see a Premiership-type co-operation between the two leagues.

But, I think, that'd be years from now, if ever.

 

[Haute Couture]

Either way, what the courts could NOT do is force Malkin to play in the RSL after he was already in Pittsburgh. They might have to pay damages, but I would think they'd probably be cheaper still than the $25 million that Metallurg implied they wanted.
.

Metallurg just made an example of Shevchenko. They just want Malkin's contract to be bought out (Velichkin said it himself), and as far as I understand, he has two more years on it. So if he's about to get 1.5-2 million (at the very most) on that contract, Velichkin wants something in the realm of 3-4 million. It's better than 1 million that's offered by the agreement, which, in its turn, is better than 0 if the American courts tell Velichkin to go please himself.