NHLPA to require replacement players to repay lockout pay

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Definetly sounds illegal.

Just another day at Goodenow's office I guess.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
mudcrutch79 said:
Link is here. Without doing any research whatsoever (Christmas, and I don't feel like looking it up), I'm inclined to suspect that this is an illegal contract, and unenforceable. Anyone who's less apathetic (and knowledgeable) care to comment?

I don't think it's illegal, but I could be wrong. More importantly though, the stipend the players are recieving is $10,000 one month, possibbly another $10,000 some month in the future, but the remaining months are at $5,000. So, after 1 year, a player that decides to be a replacement player would have to repay ~$70,000. For most players making $400,000+, this should not be too big of a hurdle, and if the owners wanted, they could offer to pay this themselves for any player that wants to play as a replacement player.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
For a union that is completely "together" and "one" sure seems an odd thing to have to put in place. Just how many players would be replacement players? I'm guessing a pretty large percentage given the lack of other career opportunities.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
Pepper said:
Definetly sounds illegal.

Where is your law degree from?

Just another day at Goodenow's office I guess.

How many people in Goodenow's office have been convicted of illegal offences? I bet there are none. It's not like he's hiring former NHL owners to work for him.
 

Polydorus

Registered User
Feb 5, 2004
137
0
The most likely replacement players are the ones least likely to be able to pay the money back. So it might provide an incentive not to cross the picket line. If the owners pay the union back that amount would be taxable income to the player.
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
djhn579 said:
I don't think it's illegal, but I could be wrong. More importantly though, the stipend the players are recieving is $10,000 one month, possibbly another $10,000 some month in the future, but the remaining months are at $5,000. So, after 1 year, a player that decides to be a replacement player would have to repay ~$70,000. For most players making $400,000+, this should not be too big of a hurdle, and if the owners wanted, they could offer to pay this themselves for any player that wants to play as a replacement player.

I'm thinking it might be a violation of the Competition Act if the PA ever tried to enforce it. I'm also wondering if it might not be enforceable as there was no consideration for the promise? It seems to me to be open to attack on a number of different grounds.
 

Sanderson

Registered User
Sep 10, 2002
5,677
240
Hamburg, Germany
I think the article has got something wrong.

As long as there is a lockout there won't be an NHL-game. If replacement players would play, the lockout would be over. The players could strike, but they wouldn't be locked out if the league forces a new CBA on the NHLPA (in case of an impasse).

If this would count for the time of a strike as well, then it might be illegal.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
mudcrutch79 said:
Link is here. Without doing any research whatsoever (Christmas, and I don't feel like looking it up), I'm inclined to suspect that this is an illegal contract, and unenforceable. Anyone who's less apathetic (and knowledgeable) care to comment?

Nothing illegal about the contract.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
mudcrutch79 said:
I'm thinking it might be a violation of the Competition Act if the PA ever tried to enforce it. I'm also wondering if it might not be enforceable as there was no consideration for the promise? It seems to me to be open to attack on a number of different grounds.

Well, unless you can provide some clever reasoning, its hard to see the grounds being the competition act. And I would think 5-10k a month is pretty hefty consideration. The players are paying themselves this money so they can stand collectively against the bully extortionists that use fuzzy words. If someone thinks they will be a replacement player, they dont have to accept it. OR can hope that their 20 day tryout contract the replacements will get will cover it.

Seems perfectly natural, logical, and legal to me. Unless you are worried the players might have some leverage against the owners slimey tactics, I cant see why you would find this untoward or illegal.
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
djhn579 said:
So, after 1 year, a player that decides to be a replacement player would have to repay ~$70,000. For most players making $400,000+, this should not be too big of a hurdle, and if the owners wanted, they could offer to pay this themselves for any player that wants to play as a replacement player.

I'd imagine the owners would either add it to the signing bonus, or include an indemnity clause to reimburse the player for such costs if they were upheld in the courts. It's not going to deter players from breaking ranks with the NHLPA. The NHLPA issuing this threat is a strong signal they're having problems with members remaining loyal. I think the union is as good as broken. The owners have already won, and it's just a matter of them deciding the margin of victory.
 

Sinurgy

Approaching infinity
Sponsor
Feb 8, 2004
12,425
3,877
AZ
Polydorus said:
The most likely replacement players are the ones least likely to be able to pay the money back. So it might provide an incentive not to cross the picket line. If the owners pay the union back that amount would be taxable income to the player.
I'm not sure "incentive" is the right word to use in this case.
 

Accord

Registered User
Sep 25, 2004
1,318
1
South Florida
BlackRedGold said:
How many people in Goodenow's office have been convicted of illegal offences? I bet there are none. It's not like he's hiring former NHL owners to work for him.

Well, at least we know which side you're on...
 

Accord

Registered User
Sep 25, 2004
1,318
1
South Florida
BlackRedGold said:
How many people in Goodenow's office have been convicted of illegal offences? I bet there are none. It's not like he's hiring former NHL owners to work for him.

Well, at least we know which side you're on...
 

Sammy*

Guest
thinkwild said:
Well, unless you can provide some clever reasoning, its hard to see the grounds being the competition act. And I would think 5-10k a month is pretty hefty consideration. The players are paying themselves this money so they can stand collectively against the bully extortionists that use fuzzy words. If someone thinks they will be a replacement player, they dont have to accept it. OR can hope that their 20 day tryout contract the replacements will get will cover it.

Seems perfectly natural, logical, and legal to me. Unless you are worried the players might have some leverage against the owners slimey tactics, I cant see why you would find this untoward or illegal.
I think you should, not surprsingly, brush off your dictionary and law degree. What exactly has the NHL owners done that could be considered "extortion" or "slimey tactics"?
Maybe something like the requiring the type of contract the players have to sign to get strike pay or the refusal to pay Ray the $$ that are due to him?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

loudi94

Master of my Domain
Jul 8, 2003
8,507
1,533
Alberta
2 questions:

1. Why would any player sign such a contract unless it was under duress from peers or the PA itself?

2. If the NHL starts up again it would stand to reason that the lockout is over, so could they argue that point in court?

It's really hard to speculate on the legalities of this contract without seeing it.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
Sammy said:
Maybe something like the requiring the type of contract the players have to sign to get strike pay or the refusal to pay Ray the $$ that are due to him?

Strike pay isn't part of a Standard Players Contract.

The NHLPA has a Strike Fund, from which monies are drawn from. It's strictly a Contingency Fund in the event of a labour dispute for related expenses. Legal fees, travel and hotel costs, for example, are more than likely covered by it.

Issuance of Strike Pay is not automatic, as it is contingent upon sufficient funds. As such, it is not a player income insurance plan. The NHLPA executive (duly elected by their peers) has the authority to set the parameters. Start dates, end dates, amounts, and who qualifies for stipends are all decided upon by the executive with input, of course, from the general membership and legal counsel.

Rob Ray had the option at any point in his career to drop his union membership, as it is not a requirement to play in the NHL. He chose to remain a member. And by remaining a member as long as he did, no doubt he had an understanding of the NHLPA's structure and bylaws.

As a NHLPA member, Ray also had the option of running for a union executive position with a campaign platform of "Strike Pay for Scabs," but something tells me he wouldn't have been successful.

Ray effectively abdicated his membership by stating and then refusing to retract his intent to cross a picket line. Even though there are no replacement games as of yet, there is still an ongoing lockout. Thus, the picket line exists.

The NHLPA doesn't "owe" Rob Ray a thin dime of lockout pay.
 

loudi94

Master of my Domain
Jul 8, 2003
8,507
1,533
Alberta
Bicycle Repairman said:
Strike pay isn't part of a Standard Players Contract.

The NHLPA has a Strike Fund, from which monies are drawn from. It's strictly a Contingency Fund in the event of a labour dispute for related expenses. Legal fees, travel and hotel costs, for example, are more than likely covered by it.

Issuance of Strike Pay is not automatic, as it is contingent upon sufficient funds. As such, it is not a player income insurance plan. The NHLPA executive (duly elected by their peers) has the authority to set the parameters. Start dates, end dates, amounts, and who qualifies for stipends are all decided upon by the executive with input, of course, from the general membership and legal counsel.

Rob Ray had the option at any point in his career to drop his union membership, as it is not a requirement to play in the NHL. He chose to remain a member. And by remaining a member as long as he did, no doubt he had an understanding of the NHLPA's structure and bylaws.

As a NHLPA member, Ray also had the option of running for a union executive position with a campaign platform of "Strike Pay for Scabs," but something tells me he wouldn't have been successful.

Ray effectively abdicated his membership by stating and then refusing to retract his intent to cross a picket line. Even though there are no replacement games as of yet, there is still an ongoing lockout. Thus, the picket line exists.

The NHLPA doesn't "owe" Rob Ray a thin dime of lockout pay.


If Ray was still paying his dues, he's most likely got a good case. Are there any other similar cases of players being denied their pay.
 

Sammy*

Guest
Bicycle Repairman said:
Strike pay isn't part of a Standard Players Contract.

The NHLPA has a Strike Fund, from which monies are drawn from. It's strictly a Contingency Fund in the event of a labour dispute for related expenses. Legal fees, travel and hotel costs, for example, are more than likely covered by it.

Issuance of Strike Pay is not automatic, as it is contingent upon sufficient funds. As such, it is not a player income insurance plan. The NHLPA executive (duly elected by their peers) has the authority to set the parameters. Start dates, end dates, amounts, and who qualifies for stipends are all decided upon by the executive with input, of course, from the general membership and legal counsel.

Rob Ray had the option at any point in his career to drop his union membership, as it is not a requirement to play in the NHL. He chose to remain a member. And by remaining a member as long as he did, no doubt he had an understanding of the NHLPA's structure and bylaws.

As a NHLPA member, Ray also had the option of running for a union executive position with a campaign platform of "Strike Pay for Scabs," but something tells me he wouldn't have been successful.

Ray effectively abdicated his membership by stating and then refusing to retract his intent to cross a picket line. Even though there are no replacement games as of yet, there is still an ongoing lockout. Thus, the picket line exists.

The NHLPA doesn't "owe" Rob Ray a thin dime of lockout pay.

You too know little or nothing about the law. Ray did not, willingly or otherwise, abdicate his membership. If the Union wanted to boot him out, there are procedures for doing so. They have not dine so.
The whole question is whether he has retired or not.
Frankly, why you even post this drivel clothed as fact I have no idea, cause your post did not respond to anything in my post.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
loudi94 said:
If Ray was still paying his dues, he's most likely got a good case. Are there any other similar cases of players being denied their pay.

Whats the situation with Van Allen, Quintal, Reichel, Renberg, Leschyshyn, Poapst, Carkner, Todd Simpson. Not every player met the guidelines to qualify to receive the money
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
Bicycle Repairman said:
Ray effectively abdicated his membership by stating and then refusing to retract his intent to cross a picket line. Even though there are no replacement games as of yet, there is still an ongoing lockout. Thus, the picket line exists.

This is an honest question: do you have some sort of pathological problem that requires you to be Bob Goodenow's buttboy, to steal a phrase from Tucker Carlson?

The quality of discussion about lockout and union related issues has gone in the toilet here over the past couple of months, and you've been the main man with your foot in the dumper, holding it down.

Ray "effectively abdicated his membership?" What does this even mean? It's meaningless. Did Ray tear up his union card? No, not as far as any of us know. You're allowed to make statements against the union, or question the direction of the organization. If the rules of the NHLPA don't allow the PA to determine that players have retired for the purpose of lockout pay, and don't allow the Executive to exercise discretion in deciding who gets lockout pay and who doesn't, then they're going to have to pay him. They can amend the rules now, but they'll still be on the hook for the previous payments.

Rob Ray can Photoship pictures of Bob Goodenow in bed with a dead boy if he likes-his views and statements are irrelevant, unless the union has something built into it's rules that makes that occurrence reason to kill strike pay, or some other form of discretion.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
I thought the quality of BRs post was quite high. Of all the people to accuse of bringing the quality of discussion down, your obsession with this one poster is awfully curious as you appear quite intelligent. Why did you find that eloquent explanation so inflammatory that a personal attack was warranted. Its becoming obsessive.

Ray effectively abdicated his membership when he said he wasnt likely to ever play again. He has a known antagonsitic history with Goodenow, and his motives seem pretty clear to me.

Bettman can fire a person for leaking a document. Unions can force people to pay membership and still deny them union representation if they go against union wishes. Maybe you dont like it, but this idea that Ray is "owed" this strike fund, when you and I both know he is retired on his bassboat he was given for retiring. He is making a nuisance technicality case in order to hamper the people who have voted to use their strike pay for a collective unified purpose..

He says Goodenow promised that even guys like Rayzor would be covered by the strike fund. Fair enough, maybe he has grievance rights within union guidelines. But then he crossed the unions position and said he wouldnt support them but would become a scab. Then said he was kidding he would never play again. Insisting he should receive strike pay after that seems ridiculous on its face. Only a Bettman would try to make such a case. It seems clear he has abdicated his membership for the purpose of receiving strike pay, and it seems clear any union would take the same position. Just as Bettman would if one of his GMs came out and said he intends to break any cap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David A. Rainer

Registered User
Jun 10, 2002
7,287
1
Huntington Beach
profile.myspace.com
Is the agreement legal? Yes
Does the NHLPA have the right to draft their own internal rules (Bylaws) as they see fit? Yes
Is there consideration for the agreement? Yes, making the stipend a conditional (remember, courts will rarely look at the efficacy of the consideration, merely that there is some sort of consideration or forebearance is sufficient).
Is consideration even required? No, the members can vote to end the stipend so they can also vote to place a condition on the stipend (but there is some question over whether this was voted on, if not, you would have to look at the powers granted the union management)
Why would a player agree to it? Trying to keep the union solid (creating a disincentive to cross)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->