Sportsnet/Fan590( "NO formal/official proposal")

[buce]

thank god.... now i'm angry because the local media in Columbus reported the NHLPA rejected an offer and that Saskin made a statement

Semantics. No an official proposal was not provided. What was given was a framework for a proposal...which was rejected by the NHLPA. Ted Saskin then made a statement saying that there are still philosophical differences. Whether it was a written formal proposal or a verbal framework, it really doesn't matter. There was a concept discussed and it was rejected. Game over

 

[GKJ]

If there's no offer, there's is nothing to reject.


I find the fact that the PA wasted no time in rejecting a supposed proposal. That's why I beleive there wasn't an actual proposal last night and this is all just a bunch of people throwing everything into a confusion because if there ends up being a season, everyone looks like heroes.

 

[Buffaloed]

There's no point in calling in the $300 per hour lawyers to draft a formal offer unless the basic concepts can be agreed upon. A CBA is just a contract. There can't be an offer until the two sides agree in principle.

 

[gobuds]

Here is the funniest part: Both sides have done their best to run and hide from the media- however- each would be totally f!@##@$#@ed if the media did what it should have done in september, namely told the PA and league, we are not covering any talks, discussions, cancelations etc. call us when it is over! Truth is each side plays to the media, then tries to run from it- truth is can't have it both ways....Call the season already. Time for spring training.

 

[WhoozYerrDaddy]

Yahoo news is reporting crazy stuff too.

THERE'S a surprise....


<sigh>


Daddy

 

[GKJ]

Howard Berger and Doug Armstrong will join FAN 590 in due time today.

 

[Greschner4]

At some point the league is going to make an offer that can serve as a "final offer" legally that the league would use as the terms of employment when it opens its doors for business next September. The only question is whether there was such an offer last night, and whether that offer was the league's "final" one.

 

[GKJ]

What happens come July 1st with RFA?

Nothing. No CBA means there's no contract to abide by. Anyone who is a would-be free agent this season is not until there is a new collective bargaining agreement.

 

[GKJ]

So if a new CBA is signed say August which I highly doubt, Jarome Iginla is still a restricted Calgary Flame?

everything still gets moved a year back. If in August a deal is signed and Iginla's contract ran out on July 1, 2005 his contract is now up July 1, 2006 (which I don't understand, if the contract is only signed until July 1, 2005 and the owners lockout the players, that's their loss.) he can't neogeotiate with anyone anyways.

 

[futurcorerock]

Yeah... well known now, but at 7 in the morning as you wake up, reading the sports section you'd last expect to read "Players Reject Latest Proposal"

 

[Levitate]

everything still gets moved a year back. If in August a deal is signed and Iginla's contract ran out on July 1, 2005 his contract is now up July 1, 2006 (which I don't understand, if the contract is only signed until July 1, 2005 and the owners lockout the players, that's their loss.) he can't neogeotiate with anyone anyways.

i've heard the other way a lot actually (unless i'm not understanding what you're saying)

i've heard a lot that this year is counting against all player contracts...if a player had 1 year left on his contract (this year) and the lockout takes out this season but a CBA is signed for next season...then that player will have to be resigned

if a player had a 4 year deal, it's now has 3 years left after this one, etc.

i've heard it said this way quite a bit really, i don't pretend to understand how it all works out for sure though

 

[Morbo]

everything still gets moved a year back. If in August a deal is signed and Iginla's contract ran out on July 1, 2005 his contract is now up July 1, 2006 (which I don't understand, if the contract is only signed until July 1, 2005 and the owners lockout the players, that's their loss.) he can't neogeotiate with anyone anyways.

Not true.

 

[Sammy*]

i've heard the other way a lot actually (unless i'm not understanding what you're saying)

i've heard a lot that this year is counting against all player contracts...if a player had 1 year left on his contract (this year) and the lockout takes out this season but a CBA is signed for next season...then that player will have to be resigned

if a player had a 4 year deal, it's now has 3 years left after this one, etc.

i've heard it said this way quite a bit really, i don't pretend to understand how it all works out for sure though

\
Thats the way it is except in a few limited cases like Owen Nolan. In his case he apparently gets a year tacked on if their is a work stoppage for a year. Apparently, this caused quite the hullabaloo with the NHL who wanted to strike that clause but ultimatly either caved on it or lost before an arbitrator (I think).

 

[mooseOAK*]

\
Thats the way it is except in a few limited cases like Owen Nolan. In his case he apparently gets a year tacked on if their is a work stoppage for a year. Apparently, this caused quite the hullabaloo with the NHL who wanted to strike that clause but ultimatly either caved on it or lost before an arbitrator (I think).

The league let it go or was forced to but barred similar contracts in the future when other players tried the same thing.

 

[Greschner4]

Nothing. No CBA means there's no contract to abide by. Anyone who is a would-be free agent this season is not until there is a new collective bargaining agreement.

Unless the league declares an impasse before then, in which case the status of RFAs would be governed by the league's final offer.

 

[TruGr1t]

i've heard the other way a lot actually (unless i'm not understanding what you're saying)

i've heard a lot that this year is counting against all player contracts...if a player had 1 year left on his contract (this year) and the lockout takes out this season but a CBA is signed for next season...then that player will have to be resigned

if a player had a 4 year deal, it's now has 3 years left after this one, etc.

i've heard it said this way quite a bit really, i don't pretend to understand how it all works out for sure though

Yah the way I interpreted it unless the player has a Nolan-type clause this year IS counting towards contracts. For example Naslund would have been on his last year of his contract this year and if the season is lost I gather he might just stay in Sweden as he has no obligation to come back seeing as how he has now lost that year of contract status. I don't see why the Nolan clause would be such a big deal if this weren't the case.