Unofficial 230+ Pages of the CBA [You're Welcome]

[Ted Hoffman]

We're now arguing about the placement of a clause in a paragraph of the CBA.

I get the feeling that the intent is understood among all parties, sort of how in Article 50 there are 2 seemingly contradictory statements about teams exceeding the upper limit due to performance bonuses and the penalties for doing so. Everyone understands what the intent is there and it was covered in the meeting between the league and the 30 teams, so no one can go back and point and say, "but the CBA says ..."

 

[sk84fun_dc]

Kdb209 - I agree the way that clause is written with the "either" makes it seem like it does not apply to all the years, but I still am not willing to say it is clear based on this document or that clause. Choice is to believe a portion of a draft, leaked document or what has been posted on nhl.com all season.

Thanks for the Toskala info; it is hard to follow all the discussions that take place on the individual team boards.

IB - "We're now arguing about the placement of a clause in a paragraph of the CBA" No, we are discussing the interpretation and placement of a clause in a paragraph of a leaked, draft document that has not been finalized, even if this is a draft of the current version. LOL

 

[st5801]

Kind of a random question...but just out of curiosity (and since I don't have the initiative to go through this thing)....does it address the question of how a player's salary is split if he is claimed on re-entry waivers, then waived and sent down again, and then claimed on re-entry by a third team?

 

[Realm]

Could you repeat the part where you said all about ....the things?? -Homer Simpson

 

[Captain Ron]

Kind of a random question...but just out of curiosity (and since I don't have the initiative to go through this thing)....does it address the question of how a player's salary is split if he is claimed on re-entry waivers, then waived and sent down again, and then claimed on re-entry by a third team?

It doesn't get into multiple team waivings....but it does say this...

50.9 (g) (ii) To the extent the Player does require Waivers to be Loaned to a minor league affiliate, he cannot be Loaned or recalled without first clearing regular Waivers, and then cannot be Recalled to the NHL parent Club during the same League Year without also clearing a new Re-Entry Waiver procedure, pursuant to which the Player can be claimed by another NHL Club for fifty (50) percent of the contract's remaining amounts to be paid, with the balance to be paid by and charged to the waiving NHL Club (both amounts to be counted against each Club's Upper Limit, Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary, and counted against the Players' Share);

So the way I understand this ........

team (a) waives a player and then recalls him.......

team (b) picks up the player on Re-Entry waivers and both team (a) and team (b) split the players "remaining" salary 50/50.

then team (b) waives the player and tries to recall him again....

then team (c) picks up the player on Re-Entry waivers and both team (b) and team (c) split the players "remaining" salary 50/50......and so on and so forth

 

[Wetcoaster]

Now I want to personally request for some of the more ignorant members who continue to blame Bettman for certain things, to please read the whole section about the competition committee in Article 22?

Thanks, and please remember that whenever you whine about Bettman ruining the game...

thanks.

You are welcome..... BUT........

Considering that the Competition Committee has just been created as a creature of the new CBA and IIRC has yet to meet, this "ignorant member" will continue to beat on Bettman for letting the game deteriorate over his tenure.

Also there have been reports that the GM's (who previously recommended changes) are infuriated by this change and are actively opposing any progress by the committee.

Stupid Bettman.

 

[Wetcoaster]

So, If I read this - does that make me qualified to be a General Manager?

Really, could I be any worse than Milbury?

Given the fact that most of the GM's never read the prior CBA and were unable to make the salary control mechanisms in that agreement work, reading this CBA would put you miles ahead of most of the GM's.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I still don't understand how they could start the season without much of the CBA finalized and in writing? I understand how the general concepts of the cap, arbitration, ufa ages, etc., could be understood, but how could they feasibly enforce certain minor clauses which weren't finalized or necessarily understood by the start of say, free agency or the season?

And your point would be...............?

To quote "Captain Video" - the late and greatly missed Roger Neilson -

"There are two things you don't want to know in life -- what goes into hot dogs and what goes on in the NHL's New York office."

 

[Wetcoaster]

That is a lot of lawyer talk right there.

Actually it is not even good lawyer talk - they all need to go back for a refresher course on "Plain English Drafting for Lawyers".
http://www.languageandlaw.org/PLAINENGLISH.HTM

This is more poorly drafted than the Canadian Income Tax Act (and that is saying something).

 

[PecaFan]

No, I think the clause reads pretty clearly:

If that last either really was meant to apply to all 4 clauses, (A) thru (D), rather than be included in clause (D), then they would have said "in all cases", rather than "in either case", which implies two cases. Clause (D) by itself has two cases ("seven (7) Accrued Seasons" or "is 27 years of age or older ... "), so the use of either is correct in that context.

I would give more credence to the text of the CBA than the interpretation that some unknown person put up on a FAQ.

That interpretation is probably correct, but remember, we don't really know the source of this document either. It could be a nearly final draft, before last minute edits for consistency, etc. That paragraph may have had only two items in it until a late change, for example.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

IB - "We're now arguing about the placement of a clause in a paragraph of the CBA" No, we are discussing the interpretation and placement of a clause in a paragraph of a leaked, draft document that has not been finalized, even if this is a draft of the current version. LOL

OK - fine, we're arguing about that too. I still find it that it took less than 2 days to have a disagreement about the interpretation of something.

 

[Dr Love]

We're now arguing about the placement of a clause in a paragraph of the CBA.

I get the feeling that the intent is understood among all parties, sort of how in Article 50 there are 2 seemingly contradictory statements about teams exceeding the upper limit due to performance bonuses and the penalties for doing so. Everyone understands what the intent is there and it was covered in the meeting between the league and the 30 teams, so no one can go back and point and say, "but the CBA says ..."

I haven't had a chance to read it over, so I won't weigh in on what I think it says, but if that is the case, then that's really shoddy authoring. An unclear definition of a clause with an intention is what got Major League Baseball all shook up over the Reserve Clause. The owners wrote it with an intention, and the union said "yeah, but that's not what it says" and they won. And that was 30 years ago.

 

[sk84fun_dc]

OK - fine, we're arguing about that too. I still find it that it took less than 2 days to have a disagreement about the interpretation of something.

IB, I understood your point, I was trying to add to the humor of that by noting that it is a draft, leaked, partial document, that was all

back to the debate...

 

[GSC2k2*]

It would be interesting to see gscarpenter (or some other lawyer) pipe in with their opinon on parsing that clause from a legal/contracts POV.


I would give more credence to the text of the CBA than the interpretation that some unknown person put up on a FAQ.

To answer your request, IMO the FAQ is inconsistent with what the quoted
provision says. Your point about the use of "either" is well made, kdp . As well, since clause (A) already includes the 4 year reference, the highlighted wording cannot apply to clauses A to D, since if you applied it to A you would be repeating the 4 year reference.

 

[I am Jack's Fish]

You are welcome..... BUT........

Considering that the Competition Committee has just been created as a creature of the new CBA and IIRC has yet to meet, this "ignorant member" will continue to beat on Bettman for letting the game deteriorate over his tenure.

Also there have been reports that the GM's (who previously recommended changes) are infuriated by this change and are actively opposing any progress by the committee.

Stupid Bettman.

And what reports are these, and where have they been?

And regardign the competition committee, the committee has met before, and part of that was from the "Shanahan summit".

But even under the old CBA, it is the BOARD OF GOVERNERS, as well as the COMPETITION COMMITTEE, that makes and approves all rule changes...

sigh...

 

[GSC2k2*]

You are welcome..... BUT........

Considering that the Competition Committee has just been created as a creature of the new CBA and IIRC has yet to meet, this "ignorant member" will continue to beat on Bettman for letting the game deteriorate over his tenure.

Also there have been reports that the GM's (who previously recommended changes) are infuriated by this change and are actively opposing any progress by the committee.

Stupid Bettman.

Who cares what the GM's think? They lost their little fiefdom. What else would they think?

Again, who cares?

Stupid Goodenow.

 

[Wetcoaster]

And what reports are these, and where have they been?

And regardign the competition committee, the committee has met before, and part of that was from the "Shanahan summit".

But even under the old CBA, it is the BOARD OF GOVERNERS, as well as the COMPETITION COMMITTEE, that makes and approves all rule changes...

sigh...

It hasn't taken long for reaction to the NHL's newly-formed competition committee. And that reaction, from some NHL general managers, has been of the adverse variety.

A number of GMs told TSN said they're "frustrated" and even "angry" at effectively being replaced as the body that recommends rule changes to the NHL board of governors.

"A lot of guys (GMs) aren't happy at all," one GM told TSN. "In fact, they're furious. This competition committee could have been integrated with the GMs, but it looks like it's a replacement type of thing. It's going to be very interesting to see how this dynamic is going to work."

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=129421&hubname=nhl

The Shanahan meeting which had no official status and was held December 7 & 8 2004 prior to the Competition Committee being created under the new CBA.

Brendan Shanahan figured that if they can't play the game, they may as well talk about it.

The Red Wings' forward gathered a handful of players, coaches, broadcasters and other hockey types in a room this week and asked the burning question: When the lockout finally ends, how can NHL hockey be made more exciting and entertaining?

It was a private affair, with no endorsement from the NHL or anywhere else.

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/rules/a/shanahan_plan.htm

The formation of the Competition Committe was announced by Bettman on 22 July 2005 - over 7 months after Shanahan's informal get together. One of the principal recommendations by Shanahan et al was the creation of a permanent competition committee. Unlike the NHL plan with players, GMs' and an owner under the supervision of Colin Campbell, Shanahan wanted coaches and on-ice officials involved as well.

According to the NHL press releases the Committee will meet once a year in the off-season and recommend changes. The current season rule changes were recommended before the Committee was struck and its first meeting is slated for this coming off-season.

sigh........... sigh.........sigh........

 

[Timmy]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=129421&hubname=nhl

The Shanahan meeting which had no official status and was held December 7 & 8 2004 prior to the Competition Committee being created under the new CBA.

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/rules/a/shanahan_plan.htm

The formation of the Competition Committe was announced by Bettman on 22 July 2005 - over 7 months after Shanahan's informal get together. One of the principal recommendations by Shanahan et al was the creation of a permanent competition committee. Unlike the NHL plan with players, GMs' and an owner under the supervision of Colin Campbell, Shanahan wanted coaches and on-ice officials involved as well.

According to the NHL press releases the Committee will meet once a year in the off-season and recommend changes. The current season rule changes were recommended before the Committee was struck and its first meeting is slated for this coming off-season.

sigh........... sigh.........sigh........

Your posts are like sushi. I know they contain things that may be good for me, but I'm still hungry an hour later.

I seriously think you should PM Hockeytown, and do a three-way with the Committee's secretary.

Who knows?


She might like it.













And, of course, it would give you a chance to talk to a girl.

 

[OpinionatedMike]

Thanks for this. Although I won't understand 50% of it, I'll try

Thought this was interesting as I glanced through:

11.17 Currency. All SPCs must provide for compensation in U.S. Currency for Paragraph 1 NHL Salary and Bonuses. Minor League compensation may be in the Native Currency of the NHL Club.

and this:

(iii) The following categories of evidence are inadmissible and shall not be considered by the Salary Arbitrator:
(F) Testimonials, videotapes, newspaper columns, press game reports or similar materials;

 

[Wetcoaster]

Thought this was interesting as I glanced through:

(iii) The following categories of evidence are inadmissible and shall not be considered by the Salary Arbitrator:
(F) Testimonials, videotapes, newspaper columns, press game reports or similar materials;

Pretty much identical to the last CBA which provided:

iii. The following categories of evidence are inadmissible and shall not be considered by the Arbitrator:

5. Testimonials, videotapes, newspaper columns, press game reports or similar materials;

http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/archive/cba/article12.html

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

what does the CBA say regarding Calder consiteration and "pro league" eligibility.
does playing in the AHL in prior seasons or a season count against a player gaining consiteration for the Calder. case in point Marek Svatos before he got hurt.
I was in a group having a discussion on this, There is a feeling that Svatos should not be consitered because of that, because i heard part of the rule that talks about proir "pro league" games played.
I hope I didnt confuse anyone with this question. If anyone can find out what this says in the CBA will be very much appreciated.

thanks

 

[Ted Hoffman]

what does the CBA say regarding Calder consiteration and "pro league" eligibility.
does playing in the AHL in prior seasons or a season count against a player gaining consiteration for the Calder. case in point Marek Svatos before he got hurt.
I was in a group having a discussion on this, There is a feeling that Svatos should not be consitered because of that, because i heard part of the rule that talks about proir "pro league" games played.
I hope I didnt confuse anyone with this question. If anyone can find out what this says in the CBA will be very much appreciated.

thanks

Not in the CBA - this should be addressed at NHL.com somewhere. I think it's a minimum of 25 NHL GP in the current season and under age 28 (the Sergei Makarov rule) to be considered for the Calder; once you crack 25 GP, you're Calder eligible and you can't get it back due to injury or other reason.

 

[sk84fun_dc]

Not in the CBA - this should be addressed at NHL.com somewhere. I think it's a minimum of 25 NHL GP in the current season and under age 28 (the Sergei Makarov rule) to be considered for the Calder; once you crack 25 GP, you're Calder eligible and you can't get it back due to injury or other reason.

close; "To be eligible for the award, a player cannot have played more than 25 games in any single preceding season nor in six or more games in each of any two preceding seasons in any major professional league. The player must not be older than 26 years before September 15 of the season in which he is eligible."


http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/history/trophies/calder.html

 

[kdb209]

what does the CBA say regarding Calder consiteration and "pro league" eligibility.
does playing in the AHL in prior seasons or a season count against a player gaining consiteration for the Calder. case in point Marek Svatos before he got hurt.
I was in a group having a discussion on this, There is a feeling that Svatos should not be consitered because of that, because i heard part of the rule that talks about proir "pro league" games played.
I hope I didnt confuse anyone with this question. If anyone can find out what this says in the CBA will be very much appreciated.

thanks

The CBA says absolutely nothing about the Calder (other than it probably being among the allowable Exhibit 5 Bonuses for ELS contracts).

The Calder (and the other major trophies) are awarded by the NHL and the league determines the eligibility requirements. The current criteria for the Calder is:

http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/history/trophies/calder.html

To be eligible for the award, a player cannot have played more than 25 games in any single preceding season nor in six or more games in each of any two preceding seasons in any major professional league. The player must not be older than 26 years before September 15 of the season in which he is eligible

The "major professional league" does not include any of the European leagues. Peter Forsberg won the Calder after playing 4 full years in the SEL. In fact, the NHL is the only league considered "major professional". IIRC, that term was added to the Calder qualifications to exclude players coming from the old WHA.

 

[kdb209]

Bumping up this thread with a humble request to make it a Sticky.

Also to echo the offer I made on the Sharks forum - skk_82, if you show up at the Shark Tank, the beer's on me.