Morning all:
Checking in, and thought this "nugget" included in the Lawsuit filed by the NHL yesterday, would be of interest.
I'll paste it below; interpret as you see fit obviously:
The Lawsuit contains a request made by the NHL that says if the judgment rules that a disclaimer of interest or decertification by the NHLPA is ultimately found to be valid, then all standard player contracts signed under the previous CBA would be void and unenforceable.
“In the absence of a valid CBA or collective bargaining relationship, the provisions of the NHL SPCs will no longer have any force of effect,” the lawsuit reads.
So, basically, everybody becomes a free agent in that scenario. Would be wild, no? Plus, would mean that Players have no basis to claim damages, since they wouldn't be under Contract.
Other points of interest in the lawsuit:
-- According to the lawsuit, the NHL has produced more than 200,000 pages of NHL and team financial information to the NHLPA, “documents relating to officiating records and broadcast contracts, and other highly confidential and proprietary information of the League.”
-- In case you lost track, the lawsuit breaks down all the CBA offers made between both sides: “... the NHL made oral and/or written proposals on July 13, July 25, July 31, August 28, October 16 and November 8 and the NHLPA made oral and/or written proposals on August 14, August 23, August 28, September 12, October 18, November 7 and November 21."
-- What monopoly? The league argues that professional hockey leagues in Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and other European countries are “viable substitutes for the NHL, as evidenced by the fact that NHL players routinely elect to play in a European league instead of in the NHL.” The league points out that there are currently more than 100 NHL players in Europe and that 400 players played in Europe during the last lockout. “For this reason, the impact of the NHL lockout on the market for the services of professional hockey players is minimal.”
The lawsuit cites everything from local radio and newspaper interviews to comments from player Twitter accounts. It’s clear that the NHL has been watching.
It would be an uphill battle (to void all the contracts), and I doubt the courts would go for it, however I see the logic. Those contracts were signed in cap/escrow system. They need it to determine actual pay. No system means it can't work.
I read the lawsuit, and I found a lot of it to be fluff.
Like most of the quotes from this part:
A lot of those "quotes" were simply players saying the option of decertification is present. Which is something we all knew from the get-go.
As a hockey fan I think the NHL has horribly over estimated their leverage position. On one hand they are asking the courts to block the players right to disband the NHLPA and on the other hand they are asking for all players contracts to be null and void because of a lockout action they took. The only possible saving grace for the NHL is they filed the lawsuit first in a state that tends to be employer friendly.
Morning Fast427SC et al:
Realize you support the Players, which is fine, BUT believe you are misinterpreting the Lawsuit. The NHL is asking that the Court rule the Lockout "legal" and block the "disclaimer of interest". HOWEVER, they ask, IF THE COURT FINDS AGAINST THEM, AND ALLOWS THE DISCLAIMER OF INTEREST, then the League requests that all Player Contracts be Voided.
It actually sort of makes sense, since without the Cap and Escrow System, it would be virtually impossible to determine what is owed under each Player Contract.
An additional interesting/amusing point the League raises, related to this, is that under the Expired CBA, which governed all SPc's (Standard Player Contracts), TOTAL Player Compensation is limited to 57% of HRR, and since the League isn't playing Games, there are no HRR, thus no monies due Players.
This approach, whether ultimately successful or not, CERTAINLY "raises the risk" for Players to go the Disclaimer route; so probably a good move by Proskauer, Rose LLC.
Also, as an aside, the League's suit somewhat shows the "downside" of allowing Players to speak to the press; a number of their Comments are used as 'evidence" that the Disclaimer is being used as an illegal "bargaining ploy":
The complaint points out that Buffalo Sabres goalie Ryan Miller told the Globe and Mailon Nov. 22 that the NHLPA intended to use decertification as "push back" in order to get "real movement" from the NHL. The complaint quotes NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr as saying: "You can look at what's happened in other sports and make your own judgment (about NHLPA decertification.)"
NHL free agent Chris Campoli, a regular on the NHLPA bargaining team, is quoted as telling ESPN on Dec. 7 that decertification "is the obvious answer."
Vancouver goaltender and NHLPA negotiating committee member Cory Schneider is cited as telling the Vancouver Sun in November: "The appetite for decertification is much stronger than it was before. ... As players, one of the only options we have to really apply a little pressure on them and show them that we're serious is to decertify. . . . We've seen that the only way the other leagues got a deal done was that the unions decertified or started the process."
----------------------------------------------
Be amusing to watch how this plays out.
No chance that a court would retroactively void a contract negotiated under a previous CBA - certainly not in Canada. That CBA was negotiated and agreed to by both parties freely a number of years ago and actions taken now cannot affect that. Lawyers can throw all kinds of garbage into a lawsuit, and do. There is zero credence to this request, and it certainly is nothing more than a bit of fluff to firghten the players.
Lots of words I'd use to describe what's gone on since September 15.
Amusing is not one of them though.
Miltonred wrote:
Pretty sure the courts would agree that because there's no CBA or games played the players don't get paid. Doesn't mean everyone gets to become a free agent.
A lot of the star players have these long term, back-sliding deals that they have no intention of finishing, can the NHL use these ones in court to show that the players have signed contracts they have no intention of honouring. If they can't get all contracts voided is this something they can leverage against the union?
For me, it is plainly obvious that decertification is nothing other than a negotiating strategy to force the owners hands. Anyone with an ounce of reason will acknowledge that if the league were to cave as a result, the NHLPA would reform almost immediately. I have found it difficult to believe that players could successul anti-trust lawsuits on the league once they decertify because at that point, they would have ceased being players of this league, their contracts would be void and they would become free agents, free to sign and play with any club they choose.
It's only logical that contracts, signed under a CBA (expired at this point), which is under an arrangement with a union that now no longer exists, can be deemed null and void. The structures of the deal no longer existing, how can the contracts be enforced? Will it go there? Not sure. Are the owners' demands valid if the union decertifies? Sure. Will a judge see it that way? That's the beauty/subjectivity of the legal system. Nobody knows -- YET! The beauty/drama beyond that is that, even if the judge of first instance, in all their subjectivity, saw the facts amounting to a yay or a nay, an appeal can lead to an exact opposite decision from another/other judge(s).
The legal route is a complete waste of time as the power gets taken away from both the owners and players, with a third party dictating, always with some bias cammouflaged as interpretation of the facts, the rules of the game. The end result not only is difficult to predict, it can also lead to a totally different can of worms that either or both parties anticipated. Also, that route is both harduous and very long....
If this thing goes to court, both sides deserve the angst and misery that goes along with it. As for fans, as usual, nobody cares...
LArider wrote:
Hey LA,
Thanks for the reply
A couple of points; the Disclaimer of interest is simply about Fehr and his ability to negotiate a resolution to this impasse, he is basically saying, I did my best but I cannot get the NHL to bargain in a fair and reasonable manner, so guys vote me (the NHLPA) out. the comments of select players is just noise.
The NHL clearly see's this as a threat to their position, from the very first offer has been hostile and inflexible. I think the fact the NHL executives did not show up to the 3rd set of mediation's was foreshadowing, Gary knew this disclaimer was coming.
Fehr did every thing by the book, he asked for mediation 3 times, he was always positive in the press conferences, one could safely say his positive attitude was overboard, you could tell that he was always working towards this day but he was doing what he had to do so when he got to court he could say, here is my check lists of things I did to bargain in good faith and the NHL refused to bargain in good faith, with multiple take it or leave it offers and taking offers off the table, not showing up to mediation, offering an extremely low ball anchoring deal, etc.
The comments of Miller and other players are not a reflection on Fehr, IMO will be dismissed in court, If Millers comments are admissible to show the attitude the NHLPA took during negotiation then Red Wings Senior VP Jim Devellano's 'cattle' comments, surely would be admissible as well, to show owner collusion..
One could argue that the reckless and premature actions of the owners locking out the players is the reason why there is no HRR. Fehr has said multiple times, that the players are ready and willing to show up at anytime and play hockey but the League is not allowing them to work.
I cant say I'm suprised considering both sides have legal counsel that specializes in labor relations.
I'm not so much pro players as I am anti-bully, I'm actually anti-union in my daily life.
It's your take, from a player's POV. I'm sure the owners will try to demonstrate stalling tactics from Fehr's group resulting in the beginning of negotiations at too late a date to be able to start the season without an agreement πn place. Explaining that the salary payout structure in the NHL gave extreme leverage to the players if negotiations took place during the season (with a threat of a strike just prior to the playoffs once the players had all been paid and - ironically - the bulk of the league revenue was about to be made).
Either way, it'll be a whiny game of he did/she did which some judge will have to wrap an OPINION around. I say opinion because anyone who claims that strictly the facts, jurisprudence, etc. lead to a decision must be on acid. Those things are just fodder to settle the decision within a context and often uses trumped up theses to justify the decision....
Only reason there is no HRR is because the players are locked out. Since it was the Owners who locked out the players i don't see how the courts would take that into affect.
I am curious to see how the players comments affect how this plays out though, i think it was poor judgment letting them speak there mind because some of the comments the players
have made and are making won't help the court case.
i'd hate to be the judge dealing with this case.
I was not aware we had so many lawyers on this forum. Next time I have legal issues I won't be paying someone thousands of dollars I'll get the people here(as they are very helpful) to represent me.