Re: NHL turns down latest NHLPA proposal
posted at 11/22/2012 9:28 AM EST
In response to biggskye's comment:
Did some digging, and managed to find this article...
The Cult of Hockey @ The Edmonton Journal
Do you realize that the fate of this NHL season depends on a phantom issue?
Yes. Itâs most unfortunate, but thatâs how it is.
What seems to be the main stumbling block? Why, the idea that the owners have to honour player contracts signed under the rule of the previous collective bargaining agreement.
The strangest thing is the league doesnât really even have to entertain this idea, never mind make any offers to make players âwhole,â as the legalistic description has it.
As mentioned in an earlier column regarding the Russian playersâ empty threats, their contracts were all written, agreed to and signed under the previous collective bargaining agreement, the one that expired Sept. 15.
Why are their threats of not coming back if they were to lose a single kopeck (or cent, your pick) empty? Simply because the CBA that their own union, the NHLPA, had agreed to, says so.
It says so in Paragraph 18 thus:
â18. The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by the League Rules and by any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA, and by all of the terms and provisions thereof, copies of which shall be open and available for inspection by the Club, its directors and officers, and the Player, at the main office of the League, the main office of the Club, and the main office of the NHLPA. This SPC is entered into subject to the CBA between the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this SPC inconsistent with such CBA are superseded by the provisions of the CBA.â
And, of course, come to think of it, this particular paragraph not only makes the Russian playersâ threats empty, it makes the entire brouhaha about honouring contracts perfectly moot. Not even worthy of academic debate.
Unfair? Why? Canât the players read whatâs written in their contracts, except for the figures signifying their salaries and bonuses? Has anyone been forcing them to play in the NHL or else?
Sooo, is this actually saying that there's a possibility that a signed contract can be altered if there's a change in the CBA?
If that's the case & if this was the gameplan the NHL had all along. I'll reiterate what I said weeks ago. If the NHL had no intentions of honoring these signed contracts then they should've without a doubt cancelled this past years Free agency!That would've shown some trust from the owners stand point. The other side of the coin is that the players can't really be upset about a document that says that signed contracts could be changed. The players signed agreeing to that possibility.