Confirmed with Link: Kovalchuk Retires/Quits To Russia (Part 4)

[apice3*]

If you're going on a condescending rant, I'll reply to the part I actually read.

You're also incorrect - I know, what a shocker, eh? You don't have to agree to the CBA or be a member of the NHLPA to play in the NHL. Every player contract is subject to the rules, but you certainly don't have to agree to it.

I'm pretty sure when a player signs an NHL contract, they're agreeing to the CBA.

They may not literally agree with it, but legally they do.

For example, I'm in a union where I work. One policy I don't agree with is the concept of seniority. But by signing my union forms and showing up to work, I'm formally agreeing the rules outlined by the company and my union, even if I don't morally believe in it.

 

[DevilChuk*]

Where are the moderators? I was just trying to inform this thread how contracts actually work. As it seems lots of you think that if the Devils suspended Kovy he won't be playing in the KHL next season which isn't true at all.

I will try one last time.
Fact #1: The KHL and NHL have a MOU that acts as a transfer agreement, restricting both parties from signing players under contract by the other party
Fact #2: If the KHL breaks this agreement, the NHL can poach their players again

Fact #3: The IIHF operates the KHL
Fact #4: The IIHF has to sign off on every single player who plays in the KHL
Fact #5: The IIHF has a lot to lose by pissing off the NHL

 

[DevilChuk*]

If you're going on a condescending rant, I'll reply to the part I actually read.

You're also incorrect - I know, what a shocker, eh? You don't have to agree to the CBA or be a member of the NHLPA to play in the NHL. Every player contract is subject to the rules, but you certainly don't have to agree to it.

Member of the NHLPA, no. But to play in the NHL, you have to agree to be governed by the rules in the CBA.. which is exactly what I was getting at. You are de facto agreeing to the CBA.

http://www.nhlpa.com/inside-nhlpa/collective-bargaining-agreement

The Agreement sets out the terms and conditions of employment of all professional hockey players playing in the NHL as well as the respective rights of the NHL Clubs, the NHL and the NHLPA.

 

[Cowbell232]

I'm pretty sure when a player signs an NHL contract, they're agreeing to the CBA.

They may not literally agree with it, but legally they do.

For example, I'm in a union where I work. One policy I don't agree with is the concept of seniority. But by signing my union forms and showing up to work, I'm formally agreeing the rules outlined by the company and my union, even if I don't morally believe in it.

Nope, if they aren't NHLPA members - which they aren't obligated to be - they aren't agreeing to the CBA. The teams just can't sign any contracts that goes against it. The player has nothing to do with it.

 

[apice3*]

Nope, if they aren't NHLPA members - which they aren't obligated to be - they aren't agreeing to the CBA. The teams just can't sign any contracts that goes against it. The player has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough.

But how many players in the league are non NHLPA members? And 17 was most definitely an NHLPA member which was the point of the discussion.

 

[Cowbell232]

Member of the NHLPA, no. But to play in the NHL, you have to agree to be governed by the rules in the CBA.. which is exactly what I was getting at. You are de facto agreeing to the CBA.

http://www.nhlpa.com/inside-nhlpa/collective-bargaining-agreement

No, you are not "de facto agreeing". And trying to sound like a lawyer doesn't make your argument any more sound.

To play in the NHL, your CONTRACT must adhere to the rules of the CBA because of the team. You, as a player, do not have to agree to single word of it.

 

[Cowbell232]

Fair enough.

But how many players in the league are non NHLPA members? And 17 was most definitely an NHLPA member which was the point of the discussion.

AFAIK, last time I tried to look it up... Zero.

And the reason is that the team has to dock your pay equal to the union dues because you still get the "benefits" of the CBA like hotel room rules, per diems, etc. So it doesn't make sense to essentially being taxed with representation?

Edit: But I think that it also can't be publicly known who is in the union or not, as a worker protection law.

 

[apice3*]

So then for all intents in purposes, every player in the NHL agreed to the CBA when signing their union papers.

 

[DevilChuk*]

The NHL defines a Player (the term they use throughout the CBA) as:

a hockey player who is party to an SPC, a Rookie, Unsigned
Draft Choices, and Free Agents.

Also, I found this old SPC (may or may not be up to date):
http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/cba_agreement32.asp

18. The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by the Constitution and By-Laws of the
League 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 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 Contract is entered into subject to the Collective
Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA and any
provisions of this Contract inconsistent with such Collective
Bargaining Agreement are superseded by the provisions of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

[Cowbell232]

So then for all intents in purposes, every player in the NHL agreed to the CBA when signing their union papers.

I added an updated edit, because I'm not sure that we legally could know if anyone was not a union member.

The NHL defines a Player (the term they use throughout the CBA) as:


Also, I found this old SPC (may or may not be up to date):
http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/cba_agreement32.asp

They use the word very broadly in their CBA definitions then. Because a player in a contract is vastly different from an unsigned draft choice aren't they? They just include every possible definition for readability. All Devils fans know there is a difference between the 'letter of the law' of the CBA and the intent of it.

 

[DevilChuk*]

I added an updated edit, because I'm not sure that we legally could know if anyone was not a union member.



They use the word very broadly in their CBA definitions then. Because a player in a contract is vastly different from an unsigned draft choice aren't they? They just include every possible definition for readability. All Devils fans know there is a difference between the 'letter of the law' of the CBA and the intent of it.

The point is, as I said earlier, all players are governed by the CBA whether they want to or not.

And again, the SPC I posted clearly shows they agree to any CBA between the NHL and PA (so you're right, they don't de facto agree.. they 100% agree).

 

[Cowbell232]

The point is, as I said earlier, all players are governed by the CBA whether they want to or not.

And again, the SPC I posted clearly shows they agree to any CBA between the NHL and PA (so you're right, they don't de facto agree.. they 100% agree).

Again, I'm being an ******* and using a serious technicality. The TEAM must agree that all contracts adhere to the CBA. The player does not.

A player DOES NOT have to be an NHLPA member to play in the NHL. That is very, very clearly laid out in the CBA as well.

Edit: You know how before contracts are signed both parties are "working out the details" and there's lots of new wordings and stuff since the new CBA was signed. The CBA really just lays out minimums in terms of non-monetary items, such as age/year limits on when players don't need to share hotel rooms and that kind of thing. Not every contract has to adhere to the CBA exactly...

 

[DevilChuk*]

Again, I'm being an ******* and using a serious technicality. The TEAM must agree that all contracts adhere to the CBA. The player does not.

A player DOES NOT have to be an NHLPA member to play in the NHL. That is very, very clearly laid out in the CBA as well.

I've said that multiple times now as well..

The player very clearly agrees to the CBA when he signs his SPC. I'm not sure how you can read that line any differently considering it uses the word agree.

 

[manilaNJ]

bah. I confused myself as to what this was actually about.
Before I get wrapped up in this: nevermind.

 

[DevilChuk*]

Edit: You know how before contracts are signed both parties are "working out the details" and there's lots of new wordings and stuff since the new CBA was signed. The CBA really just lays out minimums in terms of non-monetary items, such as age/year limits on when players don't need to share hotel rooms and that kind of thing. Not every contract has to adhere to the CBA exactly...

It says in the CBA that no contracts can go below the minimums described in the CBA and individual players/agents can negotiate further benefits.. so that is technically adhering to the CBA.

The NHL never published the SPC as an exhibit in the new CBA but I cannot imagine it varies much from the one I posted in which a player explicitly agrees to be bound by the CBA.

 

[DevilChuk*]

I found another copy of the SPC in the 2005 CBA: http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf

Exhibit 1 if you want to read it. Unsure why the new CBA doesn't have exhibits attached

Anyways, it has the same exact clause in which the player signing the SPC agrees to be legally bound by the CBA.

Incidentally, there is also a clause in there that states a player cannot engage in any other sport while legally bound by the SPC so if Kovalchuk had wanted to retire and play in the MLB, the Devils would have been able to toll his contract and block that as well.

Also gets into what happens if the team defaults which is interesting/relevant stuff that I'm going to read later tonight.

 

[Cowbell232]

Incidentally, there is also a clause in there that states a player cannot engage in any other sport while legally bound by the SPC so if Kovalchuk had wanted to retire and play in the MLB, the Devils would have been able to toll his contract and block that as well.

I think you're misunderstanding what that means. I don't think it's so much as they could "block" him, because they couldn't. But what they could do is prevent him from ever returning to the NHL or dissolve his contract so that they have no legal responsibility to pay him or anything like that...

 

[Richer's Ghost]

2. The Player agrees to give his services and to play hockey in all NHL Games, All Star Games, International Hockey Games and Exhibition Games to the best of his ability under the direction and control of the Club in accordance with the provisions hereof.
The Player further agrees,

(a) to report to his Club's Training Camp at the time and place fixed by the Club, in
good physical condition,
(b) to keep himself in good physical condition at all times during the season,
(c) to give his best services to the Club and to play hockey only for the Club unless
his SPC is Assigned, Loaned or terminated by the Club,
(d) to co-operate with the Club and participate in any and all reasonable promotional
activities of the Club which will in the opinion of the Club promote the welfare of the Club and
to cooperate in the promotion of the League and professional hockey generally,
(e) to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of
honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally.

That's the standard language for a SPC. As soon as he began talking to the KHL about ducking out of the NHL contract, he violated this portion.

He also violated this portion

19. The Club and the Player represent and warrant that there are no undisclosed agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written and that there are no promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, supplements or understandings of any kind between the Player or his Certified Agent and the Club that have not been disclosed to the NHL, with regard to: (i) any consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available during the term of the SPC or thereafter; and/or (ii) and future renegotiation, extension, amendment or termination of this SPC.

The NHL voided this contract AFTER the fact of his "retirement" which was purely to escape the SPC and play elsewhere. That is not only a violation of this agreement but easily could be argued circumvention of the CBA on his part.

Illegal by contract law.

 

[Richer's Ghost]

I found another copy of the SPC in the 2005 CBA: http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf

.

http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/PDF/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

pages 310+ for the SPC

 

[DevilChuk*]

I think you're misunderstanding what that means. I don't think it's so much as they could "block" him, because they couldn't. But what they could do is prevent him from ever returning to the NHL or dissolve his contract so that they have no legal responsibility to pay him or anything like that...

Could be, only noticed it at a glance.

Full paragraph:

The Player and the Club recognize and agree that the Player's participation in other sports may impair or destroy his ability and skill as a hockey Player. Accordingly the Player agrees that he will not during the period of this SPC or during any period when he is obligated under this SPC to enter into a further SPC with the Club engage or participate in football, baseball, softball, hockey, lacrosse, boxing, wrestling or other athletic sport without the written consent of the Club, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld.

I gotta think any good lawyer can get other leagues to block him, only really talking about American leagues here though.

Did you see the part about agreeing to the CBA? I myself had not realized they explicitly did so but it's in a standard SPC.

Also:

10. The Player agrees he will not tamper with or enter into negotiations with any Player under SPC or reservation to any Club of the League for or regarding such Player's current or future services, without the written consent of the Club with which such Player is connected under penalty of a fine to be imposed by the Commissioner of the League.

wtf Zach.

 

[DevilChuk*]

http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/PDF/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

pages 310+ for the SPC

Ah cool, thanks. I had been using the NHLPA's link to the new CBA that doesn't include the exhibits.

 

[apice3*]

Edit: But I think that it also can't be publicly known who is in the union or not, as a worker protection law.

The easy way to do it would be to see who's in NHL13 and who's not.

MVP Baseball 2005 only used union players. Barry Bonds and Kevin Millar were replaced players named John Dowd and Anthony Friese. Dowd and Friese were fictional characters. Their attributes were parallel (Dowd was the best hitter in the game) and they played the same positions, on the same teams, batting in the same order. The only thing that was different was their name and their appearance. Dowd was a skinny white dude, Friese was a skinny black dude with an orange beard.

As far as I know, every player in the league is in NHL13.

 

[njdevils1982]

The easy way to do it would be to see who's in NHL13 and who's not.

MVP Baseball 2005 only used union players. Barry Bonds and Kevin Millar were replaced players named John Dowd and Anthony Friese. Dowd and Friese were fictional characters. Their attributes were parallel (Dowd was the best hitter in the game) and they played the same positions, on the same teams, batting in the same order. The only thing that was different was their name and their appearance. Dowd was a skinny white dude, Friese was a skinny black dude with an orange beard.

As far as I know, every player in the league is in NHL13.

i dont know why im thinking this but.......didnt they switch the side that 'fake bonds' hits also? seems to ring a bell to me.

 

[indfin]

If you're going on a condescending rant, I'll reply to the part I actually read.

You're also incorrect - I know, what a shocker, eh? You don't have to agree to the CBA or be a member of the NHLPA to play in the NHL. Every player contract is subject to the rules, but you certainly don't have to agree to it.

One doesn't have to agree WITH everything in the CBA (i.e., you can think some provisions are unfair, stupid, etc.). I am sure most/all of the players (even those who voted in favor of it, which I believe was the overwhelming majority) have issues with specific provisions (or at the least would prefer them to be different). HOWEVER, by signing the standard player contract to play in the NHL you ARE agreeing to LIVE by the terms of the CBA (ALL of them, even the ones with which you might disagree).

 

[apice3*]

i dont know why im thinking this but.......didnt they switch the side that 'fake bonds' hits also? seems to ring a bell to me.

I don't think so. They might have, I don't really remember.