Which makes sense from a legal standpoint. The players voted to have the Union walk away so they didnt have to, which is what the league said was bargaining with bad faith, which is a major part of one of the lawsuits.
Confirmed with Link: Lockout VI - Game On! Rejoice! Players to vote Saturday.
- Thread starter Warden of the North
- Start date
Which makes sense from a legal standpoint. The players voted to have the Union walk away so they didnt have to, which is what the league said was bargaining with bad faith, which is a major part of one of the lawsuits.
Bomber0104
Registered User
Thank you.
I think I understand this. Less organized and premeditated because it is being used as a negotiating tactic before the deadline for a feasible season to be held by the NHL. I'm not brushed up in legal terminology but it's almost fraudulent I guess.
ULF_55
Moderator
The contracts very clearly stated that they will fall under the rules and regulations of a new cba.
It's writtin in the actual contracts!!!!!
So how are they not being honoured? They're simply following precisely what the contracts say.
If the players didn't like the contract, they shouldn't have signed it.
Bomber0104
Registered User
We were talking about the legalities of disclaiming interest before the deadline for an NHL season to be held (probably in the next week or so?).
Not the contracts.
Ulf was talking about nhl contracts in his last post.
That's the post that I responded to.
I think the whole disclaiming of interest thing was just a bluff from the get go.
Bomber0104
Registered User
He was making an analogy to the process of using the threat of a disclaimer of interest not as a serious legal option but as a negotiating tactic to spurn action from the other side...ergo...negotiating in bad faith.
Like signing a contract you have no intention of honoring...you're threatening to dissolve a union not to really go through with it (only to resolve it shortly after...) but to force action on the other party.
This is fraud.
You're correct in my opinion that Fehr was full of **** from the get go about disclaiming.
CreeksideStrangler
Registered User
Dwight K Schrute
Registered User
Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
Player source says pa did not file disclaimer. No official word from pa.
Player source says pa did not file disclaimer. No official word from pa.
trellaine201
Registered User
Bomber0104
Registered User
I think it is just negotiations, really.
Fehr acts on behalf of a collective union.
Bettman acts on behalf of a collective union.
They both do their math.
They both do their homework.
They both know their economics.
Fehr and Bettman aren't rouge agents.
p.l.f.
use the force
p.l.f.
use the force
NHL-NHLPA will meet later today, but not yet. NHLPA holding internal meetings this morning.
Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun 21m
Another detail emerging: NHL has upped its compliance buyout offer to 2 per team, up from 1 prior to 2013-14 season.
does this mean we could buyout 2 players ? (connolly and lombardi)
Another detail emerging: NHL has upped its compliance buyout offer to 2 per team, up from 1 prior to 2013-14 season.
does this mean we could buyout 2 players ? (connolly and lombardi)
Erndog
Registered User
- Jul 17, 2007
- 4,099
- 1,543
NHLPA will meet later today, but not yet. NHLPA holding internal meetings this morning.
Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun 21m
Another detail emerging: NHL has upped its compliance buyout offer to 2 per team, up from 1 prior to 2013-14 season.
does this mean we could buyout 2 players ? (connolly and lombardi)
Why would we buy out guys who are UFA's in 6 months? And the cap is $70M.
Next year when the cap drops to $60M (or whatever) we should remove Komisarek.
So buy out Komi.
It SUCKS that we used a buyout on Armstrong this summer and have his $1M on the cap for the next 2 years. Ah well, nobody knew there would be 2 compliance buyouts.
p.l.f.
use the force
i would by out all 3
then spend what ever is under the cap to get something better
Rare Jewel
Patience
NHL-NHLPA will meet later today, but not yet. NHLPA holding internal meetings this morning.
Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun 21m
Another detail emerging: NHL has upped its compliance buyout offer to 2 per team, up from 1 prior to 2013-14 season.
does this mean we could buyout 2 players ? (connolly and lombardi)
Well then.
Obviously benefits the teams as much as the players cause GM's won't have to tear their teams apart as much to get under the cap.
Interesting if true.
p.l.f.
use the force
i think mr bettman wants it down to 60mil cap
so allowing the teams to buyout more plentiful makes sense at least for the teams
as for the players....
so allowing the teams to buyout more plentiful makes sense at least for the teams
as for the players....
Last edited:
p.l.f.
use the force
According to Sportnet's Michael Grange, the NHL has agreed to allow teams two compliance buyouts per team, as well as a maximum year-to-year variance "in the 20 percent range" on long-term contracts.
In previous NHL proposals they were offering just one compliance buyout per team, and a maximum variance that ranged anywhere from 5 to 10 percent.
Elliotte Friedman added to that report with the news that the players made a concession of their own and that the buyouts would not count against the salary cap, but will still be taken out of the players' share of hockey related revenue.
Among the biggest issues that still remain are the league's proposed $60 million salary cap for the 2013-14 season, player pension, and contract term limit.
The second buyout would be huge for teams that would need to trim salary in year two of the deal if the cap were to drop down to the proposed $60 million level. There are currently 11 teams that already have more than $50 million in cap space committed for the '13-14 season and they would all need to sign anywhere between six and 10 players to fill out their roster.
Obviously, that would be a pretty big problem for those teams. The Montreal Canadiens for example are already over that $60 million limit for next season and have just 16 players under contract. There is no doubt they would take advantage of any sort of a compliance buyout and shed the albatross that Scott Gomez's $7 million per year salary. And maybe even the $4.2 million per year they have going to Tomas Kaberle over the next two years.
Some of the other teams that would be feeling a crunch would be Montreal, Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, the New York Rangers, Chicago and Vancouver.
It's now clear that both sides have been scripting this all along to not place their final offers on the table until the very last deadline day in January around the 7th-10th = absolutely pathetic what a debacle!!
Bettman is continuing pushing CBA support for his struggling crappy market teams like usual. The count wants to further water down the on ice product. Bettman wants total parady in the NHL so all teams are in the playoff hunt till the end and selling tickets but we all know the on ice product sucks.
I really hope that fans send a bigtime message to both sides and whenever the game returns fans in the struggling markets STAY AWAY teams fold and we have contraction to 20 teams whether Bettman likes it or not.
Bettman is continuing pushing CBA support for his struggling crappy market teams like usual. The count wants to further water down the on ice product. Bettman wants total parady in the NHL so all teams are in the playoff hunt till the end and selling tickets but we all know the on ice product sucks.
I really hope that fans send a bigtime message to both sides and whenever the game returns fans in the struggling markets STAY AWAY teams fold and we have contraction to 20 teams whether Bettman likes it or not.
p.l.f.
use the force
sportsnet at noon:
-small market teams dont want to go over 44 mil
-big market teams dont want to go under 65 mil
-bettman with his 30 team parity plan wants the floor between small-big to be between 44-60 mil
-small market teams dont want to go over 44 mil
-big market teams dont want to go under 65 mil
-bettman with his 30 team parity plan wants the floor between small-big to be between 44-60 mil
ULF_55
Moderator
It is looking better, it would take a couple morons to screw it up at this point.
Pension specialists should be involved when dealing with pensions. Kind of out of the box thinking ... yeah right.
A 20% variance should be easily doable.
Cap only issue, just wish they could come up with a buy-out that split the cost between owners and players since the owners are the guys who signed those players to dumb contracts.
Pension specialists should be involved when dealing with pensions. Kind of out of the box thinking ... yeah right.
A 20% variance should be easily doable.
Cap only issue, just wish they could come up with a buy-out that split the cost between owners and players since the owners are the guys who signed those players to dumb contracts.
DD03
3D
- Mar 15, 2010
- 21,734
- 9
Doesn't make sense that the players have to pay for buy outs. Owners are the ones who allow the GMs to make these deals, and the players are just accepting them. The owners are the ones who set the precedent and now they are getting bailed out by the players...
Anthrax442
Registered User
Chris Johnston@reporterchris
Steve Fehr and a handful of players and NHLPA staff have arrived at the NHL office.
Steve Fehr and a handful of players and NHLPA staff have arrived at the NHL office.
p.l.f.
use the force
why not:
1. make the cap gap at 44-65 mil
2. allow the 44 mil and under clubs to offer up 7yr (or 8) deals
3. allow the 65 mil cappers only 5 yr (or 6) max offers
when a star player hits UFA:
NYR PHI etc. can offer 7 mil for 5 yrs = 35 mil. (or 6 yrs = 42mil)
MIN NAS etc. can offer 5 mil for 7 yrs = 35 mil. (or 8 yrs = 40mil)
giving a smaller market team a chance to sign a star player because they can allow him 2 extra yrs
if they stay under 44 mil)
salaries per season would be relative to team payrolls - not comparable to similar players on other teams.
MLB saw bautista and longoria offered considerably less per season with teams with (at the time) small market payrolls as an example - were as NYY or LA would have given 20-25 mil a yr to.
1. make the cap gap at 44-65 mil
2. allow the 44 mil and under clubs to offer up 7yr (or 8) deals
3. allow the 65 mil cappers only 5 yr (or 6) max offers
when a star player hits UFA:
NYR PHI etc. can offer 7 mil for 5 yrs = 35 mil. (or 6 yrs = 42mil)
MIN NAS etc. can offer 5 mil for 7 yrs = 35 mil. (or 8 yrs = 40mil)
giving a smaller market team a chance to sign a star player because they can allow him 2 extra yrs
if they stay under 44 mil)
salaries per season would be relative to team payrolls - not comparable to similar players on other teams.
MLB saw bautista and longoria offered considerably less per season with teams with (at the time) small market payrolls as an example - were as NYY or LA would have given 20-25 mil a yr to.
Last edited:
