NHL CBA Talk

ddt wrote:
The three stooges (Eric Lindros, Buzz Hargrove and Ian Penny) are running the show, and things will never change until they're booted out. Only problem is, the players either don't have the brains to figure it out, or the balls to do anything about it.

I thought they were no longer with the NHLPA ?

Penny left to join MLB after Fehr joined the NHLPA.

The Fehrs are running the show. The NHL is publishing its offer on its website and talking to players last week tells me they don't trust the Fehr are honestly presenting their offer.

Hoags wrote:

ddt wrote:
The three stooges (Eric Lindros, Buzz Hargrove and Ian Penny) are running the show, and things will never change until they're booted out. Only problem is, the players either don't have the brains to figure it out, or the balls to do anything about it.

I thought they were no longer with the NHLPA ?

Penny left to join MLB after Fehr joined the NHLPA.

The Fehrs are running the show. The NHL is publishing its offer on its website and talking to players last week tells me they don't trust the Fehr are honestly presenting their offer.

They're all long gone from the NHLPA. I think that was a sarcastic remark...

Yeah, NHL seems to be trying to get their message directly to the players without going via the Fehr's. Not sure if that's a wise move or not. May backfire.

NHLPA not happy about NHL contacting players directly wihtout NHLPA's knowledge or permission...

Via Eric Macramalla: https://twitter.com/EricOnSportsLaw

In keeping with NHLPA displeasure over teams contacting players, NHLPA issued email to player Friday: "In the last few hours we have..."(1)

"...heard about calls today from various club officials to players and agents to discuss the NHL proposal and bargaining...." (2)

"This is interesting, since our understanding has been that the League had banned club officials from..." (3)

"talking to players since the beginning of the lockout." (4 of 4)

Wonder if there's a legal implication here?

shabbs wrote:
Wonder if there's a legal implication here?

Yeah I was under the impression that's now allowed, might be grounds for a grievance but I doubt the NHL would do it if it was unfair labor practice. They have a lot of expensive lawyers to advise them on such things.

Hoags wrote:

shabbs wrote:
Wonder if there's a legal implication here?

Yeah I was under the impression that's now allowed, might be grounds for a grievance but I doubt the NHL would do it if it was unfair labor practice. They have a lot of expensive lawyers to advise them on such things.

Heh. There's probably a clause buried somewhere in some legal docs that allows it to happen... but will be interesting to see if anything comes of it. In the grand scheme of things, probably nothing.

shabbs wrote:NHLPA not happy about NHL contacting players directly wihtout NHLPA's knowledge or permission...

Via Eric Macramalla: https://twitter.com/EricOnSportsLaw

In keeping with NHLPA displeasure over teams contacting players, NHLPA issued email to player Friday: "In the last few hours we have..."(1)

"...heard about calls today from various club officials to players and agents to discuss the NHL proposal and bargaining...." (2)

"This is interesting, since our understanding has been that the League had banned club officials from..." (3)

"talking to players since the beginning of the lockout." (4 of 4)

Wonder if there's a legal implication here?

Why would there be? It is a self imposed rule but I'm no lawyer.

NBC's TV deal with the NHL has lockout protection if there is no hockey played this season...

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/10/23/hockey_hearsay/

I wonder if they have protection for the next lockout... since it's a 10-year deal... this could happen again...

NEELY wrote:

shabbs wrote:NHLPA not happy about NHL contacting players directly wihtout NHLPA's knowledge or permission...

Via Eric Macramalla: https://twitter.com/EricOnSportsLaw

In keeping with NHLPA displeasure over teams contacting players, NHLPA issued email to player Friday: "In the last few hours we have..."(1)

"...heard about calls today from various club officials to players and agents to discuss the NHL proposal and bargaining...." (2)

"This is interesting, since our understanding has been that the League had banned club officials from..." (3)

"talking to players since the beginning of the lockout." (4 of 4)

Wonder if there's a legal implication here?

Why would there be? It is a self imposed rule but I'm no lawyer.

Was not sure, but from what Eric says that is no legal impact. You never know with labour rules...

Fair enough, like I said I am no lawyer. Funny thing is the fact that there is another voice in the ear of the players just highlights the fact and the inevitable end of the union cracking just like last time.

Hopefully the players who just want to play speak up because it's getting to the point that they are just hurting themselves now.

If the players refuse to play make them hurt. Cancel a who season and see where that gets them. Wait... we know what happens as it did in 04. Like the old saying goes "history just repeats not playing with a full deck of cards".

shabbs wrote:
Was not sure, but from what Eric says that is no legal impact. You never know with labour rules...

Individual clubs can explain the NHL proposal to the players (if the NHL allows it) but they cannot negotiate with the players directly for obvious reasons.

So it's fine.

Sounds like the players were the ones contacting the GM's and owners based on what the NHL is saying.

Seems the ground rules are that the Owners and GMs can't negotiate with players directly, but they are permitted to express the views and opinions of the Club and the League concerning the proposal.

Via https://twitter.com/cotsonika

NEELY wrote:Sounds like the players were the ones contacting the GM's and owners based on what the NHL is saying.

The NHL thinks Fehr is misrepresenting their proposal to the players.

After the last offer, some players were tweeting that definition of HRR had been changed again when it hadn't.

This prompted the NHL to put it all up on their website.

They obviously don't trust Fehr very much at this point.

Hoags wrote:

NEELY wrote:Sounds like the players were the ones contacting the GM's and owners based on what the NHL is saying.

The NHL thinks Fehr is misrepresenting their proposal to the players.

After the last offer, some players were tweeting that definition of HRR had been changed again when it hadn't.

This prompted the NHL to put it all up on their website.

They obviously don't trust Fehr very much at this point.

Doesn't the "make whole" provision adjust HRR? I suspect that's what the players were tweeting about... I'm sure there's a lot of confusion on that whole concept in general.

shabbs wrote:

Hoags wrote:

NEELY wrote:Sounds like the players were the ones contacting the GM's and owners based on what the NHL is saying.

The NHL thinks Fehr is misrepresenting their proposal to the players.

After the last offer, some players were tweeting that definition of HRR had been changed again when it hadn't.

This prompted the NHL to put it all up on their website.

They obviously don't trust Fehr very much at this point.

Doesn't the "make whole" provision adjust HRR? I suspect that's what the players were tweeting about... I'm sure there's a lot of confusion on that whole concept in general.

This is the line about HRR from the NHL proposal:

Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

PA is giving more weight to italic and league interprets this as HRR staying the same.

Heh. Nothing's mutual in these shenanigans!

shabbs wrote:Heh. Nothing's mutual in these shenanigans!

Big roadblock there!

Edit: Looks like I spoke to soon... Various reports have the new CBA agreed to, in principle, subject to setting the profit split on "Game On" merchandise...

more to come

SeawaySensFan wrote:
This is the line about HRR from the NHL proposal:

Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

PA is giving more weight to italic and league interprets this as HRR staying the same.

That was put in because Fehr argued that Glendale's subsidies to the NHL should count as HRR. The league just wants to clarify everything so that doesn't happen again.

They've made no proposed changes in quite a while, make whole simply charges the existing out of the player's share but it doesn't redefine what revenue is or isn't.