cas wrote: Acrobat wrote:What could make it nastier is the fact that a delay until training camp could be construed by either party as favouring the other :
Heatley/Barry et al could argue that the Senators stood to benefit from any delay by taking advantage of Heatley's desire to play in the Olympics. Any delay past the opening of training camp could jeapordize his play in the tournament (besides, if he is suspended, he isn't eligible, correct?)
Murray, Melnyk, et al could argue the converse - that delay prevented them from formulating an adequate business plan (on and off the ice), thus contravening the working arrangement, if not written agreement, between the NHLPA and NHL.
Interestingly, both arguments actually get stronger as the delay progresses, and both are valid arguments.
Both sides have dug in their heels, and both sides have the resources to wait things out - the ones (of those involved) who stand to lose the most on a personal level are actually JP Barry and Bryan Murray. In any scenario, the loser could see a substantial hit to their credibility, and may not end up holding the same clout that they do now.
Take it up a level, and both the NHL and NHLPA have armies of lawyers already working on attacks and counter-attacks; both have too much at stake to sit idly by. This may end up being the biggest test of the CBA that could possibly be conceived; who would have anticipated that a player would demand an NMC, score 140 goals over three seasons, and be rewarded with extreme largesse, including the largest one-year payout in NHL history, then publically demand to be moved, but "only if I like where you send me". Yet, his contract would appear to allow that, at least by the letter of the law, if not the spirit.
One has to wonder how much support Heatley is getting behind the scenes from the NHLPA, and if he is getting support, what the rank-and-file member feels about it.
On the other hand, given the support that Ottawa got from other team owners and GMs during the Yashin holdout, I have no doubt that Melnyk and Murray are getting some encouragement from their colleagues (even if it doesn't translate into generosity at the trade desk).
Maybe this brings up a bigger issue:
Is it time for elimination of guarantees in contracts?
Eliminate the NMC/NTC, and eliminate the guaranteed contract, but also eliminate the whole RFA status: if you are good, you play and you get paid, and if not, then make room for someone else.
That bolded line is where I would imagine this battle will be won and lost. By that, I mean that the exact wording of the NMC will be the deciding factor. At this point, I would imagine that each side knows precisely where they stand in that argument. If in fact there is a "spirit" card to be played, then it will be played by the Senators; however,
I don't know how much weight it would carry.
I'd suspect it carries very little weight - in the courtroom, it comes down to what is written, not what is meant, or implied.
cas wrote:As for as their respective arguments: There is no logic in Heatley's desires taking precedence over the effective management of a multi-million dollar organization. From my perspective, Heatley's argument doesn't get stronger as time goes by; his will simply gets weaker.
The way that his argument gets stronger is that he can claim that the team tried to use strong-arm tactics, in part by not making an effort to trade him and thus preventing him from earning a spot on the Olympic team. He could claim that he was co-erced to accept a deal that he didn't want to accept; this becomes more pressing an issue as training camp grows nearer.
As for his will, I questioned it before, but I think it's fair to say that he has demonstrated more willingness to fight this battle than any battle for the puck.
cas wrote:The reality of all of this is that the legal fees in this type of battle would be astronomical and its a lot easier for a billionaire to swallow those costs than it is for a millionaire. I'd imagine that would play a role in the final outcome.
True, but if Heatley doesn't play, then he is suspended. He has no real need to do anything further, if he chooses not to, thus he doesn't really have to incur any costs of significance. Besides, most of the legal costs would be picked up by his contract with his agent, and by the NHLPA.
On the other hand, Melnyk loses money daily, as he is unable to market one of his biggest stars. Murray can't trade for another one, nor can he make any other move to strengthen the team. Effectively, the team is working with a cap that is $7.5M lower than everyone else, but still needs to ice the same number of players; only they don't know if one will show up, so they have to pay an extra one just in case. And they have to do it with a reduced budget due to the lower revenue stream.
I'd suggest that it's no easier for Melnyk than it is for Heatley - he may have more money, but he has more to lose. And remember that Melnyk didn't get to be a billionaire by allowing million-dollar "leaks" to persist for long.
Home
Publications
