Nhl Lockout Newspaper Articles
22 Comments:
At 4:14 AM, July 16, 2008, said...At the same time, at least one of the teams in the new KHL hasn't been able to cough up the money to join. It's not like everybody has a Gazprom backing them. This is probably good for hockey, and the NHL, in the end.
At 5:42 AM, July 16, 2008, The Puck Stops Here said...Krog is not the only one. Tomas Mojzis signed with Sibir Novosibirsk in May and with the Minnesota Wild in July.Krog claims he had an out in his contract that he could leave if he signed elsewhere by August 1st, but I have seen no verification of it (naturally the Russians deny it).
At 7:53 AM, July 16, 2008, Doogie2K said...I always found it odd that the NHL had to pay for players, but the RSL/KHL didn't. If they're willing to do that, then I guess it's fair. Still, a contract is a contract, and I would think the SPC includes language preventing him from playing for another professional club. I suspect there's going to be legal action here in the near future.Besides, I fail to see the double standard here. The KHL signed a player away who was still under NHL contract. Why should Medvedev get his panties in a knot over Jason friggin' Krog?
At 8:06 AM, July 16, 2008, said...The second point, I think, is the big one.No matter how wealthy (some) of the teams are and how willing the owners are to sustain monetary losses to ensure egotistical or vanity gains, and no matter how mad anyone is, if the government puts so many barriers to players leaving then the supply of Russians is going to slow to a trickle - even the players who want to leave are going to have an extremely tough time of it.
At 8:36 AM, July 16, 2008, Big Picture Guy said...V. Voynov (the Kings insist on this spelling) and Andrei Loktionov have been in the LA development camp. Voynov was mentioned by Medvedev in his earliest tirades but has dropped out of the conversation. Loktionov is said to have a valid contract in Russia as does this late addition Denis Bodrov (Philadelphia Flyers), per www.russianprospects.com. Inside the Kings had this about Voynov and Loktionov's travails:"Apparently, it's been a rough go for these guys, as they've faced all sorts of threats and challenges from Russian officials." The KHL is a hybrid, a combination of private ownership and direct state financing. Or reneging, as in the case of Avtomobilist Ekaterinburg (incidentally, Medvedev has declared that players who signed with that failed team are "free agents", left to fend for themselves). It will be interesting to see if a secondary market for re-sale of clubs ever develops. Maybe the NHL could send Gary Bettman to teach the Russians about how to buy a team with no money down, or no money at all (ala Del Biaggio).
At 8:36 AM, July 16, 2008, Jonathan said...At the same time, at least one of the teams in the new KHL hasn't been able to cough up the money to join. It's not like everybody has a Gazprom backing them.This is a key point that a lot of commentators seem to forget. The gap between the haves and have-nots is much larger than in the NHL, and some of the have-not teams are extremely unstable. Two little excerpts from King of Russia by Dave King and Eric Duhatschek:"Lada- whic was standing seventh out of eighteen teams- did sell eleven players into the marketplacem thereby reducing their payroll... In no professional league I've ever been associated with do you get a team that's in seventh place and doing very well suddenly release eleven players"and"...Molot Perm, the last-place team beset by so many problems, may fold. They haven't paid their players in months."There's other references in the book (couldn't find them this morning) where the smaller market teams complain about the perception that there are limitless dollars in the RSL; in point of fact, much like the pre-cap NHL, there are a half-dozen teams with virtually unlimited payrolls and the rest just have to get by.The other thing about the KHL is that unless the rules have changed since the NHL lockout, they only have a very limited number of import slots; the real threat to the NHL is the loss of it's Russian starts, bot it's North American ones, and to a large extent, hasn't that happened already?
At 10:16 AM, July 16, 2008, said...I see it as a double standard. Malkin had a contract, he signed it. Yeah, he was suckered in, but Radulov can say the same. I think it's fair to start from a new page just like Medvedev proposed. I read an interview with Tolpeko (Flyers guy), he really wanted to play in NA, spent several years in junior leagues, now he is saying he is tired of America. No question, you will see a lot more defection if NHL and KHL won't reach an agreement.
At 10:38 AM, July 16, 2008, FAUX RUMORS said...This post has been removed by the author.
At 10:39 AM, July 16, 2008, FAUX RUMORS said...1) So ya wanna play in Russia huh? If you thought the average NHL owner was a crook, the Russian owners make their NHL counter parts look like Mother Theresa.2) How many guys are still waiting to get paid from their lockout play? You deal with crooks, you're gonna get stiffed or become a stiff yourself. 3) As we wrote on our blog this morning, we don't see the KHL as a true rival league to the NHL, but it has quickly become a significant annoyance.
At 11:03 AM, July 16, 2008, said...Those last comments from Medvedev show what a collossal hypocrite he and his organization are. Funny how when it is Radulov breaking his contract to go to Russia, paginy $200k suddenly is fair. Not so much when they pressured Malkin into a deal under duress then tried to extort the NHL for millions.Idiots.
At 12:07 PM, July 16, 2008, tersa said...Y'know, I have to agree with the Russians here. If Krog had a contract with the KHL, then Vancouver should respect it. If the contract has an out clause, then Krog or his agent better find a copy of that contract as proof (and if they don't have a copy, then shame on them).It's not just the KHL the NHL is dealing with here, in the Krog case--but all of Europe. If they thumb their nose at the KHL over Krog, what kind of assurances do the Finnish, Swedish, Czech, Slovak, etc. leagues have that NHL won't treat them the same way?And to what doogie2k said:Besides, I fail to see the double standard here. The KHL signed a player away who was still under NHL contract. Why should Medvedev get his panties in a knot over Jason friggin' Krog?It's the principle of the thing. The NHL can't go and scream foul over Radulov then do the exact same thing with Krog three days later. It doesn't matter if Krog is a borderline minor leaguer and Radulov a good 1st round draft pick: if the NHL doesn't honor their side of the agreement, they're as much hypocrites as Keith accused Medvedev of being.
At 12:15 PM, July 16, 2008, said..."As we wrote on our blog this morning"We, The Queen of England, ...Idiot.
At 12:15 PM, July 16, 2008, said...Great article as always Mirtle. First of all, how some people don't see the double standard is beyond me. Regardless of whether Malkin signed his contract "under duress", he still signed it. He, just like Krog, just like Radulov, committed to playing with a team. Stick to it. I'm torn on the whole transfer fee aspect. I can see the purpose behind it: it's meant o compensate teh team that developped the player for the years it developped him. It's a great concept.But I need a few clarifications:1. I think the NHL pays a certain amount to CHL teams, NCAA teams and any other teams from which it drafts players. What are the different amounts?2. in the CHL, a player plays his minor hockey wherever he grows up, is drafted by a CHL team and then by an NHL team. The NHL pays the CHL (or do they ay the CHL), does the CHL pay the minor hockey programs at any point? 3. How is the development process in different areas? If a player is drafted out of Lokomotiv, did he play his minor hocky there as well?4. How do other major sports operate? Namely european soccer, baseball, etc. From there, the Russian Hockey Federation's claim that $200,000 is not a correct amount can properly be debated. Should we go to a variable value system? Should NHL teams pay millions for an Ovechkin but pennies for a 4th liner who doesn't pan out?Make no mistake: I am convinced that this is what teh Radulov signing is all about. Whether the KHL lures some big names or not, the fact of the matter is that, with some owners unable to pay top talent (assuming this is true and unchanged), there will be major disparity in the league and so long as a league operates with sub-average players, the elite players will get bored and want to come back to the NHL.
At 1:09 PM, July 16, 2008, said...With Malkin, signing the contract under duress DOES matter. You can't just pressure someone into signing something when it isn't their free will to do so.It's different if a player signs his contract with his eyes wide open and then just doesn't like the situation. Malkin thought he was able to leave, he thought he had an agreement with them that he could leave for the NHL, then they showed up at his home and badgered him into signing even though he didn't want to.No contract can be held valid if it wasn't entered into willingly, and signing under duress isn't willingly entering into a contract.
At 1:12 PM, July 16, 2008, said...F*ck the Soviets. Let them play in their beaten-down, unheated, bomb-shelter "arenas" in front of 3,500 shivering fans. Maybe they get paid at the end of the month, maybe they don't. Until they invent television in the USSR, and electricity, and central heating, and the rule of law, and freedom, and banking laws, and a criminal justice system, etc., that society - much less its hockey leaguge - will not advance past the 18th-century. If that's the world Radulov prefers, das vadanya.
At 1:31 PM, July 16, 2008, tersa said...Hey, James. Even more interesting I think are Medvedev's comments about Filatov's contract:"Even given that the term of Filatov's contract with CSKA had expired, it was still a valid contract ... A contract is terminated only when negotiating an indemnity amount," Medvedev told Sovetskiy Sport, a Russian newspaper, according to The Columbus Dispatch.How the heck can the 'term of the contract expire' and yet the person still be under contract???Here, Medvedev is being a hypocrite.
At 2:19 PM, July 16, 2008, McLea said...Regardless of whether Malkin signed his contract "under duress", he still signed it.Ha, quote of the month.
At 3:32 PM, July 16, 2008, said...How can you steal players? Is this new form of slavery or is it possible that Russian players want to play in NHL?Ovechkin signed, what, 13 year new deal and Malkin has a new five year deal in his pocket. NHL has no reason to be afraid of KHL. It operates in Russia. Period. Heck, NHL players don't want to play in Edmonton but now Jaroslav is a great place. Yeah, right!Only few of KHL's imports bring their wives with them, never mind kids. Sounds like it's wonderful league and country.
At 3:32 PM, July 16, 2008, J. Michael Neal said...How the heck can the 'term of the contract expire' and yet the person still be under contract???This happens to NHL players all the time. Until they reach the age where unrestricted free agency is allowed, the remain under the reserve clause whether signed or not.No contract can be held valid if it wasn't entered into willingly, and signing under duress isn't willingly entering into a contract.This is true. However, a court has to find that it was signed under duress for the contract to be voidable. No such finding has ever been made. The US District Court hearing the matter dismissed Magnitogorsk's suit for technical reasons having to do with Russian labor law. Its finding essentially says that a US court will never hold that a Russian contract is enforceable to prevent a player from leaving Russia to play in the US, regardless of the conditions under which the contract was signed. It also pretty much stated that the determination of an arbitrator in Russia will never have force on the matter.I am not qualified to pass judgment on whether this was a correct reading of Article 80 of the Russian labor law. Nevertheless, it is the case that there is a double standard as to how the US courts treat the leagues in each country. It may be a legitimate double standard under the law, but it is very real.
At 5:23 PM, July 16, 2008, ninja said...Soviets? What century are you living in?
At 6:13 PM, July 16, 2008, said..."This happens to NHL players all the time. Until they reach the age where unrestricted free agency is allowed, the remain under the reserve clause whether signed or not."True, but that only applies within the NHL. An NHL RFA could head to Europe without difficulty then. The Russians are being hypocrites here.As far as the Krog situation goes, he claims he had an out-clause. If he did, then the Russians are just chest thumping to avoid looking like even bigger idiots. If he didn't, then the NHL should void the contract per this agreement. Especially since it would send a pretty good shot across the bow wrt the Radulov signing.
At 8:28 PM, July 16, 2008, said...Soviets? What century are you living in?It's called "satire." Check it out some time.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Globally, but especially here in the United States, we have in my opinion an organized labor crisis. It cannot be denied that perhaps one of our greatest cultural contributions as a country has been the advent and proliferation of organized labor. Weekends, minimum wages, safe working conditions, good health-care and (at least in some industries) increased protection from being unduly terminated are all directly related to the union movement.
But in the modern era, although the workplace has evolved exponentially, the union mentality and methodology remains unchanged.
The NFLPA is a perfect example of everything wrong with organized labor today. Yes, the NFL is an incredibly revenue (and one assumes profit) rich endeavor. Yes, the players work extremely hard and at great physical risk for the entertainment of us the fans and the enrichment of the owners. Yes, the league would be nowhere without the players.
But the reverse is also true. The players would be nowhere without the league (read: owners). In the current CBA (recently not renewed), the league pays players 60% of gross revenues. Since the players are highly compensated by salary, let’s put the risk of physical injury aside for the moment. Here is what you have: a group of people who are reaping 60% of GROSS rewards, while participating in 0% of the risk.
Is there anyone on earth who wouldn’t take that deal? Or even 1/10th of that deal? I know I sure would.
The battle cry from “De” has been that the owners must open their books to scrutiny of the NFLPA. Why? Is it up to the union to dictate how much money the owners can make?
Imagine this scenario being played out in the real world: I decide that the company I work for cannot function without me. Knowing this, I decide that I am not being compensated enough. So I walk into my boss’ office and demand not only that he increase my compensation, but that he subject himself to an audit so that I can decide for myself if I am getting a big enough piece of the pie.
Throwing aside all the other factors that muddy the waters (the league’s revenue sharing policy, public vs private funding for stadia, uncertainty about continued growth and popularity), it is clear from where I sit that the NFLPA has lost sight of the real issues.
Free agency has become a joke (The top free agents demand the most lucrative deals possible, in direct contradiction to the “collective” ideal), the rookie wage scale still hasn’t materialized, and the union defends steroid abusers.
And so my question is this, what do you say to a die-hard fan like me who will turn my back on these hyper-talented athletes who are paid handsomely and generally behave like spoiled children if/when you all force a work-stoppage?
— I doubt you’ll answer but…
