NHL sues NHLPA to vacate Wideman suspension - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Par · 06-09-2016, 07:29 AM

We just can't catch a break with Wideman, just loan him to a European team.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-sues-nhlpa-to-...nsion-1.503888

shermanator · 06-09-2016, 07:32 AM

Ugh, so much needless drama around this. Just move on, already.

IgiTang · 06-09-2016, 07:41 AM

Pretty cut and dry when it comes to the NDA's decision, no?

Gaudfather · 06-09-2016, 07:44 AM

Bettman is looking more and more pathetic, the more he drags this out!

Bingo · 06-09-2016, 07:47 AM

Won't effect Wideman or his ability to be traded this summer at all. He served 19 of the original 20. If the lawsuit is successful I guess he forfeits his salary again, but a potential 1 game suspension won't be a deal breaker if they find one.

Plus what are the chances they are successful on this? 5%. Seems like a silly law suite to me.

Five-hole · 06-09-2016, 07:47 AM

Quote:

NHLPA spokesman Jonathan Weatherdon told TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun, "We are disappointed that the NHL has chosen to challenge the award of the Neutral Discipline Arbitrator (NDA) in court, as the collective bargaining agreement clearly provides that the decision of the NDA is final. We are confident this action is completely without merit and that the court will agree."

Haha. Judicial review is a right, regardless of finality clauses, at least in Canada, and I assume so too in NY. Love the media posturing.

gargamel · 06-09-2016, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo

Won't effect Wideman or his ability to be traded this summer at all. He served 19 of the original 20. If the lawsuit is successful I guess he forfeits his salary again, but a potential 1 game suspension won't be a deal breaker if they find one.

Plus what are the chances they are successful on this? 5%. Seems like a silly law suite to me.

Can he be bought out if he's suspended?

Huntingwhale · 06-09-2016, 08:11 AM

What's the point? Because the Old Boys Club running the NHL is upset someone went against their authority? This is just ridiculous. Everyone and their dog has moved on from this case. I agreed with the suspension at the time, but this horse has been beaten enough.

Bingo · 06-09-2016, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gargamel

Can he be bought out if he's suspended?

That's a great question.

With the NMC change back to Wideman not being a head ache I doubt they would want to buy him out now as he should have value with some salary retained (potentially without salary retained as well).

But if they wanted to and couldn't the Flames would have a huge beef with the league.

What a mess ...

Robo · 06-09-2016, 08:18 AM

I think the refs are pretty pissed about the ruling and this is Bettman trying to mitigate that

cDnStealth · 06-09-2016, 08:24 AM

What a bloody joke. I was fine with Wideman being suspended but this whole thing has been a three ring circus. The guy served 19 of his 20 games. Move on already.

Resolute 14 · 06-09-2016, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

What's the point? Because the Old Boys Club running the NHL is upset someone went against their authority? This is just ridiculous. Everyone and their dog has moved on from this case. I agreed with the suspension at the time, but this horse has been beaten enough.

As I noted in the other thread, takes like this are, frankly, stupid and only detract from intelligent discussion. The NHL pays some very high priced, highly respected lawyers to represent them. There is no chance they would consent to begin legal action on the basis of Bettman's ego, the "old boys club" or any other such nonsense. If the league and their legal team are going forward with this, it is because they have a legitimate legal issue they feel requires adjudication. This is about business and legalities. What people want as fans is irrelevant. And, as I also noted in the other thread, I think the NHL presents good arguments that the arbitrator overstepped his bounds - that is something the league cannot idly allow without challenge.

Resolute 14 · 06-09-2016, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's a great question.

With the NMC change back to Wideman not being a head ache I doubt they would want to buy him out now as he should have value with some salary retained (potentially without salary retained as well).

But if they wanted to and couldn't the Flames would have a huge beef with the league.

What a mess ...

The buy-out window is the later of June 15 or two days after the Cup is awarded, so as soon as next Wednesday.. There's no chance this case is heard before the window is come and gone. If the Flames want to buy Wideman out, they can still do so.

Bingo · 06-09-2016, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As I noted in the other thread, takes like this are, frankly, stupid and only detract from intelligent discussion. The NHL pays some very high priced, highly respected lawyers to represent them. There is no chance they would consent to begin legal action on the basis of Bettman's ego, the "old boys club" or any other such nonsense. If the league and their legal team are going forward with this, it is because they have a legitimate legal issue they feel requires adjudication. This is about business and legalities. What people want as fans is irrelevant. And, as I also noted in the other thread, I think the NHL presents good arguments that the arbitrator overstepped his bounds - that is something the league cannot idly allow without challenge.

I agree with you to a point. I do think there's a reason etc, and that's what drives it for the most part.

But I wouldn't just assume that the high priced legal group never gets marching orders from angry billionaires. In most of my business dealings lawyers do what they're told unless they are specifically recruited to consult and not carry out their bosses initiatives.

Pretty sure the law firm that represents the NHL is happy to have the dust blown off this old dossier and the billings to flow into their coffers again.

Rick M. · 06-09-2016, 08:34 AM

Why have binding arbitration as a dispute settling mechanism if it's only binding if the arbitrator sides with you. I hope the court refuses to hear the NHL's law suit.

Buff · 06-09-2016, 08:34 AM

Thanks, Bettman.

Resolute 14 · 06-09-2016, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo

I agree with you to a point. I do think there's a reason etc, and that's what drives it for the most part.

But I wouldn't just assume that the high priced legal group never gets marching orders from angry billionaires. In most of my business dealings lawyers do what they're told unless they are specifically recruited to consult and not carry out their bosses initiatives.

Pretty sure the law firm that represents the NHL is happy to have the dust blown off this old dossier and the billings to flow into their coffers again.

Sure, but fans need to stop projecting their own shallow views onto those of a multi-billion dollar industry. People want to assume that Bettman is simply off on an ego trip, so they stop applying rational thought because that is easier than actually considering whether or not the league has a point here. And like I said, I believe the league has a legitimate claim to argue that the arbitrator overstepped his bounds. They have to challenge that lest it become precedent and the CBA - from their perspective - loses meaning.

Weitz · 06-09-2016, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick M.

Why have binding arbitration as a dispute settling mechanism if it's only binding if the arbitrator sides with you. I hope the court refuses to hear the NHL's law suit.

The NHL is arguing the the arbitrator overstepped his power.

IMO this lawsuit is simply legal paperwork that needs to be done. The NFL has done this in the past as well.

Lord Carnage · 06-09-2016, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo

I think the refs are pretty pissed about the ruling and this is Bettman trying to mitigate that

May be partially that... I think it comes back to precedent setting, just like the original case did.

At the heart of the matter is the way the NHL interprets the CBA, and wants it to be understood, that the arbitrator can't just apply their own opinion to what happened and overrule on that premise.

If I understand the NHL correctly, the CBA comes down towhether Bettman's position in making his decision was "reasonable based on evidence"... if it is, his ruling stands. You are only supposed to be able to overturn it if the arbitrator believes Bettman's position was unreasonable (not supported by evidence).

In this case, Bettman determined there was intent. Is that REASONABLE? Based off all the discussion on this board (and everywhere else), it seems even we were split on that point (maybe not 50-50, but a split none the less).

Now, we aren't a court of law or anything, but if the position of having intent was reasonable, then the NHL believes that the decision COULD NOT be overturned.

It was overturned, and that is a precedent the NHL does NOT want to allow.

EDIT:: Ya, what those above me said...

IgiTang · 06-09-2016, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Haha. Judicial review is a right, regardless of finality clauses, at least in Canada, and I assume so too in NY. Love the media posturing.

I'm confused then.. the language in the article states that after a NDA's decision, it is final and it clearly states that the decision is not allowed to be reviewed, period.

So am I reading it wrong or is the CBA and it's contents, simply a guideline rather than the be all end all?

If one side can side step the actual CBA in this case, would that leave the CBA as a whole more vulnerable to dispute?