Based on what? Heatly exercised a right that his contract gave him. Sucks that the Sens had to eat the cost (among other bad things about the situation, but that's the relevant one here), but they couldn't find a team that wanted him (at their price) before THEY were the ones on the hook for $4mil. I don't really understand where a case comes from.
To me, it does seem more like a power play to punish Heatley and distract him from playing hockey.
Agreed. The only point that Melnyk may have is that Heatley was purposely being a distraction, which forced them to trade him for less than value. That will be very hard to prove. I don't think they can realistically expect to get $4 mil. back from SJ because it's not their fault that Heatley did what he did. Finally, why would any team have traded for him prior to July 1 when they could get him after without paying the bonus?
As the OP said, I think this is more a case of Melnyk trying to tick off Heatley then him actually trying to get back some money.
Actually... as far as leaks go - I believe that the last comment I ever read was that it may have been another GM (and implied that it may have been one just down the road from us...) who leaked it following some minor negotiations.
Because I know both sides have denied being the source of the leak, and I believe someone in the Ottawa brass back in the summer actually saying that they didn't think it was the Heatley camp either.
I heard the same thing to. Not sure if its true or not, but it doesn't seem that farfetched.
Actually... as far as leaks go - I believe that the last comment I ever read was that it may have been another GM (and implied that it may have been one just down the road from us...) who leaked it following some minor negotiations.
Because I know both sides have denied being the source of the leak, and I believe someone in the Ottawa brass back in the summer actually saying that they didn't think it was the Heatley camp either.
Well if it is true, I apologize. Hopefully this comes out at some point or another.
Why are people trying to turn this into a Shark's and Sens discussion. Why are Shark fans so upset, it has nothing to do with their team. Its not going to distract Heatley, at least I hope not. He is a pro. This is between Melynk, the NHL and the Heatley camp.
I like Heatley and I hope he and the Sharks do well, but I can't blame Melynk for at least trying either.
1. Heatley is under contract and is obligated to play for the Senators prior to his trade. One could argue that demanding a trade and refusing to play is a violation of his contract. I forget all the details surrounding the whole mess during training camp, but in general, I could buy this point.
2. Heatly has a NMC. He can nix any deal he wants, when he wants. July 1st or July 2nd.
3. I'm not sure if anyone knows what specifically is written in these contracts in terms of specific verbage. Perhaps some of Mr. Heatley's actions go against the spirit of the terms, though nothing was said about him specifically violation any strict conditions of his contract.
4. Heatley's actions did disrupt team operations, though I can't remember any player in the past having a grievance filed against them due to their actions in demanding a trade (unless someone can refresh my memory). A lot of the disruption came from the intense media frenzy.
I think Melnyk has a few decent arguments. Per the letter of the contract signed by Heatley though, he is not justified in seeking 4 million dollars, but by the spirit of it, he could get a portion in return, though the terms of the contract can't be altered without both parties consent as far as I know unless one of the parties violates some terms. So, Heatley won't lose a dime, even if he's forced to pay damages of some sort. He must be reimbursed.
1. Heatley is under contract and is obligated to play for the Senators prior to his trade. One could argue that demanding a trade and refusing to play is a violation of his contract. I forget all the details surrounding the whole mess during training camp, but in general, I could buy this point.
2. Heatly has a NMC. He can nix any deal he wants, when he wants. July 1st or July 2nd.
3. I'm not sure if anyone knows what specifically is written in these contracts in terms of specific verbage. Perhaps some of Mr. Heatley's actions go against the spirit of the terms, though nothing was said about him specifically violation any strict conditions of his contract.
4. Heatley's actions did disrupt team operations, though I can't remember any player in the past having a grievance filed against them due to their actions in demanding a trade (unless someone can refresh my memory). A lot of the disruption came from the intense media frenzy.
I think Melnyk has a few decent arguments. Per the letter of the contract signed by Heatley though, he is not justified in seeking 4 million dollars, but by the spirit of it, he could get a portion in return, though the terms of the contract can't be altered without both parties consent as far as I know unless one of the parties violates some terms. So, Heatley won't lose a dime, even if he's forced to pay damages of some sort. He must be reimbursed.
Make some good points.
Although I don't think Melynk could get a portion. I think he will either get all 4 Mil or nothing.
2. True that Heatley can nix any deal. But apparently, Heatley gave Murray a list of teams that he would accept a deal to, and if Edmonton was on this list, which it has been reported that he gave permission to Murray to speak to Edm, then I think Melynk has a very good case.
Heatley didn't breach his contract in anyway, but I think this grievance comes from what was agreed between the two parties when this mess started.
1. Heatley is under contract and is obligated to play for the Senators prior to his trade. One could argue that demanding a trade and refusing to play is a violation of his contract. I forget all the details surrounding the whole mess during training camp, but in general, I could buy this point.
.
The problem here is i don't think Heatley ever refused to play, he requested a trade but said if one could not be made he would show up to camp and dress for Ottawa. So I don't think its possible to argue that a trade request alone is a violation of the contract.
Although I don't think Melynk could get a portion. I think he will either get all 4 Mil or nothing.
2. True that Heatley can nix any deal. But apparently, Heatley gave Murray a list of teams that he would accept a deal to, and if Edmonton was on this list, which it has been reported that he gave permission to Murray to speak to Edm, then I think Melynk has a very good case.
Has there been confirmation one way or the other that Edmonton was or was not on the list of teams? I keep seeing it reported both ways.
You skipped the part where he demanded the trade. I think the NTC is there in spirit to protect a player from being blindsided. I don't think it was intended to give a player control over an organization. I don't have any personal interest whatsoever in either team, but I do think it's unfair that the Senators basically lose in every way: cash, and value for a player. If a player wants out he should have to eat some of the damage as well, like by waiving his NTC.
Right, he demanded a trade. He used his NTC rights to make sure the trade was to a team he wanted to play for. Why he allowed Sens to talk to the Oilers is speculation. But he never agreed to the deal and didn't waive his NTC rights at any time.
This isn't high school school yard crap these are big boys with lots of lawyers. They should know that you shouldn't have signed the deal without consulting the agent and player first.
Some teams already have outs for NTC which includes a player providing lists of teams he would allow a trade. Sens should have had this contingency written in the contract if they wanted to prevent this debacle as they see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan
Cirris
Taking up someones time is not really grounds for sueing.
Actually you can. If someone takes you to court and it's deemed frivolous, you can counter sue for legal fees to be paid by the plaintiff. Dave Mustaine did it to Dave Ellefson, both were members of Megadeth.
Although taking a closer look, I don't think that will happen in this case since it's a grievance and not an actual lawsuit.
The fact is Heatley had a contract in place that stipulated he be paid 4 mill on July first, on July first he was Senators property, thus they owe him 4 million dollers, seems pretty simple to me. Don't hand out NMC or front load contracts if you don't want to deal with those aspects down the road.
After Heatley declared he wanted to be traded, the Senators asked his agents if talking to Edmonton would be all right, the agents McAlpine and Barry acquiesced to that and by implication as defacto Heatley representatives OK'd a trade, thus waiving his NMC. As Edmonton obviously put together a package and would've known about the 4m also accepted the responsibilty.
Sources say Melnyk contends in the paperwork filed at the NHL’s New York headquarters, that Heatley’s camp — including agents J.P. Barry and Stacey McAlpine — gave the Senators permission to speak with the Oilers and the two-time, 50-goal scorer should have accepted the deal to Edmonton.
Heatleys spurious behaviour in the matter could be seen as being in breach of contract due to bad faith, thereby causing finacial hardship to Mr Melnyk.
I for one agree that Healtey seemed to be acting spiteful in his less then cordial relations with the club.
Has there been confirmation one way or the other that Edmonton was or was not on the list of teams? I keep seeing it reported both ways.
I get the sense that it wasnt on his initial list of teams, but Murray got confirmation verbally later on from the Heatley camp to discuss a trade with Edmonton.
Sources say Melnyk contends in the paperwork filed at the NHL’s New York headquarters, that Heatley’s camp — including agents J.P. Barry and Stacey McAlpine — gave the Senators permission to speak with the Oilers and the two-time, 50-goal scorer should have accepted the deal to Edmonton.
If he has no signed paper and all that was said was see what they say and get back to us id sue Melnyk for 4 million more just for bein a whiner, Heatly had a MNC murray gave it to him sue murray see where that goes , all this says to other players is stay away from ottawa and im not a huge Heatly fan i think they will be fine and even happy to have gotten rid of him.
If he has no signed paper and all that was said was see what they say and get back to us id sue Melnyk for 4 million more just for bein a whiner, Heatly had a MNC murray gave it to him sue murray see where that goes , all this says to other players is stay away from ottawa and im not a huge Heatly fan i think they will be fine and even happy to have gotten rid of him.
I don't see how this says stay away from ottawa.As for the ntc clause the issue is when a player has it then asks for a trade then can nix a trade.Is that the point of the ntc or is it to protect a player from beeing traded when they don't want to be or are not expecting it.
Melnyk doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is clearly an exercise in the further demonization of Heatley.
Yeah, I'm sure the situation sucks for Melnyk. If he'd shut his yap the first time around, he probably would have gotten a lot more for Heatley. He's just making himself look like a petulant loser.
If he goes off in a rant at Heatley when he loses this, I hope the league gives him a good hefty fine.
I get the sense that it wasnt on his initial list of teams, but Murray got confirmation verbally later on from the Heatley camp to discuss a trade with Edmonton.
Verbally could be the problem if this is true.
So? Heatley never agreed to waive his NTC. That's all that matters.
Melnyk could talk to any team in the league. All Heatley did was give a list of teams he might agree to a trade too. However, if you think that's tantamount to accepting a trade, you're dreaming. Clearly that list is subject to revision up until the time he signs on the dotted line to waive his clause.
Melnyk doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is clearly an exercise in the further demonization of Heatley.
Yeah, I'm sure the situation sucks for Melnyk. If he'd shut his yap the first time around, he probably would have gotten a lot more for Heatley. He's just making himself look like a petulant loser.
If he goes off in a rant at Heatley when he loses this, I hope the league gives him a good hefty fine.
No i don't think he would have got more.Who ever leaked heatley wanted out and how this went down on both sides did not help.That is what did lower danny value more then anything.
Last edited by wjhl2009fan: 11-05-2009 at 09:15 AM.
So? Heatley never agreed to waive his NTC. That's all that matters.
Melnyk could talk to any team in the league. All Heatley did was give a list of teams he might agree to a trade too. However, if you think that's tantamount to accepting a trade, you're dreaming. Clearly that list is subject to revision up until the time he signs on the dotted line to waive his clause.
I realize that. Im just trying to explain how Melynk COULD have a case. Jeesh.
Melnyk doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is clearly an exercise in the further demonization of Heatley.
Yeah, I'm sure the situation sucks for Melnyk. If he'd shut his yap the first time around, he probably would have gotten a lot more for Heatley. He's just making himself look like a petulant loser.
If he goes off in a rant at Heatley when he loses this, I hope the league gives him a good hefty fine.
Shut his yap? Tell that to McAlpine and Barry - the two that leaked the deal. McAlpine knew that Heatley was a Shark before Bryan Murray - that's how corrupt the whole agent/Heatley thing was. I remember Murray coming out, looking up at TSN and 'wondering' how they knew about it. Well, it wasn't Doug Wilson, so...
And I hope Melnyk gets fined as well. Clearly it's time for NTC/NMC to be lifted when players demand trades like Heatley did, so the more exposure the better. Who knows Ernie, perhaps one day all of this will save your team from this embarrassment.
Based on the CBA and the limited powers of the Impartial Arbitrator, I am unable to see where Melnyk has a viable case. The CBA limits the Impartial Arbitrator's powers thusly:
Quote:
17.13 Arbitrator's Decision and Award. The Impartial Arbitrator will issue a written decision within thirty (30) days of the close of the record and receipt of the hearing transcript. The decision of the Impartial Arbitrator will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the Grievance, as the case may be, and will be binding upon the Player(s) and Club(s) involved and the parties to this Agreement; provided, however, that the Impartial Arbitrator will not have the jurisdiction or authority to add to, subtract from, or alter in any way the provisions of this Agreement, including any SPC. In resolving Grievances, the Impartial Arbitrator has the authority to interpret, apply and determine compliance with any provision of this Agreement, including any SPC. Otherwise, the Impartial Arbitrator shall have no authority to alter or modify the contractual relationship or status between a Player and a Club, other than where such remedy is expressly provided for in this Agreement.
The no trade clauses and no movement clauses are referentially incorporated into the Standard Player Contract (SPC) by the CBA.
Quote:
11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.
(a) The SPC of any Player who is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent under Article 10.1(a) may contain a no-Trade or a no-move clause.
The SPC also contains an "entire agreement" clause (aka a merger clause or integration clause) meaning prior or subsequent variations (and in particular oral variations - known as parol evidence) are of no effect:
Quote:
22. It is severally and mutually agreed that this SPC and the CBA contain the entire agreement between the parties and there are no oral or written inducements, promises or agreements except as provided herein.
Can you point out under what case law pertaining to breach of contract, that the Impartial Arbitrator would be able to use in finding against Heatley bearing in mind his limited jurisdiction under the CBA and the limitations inherent in the SPC? This is after all a legal dispute.
I'm not sure exactly what, if anything, Melnyk would have written as description of grievance. But i can see one thing he may perhaps be thinking of getting clarified, and that might be the nature of the waiving of the nmc and when implied consent occurred.
Melnyk seems to be making the case that upon hearing Heatley wanted out, he ordered Murray to make the best trade possible before the deadline to avoid paying the $4mil. Murray asked the Heatley camp what the acceptable teams were and if it was ok to work on a deal with Edm. They replied it was, allegedly. He consummated that deal in time to save melnyk $4mil, except that the heatley camp vetoed, claiming publicly that they wanted options. As if he were an ufa soliciting offers as opposed to Sens property who has given implied consent to work out a deal, and has now reneged for seeming invalid reasons and cost Melnyk $4mil out of pocket for services not even performed but paid for, not to mention damage to ticket sales.
I suppose, the verbal agreement wasnt worth the paper it was written on in the end. But having to go out soliciting offers, this opens the team up to having the fact heatley wants a trade leaked out. If he didnt mean it was ok, he should have said so.
Something needs to be clarified here perhaps procedurally.
I'm not sure exactly what, if anything, Melnyk would have written as description of grievance. But i can see one thing he may perhaps be thinking of getting clarified, and that might be the nature of the waiving of the nmc and when implied consent occurred.
Melnyk seems to be making the case that upon hearing Heatley wanted out, he ordered Murray to make the best trade possible before the deadline to avoid paying the $4mil. Murray asked the Heatley camp what the acceptable teams were and if it was ok to work on a deal with Edm. They replied it was, allegedly. He consummated that deal in time to save melnyk $4mil, except that the heatley camp vetoed, claiming publicly that they wanted options. As if he were an ufa soliciting offers as opposed to Sens property who has given implied consent to work out a deal, and has now reneged for seeming invalid reasons and cost Melnyk $4mil out of pocket for services not even performed but paid for, not to mention damage to ticket sales.
I suppose, the verbal agreement wasnt worth the paper it was written on in the end. But having to go out soliciting offers, this opens the team up to having the fact heatley wants a trade leaked out. If he didnt mean it was ok, he should have said so.
Something needs to be clarified here perhaps procedurally.
that was my point in aprevious post if Heatley or his management did not state such in writing melnyks just blowin smoke and players watch this , it does little to make ottawa look classy , they should b happy Heatley is gone and just move on.
If Melnyk actually won, and Heatly has to "give back" the $4 Million, wouldn't this put the Sharks on the hook for the $4 Mil and effectively void the trade? San Jose agreed to the trade sans the $4 Mil bonus, didn't they?
