|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 11:54:55 GMT -4
Post by bjindaho on Sept 17, 2008 11:54:55 GMT -4
the thing is, the NHL is on your side, because they want him to play in LA...also, he didn't have a contract in Russia...all KHL contracts expired on April 30th I believe...the KHL is insisting that it automatically renewed itself...not that Voinov was dumb enough to sign a contract when he was about to be NHL drafted...
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 11:55:32 GMT -4
Post by SteveUL on Sept 17, 2008 11:55:32 GMT -4
I think the NHL perspective and the CHL perspective are a bit different. All NHL teams want to simply eliminate and ignore the claims made by the KHL ... so nobody will oppose an NHL team ignoring the KHL claims ... as it benefits them all. They all probably have a few players in their stable that fall under "questionable" with respect to NA eligibility. One team ignoring the claims means they all can. In the CHL however ... these players are only here for a short time ... and not many CHL teams have players that are coming into question. So if Moncton has a high end kid that is ineligible to play in Canada ... some teams may make a stink and call it an unfair advantage. All teams are required to get proper releases for players before they can play ... if Moncton hasn't done that then the player shouldn't be playing. Obviously I want the kid to play here ... and I don't care if proper releases have been obtained ... but it will be tough to argue with others that feel he shouldn't be playing in Moncton if he has not been released. I seem to recall a few years back ... Chicoutimi had a Euro that came into question about half way through the season ... his paperwork was never completed (something like that) ... I remember saying that Chic should forfeit every game he played in due to an inelligble player. It would be tough to argue the other way when the tables are reversed. If the Q deems him eligible to play ... then there should be no issue. Good luck getting the Q to make a smart decision. To me, you have to get a release from the player's most recent team ... if he is signed to a contract with the Kings, and they release him to us, that should be it - unless and until someone proves in a North American court that the contract with the Kings is illegal (I am not holding my breath on that one) ... we are acting in good faith. His last team was whatever team he had played for last year ... he hasn't played for the LA Kings yet ... and his contract won't kick in until he does ... when the regular season begins. The part you forget is that the Kings have not received a release from his most recent team ... so he is there illegally. The King's can't release him to us since they don't own his playing rights in the first place. Thats like you knowingly buying a stolen car from some guy you met in an alley. The police are going to take that car even though you paid for it.
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 11:59:27 GMT -4
Post by SteveUL on Sept 17, 2008 11:59:27 GMT -4
the thing is, the NHL is on your side, because they want him to play in LA...also, he didn't have a contract in Russia...all KHL contracts expired on April 30th I believe...the KHL is insisting that it automatically renewed itself...not that Voinov was dumb enough to sign a contract when he was about to be NHL drafted... We are all hoping that it is that simple ... but until somebody rules on it it is a clouded issue ... and Voinov's elligibility to play in the Q is in question. Corteau will have to rule on it to allow Voinov to play here before the matter is settled between Ice Hockey Federations. There is also a difference between a player contract and territorial rights. He may not be attached to any team by way of a contract ... but that doesn't mean the Russian Ice Hockey Federation doesn't still own him and needs to release him to play in NA.
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 12:03:49 GMT -4
Post by bjindaho on Sept 17, 2008 12:03:49 GMT -4
Without a transfer agreement, doesn't the NHL have the ability to outright sign anybody that doesn't possess a valid KHL CONTRACT...wasn't that what they warned Tretiak about when he refused to sign the agreement originally...the only KHL claim that they will likely win, and that the NHL will hopefully concede at some point is Jason Krog...he signed in the KHL, then in Manitoba (AHL)...
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 12:37:19 GMT -4
Post by SteveUL on Sept 17, 2008 12:37:19 GMT -4
Without a transfer agreement, doesn't the NHL have the ability to outright sign anybody that doesn't possess a valid KHL CONTRACT...wasn't that what they warned Tretiak about when he refused to sign the agreement originally...the only KHL claim that they will likely win, and that the NHL will hopefully concede at some point is Jason Krog...he signed in the KHL, then in Manitoba (AHL)... The difficult issue to be sorted out ... is which court has the jurisdiction to rule on the matter ? A court in LA or NYC ... or in Moscow ?
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 12:45:26 GMT -4
Post by bjindaho on Sept 17, 2008 12:45:26 GMT -4
I'm not so sure the courts end up settling it...if the NHL concedes Krog, and Radulov...then the KHL might concede the players they have no claim to...
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 12:48:56 GMT -4
Post by SteveUL on Sept 17, 2008 12:48:56 GMT -4
I'm not so sure the courts end up settling it...if the NHL concedes Krog, and Radulov...then the KHL might concede the players they have no claim to... Well of course it can be settled out of court ... but it may not.
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 12:50:56 GMT -4
Post by bjindaho on Sept 17, 2008 12:50:56 GMT -4
true...true...we can only hope...I'd love to get to see him, even if he is lacing up for you guys...
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 14:37:04 GMT -4
Post by mikeb on Sept 17, 2008 14:37:04 GMT -4
I'm not so sure the courts end up settling it...if the NHL concedes Krog, and Radulov...then the KHL might concede the players they have no claim to... Isn't that the issue? The KHL is saying Voinov etc. are under contract with KHL teams through automatic renewal. The courts will have to rule as to whether there was automatic renewal or not. And which court will do the ruling. It's international law. What you or I think it should be is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 14:41:54 GMT -4
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 17, 2008 14:41:54 GMT -4
I'm not so sure the courts end up settling it...if the NHL concedes Krog, and Radulov...then the KHL might concede the players they have no claim to... Isn't that the issue? The KHL is saying Voinov etc. are under contract with KHL teams through automatic renewal. The courts will have to rule as to whether there was automatic renewal or not. And which court will do the ruling. It's international law. What you or I think it should be is irrelevant. In Russia players can opt out of contracts by giving 2 weeks notice which Voynov and others did, now the Russians are changing their tune saying this was not done to try and counter act the Radulov mess. One thing that complicates things is that in Russia things are not as cut and dry in terms of hockey contracts.
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 14:46:11 GMT -4
Post by catnut on Sept 17, 2008 14:46:11 GMT -4
With that automatic renewal, players are basically signed for life!
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 18:32:33 GMT -4
Post by hockey1981 on Sept 17, 2008 18:32:33 GMT -4
Voynov is also playing in today's game vs Coyotes.
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 17, 2008 20:16:51 GMT -4
Post by sec21critic on Sept 17, 2008 20:16:51 GMT -4
With that automatic renewal, players are basically signed for life! In baseball it used to be called the reserve clause... until it was basically determined to be unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 18, 2008 7:15:46 GMT -4
Post by mikeb on Sept 18, 2008 7:15:46 GMT -4
Isn't that the issue? The KHL is saying Voinov etc. are under contract with KHL teams through automatic renewal. The courts will have to rule as to whether there was automatic renewal or not. And which court will do the ruling. It's international law. What you or I think it should be is irrelevant. In Russia players can opt out of contracts by giving 2 weeks notice which Voynov and others did, now the Russians are changing their tune saying this was not done to try and counter act the Radulov mess. One thing that complicates things is that in Russia things are not as cut and dry in terms of hockey contracts. It's not just hockey contracts that's like that in Russia.
|
|
|
Voynov
Sept 18, 2008 10:02:15 GMT -4
Post by jimmy on Sept 18, 2008 10:02:15 GMT -4
It appears that this is headed to arbitration ... maybe ... the KHL has agreed to the NHL's request for arbitration on the Radulov matter, however they are suggesting that the arbitration occur where the disputed contracts are signed, i.e. Radulov would be arbitrated in Russia, but Loktionov, Voinov, and Mayorov would be arbitrated in North America. The NHL has rejected the KHL terms, and negotiationsas to the where and when of arbitration occurring continue.
|
|