Rangers Contracts rejected to do clauses…

Sportsnet is reporting that the contracts of Bobby Holik and Darius Kasparitus were rejected by the NHL due to clauses in each players contract that state the Rangers will pay their salary even through a potential work stoppage during upcoming labour negotiations in 2004, not due to huge signing bonuses as previously thought.

The matter will be resolved before an independent arbitrator, but no date has been set as of yet.

34 Responses to Rangers Contracts rejected to do clauses…

  1. UsedandAbused says:

    Its fine with me….. Rangers are going to be screwed when the NHL puts in a Salary Cap anyways. Plus Holik isn’t worth the money they are paying him. And either way I think it would be messed up if the NHL rejected their contracts based on the signing bonuses. If Rangers are stupid enough to pay that much, then why should anyone stop them?

  2. gLoBaL_mInD says:

    Would you be upset if your team was willing to sign him for that price and did? And you Holik playing on your team?

  3. Freeze says:

    The NHL probably figures that, in the event of a strike, everyone should have something to lose.

  4. mikster says:

    Ok, then it’s really meaningless as to what they are trying to do. Why shouldn’t they get paid? Not their fault if they are not going to play in 2004.

  5. mikster says:

    There won’t be a definite salary cap. It will kill the game because the players will go on strike. I don’t care if football or basketball are good examples, this is hockey.

    The Rangers needed Holik and since they battled it with the Devils and the Leafs, Holik’s money went up. He had his price set at $8 million a season. Rangers are not stupid, they just needed him….they addressed a need. That’s not being stupid to me.

    Plus, Rangers won’t be screwed with a salary cap anyway, their future looks good.

  6. chewy says:

    Due to US and Canadian labor laws these contracts are void and the Rangers will have to re-negotiate them. In protection of companies the US governemtn implemented the law that no employee will recieve pay while on strike. The two issues are linked, The Rangers and Lawyers know all about these laws, so it probably has both players recieving $9 million and $5 million respectively in signing bonuses in 2004, this would compensate them for any strike and get arround the law. The arbirator will comply with the law and over turn this, the Rangers will just restructure the contracts so that Holik earns $18 in the first year of the contract or something like that.

  7. Habfan4 says:

    There is a clause in almost every contract that deals with “force majeure” (essentially it’s a Act of God clause). One party cannot be held financially responsible for an event that is beyond it’s control i.e. flood, war, earth quake etc… (a strike is always example of force majeure)

    Think of it this way: Why does it make sense that a player whose contract spans the length of a two collective agreeements gets paid when they or their association has deciced to strike? If you left you job today would your boss pay you for not showing up?

  8. Freeze says:

    But who knows if there is really going to be a strike or not? Why pay a guy for something that might not happen at all?

    A better way to work this is for Holik and Kaspar to buy an insurance policy that pays these guys in the event of a strike. Find out what the premiums are, and then increase the amount of the contract to pay for the insurance premiums.

  9. Habfan4 says:

    Even if you could find an insurance company willing to provide “strike” coverage the premiums would be so high that it wouldn’t make sense.

  10. big_booty says:

    Contrary to what the mikster thinks, this is not a “meaningless” occurance. Thanks to chewy for pointing out the legality behind this issue.

    I forget where I read it, but someone wrote that Glen Sather had been seduced by the dark side. The one-time champion of the small market team now has been given the power to wreak havoc on the NHL, and is abusing that power to no end.

    The fact that Slats would do something as sneaky and underhanded as this attempt at a couple of “lockout-proof” contracts just sickens me. Not only do these actions go against the rules and regulations of the National Hockey League, they are also, for all intents and purposes, illegal. I have to wonder aloud if legal action will be taken in this matter.

    I also have to wonder something else. If, in fact, these contracts are null and void due to their rejection by the league, does that mean that Holik and Kasparaitis re-gain their unrestricted free agent status? Are they now free to negotiate with other teams, since they are no longer under contract?

    If I’m Lou Liamorello, or any other GM other than Glen Sather, I have to look into this and see if it is at all possible.

  11. Leaf_Expert says:


  12. Habfan4 says:

    I don’t know about the USA. But I think that because the NHLPA (an association not a union) does not bargain wages (the players themselves do individually) that the contracts are not held up to the same standards as collective agreements. I think the league is protesting the fact that the contracts are not in the best interest in the game and that they do not contain clauses (regarding strikes) and as such no reasonable person would agree enter into them.

  13. chewy says:

    TSN is reporting that both players will remain the property of the New York Rangers after this issue is resolved, they will just have to work out a new agreement, and hey Holik and Kasper, get yourself a financial advisor, take the huge signing bonuse now, invest it and instead of having $9 million then, turn it into $12 in safe secure bond investments. There are so many ways this could change, I think the players union are idiots to fight this, they can’t win, just take the contracts back and play with them, as the NHL has stated, they are not upset about the $45 million, they are upset about payments made during a potntial work stoppage. So just take the $45 and pay the signing bonuses at the beggining of the contract rather then in 2004.

  14. NYRrule says:

    Legal action?? What do you want to happen? The DA file charges against Glen Sather and see him hauled off to jail? Nothing is going to happen. The contracts will be re-worked, maybe a small fine against the team and that will be the end of it.

    The players union would never allow them to become free agents again. All hell would break loose in the league if the contracts are just thrown away due to a technicality. Who knows what happened. Maybe the person who worded the contract was a complete idiot and screwed up. Judging by your Lou Liamorello comment, I assume your a Devils fan. HOLIK DOES NOT WANT TO PLAY FOR THE DEVILS ANYMORE!!!! Hasn’t that been made clear yet?? The sooner the Devils and their fans forget about Holik, the sooner they can begin to rebuilt their team.

  15. cwhockey says:

    Don’t you find it interesting though? These two players are prime examples of the free spending philosophy that the richer teams have. In order to make every team more competitive, the NHL is trying to find a way to curb this behavior. The fallout between the sides is resulting in a possible labor stoppage in two years. And these guys are trying to get paid as they are on strike? If this just doesn’t turn your stomach, you just have to laugh at the irony of it. If this story is true, someone either has some big stones or is perhaps the dumbest person on the face of the earth.

    By the way, don’t this about this too long. Your head will succomb to atrophy and devour itself. Another possible side effect of pre-strike stress.

  16. DJOrnsen_PensFan says:

    i hope the contracts become null and kaspar comes back 2 pens

  17. Habfan4 says:

    The Av’s were the last team to own Kaspar’s rights not the Pens

  18. MyCaptain11 says:

    if michael peca is worth $7.5m to the islanders, teams in free agency started at $8m with holik, and he knew he was gonna get at least $8.5m, then that means holik is worth the money they are paying him. and the league will have a luxury tax like basketball cuz every major pro sport in north america has to slow the growth of salaries.

  19. DaAvs says:

    After much reading and pondering, I simply have a few questions. Was there any foul play in the creation of this contract? If you remember clauses such as this seem a bit odd. And this was sent the first day of free-agency. The Blackhawks GM has complained of foul play in that these free agents are pretty much set contract wise before the actual July 1st opening date. It disturbs me, because it makes sense. Why not negotatiote with other teams players then? Many who say these hockey players should not have a salary cap forget hockey is one of the least revenued of the major sports. Salary caps make less sense in football then they do here as football teams have huge contracts with the networks. Where will hockey go? I don’t know but, this is a step in the wrong direction.

  20. mikster says:

    Lets say there are these branches of this big company. Most of the branches go on strike, and would it be fair that if you worked for a branch that doesn’t take part of the strike, you don’t get paid?

    Let’s say you worked for Pontiac (part of GM), and Chevrolet and the other parts go on strike…..why should you not get paid?

  21. Habfan4 says:

    In reference to the GM example: You don’t get paid because you are represented by the mutual bargaining unit and enjoy the benefits of negotiating with the company on a collective (powerfull) rather than singular/divided (weaker) basis. You accept the benefits (salary, protection etc… ) then you have to be prepared to pay for it at the bargaining table by striking en mass if necessary.

    With the NHL players: You can’t pick and choose, if you’re member of the NHLPA and the players vote to strike in 2004 you’re bound by the decision and the owners do not have to pay you. The owner’s don’t pay you when you hold out do they? A strike is basically the entire NHLPA holding out.

  22. BWbullies says:

    How do you figure the rangers would not be screwed with a salary cap. They have to be close to 70 mil. If they put a cap in it would be around 45 mil. So being 20 mil over could be considered a problem…. I gues NY teams are all alike, the Yankees / Rangers . Lets see who else we can buy just so we can get in the playoffs..As for their future they have to be the biggest bunch of individuals on one team ever asselmbled. I think thier personnallities will keep them from playing like a team..

  23. mikster says:

    The players are not willing to go on strike. If it was the players willing to go on strike in 2004 and Holik and Kaspar would have been paid, then i would be against it. But, since it’s not the players who are going on strike, then i see no reason why any players shouldn’t be paid during that event.

    GM Lombardi also had to reconstruct his contract with Owen Nolan. It happens. This was going to happen anyway and it’s not like Sather knew that he was going to get away with it. You trust the media too much, and that is a mistake. Obviously the media portray things the way they want to.

    I don’t see why there is such a big deal about this. No way will Holik and Kasparaitis return as UFA players. If so, then they will re-sign with the Rangers anyway. I don’t think they even can force them to become UFA’s again. All that will happen is just reconstruction of the contracts. The media made a big deal about it, and everyone just hops behind them.

    Legal action?

    I mean, he didn’t committ a crime. Sounds like you want to go on the O’Reilly Factor and debate this “legal action” yet you will only get bombed by Bill.

    Lamoriello wouldn’t go after Holik again, he won’t match the Leafs offer, which was also $9 million a season (Quinn mentioned that). Though i highly think Quinn just said that to show the fans he tried, the Devils would still not match the Leafs official offer of $8.5 million a season.

    I said it before when you guys made fun of me about it. Holik is a money player and could give a crap about the Devils. The Devils showed disloyalty to him, and he did the same to them. He also wants to stay in this area. So, nothing will happen….Holik will remain a Ranger, he wants to play with the Rangers and he will accept whatever the league let’s him accept. Also, same goes with Kasparaitis.

    Sather is forced to win now. There is no such thing as rebuilding by trading big names for young talent in return. He has to make this team win now with franchise players. Meanwhile though, he is building quite a team down in Hartford by kicking out all the old useless farts, and bringing in the young 20 year olds.

    So, in a way….Sather hasn’t changed personality. He is building a young team, but he also has to make the Rangers win. He basically changed the whole roster since arriving, and he will change it again in about 2 or 3 years.

  24. kreatiiv says:

    if the structuring is true, and the players are essentially guaranteed pay regardless of strike by the players association, the league has no choice BUT to cause a stink.

    owners making deals like this undermines the entire league stance, and puts the league at a minus when a strike does occur – instances like this could be used by the players association at the bargaining table to point out how the organizations that make up the league’s membership disagree with current rules and will do anything to break them or go around them. certain organizations will essentially become witnesses for the players association in any bargaining agreement, and will drastically hurt the league’s position.

    the league has no choice but to try to punish teams that make deals that go against the “public” stance and undermine the leagues goals.

  25. mikster says:

    A salary cap would be at least $55 million. You put a salary cap at $45 million, you got yourslef a long player strike and no hockey for a very long time.

    Ok, if there is a salary cap at $55 million, then Sather would let Bure walk and maybe he’d also let Leetch walk, plus dumping Lefebvre. All that would total to $22.1 million dollars. You subtract 70 minus 22.1 and you get 47.9

    They don’t look screwed to me.

  26. mikster says:

    People are making a big deal out of it, and it is not such a big deal.

  27. mikster says:

    It’s not the players going on strike in 2004….

  28. Freeze says:

    How do you know that?

  29. NYR88Express says:

    i know right? biiiiiiiiiiig deal

  30. Rushing says:

    I would have to agree. $45 mill. is way to low for Hockey. For 41 home games, they make far too much money along with all of the tv and memorabilia for it to be only $45 mill. At the same time, this is another 2-3 years so it may even be bumped a little.

  31. Rushing says:

    But the thing is Mikster, you know like I do, that each and every player are all part of this “UNION” and “NONE”…….that is “NONE” of them will set foot upon that ice until they reach a settlement.

    In other words, there are no so called “branches” in the NHL Players Union now is there?

  32. Rushing says:

    But you don’t know that. If the owners let it be known far ahead of time they are definetly going to set a salary cap and yet the players are totally against this, they may very well go on strike!

  33. Habfan4 says:

    I worked in risk management (dealt with insurance claims) for a crown corporation in Canada, while going to university.

    Use Steve Nash (Dallas Mavericks) as an example he was going to have to pay US$500,000 in premiums for insurance just to play for Canada at the Worlds.

Leave a Reply