Jump to content

Radulov pulls a Jagr


JoeLassister
 Share

Recommended Posts

Once again, we turned Dumont down, he specifically wanted to come here and would have accepted less money to play here instead of in Nashville. And Forsberg was traded to the Preds, I doubt the Habs even made an offer for them. That decision had little to do about the city: Forsberg wanted a shot with a Cup-contending team and the Predators were an option. As for Kariya, he has always preferred to play in small hockey markets with very little pressure, he's always avoided the media attention. I doubt it had much to do with the city itself, he chose Nashville for the same reason that most players would avoid Nashville. A good example would be how happy Mike Johnson was to escape Phoenix and come to a real market. Arnott is the only one that got serious offers from both teams and picked Nashville over us - I would suspect he was following the money and didn't really care about how nice the city was.

This is really going off topic. Let's forget the details and just go with the flow..... that Russia sucks, Nashville sucks, and most of you can't even begin to think or understand why anyone in this world would want to live there or play hockey in such a 3rd world country or red neck filled bible belt that only listens to country music. God forbid should someone consider life outside of the original six and especially The Montreal Canadiens who you all seem to think is the only place hockey really exists. This is coming from a person that loves the city of Montreal and loves the Habs.

Besides I doubt the NHL will let Radulov walk. So nothing comes out of this thread except that playing in Russia sucks.....because?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm just going to wait and see how many of these ex-NHLers realize that even with the larger salaries the "standard of living" over there may not be what they are accustomed to when they were in the NHL. (and their girlfriends/wives..........)

And what's to say they (teams/management) will honor the terms of a contract they offer a player? If they're "poaching" current players under contract (even when they didn't have an agreement) what's to stop them from releasing/turfing out a player when he's not having a good year.

At least in the NHL they players union will stand up for the players, what guarentee do they have playing over there?

LIke I said above.............. :wacko:

My comment was basically directed at the players who don't come from Europe; are they going to have access to all the ammenities (Starbucks, Cell phone coverage etc....) they're currently used to? And what about the wives/girlfriends? Will they have all "perks" they have now, salons/massages/shopping etc.

That was my point, I wish I knew ALL about every other counrties standard of living but I don't.............unlike some here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides I doubt the NHL will let Radulov walk. So nothing comes out of this thread except that playing in Russia sucks.....because?

that's actually a really weird thing. Legally, I don't think they really can stop him - they certainly can't force him to play for Nashville and if they try to enforce the transfer agreement to stop him from working in Russia they might have to face a facial challenge on the agreement for collusion and impermissible non-compete. Oh, and who knows (certainly not I) what Russian law looks like on this matter, but it probably ain't good for Nashville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's actually a really weird thing. Legally, I don't think they really can stop him - they certainly can't force him to play for Nashville and if they try to enforce the transfer agreement to stop him from working in Russia they might have to face a facial challenge on the agreement for collusion and impermissible non-compete. Oh, and who knows (certainly not I) what Russian law looks like on this matter, but it probably ain't good for Nashville.

When Perezohgin ditched the habs was he under contract or RFA? We didn't get any compensation....you may just be right. I really don't understand the rules, we'll see how it unfolds but I would think the Preds have some chance in legal action. They are now saying that a verbal agreement was made weeks ago to honor all pro contracts world wide so it's not possible for Radulov to be home-free. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Can he just walk away? I don't think he can at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Perezohgin ditched the habs was he under contract or RFA? We didn't get any compensation....you may just be right. I really don't understand the rules, we'll see how it unfolds but I would think the Preds have some chance in legal action. They are now saying that a verbal agreement was made weeks ago to honor all pro contracts world wide so it's not possible for Radulov to be home-free. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Can he just walk away? I don't think he can at this point.

compensation would be the issue, but even if you could get a Canadian or American court to enter a judgment (or for that matter getting the NHL to issue a demand), try enforcing that against a Russian corporation that has no assets in North America.

Generally, one cannot get a court to force somebody to work for a given company - at best it is indentured servitude, at worst slavery. I know it feels weird to consider a millionaire an indentured servant, but it makes sense. Now the Continental League might put pressure on the team to not employ Radulov so as to keep their agreement, but then you enter another tricky area of law.

Since this is all international law, my knowledge is pretty limited, but if the NHL or the Predators were to try to start enforcing league agreements that basically made it so Radulov couldn't ply his trade for any major league, I'd imagine this would be held to be an unenforceable non-compete clause. Let's say, for example, you ran a car repair shop in Montreal and I were your mechanic. I quit your shop (regardless of whether I breached my employment contract). Now you either try to enforce a clause in my contract saying I can't work at any other shop or you call up all the other shops in town (or in this case, most of the world) and tell them not to hire me with the understanding that you won't hire anybody who leaves the other shop. I guess I could find some tiny shop is Chelmsford, MA that you didn't bother calling, but I can only do muffler repair on 20 year old F-150s and make $20,000 a year. Your shop does major remodels of new BMWs and Mercedes and 1967 Aston Martin DB7's. Would any court allow that?

Worse than that - you've basically entered into agreements with other firms to eliminate competition for the best mechanics! Sounds like monopolistic tactics to me. Now when I sue you, not only does the court strike down whatever non-compete clause you stuck in my employment contract, they also strike down the whole multilateral agreement between mechanic shops! Now every mechanic knows they can sue if they ever get refused employment from shops just because the shops want to eliminate poaching. It might even get to the point that shops are nervous not to poach... and you need to poach more than ever because other shops are hiring all your best mechanics - you had better replenish your ranks with the top mechanics from other shops. Well, if you want to poach, you had better start raising salaries and/or shorten work weeks and/or beef up the pension to make it so mechanics will sign with you and the guys you currently employ won't want to leave.

Maybe in the end, it is better to let me just go sign up with the competing shop in DDO and don't make such a stink that everyone else will notice your non-compete has no teeth.

Obviously it isn't so simple and I'm not sure everything would work out like I say, but this is very tricky territory. Look up Curt Flood and you get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Perezhogin was a free agent when he left, so he had no obligations to play with the Canadiens. In his case, he was playing for a coach who obviously didn't like him from Day 1, and he was never going to get a real chance no matter how well he played. Actually, even though Perezhogin was playing great hockey on a defensive line with Bonk and Johnson, and should have been the one to replace an injured Chris Higgins ont he Koivu line, Carbonneau still prerefered Latendresse whe was awful and looking out of place at that time.

Therefore, Perezhogin had practically no choice to leave the Canadiens organization, and Russia was a place where he could rebuild a name for himself, while making great money.

Radulov is a completely different case, he's currently under contract and basically owes the Pradators one more season. I think now the Russian team will argue that Radulov's decision was made before the gentleman's agreement between the NHL and the KSL - although not yet finalized or official - and therefore he should not be bound to that agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Perezhogin was a free agent when he left, so he had no obligations to play with the Canadiens. In his case, he was playing for a coach who obviously didn't like him from Day 1, and he was never going to get a real chance no matter how well he played. Actually, even though Perezhogin was playing great hockey on a defensive line with Bonk and Johnson, and should have been the one to replace an injured Chris Higgins ont he Koivu line, Carbonneau still prerefered Latendresse whe was awful and looking out of place at that time.

Therefore, Perezhogin had practically no choice to leave the Canadiens organization, and Russia was a place where he could rebuild a name for himself, while making great money.

Radulov is a completely different case, he's currently under contract and basically owes the Pradators one more season. I think now the Russian team will argue that Radulov's decision was made before the gentleman's agreement between the NHL and the KSL - although not yet finalized or official - and therefore he should not be bound to that agreement.

Sometimes we disagree but not here.

QFT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really going off topic. Let's forget the details and just go with the flow..... that Russia sucks, Nashville sucks, and most of you can't even begin to think or understand why anyone in this world would want to live there or play hockey in such a 3rd world country or red neck filled bible belt that only listens to country music. God forbid should someone consider life outside of the original six and especially The Montreal Canadiens who you all seem to think is the only place hockey really exists. This is coming from a person that loves the city of Montreal and loves the Habs.

Besides I doubt the NHL will let Radulov walk. So nothing comes out of this thread except that playing in Russia sucks.....because?

:wacko:

You base one of your points on a statement that is 100% wrong and then you say "forget the details."

I don't know if in the history of the franchise a single player has ever chosen to play for Nashville over Montreal because they thought the quality of life in the city was more enjoyable.

Anyway, I understand perfectly well why Radulov wants to play in Russia but there are ways of you proving your argument without making facts up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko:

You base one of your points on a statement that is 100% wrong and then you say "forget the details."

I don't know if in the history of the franchise a single player has ever chosen to play for Nashville over Montreal because they thought the quality of life in the city was more enjoyable.

Anyway, I understand perfectly well why Radulov wants to play in Russia but there are ways of you proving your argument without making facts up.

dude, not everybody wants to live in Montreal. Lots of people like Nashville. We rarely know why players choose one team over another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally agree, but you have to be worried about the reports that an unsustainably large proportion of those tickets are unpaid.

What reports? Says who? Show me the data from a reliable source on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What reports? Says who? Show me the data from a reliable source on this.

I'm at the library working on the bar and I don't remember exactly where I read the article I am thinking about.

Just quickly I saw this:

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/nas080119.html

and saw that over the same time period, the preds had an average of 14,168 attendance. That means the preds boosted their attendance with 1,550 giveaways per game. That means about 11% of the people who showed up didn't pay. If I am still coherent when I leave the library, I might look for a better article.

EDIT: On the same page of Google results (which are very cluttered because of all the financial misconduct of the owners) I saw this article which talks about how the Preds are dropping ticket prices.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stori...31/daily15.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dude, not everybody wants to live in Montreal. Lots of people like Nashville. We rarely know why players choose one team over another.

???

You did read my post, didn't you? You're replying to comments made by thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at the library working on the bar and I don't remember exactly where I read the article I am thinking about.

Just quickly I saw this:

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/nas080119.html

oh man this article is so funny !

Ed Lang, the Predators' president of business operations, believes the team can still reach its goals, despite having just one sellout so far this season.

"I think we'll probably have five to seven (sellouts) in the second half," Lang told the Tennessean. "We have four Saturdays that are looking really good. We've got the two Detroit games and we've got the season finale. You kind of look at the mix and we've got some really, really strong dates coming up."

:lol: Schedule a Nashville - Montreal game at the Bell centre on January 1rst 10h00 am and it will be sold out !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Schedule a Nashville - Montreal game at the Bell centre on January 1rst 10h00 am and it will be sold out !

it is a bit unfair to compare a recent expansion team in a non-traditional market against a 100 year old team with lots of success in the city that created indoor hockey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is a bit unfair to compare a recent expansion team in a non-traditional market against a 100 year old team with lots of success in the city that created indoor hockey.

i know. but i laugh at the guy's use of the words "strong dates to come" as he name the few Detroit games and the season finale only. Seriously, it looks like the former Montreal Expos...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Nashville did meet their goals and qualified for the most revenue sharing.

yeah, they had a mini sellout streak at the end to pull themselves right over the top. There are some quasi-morbid Preds blogs and message boards that tracked the battle to get over the minimum. I think they got over in the last week or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, when all you can name as "strong dates to come" is 2 games against Detroit and the season finale, I think it sucks.

But, I think I should give up on this and make it official : Nashville is a GREAT hockey town, REALLY GREAT.

Edited by JoeLassister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, when all you can name as "strong dates to come" is 2 games against Detroit and the season finale, I think it sucks.

But, I think I should give up on this and make it official : Nashville is a GREAT hockey town, REALLY GREAT.

This is probably no longer an interesting discussion, but I want you to know that I don't think Nashville is a great hockey town. It might be if the ownership group were better or had more incentive to make it into a great town. It seems possible that some of the problems (especially before the sale) might have been due to the preds trying to trigger the out-clause in their contract with the city.

I am probably in the minority as I believe that if anything teams in the NHL need to be more free to move franchises. This would allow teams to go where they can make money. As I've probably belaboured to death - this would also make me less inclined to share revenue among teams - but I think in the end it would lead to a more robust league. I also think the degree to which Bettman and the governors interfere with who can own a team makes teams disfunctional. In something closer to an open market system one would expect the highest bidder to be the own who believes they can extract the most profit (hopefully by increases total revenue) from the franchise. One would hope that this would eventually lead to franchises being owned by groups that actually could maximize profits and revenues. If an owner is willing to bet his money that he can generate more profits and revenues in a different market, I'm inclined to let him or her try. If an owner cannot run his franchise, I am skeptical as to the wisdom of subsidizing him or inhibiting his ability to sell the team.

I guess what I am really saying is: Is there a cogent reason that Balsille and Mark Cuban don't own teams in the NHL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, when all you can name as "strong dates to come" is 2 games against Detroit and the season finale, I think it sucks.

But, I think I should give up on this and make it official : Nashville is a GREAT hockey town, REALLY GREAT.

And like other people have said, you can't compare to Nashville to other franchises because each team will have different expectations. Nashville has had moderate success as a team since 2004 and the roots are starting to show. These things take time, Nashville has only been in the league 10 years and is not in a place that is going to take to hockey right away. No one is saying Nashville is one of the best markets in the league right now but they're definitely one that can be developed into a strong market the same way the Dallas Stars developed in the mid-late 90s.

I've always found one of the biggest problems with expansion is the lack of patience a lot of people have.

Edited by jetsniper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And like other people have said, you can't compare to Nashville to other franchises because each team will have different expectations. Nashville has had moderate success as a team since 2004 and the roots are starting to show. These things take time, Nashville has only been in the league 10 years and is not in a place that is going to take to hockey right away. No one is saying Nashville is one of the best markets in the league right now but they're definitely one that can be developed into a strong market the same way the Dallas Stars developed in the mid-late 90s.

And like other people have said, you can't compare to Nashville to other franchises because each team will have different expectations. Nashville has had moderate success as a team since 2004 and the roots are starting to show. These things take time, Nashville has only been in the league 10 years and is not in a place that is going to take to hockey right away. No one is saying Nashville is one of the best markets in the league right now but they're definitely one that can be developed into a strong market the same way the Dallas Stars developed in the mid-late 90s.

I've always found one of the biggest problems with expansion is the lack of patience a lot of people have.

To wit, why doesn't Houston have a team. That town actually has a history with the Aeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To wit, why doesn't Houston have a team. That town actually has a history with the Aeros.

Not sure but if you look at the stats for amount of indoor rinks, high school teams and junior hockey programs before and after the Dallas Stars are there, it's huge.

Bettman, for one reason or another, doesn't seem like he wants to saturate areas with teams. Hence blocking any team movement to Hamilton. It's stupid in my opinion because I think Houston would support an NHL team but eh, what are you gonna do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure but if you look at the stats for amount of indoor rinks, high school teams and junior hockey programs before and after the Dallas Stars are there, it's huge.

Bettman, for one reason or another, doesn't seem like he wants to saturate areas with teams. Hence blocking any team movement to Hamilton. It's stupid in my opinion because I think Houston would support an NHL team but eh, what are you gonna do.

From my experience, people in Houston will not root for a team from Dallas and they are 240 miles apart, but you are probably right.

Houston already does have indoor rinks and some hockey programs. The Aeros subsidized and encouraged a lot of that.

As far as what I am going to do? I am going to complain about it on a message board! ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably no longer an interesting discussion, but I want you to know that I don't think Nashville is a great hockey town. It might be if the ownership group were better or had more incentive to make it into a great town. It seems possible that some of the problems (especially before the sale) might have been due to the preds trying to trigger the out-clause in their contract with the city.

I am probably in the minority as I believe that if anything teams in the NHL need to be more free to move franchises. This would allow teams to go where they can make money. As I've probably belaboured to death - this would also make me less inclined to share revenue among teams - but I think in the end it would lead to a more robust league. I also think the degree to which Bettman and the governors interfere with who can own a team makes teams disfunctional. In something closer to an open market system one would expect the highest bidder to be the own who believes they can extract the most profit (hopefully by increases total revenue) from the franchise. One would hope that this would eventually lead to franchises being owned by groups that actually could maximize profits and revenues. If an owner is willing to bet his money that he can generate more profits and revenues in a different market, I'm inclined to let him or her try. If an owner cannot run his franchise, I am skeptical as to the wisdom of subsidizing him or inhibiting his ability to sell the team.

I guess what I am really saying is: Is there a cogent reason that Balsille and Mark Cuban don't own teams in the NHL?

no it is interesting, you just took it to a higher level. i think this deserves its own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...