According to reports, Sens owner Eugene Melnyk has filed a grievance against former Sen Dany Heatley, for the 4 million dollars he was forced to pay him on July 1st as an advance on his 2009-10 salary. That meant Melnyk had paid Heatley an insane 14 million in one calendar year, before he demanded a trade out of town.At the heart of the grievance, is a complaint by Melnyk that the Senators were given permission by Heatley's camp to talk to the Oilers to get a deal done. The Sens did just that and had a deal in place for Dustin Penner, Andrew Cogliano and Ladislav Smid, before Heatley put the kibosh to that idea, after already saying it would be ok. Melnyk also contends that the whole fiasco hurt our ability to sell season tickets with the team in limbo, which is hard to argue.
It appears that Melnyk doesn't really expect to get the money back, but is more doing this out of spite and to cause him some discomfort, which is an outstanding look from where I'm sitting. Make him sweat it out and look like an idiot all over again Euge. Sens Army is definitely behind you.
Dany Heatley will be represented by the players association of course. The trial has no date set and it might be quite some time before we see it come to fruition unfortunately. Oh well, at least they aren't letting him get away with it scot free.
What do you guys think, is Melnyk doing the right thing by challenging Heatley or is he being petty and time to move on?
6 comments:
Definately Eugene is doing the right thing. Remember, the kids are watching - and we're trying to teach them that a man's word (not to speak of a contract) is his bond.
The very fact that Dany-douche wanted out of his contract and turned down a trade to boot put the team, and both Oiler & SENs fans in jeopardy. This issue is not about talent (he has loads of that) -- it's about fairness, what is right and character.
Go Eugene - I can't see how you can lose.
It's the right thing to do. A player should not be able to hold a team and its fans hostage by demanding a trade and then refusing to waive the no-trade clause if the player doesn't like the trade, or, like in this case, wants to cash in on an extra 4 milli. If you demand a trade, are you in effect waiving the no-trade clause? The rules on this need to be clarified, so we don't get f**ckd again!!
I think this has very little to do with Melnyk getting his money back, and more to do with raising the issue in the eyes of the NHLPA and the owners. He might lose now, but next time they have a bargaining agreement, they can use this as leverage and put in a new clause. For example, if a player asks for a trade, they can't exercise their no trade clause. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Melnyk might lose in the short term, but the long term gains will be more than $4 million.
a further distraction to the Sens franchise. heatley won - now move on to the next chapter. remember, EM has a history of being ligatous (sp?/) with little to no success.
but, as they guy said above - to the owners this is about the next phase.
I believe the word you're looking for is litigious?
Who knows, maybe with the current state of the PA Heatley will end up with Chelios as his lawyer and Melnyk will actually get the money back.
Post a Comment