Let's Chill The F* Out With This Malkin Saga!

Jevgenij Malkin.

According to all the major media outlets, Evgeny Malkin has left his russian team Metallurg Magnitogorsk.

"Evgeni Malkin, the star forward and Penguins draft pick who has said repeatedly he wants to play in the NHL, left his Russian pro team during a training camp in Finland yesterday, various Russian news services reported.

It was uncertain whether Malkin bolted from the team in an attempt to get to North America and play for the Penguins this season, but the Itar-Tass news agency, citing a source within the club, reported Malkin took his belongings and passport with him.

(....)

If Malkin is attempting to defect while in Finland, he would be the best-known hockey player to do so since Alexander Mogilny left the Soviet Union team following the world junior championships in Sweden in 1989 and defected to the United States so he could play for the Buffalo Sabres.

First of all, allow me to say: Let's chill the F* out with all this Soviet coldwar/communist rhetoric. Saying that Malkin has "defected" from Russia is like saying that Chris Pronger "defected" from Edmonton, taking with him his passport and personal belongings and heading to Mexico.

It's the same thing.

Last I checked Russia was still called Russia, and not The CCCP.

Player's do not defect from Russia anymore. There's no hiding in the back of lorries at borderstations or running through rainsoaked forests with KGB agents in trenchcoats chasing you. Today you're free to travel the world on shitty airlines with shitty food and shitty services just like the rest of us.

Welcome to Democracy. The mini-sized bags of honey roasted peanuts are on us.

The Russian Ice Hockey Federation has not signed the shitty agreement (yes, it's a crappy agreement for all European clubs) that the rest of the IIHF members have ratified. One of the major clauses the Russian Team Owners are against is the fact that whenever an NHL club signs a European player to a contract, that club has to pay around $200.000 to the previous Club. That's just one of the many issues The Russians are opposed. But since this is about Evgeny Malkin, who is under contract for one more season I might add, I will use this point as the basis of my rant.

Let's not forget that this whole issue is about players currently playing under a signed contract.

The last I heard the fee of $200.000 is the same whether a player is under a Russian contract or whether he is unsigned but heading over to play in the NHL. The Russian team owners want to be able to negotiate their own terms regarding players currently playing under a signed contract.

The owner of Metallurg Magnitogorsk thinks that Evgeny Malkin is worth more than $200.000 and he want's more money. Fair enough. For example, do you trade Vincent Lecavalier for a seventh round draft pick instead of several players? Of course not. That would be silly. Lecavalier is worth much more than a seventh rounder, and if Jay Feaster were to trade Vinny he'd demand fair market value.

If you look at it from a Russian and European perspective, the CBA sucks. $200.000 is a small bag of airline dry-roasted peanuts compared to what the NHL will make when the player plays in the NHL. I'm sure there are enough corporate tax write-offs for the league owners that will make them more money than the 200k they'll spend to get a European player over here. I doubt he even has to play a game for it to be profitable.

Now, Evgeny Malkin has a signed contract with Metallurg Magnitogorsk through the 2006-07 season. He renegotiated his contract (to a one year contract instead of two years) so that he is free to join the NHL next season but the NHL and The Penguins (and Malkin of course) want him to play this year.

So the NHL gave the Russian Ice Hockey Federation a deadline: Sign this agreement by the end of last monday, or there will be no deal for the entire season. The Russians of course balked at this fascist-like treatment their American brethren gave them (since they, of course, are somewhat vaguely familiar with a similar lifestyle where a governing organ dictates how the they are to go about with their lives).

Russia said no-no, go to hell or something like that.

Malkins previous agents Pat and Barry Brisson thought they found a loophole in the Russian Labor Law that said that a person under contract can quit from his job as long as he gives his employer a two-week notice. Since not a single one of the major media outlets has actually cited the exakt paragraph of Russia's Labor Law (I guess Google is censored by media outlets?) I'll go ahead and post it right here.

Ready?

You might want to grab a Mountain Dew or something before reading it.

"Termination at the initiative of the worker. A contract of employment can be terminated by a worker any time with a two-week written notice. Upon the parties’ agreement, such termination may take place before the two weeks have passed (Article 80 of the LC)."

It took me all of three words on Google: Russian Labor Laws. TSN, try google.com. It really helps in enriching your daily lives.

As an added bonus, I'll post the entire paragraph upon which the above mentioned is included.

*******************************************************

3.3. Discontinuation of contract of employment

Article 77 of the LC lists the following grounds for discontinuation of a contract of employment:

* mutual agreement of the parties (Article 78 of the LC);
* expiration of a fixed-term contract, except for instances when the employment relationship continues de facto and neither of the parties has demanded its termination (Article 58(2) of the LC);
* termination of the contract of employment at the initiative of the worker (Article 80 of the LC);
* termination of the contract of employment at the initiative of the employer (Article 81 of the LC);
* transfer of a worker, with his or her consent, to another enterprise or to an elective post;
* refusal of a worker to continue work because of the change of the employer (Article 75 of the LC);
* refusal of a worker to continue work because of the change(s) of essential conditions of work (Article 73 of the LC);
* refusal of a worker to transfer to another work because of illness (Article 72 of the LC);
* refusal of a worker to transfer because of the employer’s moving to another locality (Article 72 of the LC);
* circumstances outside the parties’ will, such as conscription into military service; reinstatement of the worker who previously performed given work; failure to be (re)elected to a position to be filled through election; imprisonment; complete disability due to illness; death; other major circumstances (Article 83 of the LC);
* infringement of labour law rules concerning the conclusion of a contract of employment, should this infringement exclude the possibility of continuation of work.

A fixed term contract of employment is terminated on its expiration (Article 79 of the LC).

Termination at the initiative of the worker.A contract of employment can be terminated by a worker any time with a two-week written notice. Upon the parties’ agreement, such termination may take place before the two weeks have passed (Article 80 of the LC).

Termination at the initiative of the employer.Article 81 of the LC provides for the exhaustive list of the following grounds upon which contract of employment can be terminated at the initiative of the employer:

1. liquidation of the enterprise;
2. staff reduction;
3. unfitness of the worker for the assigned work due to:
1. state of health which prevent continuation of this work; or
2. insufficient skills;
4. change of the owner of the enterprise (applies to its top executives and the chief accountant);
5. repeated failure on the workers's part to fulfill work duties without any valid reason whatsoever, after disciplinary sanction has been applied;
6. single grave breach by the worker of his or her of work duties:
1. truancy (absence from work of more than three hours during the working day) without justifiable reasons;
2. reporting to work in a state of alcoholic, narcotic or other form of intoxication;
3. disclosure of state, official, corporate, commercial and other kinds of confidential information that has become known to the work as a result of fulfilling his of her work duties;
4. theft, squandering or deliberate destruction of property at workplace;
5. breach of heath and safety requirements, if it has had grave consequences;
7. illegal action(s) of the worker to whom pecuniary or material values were entrusted by the employer, if these actions create mistrust of the worker on the employer’s part;
8. immoral offences committed by the worker performing educational duties which are incompatible with the continuation of such work;
9. making groundless decisions by the top executives or chief accountant of the enterprise resulting in property damages;
10. single grave breach by the top executives of the enterprise of their work duties;
11. deliberate submitting in the course of hiring by the worker of falls documents or information;
12. termination of the access to state secrets, if this access is required by the assigned work;
13. other grounds set forth in the contract of employment with the top executives of the enterprise;
14. in other cases envisaged in the LC or other federal laws.

Termination on the grounds specified under (2) and (3) are permitted only if it is impossible to transfer the worker, with his or her consent, to other work. Termination is not permitted during worker’s absence on sick or annual leave.

A contract of employment with the union representative(s) that may be terminated on the grounds contained in paragraphs(2-b), (3) and (5) of Article 81 of the LC is not permitted without the consent of the respective trade union (Articles 374 and 376 of the LC).

Source.

*******************************************************

So, all fair and square right? Russian Labor Laws clearly states that "termination at the initiative of the worker.A contract of employment can be terminated by a worker any time with a two-week written notice. Upon the parties’ agreement, such termination may take place before the two weeks have passed (Article 80 of the LC)."

Too bad that US Labor Laws have something called Constructive Discharge. (Defined as "A termination of employment brought about by making the employee's working conditions so intolerable that the employee feels compelled to leave.")

Does this mean that an NHL player can breach his contract because he's in the coaches doghouse? Can he breach a contract because he feels he's not given the 22 minutes a night he deserves? I'm sure he cannot do such a thing because the CBA states that he can't. But I'm using it as an example.

But the NHL and The Penguins (and Malkin of course) are caught in a Catch 22. Since there is no agreement signed between the NHL and the Russians, they could probably go ahead and sign him to a contract. But doing so they'll probably nullify their own rules on SPC's (Standard Player Contract) because I'm sure there's a bright lawyer somewhere that could make a point that since the NHL broke the rules of a Russian SPC, why can't NHL players do the same? I think it's something the NHL should stay away from because this is something that'll eventually has to be decided by a Russian court. Not an American court but a Russian court. And american's like to get rulings like these from their own courts, thereby circumventing other countries laws. It's always been like that and It's always going to be like that. UNLESS a court in another country sets a precedent on their own terms.

Of course, the Penguins are free to negotiate themselves for a release of Malkin from his contract for more money. Reports say that Metallurg want's somewhere between $1 million - $2 million. Unfortunately Gary Bettman told all clubs not to negotiate with Russian teams until they're onboard the current Agreement with the IIHF.

(Malkin did sign a contract with Pittsburgh on June 1st, but it became invalid when Russia said no thanks to the transfer fees. Bill Daly had allowed NHL Clubs to sign Russian players to SPC's beginning August 7th. But Malkin signed his contract prior to that so he has to sign another contract. Hence this whole ordeal. )

I'm afraid (for Malkins sake) this issue won't be resolved until both parties agree to agree.

If I've missed something or you just think I'm full of shit, please lets start a discussion.

I'll be seeing you.

UPDATE: Also check out Sidearm Delivery for more on Malkin.