Can we talk for a second about the unfairness of the Luongo penalty.

[iceburg]

Not saying it's a persecution of the Canucks. I'm saying it's a stupid penalty and in the absence of a CBA this would actually be illegal.

The use of the word 'penalty' is actually not accurate. It was a closing of a loophole that eliminates/reduces the benefit of front end loaded contracts and is much more consistent with what was initially contemplated by the parties.

 

[Diamonddog01]

There's no gaps in my comprehension of anything, though it has become clear that you are not comprehending the legalities of something like this. The only reason these penalties are even legal is because it was included in a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the owners and players. Even then I could still see lawyers working this.

I don't know how to make this any clearer:

1) A contract was signed between a player and team.
2) The contract was submitted to the league, where it was reviewed.
3) The league approved the contract, deeming it legal under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
4) The Collective Bargaining Agreement expired on September 15, 2012.
5) A new Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed in January 2013, and one of the provisions included a penalty for past contracts that were signed.
6) The NHLPA and NHL owners ratified this agreement.

At the time the contract was signed, it was legal and broke no rule. The NHL didn't like these contracts, but in a legal sense that does not matter. What does matter is that subsequent to these contracts being signed, the league and players in an unprecedented move decided to backdate penalties for contracts that were once legal but no longer are.

It's quite strange actually.

The CBA is not an actual law

Bringing up the 'legality' is kinda silly. They made an agreement, they can change their agreement. They can rightfully choose to punish those who flagrantly violate the spirit of the agreement. Retroactively punish.

Not strange at all. It was predictable and justified.

 

[y2kcanucks]

The CBA is not an actual law

It is a contract between an employer and a labour union and is governed by contract law. Sure a CBA in and of itself is not a law, but it is governed by contract and employment laws. The contractual obligations of a CBA will be enforced by a court of law.

 

[VanJack]

The CBA is not an actual law

It could have been worse....Jersey and Sweet Lou got fined and lost draft-picks for a similar contract with Ilya Kovalchuk.....you try and do an end-run around the salary cap and Bettman and some of the other shark owners will make sure you pay.

 

[Ho Borvat]

It could have been worse....Jersey and Sweet Lou got fined and lost draft-picks for a similar contract with Ilya Kovalchuk.....you try and do an end-run around the salary cap and Bettman and some of the other shark owners will make sure you pay.

And then the NHL changes its mind (again) and gives Lu a free pick anyways

 

[Diamonddog01]

It could have been worse....Jersey and Sweet Lou got fined and lost draft-picks for a similar contract with Ilya Kovalchuk.....you try and do an end-run around the salary cap and Bettman and some of the other shark owners will make sure you pay.

Yup. And the funny thing is that the NHL pretty much told them exactly it would do something like this. Daly stated they would 'make an example' of the Hossa contract. Very glad they followed through on that promise.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Yup. And the funny thing is that the NHL pretty much told them exactly it would do something like this. Daly stated they would 'make an example' of the Hossa contract. Very glad they followed through on that promise.

That statement doesn't matter as it had zero legal bearing. What was legal was the 2005 CBA which governed the contracts that were signed. General Managers didn't anticipate the league and the players association agreeing to penalize approved, legal contracts in the next CBA.

 

[VanJack]

And then the NHL changes its mind (again) and gives Lu a free pick anyways

Ha..ha...yep, forgot about that....Lou and the Devils were convicted in a 'show trial' and then the punishment got waived....maybe Gillis should gone to the NHL and accepted a similar pummeling to get out of the bad contract with signed with Luongo?...might have been better than the heavy salary-cap hit they're now facing down the road.

 

[Hit the post]

It could have been worse....Jersey and Sweet Lou got fined and lost draft-picks for a similar contract with Ilya Kovalchuk.....you try and do an end-run around the salary cap and Bettman and some of the other shark owners will make sure you pay.

And then the NHL changes its mind (again) and gives Lu a free pick anyways

Yup - they back-pedaled on that one. "Luo" has that kind of stroke in the league.

 

[Diamonddog01]

That statement doesn't matter as it had zero legal bearing. What was legal was the 2005 CBA which governed the contracts that were signed. General Managers didn't anticipate the league and the players association agreeing to penalize approved, legal contracts in the next CBA.

Actually many GM's were supportive of this - as noted in the previous article I cited. Again with the legality - it's a CBA, they can change it however they want. Legal bearing, outside of contractual law in the general sense, means sweet **** all.

The fact that you keep bringing this up, and seem so bothered by this, indicates a gross misunderstanding on your behalf of this issue.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Actually many GM's were supportive of this - as noted in the previous article I cited. Again with the legality - it's a CBA, they can change it however they want. Legal bearing, outside of contractual law in the general sense, means sweet **** all.

The fact that you keep bringing this up, and seem so bothered by this, indicates a gross misunderstanding on your behalf of this issue.

No misunderstanding at all.

Both sides agreed to backdating a penalty. But again, at the time the contracts were signed they were legal contracts and did not break any rules. It's strange to me that both sides would agree to backdate penalties for contracts that were deemed legal. Yes, the NHL head office likely had it out for those teams that signed those contracts. Doesn't really matter though as they were legal contracts. Just like the penalties are legal in a technical sense as both parties agreed that the penalties would be legal.

I think you're misunderstanding the actual legalities of this case, especially when you suggest the CBA has zero legal bearing.

 

[Alexistheman]

In my opinion, the NHL should of never calculated cap hit. Rather salary per year. Would make for more parity in the league and probably help with inflated salaries and term length.

 

[iceburg]

In my opinion, the NHL should of never calculated cap hit. Rather salary per year. Would make for more parity in the league and probably help with inflated salaries and term length.

Would be difficult to manage rosters with front end loaded contracts. What did Luongo make in the first year $10M? And players were not going to give up the ability to take money upfront.

 

[Diamonddog01]

No misunderstanding at all.

Both sides agreed to backdating a penalty. But again, at the time the contracts were signed they were legal contracts and did not break any rules. It's strange to me that both sides would agree to backdate penalties for contracts that were deemed legal. Yes, the NHL head office likely had it out for those teams that signed those contracts. Doesn't really matter though as they were legal contracts. Just like the penalties are legal in a technical sense as both parties agreed that the penalties would be legal.

I think you're misunderstanding the actual legalities of this case, especially when you suggest the CBA has zero legal bearing.

You are having comprehension issues. I did not suggest the CBA has no legal bearing. The fact that you stated that is a pretty clear sign that there are some issues with your understanding of this subject and my posts in this thread.

Sure the contracts were previously allowed. They were only legal in the sense that they were bound by contractual law, but not legal in that they were laws unto themselves. The fact they were previously allowed on a technicality is completely meaningless - as was their 'approval' on said technicality.

I'm not sure how something that the NHL brought up over and over, and very clearly said they would do, (punishment for these contracts) is strange. Strange would be to not punish these contracts after repeatedly stating they would make an example of them.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You are having comprehension issues. I did not suggest the CBA has no legal bearing. The fact that you stated that is a pretty clear sign that there are some issues with your understanding of this subject and my posts in this thread.

Sure the contracts were previously allowed. They were only legal in the sense that they were bound by contractual law, but not legal in that they were laws unto themselves. The fact they were previously allowed on a technicality is completely meaningless - as was their 'approval' on said technicality.

I'm not sure how something that the NHL brought up over and over, and very clearly said they would do, (punishment for these contracts) is strange. Strange would be to not punish these contracts after repeatedly stating they would make an example of them.

There's no comprehension issue, aside from how you are coming up with your conclusion.

There's no technicality either. The contracts were legal based on the 2005 CBA, and were approved by the league because they did not break any rules. What I find strange is how a league and PA would go back and review previously approved contracts and state that since they are no longer legal they are going to go back and penalize teams for signing those, without recourse. Sure there was the compliance buy-out provision that was drafted into the 2013 CBA, but that also prohibited teams from being able to re-sign those players. This essentially meant that teams were penalized for signing legal contracts, and were not given an opportunity to comply with the new CBA without losing that player outright.

 

[Diamonddog01]

There's no comprehension issue, aside from how you are coming up with your conclusion.

There's no technicality either. The contracts were legal based on the 2005 CBA, and were approved by the league because they did not break any rules. What I find strange is how a league and PA would go back and review previously approved contracts and state that since they are no longer legal they are going to go back and penalize teams for signing those, without recourse. Sure there was the compliance buy-out provision that was drafted into the 2013 CBA, but that also prohibited teams from being able to re-sign those players. This essentially meant that teams were penalized for signing legal contracts, and were not given an opportunity to comply with the new CBA without losing that player outright.

Why would you find that strange? Especially when the NHL specifically said, we will make an example of these contracts? Seems pretty clear to me. If the NHL says don't do that - we are going to punish you for doing that. And then you go and do it, and then get penalized as promised...how is that 'strange'? It is predictable, highly probable and extremely obvious to all but the most obtuse and arrogant.

They were approved because they NHL couldn't reject them - I think you are stuck on a rigid definition of approval and are having some serious issues with grasping what happened here.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Why would you find that strange? Especially when the NHL specifically said, we will make an example of these contracts? Seems pretty clear to me. If the NHL says don't do that - we are going to punish you for doing that. And then you go and do it...how is that 'strange'? It is predictable, highly probably and obvious to all but the most obtuse and arrogant.

They were approved because they NHL couldn't reject them - I think you are stuck on a rigid definition of approval and are having some serious issues with grasping what happened here.

Because it really doesn't matter that the NHL made that statement. That statement in and of itself has zero legal bearing. What's so difficult about that to understand?

Firstly, it's strange to me that the NHL would even take the position of backdating a penalty for a legal contract, but what's even stranger is that the NHLPA would even agree to this (especially since this "dead cap space" takes actual dollars out of their player's pockets in future years if a player retires early).

Please answer me this: why couldn't the NHL reject those contracts?

 

[Diamonddog01]

Because it really doesn't matter that the NHL made that statement. That statement in and of itself has zero legal bearing. What's so difficult about that to understand?

Firstly, it's strange to me that the NHL would even take the position of backdating a penalty for a legal contract, but what's even stranger is that the NHLPA would even agree to this (especially since this "dead cap space" takes actual dollars out of their player's pockets in future years if a player retires early).

Please answer me this: why couldn't the NHL reject those contracts?

Again, what the hell are you talking about in regards to legal bearing? I don't think you quite understand what that term means in this context. The NHL can change the CBA as long as they NHLPA agrees with them. If they make a statement saying we are going to penalize these contracts - legal bearing has no meaning here whatsoever. At least not beyond honouring the CBA as per general contract law.

That statement is a promise of action, and one that was realized. I can say "If you give me a dollar I will give you four quarters." That doesn't have legal bearing either. If you give me a dollar, and then as promised I give you four quarters is that 'strange'? Just as with what the NHL said legal bearing is irrelevant - doesn't mean that it is meaningless or that the promised consequences would not occur.

As I already stated, there can be no, "do this or we'll reject the contract, even if it's valid; and if you do what we ask, we'll approve the contract, even if it's a circumvention." There is only "we reject it because it is prohibited by the CBA," or alternatively, "we approve it because it is allowed by the CBA."

The NHL couldn't reject those contracts despite hating them, attempting to investigate them, rejecting the one it could and warning everyone who would listen there would be consequences. For those foolish enough to ignore those warnings, well they have only themselves to blame.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Again, what the hell are you talking about in regards to legal bearing? I don't think you quite understand what that term means in this context. The NHL can change the CBA as long as they NHLPA agrees with them. If they make a statement saying we are going to penalize these contracts - legal bearing has no meaning here whatsoever. At least not beyond honouring the CBA as per general contract law.

That statement is a promise of action, and one that was realized. I can say "If you give me a dollar I will give you four quarters." That doesn't have legal bearing either. If you give me a dollar, and then as promised I give you four quarters is that 'strange'? Just as with what the NHL said legal bearing is irrelevant - doesn't mean that it is meaningless or that the promised consequences would not occur.

As I already stated, there can be no, "do this or we'll reject the contract, even if it's valid; and if you do what we ask, we'll approve the contract, even if it's a circumvention." There is only "we reject it because it is prohibited by the CBA," or alternatively, "we approve it because it is allowed by the CBA."

The NHL couldn't reject those contracts despite hating them, attempting to investigate them, rejecting the one it could and warning everyone who would listen there would be consequences. For those foolish enough to ignore those warnings, well they have only themselves to blame.

Exactly. It was not prohibited by the CBA, and thus was approved because the contract structures were permitted by the 2005 CBA. Thank you for settling this.

And the NHL can say whatever they want, it has zero meaning. Unless the NHLPA stated they were also against these contracts and confirmed that they would be agreeing to these penalties in the next CBA there's little reason to think that these contracts would have backdated penalties attached to them.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Exactly. It was not prohibited by the CBA, and thus was approved because the contract structures were permitted by the 2005 CBA. Thank you for settling this.

And the NHL can say whatever they want, it has zero meaning. Unless the NHLPA stated they were also against these contracts and confirmed that they would be agreeing to these penalties in the next CBA there's little reason to think that these contracts would have backdated penalties attached to them.

You are very welcome. I'm patiently explaining the minutiae of this case to you and will continue doing so.

Well that was certainly proven to not be the case . The NHL followed through with their promise and rightly so. Once again, pissing off the league is generally not a good idea. Unfortunate the Canucks and those other teams who behaved in this inappropriate fashion had to learn that lesson...the hard way.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You are very welcome. I'm patiently explaining the minutiae of this case to you and will continue doing so.

Well that was certainly proven to not be the case . The NHL followed through with their promise and rightly so. Once again, pissing off the league is generally not a good idea. Unfortunate the Canucks and those other teams who behaved in this inappropriate fashion had to learn that lesson...the hard way.

It's still very strange to me that the whole thing happened, especially for the reasons mentioned in my previous post (which you have now agreed with me on, so again, thank you).

I look forward to the future legal issues over this case once lawyers are contracted to get teams out of these penalties if/when that time eventually comes.

 

[iceburg]

Exactly. It was not prohibited by the CBA, and thus was approved because the contract structures were permitted by the 2005 CBA. Thank you for settling this.

And the NHL can say whatever they want, it has zero meaning. Unless the NHLPA stated they were also against these contracts and confirmed that they would be agreeing to these penalties in the next CBA there's little reason to think that these contracts would have backdated penalties attached to them.

Again, these should not be called penalties. They are simply rules in an amended collectively bargained agreement - again, to close loopholes and to make them more consistent with spirit of the original agreement. This is all perfectly reasonable. This is not different than changing any other rule that impacts existing contracts in the future. It happens everytime the CBA is negotiated. The big difference is that the club was warned in advance in this case.

 

[Diamonddog01]

It's still very strange to me that the whole thing happened, especially for the reasons mentioned in my previous post (which you have now agreed with me on, so again, thank you).

I look forward to the future legal issues over this case once lawyers are contracted to get teams out of these penalties if/when that time eventually comes.

It's not strange at all. Again, a warning was given. Teams chose to act anyways. The aforementioned warning then was realized. Pretty simple. And obvious to those who can grasp simple cause and effect.

And in regards to the NHLPA - the players are still getting paid even with recapture penalties. I don't think they really cared that much. The CBA has been ratified - it's now a contract. And falls under the provisions of contractual law. Unless there is another lockout and they re-negotiate all parties are bound by it. So teams can spend millions on lawyers - won't change **** all or get them out of the situation they themselves created.

 

[nekyvGkOPaiWICTscLl6]

It's not strange at all. Again, a warning was given. Teams chose to act anyways. The aforementioned warning then was realized. Pretty simple. And obvious to those who can grasp simple cause and effect.

And in regards to the NHLPA - the players are still getting paid even with recapture penalties. I don't think they really cared that much. The CBA has been ratified - it's now a contract. And falls under the provisions of contractual law. Unless there is another lockout and they re-negotiate all parties are bound by it. So teams can spend millions on lawyers - won't change **** all or get them out of the situation they themselves created.

Warning or not - it doesn't change the fact that the Canucks were penalized for something that was at the time, legal.

Bear in mind, the purpose of ANY discipline or penalty is to dissuade the act complained of moving forward. Of course, there was no possibility of the act ever occurring again, so that explanation for discipline is not warranted.

One last thing - the NHLPA could potentially have lost $10,000,000 worth of player contract if Luongo retired one year prior to his scheduled contract-end date. That is hypothetical, but it is still a loss for the Union. $10,000,000 loss in player contracts means less dues, means less money for the Union. It impacts them negatively - I am surprised they agreed to the recapture during bargaining. There is no way this is what was putting a stall in negotiations.

 

[iceburg]

Warning or not - it doesn't change the fact that the Canucks were penalized for something that was at the time, legal.

Bear in mind, the purpose of ANY discipline or penalty is to dissuade the act complained of moving forward. Of course, there was no possibility of the act ever occurring again, so that explanation for discipline is not warranted.

One last thing - the NHLPA could potentially have lost $10,000,000 worth of player contract if Luongo retired one year prior to his scheduled contract-end date. That is hypothetical, but it is still a loss for the Union. $10,000,000 loss in player contracts means less dues, means less money for the Union. It impacts them negatively - I am surprised they agreed to the recapture during bargaining. There is no way this is what was putting a stall in negotiations.

Again, I don't get how this is a penalty against the Canucks?? The rules changed which resulted in a potential consequence based on an existing contract. It wasn't a penalty. And, as of now, the team has had no consequence.