News: Luongo retires, Vancouver hit with cap recapture penalty

[Pinkfloyd]

You can lol all you want, but the fact of the matter is that those guys will get their faces caved in if and when the Canucks take them to court.

I will lol at the idea that the Canucks would take the league to court over it and act like they have a case...lol

 

[DeltaSwede]

It was a stupid contract, so they get penalized for that.

If anything it was a very smart contract that was signed within the framework and rules at the time it was signed and approved by the NHL.

Take this into any other industry and you'd have lawyers banging on your door to sue the absolute crap out of the institution that conducts it's buisness like this.

 

[GAGLine]

Because why should they be penalized for something that wasn’t a rule in the CBA until after the contract was signed? Stupid rule honestly.

One, because they agreed to it when they signed off on the new CBA, and

Two, because they intentionally added years to his contract that both they and Luongo knew he would never play, for the express purpose of artificially lowering his cap hit and circumventing the salary cap.

The previous CBA didn't specifically address this issue, but it did state that any attempt to circumvent the salary cap was a violation. You can try to argue that it didn't violate the letter of the law, but it certainly violated the spirit of it.

 

[The Pucks]

what people dont seem to realize is Luongo would have pretty good trade value for a cap basement team in a trade. With a cap hit of 5.33 and actual cash payout of 1.618 the first year and 1 million the last 2 years, there is some real value to certain teams to own that contract.

add to that the Canucks are paying 800 grand a season for the 3 remaining seasons means the total cash cost to an aquiring team would be .818 the first year and only 200 grand a season the final 2 years, a team like Ottawa should be all over that.

 

[Liferleafer]

If anything it was a very smart contract that was signed within the framework and rules at the time it was signed and approved by the NHL.

Take this into any other industry and you'd have lawyers banging on your door to sue the absolute crap out of the institution that conducts it's buisness like this.

Except those lawyers would lose....why? Because you signed the contract knowing they legally could/would conduct business exactly like this.

Again, everyone...it is a binding legal contract that both parties signed. Recapture wasn't hidden or a surprise.

 

[Liferleafer]

I will lol at the idea that the Canucks would take the league to court over it and act like they have a case...lol

Bingo.

 

[justafan22]

Someone help me understand, what's the nuance (in terms of comfort for Luongo) to officially retiring vs LTIRetiring? He would only be walking away from 3.6M in total salary over the next 3 years if he did officially retire. But I mean i'd rather be 3.6M richer than not...

It's rare for players to walk away from guaranteed money but it's been done before.

Rafalski famously did this in 2011, giving up 6 million to be with his family.

But on a long term scale, Berglund's the only big name guy who's given up multiple years of guaranteed money (as long as he shows up to camp etc).

 

[DeltaSwede]

One, because they agreed to it when they signed off on the new CBA, and

Two, because they intentionally added years to his contract that both they and Luongo knew he would never play, for the express purpose of artificially lowering his cap hit and circumventing the salary cap.

The previous CBA didn't specifically address this issue, but it did state that any attempt to circumvent the salary cap was a violation. You can try to argue that it didn't violate the letter of the law, but it certainly violated the spirit of it.

Luongo is 40 years old right now.

Contract ends 2021/2022 making him what, 42-43 years old.

Here is a list of the 18 goalies that played past the age of 40 in the NHL:
Ranking All 18 NHL Goalies Who Played Past The Age Of 40

Does that quell the argument that both Vancouver and Luongo knew he would NEVER play in the league for the entirety of his contract?

 

[uncleben]

Except those lawyers would lose....why? Because you signed the contract knowing they legally could/would conduct business exactly like this.

Again, everyone...it is a binding legal contract that both parties signed. Recapture wasn't hidden or a surprise.

It was so hidden that it literally didn't even exist at the time...

And if you are referring to the CBA - yes, Vancouver ownership implicitly agreed to the rule change by agreeing to the new CBA, but the rest of the CBA and League was admittedly held a little hostage. I'm not saying that's legal ground there, but they had no possible leg to stand on to withhold the CBA negotiations for that cap recapture.

 

[The Pucks]

Except those lawyers would lose....why? Because you signed the contract knowing they legally could/would conduct business exactly like this.

Again, everyone...it is a binding legal contract that both parties signed. Recapture wasn't hidden or a surprise.

you are VERY wrong, recapture was a surprise becase IT DIDNT EXIST WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED.

 

[DeltaSwede]

Except those lawyers would lose....why? Because you signed the contract knowing they legally could/would conduct business exactly like this.

Again, everyone...it is a binding legal contract that both parties signed. Recapture wasn't hidden or a surprise.

How was it not a massive surprise??

It didn't even exist when the contract was signed.

Wait, guys hold on, let's not sign this contract that the league is going to approve because they are going to 360 on us in a few years and then screw us over.

Let me know what the lottery numbers are next time!

 

[Liferleafer]

Luongo is 40 years old right now.

Contract ends 2021/2022 making him what, 42-43 years old.

Here is a list of the 18 goalies that played past the age of 40 in the NHL:
Ranking All 18 NHL Goalies Who Played Past The Age Of 40

Does that quell the argument that both Vancouver and Luongo knew he would NEVER play in the league for the entirety of his contract?

No it doesn't. You wanna know what does? Being paid 61 out of 64 million dollars already...and facing playing 3 more seasons in you 40's for a combined 3 million.

 

[Jtown]

Retire and become a Canucks legend. Not only the greatest Goalie in Franchise history but the man who single handedly prevented Benning from signing the worst contract in the NHL ( Myers). Canucks fans will celebrate by running wild on the streets and not lighting their city on fire.

 

[justafan22]

Luongo is 40 years old right now.

Contract ends 2021/2022 making him what, 42-43 years old.

Here is a list of the 18 goalies that played past the age of 40 in the NHL:
Ranking All 18 NHL Goalies Who Played Past The Age Of 40

Does that quell the argument that both Vancouver and Luongo knew he would NEVER play in the league for the entirety of his contract?

Also, he's had hip surgery which can easily land him on LTIR.

It's his decision whether he retires or not, since he easily qualifies for LTIR, we've seen less been accepted.

 

[drktmplr12]

if he LTIR's it impacts whether the team can call up help if there is an injury.

 

[Kupo]

It was a stupid contract, so they get penalized for that.

Had they'd known there would potentially be a penalty, then they could have done something different.

I could care less about what happens with the 'Nucks since it's not my team, but I feel they can get screwed over by a change that was implemented after that contract was signed. That's not right.

 

[Liferleafer]

you are VERY wrong, recapture was a surprise becase IT DIDNT EXIST WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED.

It DOES EXIST IN THE NEW CBA. So Vancouver's owners knew full well what they were looking at in regards to Luongo's contract and how it falls under the recapture section of the current CBA. And the NHL (owners) as well as the NHLPA (players) both signed the CBA contract.

When luongo signed his contract is a moot point. If Vancouver...or nashville, or any team that has these back diving contracts had a problem with the recapture portion of the current CBA, they shouldn't have signed the contract.

As a lawyer, i would shred any argument the Nucks would have in court in about 15 minutes.

Legal. Binding. Contract.

 

[flying v 604]

Because why should they be penalized for something that wasn’t a rule in the CBA until after the contract was signed? Stupid rule honestly.

Sadly the owners all knew the deal when they ratified the CBA. That was the purpose of the two compliance buyouts. Luckily if he does stop playing it will be because of health and will easily fail a physical at some point in the next years.

 

[DeltaSwede]

No it doesn't. You wanna know what does? Being paid 61 out of 64 million dollars already...and facing playing 3 more seasons in you 40's for a combined 3 million.

Yea, I would turn down 3 million dollars, to not play the sport I love and have dedicated my life to up until this point.

I would be an absolute maniac if I did that. Call me a mad man.

 

[nowhereman]

In British Columbia (home of the Canucks), we only have one auto insurance company (ICBC) that monopolizes all automobile insurance. About 5-6 years back, I received a speeding ticket and had to pay the heavy fine. A year later, ICBC sent me a letter in the mail saying they had instituted a penalty program where they would send you a fine in the mail for $350 and, each year, they would "revaluate" your driving record to see if you should pay next year's fine. The problem is, they started handing out those tickets retroactively and penalized people who received tickets years BEFORE they instituted the rule. And then, on top of that, they kept sending me fines in the mail, claiming they had "revaluated" my driving record, even though I have only ever had one speeding ticket or driving infraction of any kind in my life. This went on for years. It's a "government regulated" scam.

This situation with the Canucks feels oddly familiar but even worse, since Luongo's contract was a legal contract under the precedent of the current CBA. The friggin' NHL approved the contract and deemed it legal. Why should you be penalized retroactively for something that was well within the rules, just because the NHL didn't like it after the fact and created a rule to punish you? It's pretty bushleague, to be honest.

 

[Liferleafer]

It was so hidden that it literally didn't even exist at the time...

And if you are referring to the CBA - yes, Vancouver ownership implicitly agreed to the rule change by agreeing to the new CBA, but the rest of the CBA and League was admittedly held a little hostage. I'm not saying that's legal ground there, but they had no possible leg to stand on to withhold the CBA negotiations for that cap recapture.

But recapture is part of an agreement that was collectively bargained upon. It's binding.

 

[vancityluongo]

You can lol all you want, but the fact of the matter is that those guys will get their faces caved in if and when the Canucks take them to court.

lmao you think Frank Aquilini is going to win in court?

yikes

 

[Seanaconda]

The fact that there was no grandfather clause in that rule is one of the most unprofessional things I've seen from this league.

The NHL rubber stamped all of the backdiving contracts, then at a later date decided they were illegal and penalized them retroactively. If they had a problem, they should have just outright declined the contract in the first place - that's just awful business ethics.

I would be surprised if the Canucks are tagging with the full penalty at the end of the day.

Tbh none of them have been punished other than idk kovalchuk ? The rest have been buried on ltir anyways

 

[Liferleafer]

Yea, I would turn down 3 million dollars, to not play the sport I love and have dedicated my life to up until this point.

I would be an absolute maniac if I did that. Call me a mad man.

Ever make you wonder why they didn't spread the money evenly over the course of his contract? i mean that would have made more sense if luongo was going to play every year....no?

 

[Oddbob]

Both the league and the NHLPA agreed to that CBA. They have no leg to stand on in court. If owners of teams that had those contracts where against recapture...the time to fight it was during the negotiation of the CBA.

The league also agreed to the original deal, as they have to sign off on all deals in the first place. Going back later is ridiculous, and the PA only agreed because they weren't going to turn down a CBA deal just because of that issue.