Nolan Injury Question?

[dakota]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=136400

The news says "The Toronto Star reported in July that the Leafs filed buyout paperwork with the league to cover themselves in case they lose a potential grievance with the NHLPA. "....

if the Leafs lose their grievance than I thought they cannot buy him out because you CANNOT buy out a player on the injured list? Is this not accurate or did it change with the new CBA rules? If that is the case then his salary will count against the cap... true or false?

Click to read more...

 

[Stephen]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=136400

The news says "The Toronto Star reported in July that the Leafs filed buyout paperwork with the league to cover themselves in case they lose a potential grievance with the NHLPA. "....

if the Leafs lose their grievance than I thought they cannot buy him out because you CANNOT buy out a player on the injured list? Is this not accurate or did it change with the new CBA rules? If that is the case then his salary will count against the cap... true or false?

Why would his salary count against the cap when teams are permitted to spend the equivalent salary of an injured player on injury replacements?

 

[mooseOAK*]

Once Nolan is cleared to play then he can be bought out by the Leafs, if they lose the grievance.

If the Leafs win then I don't know what the situation is, maybe it is still a buyout but for a lower amount.

Win or lose, Nolan's salary will not count against their cap.

 

[Lobstertainment]

As I understand it the buyout papers have been filled out and submitted, all the I's have been dotted, and all the T's have been crossed.

they just arn't signing him a check because their claim is that he voided his damn contract with a non-hockey related injury.

If the Leafs win- Nolan's contract was voided and then he was never technicly bought out and doesn't earn a penny

If Nolan wins- Then Toronto cuts him a check for his buyout money.

 

[Papadice]

Any idea on what will happen with Nolan's career? Once this is settled, I'd imagine Nolan's an unrestricted free agent... Thoughts on how long he'll be out due to injury/surgery recovery and when he might be able to sign with someone?

 

[Dar]

If the Leafs win- Nolan's contract was voided and then he was never technicly bought out and doesn't earn a penny

If Nolan wins- Then Toronto cuts him a check for his buyout money.

Close. If Nolan wins outright, then the Leafs have to pay his buyout plus his full last years salary as players who were on IR during the lockout were still due to be paid (eg Mogilny).

He's claiming he was wrongfully cleared and would have otherwise been paid had he not been.

Either way, it's just a matter dollars out of MLSEL's pocket, nothing will be applied towards the cap, no matter what.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Close. If Nolan wins outright, then the Leafs have to pay his buyout plus his full last years salary as players who were on IR during the lockout were still due to be paid (eg Mogilny).

If the Leafs have to pay last year's salary then that is all they need to do because that would have been he last year of his contract due to he lockout clause that he had.

 

[salzy]

As far as I know simply reinjuring yourself doing something non-hockey related doesn't void a contract unless it is specifically stated in the contract. Jay Williams of the Chicago Bulls lost millions when his career ended in a motorcycle accident. I think Kellen Winslow is in the same kind of situation with the Cleveland Browns. That's because their contracts specifically forbid certain activities - riding motorcycles being one. But if you look at a guy like Desjardins with the Flyers - rebroke his arm playing catch with his son - it seems to me that getting injured or reinjured away from the rink doesn't automatically void the deal.

So does anyone have any idea (or speculation) on how the Leafs organization believes Nolan was re-injured? I haven't read or heard anything on it whatsoever. I'm sure golf wouldn't be one of those activities on the forbidden list. Do they think he did it water skiing or sky diving or what?

 

[salzy]

If the Leafs have to pay last year's salary then that is all they need to do because that would have been he last year of his contract due to he lockout clause that he had.

I don't know if that's true. I don't think any of us are privy to the specific wording of Nolan's contract, but it is commonly known that he had a clause that extended it an additional year in the event of a lockout wiping out the season. Period.

None of us know if there is another clause in there that says "if he is injured and paid during the lockout, then the aforementioned extension is voided". If there isn't, then it certainly seems like he is due BOTH years of the contract (minus the rollback for 05-06) if the arbitrator rules in his favour. Again, this assumes that he wasn't injured while engaging in an activity that is specifically prohibited by the original contract.

Does anyone have any idea what his injury/recovery status is? Is he rehabbing now? Is he planning on coming back or is he going to hang up the skates? Seems like if he is planning on coming back when he's healthy he would be a pretty coveted player for the stretch run for a contender. I certainly hope the Flyers take a run at him. If he gets this $11 million winfall from the Leafs he'll sign somewhere for the rest of this year for close to the minimum I would think. Could be a bargain. I'd have to think he'd have interest in joining and eastern conference team and getting the chance to stick it to the Leafs.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I don't know if that's true. I don't think any of us are privy to the specific wording of Nolan's contract, but it is commonly known that he had a clause that extended it an additional year in the event of a lockout wiping out the season. Period.

None of us know if there is another clause in there that says "if he is injured and paid during the lockout, then the aforementioned extension is voided". If there isn't, then it certainly seems like he is due BOTH years of the contract (minus the rollback for 05-06) if the arbitrator rules in his favour. Again, this assumes that he wasn't injured while engaging in an activity that is specifically prohibited by the original contract.

Does anyone have any idea what his injury/recovery status is? Is he rehabbing now? Is he planning on coming back or is he going to hang up the skates? Seems like if he is planning on coming back when he's healthy he would be a pretty coveted player for the stretch run for a contender. I certainly hope the Flyers take a run at him. If he gets this $11 million winfall from the Leafs he'll sign somewhere for the rest of this year for close to the minimum I would think. Could be a bargain. I'd have to think he'd have interest in joining and eastern conference team and getting the chance to stick it to the Leafs.

All that I know is that he signed a five year contract and if he gets paid for last season and this season then that is six years. I doubt that an arbitrator has the right to add a year and millions of dollars to a contract.

The money doesn't apply to the cap anyway, so really, I couldn't care less.

 

[Dar]

All that I know is that he signed a five year contract and if he gets paid for last season and this season then that is six years. I doubt that an arbitrator has the right to add a year and millions of dollars to a contract.

The money doesn't apply to the cap anyway, so really, I couldn't care less.

His contract stated that if there was less than 35 (I believe that's the number) games played in the NHL during the 04/05 season then an extra year would automatically be added to his contract for 6.5 million.

If he's injured, he's due to be paid as if the schedule was played, but it doesn't change the fact that there were no games played as his contract stipulated. It was a destructive clause to put in the contract from a team's perspective and the only one of its kind in the NHL. Stupid for San Jose to do so, and stupid for the Leafs to take it on.

 

[mooseOAK*]

His contract stated that if there was less than 35 (I believe that's the number) games played in the NHL during the 04/05 season then an extra year would automatically be added to his contract for 6.5 million.

If he's injured, he's due to be paid as if the schedule was played, but it doesn't change the fact that there were no games played as his contract stipulated. It was a destructive clause to put in the contract from a team's perspective and the only one of its kind in the NHL. Stupid for San Jose to do so, and stupid for the Leafs to take it on.

Neither one of us are lawyers, I assume. You have your interpretation and I have mine so let's see how it works out.

None of the money counts against the cap, it's all good.

 

[salzy]

All that I know is that he signed a five year contract and if he gets paid for last season and this season then that is six years. I doubt that an arbitrator has the right to add a year and millions of dollars to a contract.

Under the terms of the contract that have been publicized the arbitrator wouldn't need to add anything. The contract already spells out that a year be added. I would assume the amount for that added year is specified also. I think it's safe to assume he wouldn't sign a contract that would see him play a year for free.

As for terms that have NOT been publicized - ie. a clause that says if he is paid for the lockout there will not be an additional year added - well, it remains to be seen if those terms exist. If there isn't such a clause, shame on Dean Lombardi given Nolan's injury history. Moreover, shame on the Leafs for letting the Sharks off the hook.

The money doesn't apply to the cap anyway, so really, I couldn't care less.

Yes, theoretically that should be the end of the discussion. But most of us are savvy enough to realize that MANY Leaf fans desperately want Nolan to lose this grievance because of their silly perception that he somehow tried to screw the Leafs. I don't know if you are in that group or not but your history definitely leads me to form an opinion.

 

[salzy]

Neither one of us are lawyers, I assume. You have your interpretation and I have mine so let's see how it works out.

The difference is one interpretation is based on logic and fact and the other is based on emotion and homerism.

 

[mooseOAK*]

The difference is one interpretation is based on logic and fact and the other is based on emotion and homerism.

And we all know what your interpretation is based on.

 

[salzy]

And we all know what your interpretation is based on.

I don't have an "interpretation". The contract (as we know it) is black and white. You are using the words "interpretation" and "speculation" interchangeably. Let's not assume facts that aren't in evidence and aren't likely to be.

 

[Resolute]

And we all know what your interpretation is based on.

I'm going to put him on the side of logic.

It is far easier to believe that there is no sub-clause that voids the lockout clause in the case of an injury. At this point the most logical assumption we can make is that Nolan's contract was extended regardless of his health situation.

Fact is, if such a sub-clause existed, then the Leafs would not have needed to file the buyout papers. If the Leafs win the hearing, Nolan's contract is null and void. If the Leafs lose, and such a sub-clause existed, then the Leafs would be on the hook for Nolans 2004-05 salary, which would also complete the deal, making Nolan a UFA.

The very fact that the Leafs filed buyout papers pretty much confirms that Nolan's deal was extended via the lockout clause regardless of his health situation.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I'm going to put him on the side of logic.

It is far easier to believe that there is no sub-clause that voids the lockout clause in the case of an injury. At this point the most logical assumption we can make is that Nolan's contract was extended regardless of his health situation.

Fact is, if such a sub-clause existed, then the Leafs would not have needed to file the buyout papers. If the Leafs win the hearing, Nolan's contract is null and void. If the Leafs lose, and such a sub-clause existed, then the Leafs would be on the hook for Nolans 2004-05 salary, which would also complete the deal, making Nolan a UFA.

The very fact that the Leafs filed buyout papers pretty much confirms that Nolan's deal was extended via the lockout clause regardless of his health situation.

Which means that Nolan won't be paid for the lockout season, that's all that I am saying. Some people seem to think that he will get paid for 6 seasons on a 5 year contract but he will be paid for the lockout year or get his buyout for this year but not both.

 

[Captain Ron]

Which means that Nolan won't be paid for the lockout season, that's all that I am saying. Some people seem to think that he will get paid for 6 seasons on a 5 year contract but he will be paid for the lockout year or get his buyout for this year but not both.

That is not true. Since there is an option year that makes it a 6 year contract. Not a 5 year contract. If Nolan wins his case he will be paid for last season and for the amount he would be bought out for this season.

 

[mooseOAK*]

That is not true. Since there is an option year that makes it a 6 year contract. Not a 5 year contract. If Nolan wins his case he will be paid for last season and for the amount he would be bought out for this season.

There was no option, it was clearly stated in the contract. If there had been a season last year then his contract would have been over now, period, and there was no option for either side to pick up. He gets either last season's pay or his buyout for this year.

 

[GSC2k2*]

How exactly do any of you KNOW what the wording of the contractual provisions specifically state?

As a lawyer myself, I could see it written both ways. If it was written so as to permit the extending of the term where the player is still getting paid in an injury situation, however, I would suggest that the Leafs counsel blew one, since I am relatively certain that we can infer that would not have been the original intent. The intent seems to have been to ensure that Nolan would not get a year of salary wiped out by the lockout. If instead the result would be that Noaln gets six years of salary, that would be a colossal blunder.

Without reading the provisions in question, however, this thread is moot.

Oh, and Nolan sure DOES seem to have been pulling a fast one.

 

[salzy]

How exactly do any of you KNOW what the wording of the contractual provisions specifically state?

As a lawyer myself, I could see it written both ways...

Oh, and Nolan sure DOES seem to have been pulling a fast one.

I would think as a lawyer yourself you would see it as Nolan seeking that which he is believed to be contractually entitled to.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I would think as a lawyer yourself you would see it as Nolan seeking that which he is believed to be contractually entitled to.

I don't know how you would think I (or anyone else objectively viewing the factual circumstances) would see it that way. I could just as easily see it as Nolan having engineered a non-recovery instead of diligently rehabilitating his injury by not telling anyone he was still "hurt". As I do.

However, I digress...

 

[salzy]

I don't know how you would think I (or anyone else objectively viewing the factual circumstances) would see it that way. I could just as easily see it as Nolan having engineered a non-recovery instead of diligently rehabilitating his injury by not telling anyone he was still "hurt". As I do.

Do see it that way you need to make assumptions about Nolan and his character since there is a complete absence of facts that would lead you in that direction. I thought lawyers dealt in facts but you'd know better than me.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Do see it that way you need to make assumptions about Nolan and his character since there is a complete absence of facts that would lead you in that direction. I thought lawyers dealt in facts but you'd know better than me.

I think you are mixing up lawyers with detectives like Joe Friday.

Are you a Leafs fan?